Kinslaughterer wrote: It's very interesting the number of conservatives that Obama has in his administration. He has several Bush holdovers and quite a few moderates. Very unlike the pervious administration.
Cail wrote: Mal, you forgot all the tax cheats he nominated to various positions.
linkThe Bay Area's Van Jones -- the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- just finished apologizing for calling Republicans "a-holes" when he got something else to start explaining: How his signature got on a 2004 petition asking for an immediate "inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur." Van said he didn't carefully review the petition before signing it "certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
Bad sign: When asked if Jones still enjoys the confidence of the President Friday, White House flak Robert Gibbs said "he continues to work in this administration."
linkGateway Pundit has now uncovered proof that, despite his protestations to the contrary, Van Jones has been a "9/11 Truther" as far back as January 2002.
Jones served on the "organizing committee" for a group formed in January 2002, calling for answers to questions such as the following:
Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11th, in violation of standard procedures? Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"? Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed? Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack?
Yeah, seems like he's more than an advisor. He's spending our money to impliment his racist agenda.The Washington Post has written exactly zero stories on Van Jones despite the very real and serious story — Barack Obama has hired, without congressional oversight, a man designated to spend $80 billion in tax payer dollars who has a very questionable recent past
link So now we have a green jobs czar with a decidedly racial justice frame of environmental issues. Indeed, he thinks pollution itself is a racial problem, caused by whites, and aimed at blacks. And he's spending 80 billion dollars of our money to "fix" it. And he's instrumental in writing the cap and trade bill.Van Jones wrote:“the white polluters and white environmentalists are steering pollution into colored communities because they don’t have a racial justice frame
Not so, Droll was what I was aiming at!Cail wrote:Very droll (and very partisan).
And very wrong.
Still incorrect.finn wrote:Not so, Droll was what I was aiming at!Cail wrote:Very droll (and very partisan).
And very wrong.
Nope, just combating your incorrect assertion.finn wrote:Another proclamation?
I'm glad we have an opportunity for agreement. Given the "scare mongering" nature of my thread (apparently) I realize it takes some guts and a lot of intellectual honesty to come out and say this. I respect that.I'm glad he's resigned and I'm glad Obama has accepted his resignation.
You'll notice I was the first in this thread to note his Truther connections. I disputed his alleged Communism; it seems to me that his ouster had more to do with the press regarding his Truther connections and racial comments, of which I disavow myself. I'm sure the President pressured him to resign, if only in the form of the press secretary's so-called "tepid support" (Washington Post) for Van Jones by only saying "he continues to work in the administration" in his defense, yesterday I believe. That's political speak for "get out." So yes, Obama abandoned him. I think that's a good thing -- leaving aside intent for a moment, Obama has either ousted or allowed to resign a questionable member of his administration. We agree this is a good thing for him to have done. You might call it "throwing him under the bus"; maybe. But it certainly was a sound political judgment.However, I do find the timing of your turnabout a bit convenient.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678019.htmA White House environmental policy adviser who specialised in "green jobs" has resigned after an uproar over his previous affiliation with a September 11, 2001 conspiracy group.
Van Jones, special adviser on green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, apologised on Thursday amid revelations he had signed a petition suggesting US government involvement in the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
A videotape had also surfaced of him using a crude epithet to describe Republicans.
The apology did little to quell Republican criticism and President Barack Obama's chief spokesman gave only tepid support to Mr Jones on Friday.
Asked on Sunday if Mr Obama ordered that Mr Jones be fired, White House adviser David Axelrod told NBC's Meet The Press program: "Absolutely not. This was Van Jones' own decision."
Mr Jones said he was resigning to avoid being a distraction in the administration's effort to pass healthcare reform and climate change legislation.
"On the eve of historic fights for healthcare and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Mr Jones said in a resignation letter released to the media.
"I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."
- Reuters
Avatar wrote:"If you are caught, the government will disavow all knowledge..."
--A
So now pointing out parts of someone's past, their own words and actions, is a viscious smear campaign?"On the eve of historic fights for healthcare and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Mr Jones said in a resignation letter released to the media.
I missed that. Fair enough. You're the only liberal here who has spoken out against Jones, and I've got to give you credit for that.You'll notice I was the first in this thread to note his Truther connections.
Yes, with the key word being political. You could say the same about Obama's decision regarding Wright. But I'm not really interested in his political judgment. He has already been elected. I'm much more concerned that he seems to spend less time vetting his appointees than a mere Google search. His judgment in appointing these radicals and tax cheats seems very poor. I don't think it is negligence. I think he agrees with Jones (maybe not on the 9/11 stuff, but ideologically I believe they agree).But it certainly was a sound political judgment.
Of course it's a sound statement to make. But it's basically the same as saying Obama knows how to save his own ass by judiciously choosing which of his inner circle to sacrifice in order to give the appearance that he doesn't agree with them. I'm not impressed.Lord Mhoram wrote:I did say the same thing about Wright; I think it's a perfectly sound statement to make about these situations. How do you think Obama agrees with Jones?
He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[15] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.[16]
This was never about simply saving the environment (as if that is a simple matter). It's an attack upon capitalism, wrapped up in a social change agenda that sees whites as polluters of black communities. It's about using the environmental movement to push a change to our entire economy. That's the man Obama appointed as our green jobs czar, and if you believe Obama didn't know the man's past and his opinions on this specific issue, I think you're simultaneously giving Obama too much benefit of the doubt . . . and assuming a level of incompetancy that shouldn't be any benefit at all.Van Jones wrote:"Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said OK now we want reparations for Slavery, we want redistribution of all the wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages. If we'd come out with a maximum program the very next day, they'd been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum. "We just want to integrate these busses..." But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country.
And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression all together. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the CRISIS is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.
)