The Van Jones story only became a story for the MSM when he announced that he was resigning. As many have already noted, people who only get their news from the MSM, heard about Van Jones for the first time today. This is the same MSM that was is more than happy to report negative story after story about Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign.
…this is the real story: The shameful failure of the MSM to do its job in reporting on the Obama administration.
But it gets worse.
Now, the left, outraged because this charlatan was found out, is after the guy who led the charge. Apparently, like good little Marxists, they were hoping that Jones’ “green” (read Communist) policies could be sneaked in under the public radar. How dare there be whistle blowers out there informing the public about what’s going on.
There isn’t a thing anyone could dig around for and come up with that Beck himself hasn’t put out there on radio or TV.
So what does a *large number of subversives in the leftwing blogosphere do? Why they make up a vicious rumor, and they spread it far and wide, hoping they’ll convince people that they’re making a valid point about how hurtful spreading hateful lies can be. The problem here is, of course, that everything that was uncovered about Van Jones was demonstrably true, and he was an adviser to the President with a 60 billion dollar budget, and they’re just spreading a ridiculous lie about a Fox News host.So…um…there’s a big difference.
What a disgusting spectacle: They’re lashing out like babies…taking wild swings at their bete noire du jour, demonstrating even more, for all to see, how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are.
*Correction: I had previously said “what does the leftwing blogosphere do”?, painting with too broad a brush…obviously, not *everyone* in the leftwing blogosphere is taking part in that.
Who should be the next “victim of a vicious smear campaign”, (otherwise known as exposing victim’s past words and deeds to the light of day)? There are many good subjects to choose from, anywhere from 31 to 44, with more Czar positions still being planned. I’ve listed the ones I consider to be the most egregious and dangerous.
John Holdren, Science Czar:
Photojournalist, Zombie uncovered Holdren’s disturbing history of advocating forcedabortions and sterilizations as seen in the book he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich, Ecosystems:
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
How does a person like this get the President’s ear on anything?
On her last day in office, ( in Clinton administration) nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: “One of the things I’m the proudest of at EPA is the work we’ve done to expand the public’s right to know.”
According to testimony in a freedom of information lawsuit filed against EPA by the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: “‘I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files.” Not coincidentally, the Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents.
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.
Who thinks putting a shoplifter in charge of the entire federal government’s information security infrastructure is a good idea? The Obama White House has complete confidence in Vivek Kundra, the 34-year-old “whiz kid” named Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) in March 2009 despite his criminal history. As first reported by Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, Kundra was convicted of misdemeanor theft. He stole a handful of men’s shirts from a J.C. Penney’s department store and ran from police in a failed attempt to evade arrest. Kundra was a 21-year-old adult at the time of his attempted thievery and attempted escape from the police. From the White House’s pooh-poohing of the incident as a “youthful indiscretion,” you might have thought the digits in his age were reversed.
To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.
“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”
To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
“We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign,” wrote Lloyd, “that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ….”
“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”
Cass Sunstein is Obama’s regulatory czar. Sunstein believes in a concept called libertarian paternalism. Sunstein has said time and time again that he is troubled by people having too many choices, especially when they can avoid choosing things they don’t like (think Internet.) This paternalism means to guide people to make choices that liberals think are better choices without them knowing there are less choices or that the names of the choices have been changed to favor a different direction. In other words, it’s all about making people you disagree with choose what you want them to choose without them knowing it.
Sunstein’s most odd any yet infamous belief is that animals should be able to sue humans, with humans representing the animals of course. Wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest? Sunstein also believes that hunting should be outright outlawed. With his views on animals it’s not surprising that he thinks farms need much more regulation. He has also equated the farming industry with genocide. This could be especially dangerous if he starts regulating animals into having a trial before they become food.
All of them:
Roger L. Simon wonders if Obama’st “Czar System” might be grounds for impeachment:
Barack Obama’s Czar System – which has recently come under scrutiny for some repellent, even paranoid, statements by his “Green Czar” Van Jones, a onetime “9-11 truther” who calls Republicans “assholes” on television – is an entirely different matter. This is directly an affair of state and seemingly an end run around the Separation of Powers. According to an article recently published at Examiner.com by Patrick McMahon, there are now thirty-one of these czars, covering areas from terrorism to domestic violence. Congress has not vetted a single one of them, as far as I know. Indeed, with only a couple of exceptions (Dennis Ross, etc.), we know who few of them are. Are others as extreme as Mr. Jones? Who knows? All we know is that they are there and that Obama (or someone) approved them. We don’t know exactly what their authority is and what they are supposed to do ultimately. They are a completely new part of our Executive Branch, invented by the President and/or his advisors. Was this what the Framers intended when they created the three branches of our government with all the checks and balances?