September 6, 2009
Nuts in the Government
Have you heard of the Van Jones controversy? No? You know, the thing with Obama's environmental jobs "czar" and his kooky left-wing extremism? Huh. The spotlight got sufficiently intense that Mr. Jones had to resign; of course, the light didn't emanate from mainstream sources — which typically promote themselves as just such seekers of truth and keepers of accountability.
Ed Morrissey provides a good starting point to catch up on the controversy, including its infection of the negligent American press. Andy McCarthy, meanwhile, argues that President Obama shouldn't be seen as floating above a staffer mishap:
The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn't one of those things that just happen. This is Barack "Transparency" Obama gaming the system.
In keeping with the media's disinterest in Googling Van Jones, we're still largely in the dark about the specifics of Mr. Obama's career of community organizing (although McCarthy raises some disturbing anecdotes). With that note sounded, an interesting thought experiment all but throws itself on the examination table: Van is a "Truther" because he was among those fanning the blue flame of belief that the "truth" about 9/11 was that it was an inside job; what do you suppose will be the media reaction if the next Republican president attempts to slip a "birther" onto his staff?
Okay, okay. It's not much of an experiment.
huh?
Posted by: Mike at September 6, 2009 11:32 PMThe resignation of racist moonbat Van Jones highlights the power of the "new media". Fox News and internet blogs brought this kook down. Unfortunately what is also highlighted is the reckless incompetence of the Obama administration and the disturbing amount of racists/marxists/commies they associate with.
Birds of a feather... ?
the "power of new media"? Its not new, nor has it changed at all anytime recently. Rightwing blogs and websites have been around for quite a long time now, and fox news (i may be off a little) has been around for close to a decade. This isnt "new media", its the same old media in a different guise. One cannot backhand the mainstream media and then hail fox news as the second coming. All media's (meaning major news stations and high profile blogs to an extent)funding comes from the same private interests and same goal of turning a profit. While blogs may be not fit the image here, they can hardly take all credit for events such as Van Jones. I find fox news complelty vile and phony most of the time, look at how they treat Michael Savage and how little concern they have over his free speech battle with england. At what point will people realize that commentators such as Beck and Hannity are frauds doing what they do only for an enlarged pay check. Not that making a pay day is wrong, but to believe beck really has the American interest at heart is inaccurate. He goes on his crying fits and attacks all for profit, dont think if everyone stopped watching he wouldnt flip to msnbc and take a different schtick. Fox News claims to have the number one ratings, thus watched by more people, thus the mainstream. It could also be said that "news channels" should have journalists instead of commentators, and try to actually source what they say and do investigate work for real. Lets not bash everyone else without realizing alot of what we have is dangerously similar in way too many ways.
Posted by: steadman at September 7, 2009 9:58 AMThe mantra of "change"was interpreted by many well-meaning voters as change from Bush.It really meant a fundamental change to this country's social/economic/political system.Obama wasn't lying-people just chose to believe what they wanted to and now a lot of them are having second thoughts.
Pat Crowley mounted a shrill defense of Jones-what else is new?
Obama and his cronies moved too fast,too soon.They thought to slip in all these people destructive of our traditions and way of living under the cover of the heady aftermath of the election.
They got caught too many times already.Now a healthy skepticism of Obama's ultimate aims is building and he won't get a free pass,even though most of the MSM is still in thrall to him,somehow separating the bad appointees from the man himself.sooner or later that won't wash anymore.
When a person like "Klaus"on Kmareka constantly rants about me getting my info from Rush Limbaugh(whom I don't listen to)and Fox News(which I watch regularly)I know I must be on the right track.Whatever discomfits the moveon.org types is a good thing.
And here I thought you'd cover the GOP congressmen who sponsored the birthed bill, or the GOP senators endorsing the "death panel" lie.
When will they hold themselves to the Obama Admin standards and resign?
Posted by: Jake at September 7, 2009 10:54 AMJake-small point-the congressmen you refer to were elected-unless they commit a felony,it's up to their constituents to make them leave.If Jones were elected there wouldn't be an issue.There are elected reps and senators as far to the left as Jones.
It's this spate of unexamined appointees to "czar" positions that is the problem.The whole thing started years ago with the "drug czar"-what a crock that was.
The term "czar"is really offensive to American traditions and values.Obama doesn't have the blame for starting this unwholesome practice,but he sure is using the hell out of it.
Actually, I think that the first modern so-called Czar was the "Energy Czar" established by President Nixon during his second administration.
The first Energy Czar was former Colorado Gov. John A. Love, who was later succeeded by Treasury Secretary William Simon.
This was a precursor to the creation of the Department of Energy, which happened in the Carter Administration.
There may have been some "Czars" in the early New Deal, as well, but I don't count them as "modern Czars."
czars is a media term. the discussion on whether the executive branch has the right to have these special assistants that do no need confirmation by the senate is not political. I question why now the outcry when it has been modern practice under the last 3 presidents? The converstation is worth having regardless of your political views. too much is made out of the czars i believe, we've seen how well the drug czar has fought the war on drugs over the last 20 or so years. This is a political attack on obama, nothing more. When you criticize i president relentlessly regardless of action, you have to call it as is. refer to my previous comments about the media
Posted by: steadman at September 7, 2009 2:16 PMThanks for the terrific article Justin (Great name by the way).
I think most of us know he didn't "resign"... he was fired... by the same people who made the poor decision to hire him.
Keep up the great work!
Justin G.
California
Shame on Americans who voted for Obama. What a derilection of duty! No white guy ever would have been given the pass that Obama got from the MSM. If anybody did just a small bit of research into Obama, his communist/socialist leanings were quite apparent. Van Jones is typical of those Obama surrounds himself with.
People need to understand that there are lots of people in elected office in this country who hate America and what she stands for. And, they are on a mission to destroy from within. Many co-conspiritors also exist in the media. One thing they all have in common is that they masquerade as "liberals/progressives" Wake up people!
And who can forget Obama's spiritual mentor and close friend, pastor of 20+ years, yelling "God damn America, God damn America!!"
And, of course, the MSM, passed it over very nicely for him.
Could anybody seriously listen to that crackpot who didn't agree?
Smarten up people!
How many times can Obama ask the American people to believe he didn't know the utterances,writings,and positions of his close associates and appointees?
He is either lying or incredibly dense.I don't think he's dense at all.