Sunday, July 15, 2018

Just Who Is In Trouble Here?

by D. E. Carson (writer), , September 04, 2009

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones another in a long line of Obama's bad judgment.

You've probably heard by now that Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has given the Obama Administration another black eye (sorry for the pun).  Approximately two months before his nomination to an advisory position within the Obama Administration, Van Jones was addressing a group of students at the University of California - Berkley when a student asked him why it was that Republicans could get things done in the Senate without the 60 vote majority and Democrats couldn't.  Jones' response was simply that it was because Republicans "were assholes."

Of course, once word of this particular insult to Republicans got out, Jones was all over himself apologizing for his "offensive" language -- but never once did he bother to retract his statement.  Which means that he regrets saying out loud what he was thinking but hell will freeze over before he apologizes for even thinking it.

Now suppose Karl Rove had done something like that.  He would have been excoriated by every liberal blog in the country. But let someone sympathetic to HRH Obama and he gets a free pass.  Talk about a double standard.  In fact, it's not even unreasonable to say that had Condoleeza Rice said something like that she would have been stomped on harder than Bill Ayers stomped on Old Glory.  Again, its a delusional state of mind suffered by most liberals in which they simply hate everything that is even remotely related to George W. Bush and fall all over themselves like slobbering mastiffs loving HRH Obama.

The humor even extends to people like Al Sharpton.  He couldn't get on the air fast enough to demand with feverish zeal the firing of Don Imus following his "knappy headed hoes" crack, but let a "brutha" like Van Jones insult someone with opposing political and philosophical views and Al Sharpton is deafeningly silent.  Imus didn't even use profanity, just a derrogatory term and he was out on his keester faster Arlen Spectre could change political affiliations.  Where's the outcry from Sharpton over Jones' profane insult?  This writer isn't going to hold his breath waiting for one -- although it is rather certain readers would like to see that happen.  This writer doesn't look good in blue.

Interestingly enough, Fox News' website held a poll -- unscientific of course -- asking if visitors to the site thought Jones' apology was acceptable.  As of about 10:00 this morning, 30,258 votes had been cast, 29,456 or 97% of those polled were vehemently oppposed to Jones' apology and said they would not accept it.  Only 637 (2%) said the apology was acceptable and 165 people (1%) couldn't decide whether to $#i+ or get off the pot.

Frankly, Jones should be fired for his comments.  In fact, he should have never been appointed in the first place.  It makes not one iota of difference whether the comments were made before his appointment or after.  The reason being is that Van Jones working in the White House is similar to allowing a fox to sleep in the chicken coop -- sooner or later, something bad is going to happen and most, if not all, Democrats who bought into what HRH Obama is shovelling will be left standing around scratching their heads and @$$es WTFing all over the place.

There are six compelling reasons why Jones should never have come to Washington in the first place.  1) He is an avowed communist -- admitted by his own words.  2) He believes that America needs a whole new system -- that the capitalist system currently in place is in need of being completely and fundamentally changed.  Again his words.  3) He is adamant that a cop killer go free. Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered a Philadelphia police officer and gets the death sentence.  For years after that, liberal lawyers spend millions of dollars from deep-pocketed financiers to keep Abu-Jamal out of the executioner's grasp.  Jones' supports Abu-Jamal's fight for release from jail.  4) He is a Black nationalist -- an organization of black Americans who seek complete and total separation from white Americans. There is more to it than that, but that is the crux of the movement.  5) He believes in wealth redistribution and that such a policy will make things "fair" to everyone.  This is an argument that is as old as greed itself.  It also is an ineffective policy because multiple studies have been done proving that if all the wealth of the USA were distributed evenly among every man, woman and child, those from whom the wealth was taken would have reaccumulated it within five years and those who were without it in the first place would be without it again.  6) Jones also believes that whites poison minorities -- literally.  Somewhere along the line he got it in his head that whites were trying to exterminate minorities from America.  If this were really true, it would have been completed long ago.  As effective as Hitler was at exterminating 6 million Jews, white Americans could have improved on Hitler's designs to the point of exponential success.  The truth of the matter is that whites are too busy earning their own living to have time to worry about exterminating minorities.

Today, however, a seventh reason came to light concerning Van Jones' lack of qualification to be in Washington.  It seems that he signed onto a website along with such people as Jeanine Garafalo, Ed Asner and Cynthia Kinney demanding investingations into credible evidence of a government conspiracy surrounding 9/11.  These people are called "9/11 Truthers" and they are a misguided group of Bush-hating liberals who refuse to believe the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 were the work of some 200-year-old-looking towel-head and a bunch of his minions.  These so-called "9/11 Truthers" want the world to believe that somehow with a mere seven months of planning, George W. Bush was able to pull off the murder of almost 3,000 people and pin it all on this islamo-fascist who has only been seen on video tapes.  Fox News' Glenn Beck gave the White House until 5:30 p.m. EDT today to respond to his inquiry as to whether or not Jones' involvement in the 9/11 Truthers was known by HRH Obama.  The White House did not respond.

What's wrong with asking questions?  Liberals were all over themselves asking questions during the Bush Administration.  In fact, they were so vehement in their inquiries that when they received an answer they didn't like, or didn't agree with their agenda, they made up a different answer to fit what they believed.  When she was Senator Hillary Clinton, she screamed at the top of her lungs that she was sick and tired of being called unpatriotic for questioning the Bush Administration and that it was the patriotic duty of every American to question ANY administration.  So when people take her up on that, liberals begin to counter with, "Oh, wait, no.  That only applies to Democrats when they are out of power.  When we Democrats are in power, you do not have the right to question our motives.  We know what is best for you so sit down, shut up and take your government-provided Soma pills here."

It is truly a sad day when Americans who love their country cannot stand up in the face of someone they oppose and voice that opposition without being called "racist."  Yet, here stands America in the early days of the 21st Century with a group of people who took their Soma and blindly accept everything HRH Obama says as gospel.  These Obama lemmings will follow him straight to the edge of the cliff overlooking the abyss of oblivion and will unquestioningly step right over plummeting into the darkness.  Even worse that as the lemmings march toward the abyss, they take every opportunity available to them to address those who will not follow HRH Obama as "racists" and "fascists" with the idea that by uttering those kinds of epithets they will force the non-followers to cower into submission.

This writer will not cower.  This writer will continue to observe HRH Obama with every ounce of skepticism he can muster and will question everything and everyone involved with HRH Obama.  This writer will never back down.

About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

6 comments on Just Who Is In Trouble Here?

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on September 05, 2009 at 02:29 am

The Equal Justice Society is a club at the University of San Francisco chock full of left-wing tree-huggers.  The following quote is from their "About Us" page:

"EJS will marshal our forces to defeat the right wing assault on social and racial justice."

Translation: we will stiffle anyone who opposes our stance simply by calling them "rasist".

Then from the club's own website about its current president, Eva Paterson, EJS says, "Paterson is the President and a founder of the Equal Justice Society, a national organization dedicated to changing the law through progressive legal theory, public policy and practice." Translation: to subvert the Constitution by having radical leftist judges legislate from the bench.

Doesn't anyone think anything strange about the term "progressive legal theory"?  Liberals are progressive.  Of course we all know that the term "theory" is another word for "ideal".  This group sounds like a bunch of left-wing liberals, so of course Category Five would quote them.

Additionally, this little tidbit about Eva Paterson is also on the EJS webpage: "She served as Vice President of the ACLU National Board for eight years".  We all know how fair and balanced the ACLU is -- after all this group would NEVER sue to keep Christian displays away from public facilities while turning a blind eye to muslim displays.  Never in the history of the ACLU has there ever been a time where the rights of someone standing in opposition to any liberal ideal weren't safeguarded as vehemently as those who support liberal ideals.  It just doesn't happen.  Being the Vice President of the National Board of the ACLU isn't exactly a position that is open to just anyone -- certain ideals must be held sacred by the individual and most of those ideals are not merely cross-wise with the conservative movement; they are perpendicular!

Here's another little piece of information about Ms. Paterson from the EJS website:

"Paterson and the Equal Justice Society played a pivotal role in the broad coalition that decisively defeated Ward Connerly’s Proposition 54. The dangerous, divisive measure would have banned the collection of racial and ethnic data by any state agency, thus making it virtually impossible to track and document race discrimination or to bring civil rights suits to court."

Here again we have a gross misrepresentation by the left for the purpose of continuing the gathering of racial and ethnic data.  The real reason is to impose reverse discrimination against white people in favor of promoting the black agenda.  It keeps time with those like Al Shaprton who like to perpetuate the myth that blacks are still downtrodden when in fact it has been white people who have given the equality blacks enjoy.

Now that we've completely discredited the Equal Justice Society as a left-wing secular-progressive movement not at all interested in justice as its name would suggest but in the advancement of blacks by all means, let's move on to my first assertion that Van Jones is a self-avowed communist.

Here, in Jones' own words from an article in the East Bay Express, dated November 2, 2005:

Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

In this same article, Jones is described as having been picked up in a large-scale arrest sweep of rioters in San Francisco following the verdicts in the Rodney King case.  He was, in fact, released when it was determined that he was not a rioter, however, these accounts gvien by Jones to the East Bay Express do indicate that he was influenced by some of those with whom he spent time in jail.  Chilling words: "By August, I was a communist."

Never mind that his Ella Baker Center joined forces with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) an organization that sponsored study groups on Lenin and Marxism and even fantasized about a utopia of multiracial socialists.

Not a communist?  I rather doubt you did your homework this time Category Five.  You quote to me from an ultra-left liberal website and then have the unmitigated gall to call Glenn Beck an asshole and me a liar?  Once again, this is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence anyone who opposes or at the very least questions HRH Obama.  One thing that I do believe I have heard attributed to Beck is that Van Jones was in prison.  Of course, Beck is human and he is entitled to make a mistake now and then.  I can find no where that Jones was in prison -- only that he was detained in San Francisco following the Rodney King riots.  Of course my original article never said anything about Jones being in prison anyway -- only that he is an avowed communist and I stand by that statement based on the evidence produced above.  </soapbox>.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on September 05, 2009 at 01:53 pm

Category Five, you've obviously misread (again) what Jones said.  That's okay, I've come to expect it from you.  You don't care about the real truth, just your version of it.  So just go back to your corner and stick you thumb back in your mouth.  Van Jones IS a communist.  He admitted it openly and your twisting of semantics doesn't change that fact.


 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on September 05, 2009 at 02:10 pm

You know, I just got to thinking.  It's hard for you to admit that you're just plain wrong on this one Dean.  You cited a left-wing liberal website run by someone who used to be vice president of the ACLU.  Then you "claim" you read the same article I referenced (notice I said you claim to have read - I didn't say you didn't cite it, I just question whether or not you even bothered to read the article) and try to back-pedal.  You just don't get it.  You're wrong here and you won't admit it.  Van Jones is a communist, period.  I haven't gotten around to debunking the rest of your verbal diarrhea by using facts -- an endeavour in which I'm not sure I wish to engage because you have made up your mind that you wouldn't believe me if I told you the sun rises in the east. I'm really surprised that you called me a liar even after I proved that what I was saying is true.  But that is just true to form for you -- like all liberals you have your head up your ass and don't care about facts so long as they don't interefere with your belief system.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to go back to ignoring you.  You've proven to me that you have no desire to see the facts as they really are.  You suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.  I've proven my first assertion and now I'm going to prove the rest.  Please do me and there rest of this community a favor.  Don't read my articles again.  I don't need you lying about my articles.

Good day.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on September 05, 2009 at 05:15 pm

Proof for point number two:  Here is Van Jones in his own words displaying his desire to "replace the whole system".

The speech is about 20 minutes long.  It is the entire speech he gave so there is no "taking his words out of context" as Category Five will no doubt attempt to say.  Watch and decide for yourself.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By D. E. Carson on September 07, 2009 at 01:13 am

This whole discussion is now completely MOOT!  Van Jones resigned this morning.

Gee, I guess he must have actually been up to something after all, huh?  I mean, really, if he'd been as clean as all you thumb-sucking liberals thought, then why didn't he stay in there and fight?  After all, Nixon was guilty as hell and he resigned when he knew he'd been found out.  I guess Jones got wise and took his cue from ol' "tricky Dick."

Glad I didn't read all the sniveling, whining, wimpering responses to this article after Category Five vomited all over it.

Ain't gonna either...

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on September 07, 2009 at 06:03 pm

Aw, whassa matter Category Five?  Can't handle the pressure?  I'd offer you a tissue to blow your nose, but it would lower my social standing...

 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us