Van Jones sounds like a very compassionate person and qualified to serve as Green Jobs czar; however, his past reflects more than just concern for our environment. In 1992, Van Jones joined the riots that erupted when the “not guilty” verdict of the Rodney King case was announced. In 2005, The East Bay Express reported that while Van Jones was 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 ... 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."
From the same interview, Van Jones admits that in “1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.”
I’m not one to judge the past of others — we have all skeletons in our closet. However, Van Jones doesn’t deny his communist stance or his ideology of a “socialistic utopia”. In fact, he continues to advance his radical views under the umbrella of “fighting pollution and poverty at the same time.”
Echoing Green promotes his words on their website: "We’re gonna to have to do something very dramatic at the Federal level either with Cap and Trade…something ... We’ve come to the end of the road...last century strategy ... The Federal government has got to be involved in helping with the u-turn because the Federal government was involved in supporting all of the dumb stuff we’ve been doing ... We can have a sane federal policy that is ecologically sound, but there is no way to have a sane ecologically policy that is not at the same time a radically progressive social policy…”
Here is a list of the chosen czars to date:
- AIDS czar: Jeff Crowley
- Afghanistan czar: Richard Holbrooke
- Auto – Recovery czar: Edward Montgomery
- Border czar: Alan Bersin,
- Climate czar: Todd Stern
- Drugs czar: Gil Kerlikowske
- Economics czar: Paul A. Volcker
- Faith–Based czar: Joshua DuBois
- Great Lakes czar: Cameron Davis
- Gitmo czar: Daniel Fried
- Government Performance czar: Jeffrey Zients
- Health czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
- Homeland Security czar: John Brennan
- Information czar: Vivek Kundra
- Intelligence czar (Director of National Intelligence): Dennis Blair
- Mideast Peace czar: George Mitchell
- Mideast Policy czar: Dennis Ross
- Non-proliferation czar: Gary Samore
- Pay czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg
- Science czar: John Holdren
- Stimulus czar: Earl E. Devaney
- Sudan czar: J. Scott Gration
- Tarp czar: Herb Allison
- Technology czar: Aneesh Chopra
- Urban Affairs czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
- Weapons czar: Ashton Carter
- WMD czar: Gary Samore
Our beloved community organizer is taking (or is it nudging) our country toward socialism and he is enlisting his pit bulls to assist! While we await the announcement of a Cyber czar, we can anticipate more “chosen” to arise, an Income Control czar, a Fox News czar, an American Idol czar (they need one after this last season), and even a Kool-aid czar (maybe not, as the Obama Kool-aid is very popular these days) — any way this administration can gain more control, kill capitalism, and advance socialism.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - MH
Your description of a pit bull is disgusting. According to www.Dogsbite.org, pits and pit types are killing people in this country on average one every 21 days. This doesn't count the daily multiple attacks reported in the news.
2 - Dave Nalle
Well, there's a completely irrelevant comment.
I find the use of the term "czar" troubling, but even scarier is when you read the resume of these people and consider that they have a lot of power and don't have to go through Senate confirmation in most cases.
Dave
3 - Ruvy
Only one thing to say in the face of all this - you Americans better learn how to salute....
Victory and Salvation!
(Sieg und Heil!)
4 - Glenn Contrarian
*sigh*
"Power!" That's the watchword of conservatives.
Have the Democrats ever worked with the stated purpose of being in power on a permanent basis? Ever? Perhaps, but I've never heard of it - and frankly, if the Democrats had ever said such a thing, I think I can safely say the Republicans and the black-helicopter crowd would be shouting their outrage to the rooftops.
No, AFAIK the only modern major political movement in America that has ever deliberately worked towards permanency in power is the Republican party. Remember Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority"? Remember Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell, and 15,000 Baptist preachers listening to the founder of the Heritage Foundation state that not only has no American election been won by a majority of the voters, but also that the conservatives' power diminishes as the proportion of population that actually votes increases.
I learned a long time ago that a person generally expects of others what he or she would do in their situation. Apply that logic to Christine's article, and to Dave's and Ruvy's replies.
In my experience, that's what most conservatives don't understand - to most liberals, it's NOT "all about power". The bell-curve distribution of personalities mixes things up a bit, but - again, generally speaking - liberals are not as interested in personal power, and are even less interested in people having power over them!
The proof is all around you. Are CEO's more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are military leaders more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are long-time members in highly-regimented organizations (like the military, certain religions, and fraternities (Masons, Elks, etc.)) more likely to be liberal, or conservative?
And RUVY! I've got a few questions for you: is Fascism considered far-LEFT, or far-RIGHT? And are neo-Nazis in America drawn more to the far left, or to the far right? Over the past two millenia, who has been the greater enemy of Judaism - mainstream 'Christianity', or Islam? And does mainstream 'Christianity' lean more to liberal thought, or to conservative thought?
5 - Dave Nalle
You're deluding yourself, Glenn. All politicians want a permanent hold on power.
Democrats have been clammoring for a permanent majority for years, and claiming to be on the brink of it a lot recently. I refer you to politico for a good example.
Liberals may not be interested in personal power, but the Democrats are cerainly not liberals.
Dave
6 - Clavos
The proof is all around you. Are CEO's more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are military leaders more likely to be liberal, or conservative? Are long-time members in highly-regimented organizations (like the military, certain religions, and fraternities (Masons, Elks, etc.)) more likely to be liberal, or conservative?
You're very fond of these kinds of "proofs," which are usually totally devoid of fact and always unfounded, not to mention logically fallacious.
My conclusion from the above? Since, as you point out, leaders are mostly conservatives, obviously conservatives are smarter than liberals and have better leadership skills.
Makes as much sense as your theory.
7 - Christine
I would have to agree with Dave here, "All politicians want a permanent hold on power." Republican and Democrats alike. Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be "public servants", instead they are more interested in "serving self". And when they get a taste of power, well, we all know what happens then! Too bad for our country!
8 - Joanne Huspek
There are so many czars now, I feel a compulsion to order the Rosetta Stone Russian version.
And yes, I am alarmed. These guys answer to no one, and in many cases there is already a government worker in place to take care of whatever the czar is supposed to be doing. Nothing like paying double. And, love the auto czars, who have no experience running auto companies. Well, they have driven cars (mostly foreign ones) so I guess that's a qualifier.
Why isn't a gung ho attorney on this suing someone?
Oh, I forgot. You can't sue the feds.
9 - Bliffle
Too many czars! The whole idea of a 'czar' was that a guy could slash through the bureaucracy, override niggling objections, take precipitate action, shoot the piano player, etc.
Now, we have so many it's hard to keep track of them. One is in danger of getting caught in the cross-fire.
Has any of them actually DONE anything? Anything useful? Anything anyone would notice?
The last one I remember was czar Nicholas, a rather pleasant fellow who seemed not to know what to do with the power he had. I suppose that's the fate of czars.
10 - Clavos
bliffle,
I put ol' Nick's picture at the top of the Politics home page earlier today.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
I hate to make it sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the responses above seem to prove my point, to wit:
from Dave:
Liberals may not be interested in personal power, but the Democrats are cerainly not liberals.
Many Democrats aren't liberals - but many more Democrats ARE liberal. For example, how many Dems are not for gay rights? There are some, but not many.
from Christine: Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be "public servants", instead they are more interested in "serving self".
On its face, that's a cogent statement that is to some extent true. However, her statement ignores the larger picture. But perhaps Christine should check back to Barry Goldwater - the 'father' of modern conservatism - and his opinions of today's conservatives. He said, "'The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." In the same article, Goldwater warned that "the radical right has nearly ruined our party." and "Its members do not care about the Constitution and they are the one making all the noise."
Not to be outdone, Clavos opined: You're very fond of these kinds of "proofs," which are usually totally devoid of fact and always unfounded, not to mention logically fallacious. My conclusion from the above? Since, as you point out, leaders are mostly onservatives, obviously conservatives are smarter than liberals and have better leadership skills. Makes as much sense as your theory.
Is it fallacious to state that the military - and military veterans - strongly tend to conservatism? No. Is it fallacious to state that Big Business (read: CEO's) lean strongly towards the let's-cut-taxes-some-more Republicans? No. Is it fallacious to state that most highly religious people tend to be strongly conservative? No...and it appears Clavos hasn't heard of the 'Religious Right'.
Clavos, it is a FACT that the military, the strongly religious, and Big Business tend to be conservative. Do you really need me to give a list of references to show it to you? Is that your only defense, the 'faulty logic' defense?
The fact remains - those three are traditionally strongly conservative...and I'm giving a reason WHY they remain conservative. If you can come up with a better, more logical reason why (other than "they're smarter!"), then please do so. Otherwise, my point stands.
12 - Clavos
The fact remains - those three are traditionally strongly conservative...and I'm giving a reason WHY they remain conservative. If you can come up with a better, more logical reason why (other than "they're smarter!"), then please do so. Otherwise, my point stands.
Ah, but your "point," which you fail to re-state is that it is conservatives (as opposed to liberals) who are most interested in power, and to "prove" your "point," you point to examples of conservatives in positions of leadership and power. Once again, your "proof" is based on totally unscientific "data" gleaned from personal observation and open to a myriad of disparate conclusions, including mine: that your observations merely prove that conservatives are smarter and have better leadership skills than liberals, and that they naturally will gravitate to those positions wherein they best can use their intelligence and skills.
Conversely, one could point to the liberals in the oval office and throughout the administration and Cabinet, as well as all the liberals in congress (Pelosi, Reid, all the committee chairs, etc.), not to mention all the union leaders and dozens of governors, all of whom are in positions of power, and using your "logic," "prove" that it is in fact, liberals who are driven by the desire to acquire power.
Like most of your "proofs," this one defies both logic and plain common sense. But, that's never mattered to you before, so I'm not expecting it to now.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Are you going to state, then, that the military (and particularly the senior military) doesn't lean strongly to the conservative?
Are you going to state, then, that fraternities such as the Freemasons, Elks, etc. don't lean strongly to the conservative?
Are you going to state, then, that religious organizations in America don't generally lean strongly to the conservative?
I'll wait for your answers.
14 - Christine
Not many politicians are interesting in what they are supposed to be "public servants", instead they are more interested in "serving self". Darn it, I meant to say INTERESTED, not interesting. I hate when that happens. Glenn, COGENT is now my new favorite word!
15 - Clavos
Glenn, never having investigated any of those, and having less than no interest in boys' clubs and religion, I have no empirical idea of their makeup.
But it doesn't matter, because you've said that conservatives seek power, and for proof that they do, you've stated that the leaders of those types of organizations are mostly conservative. Well, if the organizations themselves are mostly conservative (as you now assert), then it naturally follows that their leaders will be, too.
That does not, however, prove that conservatives seek power, only that they gravitate to the military, boys clubs (including the military), and religion.
16 - Lumpy
It takes a he'll of a lot more than just being for gay rights toake u a liberal.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Yeah, my claims are SO unscientific and unfounded. Actually, when it comes to the fraternities, that's true. I've found lots of anecdotal evidence of my claim, but nothing that can support a sweeping conclusion.
On the other two, there's LOTS of evidence.
From the Gallup Poll, "Military veterans of all ages tend to be more Republican"
From Fox News (ugh!) Polls Emphasize Growing Religious Gap in Politics
From Pew Research, Religious Affiliation and the Vote, which show that Gore, Kerry, AND Obama lost badly among protestants and white Catholics.
So here's your SCIENTIFIC evidence, Clavos...and now it's for you to answer why it is that the military and religious groups tend to vote strongly conservative? WHY?
First, you look at their similarities - both tend to be socially regimented. Do you really think it's a mere coincidence that the more strongly regimented the group, the more conservative they tend to vote?
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Lumpy -
That was merely one small example...a 'for instance', if you will.
19 - Christine
I always wonder who takes all the POLLS....I've never been polled about anything!
20 - Clavos
One more time, Glenn:
Your original claim was NOT that those kinds of orgs are full of conservatives, but that they're LED by conservatives, who are leading them because conservatives are power seekers. I already pointed out, it stands to reason if all their membership is conservative, they will naturally enough have conservatives as their leaders.
The horse is dead, Glenn.
You can stop beating it now.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
And Christine -
Perhaps you should check your sources, too. After all, Fox is not known for being a paragon of accuracy.
For instance, thinkprogress.org shows here how Fox News is continuing to put out false information that one of its own reporters debunked.
In short, the article (and its references) show that at least eight of the 'czars' WERE confirmed by the Senate, that this practice of having 'czars' (by other names) goes back all the way to at least FDR (which of course includes Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush/Bush), and that czars under the Bush administration were notoriously unaccountable.
But of course, since it's a Democrat who's doing it now, well, THAT's just plain unAmerican, isn't it?
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
I just saw that there horse move again! It SAID something, I tell you! And here's what it said: "I already pointed out, it stands to reason if all their membership is conservative, they will naturally enough have conservatives as their leaders."
Now I just gotta ask that horse ONE thing afore I give it another whack - WHY, oh, WHY do you think, Mr. Not-so-dead-Horse, that the membership of those organizations are SO conservative?
23 - Christine
Glenn-
Thanks for the info (interesting data), so I guess a small percent are "Senate-confirmed positions". Good News!
I did know that they “go back as far as FDR, and maybe further", (they had a different name then), but my article was already too long, so I decided not to give the history in its totality.
My concerns are not just related to the position itself, but more so in the number and the people chosen...they seem pretty radical to me. Do you mind these types being in high-powered positions?
And how come Obama is choosing so many period and so many of his own kind, especially when he campaigned on "reaching across the aisle?"
24 - Christine
One last thing to consider, Glenn, if I was a CEO of a company that hired over 30 assistants, I would be fired!
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Christine -
Did you make these same complaints when Reagan did the same thing?