Van Jones downfall came from his own words and actions, not smear campaign

Sep 8, 2009 by

The sudden resignation of one of the dozens of Czars that President Obama has appointed since taking office has highlighted the fact that many Americans are no longer going to remain silent and submit to anything that the White House wants to ram down our throats.

Van Jones, the White House green jobs czar, resigned over the Labor Day weekend amid mounting criticism of some of his past words, actions, and political views. Some of his past radical activities and recent controversial stances attracted the attention of many conservatives, including Glenn Beck of Fox News. While Jones is considered a rising star in environmental circles, questions about his fitness for a White House-level office were raised when some of his past speeches and radical affiliations surfaced.

In order to clarify most of the criticisms that were raised I will simply list them below. If you want any further details on any of the items you can easily find more information from numerous sources.

  • Jones was a self-described communist during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies.

  • Many of his recent and past comments have been racially charged and divisive.

  • He advocated for the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

  • He injected race into the Columbine school massacre by saying that “You’ve never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never.”

  • He has accused white businesses of polluting black neighborhoods.

  • He signed a petition on the web site suggesting that the Bush administration had deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen.

  • He famously called Republicans “assholes” in a videotaped speech this year.

  • Active in black nationalist movement.

In fact, Van Jones’s whole recent history is one of divisive, incendiary, and counter-productive statements and actions. Many people, both Republican and Democrat, have questioned how anyone like Van Jones could have been vetted for such an important position given his past statements and actions. The answer to that can be found in the fact that his two biggest supporters in Washington are the First Lady and the Vice President. I guess the vetting process results were thrown out the window in light of support like that.

The fact that the First Lady and Vice President supported Van Jones is very troubling. Are Van Jones’s beliefs and values shared by Michelle Obama and Joe Biden? For the sake of our country I hope his views are not shared by them. Another disturbing fact is that the whole controversy was completely ignored by most major newspapers and media outlets. If it wasn’t for Glenn Beck of Fox News and other conservative media, Van Jones would still be serving as the White House green jobs czar.

Van Jones is just one in a long list of White House appointees with a questionable past. I have lost track of how many tax cheats are serving in positions of importance in the Obama administration. Apparently Obama continues to think that the silent majority will continue to remain silent. This view despite evidence to the contrary in the form of a huge grassroots movement that is trying to convey the message to the Obama administration that we will no longer be silent on issues of national defense, health care, out of control spending, a burgeoning government bureaucracy, arrogance, and scorn for those who oppose Obama policies. I hope the upcoming 9/12 rally in DC this weekend will help drive home that message.

Evidence of the arrogance and disdain that many in the Obama administration have for those who oppose many of his policies and political appointments comes from Van Jones himself. In a sharply worded statement, Jones assailed his critics.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I would submit that the only lies and distortions are those that come from Van Jones himself. His past words and actions speak for themselves. You cannot smear someone by using the facts and ones own words and deeds. It is the proponents of reform who have taken up the tactics of lies and distortions to promote their own objectives. Their message is that it is either our way or the highway. The no longer silent majority begs to differ.

read more

Proctologists decide to leave health care decision to assholes in Washington.

Aug 4, 2009 by

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Obama health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.  The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.  Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.  Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, Grow up!”

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.  Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.  The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter….”

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.  The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

{from an email my brother sent me.}

read more

The President acted stupidly, not the Cambridge police

Jul 24, 2009 by

In an incident heard around the  world President Obama accused the Cambridge police of acting “stupidly” in the arrest of a prominent black scholar and Harvard professor. The arrest of Professor Henry Gates followed a report of a possible burglary. A neighbor reported that two black men with backpacks were forcing open the door of what later turned out to be Gates home. Gates had apparently forgotten his keys and was jimmying the door to get inside. According to the testimony of Cambridge police officer Carlos Figueroa, who responded to the call along with officer James Crowley, when he arrived at the scene officer Crowley was already inside the house. The filed police report says Crowley had asked Gates for some identification and Gates had shouted that he would not give any information and called the officer racist. According to the report, Gates then yelled, “This is what happens to black men in America.” When Crowley tried to calm Gates down, Gates shouted, “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” The report continues that the shouting went on after Gates and the officers walked out onto the front porch. When Gates allegedly wouldn’t cooperate or calm down, Crowley arrested him for disorderly conduct.

It seems to me that this was a case of a man who has racial issues of his own losing it when a white police officer had the hubris to actually try to do his job. Refusing to show ID when asked by a police officer is not a smart thing to do. To start shouting at a police officer, calling him a racist, demanding the name of the officer and his badge number, saying things like “you don’t know who you’re messing with” are also not very smart things to do. When the police respond to a call the best thing you can do is cooperate and not lose your temper. The officers did not know who Gates was and were just trying to determine what was going on. I would think that Gates would have been appreciative of the officers, who were there after all to protect Gates home from being burglarized. Gates complained that Crowley did not have his permission to enter the house. Police do not need permission to enter a house if the owners refuse to identify themselves and the police are investigating a potential break-in and burglary.

This whole incident could have been avoided if Gates had acted rationally, like most people would have. But as I said before it seems that Gates has a giant chip on his shoulder and real issues with white people, especially white police officers. His comment of “this is what happens to black men in America” is interesting. Maybe he was referring to the fact that being black in America means you have the opportunity to become a respected scholar and Harvard law professor. The comment “you don’t know who you’re messing with” reflects someone who has a overinflated sense of his position as well as someone who knows he can play the race card effectively to say and do anything he wants. Or maybe he knew that his buddy, the President of the United States, would take his side while not even knowing the facts of the incident.

But the most troubling aspect of this whole affair is the President of the United States publicly siding with Gates without knowing all the facts (which he actually admitted) and then calling the arrest stupid. The President then went on talking about racial profiling and how it is a continuing problem in America. To quote the President “What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of Africa-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.” Why did the President mention racial profiling “separate and apart from this incident.?” There was obviously no racial profiling going on here. Every time a white police officer arrests a minority it is not “racial profiling.” If the neighbor had reported two white men attempting to break into the house does anyone think the Cambridge police would have ignored the call? Does anyone think the Cambridge police would not have asked to see their identification? Does anyone think the police would not have arrested them if they had started shouting epithets and being uncooperative?

Everything officer Crowley did that night was standard police procedure. The issue of race was injected into the incident by Gates. If anyone is a racist it is Professor Gates. Officer Crowley teaches a course on racial profiling for other officers and gave CPR to a dying Reggie Lewis, the Boston Celtics star who had a fatal heart attack in 1993 during a practice game at Brandeis University, where Crowley was a campus police officer at the time. The next day Professor Gates felt compelled to go before a group of African-Americans and continue to stoke the fires of racial discord by continuing to blame racial profiling for the incident. It is also notable that a majority of police agencies around the country have come down solidly on the side of officer Crowley and the Cambridge police department.

President Obama even went so far as to demand that officer Crowley apologize, again without knowing all the facts of the case. In fact President Obama mistakenly thought that Professor Gates was arrested for being in his own house after showing ID. He did not realize that Professor Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. To quote officer Crowley, ” That apology will never come. It won’t come from me as Jim Crowley. It won’t come from me as a sergeant in the police department. I know what I did was right. I have nothing to apologize for.”

The White House tried to downplay Obama’s comments by saying that the President was not calling officer Crowley stupid. I guess he was calling the whole Cambridge police department stupid instead. If anyone should apologize it should be Professor Gates for throwing a temper tantrum and calling an officer who is clearly not a racist a racist. President Obama should also apologize to officer Crowley and the entire Cambridge police department. But I would not expect an apology to be forthcoming from Professor Gates and probably not President Obama either.

Even a CNN commentator, Maria Haberfeld, wrote in her commentary that Obama rushed to judgment on police in the incident. To quote her commentary: “We teach our children to think about what others feel before they act, but as grown-ups we frequently assume we understand what others do without ever having walked in their shoes.” She further goes on to say: “I was not there. Neither was the president nor all the others who are quick to pass judgment.”  Her commentary is very enlightening and can be read here.

Another great perspective, more eloquently presented than I can ever hope to do, on the incident can be seen here. (from CNN iReport), entitled “Shame on the President and SHAME on GATES for Pimpin’ the moment.

And while I was not there either, I at least waited until I had most if not all the facts in before writhing this post. That is something President Obama cannot say.

read more

Sometimes the whole world prefers a lie to the truth.

Jul 4, 2009 by

542px-Coat_of_arms_of_Honduras.svgThe recent arrest and removal from office of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was not a coup as believed by the whole world but rather a triumph of the rule of law.

To understand what happened you have to understand the Honduran Constitution. The current Honduran constitution was adopted in 1982, after more than a dozen previous constitutions. Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely changed or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed. It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions.

It also contains 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address critical issues. These 7 articles include the form of the government; the extent of the borders; the number of years of the presidential term; a prohibition with respect to the reelection of presidents, and eligibility for the presidency. There is another article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

What happened during the “coup” was that a Honduran citizen was arrested and sent out of the country by soldiers obeying the constitution of Honduras. He had stripped himself of the presidency through his own actions.

President Zelaya had issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office. Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. The publishing of the decree to initiate an “opinion poll” contravened the articles of the Constitution that dealt with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term.

No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for 10 years. The poll to convene a national constitutional assembly was in order for Zelaya to extend his term as president, in violation of the Honduran constitution. This is the exact same thing that President Chavez of Venezuela did to illegally extend his term in office.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely- is what happened in Venezuela and is what Zelaya was trying to do in Honduras. The instant sanction of Zelaya by the Constitution successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general of Honduras ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

Yet the world, led by President Obama, condemned Honduras, calling the proper functioning of the Honduran constitution a “coup”. Obama took sides with tin-horn dictators like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and the Castro brothers. The United Nations chimed in on the wrong side, as it so often does, along with the Organization of American States.

It is particularly disturbing that the leader of the free world so readily condemned Honduras, ignoring the facts of the matter. Here is a President who was very reluctant to condemn Iran for its obvious sham elections and subsequent brutal suppression of its citizens who peacefully protested the illegal actions of their country. But he was quick to join the chorus of voices condemning Honduras for legally preventing another Latin America dictator.

There are some in the United States government who see the events in Honduras for what they really are and are voicing their opinion on the matter. One of them is US Senator Jim DeMint. The world should be praising Honduras and its brave people who stood up for the rule of law in the face of world condemnation and the threat to their freedom from another wannabe dictator. The world, and President Obama, should be ashamed of themselves for taking the side of tyranny over liberty and freedom.

(source – Christian Science Monitor)

read more

Medicare for All is another bad Obama idea.

Jun 26, 2009 by


1. Medicare for All will create shortages in health care services forcing providers to ration care and increase wait times for patients (12-18 month wait in other countries)

2. Currently, Americans do not pay taxes on employer provided health insurance benefits. If you have health insurance through your company, you are about to be taxed on those plans. The Government will require all Americans have health
insurance and impose FINES on those who do not.

3. The REAL GOAL: Government insurance seeks to eventually squeeze out and eliminate private health insurance companies altogether, forcing Americans to become dependent on a “one plan fits no one” Medicare system.

4. The Government will have access to and control over your health records intruding into the privacy and confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship. We all know how the Government handles confidential information.

5. The current Medicare and Medicaid programs are flawed and full of corruption.
What will happen when we add another 100 million Americans to the program?

6. The President’s current plan will add another TRILLION dollars to the deficit.
Another government program on an already strained economy will bankrupt the
United States.

7. How will Congress pay for their new plans? TAXES. The President campaigned
that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut. However Democrats are now
planning to increase taxes on everything from sugar to cigarettes as well as creating
new taxes, such as Value Added Tax.

8. No one in the country is currently denied access to health care so why is the
President rushing a plan for socialized medicine without thoughtful debate and
consideration? The Government should not be allowed to tell you what health care
you are entitled to and how to live your life.

9. Government controlled health care takes the decision making out of the hands of
individuals and families and puts it in the hands of politicians in Washington.

10. What legal recourse will you have if the government denies you or a loved one
medical care? None.

Help us win the fight against Medicare for All. Visit for more information.

read more