The Deep Satisfaction of the Conservative Ends

That Van Jones, the former White House “Green Jobs Czar” (whatever that is), continues to burrow into the underworld of progressivism in America should surprise no one. I’m reasonably certain that once his forced exit from the current administration was complete, no one who considers himself a politically-astute conservative actually thought that he would go back to his home with his wife and children and try to nail down a gig at the local Save-Rite.

The truth is, Jones has been making a pretty penny over the course of the past couple of decades or so by stirring up trouble and trying to divide people, and let’s not kid anyone here — that’s a real-life skill set.  Ask Al Sharpton.  So, surely, there were without a doubt more than a few leftist entrepreneurs who couldn’t wait to make him a handsome offer to join their people-dividing team. Consequently, I’m certain that Van didn’t want for work for very long.

Funny,  but utilizing your skills in an effort to benefit and improve your life sounds like capitalism, but as Van is clearly more intelligent than I am, I will defer to him.

Most recently, Van has had a full schedule trying to get his “99 Percent Spring” off the ground–a project with which I’m sure he’s quite busy–so I will try to be brief, because should he take the time to read this opinion piece, I’m sure he’s going to want to get back to work as quickly as possible. I would, however, like to make a few observations relative to some of Van’s most recent comments, through which he had some fairly harsh things to say about Libertarians. Let me add as well, at this point, that I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear him spout such such uncomfortable ideas. He’s always been so peaceful.

It’s a pretty good bet that Van knows as well as the rest of us that the potential exists for America’s 2012 summer to be damn close to a type of civil war. The progressive movement in this country — which, if you truly understand the dynamics of American society, culture, and politics is far and away more harshly regressive than what its followers believe or would have you believe — has waited over a century for the time that they’ve had during the past three-plus years. I give them credit for being the embodiment of patience. With the American electorate seeming to have now generally turned against them, we should expect nothing less than for them to dig in and to refuse to surrender without a fight.

To that end, since the outcome of the 2010 elections, we’ve intermittently seen the beginnings of what I believe is going to be an “offensive” of sorts that is only going to become harsher. Not stronger, necessarily, but harsher, with and edge tinged by desperation. Aided and abetted by the state-run media, they should be able to have their message heard.

Since November 2010, our society and politics have witnessed the protests in Wisconsin regarding Scott Walker’s so-far successful attempts to bring the public-sector unions under control in his state (while simultaneously righting the path of Wisconsin’s economic ship), Wisconsin Democrats running into exile rather than face their political realities, and the seemingly never-ending but weakening Occupy movements around the country, most of the members of which were paid to protest. All of this, obviously, has hopefully opened the eyes of the average American citizens around the country, many of whom have been taught by our vaunted public school system during the past several decades that the Leftists and Liberals in our political dynamic are “peaceful”, while Conservatives are “mean” and “angry”.

Well, I will say this: Liberals are peaceful people – until they don’t get their way.

The few examples I’ve already provided, along with some brief snippets of history, will hopefully put all these silly notions to rest. History shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is always – and I do mean always – the Left that resorts to extreme forms of violence when it sees itself as falling short of its political goals. Merely referencing only the 20th century would provide material enough for a four-year college course: the communist Soviets, the Nazis, Castro and Che Guevera in Cuba, the late 1960′s in this country (see Bill Ayers and the Weathermen), The North Koreans and their oppression of the South Vietnamese – all of these movements resorted to forms of violence, ranging from mildly disturbing to shockingly horrific, in order to attain their ends. Heck, even the appalling behavior of Liberals outside the Republican National Convention in 2008 makes my point. Now, with the single most important election of our lifetimes, and arguably in the history of the American republic, becoming rather big in the window as it approaches, we have Van Jones planning the “99 Percent Spring”.

Beautiful. I’m sure non-violence is at the core of their plan, just as the never-ending rap sheet for the Occupy movement seems to attest.

By the way – I’ve been searching for my copy of the Tea Party rap sheet, but I must have misplaced it. If anyone can conjure one up, I’d be greatly appreciative if you could email one to America’s Right.

As mentioned above, Van Jones recently made what any common sense person would more than likely consider some fairly disturbing remarks, coming as they did from a person who claims that he doesn’t “judge” people, something that Liberals claim to abhor.

Yes, the discourse certainly sounds intelligent and kind, but there truly is only one item at the foundation of his agenda: to divide people.

If I may, I’d like to address Van Jones directly at this point. Now that you mention it, Van, yes…I am interested in liberty, as were the Founders of this country. I consider myself a conservative, not quite libertarian, but allow me to say that I can truly understand why an American citizen might lean that way. America is free ground, consequent to its having thrown off the shackles of soft tyranny in the late 18th century. We have no desire for another soft tyranny in this nation, albeit one under another name.

So, then, by your definition Van, I hate lesbians, gays, people with tattoos, and dark-skinned people, in addition to anyone else who doesn’t look like me. I see. Well, it’s a good thing we stupid conservatives have someone like you around, because you clearly know us better than we know ourselves. It’s also a good thing that Liberals can apparently read minds, which I can only assume, because how would you otherwise be able to judge us so effectively?

Oh, but wait….you don’t judge people. I forgot. Oh, and that hatred that I apparently have for gays and lesbians – would that count the two members of my family as well? Do I hate them? Please, let me know, so that I can treat them appropriately in the future. Or, perhaps, inappropriately.

If you don’t mind my saying, I’m offended by your comments. And, since I’m officially announcing your having offended me, I’m certain that you’ll now take an interest in my needs.

No, I’d bet not.

During the course of that speech, you made another interesting comment as well, in that you want to model this project – something that you’re calling the “All in for the 99% Rally” – after the success of the Arab Spring in Egypt. You praised the people in Egypt for rising up and throwing off the shackles of totalitarian government, as do I. I’m curious, however: since you’re a self-professed communist, why do you not tell your rabid followers that communism is totalitarian ideology and government as well, an ideology that – and I’m not quite sure how you’re going to justify this to your people – only serves the needs of the powerful, while relegating the, um, “99%” to abject poverty?

Perhaps, in the end, it’s that your followers aren’t all that intelligent and are merely led along by hyperbolic language, mindless automatons who merely repeat what’s told to them and who blindly follow marching orders. I even have to consider the possibility that you’re not all that intelligent yourself, at least insofar as your baseline understanding of American government. What is apparent, however, is that you’re assembling an “army” of those who, for one reason or another, view themselves as outcasts of some sort – people who feel as though they don’t fit in for some reason, people who still have unresolved issues with their parents, who feel that things are never their fault and that they’ve been horribly mistreated in some unspeakable fashion, who were never the popular kids in high school, those who were never asked to the prom, were cut from the sports teams, and who possibly were even hung by their suspenders and beaten like a pinata in the bathroom until their lunch money came cascading down in torrents. With regard to this assemblage of persons, then, why do you not tell them what truly lies at the heart of your far-left ideology? Is it that you’re withholding the truth, or that you don’t understand it yourself? Truth be told, I’m fascinated by this.

Allow me to offer this to you, Van: a debate, you and I. Think about the possibilities…if you’re so certain of your position, then a mere blogger like myself would pose no threat whatsoever, and by exploiting  a mere common conservative such as myself to serve your ends, you could hold me up as an example on state-run television as to the lack of intelligence in the conservative movement. I doubt, however, that you’ll have the courage to seek me out, because Liberals always move in collectivist groups and rarely, if ever, seem to be interested in going Mano e Mano.

I’m easy enough to find, as I’ve been very politically active since Barack Obama began his campaign for the highest office in the land, when even my son (who was nine years old at the time) could see what he represented. Besides, with the resources of the White House at your disposal – c’mon, big guy, I’m sure that you and and our First Citizen still communicate now and again – I’m sure that you can have a runner or two sent in my direction to search me out.

But I won’t hold my breath. It’s usually folly to go looking for courage in a collective of cowards.

On a personal note, I want to thank you for continuing to talk, because each time you and those like you open your mouths, you further turn the American people against you. I’m not quite sure why you insist on picking a fight with the American people, because history shows that that’s not typically a winning bet.

Allow me to end with a reference to some hard-hitting political analysis of Republicans that you offered a few years ago:

Wow.  Brilliance.

Right back’atchya, big guy.



  1. whats_up says:

    I find it interesting that you ridicule Mr. Jones for telling us how “conservatives” think when you have no problem telling us what liberals “think”. Also noticed again the nice little “coward” dig toward liberals. How invigerating it is to see that you have absolutely no new ideas whatsoever.

  2. Randy Wills says:


    As I skim the commentary on a variety of blogs, I am totally dishearted by the level of discourse coming from both sides. I ask myself, “How can we ever come together as a people to create a sustainable, civil, mutually supportive, society, if we can’t accept that, even though we disagree on many levels and issues, we still are one people and fellow countrymen?”

    With this thought in mind, which I believe that you and I agree on, how do you view Van Jones and the ideology that he represents and the message that he preaches? Frankly, I’m very concerned by the apparent attempt by even President Obama to engage in divisive rhetoric. Is civil strife inevitable? Is co-existance no longer possible? I’m not sure, and it concerns me deeply.


  3. whats_up says:

    To Randy,

    I have spent the last few days trying to frame my answer to your great question.

    I think it becomes difficult to have a conversation with the “other” side when they have decided that they dont need to talk with you. When they have decided that their viewpoint is the correct one and yours is not. They dehumanize you at every turn, label you as “mindless automatons who merely repeat what’s told to them,” as Mr. Feeny has so eloquently put it. They have decided that you have become evil and they lump you in with some of the most vile people that history has shown us. Mr. Feeny in his above article has compared liberals to Nazi’s, Soviets, Castro and the North Koreans. He no longer has to talk with them because clearly they are evil. I can show you articles written by those on the left that will call Conservatives the exact same thing. See then neither side needs to talk with the other any longer.

    This is perpetuated by the ideologues on both sides of the aisle. The other side is evil and they are responsible for the plight of our country. It cant be us, because we are all thats good in this country and “they” are clearly evil and if you cant see that it is because you are stupid. Then they apply that standard to thier Reps and Senators. If you have the audacity to actually work with the other side, you are a traitor, for after all these are the modern day Nazis you are dealing with.

    Until we can overcome this I am not sure that we can have a serious discussion on anything that matters to the health of this country. However if we are, it is because those dreaded “moderates” on both sides of the aisle will continue to talk and will continue to demand that the fringes of both their ideologies stay at the fringe.

    As to Van Jones and his philosophy, I dont agree with it. I understand whats behind it and can be sympathetic to that, but not to his methods or his solution.

  4. Randy Wills says:

    Thanks, “whats_up” for your thoughtful and well-resoned repsonse to my question put to you a few days ago.

    I’ve been keenly aware that during the Republican primaries the presumptive nominee has destroyed his opponents using the same tactic that you refer to. Romney hasn’t been able to run on his record in MA because it was not that differnent than the dreaded Democrats, so he carpet-bombed anyone who appeared to threaten his chances at the nomination, not with policy arguments backed up by his record in office, but with negative personal attacks intended to discredit and destroy his competitors. It is not for nothing that his mega-funded Super-Pac, “Restoring Our Future”, was likened to “a killing machine” by some wag of a political commentator.

    That’s why I supported Gingrich; I was able to rationalize his past personal moral failures on the basis that he was willing to confess that he was nothing if not self-centered, and professed to have sought God’s forgiveness and healing with his family, while, at the same time, demonstrating the intellectual capacity to acticulate coherent arguments in favor of Conservative policies with the record to back up his arguments. Gingrich’s take on the handling of the illegal immigrants, as an example, was the most sensible of any of the candidates and showed the courage to avoid resorting to demagoguery to gain favor with the red-meat Republicans. Too bad that his “baggage” made it impossible to get his message across and he became too easy a target for the aforementioned “killing machine”.

    At the same time, I can’t believe that Democrats of good will and high intellectual integrity are unable to see through the demagoguery and hypocrisy of President Obama. What we need in times such as this are leaders who have a comprehensive, unbiased, grasp of history and the intellectual integrity to conform their ideology to the facts therein, but I’m afraid that truth has become so subjective that that is too much to hope for. Ignorance and indeologic intransigence is going to kill us.


  5. Dee says:

    To whats_up and Randy, I agree that in order to have a serious discussion about anything that is important to our country it is imperative that each side listen to the other. I have attempted this with my friends, who are quite liberal, only to be laughed at or told how stupid my beliefs were and have them walk away. I have found it to be totally impossible to communicate with them to the point that I no longer try. I am careful with whom I discuss politics and it is usually with those who feel the way I do.
    I feel that Van Jones and those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want to keep perpetuating divisive tactics and seperating the people in the country into different groups by classes, race, etc. Instead of trying to bring us together they appear to be content in keeping us apart.
    Always good to read your comments.

  6. whats_up says:

    @ Dee,

    There are those on the right that have the same goal in mind, to divide. I would add Rush Limbaugh, Savage and Beck as those who have no desire to see this country united. They go out of their way to seperate us by either class or politics. They are the idealouges who profit from keeping us seperate.

  7. Randy Wills says:

    To “Dee @ 6:06PM”:

    Unfortunately, your experience is more the rule than the exception, and I too have to be careful with whom I get into either a political or religious discussion simply because of the reflexive tendency on the part of all-too-many people to think the worst of anyone who disagrees with them. This is true even within my extended family. To some, I’m a racist if I disagree with any of the Obama policies and a religious bigot if I do not embrace certain social practices that conflict with the plain words of Scripture.

    I try not to tell people what they should do or believe; I simply try to tell them why I do what I do and why I believe what I profess to believe. This is usually construed as judgmentalism, but belief systems and personal choices have historically-demonstrated consequences, both on the individual level and as a nation, and therefore I speak, regardless of the brickbats.

    But “whats_up” is correct when he says that such uncivil discourse owes much to those “ideologues who profit from keeping us separate”. The most alarming aspect to me, however, is that I see/hear this emanating from those at the pinnacle of power in our government. It appears to be the political tool of choice. I fear that, as a result, we are very close to becoming an ungovernable nation.

    And your comments are always on target.


  8. Dee says:

    whats_up, you are correct in what you say about those who profit from separating us and Randy, I agree that it is troubling to hear this coming from our government. I was always under the impression that the government represented “all the people”, even those who did not vote for them. I don’t listen to Beck because of the doomsday attitude he projects. I rarely listen to Savage and he can be viscious. I periodically listen to Rush and the other program I listen to is Quinn and Rose (a local morning talk show that does broadcast on XM). I listen to these to get the view from the conservative side. MSNBC and CNN and the mainstream media seem to focus on the liberal side so I like to hear both sides. I also read both a conservative and a liberal newspaper each day for the same reason.

    I guess what I was trying to say when I mentioned Van Jones, Jackson, Sharpton, and I should have included Holder, is that they appear to want to keep racism alive and kicking. I never thought I was a racist and I still don’t. I don’t think of people’s race or color when I interact with them and it upsets me that those I mentioned seem to want it to keep on going.
    I’m sorry about the slavery era. However, my family as far back as my great grandparents had nothing to do with it. My paternal great grandparents came from Ireland during the Potato Famine and my maternal grandparents came from Yugoslavia and did not speak English. None of them were wealthy enough to own slaves.
    To me it’s over and it can’t be changed. You can continue to perpetuate those bad feelings and thoughts or you can realize that nothing can be changed and therefore move forward.
    Sorry for the rant but it upsets me when I think about what good opportunities this country has provided for many and how some what to destroy it.
    Always good to hear from you both.

  9. nanas3 says:

    whats_up, you mentioned Rush, Beck and Savage as being divisive and not wanting to see the country unite…I could not disagree with you more as one who has listened to all three of them and have never sensed ‘divisiveness’ in their comments..exactly the opposite. Beck has stressed the importance of learning about our heritage and the errors we have made…he has stressed the importance of African-Americans in our history and the contributions and struggles they have had over time. Rush tries to educate his listeners on our heritage and why we should have pride in our country, understanding that we have made mistakes, but by analyzing and educating ourselves, we diminish the chances of making the same mistakes again. Savage is certainly very passionate and has NO patience with stupidity and laziness as far as recognizing one’s obligations as a citizen of this great country. Along with William Bennett and some other conservative hosts and great African-Americans like K.Carl Smith, I have gained even more respect for our country as a beacon of freedom for all people….realizing that there are those among us who want to destroy our heritage and transform this country into something I fear. We must be vigilant in guarding our heritage but the people you have mentioned are trying to convey the TRUTH about our country…the good and the bad. They have inspired me to be more understanding of others and work for the good of ALL Americans. So, I respectfully disagree with your assessment so you see we can ‘listen’ to each other but still agree to disagree on some issues. If we all truly want an America that offers and protects the freedom of all individuals, we must put aside the bickering and the snide remarks and demand that our government restore this nation to greatness.

  10. John Feeny says:

    Amen, Nana.

  11. whats_up says:

    @ nana,

    Yep, we will certainly have to disagree. Have a great weekend.

Speak Your Mind