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:
Right back’atchya, big guy.