Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.
All Three Morning Shows Skip Any Reference to Radical Obama Czar and 9/11 Truthers
All three morning shows on Friday skipped any reference to the developing controversy over Obama administration Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and his connection to the 9/11 Truther movement. CBS’s Early Show, NBC’s Today and ABC’s Good Morning America totally ignored the story, although ABC’s Jake Tapper did file an online report over the subject.
And although Fox News on Thursday covered the revelation that Jones signed a 911truth.org statement in 2004 urging an investigation into whether or not George W. Bush had prior knowledge about 9/11 ("people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war"), none of nightly news programs highlighted this potential problem for the Obama administration.
So, while Good Morning America found no time for this incendiary topic, co-anchor Robin Roberts did host a segment on testing name brand versus store brand pizza. Early Show’s Harry Smith explained to viewers how to keep your lawn in top condition this autumn. And Today’s co-hosts thrilled over the must-have fashions for the fall season.
Media Ignores Van Jones Controversy
Did you know Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, is a self admitted communist? Did you know audio surfaced of an interview with him where he spoke of incrementalist revolution? These extreme views are not even denied by the Czar. Did you have any idea he signed a document asking for the investigation of the U.S. government for orchestrating the events of 911? Did you know after bloggers exposed him as a conspiracy theorist he lamely claimed he didn't know what he was signing and did not hold the views of a government conspiracy? Did you know that after his denial more documents surfaced exposing his involvement in anti-war, and 911 conspiracy groups as early as 2002?
Busted. Van Jones Linked to 9-11 Truther Movement Back in **January 2002**
Jones said the petition he signed in 2004 did not reflect his views and that he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.
Not true.
This article at Rense.com from 2002 links Van Jones to the 9-11 Truther movement at its infancy:
And, here is a list of members involved with the organization including Van Jones:
It looks like the well-oiled Axelrodian machine in the White House forgot about Google when they released their statment.
Bummer.
Van Jones Endorsed Anti-Police Day Initiated By Maoist Group in 2006
Here is a closer look at the mural at the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights:
Take a closer look at the mural and you'll be bowled over. The painting has mages of African-American and Latinos in the center, with a white cop shooting a Latino woman with her baby on one side, and a white guy in a suit on the other side with a sign that says "war on youth" holding an African American kid in chains.
More Leftist hate... And, this was a human rights group?
Barack Obama's communist Green Czar, Van Jones, endorsed an anti-police day of action initiated by a Maoist communist cult group in 2006.
Via One Middle American and kristinn at Free Republic:
Van Jones, the controversial Green Jobs Czar in the Obama administration endorsed an anti-police day of action initiated by a Maoist communist cult group, the Revolutionary Communist Party, in 2006.
The statement for the action is entitled, "Call for Oct. 22, 2006: Eleventh Annual National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation", and states in part:
Why isn’t the escalation of police brutality and murder in recent years headline news? Perhaps because these images don’t comply well with the need to project images of police as “defenders against terrorism.” Since September 11, 2001, law enforcement agents (including border patrols) have been given greater license to increase and broaden repression. Steps were even taken to grant more worth to a police officer’s life, with the “heroes law” enacted in New York State, for which the governor originally called for a death sentence for anyone who shoots a cop. At the same time, the cop who killed African immigrant Ousmane Zongo in New York, after a rare conviction (criminally negligent homicide) was sentenced with probation and community service. Torture, brutality, detentions, domestic spying, profiling, and other attacks on human and civil liberties have been made part of the routine of daily life that we are asked to accept without question. At airports, subways, transportation centers, and more we are asked to “welcome” bag searches, check points, invasion of privacy, stripping away of civil liberties, all in the name of “national security.”
Jones' name on the list of endorsers is between to radical anti-Israel groups:
ISO (International Socialist Organization), San Francisco
Van Jones and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Justice4Palestinians
Other endorsers are communist groups like Code Pink, ANSWER, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an SEIU local as well as various anti-American leftists including terrorist supporter attorney Lynne Stewart.
More than 150 demonstrators marched from 14th Street and Broadway to the Oakland Federal Building to demand that the Justice Department re-open its corruption investigation of the Philadelphia Police Department.
Supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a death row inmate convicted for the 1981 shooting death of a Philadelphia police officer, said the protest was called after the Supreme Court on Monday rejected claims that Abu-Jamal, a former radio journalist and Black Panther, did not receive a fair trial.
“We knew there was another event going on, but the timing of the court decision is what dictated when the protest was held,” said Van Jones, a San Francisco civil rights lawyer who helped coordinate the protest march.
Jones said about 15 protesters occupied the rotunda at the Federal Building on Clay Street in an act of civil disobedience with the hope they would be arrested.
What will be Jones’ excuse this time? He didn’t check out the fine print on the “Free Mumia” picket signs before he held one?
Major Garrett reported on Twitter that Rep. Mike Pence said: “Van Jones should resign and if he is unwilling to do so, the president should demand his resignation.” One would think that the Obama administration would hasten to distance itself from both Truthers and supporters of cop-killers. I imagine James Crowley may be having an ironic laugh at this today.
Update: Of course, Michelle was all over this last night:
As a former White House aide myself, there are two incidents that tell me Glenn Beck is right in asking his questions about Van Jones. Two incidents that ask an even more serious question than anything asked about Jones himself.
The question: What did the Obama White House know about Van Jones and when did they know it?
Jones, the Obama White House "green jobs” adviser, is getting in deeper trouble by the minute with revelations of his radical statements about being a Communist, having been twice arrested, and, in the last few hours, with news surfacing that he had signed onto a petition accusing the Bush administration of being responsible for 9/11, making him, in the vernacular, a "Truther” -- one of those paranoid nuts who believes George W. Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks. All this is before the amusingly crazy piece of videotape of Jones labeling Obama's GOP opponents "A-holes.”
Jones, almost by the hour, is being belatedly vetted by the New Media because the Old Media took a pass -- and the White House itself had no intention of speaking up until called upon.
You must be asking: is it really this easy to work at the White House? Can you really have done a jail stretch, actually been twice arrested (once during the Rodney King riots and a second time during the 1999 free trade riots in Seattle) and work in the White House? Can you even get into the White House when you have a history with the police?
Let's take that last question first.
In the way back of the Reagan White House, the word went out as it always does in any White House that there was to be a quick gathering which would require the President to have an immediate, physical audience while he gave a speech in front of cameras. This happens all the time in the White House. Events occur, things happen, someone somewhere in the hierarchy feels the need to get the President in front of cameras ASAP. The staff hops, calls go out to local political friendlies, bodies fill chairs and the President speaks on camera to a room filled with people.
On this particular occasion I received just such a call. Taking out a lengthy list, I picked several names at random, many of whom I did not know, and began dialing for bodies. No one said "no.” Who says no to an invitation to hang out in the White House with the President?
My calls made, invitations accepted, an hour -- an hour -- before the event, I got a call from the Secret Service. Guest X (no name, sorry) was not acceptable to the Secret Service. I was astonished. Never in four years in the White House had I ever been told such a thing. This must be a mistake, no? No, came the Very Stern answer. Emphatically no. On a confidential basis the reason was explained to me. I winced. Gee, I had no idea. The police? Yikes.
Hanging up the phone, the clock ticking, I realized I had two options. Get the President to personally overrule this -- or track the guest down pre-cell phones and disinvite. Not much choice there, so Option Number Two it was. The call went immediately to the guest's home. The guest was retrieved from getting in a waiting car that about to head to the White House. I was mortified.
To the guest's everlasting credit, I was off the hook in the gentlest of fashions. The guest knew the record, but of course. In fact, the guest was amazed that any White House invitation would be forthcoming, because the police record was indisputably the record.
To say the least, this was a startling if unexpected reminder of something that I and every other person who had contact with the White House -- then and presumably even more so in this post-9/11 -- knew.
No one enters the physical White House as a guest unless the Secret Service has vetted them.
But it was also a sharp reminder of the ground rules for everyone who actually has the privilege -- and that word is key, here -- the privilege to work for a president of the United States.
As I had personally experienced -- as every single one of my colleagues had experienced -- if you work for the president, you assent to making your life an open book. In my case, and that of my Reagan colleagues of the day, very thick forms had to be filled out that recounted, specifically for security purposes, almost every single aspect of your personal life. As I recall, I had to supply the literal address of every home where I had resided since birth. Really. They wanted everything.
In my case, nerdy political soul that I was, I was ready for this questionnaire somewhere around kindergarten. I passed -- along with every one of my colleagues that I can recall -- with flying colors.
But the question here in the Van Jones case -- as it would have been for me and my Reagan colleagues is very simple. What if I, like the White House guest I had invited, had a police record? Had a seriously questionable set of quite public and quite wacky, well-articulated views captured on video tape? What if I had been a Democrat with a father or older brother in the Ku Klux Klan? What if I had been a John Bircher? What if I had been signing on to documents that accused President Eisenhower of being a Communist? What if I had tagged along with Jane Fonda and gone to North Vietnam to mug for the cameras?
The answer is simple. The only way that I could have gotten a clearance to work for a President Ronald Reagan would be if the President, the First Lady or the Chief of Staff to the President specifically overruled the Secret Service.
That's it. There was then, and surely is now, no other way.
Which is to say, Van Jones is in the White House this minute because someone -- or several someones -- knew his problems and quite deliberately overruled the Secret Service. That would be someone of very considerable power.
So.
Here are the questions Glenn Beck and others should be asking, based on my own personal experience:
• Who on the White House staff cleared Van Jones?
• What was that person's connection to Van Jones or Mr. Jones's political sponsor?
• Who, exactly, was Mr. Jones' sponsor for this job? How much money did he/she contribute to the Obama campaign?
• Did the Secret Service notify anyone on the White House staff -- or the President or First Lady or Vice President Biden -- that Mr. Jones had an arrest record on file with police in two cities?
• Did the Secret Service protest any of this, objecting to Mr. Jones' clearance?
• If the Secret Service did object, who overruled them? The President? The Chief of Staff? Someone else?
• If the answer to this last question is yes, and the Secret Service was overruled by the President or someone else, why did this happen?
• The White House is a busy place. But there are always answers to questions like these.
If they are asked.
Mr. Beck is asking. Other people are now starting to ask.
It's about time for some answers.
---------
Posts
