Glenn Beck Hangs Van Jones’s Head On His Wall

September 6, 2009

My guess is that Glenn Beck is spending this Sunday morning standing on the roof of his house with a giant foam #1 finger on his hand, waving his arms in the air as if he just didn’t care, and moonwalking while a boom box plays “We Are The Champions” at an ear-splitting volume.

It can only mean, of course, that “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones has resigned.

Jones did not go gently. His resignation letter was a classic case of political martyrdom. He blames his resignation on lies and smears, by which I assume he means the truth and videos of his own speeches on You Tube, and then sacrifices himself despite the hand-wringing entreaties from people “across the political spectrum,” by which I assume he means those hardliners to the Left of Trotsky. “I came here to fight for others, not for myself,” he writes as he ascends the cross. I can’t help but wonder if everyone in the Administration shares the same Messiah complex as the President.

This is a good thing for America. It does not help our country or the office of the Presidency to have such a wackjob conspiracy nut, radical Communist who accuses white corporations of poisoning minority workers as an advisor to the President of the United States. Van Jones needs to be sitting in Lafayette Park wearing a tin foil hat and muttering about the radio transmitters in his shoes. He is a repellent figure and never should have been hired in the first place.

But as much as Glenn Beck may enjoy sitting by the fire, sipping a fine mineral water, and admiring Jones’s head stuffed and mounted over the mantle, the resignation does not alleviate the problem.

The problem is a President who would hire Van Jones. There is not a single second where I believe that Obama was not familiar with Jones’s past. The 9/11 Truther thing may have been a surprise, but Jones was quite open about his Communism, his radicalism, and his hateful disdain for those who disagreed with him. Nor is Jones the only wackjob radical in the President’s inner circle. There’s still John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, and Mark Lloyd, and my guess is that these three are just the tip of the iceberg. They also need to go. Glenn, are you listening? There’s still some good hunting to be done.


UPDATE: I see Michelle Malkin has lots more and also takes the martyrdom angle. Hot Air comments on it as well, and also on the media response. Gateway Pundit, who did a lot to bring this story to light, has stuff, too.


President Biden?

September 4, 2009

I remember after President Reagan was shot, Secretary of State Alexander Haig said something along the lines of “I’m in charge here.” Technically, he was referring to the White House itself, not the office of the Presidency. VP Bush was not there, and Reagan was at the hospital. Despite all the Left’s loony accusations, Haig wasn’t really trying to circumvent the Constitutional line of succession.

But now that Obama is on vacation, it appears that Joe Biden has decided to fill that power void at the top. I wait for the Left to accuse Biden of trying to subvert the Constitution. For the record, I am not suggesting that Biden is trying to seize the Presidency. I just think he’s a blowhard.


Suffer The Little Children, Part 2; UPDATED

September 4, 2009

When I wrote my original post about President Obama’s planned speech to public school children across the country, I did so with my tongue planted pretty firmly in my cheek. I thought that the idea of the speech was fine, but the “activities” that were suggested by the Department of Education were “creepy.” I was pleased to see both Stephen Hayes and Charles Krauthammer use the same word in their discussion on Fox News the following night.

What I did not know when I wrote the piece was the firestorm this speech would set off. Parents are taking their kids out of school for the day, and Obama’s feet are being held to the fire with charges of indoctrination. Words like “Hitler Youth” are being tossed around way, way too casually.

Since my first piece was kind of jokey, even including a video of that really nauseating piece of child abuse called “Kids Of Obama,” let me take a somewhat more serious approach here.

I don’t have any problems whatsoever with Obama giving a speech to the nation’s children, provided the speech focuses on motivation and the importance of education. Study hard, work hard, you can do it. From what I’ve read, that’s exactly what the speech will be, and it’s a great message to send to kids. I don’t find this concept creepy at all, nor do I think it’s any type of indoctrination or attempt to get to the parents by targeting the kids. Hell, if the President wanted to give this speech every September I’d support it.

So what’s all the hubbub, bub? There are a couple of problems here:

  • Obama has made it clear that he will use children to achieve his aims. The government is using school kids in bilingual education classes as census takers…the better to count illegal aliens. Outside of the Administration, kids have been used by Leftist teachers for years. Kids have been told by teachers and administrators to write letters deploring school budget cuts, been taken on field trips to illegal alien work centers, gay marriages, and anti-war rallies. Anyone remember the “deficit cutting” school bake sales from the early Clinton years? The Left may think we’re not paying attention to their outrageous use of children as political weapons, but the vast majority of the country finds this sort of stuff repellent and, to go back to my original word choice, “creepy.”
  • The Department of Education issued a set of guidelines to help teachers when it came to Obama’s speech. The guidelines were full of suggestions that would have made your children into these same types of political pawns. Students would be enjoined to read books about Barack Obama. “Write letters to yourself asking how you can help the President.” “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?” “Does the speech make you want to do anything?” “Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?” One suggestion is that students “Create posters of their goals…with the labels personal, academic, community, country.” While I doubt the substance of the President’s speech will be all that controversial, the fact that this sort of ham-handed Left wing activism is being promoted by the Department of Education with regards to the speech is enough to set off warning bells in parents everywhere. Creepy, creepy, creepy.

The Administration seems to be scrambling right now. They were really taken by surprise when the blowback started. The “teacher guidelines” have been revised to be less activist, and the Administration’s mouthpieces are rushing out to reassure people that the content of the speech will not be political.

The Left wing nutroots are mocking concerned parents, but the Left has no one to blame for this tempest but themselves. They have been politicizing children for years, and using the educational system in this country to jam notions of political correctness down our throats. So when an extremely Leftist President wants to speak to “all public school kids” and is backed up by an official government document that advises teachers on how to get these kids into the cult of personality the President thrives on, it is absolutely understandable that outrage and charges of indoctrination will naturally follow.

What the President should do is discuss the nature of the speech, retract the guidelines completely (why are government bureaucrats giving teaching advice in the first place?), and provide a copy of the speech to each school to be disseminated to the parents before the day of the speech. Schools should give parents an opt-out option.

There has been an enormous amount of hyperbole about this on the Right. Some of it is understandable, some of it is unjustified. It could have been avoided completely if the Administration would leave the Leftist echo chamber it’s currently inside.

Hot Air has more here and here. Michelle Malkin has a syndicated column about why parents don’t trust the President with this, and the post-backlash whitewashing of the guidelines.


UPDATE: The speech has been released and is about to be given and it is, as I suspected, pretty innocuous. Hot Air has the speech along with a criticism of the fact that the speech is more about Obama than anything else, and a fair criticism of a more politcial speech Ronald Reagan gave to kids in 1986. Michelle Malkin reiterates that the speech was never the problem.


A Communist 9/11 Truther Advising Obama…What’s Next?

September 3, 2009

Okay, joke’s over. Somebody tell me this has all been an elaborate hoax.

Now Obama has a 9/11 truther in his circle of Czars? Turns out that Van Jones, self-admitted Communist radical, “Green Jobs” Czar, and bane of Glenn Beck’s existence, is a truther. You know the truthers, those nut jobs who think that George Bush organized and orchestrated 9/11. Well at least one of them has put his tin foil hat in the closet to go work for the Obama Administration, according to Gateway Pundit.

I’m not sure how much longer I can take this.

Hot Air has more and declares Obama “parody-proof.”


UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has lots more on Van Jones.


Stark, Naked

September 3, 2009

Michelle Malkin is highlighting an older video (but one I’d never seen before) of an interview with California Rep. Pete Stark that truly exposes the Congressman. This is a really telling interview in many ways. Over the course of four minutes and thirty seconds, Stark manages to deftly summarize the Democratic position on economics while at the same time belittling and then violently threatening his interviewer, knocking the University of Puerto Rico, and wallowing in a stinking pile of elitism so rancid it deserves to be a punishment in a special circle of Dante’s Inferno.

Michelle kindly reminds us:

Longtime readers of this blog are well aware of California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark (Raving Mad)’s unhingedness.

He has called a Republican opponent a “c**ksucker”, left a profanity-laced message on a constituent’s voicemail, and suggested on the floor of the House that Republicans are sending men and women to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

He’s an unrepentant basket case — and everything that’s wrong with Washington.

It should be noted here that this intellectual titan of economics is on the House Ways and Means Committee (the one that’s run by the tax cheat Charlie Rangel). This is the man who helps write the tax codes in our great nation. It should also be noted that Stark’s criteria for questioning his economic acumen (a Master’s or Doctorate in Economics) is one on which the Congressman himself falls short. Stark has a degree in Engineering and an MBA.

Pay attention, people. This is what the elites think about you, the unwashed masses.


UPDATE: Hot Air‘s on this also.