Glenn Beck, the Color of Change and Van Jones

by lounsbury | August 27, 2009 at 05:33 pm

726 views | 46 Recommendations | 27 comments

The modus operandi for the Obama Administration for infiltrating Marxists into high level positions within the US government is in all fairness not Obama's doing. The modus operandi, or mode of operation, has been for individuals with very troubling histories, to "evolve" from one organization to another in an attempt to mask or cover their tracks. So far it has worked quite well in that the mainstream media has certainly not connected the dots. However, whether he did it himself or not is not the issue. The issue is the pattern that is pretty clear to see when you know what you're looking for...

A perfect example of this is Van Jones, the Obama Administration "Green Czar", who is among other things the co-founder of Color of Change: an organization directly involved in the movement to silence Glenn Beck by mounting an offensive to boycott Fox News advertisers who have ads running during the Glenn Beck show. You don't have to go far, no farther than NowPublic in fact, to see the applause of what some writers feel is a successful campaign to silence a voice, and that they apparently do not particularly care to hear or for you to hear it.

The truth of the matter however is that Glenn Beck has indeed struck a raw nerve with supporters of the Obama Administration because Beck is on a mission to single handedly and systematically do something that nobody else seems brave enough to do... ask questions regardless of whose toes gets stepped on. That makes Beck the last bastion of honest reporting in this country, and is why Color of Change is going after him. They have much to lose by the truth being known about their co-founder Van Jones.

Quote

Jones started his career as a staunch critic of capitalism; his outrage over the Rodney King verdict radicalized him to the point where he declared himself a communist and actively began protesting police brutality[18]. He later got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a collective which "dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia". Frustrated keeping coalitions together to make positive social change, Jones "discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary." "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," Jones says of his tranformation. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends"[18].

Wikipedia

This isn't my opinion folks, this is the truth about a man that Obama has appointed to a position of great power within his own Administration. If you want to be angry with someone, I would suggest that Glenn Beck is an object of misplaced angst, and that now that you know the facts, that you ask yourself the very question that Beck has asked his audience to ask... "why hasn't the mainstream media reported this?"

Beck's Questions for Day 2 (source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29631/)

- Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House?

- Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records?

- Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

- Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

- What roles do they have in crafting bills?

- What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now?

- What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser?

- What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

- Do the czars have power?

- Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States?

- What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

- Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

- How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society?

- What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY?

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Grace H

at 18:10 on August 27th, 2009

You do know that many aspects of American society are either socailist or Marxist? Examples include public education, wellfare, medicaid, medicare. etc.

lounsbury

at 18:20 on August 27th, 2009

This is true.

It is by no means un-Constitutional or un-American for the communities that we live in (or even states for that matter) to use their collective will and resources to build a better life. In fact, most early American communities were well known for their communal approaches to the problems that they faced in pockets across the 13 colonies and later states.

The problem is that the federal government has replaced the community, and the Constitution was quite clear about the limits and balance of power to specifically prevent the federal government from becoming too large and too powerful.

Socialism, the political system, is not about bettering communities, but a movement whose ultimate aim is global. The folks I am referring to in this article, like Van Jones, have a very clear history of being this particular type of socialist.

Excellent point though! Thank you for your comment Grace!

Edmund Jenks

at 19:21 on August 27th, 2009

Jones, formerly a self-described "rowdy black nationalist," boasted in a 2005 interview with the left-leaning East Bay Express that his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Jones was president and founder of Green For All, a nonprofit organization that advocates for building a so-called inclusive green economy.

Until recently, Jones was a longtime member of the board of Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, business, environmental and community leaders that claims on its website to be "working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs."

Obama's Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, does not know anything about jobs ... he is a lawyer and a self-professed Radical-Socialist. By definition, he does not even have a clue as to how goods and services are perceived, designed, created, and then delivered to a consuming public (the process on how real jobs, jobs that matter, are created and sustained) - GET REAL ... Van Jones is a Radical-Socialist Lawyer who has become mainstreamed by the Obama Administration!

Where in the heck are the checks and balances ... WHERE IS THE PEER REVIEW!

Rory Cripps

at 20:03 on August 27th, 2009

YES! No matter what your political views, you should always and forever have a right to express your political views under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think that all freedom-loving people should have a major problem with anyone that attempts to stifle and censor free-speech.

Be on the look-out, all you free-speech lovers, for all those types that are, presently, attempting to close down the free-speech air-waves. Keep a tab of who they are and never forget that they are willing, ready, and able to shut you up if what you say doesn't conform to their ideology. They are now showing free-speech advocates no mercy, because they think that they have juice. HA! In my opinion their juice is short-lived. Show mercy to them, in the coming years, for they know not what they do . . . they are dupes that don't know "what they do" and have no idea of how easily things can be turned around on them and how easily things, for them, can get quite nasty. Americans need to get along and realize that they're not as divided as the pols would like them to believe.

Roy C

at 19:55 on August 27th, 2009

Ban the czars, and throw out all congressmen too scared to speak up or too indifferent to care.

2010 will be one very interesting election. If there is a double-dip recession, and more banks fail and there is inflation and some food riots, for example....things will get very, very hot.

Rory Cripps

at 20:05 on August 27th, 2009

Roy: Good point!

The_Cynic

at 22:07 on August 27th, 2009

Don't know why, Roy - the dip won't happen until around the next presidential election. Even that won't help the GOP because the Obama administration will have taken leaps forward in bringing down the dent and deficit.

If the US really does mean business and does bring down the debt - I can see the GOP in the dust for another 2 terms after that.

rjjrdq (not verified)

at 10:32 on August 28th, 2009

The administration's own projections see the deficit rising, not falling. I like your optimism though.

lounsbury

at 11:35 on August 28th, 2009

Either this will make America better or... well I am a Green Beret with plenty survival skills and resources and I will be just fine no matter what :)

Rory Cripps

at 15:11 on August 28th, 2009

lounsbury: YES! But you'll undoubtedly be one of the first that they come after! LOL!

Grace H

at 11:35 on August 28th, 2009

Unfortunately, well possibly fortunately, that is not the way representative democracy works. I hardly doubt it wil get that bad. Afterall, the more recent trends have shown slight improvements. As for food riots everyone with a lawn should grow some of their own produce.

Rory Cripps

at 15:19 on August 28th, 2009

Grace H: believe it or not, there are millions of homeowners throughout the U.S. that are not allowed to grow produce on their lawns. It is a violation of the "deed restrictions" and a lien can be placed upon their home if they don't conform. to the restrictions. Members of Home Owner Association boards canvass neighborhoods throughout America on a daily basis and take pictures of violations. It's sick out there in America and getting sicker!

Grace H

at 16:10 on August 28th, 2009

Even in your back yard? Thats a trip. I understand deed restrictions. In my neighborhood you cannot post political signs in your lawn.

francislholland

at 23:08 on August 27th, 2009

I am a member of Color of Change and I support their advocacy. Glen Beck called Obama a "racist" and that's why Color of Change has urged advertisers to stop supporting Glen Beck's show. Dozens of advertisers have agreed because Glen Beck is an extremist and most Americans find Beck's views and advocacy to be repulsive.

I am not the least bit worried about Van Jones advocacy, before or now.

The president is surrounded by the people who put him in the White House, and the media has covered them. The FBI and Secret Service check the criminal and other histories of those who are nominated and confirmed, as well as of those who are close to the president.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have records of criminal behavior in office, only they haven't been indicted and charged for their crimes YET.

I am an anti-capitalist in Brazil, but I vote in the United States. If you want to start a new Church Commission to hunt out anti-capitalists, then you can start with me. I think many aspects of capitalism stink, particularly the unbridled greed and incessant demands for the government to subsidize their imperialism by, e.g., invading Iraq.

I hope EVERYONE in the Obama Administration supports democracy in American society.

I believe in free public schools run by local Governments, which means that I believe that generalized social problems (like the illiteracy that would exist without free public schools) are problems that call for us all to band together and offer a solution. The solution to what would otherwise be the problem of national illiteracy is the free public school system. So, I support social, communal solutions to community-wide problems and society-wide problems and that's what makes me a socialist.

I support other socialist solutions: local, state and national policing organization that have not and ought not ever be privatized, the national guard; the US Armed Forces is an example of a common solution to the need for a common defense; fire departments are community-wide solutions to a community-wide problem. City-wide water systems, which virtually ever city in the United States has, is also a communal solution to a generalized challenge: having water to drink and bathe with.

If you are so concerned about communal solutions to community-wide problems, you should stop driving your car on city streets; they're paved communally. You should stop driving the Federal Highway System. It's not perfect, but it's a communal solution to the nationwide need to travel from one state to the next, which right to travel is fundamental in the US Constitution.

I also suggest that you stop flying since the national flight grid and air-traffic controller system is a Government solution to a nationwide problem.

You should also treat your waste water before it leave your house, since you have an ideological objection to Government solutions such as city-wide waste-water treatment plants.

lounsbury

at 02:53 on August 28th, 2009

Well put Francis, but your support for Obama and his choices combined with your bio and endorsement of socialism is what is filling those Town Hall meetings, not racism. I gave you a recommend for your comment because I feel that it goes with this article almost perfectly!

Regarding these folks passing special background investigations... they couldn't pass the ones that contractors and military personnel have to take, as they have a different measuring stick. For political appointees it is a test that they all pass. They might investigate and report their findings to Obama, but they can't and wont fail. It is surely a broken system.

Grace H

at 11:38 on August 28th, 2009

Yet is it Capitalism or human nature. After all, utopias that could have been brought about under Marxism were butchered repeatedly by human ambition.

Rory Cripps

at 15:02 on August 28th, 2009

What do you think would happen if a black radio personality called a white president a "racist" and a white group calling itself Color Of Change convinced advertisers to withdraw their sponsorship simply because the radio personality expressed his or her opinion?

For the longest time, in America, there was no such thing as "free speech" for blacks. All that has changed. Indeed, nowadays, Blacks can say virtually anything they want to about white people or anything else for that matter. Free speech is only meaningful when it's applied across the board on an equal basis.

In spite of the huge advances that America has made in terms of free speech for all Americans, I can't help but get the impression that there are many, out there, that believe "free speech" only applies to them and those that they agree with.

Grace H

at 16:12 on August 28th, 2009

True. But in theory the newscaster probably could have used a bit more tact. Especially because he was a guest on that show.

Rory Cripps

at 19:24 on August 28th, 2009

Free speech has nothing to do with "tact". It has to do with down and dirty and what pisses people off. For example: Japanese Samurai were full of "tact". They were very respectful too . . .until some poor Japanese farmer said the wrong thing Then the Samurai raped his wife and daughters in front of his very eyes and killed him and his entire family with one fell swoop of their swords.

Again: I get the impression, more and more, that there are many in America that would just love to shut up anyone that doesn't buy their ideological line, hook, line, and sinker. The "shut-up crowd" has got a tough fight and their hands. All that it takes is a couple million dedicated and totally fed up advocates of free speech to put them in a world of hurt. And in my opinion. there's a lot more than a couple million dedicated and totally fed up out there . . . .

Grace H

at 20:45 on August 28th, 2009

There is a limit to free speech. If you don't believe me ask your legal counsel. Calling someone a rascist is not free speech. Its foolish and as in this case its also unmerited it'll cost ya.

Rory Cripps

at 05:58 on August 29th, 2009

Grace H: There is virtually no limit on Free Speech under the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Calling someone a racist is protected free speech. If that were not the case, most left-leaning organizations would have been out of business years ago due to the fact that they apply the word racist to anyone that disagrees with their ideology.

It's true that there are slander and libel statutes on the books. But slander and libel against a public figure is a tough thing to prove in a court of law.

There's a double-standard applied to the word "racist". For example: Republicans are called racists all the time. Yet Democrats such as Robert Byrd, who was indeed a bonafide Klan member, are not called racists because to do so, wouldn't fit the left's political agenda.

Glen Beck's case provides a good example of the double standard. If Beck were a black left-winger as opposed to a white right-winger, Walmart and the like wouldn't have pulled their ads from his show. In that case, there would have been a hue and cry coming from groups such as The Color Of Change and we'd be reading headlines for weeks such as, "Black Talk Show Host Denied First Amendment Rights".

There are many out there that simply want the first amendment applied them and only them. They know that guys like Beck have first amendment protection and until they change the constitution, the only way to shut guys like Beck up is by putting pressure on his sponsors. And that's really what it's all about: Shutting people up that don't agree with a particular ideology.

Grace H

at 08:37 on August 29th, 2009

First I would not describe myself as a liberal. Second I will not defend or account for the actions of most others. Hwoever, Glen Beck calling Obama a rascist was foolish. He cannot prove it. He's going to have to deal with public backlash as any and everyone who wants to say something controvrsial will. This is not about first ammendment rights. Do not construe it to be.

There is a limit. You cannot publically threaten a public figure. You cannot say stuff like fire or bomb when there are not ones. You cannot say certain things at government buildings, natinal monuments, or airports. If you do you will be detained. There are many other examples to limits on free speech. Even though Beck is well with in his right to call someone a rascist should he have done it as it was obviously not true?

lindypin (not verified)

at 11:20 on August 31st, 2009

You sound like a member of colorofchange. You scare me. Do you think that you should be the filter of information to the public? That only YOU know the "facts" that are "good" for the rest of us? I'd say that the extortionary tactics used on businesses to squelch free speech is un-American, but then you know that don't you?

Grace H

at 11:24 on August 31st, 2009

That is not what I said at all. Do not twist my words. Doing so just makes you and your ideals more foolish. Speaking blatant hate is not a key component of free speeh.

lounsbury

at 06:53 on August 29th, 2009

Why do people use the word "racist"?

Is it not an attempt to smear the character of the person? Furthermore, when folks then try to expand the definition of racist to include anyone who disagrees with a person of color, it's starts getting ridiculously out of hand, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not just saying to end my sentence, I'm serious... Do you agree or disagree with that summary?

Imagine a world where Christians started whipping out the letter of the law in regards to EO complaints, and started holding folks to the same standards that African Americans (or whatever is politically correct these days) strain to include in their (and those that support that type of thinking) idea of what a racist is.

What if Christians had a word like... well there isn't a word for this type of inflammatory speech is there? So let's call it... anti-Christianist for the sake of this point.

What if folks started boycotting shows that show tiny fringe elements of the Christian faith as hate filled zealots, and failed to put the numbers and relevancy into context?

Glenn Beck said he thought that Obama is a racist. So what? I think that Obama has issues myself, for example...

A couple of weeks ago he gave 9 awards out to folks. Remember that? Among them were Sidney Poitier, who played the leading role in "Guess who's coming to dinner", a show about a black man romantically involved with a white woman. Also included were two white men. One was in a wheel chair (Stephen Hawking), and the other on his death bed (now dead, Ted Kennedy). Was that a message? Or was that just a coincidence?

I can't speak for President Obama's heart, but I can and do notice his actions. Is he a racist? I don't think that he is. Does he have personally held issues in regards to race? I think that he does, and probably has good reasons for every belief; I'm not knocking that, I am however not blind and stupid so I do notice it.

The 1st Amendment guarantees us that we can, but can and should are two entirely different things.

Yes we can!

How about...

Yes we can, but should we?

lindypin (not verified)

at 11:17 on August 31st, 2009

No one was all hot and bothered by Bush being called a racist after Katrina, by Ferraro being called a racist, by Bill Clinton being called a racist, and so on. We now have hard-core radicals with huge racial organizations that are shaking down businesses and using fear tactics to "filter" our news messages for us. This is similar to the old Jesse Jackson shakedown of corporations for money. It's the modern version of extortion and "protection money". Thanks to Beck, we're waking up to the connections. Mainstream media is still too fearful of ruffling those feathers.

Grace H

at 11:25 on August 31st, 2009

You honestly believe Obama is a rascist? His White grandmother was a key inspiration in his upbringing. He has lived a moderately affluent life. Until he blatantly acts in a way yo prove contrary he is not a rascist.