Well, now, that’s different! Thats true blue, home-grown, All American idiocy!
What about the freedom to be a communist?
From my European perspective there is little to differentiate those from the position of many in Government - and indeed many state laws - that were common in many parts of the US up until only 40 years ago, so clearly it can’t be that much against what the US was based on. Hell, the US has been a deeply racist country for longer than it has been non-racist, if you consider that to be the status quo.
That is assuming you are defining Naziism my the hate aspect and not the slaughtering millions, because clearly that would be against what the US was found on.
One has the freedom to gravitate toward any belief he or she would like. That doesn’t mean that it may not conflict with the founding principles of this country. One can believe that a monarchy is the best form of government, but that, too, would conflict with our founding principles. Freedom to do something doesn’t mean you’re free from the consequences of doing it. Freedom to believe something doesn’t mean you’re free from the reality of those beliefs.
They are code words for people who hire communists to carry out their agenda. When Obama was called a socialist there was a great gnashing of teeth about the label. Looks accurate to me.
Being a Communist isn’t a minor flaw, it’s a political philosophy that has ruined every nation where it was tried. Nobody wants to have their standard of living dictated to them until nothing is left. I don’t understand why a President of the United States would hire someone with no industrial background to act as an advisor on jobs. If Jones represents the type of people Obama has surrounded himself with then we are all being driven down the highway to hell in Trabants.
Van Jones was also one of the few people in the administration that had any grassroots experience, as opposed to just being a purely political creature/hack.
I stil don’t see how have communism as a political philosophy is against the very founding principles of the United States.
As for the rest of your statement it is just bizarre. The reality of those beliefs is fifty years of government propaganda indoctrinating the population into thinking that the damn reds are evil and coming to get you. It has nothing to do with the founding principles of the United States. The only consequence of those beliefs is the one drummed into the nation’s psyche by pure propaganda. The kind of propaganda that has now got itself so worked up that it confuses social democracy and ideas like universal healthcare with life under Stalin.
But that’s a whole other discussion.
Perhaps if the US wasn’t so rigidly a two party state it would see the benefits of people with differing views being involved? If everyone is sitting around agreeing with the man in charge you end up with George Lucas, his yes men and The Phantom bloody Menace.
And leave us not forget that the Founding Fuckups screwed the pooch real good and proper on a number of points. They were content with the prevailing opinions of the time, to the effect that men of property and substance were best equipped to make governmental decisions. Their best evidence for that being that they were, themselves, men of substance and property, once that crazy-ass Tom Paine was hustled off-stage…
And counting a slave as 3/5 of a person? And a Senate that gives unequal representation based on whether one lives in a highly populated state, or no? No votes for women?
The FF’s didn’t create America, we are creating America.
So, what are the other secret code words? Might as well tell us now. We have ways to make you talk. Waterboarding is for the weak, we got fifteen hour long tapes of Maya Angelou speeches. Nobody has made it beyond hour ten, without blubbering confessions and offering to rat out their Mom.
Then you don’t know much about political philosophy.
From the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
The notion that individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights is flatly not compatible with Communism, which holds that individual rights do not exist, and that the ultimate goal of society is to eliminate the differences between rich and poor, even through violence, if necessary. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a statement antithetical to individual rights. It says that everyone belongs to a communal group, that no one has a right to keep the fruits of his or her own labor, and that class distinctions and inequalities in wealth are to be eliminated by the state appropriating the property of the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy until all is in balance.
According to Marx and Engels, Communism has ten critical elements:
- Abolition of all property rights.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of all property of ‘rebels’.
- Centralization of all credit in the hands of the state.
- Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
- State ownership of the means of production.
- Establishment of industrial armies under control of a central government.
- A highly progressive income tax.
- Free education for all (but combining education with industrial production).
- Abolition of the difference between town and country by enforcing an ‘equitable’ distribution of population across the land.
At least seven of those are completely antithetical to what the United States stands for, and would be considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Marx specifically says that these ends must be met with violent revolution if necessary. There’s nothing optional or touchy-feely about this. If you have what the state wants, people with guns will come to your door and take if from you, and if you resist, kill you.
Communism is an evil philosophy. It has directly led to the deaths of tens of millions of people and is responsible for most of the human misery of the 20th century. Anyone who believes in it is no better than believers in any other totalitarian philosophy. Certainly it is at least as evil as Nazism (and responsible for killing more people).
Obama note to self: When your political enemies label you a radical and a socialist, don’t hire even former communists/radicals into your administration. You’re supposed to be the smart guy.
And yeah, yeah, it’s not his personal job to vet these guys, but that was some pretty big hole in the net that Jones swam through.
Right, don’t hire someone who might actually do a great job and really benefit the country as a whole because of what you’re lying opposition will make of any slip of the tongue they ever had. That’s the mature smart approach all right.
It was a “slip of the tongue” that made him a communist? That’s a new one. They don’t have to lie in this guy’s case. So, the mature approach is to understand the political reality, and don’t set yourself with a lob across their plate.
Look, there are plenty of people out there with great resumes who weren’t former communists. And if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Great, then Jones own words show he’s not one and everyone who can read should know that.
Based on his statement how serious of a communist do you think he was? Did he go to meetings or have a membership card? Do you think he believed all the things listed by Sam or was it more of a “power to the people” kind of thing.
Crying OH NO COMMUNIST!! in this case is a bit like “THE SKY IS FALLING” I get your point and it’s a valid one but can’t we realistically expect *everyone *to be attacked and everything they ever said or did to be scrutinized and cherry picked for criticism.
The criticisms against Jones might be fine against someone running for office but have little relevancy to the job he was asked to do.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because of political smearing we find people who are safe politically rather than best qualified. I realize that is a political reality but isn’t it one we should be discouraging rather than caving to? Do we lend credibility to the accusations of a socialist agenda by caving in?
Well, I just picked that one issue (being a communist) to make a point. The guy had a least 3 strikes against him, and the “Truther” charge seems to be the one with the most traction.
Also, it’s unclear to me that he was the best qualified person for the job. Seems to me there should be plenty of non-communist, not Truther, non asshole lobbing candidates out there who are plenty qualified to have this Czar job.
Plus anyone who doesn’t realize his own past is going to be an issue, or who ignores that knowledge if he does know, shouldn’t have the job.
There’s an interesting story on the Fox News website about how the MSM networks and newspapers have largely been silent about Jones’ contretemps (Cite), saying virtually nothing about them prior to the announcement that Jones had resigned.
One can only imagine MSM coverage if a Republican czar-in-waiting had been discovered to have been a KKK member or Nazi sympathizer and had referred to Democrats as assholes. The MSM would have led with it every day for weeks!
This is encouraging for two reasons: One, it highlights once again the favoritism with which the MSM treats the left; and two, it illustrates the waning power of the traditional, biased MSM and the population’s shift to cable TV and internet blogs and news services in order to get their news. The MSM no longer has the playing field all to itself and is rightfully beginning to suffer the consequences of its decades-long pro-left reportage.
He did it, he actually did it! He cited Fox News! I had heard such things said in sarcasm, like, “Oh, yeah, well, why don’t you just cite Fox News, or Anne Coulter…” but I don’t think I ever saw anybody actually do it! Far out!
If “Mad Dog” Beck has any further thoughts on this, do let us know, won’t you?
Ahem…I cited the Fox News website, which unless you click certain links, is talk-show-host free.
So is it really your position…your actual and honest and thoroughly believed position…that nothing, and I mean nothing, found on the Fox website or even its television programming, is true? I mean, even Keith Olbermannnnnnnnnn speaks the truth occasionally. The fact of the matter is that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc., on the right – and Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc., on the left – speak truthfully 90% of the time. I’m surprised you would show your inflexibility and close-mindedness so blatantly.
I haven’t watched enough of Beck to know what his thoughts are on anything. (Though I agree he’s a crackpot. He does as much damage to Fox’s credibility as Nancy Grace does to CNN’s.)
I also don’t watch O’Reilly or Hannity and I don’t listen to Limbaugh.
Nope, the truth is that my right thinking is pretty much self-generated. (I credit a proper upbringing and an almost singular ability to resist my generation’s embracement of drugs.) 
Not singular. There’s this one other guy I know who resisted. I’m sure there are at least half a dozen others out there.