VAN JONES BROWN-NOSE YOUTH RECRUITMENT: FORGET RESPECTING OLD PEOPLE — YOU ARE GODS, GENIUSES & WALKING SUPERPOWERS!

 

Video:  No Longer a Basis for Young People to Respect Old People, Van Jones Brown Noses Youth…

Highest Rated Comments

• This is what Progressives do. Use lies to force divisions in people in any way they can be divided. Then they come in and control your life for you.

  Look for the youtube video: 'history of political correctness' and you'll see exactly what Van Jones is doing.

  kaminleft 1 day ago 26

• Wow. This is exactly what dictators like Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, (dare i say it?) Adolf Hitler, and so many others like them throughout history have done with the assistance of their -henchman-. Pry into the minds of young idealistic people and plant the seeds of dissent. They're easily swayed and easily fooled. They have no life experience to speak of as yet. Get them to rise up and smash down the values, morals, and scruples of the 'old & feeble'. Van Jones is a crazy man.

Related:

Political Correctness – The Revenge of Marxism

Leftwingers Outraged By Being Associated With Leftwingers

Nazis (and by implication all “right- wingers,” past and present) were inherently wicked. Their agenda was evil from A to Z, their methods along with their goals.

Communists (and by implication left-wingers) at least mean well. Oh, they might get a tad overzealous at times (killing more people than the Nazis and the Bubonic Plague combined, as documented in the The Black Book of Communism, for instance) but at least their hearts were in the right place. Even Barry Goldwater might get it. “Extremism in the defense of socialism is no vice!”

In a one hour special titled “Revolutionary Holocaust; Live Free or Die” run on January 22nd Glenn Beck mounted a full-frontal attack against the above notion—and left it a smoking cinder. First off, by sourcing Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, Beck swept aside a premise that often handicaps conservatives from the get-go: the premise that Nazis belong on the right. Bombarded by relentless documentation to the contrary, this liberal bromide quickly blew up, and the program proceeded to report on the notoriously under-reported Communist holocaust.

As a participant in the program, I’ll go on the record and report that the care given by the producers to proper documentation for all Communist crimes and Communist quotes amounted to a fetish. This care, of course, accounts for the program’s devastating effectiveness—and thus the anguished reaction by liberals.

“The Liberal cannot strike wholeheartedly at the communist for fear of wounding himself in the process," wrote James Burnham in his classic Suicide of the West. This little gem did much to explain the theme in the opening lines of this article. But so vividly did Revolutionary Holocaust document Communist butcheries—from Stalin’s to Mao’s to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s-- that now some liberals are trying to weasel away from their years of alibis and rationalizations for the mass-murder.

The Glenn Beck special is now catching heat from “mainstream” liberal sources who claim no “mainstream” media or academic sources in fact herald the Communist icons as claimed on the special. To this end an article in Politico quotes Clemson professor and Harvard PHD, Steven Marks: "No one in their right mind is going to defend Stalin or Mao or Che Guevara,"

Oh?

Exhibit A: Time Magazine honors Che Guevara among "The 100 Most Important People of the Century." Not satisfied with such a paltry accolade they list him in the "Heroes and Icons" section, alongside Anne Frank, Andrei Sakharov, Rosa Parks and Mother Theresa.

Exhibit B: “Innocent people were not executed in significant numbers, (by Che and Castro.) Che presented a Christlike image, with his mortuary gaze it is as if Guevara looks upon his killers and forgives them." (Jorge Castaneda. Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies. Visiting professor at Princeton and Berkeley, columnist for The Los Angeles Times, and Newsweek.)

Exhibit C: the cover of this very month’s GQ magazine (not exactly a “fringe” publication) features Che Guevara iconography on a smiling Johnny Depp.

Exhibit D: During last year’s presidential campaign, Obama campaign offices prominently displayed Che Guevara posters.
(Note: Che Guevara’s butcheries and Stalinist schemes were all orders from above, namely from his Stalinist boss, Fidel Castro, who appointed Guevara as his regime’s chief hangman.)

Exhibit E: “Fidel Castro is very shy and sensitive, a man I regard as a friend." Democratic Senator and Presidential Candidate, George Mc Govern:

* “Viva Fidel! Viva Che!” bellowed while arm in arm with Fidel Castro himself. (Democratic Presidential candidate, Jesse Jackson.)

* “Fidel Castro first and foremost is and always has been a committed egalitarian. He wanted a system that provided the basic needs to all -- enough to eat, health care, adequate housing and education. Cuba has superb systems of health care and universal education” (Democratic President James Earl Carter)

* “Fidel Castro is Cuba’s Elvis!” (former ABC anchorman Dan Rather)

* “Fidel Castro is an absolutely fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

* “Fidel Castro is one helluva guy!” (Ted Turner)

* “Fidel Castro has done good things for Cuba.” (Colin Powell)

Time and space restraints do not allow a listing of accolades to Castro/Stalinism from Hollywood folks.

The Toast of Manhattan!" crowed Time magazine about Fidel Castro's reception by Manhattan's Beautiful People on his visit to address the U.N. General assembly in 1996, upon the U.N.'s 50th anniversary celebrations.

"The Hottest Ticket in Manhattan!" read a Newsweek story that week, referring to the social swirl that engulfed Castro. After Fidel's whooping, hollering, foot-stomping ovation in the General Assembly, he was fêted by New York's best and brightest, hobnobbing with dozens of Manhattan's glitterati, pundits and power brokers.

First, there was dinner at the Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR). After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas and Random House's Harold Evans, Castro flashed over to Mort Zuckerman's Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati, including a breathless Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw and Barbara Walters, all jostled for a brief tryst, cooing and gurgling to Castro's every comment.

All clamored for autographs and photo ops. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass killer's presence that she rushed up, broke into that toothy smile of hers, wrapped her arms around Castro and smooched him warmly on the cheek.

"You people are the cream of the crop!" beamed the mass-murderer to the smiling throng that surrounded him.

"Hear, hear!" chirped the delighted guests while tinkling their wine glasses in appreciation and glee.

But the mass-murderer had barely scratched the surface of his fan club. According to the U.S. Cuba Trade and Economic Council, on that visit Castro received 250 dinner invitations from Manhattan celebrities and power brokers.

By: Humberto Fontova - the author of four books including: Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who idolize Him and Fidel; Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant

Source: Townhall.com

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related:

Video: Barack Obama CFR info

***All colleges should require a course on the Constitution as part of their curriculum and Law Schools must go back to reaching Constitutional Law instead of Case Law***

Coups, interference, and the shifting standards of Obama; Update: Coup or ‘military impeachment’?

It’s difficult to make sense out of the foreign policy coming out of the White House under Barack Obama. On the one hand, Obama insisted that he could not interfere with the internal politics of the “sovereign government of Iran,” refusing for days to even condemn Iran for its flagrantly violent repression of dissent. When Honduras’ military staged a coup, though, Obama apparently had no such reticence in involving the US on behalf of deposed President Manuel Zelaya — a close ally of Hugo Chavez:

In an unusual concurrence of views, the Obama administration and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said they still recognized Mr. Zelaya as Honduras’ president. The State Department called the events an “attempted coup” and urged Mr. Zelaya’s “return and restoration of democratic order.”

U.S. officials said they were engaged in multinational efforts to resolve the crisis, through the Organization of American States and European allies. At the same time, Washington wants a resolution “free from external influence and interference,” a senior official told reporters during a conference call organized by the State Department.

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said the U.S. Embassy in Honduras was “consistently and almost constantly engaged in the last several weeks working with partners” and that U.S. officials were “in contact with all Honduran institutions, including the military.” However, the military stopped taking the embassy’s calls since the coup attempt, the official said.

The Wall Street Journal also reports Obama’s eagerness to “interfere”:

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington’s ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president’s office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. “The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message,” said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn’t recognize any other leader.

The U.S. stand was unpopular with Honduran deputies. One congressman, Toribio Aguilera, got prolonged applause from his colleagues when he urged the U.S. ambassador to reconsider. Mr. Aguilera said the U.S. didn’t understand the danger that Mr. Zelaya and his friendships with Mr. Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro posed.

Zelaya was violating his country’s constitution with his referendum that would have, Chavez-style, repealed term limits on the presidency. The Honduras Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal, and the military refused to distribute the ballots. Instead of backing down, Zelaya fired the head of the military, which precipitated the ouster.

Clearly, democracies cannot abide armed overthrow of elected governments, but that presumes that the government acts within the rule of law. Zelaya had no intention of doing so, and his flagrant violations and attempt to accrue personal power made that crystal clear. Zelaya had begun seizing dictatorial powers, and the military responded by arresting him. The military then handed power back to the legislature rather than keeping it for themselves, which makes this less of a coup and more of a military impeachment.

Why did Obama decide to intervene on behalf of a “president” obviously abusing his power and to prevent the military from removing him once he started acting like a dictator? He didn’t put nearly that much effort into assisting Iranians who have gone into the streets and died to protest the mullahcracy that oppresses them. Rick Moran thinks that’s a pretty good question as well:

Further, the military was acting under the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court although they apparently exceeded their authority by whisking him away to Venezuela. And finally, it was Zelaya’s actions in violating the constitution, ignoring a ruling by the Supreme Court that any referendum be put on would be illegal, and the universal belief in Congress, the military, and much of the populace that eventually, he would little more than a stand in for Chavez if he was allowed to carry out his illegal referendum that sealed Zelaya’s fate.

And yet our president, acting contrary to American interests, chose the route of least resistance and condemned what many Hondurans believe was a restoration of constitutional order. The president will find himself in familiar territory with this condemnation - Castro, Ortega, and other Latin American leftist thugs also condemned the coup. Maybe someone could look it up but when was the last time we were on the same side with Cuba on any international issue?

Way to go Barry. Like, we should listen to the Castros when they complain about democratic procedure not being followed? …

In fact, after swearing off “interferring” in Iran where demonstrators were getting shot, beaten, and axed to death, our clueless Chief Hypocrite worked frantically behind the scenes to save Honduran President Zelaya’s job, thus [interfering] on the wrong side while making himself out a liar on Iran.

We’re getting a close look at Obama’s priorities, and they’re hideously out of step with democracy and the rule of law.

Update: The controversy now is whether this is a coup or a lawful action on behalf of the Honduras legislature and courts. Fausta has gone on record saying it’s not a coup, as the military responded to a request from the legislature and courts to remove Zelaya. I tend to agree with Larisa Alexandrovna on this point, though:

As noted here (in Spanish), the Honduran Congress cited repeated violations of the Honduran Constitution by President Manuel Zelaya and voted for his removal. That said, as I noted earlier, he is both a bad guy and a good guy. This is a complex political environment in a very unstable part of the world.

The right sees this as a simple restoration of democracy. Yet the use of military personnel to detain, arrest, and transport a sitting president to another country against his will is not part of any democratic process that I am aware of. They do have courts in Honduras and a legal system. This is a coup, despite the passions of the right-wing. They also have law enforcement. Anytime the military becomes involved, it is not as simple as impeachment by Congressional edict through military force. Shorter=coup.

Had the military arrested and detained Zelaya in advance of an impeachment action and/or criminal prosecution, then I could go with the not-a-coup argument.

Dumping him outside of the country is not exactly a due-process removal — and I think that falls into the yes-it’s-a-coup territory. Perhaps necessary, perhaps very supportable, but it’s obviously an extralegal removal, which is the very definition of a coup.

BY ED MORRISSEY – HotAir.com - POSTED AT 11:28 AM ON JUNE 29, 2009

Trackback URL

• Was the Honduran Coup Warranted? : The American Pundit
• Bulletproof Diction
• Coups, Interference and the Shifting Standards of Obama « Count Us Out
• Hot Air » Blog Archive » Coups, interference, and the shifting … | Youth Political Blog
• » Dictators of the Western Hemisphere Unite! NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater
• Honduran Military Removes Despot From Power « Nice Deb
• Again, the President Has Chosen Poorly : The Sundries Shack
• Obama’s International World… Where You Want To Live?