Van Jones Is Creating the Milli Vanilli of Tea Parties

Truther, Self-described communist, and former Obama Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has a new mission, to start a progressive version of the Tea Party movement.  Just like the real tea party, the Van Jones creation is based on economics.  There are major differences though, being a progressive movement its basic premise is a lie, and instead of being a bottom up grass roots organization like the tea party, the Van Jones version is top down similar to the progressive philosophy that everything must be run by a central government.

The Van Jones "tea party" is called “The American Dream Movement.” Jones is says he is forming the movement because liberal activists expressed frustration that they lacked the political power or media focus given to the conservative tea-party movement. 

Does he really want the same media focus? That means his group will be known by some sort of sexual reference, slandered with untrue charges of racism or violence, and of course the official mainstream media attendance tally for any demonstration will equal one tenth of one percent of the real number.

A big theme of the Van Jones effort is Americans are being lied to, the federal government is not running out of money.

“We are being lied to,” Jones said. “We are not broke. We’re the richest country in the history of the world.”

The “Rebuild the Dream” website once echoed the same meme. “MoveOn Civic Action; The Other 98% teamed up to keep the message going: We Are Being Lied To,” read the movement’s mission statement on rebuildthedream.com. “The country isn’t broke and the last thing we should be doing is gutting workers’ rights and cutting vital services American families depend on.”

Just like the guy whose checking account is over drawn but denies it because he still has blank checks left.

“We think we can do what the tea party did,” Jones said in an interview with The Fix. “They stepped forward under a common banner, and everybody took them seriously. Polls suggest there are more people out there who have a different view of the economy, but who have not stepped forward yet under a common banner.”

“There's a lot of organizational muscle behind the initiative, and Van is one of the most inspiring figures in the progressive movement, so I'm looking forward to these efforts, and they certainly come at a time when Republican overreach has primed progressives to take action” said Markos Moulitas, the founder of the liberal blog network Daily Kos.

Jones launched his group last night with a one and a half hour long event live streamed from NY.  He called the the fact that the US has a major debt and deficit problem “a dangerous lie” and led the crowd in chants of “America is not broke!”

Somebody should tell that to the CBO, who reported this week that our long term debt is going to doom the economy.

Without providing any facts, Jones compared fiscal conservatives to al Qaeda,

“Paul Ryan’s budget would knock out more critical American infrastructure than our sworn enemies ever dreamed of knocking out.

Most of his speech was the same old progressive schpeil, the rich don't pay their fair share, unions built middle-class America, people do not make enough money, yada, yada, yada. He even used the SHMOTUS' line about paying taxes being patriotic.

Jones' project demonstrates how little the progressives learned from the tea party movement.  The tea party movement is all about empowering the individual, it would not have had the same passion and staying power if the organization and the message came down from a central organization.  To this day there is not one united tea party group and the national organizations that do exist are more bottom up than top down.

Part of the reason the tea party movement grew is that voters were sick and tired of being lied to by their representatives and other politicians. Starting with an obvious lie, that the US is not being strangled by its debt, will not win them many supporters.

Despite what Van Jones and the progressive movement believes, Americans are not stupid.  Sure The American Dream Movement may pick up some support at the beginning, but it wont take long to realize that the Van Jones-led group is to the tea party movement, what Milli Vanilli was to music. And in the end, Americans do not like fakers.

Radical Anti-First Amendment Group Consulted With FCC To Push Obama's Internet Takeover

Judicial Watch has obtained documents that show that Free Press, a progressive group funded by George Soros and other leftist benefactors was colluding with the FCC to push through its plan for the government control of the internet known also known as net neutrality.

In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 to pass its net neutrality program, despite the fact just seven months earlier a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority in seeking to regulate the Internet and enforce “net neutrality” rules.

For those of you who are not familiar with Free Press it is a group dedicated to the exact opposite of its name.  The group not only sees access to all media (including high speed internet) as a civil right, it also believes the the Government should have control of the message to "guarantee" that all sides are fairly represented. Of course its their definition of "all sides," "fairly represented" and its all whether the people want it or not.

This is no hyperbole.  For example one of the groups founders Robert McChesney is the former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes.

McChesney strongly believes in government control of the medium and the message.

In a 2000 article -- titled “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle”  in  Review, McChesney laid out his goal of using media as a tool for socialist change

“Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism

In 2009, McChesney said the following about capitalism and the media:

• "Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."
• "There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles."
• "We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it, and perhaps even eliminate it." 

The advocacy arm of the the group, the Free Press Action Fund lobbies in Washington against media corporations. According to Free Press’ website, “the U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read, ignore the needs of the local communities, and suppress racial, gender and political diversity.

Free Press seems like the "perfect group" to work with the Obama administration against the needs and freedoms of the American people. And that's just what they did.

Via a FOIA request, Judicial Watch uncovered internal correspondence showing unusual coordination by some officials at the FCC and Free Press in pushing the “net neutrality” agenda in the run up to the controversial FCC vote in December:

• On November 1, Jenn Ettinger, who acts as the "media coordinator" for Free Press's "Save the Internet" project, wrote an email to Margaret McCarthy in FCC Commissioner Copps's office: "I wanted to gauge your interest in doing an oped [net neutrality] by Commissioner Copps for the Albuquerque Journal," Ettinger wrote. She even offered to write the piece herself. "I'm happy to help draft, or place if need be."

• On November 2, 2010, Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson sent an email to John Giusti, Chief of Staff to Commissioner Copps asking if Copps would write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal in advance of a November 16 hearing on Internet access: “Would Commissioner Copps be interested in drafting an Op-ed in advance of the hearing? It’s a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event,” Truedson wrote. “We’re working on the op ed,”

• Giusti wrote back on November 9.  "we're working on the op-ed," he said, adding his fellow FCC staffers McCarthy and Cinelli to the email chain. The documents also include a series of emails sent to set up meetings between Copps and former Free Press President and one of founders, John Silver. “We are starting to get a good sense of how we’d like to proceed during the next three tricky months on NN [net neutrality]…” Silver wrote in the same October 8, 2010, email: “I think it may make sense for us to get together next week when I’m in town.” The documents also include a written summary of a phone call between Silver and Copps on November 28, 2010, just prior to the FCC vote in December: “Silver emphasized that a strong net neutrality rule is critical to preserving the Internet as a vibrant forum for speech, commerce, innovation and cultural expression…” the summary noted. 

• On November 12, a draft of the op-ed was sent by Copps' staff to Free Press. Copps's staffers were still eager for input from their allies at the activist group. "Attached is the commissioner's Op-Ed," wrote Copps's media advisor, Joshua Cinelli, to Ettinger. "Margaret asked if you would be so kind as to triple check the event details in the last paragraph. Give me a buzz if you need anything else."
  
  Later that day, Ettinger wrote back with her approval to Cinelli, CCing McCarthy. She named an additional cohost in the final paragraph, but reassured Cinelli that "otherwise all the details were correct." The piece had been given the Free Press seal of approval and submitted for publication. "The oped looks great and I've sent it to the Journal," Ettinger wrote.

• One set of documents includes correspondence between FCC Special Counsel David Tannenbaum and Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott establishing lists of speakers for FCC “internet workshops.” Among the speakers proposed by Scott: “Joe Respars (ran online activism for the Obama campaign – he’s at Blue State Digital);” “Alex Nogales – National Hispanic Media Coalition;” “Jay Stanley – ACLU;” and “Clothilde de Coz [redacted] Reporters without Borders.”

• When Tannenbaum asked Scott about inviting a speaker from Color for Change in a November 17, 2010 email, Scott writes: “Yes – we know them well. I should have put James Rucker on my list. He’s very good. Up and coming civil rights leader. They are awesome. (Color of Change is the group founded by former Obama Czar and truther Van Jones. It is the group that tried to lead an unsuccessful boycott of the Glenn Beck Show) However, you should be aware that Color of Change is rather highly politicized. They are lead on the campaign to strip Glenn Beck of advertisers. And Van Jones is one of the founders. Not that these things should dissuade you from inviting them – I just wanted you to know.” 

Americans from all political persuasions should find the Free Press/FCC Collaboration frightening. For all intents and purposes, Free Press is a group dedicated to usurping the First Amendment, and the Obama administration is using them as a resource for policy.

 “Net neutrality is just another Obama power grab. This is nothing less than the Obama administration’s attempt to stage a government takeover of the Internet under the guise of ‘net neutrality.’ So it should come as no surprise that Free Press, the hard left organization with socialist ties, is improperly driving the so-called net neutrality agenda from inside the Obama administration. The FCC is supposed to be an independent agency that follows the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be deeply troubled by the fact that the Obama administration, on issue after issue, seems to be run by shadowy leftist organizations. Our government is supposed to be ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, not ‘of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left.’”

 There is much more to this story and I recommend you go to Judicial Watch read all the documents and arm yourself with the truth, before its too late.

Miracle Book Solves Global Warming and Middle East Violence at the Same Time

Once again, its time to add to the official Lid "Stupid Things Blamed on Global Warming" list. During the past two and a half years, global warming moonbats have blamed each of  the following on global warming, climate change or whatever they decided to call it these days:

Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish, longer days, shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, Heroin addiction, Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide, water -borne disease outbreaks, heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests, 40,000 dead crabs , unrest in the Middle East. screwed-up love making, the Japanese earthquake-tsunami, horrible rash of tornadoes in southeast United States.

The latest entry comes from  Dan Ferber and Dr. Paul Epstein, the authors of a new book, Changing Planet, Changing Health: How the Climate Crisis Threatens Our Health and What We Can Do about It.  Ferber is a reporter, and the good Doctor is Associate Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School (wow, MD and Harvard Medical School, his mother must be so proud).

Some would say that the two authors simply chose something new to alarm the public about.  However, what they really have done is the proverbial "kill two birds with one stone," found a solution to both global warming and Middle East violence at the same time.

The book warns that climate change has led to the spread of infectious diseases and respiratory ailments across the globe and contributed to thousands of deaths through heat waves and other extreme weather events. It's even fueled recent revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.

I assume that Ferber and Epstein are urging President Obama to lay off Qadaffi of Libya and Assad of Syria. After all, its not their fault. People aren't revolting because of their tyrannical rule. No, they are revolting because a combination of automobiles, the burning of coal, human exhalation, and cow farts have messed up the atmosphere.

Holy Cow! These guys have solved all of our Middle East problems. I bet Obama's upcoming Middle East speech will discuss this exact issue (although due to his high position I assume he will say flatulence instead of farts).

An unstable climate, Epstein explained, is directly linked to social and political unrest. "I think we're looking at increasing damages and social disruption from the climate instability and extremes," he said. "The earth itself can go to a new equilibrium, but we need to back off. We're pushing it hard."

Allow me to suggest in order to solve the global warming issue, the United States should direct its spy satellites to search for those people who are pushing the Earth hard. Maybe Van Jones will help, after all he is leading the UN effort to have the Earth given the same rights as a Human. I am sure he would agree that no person or planet should be subjected to hard pushing or any other kind of bullying. Its no wonder the Earth is getting warmer, its holding in the anger.

Epstein said that humans need to dramatically decrease fossil fuel and wood burning "in order to give the climate a chance to re-stabilize at a level that would be viable" for environmental and human health.

"People across this country are realizing that we have a real problem on our hands," Ferber said. "I am actually optimistic that more and more people are starting to deal with that reality and say, 'what solutions can we come up with to deal with this problem?'"

Dan Ferber and Dr. Paul Epstein, have done the world a great service, not only have they taught us how to solve global warming, but at the same time, how to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Arianna Huffington Puts Her 2012, "Elect More Progressives" Strategy Into Action

Four months ago, AOL gave to Arianna Huffington $315 million and the keys to its news operations as part of their purchase of her progressive internet behemoth. At the time I contended that the most significant news property to be controlled by the Huffington Post's progressive machine was the least known, Patch.com, a network of 500+ hyper-local websites covering 800 communities which combines national/regional information with local community news editors filing stories and updating community-specific within the communities they serve. The Patch network is concentrated mostly in the larger states.

Ms. Huffington agreed with my assessment, the day after the sale's announcement she told Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, that PATCH.com is indeed a major part of her 2012 Election plans. 

 "We are going to dramatically accelerate this in 2012," said Huffington, who discussed the idea on a conference call yesterday with Patch.com employees. "We will have thousands and thousands of people covering the election. Covering the Republicans. Covering the Democrats. Just being transparent about it."

 Aye, there's the rub! Is it possible for Ms Huffington to cover both parties and fairly? Her track record says no.  The danger may not be in the way stories are reported but which stories are reported.  The Huffington Post knows who their major constituency is, and bows down to them all the time as in the case of booting Andrew Breitbart off their front page of featured columnists because of pressure from self-avowed communist Van Jones and his Color of Change organization.

At the time the Huffington Post disingenuously claimed that it was all Breitbart's fault because he said "nasty things" about Van Jones and his efforts to pressure Huffington, in an interview with the  Daily Caller.

Andrew Breitbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.

That's interesting because while dumping the Breitbart column, Hufpocontinued to feature masters of the "ad hominem attack" on their front page such as Bill Maher who in a stand-up routine called Sarah Palin "a cunt" and constantly calls tea party protesters by the sexually charged term "tea baggers" Other Huffington front-pagers include MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan who recently called TV's Glenn Beck a snake oil salesmen and scumbag, and Michael Moore who attacked all Americans by saying we are "a society of ignorant and illiterate people."

The major difference between those "ad hominem attacks" and Breitbart's is not only a conservative but one who generates much attention; those other attacks came from progressives.  Arianna did not want that conservative voice to get even more attention.

Immediately after it was announced that Huffington would be taking over AOL's news operations, Politics Daily columnist Matt Lewis resigned because of the biased politics of his "new boss" Arianna Huffington.

....I have no personal issue with Ms. Huffington, and that I am not a "Huff-hater."

However, writing a guest post is different from working for someone, and it occurs to me that AOL has vastly underestimated the public perception (I would argue the accurate impression) that Huffington is a far-left liberal.

Obviously, I am more than happy to write for a mainstream news outlet where differing opinions are allowed to flourish, but I am less comfortable with the notion of being permanently affiliated with an overtly left-of-center (sometimes activist) outlet.

As a conservative (albeit, an admittedly iconoclastic one), it is vital that I maintain the freedom to call them like I see them.

Now imagine that overtly left-of-center (sometimes activist) outlet running the news in 800 small communities. As even national politics is grass-roots oriented, Ms Huffington is trying to have a significant influence on 2012 and elections to come.

Yesterday Huffington announced her strategy to the "Patch" world.

 The timing couldn't be better. Patch will provide an unprecedented infrastructure for citizen engagement in time for the 2012 presidential election, with a focus on community and local solutions. And it will exemplify our belief that a left/right approach to news and politics is outdated. Patch pages harbor no ideological or political slant. Which is not to say that we expect them to have no political content. Bloggers will be free to post their views on a range of subjects - from politics to entertainment to local issues. These features will allow Patch readers to instantly put a finger on the pulse of their community.

Ms Huffington may claim that her sites believe "a left/right approach to news and politics is outdated," but that claim is not substantiated by the facts.  Conservatives should be aware that the end Patch.com may be a bigger progressive weapon than the Huffington post itself.

My last "pre-blogging" job in the hyper-local media business, as marketing director of PGA the company that produces newspaper-distributed  magazines such as American Profile and Relish. Our distribution was mostly in local community papers housed in rural markets. I can assure you that those small papers, may have tiny circulations, but are better read and believed than their "big city" markets.

These are the towns where everybody knows everybody.  Or as we would tell potential advertisers, if you are not related to the Mayor, or good friends with the Mayor then you probably are the Mayor. That's the secret behind their superior readership and why Patch.com will have heightened readership and believability also.

The Patch sites contain editorial written by "next-door neighbors," cover the High School Football games, local weather, store-openings and other announcements. Local news affects people's lives today. On a national basis people Patch.com readers may be interested in the national debt, but their lives are more directly and immediately changed by the announcement on their local Patch site that "garbage pick-up day" is moving from Tuesday to Wednesday.

Allow me to suggest that Huffington will do the same thing with Patch as she does with the big site, i.e. publishing only certain stories and writers. During national and state campaigns, Huffpo's biased editorial can be written and distributed according to the specific issues concerning that specific area. A small town in Long Island can get a story pushing the EPA's regulation of fossil fuels, but in small town Pennsylvania a community that relies in the coal industry may publish stories about Obama's work with the unions, and Boca Raton's site could have a story about how Republicans hate old people and Medicare. It's all about custom news picked for the right neighborhood and demographic.

Ms. Huffington's politics and penchant for bias, combined with the untapped power of hyper-local media may very well make Patch.com a most valuable progressive asset, for 2012 and for many succeeding elections.