What the Van Jones Saga Tells Us About the Left

If you get your news from the Internet and not the >NY Times, Washington Post or the networks, you were not the least bit surprised yesterday morning to wake and find that Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" has resigned amid a growing scandal. Left wing sites are chastising themselves for not responding more forcefully, which is amusing because they have stopped taking anything we on the right say seriously simply because they live in a bubble whereby they still think that America went from center-right to left wing and the clear evidence of that is in the win by Barack Obama, but I digress.

Anyway, we have a plethora of pundits and assorted lefties writing what have to be some of the lamest posts we've seen in awhile. Take this one from Carl Pope, the leader of the Sierra Club. Note that he uses all the buzzwords to make his point:

This was a lynch mob (racial reference) and, when it started forming a month ago, we didn't take it seriously enough. When I saw the first Glenn Beck (attack Beck) piece on Van Jones and the Apollo Alliance as the new vast left-wing conspiracy, I could not take it seriously. Silence enabled Fox (evil right-wing news) to keep pushing. The statements for which Jones apologized -- the reference to the right as "assholes" and saying that Bush was talking "like a crack-head" were such ordinary political discourse (minimizing the offenses)-- think Rahm Emmanuel, think Dick Cheney saying "fuck yourself" to Senator Leahy, think Tom Friedman dubbing Bush "the addict-in-chief" -- that I didn't understand why an apology was necessary; I assumed it would blow over.

Cheney telling Leahy to fuck himself is probably typical discourse. However, Friedman calling Bush the "addict-in-chief" was not. It's just that to Pope, it seemed as if it were no big deal since other elements of the formerly fringe left were calling Bush a Nazi, comparing him to Hitler at every turn and blaming him for 9/11 ala Michael Moore. These charges--seen by normal folks as not only insane but another sign of the elitism of the left--were so widespread and normal in liberal circles; a place where I'm guessing Mr. Pope gets his news that they became normal. Many people outside of New York and San Francisco were outraged by the "truthers" and have not forgotten it. The fact that Van Jones signed a petition calling for an investigation and essentially blaming Bush for the attacks by terrorists was all that was needed to open the floodgates of criticism and lead to his ultimate dismissal. Normal people don't buy into the "Bush knew" meme but a good deal the left does so it's difficult for Mr. Pope to understand that outside of his coccoon, the very idea is repulsive to many. That and the fact that Pope doen't even list it as a reason for his departure when it was indeed the main reason says it all.

So the clueless liberal elites continue to kick and scratch like a girl while telling themselves they know the One True Way. Meanwhile, the folks in fly-over country that these same elites believed was theirs for the taking have seen liberal policies and have decided they really don't like them at all.

I can understand how liberals can be really mad; I mean they have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, a huge majority in the House, they have the White House and unfortunately for them, have no leadership in any of the aforementioned so they remain a flailing, rudderless mess while losing any goodwill they gained and possibly losing a gaggle of seats in the mid-terms.

Update: Go read Ace.

Update: The scum of the Internet show themselves to be even scummier than previously thought.

Health Care Elitism From Obama

From the health care infomercial on ABC last night:

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.

Emphasis mine.

Of course he wouldn't make such a pledge because he knows what will happen to American health care should the government control it and he knows it will not be the best in the world anymore for him or his family. Instead he's willing to sentence the rest of us to a world where we have to beg and plead with bureaucrats for simple procedures we now receive upon request and would have to wait months for needed surgery that we could schedule next week under the current system.

We'll have a system whereby those with the means will get the best care from the best doctors while those without will be treated by third-world schooled doctors who will have guidelines and standards dictated to them by the government. In essence, we will have the same non-care they have in Britain. That will be the state of health care in Obamanation.

No thanks.

Still Not Fonda Hanoi Jane

Jane Fonda (yeah, she's still around) has started a blog inspired by, wait for it...Rosie O'Donnell. It's got the usual BS one would expect from a former b-grade actress who still thinks she's relevant instead of a washed up, delusional discard from Ted Turner's life and ranch.

The anonymous "Stage Right" at Big Hollywood does the duty of picking apart her posts and it's easy pickings to say the least. But she couldn't stay away from slamming the military once more:

Joining us was Marlisa Grogan, Captain in the US Marine Corp (29 UES). I had never met her before and was very impressed. She has such a deep understanding of why it is important for us to support active duty members of the military who are anti war or, at least, anti a war they feel is wrong and ill-conceived. She herself has been involved in an anti war show that has performed for active duty personnel. She said that it is the soldiers who have seen active duty who tend to be anti war more than the ones who have stayed stateside. “They just don’t know,” she said. She talked about the similarities that exist between today’s military and those of the Vietnam era but also pointed out the profound differences, citing in particular, the fact that so many recruits are confronted with the choice between jail or military. For many it’s a much needed job.

Now, anyone with any idea of how things work in the military knows that the final statement I emphasized hasn't been true in decades. The military doesn't want you if you can't cut it. It's a tired old canard used by liberals and leftards and is eaten up by hard core anti-military types like Fonda. I served in the military and if you were facing jail, the military didn't want your kind. In the late eighties into the nineties up til now, the military rejected those people and has grown into the greatest military force in world history; smart (yes John Kerry), tough, trained to perfection and ready to go wherever needed.

Fonda pissed all over POW's and allowed herself to be used for propaganda by the North Vietnamese. The photo (at right) of her looking through an anti-aircraft gun is as iconic as any from that war. She was a traitor against her nation as much as Tokyo Rose (the Ruth Hayakawa version), Robert Hanssen or Alger Hiss.

There's two things that are is as ingrained in military life today as they were forty years ago: Your recruiter screwed you and Jane Fonda is a still a fucking traitor. Both will never go away.

Tom Hanks Attacks Soft Target; Wimps Out on Hard Target

Tom hanks is a good actor but as with most in his line of work, once they get off script they tend to sound pretty damn stupid:

Tom Hanks, an Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

Note that Hanks didn't go after a group that also overwhelmingly supported Prop 8; African-Americans. The media all but ignored the gay community's reaction, which was essentially to become psycho racists and drop the N-word at any black they saw.

But Hanks, being a typical liberal, goes for the easy target and one in which he won't be accused by his fellow elites of going against liberal dogma. It's easy to see how this works: attack a religious group who was against a political cause you support = good, attack a minority group who was against the same cause = bad.

These people have absolutely no balls when it comes to intellectual integrity.

Maureen Dowd Is More Condescending Than Ever

Jeez. Read this and tell me that noted elitist MoDo is not the most solipsistic and downright creepy writer (save Andrew Sullivan) putting pen to paper today.

Particularly nice is the black mailman rebuffing her and her actually writing about it.

More here.

Via Tim Blair.

Obama's Ego Trip

Tonight at an expected Obama victory party, no one with star power greater than The One should attend:

Reportedly, Jay-Z, Mary J. Blige, Sean ''Diddy'' Combs, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Ben Affleck are among those advised to skip the Chicago festivities and focus on attending the expected Obama inauguration in January.

''There really only needs to be one star in Grant Park, and that's Barack,'' said the source, a high-profile elected official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, since he's not authorized to speak for the campaign on this issue.

We've heard he was arrogant but jeez, the people who helped get to where he is will be dissed even before he takes office. A new era in solipsism is taking beginning folks.

No one shall broach The Messiah on the night he proves that he is just as good as he always said he was. And oh yeah, all you people who cling to religion best stay out as well.

Michelle Obama, Elitism and $600 Earrings

Man, those Obama's are just like us, aren't they? Barack Obama feels my pain when I go to Whole Foods to buy arugula and when I go to the pump and pay those damn oil companies $.08 per gallon (while the government gets $.18).

Anyway, the economic stimulus checks that were distributed recently (money that is ours btw) were supposed to jump start the ailing economy by putting cash into peoples pockets. So when one of us normal folk think about what to do with the $600, we envision paying our car insurance, mortgage or college loans for our kids. What does Michelle Obama think we'll spend it on?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, complained the government’s $600 economic stimulus check was only enough to buy “a pair of earrings” while stumping for her husband.

“You're getting $600 - what can you do with that?” Mrs. Obama said in Pontiac, Michigan last week. “Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

She made these remarks at a “working women’s roundtable discussion.”

Elitist you say? Never.

Let's parse this a bit, shall we? First off, let's start with the "not to be ungrateful or anything..." comment. This is pure liberalism writ large. Ungrateful or grateful to whom, Mrs. O? The government is giving us our own money back, they are not the nice old uncle we see twice a year. Libs See the government and the revenue they forcefully collect from us an the rightful holders of our money and the ones who distribute it as they see fit. As for "paying every bill every month," it was not intended to do that, that's why we have those things called jobs.

But the most telling part of this dialogue is that when Michelle Obama thinks of what she would do with $600, she thinks of buying earrings. Now how many American have ever bought $600 earrings? Yeah, those Obama's are just like you and me, aren't they? I'm sure all those women attending the "working womens's roundtable discussion" were contemplating the earring purchase as well except, well, they are working women and working women can't afford to spend frivolously now can they?

With people struggling to keep up with skyrocketing gas and food prices and the majority of Americans screaming to drill for domestic oil, Michelle Obama thinks we'll spend $600 on earrings. Hillary Clinton was more in touch with the common citizen than Michelle Obama is.