Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

Leftists just Refuse to Learn: Founder of Group that helped overthrow Mubarak face to face with reality

Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian who co-founded the April 6th Movement, a leftist group formed circa 2008 to fight for social justice and other left-wing causes in Egypt and elsewhere. Ultimately, Maher's movement was instrumental in the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in early 2011.

Now, two years later, an Irish news source is reporting that Maher has come to a realization. According to RTE News, Mather tweeted the following after brutal crackdowns on protesters by the Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Here is Maher's tweet:

"Mursi has been stripped bare and has lost his legitimacy. Done," tweeted Ahmed Maher, founder of the April 6 youth movement that helped launch the anti-Mubarak protests.

In the fall of 2011, several months after Mubarak's fall, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement went on an offensive. Van Jones, fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and former Obama administration Green Jobs czar, promoted OWS publicly on MSNBC. On 9/29/11, he called for "an American fall" (a not-so-subtle reference to 'Arab Spring'). About six weeks later - on CNN - Jones called for ratcheting up the protests.

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

Jones' CAP caught up with Maher, who had traveled to the U.S. and was at Occupy Washington, D.C. a few weeks after Jones called for that 'American fall' on MSNBC. Here is the video of that interview:



If you had difficulty understanding Maher, TP has the transcript.

This should be an extremely teachable moment not just for Maher but for all of the leftists in the U.S. Perhaps no one has enunciated this dynamic as well as Andrew McCarthy, who wrote in his book - The Grand Jihad:

Revolutionaries of Islam and the Left make fast friends when there is a common enemy to besiege. Leftists, however are essentially nihilists whose hazy vision prioritizes power over what is to be done with power. They are biddable. Islamists, who have very settled convictions about what is to be done with power, are much less so. Even their compromises keep their long-term goals in their sights. Thus do Leftists consistently overrate their ability to control Islamists. Factoring the common denominator, power, out of the equation, something always beats nothing.

While the left in America - to include the Obama administration - spends practically every waking moment plotting to defeat Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood egg them on while Obama's ventriloquist dummies run interference for Brotherhood groups in America through the media.

Unfortunately, it's not just the left in America that is furthering the cause of Islamists. It's also the John McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would stop shipment of Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. More Republicans voted to continue sending those tanks than those who sided with Paul.

What happened to Maher is another in a long line of examples that western leaders continue to refuse to learn from.

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

Van Jones urging the Left to push Obama Left after Reelection

A big downside to the prospect of Barack Obama winning reelection is people like Van Jones urging the left to push Obama even further left. Obama all but assured this would happen during his open mic moment with Dimitri Medvedev in South Korea. The upside - I know it's hard to find one - is that Republicans could have much stronger majorities in the House and possibly 55 Senators. Under such a scenario, Obama would be moving left after Congress moves drastically to the right. The possibility of a much warranted fight between the legislative and executive branches would also become much more likely; it's a fight conservatives have been clamoring for their Representatives to engage in.

Now we know what to expect if Obama gets reelected.

Via POLITICO:

Van Jones is back with a message for disappointed progressives, Occupy Wall Street and other “post-‘Hope’” Democrats still looking to President Barack Obama for the change they voted for in 2008: Get over it.

“I think you need two sources of power to make change, and not just one. I think you need a head of state that’s willing to be moved, and a movement to do the moving,” said Jones, the former West Wing insider-turned-disillusioned outsider and a lightning rod for conservative critics.

Ok, so if Romney gets the nomination and loses?

Liberals must work hard to give Obama a second term, then force him to the left, Jones explained.

“We have to re-elect the president, and we have to re-energize our own movement. That’s how we get change. We’re not going to have a ‘vote and hope’ strategy. We’re going to have a ‘march-and create change’ strategy,” Jones said.

As I've explained here, a consequence of Obama having a second term that's even more radical than the first would be the possibility of a much more conservative congress that might just force Republican leaders to confront Obama on the plethora of issues - like Fast and Furious and Solyndra - it has seemed nearly completely disinterested in to this point.

Let's face it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, Obama's chances of winning are actually quite good, unfortunately.

More here.

Occupy Oakland Flares up again; 300 Arrested

If there is one city in America that has been home to the Occupy movement's most petulant miscreants, it's Oakland. Again, former Obama green jobs czar and Occupy organizer Van Jones is from Oakland. He has a rather cozy relationship with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), whose district includes Oakland; Lee has a rather cozy relationship with Valerie Jarrett, Obama's closest adviser. Until Americans begin to connect these dots, little to no accountability will take place. The liberal media certainly isn't doing the job.

Nonetheless, Occupy Oakland has just flared up again and has given the movement something to cheer about. With 300 arrests in Oakland all on the same day, the Occupy movement is now officially well over 6000 arrests nationwide.

Guess what?

They're so proud of it that they're tracking it.

ABC News reports that three officers were injured:

Police spokesman Jeff Thomason says most of the arrests came around 8 p.m. That's when police took about 100 protesters into custody as they marched through the city's downtown, with some entering a YMCA building.

About 20 demonstrators were arrested earlier in the afternoon, after police say they threw rocks, bottles and other objects at officers and tore down fencing.

Police say three officers were injured. Officers used tear gas and "flash" grenades on the protesters after they refused to leave.

Authorities were still tabulating the exact number of arrests late Saturday.

Again, these whackos like to portray themselves as victims. Do victims seek to add to their arrest totals while injuring police?

Here's a video of Oakland on January 28th via Breitbart:



h/t Weasel Zippers

OWS Dormant, not Dead

Back in late September of 2011, Van Jones predicted that OWS protesters would bring about an 'American autumn' similar to the 'Arab Spring' and he put all of his eggs in the October basket. Though OWS did raise a ruckus, a stink, and many other undesirable things all across the country, they proved to be a very expensive and violent nuisance more than anything else. The movement dragged on into the winter months and appeared to disintegrate.

Now there seems to be chatter that OWS will be coming out of its collective hole in the spring, leading up to the main event at the Democratic convention in September, to be held in Charlotte, NC.

Via WND:

A coalition of U.S. radical groups, including the Occupy Movement, are preparing protests to target the Democratic National Convention in September in Charlotte, N.C.

The Occupy movement is likely to escalate months before the Sept. 3-6 event. A slew of extremist organizations, some tied to President Obama, are preparing protests to coincide with major NATO and G-8 summits slated for Chicago in May.

Foreshadowing possible violent confrontations, some of the same radical trainers behind the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization have been mobilizing new protest efforts geared toward world summits.

The plans for the Democratic convention are posted on a central website, ProtestDNC.org. More than three dozen organizations, including labor, anti-war and so-called civil rights and immigrants rights groups are joining together to initiate a coalition.

Klein reports too, that OWS appears to already be setting up shop in Chicago, which is where both the NATO and G8 summits will be held.

Here is Van Jones on September 29, 2011. Fast forward to the 2:00 mark. Based on what he was predicting, OWS didn't accomplish what he wanted it to, which is why it's important to be vigilant in the spring. If OWS gives it another whirl, they're likely to be more violent.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Coast Guard having to Protect Ships from OWS

Back in December, OWS attempted to shut down all major ports along the Pacific coast. The plan had the support of former Obama green jobs czar, Van Jones. OWS is ratcheting up the effort to a point that requires the Coast Guard to escort ships into these ports. The reality is that OWS, which has the support of an unrepentant terrorist in Bill Ayers, is becoming a terrorist movement itself.

In early December, I suggested that the House Judiciary Committee ask Attorney General Eric Holder what the FBI is doing about OWS's agenda in this regard. They did not do that but Mr. Holder will be in front of Rep. Darrell Issa's Oversight Committee in about three weeks, on February 2nd (groundhog day).

Here is the latest on OWS and west coast ports, via TDN:

The U.S. Coast Guard will escort the first ship coming to the EGT grain terminal at the Port of Longview this month, and the Occupy movement and local labor groups say they are planning to greet the vessel with a massive protest.

EGT officials say they have not scheduled a date for the ship's arrival. The freighter is expected to haul thousands of tons of grain to Asia, but opposition groups are already marshaling their forces to support the lengthy protest by union dock workers at the grain terminal.

"We just want to swell the population of the city to show there are people behind us," said Jeff Washburn, president of the Cowlitz Wahkiakum Central Labor Council, which passed a resolution calling for a protest this week. 

He added that the labor council plans no attempt to stop the ship, a sentiment echoed in a similar call for protest by leaders of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

However, the Occupy movement is taking a more aggressive stance, calling for members nationwide to gather outside Port of Longview gates and thwart efforts to load the ship, said Paul Nipper, an organizer for Occupy Longview. The group shut down the ports coastwide, including Longview, Dec. 8.

Speaking of Van Jones, he is attempting to exploit MLK day to escalate the #Occupy movement. Check out the letter signed by Jones that refers to MLK as "the original occupier." Jones wants OWS to go crazy on MLK day, apparently.

How is this not inciting insurrection and lawlessness?

h/t GWP

Van Jones Calling for Shutdown of Major Ports; isn't that a Serious Crime?

Someone on the House Judiciary committee that Eric Holder will be in front of on December 8th should ask him what the Justice Department plans to do about Van Jones calling for the shut down of all major ports on the west coast on December 12th. The former Green Jobs czar is now calling for collective criminal behavior that should put him and anyone leading such an effort under FBI investigation immediately.

Jones linked to this story via twitter:

Occupy movements plan to shut down major ports along the U.S. West Coast and Canada's Pacific seaboard in a day of action next month, they said Wednesday. 

In an announcement hours after a two-month-old anti-Wall Street protest camp was evicted in Los Angeles, they said they plan to strike back against the "nationally co-ordinated attack on the Occupy movement." 

Local Occupy movements in San Diego, L.A., Oakland - where protests shut down the port for 24 hours last month - Portland, Taco-ma and Seattle will support the Dec. 12 day of action, they said.

The story also quotes a woman who has become somewhat of a formal / informal spokesman for Occupy Oakland, Barucha Peller:

"We're shutting down these ports because of the union busting and attacks on the working class by the one per cent," said Barucha Peller of the West Coast Port Blockade Assembly, of Occupy Oakland, in a statement. 

"We are also striking back against the nationally co-ordinated attack on the Occupy movement. In response to the police violence and camp evictions against the Occupy movement, this is our co-ordinated response against the one per cent. 

"On Dec. 12th we will show are collective power through pinpointed economic blockade of the one per cent," she added.

Some might remember that Peller attempted to hold a makeshift news conference one day after the general strike in Oakland. It failed miserably and is worth the watch if you haven't seen it.

h/t Katie Pavlich at Townhall and GWP for this image:

Will Occupation Party Split Democratic Vote?

As the Ron Pauliens continue to clamor for their cultic hero to launch a third party run, a manifestation created, fed, and endorsed by Obama administration apparatchiks - the Occupy Wall Street movement - appears to be preparing a third party run of its own.

Via The Occupation Party:

Welcome to Occupy Congress… a place for the 99% 

The Occupation Party is a new third party that stands in solidarity with the populist message of Occupy Wall Street. 

We are planning to occupy the political process and take the people’s message into Congress by electing representatives and senators who are people from the 99%, not the political elite.

Here is the Occupation Party's platform:

November 13, 2011 Revised Draft 

Our first task is to develop and promote legislation that will address the serious flaws in our financial, political, and taxation systems. Therefore, we need to accomplish the following: 

* Restore Reasonable Regulation to the Financial System 

* Ensure Equal Justice for All 

* Enact Campaign Finance and Electoral Reform 

* Implement Fair Tax Reform 

* Implement Lobbying Reform

This is interesting indeed because on November 16th, one of the OWS's main organizers (Rebuild the Dream), Van Jones called for a 'Phase 2' among OWS that involved sending people to Congress and getting more engaged in politics. Here is an excerpt from what Van Jones had to say:

"Phase 2, you move from anger to answers… They (Tea Party) pivoted over to politics… We are going to be recruiting 2000 candidates to run for office now, under this 99% banner. You're going to see an evolution now as you go from, keep the protests but now expand into politics. And if you thought there was an earthquake in 2010 when the Tea Party moved into politics, wait until this 99% movement moves over into politics. You haven't seen anything yet."

Note that this interview was given three days after the Occupation Party's platform was published. As someone who supports the Obama agenda, the notion that Van Jones would support a third party movement that would siphon votes from the Democratic Party makes little sense.

Stay tuned for future stories on this. I have an idea where this is headed....

Here is the entire Van Jones' interview with CNN's Suzanne Malveaux:

Video: Van Jones wants OWS to Take it up a Notch

Former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones appears to have a bad case of Tea Party envy and is doubling down on the OWS movement in order to satiate it. The elephant in the room is the violent nature of OWS and the longer the sycophantic media plays along - CNN's Suzanne Malveaux plays the part perfectly in this interview - the more they will be tied to it.

Jones would like everyone to believe that the OWS protests, which started in early October, were a huge success. The reality is they've been an unmitigated disaster in terms of turnout, public relations, crime, and effectiveness. Jones is now referring to what America has had to endure over the last two months as 'phase 1' instead of '1 big phailure.' Again, it's important to point out what Jones said on September 29th with Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC:

"...I think everybody should hold on to your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back. You can see it coming."

Now that mayors all across the country seem to be simultaneously shutting down the protests halfway through November, Jones is faced with the prospect of admitting defeat or doubling down. He's obviously choosing to go 'all in.' Take note also that he continues to compare OWS to the Tea Party. The truth is that the former doesn't come close to measuring up to the latter. The contrast between the two movements is out there for all to see and what Jones is advocating here could only further unmask OWS for what it truly is.

Keep in mind that Jones gets much of his marching orders from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a George Soros outfit. If George Soros endorses this, so does Barack Obama. If Barack Obama endorses it - which he has made clear that he does - Saul Alinsky's tactics are being applied. In this particular case, Rule #7 is at work:

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

I think it's safe to say that 'Phase 1' has become a bit of a drag and people are turning to other issues. This is an attempt by Soros-Obama-Jones to make sure those other issues contribute to the cause.

The smell of desperation is in the air.



Here is the interview between O'Donnell and Jones on September 29th:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t The Blaze

Shooting Death at Occupy Oakland: Who has Blood on Their Hands?

I will be covering this in greater detail during tomorrow's program but in the wake of the shooting death near the Occupy Oakland encampment, it's important to revisit the Van Jones dynamic. Oakland has by far been the most consistently violent of all the #Occupy protests. The shooting death serves to underscore that reality; it trumps the critical head injury sustained by the left wing Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen. Perhaps some more pieces to this puzzle can start coming together.

First, as I wrote about HERE, Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oak) all support OWS. Van Jones is from Oakland and got his radical start there. He is also one of the main organizers of OWS. Here is Jones on September 29th on MSNBC, telling Lawrence O'Donnell that October will be the dawn of an 'American Autumn.' Fast forward to the 2:00 mark to see the relevant excerpt:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Catherine Evans at American Thinker brings a new character into the mix - and it is significant. His name is Jakada Imani and he took over for Jones at the Ella Baker Center before Jones took his Green Jobs Czar position at the White House in 2009. Imani, as Evans points out, was chosen to serve on the Board of Commissioners for an entity that was a flashpoint within the Oakland protests on the November 2nd General Strike:

A Van Jones protege, Jakada Imani, was sworn in as the newest member of the Oakland Port Board of Commissioners Tuesday October 20, a mere twelve days before Occupy Oakland protesters marched to the Port of Oakland and "effectively shut down" the fifth largest containerized port in the U.S.

Oakland's Port was shut down by Occupy Oakland protesters just two weeks later. Please read the entire piece by Evans; it does an excellent job of connecting Jones, Imani, and the Oakland Port.

However, I'd like to bring in another puzzle piece here. Back on November 3rd, the day after the strike, in a video posted at the San Francisco Chronicle, a woman the press in Oakland believed to be a spokesperson for the group - Barucha Peller - called the shut down of the Port historic and unsuccessfully tried to put a happy face on the protests but after she decided not to take any questions, a man named Shake Anderson began speaking to the press. Anderson said something quite significant but at the time, it seemed Peller was the only one to notice.

Shortly after introducing himself, Anderson said the following:

"Yes, we were here yesterday. I was in the media tent, working with Occupy Oakland, the same media tent that worked on this press release this morning."

This establishes the fact that Anderson had inside access to the inner workings of the movement. Then, Anderson makes a claim that causes Peller to interject herself back into the press conference. Anderson tells the media that when the violence started, Occupy Oakland called the mayor's office:

"We called the mayor's office the moment we understood what was going on over there."

Shortly after that, Anderson was interrupted by Peller:

"Just to be clear, Occupy Oakland does not... if individuals called the mayor's office, they do not represent Occupy Oakland... Occupy Oakland did not call the mayor's office. If individuals called the mayor's office, that's what individuals are doing... we do not negotiate with politicians, police, and we do not involve political parties."

Peller then adamantly stated that the press conference was over and managed to get a visibly perturbed Anderson to stop talking.

Clearly, Peller's problem was with Anderson's claim that Occupy Oakland called the mayor's office during the general strike. She also went out of her way to reject inferences that weren't made (negotiating with politicians). HERE is the video. Fast forward to the 3:00 mark to watch the relevant exchange:



So, the question that needs to be asked - based on Peller's reaction to Anderson's words - is: Why did she not want it known that Occupy Oakland was in communication with Mayor Jean Quan's office? Was it because they were in the process of coordinating, among other things, the shutting down of the port? After all, Van Jones protege Jakada Imani had only been on the Port Board for two weeks. Yet, that port was shut down by Occupy Oakland.

In much the same way that the Obama administration may have the blood of Border Agent Brian Terry on its hands in operation Fast and Furious, it might also have the blood of the shooting victim in Oakland on its hands.

More HERE.

Oakland Mayor: All Police Report for Duty, all Other City Employees Join OWS Protests

I think it's safe to say that liberal Oakland mayor Jean Quan has either officially gone insane or the political pressure is so great, she's become utterly powerless while appearing as the person behind such an insane decision. After ordering the Oakland police to clear out protesters last week, Quan changed her mind and had police stand down and allow protesters to 're-occupy' the city. Now she seems to be presiding over the human equivalent of cock-fighting. We're talking Michael Vick territory on a human scale here. On Wednesday, November 2nd, she has ordered every police officer to report for work while encouraging every other city employee to take the day off and support OWS.

No, really.

Check out this open letter from the Oakland Police Officers' Association to the people of Oakland:

As your police officers, we are confused.

On Tuesday, October 25th, we were ordered by Mayor Quan to clear out the encampments at Frank Ogawa Plaza and to keep protesters out of the Plaza. We performed the job that the Mayor’s Administration asked us to do, being fully aware that past protests in Oakland have resulted in rioting, violence and destruction of property.

Then, on Wednesday, October 26th, the Mayor allowed protesters back in – to camp out at the very place they were evacuated from the day before.

To add to the confusion, the Administration issued a memo on Friday, October 28th to all City workers in support of the “Stop Work” strike scheduled for Wednesday, giving all employees, except for police officers, permission to take the day off.

That’s hundreds of City workers encouraged to take off work to participate in the protest against “the establishment.” But aren’t the Mayor and her Administration part of the establishment they are paying City employees to protest? Is it the City’s intention to have City employees on both sides of a skirmish line?

It is all very confusing to us.

Quan is likely a pawn in a much larger game that involves some key individuals. First, Van Jones got his start in Oakland years ago, protesting against police. He is also one of the key instigators of these protests. He warned people back in September that his 'Rebuild the Dream' effort would bring about an 'American autumn' similar to the 'Arab spring.' In many ways, this is likely a reason why Oakland has become a flashpoint for OWS.

Next, consider Rep. Barabara Lee (D-CA). Not only does she have an interesting history with Van Jones but Oakland is in her district. She was registered with the Democratic Socialists of America caucus as recently as 2009 and also supports OWS.

How about Obama's closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett? She sang Van Jones' praises back in 2009 and touted his work in Oakland as one of the reasons he was hired by the White House.

Then, of course, there is Barack Obama. He continues to express support for the OWS movement.

Oakland mayor Jean Quan is looking beyond foolish with this latest move but when it is put in the context of her likely doing the will of an extremely powerful political machine, it makes a bit more sense.

One thing is clear. By ordering all police to report for duty and all city employees to show up to protest, one is only left to conclude that someone wants confrontation, which is exactly the opposite of law and order.

Read more about this Oakland dynamic HERE. I also addressed this angle on my October 30th radio show.

h/t Hot Air

Video: Progressive Talk Show Host Outed as Putin Apparatchik

If you're familiar with talk radio, you probably know the name Thom Hartmann. He is a 'progressive' talk show host who survived the Air America disaster. More recently, in addition to his radio show, Hartmann has a television program that airs on Russia Today. Cliff Kincaid of USA Survival attended the Van Jones-led 'Rebuild the Dream' movement that took place from October 3-5. Before we get to Kincaid's encounter with Jones, take a look at his exchange with Hartmann. Kincaid basically gets the 'progressive' talker to admit that his show is being partially funded by the Putin regime. Hartmann's reaction when he realizes he'd been exposed as a communist apparatchik? Well, he does what any communist sympathizer would do once he's been found out. He covered the camera and then got away as fast as possible.

Via USA Survival:



Kincaid then relays an encounter he had with Van Jones when the former presented Jones with a copy of the STORM manifesto. I wish this one was on video but I don't see it:

During another embarrassing incident, Van Jones refused to sign a copy of his Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) manifesto when asked to autograph it. “No thank you,” he sternly said, before asking “Who are you,” looking at my name badge, and walking away to the next adoring crowd of Van Jones groupies. Jones, a “former” communist, is the new face of the progressive movement that is backing the “Occupation Wall Street” protests and is trying to guarantee President Obama a second term. He was fired as Obama’s “green jobs czar” when the truth about his extremist background and statements started to emerge in reports by blogger Trevor Loudon and then Glenn Beck on Fox News.

There is another video Kincaid posts from the event. Here, he's talking with communist Don Rojas, former press secretary for Maurice Bishop, the Prime Minister of Greneda before the US invaded the island. Notice at the end, Kincaid asks Rojas about his ability to get funding from the Open Society Institute (OSI). OSI is a George Soros outfit.



One of the downsides to the fall of the Soviet Union is that the awareness it brought to Americans about how evil communism is. Oh, and the purpose for this 'Rebuild the Dream' conference was, in part, to show solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street zombies.

More at USA Survival

Video: Van Jones Cheered 9/11/01 Attacks on 9/12/01

This video is from a rally in Oakland one day after the 9/11 attacks. You can fast forward to the 4:38 mark to see Van Jones but it's context is more clearly seen after you view the other speakers leading up to him. The theme of the rally is clearly that the United States deserved what happened; the attacks were the result of our foreign policies all over the world and that America's civilians paid the price for those policies. Clearly, that premise eliminates the possibility that we are hated because we are infidels.

Remember, Van Jones was in the Obama administration and resigned; he was not fired. Not only that but he still serves as a fellow with the Center for American Progress, which continues to have a significant amount of influence on the administration. Valerie Jarrett even championed Jones's work in Oakland generally as one of the reasons he was sought out for the Green Jobs czar position.

It's not a stretch to conclude that Obama shares much of the sentiment expressed at this 9/12/01 rally, the war in Libya notwithstanding, of course.

Via Big Government

Video: Keep talking, Van

Remember, before watching this video, that former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones was NOT fired by the Obama administration. He left of his own volition according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. If you accept that as the premise, you must also necessarily accept the premise that the Obama administration agrees with this sentiment. Using allegorical language during a speech at Guilford College in Greensboro, NC on January 19th, Jones clearly enunciates his vision of communism for America.

This man needs to keep on talking because he doesn't seem capable of following his own advice that says to 'drop the radical prose for the radical ends.'

Via The Blaze:

VIDEO: VAN JONES ON GIVING STIMULUS DOLLARS TO BLACK PANTHERS

Remember that $787 Billion stimulus bill in 2009? Van Jones was responsible for distributing $40 Billion of it. On December 20th, he discussed how he (re-) distributed it to inner city minorities. I like the part about making sure that the 'work and the wealth' are easily distributed.' Also making appearance in this clip is New Black Panther Party (NBPP) leader Malik Zulu Shabazz, who discusses how his group has 'Green jobs' available and no background checks are necessary.

Shabazz exhibits in-your-face racism when he talks about having 'jobs for black men' and bemoans just having to 'deal with white folks.'

The left is apparently ok with racism as long as it comes from the right source.

Via The Blaze:

VIDEO: VAN JONES ADMITS TO 'PRETENDING'

Anyone who thinks Van Jones was relegated to insignificance when he resigned from the Obama administration as the Green Jobs czar in September of 2009 is sadly mistaken. As a fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP), he's speaking for the Soros-funded organization that is driving White House policy. Here he is on November 4th bemoaning the failure of Cap and Trade last year. Not only that but he's encouraging his audience to go to the EPA and admit that putting a cap on carbon emissions is a game of make believe but to enforce it anyway.

We are witnessing an administration - with the help of CAP - that is bound and determined to ignore the 112th Congress by using agencies that report to the Executive Branch (EPA, FCC, etc.) to do its will. Van Jones has been saying quite a bit lately and that should be ringing alarm bells.

Via The Blaze:

VIDEO: MORE 'VAN JONES CALLING FOR INSURRECTION' RHETORIC

The contents of this video could just reveal a silver lining to conservatives. Van Jones is clearly frustrated by what hasn't been done by the left since Obama was elected, which aside from being proof in and of itself that the left is never happy, demonstrates Tea Party effectiveness. Hey Van, are you serious? Your agenda has had almost two years of victory after victory. The forthrightness with which Jones speaks here also carries potentially good news. The mask is off of the left and they're all in when a fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a group that advises the White House on policy is calling for insurrection.

Judge for yourselves. Isn't that what he's doing here? Paging Eric Holder.....

Via The Blaze:



Take note that Van Jones calls media "the new frontier." Obviously, that means Fox News, Talk Radio, and conservative blogs. Has anyone noticed what drum Al Sharpton continues to beat?

He wants to shut down Rush Limbaugh.

VAN JONES AND THE TAX RATE DEBATE

As I watched the tax rate debate unfold, I couldn't help but think of the video of Van Jones recorded by Adam Sharp on November 30th in which the former seemed to be predicting insurrection at best and calling for it at worst based on a future lack of economic prosperity and the subsequent attack on diversity by unnamed opponents to that diversity - the implication was that the Tea Party would fit the demographic.

Via Floyd Reports:

VAN JONES AND THE COMING CIVIL WAR

Many have strongly believed – with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge for over a year now – that Barack Obama has been intentionally destroying the U.S. economy. Now, thanks to Obama's concession that allowing the current tax rates to expire would harm the middle class, coupled with the words of former Green Jobs czar and current fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), Van Jones, Limbaugh's accuracy record is about to gain another fraction of a percentage point.

On November 30th, conservative blogger Adam Sharp went to Washington University in St. Louis to record video of Van Jones as he spoke there. Sharp persisted when campus police, event coordinators, and others attempted to prohibit him from recording the event by reminding them that it was billed as being open to the public. Ironically, the person who finally conceded to Sharp's right to record was Jones himself.

That may have been a mistake on the part of Van "The Wizard" because it allowed Toto to pull back the proverbial curtain.



In one of the more shocking videos of late, Jones seemed to predict civil war in the United States because America will continue to become "less and less economically prosperous" while becoming "more and more ethnically diverse." As he spoke of our nation becoming more ethnically diverse, his body language communicated that Americans would become more divided.

After saying that increased diversity coupled with a bad economy is "not a recipe for common ground, that's a recipe for a battleground," Jones went on to say that "opponents" (presumably capitalists) would "attack" and "fear" diversity as economic conditions deteriorate. He cited "immigrants," "Muslims," and homosexuals as targets of those "opponents." Was Jones laying the groundwork for the excitement of domestic insurrection once economic conditions deteriorate enough?

Barack Obama suffered what Limbaugh identified as his first legislative defeat when he agreed to a two-year extension of the current tax rates. Obama wanted to see earners of more than $250,000 a year return to a higher rate, identifying them as wealthy. That premise is faulty because such a group includes small business owners whose gross income may put them in such a category but whose bottom line puts them in a much lower one. In short, the Obama plan, ultimately rejected by Republicans emboldened by the recent election results, would lead us closer to the "potential nightmare scenario" Van Jones spoke about because our nation would necessarily become less economically prosperous as a result.

While it's true that Jones is no longer in the administration, his fellowship with the Center for American Progress allows him to be part of a group that advises the White House on policy. To say that the views of Jones do not reflect those of the Obama administration is borderline laughable. Shortly after Obama's election in 2008, TIME Magazine called the CAP his "Idea Factory;" in 2009, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent wrote on his Plum Line blog that the CAP had launched a "War Room" to drive the Obama agenda; last summer, the Wall Street Journal reported that the CAP appeared to "have more influence on spill policy than the president's in-house advisers" during the BP oil spill.

Does that increased influence translate to Jones having more influence on this administration than he did before he resigned in disgrace after Glenn Beck unmasked him in 2009? In fact, to average Americans, Jones was so disgraced that the White House's refusal to fire him rather than allow him to resign said perhaps as much about the administration as it did about Jones.

This leads us to the head of CAP, John Podesta who hired Jones after the latter was exposed on so many levels for a myriad of shocking revelations about his past and his beliefs.

As both Jones' boss and the head of an organization that retains him, does Podesta agree with the former Green Jobs czar? Does Podesta endorse the views Jones expressed at Washington University on November 30th? If he does, is he advising the Obama administration on policies that would help Jones' "nightmare scenario" come to fruition? If Limbaugh is right about Obama intentionally destroying the economy, can we surmise that the president is doing so at the behest of the Center for American Progress based on the views expressed by one of its leaders in Jones?

Lastly, if the answer to all of those questions is yes, I have one more.

Is exciting domestic insurrection an impeachable offense?

Click here for the hyperlinks.

VIDEO: VAN JONES PREDICTING INSURRECTION?

This is truly a shocking video. The irony is Van Jones shouldn't have a direct line to the White House after leaving the Obama administration. The primary reason he DOES is because once he left the White House, he went straight back to the group that seems to set policy for the administration - John Podesta's Center for American Progress. In any event, the only reason this video was even shot was due to the persistence of an unpaid blogger named Adam Sharp.

Watch as Van Jones whips out the Saul Alinsky handbook and 'rubs raw the sores of discontent' by predicting to the audience that while America will continue to become more diverse, it will become less and less 'economically prosperous.' Note that he does not blame the administration's policies for the economy; he blames resentment for diversity. He is obviously attempting to raise the anger of anyone who sees themselves as part of a diverse minority so they can prepare to confront their alleged oppressors. It's like cock-fights with humans and people like Jones are making the roosters mad so there will be a good show.

I also find it more than just mildly interesting that Jones is ginning up resentment against America among the population while the wikileaks dump is aiding our foreign enemies.

Via Sharp Elbows:



After watching that, ask yourself if this excerpt of the Declaration of Independence reflects the sentiment of Americans who despise what people like Jones represent:

He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Here is the video shot by Sharp before finally being permitted to record what Jones said above.

A better example illustrating the death of traditional journalism on one hand and an American patriot (Sharp) doing all he can to restore it on the other hand you will not find.