"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)


Thursday, August 27, 2009

A communist in the White House

August 27, 2009

Posted by Scott
at 7:42 AM

Ronald Radosh explores the case of Van Jones. Jones is Obama's green jobs "czar" (his formal title is Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality). As green jobs "czar," Jones's responsibility is to coordinate the stimulus spending to assure that a hefty portion of it goes to projects that promote green energy.

In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to "organizing a revolutionary movement in America." Does Jones remain a Marxist revolutionary today?

The White House has declined to provide a straight answer to the question. We will accordingly assume that, in Jones's case, "commissar" would be more like it.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Jones is not a "czar," but rather an "adviser." The Wall Street Journal distinguished between the job titles here in the case of Jones. Does the title of Obama administration "czar" have formal legal contours? The Chicago Tribune asks: how many czars are there? In any event, I think commissar is the more appropriate honorific, and Victor Davis Hanson makes the case that the Marxist spirit pervades the White House.

To read more like this, visit Powerline Blog

NOTE: The Obama administration appoints a special prosecutor on the CIA, but has all these Czars who are not subject to Senate confirmation skate. WHERE is the Administration getting money to pay these CZARS or whatever they call people not subject to Senate confirmation? They each earn $182,000 a year with a staff of 10 and there are well over 30 of them. Yet, he only has not come close to filling all the political appointees subject to Senate Confirmation. WHY?

No comments: