Around the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was known for its “Caesars”. Hundreds of years later, Russia had its own version of these leaders known as the “Czars”. Though Communism had not become a coined term at the time of Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great, these oligarchies were eerily prophetic of what was to become of the Motherland – basically an empire run by oppresive thugs who deemed their country’s occupants as slaves and their deaths as collateral damage in exchange for world conquest and the chance to spread serfdom around the globe. Let’s face it: though Hitler is always a popular topic of choice when someone wants to try to put evil into perspective, when it comes to objective sheer numbers, Lenin and Stalin were exponentially worse. And though they were using the nineteenth-century author Karl Marx’s ideas regarding oppressive, huge government , the only difference was that they actually had a title for the type of leadership that had been practiced for centuries.
Regardless of your postion on Communism – whether you are extreme Right and think it is evil at its core and that you believe that there is a grassroots movement in America to strengthen its cause, or are extreme Left and think that its inclusion in any intelligent conversation is hyperbole and baseless fearmongering, or somewhere in the middle – most people who have looked into the system at any depth recognize that it is completely contrary to the American way of doing things, whether in theory or actuality.
Now we have a green jobs ‘Czar” in our President’s adminsitration who is a self-proclaimed Communist. Think about that for a moment: Van Jones (which is possibly not even his real name) has been designated for a good (and likely well-paying) position in Washington and is a person who makes (or at least made) no bones about his loyalties. While he was in jail for disturbances following the Rodney King case, he made friendships with rebels and anarchists (read story).
I am all for giving a person a second chance. I am a firm believer that if a person has served time for his crime and the appropriate persons have deemed him or her worthy for release, they should be able to have the right to continue life in any way a just government sees fit. But this isn’t Wal-Mart. We’re talking about the Obama Administration here! One of the places where any possibility of radical anti-American sentiment being presently or formerly conspicuously practiced should be entirely shunned. Why even flirt with rumor? Why fan the fire of the recently-increased shouts of “Socialist” toward our President?
For a person who claimed to be a unifier during the campaign, I find it quite bizarre during his short stint some of the choices President Obama has made regarding loyalties. During the campaign, though he was basically forced to sever the umbillical cord from Reverend Wright, it was easy to see that it was a difficult decision. As far as friendships go, perhaps that is a noble quality. But as far as being the Leader of the United States of America, it is an ominous characteristic - one that has already reared its head on more than one occasion.
In the 1950s, McCarthy was demonized due to all of the apparitions of “boogeymen” he saw. He was basically written off as ‘nuts’ and placed forever in the American archives of the politically insane. However, today we have a real life communist “boogeyman” - not a figment of someone’s imagination – working out in the open for a pretty penny and the Administration simply continues to function as if everything is normal.
Maybe it’s me, but something just doesn’t compute.
Related posts:
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
And you never said anything stupid or agitated to “rebel against the system” when you were young? How many staunch Conservatives in Congress who became Republican yuppies in the 1980′s were liberal hippies who protested the war and called all police officers “pigs”?
One of the things then that you have not done is read “Das Capital”. In a true communist state, everything is controlled by the people. It is the addition of conniving people of ambition like Lenin, Castro, or Minh that make communism into the despotic and sycophantic system it is. Just like representitive democracy or republicanism in theory is not the same as in practice. I agree, a Sovietologist has no business in a US government position. But someone who believe’s in the power of the people, in the worth of all men and their labor- how is that so diametrically opposed to the values espoused in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? They are not the same, but they are not enemies of each other. I am a Catholic that happens to be pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, but does that mean that I cannot be a Catholic or I have to automatically oppose everything the church believes in just because I don’t see eye to eye with them on some issues?
Is he in league with foreign governments? Has he committed treason? Do his personal feelings keep him from acting in the best interests of the public? Have his actions in office shown that he cannot be trusted with the job? Different people in government believe in many different thingsand hold faith in many different things. As long as they are doing the job they were elected or hired to do, who cares? There are presidents and national leaders who relied on the advice of astrologists and psychics (Reagan and Harding, for starters). As long as they did a good job (and Reagan is a god to most Republicans), who cares?
Let the paranoia go- you have more to worry about from Madison Avenue, Microsoft and big business getting into your affairs. But wait… that’s free market and more power to them, right?
P.S: I also never suggested that he shouldn’t be free to voice his opinion, I just suggested that a known communist shouldn’t be included among the White House staff for more reasons than one.
Laura,
He admitted to being a communist ( http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Van-Jones-Green-Jobs-Czar-a-selfdescribed-communist-arrested-during-Rodney-King-riots ) . Those aren’t paranoid McCarthy-ism words on my part based on wishful thinking. Communism is the antithesis of a Republic. Though the term wasn’t popular until approx 60 years after the signing of the Constitution (Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’), the Framers were well aware of the types of governments that wanted to expand themselves and control the people and, therefore, set up a system that would prevent govt from doing that.
By the way, I don’t instill anything into my articles that I can’t verify. Even if you happen to dislike or disagree with the source, that doesn’t mean that I have “damned” the truth. You are always free to research it for yourself. Of course, based on the perspective of most of those on the Left who I have spoken with, it is likely that even if you verify that he is a self-proclaimed communist, you won’t have a problem with it.
There was something missing from the article you linked to and the quotes in it. You claim that Van Jones is guilty of ” radical anti-American sentiment being presently or formerly conspicuously practiced”. Where in the quotes from the very slanted article you referred to did Mr. Jones say anything anti-American? Where did he say anything that constituted a slur on America? Last time I checked, and you all have argued for it, the right to protest in and of itself is alive and well, whether it has any basis in fact or validity or not.
I don’t know the man or what he stands for to condemn or support him, but you are drawing conclusions on little to nothing and that is not fair. Or balanced… But I guess anyone will see what it is they want to see, the truth be damned…
Additionally, these Czar’s are not elected representatives of the people. Yet they are given the power to shape policy that effects us all. They do not answer to congress or the senate, so they have no accountability. I’d like to know EXACTLY where in the constitution these people get their power from. If the captain of a ship is responsible for the lowest seaman then the president as head of the ship of state is responsible for their failures.