PDA

View Full Version : Van Jones and His Group Organized 9/12/01 Anti-America Rally



txradioguy
06-22-2011, 01:22 PM
At Big Government yesterday, Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King compiled overwhelming evidence refuting one key element of a cease-and-desist letter sent to Fox News by lawyers for former Obama administration "green jobs" czar Van Jones. In doing so, they referenced and credited a video I posted in September 2009 of an anti-American rally in Oakland, California on September 12, 2001 where Jones spoke. They pair did a great job, and I appreciate the credit.

I would like to give Taylor's and King's work greater visibility, and extend it just a bit, especially because you can virtually bank on the fact that the establishment press won't touch it -- or if they do, they won't accurately report it.

The sending of the cease-and-desist letter was reported on Monday evening in a Huffington Post item by Michael Cadlerone and demonstrated journalistic fudger Sam Stein.

Taylor and King addressed the following core contention in the cease-and-desist letter, conveniently not mentioned by Calderone and Stein, that the following statement made by Beck is false:


(6) Jones organized/attended an anti-America rally on 9/12/01

That Jones "attended" cannot be disputed, as seen in the following video I posted on September 8, 2009 (Jones's remarks begin at the 4:38 mark; only those with strong stomachs should consider viewing the entire video):

Here's what Jones said:

Its the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.


Weve got something stronger than bombs, we have solidarity. That dream of revolutionary change is stronger than bombs.

Boiling down the first portion of what Jones said on tape: We deserved what happened on September 11, 2001.

Jones's lawyers are separately (and in my opinion futilely) disputing Beck's contention that Jones is or was a "truther." They can't possibly dispute the fact that on September 12, 2001, Van Jones was a "deserver."

The video clearly establishes that it wasn't just the rally that was anti-American. Van Jones made an indisputably anti-American statement at an anti-American rally.

That leaves the question of whether Jones "organized" the 9/12/2001 rally. Taylor and King prove that with a press release saved here. What follows are a few snippets.

Snip 1 establishes that the "source" of a press release on the evening of September 11 (the "11-1" which appears is clearly a typo which should in context have read "9-11-1") was the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, of which Jones co-founded:

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/VanJones091201Snip1.png


Snip 2 reveals that the Ella Baker Center was named as the lead endorser of the rally, and that Van Jones was its National Executive Director at the time:

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/VanJones091201Snip2.png


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/06/22/big-govs-taylor-and-king-van-jones-and-his-group-organized-91201-anti-am

noonwitch
06-22-2011, 02:19 PM
I think the only point that can be made here is that Beck repeatedly refers to the rally as an "anti-american rally", which is a matter of opinion. As he is an editorialist, not a newsreader, he's allowed to express his opinion. I believe that's basically what he does for an hour every day. That way, FOX doesn't have to fact check every brain fart he decides to verbalize on the air.

txradioguy
06-22-2011, 02:32 PM
I think the only point that can be made here is that Beck repeatedly refers to the rally as an "anti-american rally", which is a matter of opinion. As he is an editorialist, not a newsreader, he's allowed to express his opinion. I believe that's basically what he does for an hour every day. That way, FOX doesn't have to fact check every brain fart he decides to verbalize on the air.

How could something like that NOT be an anti American rally?

Color me shocked that you'd be one of the first ones in here trying to rationalize this bullshit.

Other than refuse to support any and all leftist "policies" in this country...is there ANYTHING you Libtards draw the line at and consider it to be "un American"?

noonwitch
06-22-2011, 03:56 PM
How could something like that NOT be an anti American rally?

Color me shocked that you'd be one of the first ones in here trying to rationalize this bullshit.

Other than refuse to support any and all leftist "policies" in this country...is there ANYTHING you Libtards draw the line at and consider it to be "un American"?


I love the way that criticism of american foreign policy mistakes prior to 9-11, or at least criticizing foreign policy mistakes of republican presidents prior to 9-11 is considered "anti-american" by conservatives. Since the conservatives have gone out of their way to blame it all on Bill Clinton and deny any responsibility by presidents who armed terrorists to fight communists during the 80s....


Of course, now you will jump to the conclusion that my criticism of St. Ronald's policies are somehow letting Clinton off the hook because unthinking conservatives love to lump all liberals into one category-evil, rabid, america-hating communists who want to burn flags, have abortions, and spit on veterans.

But ultimately, I blame Osama bin Laden and al Queda for 9-11.

NJCardFan
06-22-2011, 04:54 PM
I think the only point that can be made here is that Beck repeatedly refers to the rally as an "anti-american rally", which is a matter of opinion. As he is an editorialist, not a newsreader, he's allowed to express his opinion. I believe that's basically what he does for an hour every day. That way, FOX doesn't have to fact check every brain fart he decides to verbalize on the air.

So the "we brought this on ourselves" is considered pro-American? If you say so.

NJCardFan
06-22-2011, 04:59 PM
I love the way that criticism of american foreign policy mistakes prior to 9-11, or at least criticizing foreign policy mistakes of republican presidents prior to 9-11 is considered "anti-american" by conservatives. Since the conservatives have gone out of their way to blame it all on Bill Clinton and deny any responsibility by presidents who armed terrorists to fight communists during the 80s....


Of course, now you will jump to the conclusion that my criticism of St. Ronald's policies are somehow letting Clinton off the hook because unthinking conservatives love to lump all liberals into one category-evil, rabid, america-hating communists who want to burn flags, have abortions, and spit on veterans.

But ultimately, I blame Osama bin Laden and al Queda for 9-11.

Wait a minute. Foreign policy mistakes by Republican presidents? Um, who was president from 1993-2001? And we didn't "arm terrorists". We armed a resistance to the Soviet occupation. But let me ask, by your estimation, did the Soviets arm terrorists in Vietnam and by proxy Korea? Are you saying that if we allowed the Soviet Union to annex Afghanistan everything would be peaches and cream today? Were Islamic terrorists born in the 80's or were they around much earlier than that? Did I dream Munich? Wow, talk about nave.

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 02:33 AM
Wait a minute. Foreign policy mistakes by Republican presidents? Um, who was president from 1993-2001? And we didn't "arm terrorists". We armed a resistance to the Soviet occupation. But let me ask, by your estimation, did the Soviets arm terrorists in Vietnam and by proxy Korea? Are you saying that if we allowed the Soviet Union to annex Afghanistan everything would be peaches and cream today? Were Islamic terrorists born in the 80's or were they around much earlier than that? Did I dream Munich? Wow, talk about nave.

With Libtards like Witch..who suffer from revisionist amnesia...every bad deed and every armed conflict...every recession depression and global financial crash happened at the hands of a Republican.

And Dem Presidents and Congress critters are the ones with pocketfuls of healing white light who constantly try to undue what the eeeeeeevil Rethugs do to this country.

noonwitch
06-23-2011, 09:19 AM
Wait a minute. Foreign policy mistakes by Republican presidents? Um, who was president from 1993-2001? And we didn't "arm terrorists". We armed a resistance to the Soviet occupation. But let me ask, by your estimation, did the Soviets arm terrorists in Vietnam and by proxy Korea? Are you saying that if we allowed the Soviet Union to annex Afghanistan everything would be peaches and cream today? Were Islamic terrorists born in the 80's or were they around much earlier than that? Did I dream Munich? Wow, talk about nave.



Was the nation of Iran a terrorist nation in the 1980s? Were they funding anti-Israel terrorists in Israel and Lebanon? Had they held our diplomats hostage for 2 years prior to Reagan taking office?

I believe we had a whole series of congressional hearings that established 1. the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Iranian government and 2. the administration then funneled the funds to the Contras, who were fighting the elected communist government of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Incidentally, the Contras were also trafficking cocaine across the US border to raise money. No big deal for Reagan's guys. After all "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Additionally, we were also arming Saddam Hussein, who was fighting a war with Iran, and using some of the weapons of mass destruction we gave him to slaughter the Kurds.

Who funded the terrorists that blew up our Marines in Beiruit?

This is not revisionist history. Revisionist history would be to say that all this was justifiable in the name of fighting communism and the USSR, which was doomed to fail anyway.

NJCardFan
06-23-2011, 11:16 AM
Show me where we gave Saddam WMD's. I'll wait.

noonwitch
06-23-2011, 12:09 PM
Show me where we gave Saddam WMD's. I'll wait.


1983: A sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq was approved by the administration. Another sale of 10 Bell helicopters was also approved.
1984: A sale of 45 Bell helicopters was also approved.

In 1987, the Iraqi military launched a chemical weapons attack on Halajaba using military helicopters.

In 1989, the US Centers for Disease control ceased sending biological samples to Iraq, including the anthrax virus. Which means that prior to 1989, they were sending samples to Iraq.

National Security Decision Directive 99 allowed the sales of the helicopters. The US had a ban on weapons sales to Iraq following the 6 day war in Israel.

This was from the first few hits on my google search. I'm sure I could find more if it wasn't time for me to go get some lunch.

Apache
06-23-2011, 12:13 PM
1983: A sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq was approved by the administration. Another sale of 10 Bell helicopters was also approved.
1984: A sale of 45 Bell helicopters was also approved.

In 1987, the Iraqi military launched a chemical weapons attack on Halajaba using military helicopters.

In 1989, the US Centers for Disease control ceased sending biological samples to Iraq, including the anthrax virus. Which means that prior to 1989, they were sending samples to Iraq.

National Security Decision Directive 99 allowed the sales of the helicopters. The US had a ban on weapons sales to Iraq following the 6 day war in Israel.

This was from the first few hits on my google search. I'm sure I could find more if it wasn't time for me to go get some lunch.

So in other words you couldn't find the requested info...:rolleyes:

noonwitch
06-23-2011, 01:25 PM
So in other words you couldn't find the requested info...:rolleyes:


Anthrax is not a biological weapon?

Apache
06-23-2011, 01:52 PM
Anthrax is not a biological weapon?

Bio weapon, yes. What Saddam used on the Kurds, no....




He used chemical and nerve agents on the Kurds.

Adam Wood
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
Remember back when talking about fomenting revolution made someone a dangerous right-wing militia-type?

Yeah, last week wasn't all that long ago.

Zafod
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
witch = fail

Zafod
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
Remember back when talking about fomenting revolution made someone a dangerous right-wing militia-type?

Yeah, last week wasn't all that long ago.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 02:53 PM
1983: A sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq was approved by the administration. Another sale of 10 Bell helicopters was also approved.
1984: A sale of 45 Bell helicopters was also approved.

In 1987, the Iraqi military launched a chemical weapons attack on Halajaba using military helicopters.

In 1989, the US Centers for Disease control ceased sending biological samples to Iraq, including the anthrax virus. Which means that prior to 1989, they were sending samples to Iraq.

National Security Decision Directive 99 allowed the sales of the helicopters. The US had a ban on weapons sales to Iraq following the 6 day war in Israel.

This was from the first few hits on my google search. I'm sure I could find more if it wasn't time for me to go get some lunch.


You're kidding right?

You're asked to show where we gave Iraq WMD's and you come up with helicopters?

Do I really need to show you the SIPRI report that details who gave how much and when to Iraq?

Uninformed DUmmies are the reason I've kept that bookmarked for the last 5 eyars.

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 02:54 PM
Anthrax is not a biological weapon?

Fail.

Saddam used Sarin gas on the Kurds.

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 03:03 PM
So in other words you couldn't find the requested info...:rolleyes:

Here I'll help her...


From 1973 - 90...percentage by country...courtesy of SIPRI

Soviet Union and WARSAW Pact - 68.9%

France - 12.7%

China - 11.8%

United States - 0.5%

Egypt - 1.3%

Others - 4.8%

http://web.archive.org/web/20070102002126/http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf/download

Zafod
06-24-2011, 11:07 AM
witch = mega fail

noonwitch
06-24-2011, 11:40 AM
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/2002/09/26/a_little_us_iraqi_history

A conservative source, no less


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan_WMD_Saddam_html


I just tried the links and even though I found them on a google search, I couldn't link them successfully.

Robert Novak commented on the connection between the US/Donald Rumsfeld and the development of Iraq's WMDs/nuclear program and biological weapons. His column ran on 9-26-02.


So, no one denies that the US was funding the Iranians during the Reagan years, I see.

Molon Labe
06-24-2011, 01:14 PM
Van Jones is a douche but questioning and criticizing your government is never Anti American.

Adam Wood
06-24-2011, 01:25 PM
Van Jones is a douche but questioning and criticizing your government is never Anti American.It's the hypocrisy that matters here. Just a very short while ago, if the Left, in their addled little brains, managed to dream up some way that someone on the Right was "calling for Revolution" (such as having a Gadsten flag at a TEA party rally), then the Right were "dangerous fringe extremists."

Somehow, when Van Jones was openly calling for revolution on freaking September 12, 2001, that's all fine and dandy. He was patriotically questioning his government and speaking truth to power and all that other idiotic Leftist rot that they spew when they decide to be proud of themselves for hating this country.

Apache
06-24-2011, 02:04 PM
So, no one denies that the US was funding the Iranians during the Reagan years, I see.

I think you mean Iraq...

And NO, no one's denied the aid given to Saddam during the Reagan years, because back then Saddam was embroiled in the Iran/Iraq war. He was, by proxy, taking care of America's problem....



Any questions, or do you wish to revise more history?

noonwitch
06-24-2011, 02:55 PM
I think you mean Iraq...

And NO, no one's denied the aid given to Saddam during the Reagan years, because back then Saddam was embroiled in the Iran/Iraq war. He was, by proxy, taking care of America's problem....



Any questions, or do you wish to revise more history?


No, I mean Iran. Like in Iran-Contra. There was a series of hearings in Congress to address that one. There was even a report called the Tower Commission Report. The people criticizing my original post honed in on the Iraq part.

The US, under Reagan, sold weapons to Iran. They used the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Even in 1981, maybe especially in 1981, Iran was a terrorist nation that had held our diplomats hostage for about 2 years.

This is not revisionist history, it is fact. You can spin those facts, justify the sales by saying that the evil democrats who controlled congress in the 80s wouldn't support the Contras in their fight to overthrow the communist Sandinistas so the Reagan administration had to find a way to support these freedom-loving patriots of Central America. When they weren't busy loving freedom, they were killing nuns and selling cocaine, but, hey, at least they weren't communists. It doesn't change the fact that the Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran, a terrorist nation that supported the same terrorists who blew up our Marines in Lebanon.

I am not defending the Sandinistas, who are no longer in power at this point and are basically a blip in Central American history at this point. I'm just saying that we were assisting a group who was just as bad.

Apache
06-24-2011, 04:36 PM
No, I mean Iran. Like in Iran-Contra. There was a series of hearings in Congress to address that one. There was even a report called the Tower Commission Report. The people criticizing my original post honed in on the Iraq part.

The US, under Reagan, sold weapons to Iran. They used the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Even in 1981, maybe especially in 1981, Iran was a terrorist nation that had held our diplomats hostage for about 2 years.

This is not revisionist history, it is fact. You can spin those facts, justify the sales by saying that the evil democrats who controlled congress in the 80s wouldn't support the Contras in their fight to overthrow the communist Sandinistas so the Reagan administration had to find a way to support these freedom-loving patriots of Central America. When they weren't busy loving freedom, they were killing nuns and selling cocaine, but, hey, at least they weren't communists. It doesn't change the fact that the Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran, a terrorist nation that supported the same terrorists who blew up our Marines in Lebanon.

I am not defending the Sandinistas, who are no longer in power at this point and are basically a blip in Central American history at this point. I'm just saying that we were assisting a group who was just as bad.
Ok, fair enough. I was mistaken as to where you were on the topic.
Iran/Contra was/is a topic I really don't know much about. I was too young to give a rat's pellet about politics, so I didn't follow it when it took place. That being said, I have no real position on the affair...

NJCardFan
06-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Ok, fair enough. I was mistaken as to where you were on the topic.
Iran/Contra was/is a topic I really don't know much about. I was too young to give a rat's pellet about politics, so I didn't follow it when it took place. That being said, I have no real position on the affair...

The only thing I can tell you about the Iran/Contra affair is that there were little old ladies who would call and complain that their stories weren't on TV. I was working for the local cable company at the time.

noonwitch
06-27-2011, 08:34 AM
The only thing I can tell you about the Iran/Contra affair is that there were little old ladies who would call and complain that their stories weren't on TV. I was working for the local cable company at the time.




I have to say that that is hilarious!

lacarnut
06-27-2011, 10:07 AM
I think the only point that can be made here is that Beck repeatedly refers to the rally as an "anti-american rally", which is a matter of opinion. As he is an editorialist, not a newsreader, he's allowed to express his opinion. I believe that's basically what he does for an hour every day. That way, FOX doesn't have to fact check every brain fart he decides to verbalize on the air.

You are getting a little dirty defending anti-American scum bags like Jones. Libs just can not help themselves when defending trash like the Ward's and Jones of the world.

Your assault on Beck fails. Stick to the topic dummy not your rantings about him, Iran Contra, Reagan and the rest of the bull shit you are spouting. Red herring, red herring.

Odysseus
06-27-2011, 11:46 AM
I think the only point that can be made here is that Beck repeatedly refers to the rally as an "anti-american rally", which is a matter of opinion. As he is an editorialist, not a newsreader, he's allowed to express his opinion. I believe that's basically what he does for an hour every day. That way, FOX doesn't have to fact check every brain fart he decides to verbalize on the air.
When Jones presents our enemies' propaganda as fact, and falsifies incidents of anti-Arab bias, he's attacking America.

Was the nation of Iran a terrorist nation in the 1980s? Were they funding anti-Israel terrorists in Israel and Lebanon? Had they held our diplomats hostage for 2 years prior to Reagan taking office?

I believe we had a whole series of congressional hearings that established 1. the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Iranian government and 2. the administration then funneled the funds to the Contras, who were fighting the elected communist government of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Incidentally, the Contras were also trafficking cocaine across the US border to raise money. No big deal for Reagan's guys. After all "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Additionally, we were also arming Saddam Hussein, who was fighting a war with Iran, and using some of the weapons of mass destruction we gave him to slaughter the Kurds.

Who funded the terrorists that blew up our Marines in Beiruit?

This is not revisionist history. Revisionist history would be to say that all this was justifiable in the name of fighting communism and the USSR, which was doomed to fail anyway.
Thepurpose of Iran/Contra was to fund the Nicaraguan Contras and to prolong the Iran/Iraq war, which weakened both sides. We did that by providing anti-armor weapons to Iran, in order to counter Saddam's mechanized advantage, and by providing satellite intel to Iraq, so that Saddam could maneuver his forces to counter the movements of Iran's huge infantry forces. The result was a slow bleed that kept both regimes at each others' throats and out of our hair.

Van Jones is a douche but questioning and criticizing your government is never Anti American.

It's only anti-American when its purpose is to undermine our nation or give aid and comfort to our enemies. Jones was acting to prevent the US Government from completing its Constitutional mandate to protect American citizens, by disseminating enemy propaganda.