Media Fellow Travelers follow-up
By: Eddie Clements
In a previous article I suggested â€“ insisted â€“ that there is a definite connection between members of the MSM and the Obama administration. That connection goes to the political philosophies of administration staff, including the president, and beliefs of MSM staffs, including reporters, producers, writers, et al.
This should in no way be taken to mean there is active collusion or conspiracy between these entities. There may be active exchange of information, such as the belief in some quarters of morning conference calls between Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, and George Stephanopoulos, James Carville, and possibly others. Whether true or not, my point goes to the kindred beliefs shared by the actors rather than any actual contact. Those beliefs are statist.
The latest glaring evidence in support of that contention is offered by the following gleaned from National Review Onlineâ€™s â€œThe Cornerâ€, bylined Mark Hemingway, 9/4/2009.
MSNBC’s First Read says “Remind us again how the media is biased“:
The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days. How effective is the conservative media machine? Just ask Van Jonesâ€¦
Byron York provides the necessary reminder:
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.
If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, “Huh?” If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, “What?”
This is more important than just one advisor not subjected to the Senate confirmation process. This goes to the whole cast of characters employed by the administration, casting Barack Obama as the true radical he is, a fact hidden from the public during the election of 2008. And it goes to just how dangerous a media is that speaks for the state instead of the people who buy their product.
But one theme occurred in discussion of this issue by the â€œFox News All-Starsâ€ that should put an exclamation point on the sordid affair of Van Jones. They said, almost automatically, that anyone with issues in a Republican administration would have been told to resign already.
What parallels exist between the radical Van Jones and any other presidential advisor in any previous administration? This is a person who has described himself as a Communist, an economic philosophy diametrically opposed to capitalism and bent on destroying it. He asserted on camera that â€œwhite pollutersâ€ and â€œwhite environmentalistsâ€ spray toxins on crops, then direct the foods derived to minority neighborhoods, with the intent to poison them. He is on record saying all wealth should be confiscated from its present owners and given to Native Americans. He signed a petition asking for an investigation into the possibility that the Bush administration knew about and even colluded in the attacks on 9/11.
Huh? This guy is now on the White House staff, the federal payroll? He can be compared to, what, a cabinet member or White House advisor who scandalously held a membership in an all-white country club? Someone whose stock holdings reflected a conflict of interest? Who works/once worked for a lobbying group seeking favorable legislation?
Is there any more conflict of interest than between Communism and capitalism? How can an avowed Communist create â€œgreen jobsâ€, when his only demonstrated talent lies in sowing seeds of discontent? As a professional loudmouth he has only promoted racism and malice. He is not someone to be working in the White House.
No, a simple resignation and exit isnâ€™t enough. To restate a famous quote, a good scandal should not be wasted. The Senate must act to investigate the entire White House staff, since they are the only ones that can do so. A bright light must be shined on the whole â€œczarâ€ concept, and the individuals in those jobs examined. At a minimum, this is a failure of the FBIâ€™s vetting process. At maximum, hiring a person holding views inimical to traditional Americans reveals this administrationâ€™s contempt for our values.
As of this writing, 9/6/2009, Van Jones has resigned, and good riddance to bad rubbish. His exit statement is one of defiance, not regret. He blames forces outside himself for his undoing, naturally.
My guess is Mr. Jones will receive favorable MSM press, and we will hear from him and his politics of revenge again.