February 11, 2009 Berkeley, California.
From a lecture Jones gave at the 2nd Annual Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative (BERC) event
From Berkeley’s Education Online Announcement
February 11, 2009 | 6pm | Bancroft Hotel
“As climate chaos and soaring fuel costs batter the U.S. economy, Van Jones brings a unique perspective to the color green. He argues that a green economy that rescues the polar bears can also rescue the U.S. economy — putting America back to work; driving down energy and food prices;giving green collar jobs and new chances to underserved youth; and forever ending the need for oil wars and resource wars.”
Event Co-Sponsors: Don Vial Center on Employment and the Green Economy, UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, The Stiefel Family Foundation . Source
On another site, I found the following:
2008 UC Berkeley Energy Symposium
“The Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative is proud to present the 2008 UC Berkeley Energy Symposium: Leadership at the Nexus of Science, Policy, & Business March 7 2008 The second annual UC Berkeley Energy Symposium — “Leadership at the Nexus of Science, Policy & Business” — will bring together leaders in energy from both the public and private sectors to discuss the innovative science, technology, and requisite public policies that will shape the future of energy in the United States and across the globe. The symposium will highlight clean energy innovations emerging from several segments of the UC Berkeley community including: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Haas School of Business; Energy and Resources Group; UC Energy Institute; Boalt Hall School of Law; College of Engineering; College of Chemistry; Goldman School of Public Policy; Institute of Transportation Studies; College of Natural Resources; and Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society. More information at http://berc.berkeley.edu/symposium”
It is clear to me having seen this college announcement for 2008 that Mr. Jones does not represent the highest ideals of ‘The Berkeley Energy & Resources Collabative’ nor does he represent Berkley College. But what isn’t clear to me is why a higher institution of learning would permit a speaker like Jones to appear in the first place. He is rude and offensive and blatantly attempts to indoctrinate our youth with false information and insinendos.
It is also clear to me that 2 seconds after he made these rude remarks that he must have caught himself and in an attempt to lighten the load proceeded to insert a little bit of humor. Self defrecation does not hide nor does it gloss over the fact that he has used a term that most of us would censor out. To call republicans ‘assholes’ and then two seconds later say to these students that Obama is not an asshole but that he is, is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever heard any speaker say to his audience.
But let us not get distracted.
The one sentence that strikes out at me is this, “The second annual UC Berkeley Energy Symposium — will bring together leaders in energy from both the public and private sectors to discuss the innovative science, technology, and requisite public policies that will shape the future of energy in the United States and across the globe.”
In light of the recent controversy surrounding Van Jones as advisor to president Obama to say or even suggest (even by way of his appearance) that he (Van Jones) is making quote/unquote “policy” or that a symposium such as this is attempting to reshape both America and the globe are somewhat bothersome. It is bothersome because one can sense some sort of hidden agenda.
Are we really about fixing our pollution problem or are we about making changes to the social structure of our citizens. If the former then I do not have a problem with attempts to purify our air and water supplies. But if the president’s agenda is moving toward a level playing field both socially and economically by going global then I have a real problem with this kind of thinking. I have a problem with it because Mr. Jones has revealed to us that his agenda all about social justice for inner city dwellers, minorities, blacks, Native Americans, and yes, illegal aliens and prisoners. I have a problem with it because Obama promised us that he would unite our country and not divide it. But if he and the those like Jones think along the same lines, then our president is also about social justice, now isn’t he? Why else would he have chosen a man like Jones to be his Green Jobs Czar? And if he thinks and feels like Jones, a man who seems to have a deep seated chip on his shoulder, he is not only about leveling the playing field he is all about payback time. He is about destroying the playing field and leveling it to the ground; not only for African-American but for the continent of Africa. That is to say, if his American agenda goes global.
Now, I ask you to scroll back to the video and listen to it just one more time. This time pay special attention to the young woman’s original question where she says, “Why can’t we move things as progressively as we want, as Obama wants,” she said. Now, there are several definitions to the word progressive. Webster tells us, “adj. of or relating to, or characterized by progress.” This is the definition I think this young lady was using. She was using it as a plain ordinary adjective to describe the speed at which congress was acting. But what she may or may not know is that the word Progressive is also a specific technical political term having to do with a Progressive Movement. That movement is largely socialist in appeal and meaning.
Again we look at Webster, this time using the noun. “A Progressive is a person believing in political change and social improvement by government action. In our age a Progressive is a left leaning liberal socialist who is usually in favor of big government, government control and higher taxes. I am not critisizing the lady for her knowledge of words nor of their usage… But the thought did cross my mind that perhaps many are being dupped to belong to, follow, or promote a cause that they themselves may or may not truly believe in. In either event, it is just a personal observation of mine and I did want to present it to you. Still, if my insights are right then our president is not only a liberal, he is a socialistic/marxist hell bent on political change or of remaking America into a socialized nation. If I am right, he has not been totally forthcoming to the American people… not during the election season nor now during the infancy of his presidency.
Just listen to what the good old Reverend Wright has said this past weekend. When asked by a reporter: “What do you think about the president’s healthcare bill, Wright replied:
“I think republicans are racist right-wingers who are upset because the poor people are about to get some help.”
Now, I am not saying that the poor folk don’t need any help, but I am against the racial component of his response. Why is it, I ask myself, that everytime someone disagrees with Obama they are called racist? Why is it that our country can elect our first African-American to the highest office in the land, and still those of color are spouting their reverse discrimination? And why is it that Obama can give a grandiose speech so that ‘whitie’ can understand the ‘reality’ of blacks but not step in to quelch the fires that burn in the heart of African-Americans like Wright and now like Van Jones. And finally, I ask myself, why is it that Obama associates himself with so many of radical socialist, maxist, communist people. Okay, okay, many are black just like he is… I get that… but surely not every African-American is as radical as these two men are. Surely our president is not to be counted among them. Or is he?
One or two radical associates we can forgive… but when his ‘Love Army’ starts spouting this hatred one has to wonder where is all the outrage? Where is media? But more importantly, where is Obama?
Shaun Hannity, you were right—Obama is the Reverend Wright…. not in person but in character and in his beliefs.