Van Jones and the Coming Civil War

by Ben Barrack

Many have strongly believed – with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge for more than a year now – that Barack Obama has been intentionally destroying the U.S. economy. Now, thanks to Obama’s concession that allowing the current tax rates to expire would harm the middle class, coupled with the words of former Green Jobs czar and current fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), Van Jones, Limbaugh’s accuracy record is about to gain another fraction of a percentage point.

On November 30th, conservative blogger Adam Sharp went to Washington University in St. Louis to record video of Van Jones as he spoke there. Sharp persisted when campus police, event coordinators, and others attempted to prohibit him from recording the event by reminding them that it was billed as  being open to the public. Ironically, the person who finally conceded to Sharp’s right to record was Jones himself.

That may have been a mistake on the part of Van “The Wizard” because it allowed Toto to pull back the proverbial curtain.

In one of the more shocking videos of late, Jones seemed to predict civil war in the United States because America will continue to become “less and less economically prosperous” while becoming “more and more ethnically diverse.” As he spoke of our nation becoming more ethnically diverse, his body language communicated that Americans would become more divided.

After saying that increased diversity coupled with a bad economy is “not a recipe for common ground; that’s a recipe for a battleground,” Jones went on to say that “opponents” (presumably capitalists) would “attack” and “fear” diversity as economic conditions deteriorate. He cited “immigrants,” “Muslims,” and homosexuals as targets of those “opponents.” Was Jones laying the groundwork for the excitement of domestic insurrection once economic conditions deteriorate enough?

Barack Obama suffered what Limbaugh identified as his first legislative defeat when he agreed to a two-year extension of the current tax rates. Obama wanted to see earners of more than $250,000 a year return to a higher rate, identifying them as wealthy. That premise is faulty, because such a group includes small business owners whose gross income may put them in such a category but whose bottom line puts them in a much lower one. In short, the Obama plan, ultimately rejected by Republicans emboldened by the recent election results, would lead us closer to the “potential nightmare scenario” Van Jones spoke about because our nation would necessarily become less economically prosperous as a result.

While it’s true that Jones is no longer in the administration, his fellowship with the Center for American Progress allows him to be part of a group that advises the White House on policy. To say that the views of Jones do not reflect those of the Obama administration is ridiculous. CAP is perhaps the most influential think tank in Obama’s Washington. Shortly after Obama’s election in 2008, TIME Magazine called CAP his “Idea Factory;” in 2009, The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent wrote on his Plum Line blog that the CAP had launched a “War Room” to drive the Obama agenda; last summer, the Wall Street Journal reported that the CAP appeared to “have more influence on spill policy than the president’s in-house advisers” during the BP oil spill.

Does that increased influence translate to Jones having more influence on this administration than he did before he resigned in disgrace after Glenn Beck unmasked him in 2009? In fact, to average Americans, Jones was so disgraced that the White House’s refusal to fire him rather than allow him to resign said perhaps as much about the administration as it did about Jones.

This leads us to the head of CAP, John Podesta who hired Jones after the latter was exposed on so many levels for a myriad of shocking revelations about his past and his beliefs.

As both Jones’ boss and the head of an organization that retains him, does Podesta agree with the former Green Jobs czar? Does Podesta endorse the views Jones expressed at Washington University on November 30th? If he does, is he advising the Obama administration on policies that would help Jones’ “nightmare scenario” come to fruition? If Limbaugh is right about Obama intentionally destroying the economy, can we surmise that the president is doing so at the behest of the Center for American Progress based on the views expressed by one of its leaders in Jones?

Lastly, if the answer to all of those questions is yes, I have one more.

Is exciting domestic insurrection an impeachable offense?

Ben Barrack is a talk show host on KTEM 1400 in Texas and maintains a website at

This entry was posted in Floyd Reports, News Reports, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Van Jones and the Coming Civil War

  1. mcdago says:

    Ironically, Jones has a point. Many immigrants coming here now do not want to be part of our culture. They want us to conform to theirs. Look to the Mexicans in California that fly their own flag over ours as one example. Many people come here now to enjoy the benefits of our system without putting anything in. Allowed to continue long term, that is a recipe for disaster. That being said, the far left wackos like Jones would love for the “downtrodden” to rise up. That is why they aid and abet illegal immigrants at every turn. They count on them for the votes. More class warfare and division politics from the left. We shouldn't be surprised.

  2. Cowboy says:

    These are some very good point to think about.
    I personaly agree with this artical that Jones should be investigated for trying to instigate a riot.

  3. chwills says:

    Is exciting domestic insurrection an impeachable offense? There's many reasons to impeach Obama. The mere fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen precludes him from the office of POTUS. There's a petition that explains it:

    I signed it and plan to sign it again after new years.

    • J.J. says:

      And that just proves that you are more guilty than those you are trying to impeach. You just said the equivalent of “I voted for Obama TWICE, that’s how much I liked him!”

  4. hijinx60 says:

    "exciting domestic insurrection" is in reality not only an impeachable offense but also an act of treason punishable by death.

  5. Wlmitch1 says:

    Is Van Jones predicting a civil war? I believe the answer is yes. It would be suicidal for the Marxists and the New World Order types to start a civil war, but that does NOT mean that they will not provoke one. The two things all evildoers have in common is that they are both arrogant and cocky. They think that they are invincible. As I have written in a previous comment, even though hating anyone is against my religion, I have given up trying not to hate Marxists because I clearly understand how evil they are and the atrocities they are capable of committing. Remember, Marx, Engels, and Alinsky were all Satanists, the ultimate infidels!

  6. eingriff says:

    I think he means "inciting domestic insurrection." It is if Congress so finds.

    Using billions of American wealth to pay off Indonesian officials for covering up Barry's Indonesian citizenship would also seem to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

  7. Pingback: A Congressman is On Board: Impeach Obama Over DOMA | Floyd Reports

  8. Pingback: The Rise Of Left-Wing Capitalism | Pundit House

  9. Lisa says:

    “it’s a shame we can’t kill our eeemins any faster!”Yes, jason; when you say stuff like this, everybody feels your love for humanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>