Yet another terrorist advises the president 6

John Perazzo writes at Front Page Magazine (please read it all here):

The Apollo Alliance, which helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that the President signed into law in early 2009, exerts a powerful influence on the environmental views and policies of the Obama administration. Specifically, the Alliance had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked. Apollo Alliance’s name gained some notoriety in recent weeks because of its ties to Van Jones, the communist revolutionary who resigned his post as Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” during Labor Day weekend. But there is another highly noteworthy Jones – Jeff Jones (no relation) – who also holds a lofty post with the Apollo Alliance, and who, as such, also has the ear of the President. Remarkably, Jeff, like Van, also has a history as a communist revolutionary – with longstanding, intimate ties to domestic terrorism, no less.

Today Jeff Jones is director of the Apollo Alliance’s New York State chapter… .

In 1965 Jones joined the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and became active as an anti-war speaker on college campuses. In April 1967 he quit school to become the regional office coordinator of New York City’s SDS chapter, a position he held until December 1968. SDS supported America’s Communist enemies in the Cold War while denouncing the U.S. as a nation rife with bigotry, injustice, greed, and unrestrained militarism – and calling for America’s unilateral disarmament. During his tenure with SDS, Jones became a sworn enemy of the United States government. Believing that America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia was immoral, he sided openly with the North Vietnamese communists. Formally renouncing the conscientious-objector status that had been conferred on him as a result of his Quaker lineage, he began referring to himself and his ideological comrades as “communist revolutionaries.”…

By mid-June of 1969, Jones, along with Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, became a leader of SDS’s most militant wing and formed a new radical organization, Weatherman. They issued a Weatherman “manifesto” eschewing nonviolence and calling for armed opposition to U.S. policies; advocating the overthrow of capitalism; exhorting white radicals to trigger a worldwide revolution by fighting in the streets of the “mother country”; and proclaiming that the time had come to launch a race war against the “white” United States on behalf of the non-white Third World

In March 1970 Jones and his fellow Weathermen adopted a new name, the Weather Underground Organization, taking fake identities and restricting themselves exclusively to covert activities. Also in 1970, Jones and the Weather Underground issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government. The FBI launched a manhunt to track them down.

Jones would elude law-enforcement authorities for more than a decade. He lived for over a year in San Francisco with fellow fugitive and Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn, who would later marry the America-hating terrorist Bill Ayers. Dohrn and Ayers, you may recall, would eventually (in the mid-1990s) give Barack Obama his start in politics when they hosted meet-and-greet events for him at their home in Chicago…

Since his capture in an October 1981 police sweep, Jones has found a home in the environmental movement, the place where many former communists have established a platform from which to promote anti-capitalist agendas and portray Western industrialized society as the scourge of the natural world…

After all those years as a communist revolutionary seeking to undermine capitalist America, Jeff Jones has finally found his way back home. Now he can pursue that same objective under the more socially acceptable auspices of the Apollo Alliance, the organization whose board of directors features that other Marxist, Van Jones – the man whom President Obama selected six months ago as his highest-level environmental adviser.

So why is anyone surprised that Obama is ruining the economy, diminishing liberty, and sucking up to despotisms of the Third World?

  • rogerinflorida

    In the US anyway it seems that the left, having accomplished their long march, are now very much swimming against the tide. I was very heartened by the size of the 9/12 protest in Washington, I see a glimmer of hope that perhaps we are not “going over the falls”. The reaction of the left will be suppression, this will come in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine”, also new hate speech laws designed to suppress opposition, coupled with an ever more frenzied campaign by the MSM to smear and discount all opposition to the O's plans. When that doesn't work expect the call to go out to the rent a mob crowd for counter demonstrations, that could all too easily get very ugly.
    What is missing now is a credible conservative to emerge as a leader and spokesman to channel the conservative frustration into a viable political force. This is for the Republican party to do but given their record I have my doubts. Without the GOP we would need a new party, a very difficult thing to pull off. I greatly respect and admire Sarah Palin but I don't think she has the kind of intellectual horsepower needed. She is no Margaret Thatcher.
    It all hinges now on maintaining momemtum through to the 2010 elections and then pulling off a bloodbath. How much damage can the O do in 12 months? Quite a lot and the health care issue is critical, as Mark Steyn has said, this is not about health care, it is about control, once health care is govt. run it becomes a club for use by politicians to beat down opposition.

  • r in f – I too would like to see intense protest against the advance of sharia and mass immigration. It's actually happening to an impressive extent against the squandering of tax-payers' money, the growth of government and the tightening grip of socialism.
    What matters is what the protest is about, what the violence is for, what the war is for.
    My book 'Hitler's Children' is all about the Baader-Meinhof gang: Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Baader, who were murderers for the fun of it. ('Danny the Red' comes into the book too.) A number of that gang were not so much rebelling against their communist parents as trying to surpass them, to show them what real revolutionaries were like, how they would go all the way even to the point of killing for 'the cause'.
    I am curious to see what the 1960s anti-establishment rebels, having succeeded in their 'long march through the institutions' to the fullest extent of their wildest dreams and having become the establishment themselves, will do now that enormous power is in their hands.

  • rogerinflorida

    Ms Becker,
    As you well understand, history is dynamic. The 60s radicals were born from a middle class affluence combined with a closed minded attitude. “What is good for General Motors is good for America”, typified an attitude that grated against a generation that had, for instance, real sexual freedom for the first time in human history. You may say “what does that matter”, it matters a lot. The young will always mark their territory in defiance of those they deem unable, but determined, to control them, and it has been said that the 60s generation is the first that defied their parents and won. The US of the 60s was firehosing civil rights demonstrators, was denying basic civil rights to 10% of the population and was engaging in a war of aggression against a far away SE Asian country.
    There are always a proportion of the population who will engage in violent acts against what they perceive to be injustices perpetrated by “The establishment” and they were certainly plenty around at that time. You remember Danny “The Red” Cohn Bendit, Ulriche Meinhoff and Erich Bader, et al.
    You know, call me crazy but I wish there were more now (any?) who would fight the nonsensical “established” view encouraging mass immigration and the kowtowing to Sharia that we see in our current political class.
    Violence, unfortunately, does have a place in political discourse.

  • Why am I not surprised?

  • r in f – I don't want to discuss the Vietnam war here (I think we would not agree on the pros and cons), but the question that must be asked about the New Left, the Weathermen, the young revolutionary terrorists of 1968 and after, is this: was the Vietnam war their reason for violence, or was it only a pretext? In my book 'Hitler's Children' I analyze the motives of New Left terrorists in Europe, and demonstrate that the causes of their actions were to be found in themselves, not in any exterior cause whatsoever – though they too used the Vietnam war as an excuse. I've not found any reason to believe that their contemporary young left revolutionaries in America were different.

  • rogerinflorida

    Whatever the current status of these 60s radicals, there was a valid reason for their beliefs at that time. The US had deliberately and cynically manipulated the political process in SE Asia, and, when that political interference failed to produce the result desired, engaged in a brutal war against a nation, North Vietnam, that was no threat to the US, had never threatened the US and had, as a stated goal, the establishment of good relations with the US.
    To many of the readers of this blog this seems like ancient history now but believe me a major reason why the US changed course is that people like the SDS stood up and fought.