California Conservative

Meg Whitman’s Got Some Explaining To Do

I just finished a post about Van Jones’ radicalism. Now I’ve seen this video of California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman talking about Van Jones:

If Ms. Whitman doesn’t find Mr. Jones’ radicalism upsetting and alarming, then she shouldn’t be considered a serious candidate for governor. At minimum, Ms. Whitman has alot of explaining to do.

Technorati Tags: Van Jones, Radical, YouTube, Meg Whitman, Election 2010

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Friday, September 4th, 2009 at 3:07 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Corruption, Election 2010, Subversives. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

7 Responses to “Meg Whitman’s Got Some Explaining To Do”

SEW Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Can American trust ANY politician from California??? Van Jones seems to be the classic California pol!!!
db Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
No more RINOs!
Vote Poizner for Senate!!!!!!
Carlos Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 12:41 am
When one’s perspective starts at what used to be considered socialist and goes radical left from there, what else can you expect from a state who thinks their senators are God’s gift to everlasting love, harmony and peace?

California doesn’t have the intellectual capacity in a collective total (just like the fed admin) to figure out that it’s impossible to steal from producers to give to criminal aliens and non-producers everything they want and still have a viable economy.
USN Ret. Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 7:31 am
R
USN Ret. Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Radicals rarely think through the implications of their policies, Carlos, nor do they really care. Its all about the agenda. Redistribute the wealth, punish success, place themselves in power. Because if you are in absolute power and control the banks, and the means of production and distribution, and keep the populace disarmed and in submission, what difference does the result of your policies make? None whatsoever. Any problems can be blamed on outside forces, that simply require you to have even more power and authority to handle.
Carlos Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The donks haven’t until recently had absolute power over the banks, nor the means of production and distribution, and certainly haven’t kept a lot of us unarmed, so that has nothing to do with the way they view their policies.

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent book years ago called “Vision of the Anointed”, a book that should be required reading by everyone. In it he explains that liberals (leftists, socialists, anyone who wishes to run the lives of everyone else) don’t care about the results of their policies because their policies are about making themselves feel good, not those the policies are theoretically intended to help.

So, in the final analysis, RTN, it’s not about agenda, it’s about themselves.

As prime proof of this, I offer the current President of the United States.
USN Ret. Says:
September 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Hey Carlos its the same difference.

Your reading Sowells, Im referring to David Horowitz’ “Politics of Bad Faith”.

Both are probably correct; Horowitz says they dont care about the outcome as long as it gains them more power. Sowells is just going at it from their own vanity and personal touchy feely psychology, whereas Horowtz sees them as simply agenda driven, he ought to know, he was one of the origfinal red diaper doper babies.

Bottom line : modern day “Liberals” are anything but liberal, they are egotistical, biased, intolerant, narrowminded, sacrimonious, hypocritical, fools, like the Pharisee I quoted above. And wierd.

Meg Whitman’s Got Some Explaining To Do

7 Responses to “Meg Whitman’s Got Some Explaining To Do”

Leave a Reply