re: #361 Arbalest

Thie big pcture of Van Jones’ career is known: essentially a severe Marxist, very politically active and known to associate with various radical / fringe / whatever groups in the area; in this case SF-Oakland.

Salamanits, in post 23, provides a plausible answer, Jones did the politically expedient thing, and signed.

Via a link from Hot Air, this article by Jake Tapper at ABC News:

Link: [Link: blogs.abcnews.com…]

and this quote:

”But in March 2002, a march in San Francisco was called to demand a congressional inquiry into 9/11. Jones was on the “organizing committee.””

Jones was on the “organizing committee.”. Is it even remotely reasonable to assume he did not know what the major views of the Truthers, with whom he associated, were?

No. People who live / work in close proximity to others tend to become familiar with the views, beliefs and practices of others. New York City is a case in point. The fact that Catholics, Jews and Protestants that lived in the same neighborhoods and or worked together tended to become knowledgeable about each other’s religious beliefs and practices seems adequate proof.

Van Jones’ actions may be just political expediency, but maybe not. In any case, at this point, the ball is in Jones’ court, and Jones has some explaining to do.

Once again: the “ABC” story here is straight from Rense.

The explanation for all this that makes the most sense is that Troofers are lying, and that a very disturbing number of people are more than willing to listen to Troofers when they bleat things people want to hear.