Guess who's back? Van Jones hints at plans for progressive economic organization

Van Jones has been inching his way back into the spotlight after his disgraceful exit from the White House - just like Glenn predicted he would! Now, he's hinting at building a progressive organization built around the economy. Sounds great (or scary)....more scary....

"And so I felt that the reason the Tea Party worked and the reason the Tea Party was so good against us was progressives are very good at building organizations around everything but the economy,” he said during a recent appearance at the University of Chicago."

"He says nothing comes to mind because there isn't a progressive economics club or organization. Now, I contend it's the Tides Foundation and it's the Center For American Progress, but what he's saying is there's not anybody out there really making the case that is separate," Glenn explained.

"By his own admission, after years as a civil rights activist and attorney in Oakland, California, Jones began to feel as though his efforts to help the disenfranchised were for naught, as he never saw the underprivileged get a leg up, regardless of how many welfare programs he fought for. Because he's looking for them in welfare programs and he never saw the underprivileged get a leg up? What about him? Was he under privileged or was he born a green jobs czar?" Glenn said.

Glenn read from The Blaze:

By his own admission, after years as a civil rights activist and attorney in Oakland, California, Jones began to feel as though his efforts to help the disenfranchised were for naught, as he never saw the underprivileged get a leg up — regardless of how many welfare programs he fought for. In his book, Rebuild The Dream, Jones recalled a conversation with his father, who believed that it was only through gainful employment that the underprivileged could gain self-reliance, and thus, self-respect.

According to his account, this realization, combined with a series of letdowns in traditional activism prompted Jones to look to the opportunities he believed existed in the newly emerging green movement, and aided Jones in stowing away some of the animus he once harbored for Capitalism, which he came to view as not wholly “evil.”  In his mind, Capitalism could now be used for good via leveraging business and job opportunities within the “green economy.” This epiphany is what catalyzed Jones to pioneer green jobs initiatives as a pathway out of poverty for inner city communities, and would later lift him to the heights of an Obama administration “Green Czar.”

" To his mind capitalism could now be used for good via leveraging business and job opportunities within the green economy.  What is that?  That's totalitarianism.  See, this is where the socialists say, oh, he's not socialist.  He's not a communist because he's baling out Wall Street, he's getting into bed with big business.  That's right.  That's the difference between communism as the way it was when we were growing up, total control of absolutely everything, and the new kind of communism which used to be called Fascism in China," Glenn explained.

The Blaze also noted that Jones has expressed serious concern with the fact that there is no progressive economic movement:

“This is a big problem,” Jones said at one point during the panel discussion in reference to the fact that there is no progressive economic movement one can point to.

“You go the the laundromat, you go to a sports bar, you go to a house of worship, ask people what the number one concern is. The economy, jobs, economic issues. And we don’t have anything to ask them to join.”

“And so I say since no one seems to have built anything in this space, can we create a movement around economic justice that would be scalable to the traditionally poor and the newly impoverished on the same team?”

The “language” and “rhetoric” of such a movement, according to Jones, would “shock the hard-core liberals and the people in the college towns and the coasts,“ but would be the ”unifying common ground on the economy.” It is at this point Jones admits that he has in fact launched such a campaign and called it: “Rebuild the Dream.”

“We now have 600,000 people,” he added.

“We’re in every congressional district. Growing like wildfire. The book came out. I think we can put up a positive Tea Party. I think we put up at Tea Party movement that’s just as passionate but not spreading fear — spreading hope, spreading love, spreading solidarity. But it has to be taken seriously as a new project. Get the traditionally poor and the newly impoverished on the same page.”

"Isn't that interesting? Van Jones got in and he has said in many interviews since, when he's at his lowest point, that they thought they had everything. They thought they controlled the House, the Senate, they controlled the White House. They thought they were done but then the Tea Party showed up and remember how much they despised us and hated it. What has he done? He's gone out and tried to recreate a Tea Party movement. Now, wait a minute. Didn't we say that that's exactly what he would do, that he would go out and he would be the movement that resembled the Martin Luther King movement or the Tea Party movement that would gather steam and allow the separation between him and Occupy to stand?"

"Van Jones is a very dangerous man. There's more on Van Jones coming. He talks about -- he talks about art and everything else. It's really fascinating to me that this stuff is just coming out now and look what he's doing. The first thing he has been talking about for a long time is you've got to commit, you've got to be ready to commit, you've got to know what you believe, you've got to stand, you've got to be there. Now he's talking about activate. Now he's talking about how we're in 435 congressional districts and we've got to activate, we've got to get out there and we've got to do these things, we've got to be -- that's tonight's episode. Those are our plans. Those are our steps. You watch."

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?