« Send in the Clowns | Main | Terrorists Captured on Foreign Battlefields Get Miranda Rights »

Lawhak has a good summary:

He was a 9/11 Troofer (a conspiracy theorist claiming that the US government and Jews were behind the attack).

He was a white supremacist and anti Semite and had links to various members of different white supremacist movements.

He was a Holocaust denier.

He was anti-Christian, claiming that Christianity brought the downfall of the Roman Empire and that Christianity was a hoax.

He also apparently believed that President Obama's background was being hidden from the public.

He was an anti-Bush kook. More to the point, he was anti-government and had been for decades.

Maybe if this guy had gotten his own shown on MSDNC, he wouldn't have been so angry. (Hey, if they gave Ed Schulz a show...)

Srsly, though, if you go to a site like stormfront-dot-org, you see the exact same anti-corporate, anti-Bush, anti-Israel rhetoric you see at DailkyKooks and Puffington Host.

Since every sentence von Brunn writes contains at least one historical error, I'll pick my favorite one and let subsequent commenters pick their own.

Paul — who believed the World was flat...

Paul did not believe the earth was flat, nor did any educated person from about 300 B.C. onward.

Paul did not believe the earth was flat, nor did any educated person from about 300 B.C. onward.

Yeah, that's almost as dumb as believing the ice caps are going to melt and flood the world unless we all switch to Chinese Death bulbs.

RE: Posted by: V the K at June 11, 2009 8:34 AM

V the K rightly observes, ".....if you go to a site like stormfront-dot-org, you see the exact same anti-corporate, anti-Bush, anti-Israel rhetoric you see at DailkyKooks and Puffington Host."

Yep - that's because National Socialism, aka Nazism, Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all distinctly LEFTIST phenomena, and are enabled by the distinctly LEFTIST propensity for Liberalism, Pacifism, and Nihilism.

Notice that they always try to cast these whack jobs as “Right Wingers”? The Political Left is still tripping over itself trying to convince us that Timothy McVeigh was a “Right Winger”, too – even though he bears more resemblance to Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground and the “9/11 Troofers” than to anything or anybody on the political Right.

"Projection" - isn't that what the mental health professionals call it?

jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father)
That looks like a perfect discription of HIM. (von brunn that is) If he had only cheated on his taxes he could have gotten a cabinet post with the Obama nation. Oh, and been half non-white.

wonder what his economic views were? Wonder what his views on taxation, welfare and government responsibility were....guessing you'd all of agreed with him. Wonder what he thought of interracial marriages and homosexuality...? Wonder what his views on immigration were? Just because the man got one or two things right; ie Christianity is a farce cult, and that Bush was a loser, which the grand majority of the country felt anyway, doesn't make him a liberal.

No you see the mcveighs and von brunns of the world are upset with the republicans because they are NOT right wing enough.

Next your going to claim the KKK is a leftist organization.

Own your kind losers!

Tony of, gets it wrong. The extreme nationalism, wrapping oneself in the flag, and blind patriotism, my country right or wrong, are RIGHT WING phenomena

I wish we all could get some clarity and handle on the terminology.

I guess I would be a right-wing EXTREMIST, in the sense that I believe EXTREMELY strongly that we should have EXTREMELY minimal government intrusion in our lives, with virtually no regulation of business, bedrooms, economy, speech, thought, lawful actions and activities, or anything else. I would like to see the federal government fight our enemies, protect our borders, enforce national laws, and then get the hell out of the way. I would like to see the Depts of Education, Commerce, and HHS dismantled, and all laws and regulations that have constrained free speech and thought thrown in the garbage, along with our membership in the UN. Now, that is an "extremist" viewpoint in today's world, but such ideas were very mainstream at other times.

Somehow, right-wing extremism has gotten entangled in the public mind with paranoid anarchistic, pseudo-nationalistic socialist sociopaths, such as von Brunn. Obviously, the left has captured, defined and taken full ownership of the lexicon. I don't know how we can get it back, but get it back we must, lest the handful of von Brunns out there be associated somehow with what was for most of US history a very honorable, enlightened way of looking at politics and policy. Our country was founded on principles that would today be "right-wing extremist" but which provided a sound basis for free people living together peaceably.

Like Scott Roeder, Von Grunn posted on right-wing sites like Free Republic. To Free Republic's credit they took down his comments, but you can still find cached versions of it. Jumped on the right-wing/Limbaugh bandwagon about Obama's birth certificate conspiracy, which has been debunked by Factcheck.org Was on board with Ron Paul about the Fed. Was irked about the DHS report, which many of you were. I saw on the other thread where this came up, the Weather Underground was mentioned. The Weather Underground's activities were despicable, yet the only people killed were members of the group. Odd, since right-extremists target ethnicity, liberals,gays and abortion doctors, and left-wing extremists target causes. Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS ACTIVITY FROM EITHER SIDE!

Tony of, gets it wrong. The extreme nationalism, wrapping oneself in the flag, and blind patriotism, my country right or wrong, are RIGHT WING phenomena

Except that von Brunn hated his country.

Idiot.

wingnutcracker, please don't play dumb. It only makes you look even more dumb than we already think you are. The *real* issue is the disingenuous labeling of this guy as a right-wing extremist. We have extremists in this country and world, PERIOD. And we have face a clear and present danger from muslim extremists. Any elaboration beyond this is nothing more than a petty game to gain political points at the expense of liberty for the many. So STFU.

wingnutcracker, James von Brunn is ANTI-nationalist; he HATES the US government. This would put him in your camp. Plus where the hell did Tony say anything about nationalism?

Economic views? Well he hates big businesses, that doesn't sound much like a right winger to me. BTW fascist economies normally are state controlled and appose large corporations do to the threat they pose to the government. Fascist governments also appose international trade i.e. anti-globalization.

"Odd, since right-extremists target ethnicity, liberals,gays and abortion doctors, and left-wing extremists target causes." -Ghost of Wellstone

Except for those judges and their families that the weather underground targeted.

Wingnut the KKK was started by members of the democratic party. The boys at MIT sure must be proud.

This guy is a nut. I don't know what label to put on him, but I'm conservative and his views are apparently very different from mine. He's not a "right-winger", but I fully expected people like Keith Olbermann, the local trolls and Charles Johnson to try to paint him as one.

Hating the government puts him in MY camp??????

This site is dedicated to hating the government, What the hell are all of you spewing spittle laden regurgitations of retards like Glenn Beck here for everyday? It's because YOU hate the government, You hate government period. Mega articulates it above. He wants NO REGULATION of business. NONE. If you own a business you can do whatever you like to the people who work for you, the community you live operate in, and the environment you occupy.

Regardless, I am willing to bet that Vonn Brunn would find much much more in common with a guy like Mega, or van helsing, or v the koward, or any of you , then he would say, Jon Stewart or Barney Frank, or oh, just about any of your enemies. As they say, an enemy of your enemy is your friend. So, try to call this guy a leftist, but we all know what the truth is, Throw in a little extra, more vile, and diabolical Jew hatred and vonn brunn ends up sounding a lot like many of you.

dickweed Ted, The Democrats of the south in 1800's were pretty significantly different then the party today.. read about it. Just because YOU think of the Democratic party of being solely made up of peace loving hippies, it was not always that way, as it isn't now. The Democratic party is not now, and has arguably never been a truly left wing party. It's left wing compared to the extremist right wing fundamentalist perspective vomited here, but to ordinary folk it's just common knowledge.

Anyway, the KKK was also a fundamentalist Christian organization founded on those wonderful Christian values y'all keep bragging about.

Hating the government puts him in MY camp??????

Yup, because he hated the government for the same reason your camp hated it... because Bush and the "neo-cons" were in charge of it.

He also shared your hatred for corporations.

Right-wingers don't hate government. We hate oppression. Which is why we want strict limits to government power.

By the way, most Americans agree with our side, a majority of Americans believe government should be more limited, or is limited enough. Only 10% want government power expanded.

Wingnutcracker, just to clarify, I do not hate government. I love effective, small, unobtrusive government - without a doubt, the development of the institution of democratically elected government that enables people to live together well while not controlling their lives much is the seminal invention of human history. Before that, we had fiefdoms, warlords, and military empires. We had the strong killing and enslaving the weak, and gradually amassing size and power until they were "states". It is quite a stunning achievement for the non-warlord psycho's of history to have figured out how to work together to protect a land mass and themselves while letting people basically do what they want - as citizens, not subjects. Democratic government is the seminal achievement of the enlightenment, both its most precious achievement and also its key enabler.

What we have today, as we head toward the socialist collective, is not the citizen government of the Enlightenment, but a monstrosity. Fortunately, there will be many elections between now and the terminal point where such a monster cannot be unwound. The people will get to make their choices, as they learn more and more about it, which they surely will. The nanny-state is not a progressive improvement on democratic government; it is an unwinding of the principle that the purpose of government is to keep us safe and in tact so we can lead our lives.

And yes, I am against ALL regulation of business, except for sensible environmental and safety regulations. We don't want chemical companies dumping poisons in our rivers, and we don't want lead-based paint on kid's toys. Beyond that, I see no evidence that government meddling in private markets works in any way at all. What I see is trillions of dollars of our national wealth flushed down the toilet for nothing.

Businesses in communities are self-regulating. The ones that meet with community and societal acceptance thrive; those that don't, fail. Or would have, if the government didn't bop in to prop them up. Is what the govt just did with GM and Chrysler to the benefit of society, communities, or employees? I think not. In fact, if government had done NOTHING for the last two years, the recession would already be completely over and new businesses and opportunities would be popping up all over the place. It is government interference itself that has prolonged this situation.

Put another way, we on the right believe people should control the government. The Progressive Left believes the government should control the people. That's the difference.

greg of whatever....EVERYBODY hated Bush. ok? he was a sucky president, and you would have to be completely stupid to not see that. Even if you agreed with his policy, you HAVE TO admit that he was horrible at uniting people behind his ideas, and extremely poor at communicating any message.Do you mean to suggest that only Democrats disliked Bush? Do you realize what his approval ratings were by the end of his term? One of the most disliked presidents, across party lines, in history!

He hated Bush though for entirely different reasons than the left and you know it, and that makes a huge difference. YOU hate the current government. So does that make you a liberal now? Only liberals hate the government?

You claim to hat oppression, yet support government wire tapping programs, internment camps, and government ordered torture? You hate oppression, but support laws regarding consenting adults sexual practices, and prayer in schools? You hate oppression but support laws telling people what they can and can't put into or do with their bodies?

You see, to me, the above is all a form of oppression, to you the government telling a rich man he has to clean up the mess he makes is oppression. Big difference.

Mega, I suggest you move to Detroit and ask the question "Is what the govt just did with GM and Chrysler to the benefit of society, communities, or employees?"On my street alone nine GM employees feel their stay of execution was due to Government intervening, and are outrage at the likes of Hugh Hewitt who says "Boycott GM!!" For 6+ years you guys paraded "smaller Government" around, and opposed deregulation and it failed. Nice try on the Heritage Fnd. talking points.

That said,Von Grunn is said to of "been seriously alarmed at the election of Barack Obama" and pissed about his Social Security funds being denied. It is unknown why they were cut so far. Like Mr. Von Grunn, it is your camp that complains so much about Obama and regulations...oh, nevermind we know the story...this site and Von Grunn have made it clear.

While I do not agree with everything you have written there Mega, I certainly can appreciate your viewpoints, Strangely well articulated here. Ultimately, i think your view is idealistic in that we haven't moved as far away from the warlords and feifdoms of which you speak as you suggest. Particularly when industry becomes very powerful, they will quickly deteriorate into similarly oppressive regimes towards either their workers and/or their customers if not kept in constant check. This has been shown to happen.

Anyway ,I won't go into a long further discussion, because I respect your view and the way you express it. Fundamentally, we could certainly find more common ground.

that being said, V the k, you are still a putz.

Unhinged nut. If you were lutheran then you could join the klan but only lutheran. So much for your paintbrushing of Christians. What party enacted Jim Crow laws and stood still while the klan linched thousands of blacks and whites. That's right the democrats. What President said to a Congressman " time to vote on the nigger bill",that would be LBJ,a democrat.What party followers called Condi Rice a "house nigger" and "aunt Jamyma"? That's right the libtards.By the way my name is "Ted the big stalk",that's what my wife calls me. Now that your lesson in history is over,be gone little boy.

Oops that should have said protestant,sorry nutwing I didn't want to confuse anymore than you are already.

Ghost, associating folks on a political blog like this with a psychopath who ran into the holocost museaum and shot people is obscene. Speaking for myself, it's not only painful, as a Jew, to watch the world spinning so out of control with antisemitism that that sort of event happens, but it's also kinda sick to then be accused of having something in common with such a person due to blog participation. You should really shut your computer off for a few hours, take a long walk, and decide for yourself if your decorum on the Internet meets your own personal standards.

I do live in Detroit. And after listening to all my pro-union friends and relatives blather on about needing the bailout, I realized any discussion of why this a bad idea would be like trying to convince a 3 year old why he can not eat candy 24/7.

Farmer Ted, what party produced the first Black president?

I already said that the Democrats are only left wing in relation to the winguts who post here. In reality they are very middle of the road. Look they all supported an illegal and unjustified war in Iraq, then sat on their hands while Cheney, et al ran rampant over the constitution. The Dems don't truly represent the left.

So now you are telling me that Lutherans aren't christians?

It's unbelievable any time a christian does something wrong, the Catholics start saying, well they were Lutherans, not real Christians, or they were Catholic, not real christians. Its friggin' hilarious, You all have the same God, read the same damn Bible, yet dont seem to think anyone who doesn't belong to the right one of the hundreds and hundreds of Christian denominations, isn't a real Christian. We are all supposed to embrace your silly religion, yet you can't even agree on what the hell it's all about.

Silly silly farmer ted.

I,ll bet if that wacko were a conservative that mainstream left-wing news media would have had it as front page news in the NEW YORK SLIMES,WASHINGTON COMPOST,ATLANTA URINAL/CONSTIPATION,BOSTON SLOB,SLIME,NEWSREEK, and all the major talking heads as well

Yeah, it does suck having to deal with a belief system that can not be easily summed as a bumper sticker slogan.

wingnutcracker, what party had a entire slew of blacks, Hispanics, women and myriad other minorities in its own presidential administration long before the mullato became president? The Republicans. And which party not only refused to recognize this in any substantial way, but also slandered and maligned the entire lot of them? The Democrats. You are a seriously deluded person. Again, STFU.

(This is nothing against mullatos, by the way, lest I innaccurately be labeled a racist by the not-so-intelligent MSM intelligentsia.)

Wingy read my post again. Here let me help you. I mistated that the klan is made up of only lutherans when I should have stated protestants. Does that help boy among men?

von Brunn's actions once again prove that the modern American liberal, and the leftist socialist Nazi of Germany, are two peas in a pod.

Does it make any bit of difference to the content of my post if you meant lutherans or protestants? Last week someone here was telling me Catholics aren't really Christians, now you seem to be suggesting that the KKK was a protestant organization and therefore not Christian? Subsititute Protestant for every time I wrote Lutheran in my last post. The point is the same.

And brent where have I defended the Democratic party? I admitted the dems had a long history of racism, particularly southern democrats. What's your point?

son of a preacher: Jesus saves. Pretty simplistic bumper sticker shit if you ask me. Every denomination uses that one. Pretty much all there is too it. If you buy it, that is.

Brilliant J, just brilliant. Yeah, I remember my first beer, J. Made me think some stupid things I said were real smart. But I was young, stupid and drunk, like you.

It is undeniable that Von Brunn is a nutcase who hates his country, which is a sentiment repeatedly exemplified by the American Left, not Conservatives.

Ghost of Wellstone - "Like Scott Roeder, Von Grunn posted on right-wing sites like Free Republic. To Free Republic's credit they took down his comments, but you can still find cached versions of it."

You, Brandon and Wingnutlicker, among others, post here ... you think people here are right wing extremists ... does that make all of you right wing extremists by association? To VH's credit, and patience, he does not take down your comments ... because this site is tolerant of openly debating views and debunking idiocy, hardly associable with von Brunn types. Perhaps that explains why all three of you continue to post here - some, albeit repressed, part of you wants to discover the truth.

nah, i Z, i do like to read opinions that differ from mine, and there are right wing blogs and bloggers who are intelligent enough to express their views without sinking to the level of hysteria and hyperbole to get a point across. Even when I don't agree with them I can express a reasoned response.

I come here mostly for the laughs. Many of the posts themselves are absurd, ridiculous hysteria baiting oversimplifications. I don't think van helsing actually reads the articles he links to all the way through, or double checks any of them. He blatantly twists and contorts even an innocent story into some kind of bizarre example of some injustice being done. I mean it's just making stuff up, half the time...with little tips from drones from guys with nothing better to do like v the k.

But the comments are the best. Im most fond of the blithering all-caps chicken scratch of a guy like Kharn. I mean this is really the bottom of the barrel for the most part, and it's a good laugh.

Truth? here? highly unlikely.

Damn wingy you are dense. Let's try this again. Just because one following of Christianity has the exclusive rights on the kkk doesn't mean all Christians believe what the kkk stands for. Is that better little fella because I can't make it anymore clearer,boy.

The point, wingnutcracker, is not so much you as the larger circumstances you seem unwilling to acknowledge. When was the last time, for instance, that you heard the MSM report in one of its forty-five-years-later histories of the Civil Rights Movement that LBJ said, "time to vote on that nigger bill"? And yet, they waste not even 45 minutes in drawing specious associations about some left-wing nutjob in the Holocaust museum somehow being right-wing.

What do you think of LBJ saying that, by the way? And what do you think of the Great Society, for that matter, an apparent bigot's brainchild?

He also had a note in his car that said "If you want my guns, this is how you'll get them."

Clearly he was influenced by the fear preached by Glenn Beck and others that "the government will take your guns." An unfounded lie based on fear that has now been cited as influential on both this nutjob and the man who killed three Pittsburgh police officers.

Zm, as I have stated, I find you guys entertaining. I too applaud Helsing for not deleting our posts. However, what Von Brunn was posting at Free Republic was only offensive to very few, other than that he was preaching to the Limbaugh choir. Just this week Limbaugh went into a rant about how "neither God or Obama have birth certificates". One thing that has not been pointed out in the history of racial acts of the two party system, it was the Dixiecrats that became Republicans and prompted the Southern Strategy. A clear point was made, todays Democratic Party is not the same as it was in the early 60's, nor is the Republican Party what it was in the days of Lincoln. There is comfort in knowing we all agree Von Brunn's act was horrible. What is concerning though, is if we can get that far together, why is it not clear who is stirring the pot on gun rights, privacy laws, and the two party system? What I am noticing, that Shep Smith of Fox even made a point to say that the DHS report should not have been bashed the way it was, and today he gets attacked by Limbaugh. I doubt Shep will be a Fox much longer, and certainly don't see any apology coming for Rush this time.

maybe because LBJ said that fifty years ago, and because some right wing nut job went in and shot people at the holocuast museum YESTERDAY.

What LBJ said was deplorable. I have not defended the democratic oarty in any way here, why don't you people understand that?

And Farmer ted, when did i say ALL christians supported the KKK? I said it was a christian organization. you're acting like I'm thick, yet you are arguing about a statement that was never made. You said the KKK was founded by members of the democratic party. Does that mean all democrats supported the KKK? Or do now? man, talking to you is like talking to a brick,

"son of a preacher: Jesus saves. Pretty simplistic bumper sticker shit if you ask me. Every denomination uses that one. Pretty much all there is too it. If you buy it, that is."

Actually you would be suprised how many denominations of Christianily really don't believe that. But that is beside the point.

Since you said:
"Anyway, the KKK was also a fundamentalist Christian organization founded on those wonderful Christian values y'all keep bragging about."

How does proclaiming "Jesus saves" have anything to do with the retoric of the KKK. I have never once heard of a klansman ever proclaiming the love of Christ and the souls' need for salvation.

Actually let's have a look at this guy Von Brunn shall we

1. He advocated of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Just like Democrats,
2. He wanted to meet with The Obamessiah, Just like Democrats.
3. He Loved Socialism, Just like Democrats
4. He called Christianity a hoax. Just like Democrats
5. He hates George Bush, John McCain and "neo" cons. Just like Democrats.

GoW he was one of yours....Another hate monger

And the Unabomber was an environmentalist (of sorts). So what?

Does anyone besides Napolitano and leftist Dumocrats really believe that conservative politics is a risk factor for murder?
That's a real stretch when mental illness, drugs, narcissism, failure, social isolation and liberalism are much more likely to dispose someone to violence.

Wingnutbaster what is the democratic oarty?

Unicorn, name me one elected Democrat who was a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist? One? I can't, and I can't name one Republican either. They are an entity all their own. He had some issues with Obama, which he posted for the choir at Free Republic using Limbaugh talking points. Where is the love of Socialism stuff at? He hated the Government, your not even reading the things your brethren and I agree on are you? He happened to, in my opinion have Christianity right. However, name me one atheist Democrat that we have elected? He wanted smaller Government, like the GOP does. For those of you that have been diplomatic in agreeing his actions were horrifying, this post is in no way intended for you, this is strictly for Unicorn. Most of us can agree, he was nuts. Where his hate stemmed from is open for debate, and I think it would be healthy to debate who is stirring the pot on the issues setting these people off.

The Democrats' Missing History

By JEFFREY LORD

“So what’s missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.

• There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the “whites only” front section of a bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats.

• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”

• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.

• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln’s ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

• There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”

• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.”

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the “nay” vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.

• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact-yes indeed-a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.”

Short History Lesson for LIBERALS

Link didn't work

http://www.youtube.com/v/D5_1yRVtey8&rel=1

What a sad little argument we've got going on here.

If this guy represented the views of either the left or the right, there would be a whole lot more violence in our country, and you would see either the left or the right defending him.

You guys can't even figure out that both sides condemn him and find this event to be horrible. What I find sad is that in the midst of these petty arguments, you lose sight of the fact that a good person was shot to death. This death deserves to be honored, not stained with the ugliness of political slurs.

Left wingnut: According to "Macsmind" blog, Brunn was a DEMOCRAP registered in Maryland. Don't have the link handy. Google it.

I'm sure this tidbit will be ignored, just like Lee Harvey Oswald was a commie.

A bit more

KKK's 1st targets were Republicans

Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks, whites

I actually checked out your link, AL and from what i can see there is some guy named mac, who runs a blog neraly identical to this one who says, vonn brunn was a democrat. Nothing to back that up. No link, no evidence, nothing. Just mac.

so this is how you guys get info. You just make it up.

Wow....I see Welly and Wingnut have been busy this afternoon. Slow day at the clinic?

Oh, and BTW, "Wingnut" - if the KKK was a Christian organization, then why the f#ck to they burn christian churches and hate Catholics so d#mn much?

Your utter lack of knowledge...about...ANYTHING is really starting to bore the h#ll out of me.

So you hate Christians? Who the f#ck cares? That's your problem.

As I pointed out to you before when you went off reciting the two or three lines you read off the dust jacket of Mein Kampf, the political Left, and you specifically, have far more in common with Hitler (and the KKK for that matter) than anyone on the Right.

And then, as if your ignorance wasn't bad enough, we have Welly jumping in there repeating the old lie about how the Weather Underground 'never really hurt anybody'.

Bulls#it, a##hole. The more you post, the more I'm finding out that this is typical for a so-called "Progressive Patriot" like you - standing up for cop-killers.

Next you two morons will be telling me Mumia Abu Jamal was a respected journalist who was framed......

Why don't you two learn what the f#ck you're talking about before you hit "Post" again?

Unicorn, name me one elected Democrat who was a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist?

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Defeated in 2002, she ran again and won in 2004. Finally left your party.

In 2007.

"If this guy represented the views of either the left or the right, there would be a whole lot more violence in our country, and you would see either the left or the right defending him."


Brandon,


I think I see what you're trying to say here and if so, I would agree with you.
To try and link anyone so far gone as to commit murder with a political party is an attempt to say that the party attracts, contributes to and engenders this kind of behavior.
Absurd

Ted Bundy denounced pornography as an evil force before his execution. By similar standards this would suggest that reading pornography causes serial killing.
If there were any link at all, the streets of San Francisco should be infested with ...

Well, let me think a bit more about this...

This person was an evil, hateful loser. Why keep giving him free publicity?

Here is an article about the security guard who was killed. Sounds like he was a good guy. He was a family man who had recently been married.

Who knows how many lives he saved? And why, oh why, didn't Wackenhut issue the security guards bulletproof vests?

Rest in peace, Mr. Johns. You are a true American hero.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061101206.html?hpid=topnews

Why does everyone have to be labeled left or right? Whatever happened to just plain crazy?

Wrong Otto, Ms. McKinney had beliefs that I do not share, however she would not qualify as a " 9/11 Truther". She signed onto the Citizens Commission petition, which included 139 other names including 40 family members of victims. Again, as far as Von Brunn...
gun rights...check
anti-immigration...check
Obama birth certificate nonsense...check
cultural purity...check
It is unfortunate that it is being discussed about his political leanings, but after all Janet Napolitano went through after the DHS report it is relevant. We were warned about this shit, and many of you wanted her tarred and feathered. He was nuts, we can agree on that.

No, Ghost, YOU are wrong. From Wikipedia:

McKinney gained national attention for remarks she made following the 2001 US attacks, charging that the United States had advance knowledge of the attacks and that US President George W. Bush may have been aware of the incipient attack and allowed them to happen,[17] allegedly due to his father's business interests: "It is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group, had–at the time of the attacks–joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11."[17]

You asked for a Democrat who was a "9/11 conspiracy theorist." Your words: name me one elected Democrat who was a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist?

I provided one. I didn't ask whether on not you agreed with her. Is this a case of "don't give me what I asked for, give me what I want," or are you just terminally stupid?

Von Brunn, was a registered Democrat in Maryland. Standard hate Monger (Normal Liberal Democrat) Me First Attitude (Normal Liberal Democrat)

Basically, just a garden variety democrat.

who is stirring the pot on the issues setting these people off?

Well Leeezzz see, Normal Liberal Democrats trying to steal elections, Steal everything good people worked hard for, (So they can steal more elections) Give more to the Scum of the earth (So they can get re-elected)

The Human Garbage Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Teddy (Hic) Kennedy "Why does he not just die already?" Geeeezzz, The Sleazy Klintons, Waxman, Waters, this was just for starters.

Face facts Liberals are human garbage......Liberals are the problem

RE: Posted by: MST at June 11, 2009 2:24 PM

Good call, MST - let us not forget to say a prayer for Stephen T. Johns, the guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and for his family - particularly his young son.

GoW said: "Just this week Limbaugh went into a rant about how "neither God or Obama have birth certificates".

I've read your comments before and will skip over them from now on. Thank you for proving you are dishonest and know not of which you speak. A "rant"? really. Making jokes at the expense of Newsweeks Evan Thomas for calling President "a God" now qualifies as a "rant"? Uh, it was a question and a punch line. 10 seconds at most.

"What do Barak Obama and God have in common?
Neither one has a birth certificate."

A "rant"? Nice try. Shame you have to lie. I won't be reading what you have to say anymore.

RE: Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 11, 2009 3:15 PM

Welly's text says, ".....It is unfortunate that it is being discussed about his political leanings, but after all Janet Napolitano went through after the DHS report it is relevant. We were warned about this shit, and many of you wanted her tarred and feathered. He was nuts, we can agree on that."

Yes, he WAS nuts - I'm not a mental health professional, but I feel pretty confident in that assessment.

Let us now turn our attention to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intellegence and Analysis Assessment dated 7 April 2009, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment".

Have you read it?

There are some huge, glaring errors in it. The report is so off-center to the Left that they mistake (or intentionally misidentify) a known drug gang "turf war" as a racial "hate crime". there's more, too - and they quite literally don't know their Left from Right at the DHS. (watch some troll pop up claiming to be a superdoubletopsecretifItellyouthisIhavetokillyouex-specialforcesDHSsenioroperative and take offense to that....)

H#ll, if they can get away with all the errors in that report, I should be able to reclassify "Drive By Shootings" as "Urban Performance Art" and get an NEA Grant to supply the gangstas in your Detroit / New Mogadishu 'hood with nice shiny new nine-mils.....at tacpayer expense.

.....that's "taxpayer expense" for all you Leftie spell-check National Socialist Workers out there.....

Tony, I did not say the report was perfect by any means. However, in as little as 11 days two murders happen that had political undertones to them.

wingnutcracker, is your reading comprehension really that bad?

The nutcase was a white supremacist, who hated Bush, believed in lunatic fringe 9/11 conspiracy theories, and expressed hatred for "neocons."

How on Earth can you misunderstand that as meaning it was a, "right wing nut job went in and shot people at the holocaust museum YESTERDAY?"

When it is clear, it was a left wing nutjob.

The fact of the matter is, both the socialist Nazi party of German, and the modern American liberal (progressive) movement share ideologies.

The Nazis used the pseudoscience of eugenics to push their agendas, while liberals use the pseudoscience of climate change to push theirs.

Both the Nazis and the liberals have expressed outspoken desires to control the lives of everyone around them. Useful idiots like Pelosi make statements about how, "every aspect of our lives should be open to inventory."

These are not the behaviors of a movement that believes in Liberty, but rather are fascist behaviors.

The parallels are evident for those who don't drink the Kool Aid.

yes, racists ARE most aligned with the right wing. liberals are BY DEFINITION, well, LIBERAL. i wish i could count how many times i heard a conservative say they hated the blacks while standing under a rebel flag. i wish i could count. trying to place a racist under the title liberal isn't just wrong, its contradictory, as well as oxyMORONIC.

sincerely,
liberal, full of hatred for hatred

Posted by: wingnutcracker at June 11, 2009 9:56 AM

wonder what his economic views were?

No need to wonder. His economic views were strongly anti-corporation. He says so in his own writings.

Wonder what his views on taxation, welfare and government responsibility were....

Probably similar to those of the rest of the Ron Paul/Alternet/Prison Planet crowd: pseudo-right libertarian leaning toward socialist libertarian.

Economics is a circle, go round one way far enough and you end up on the other side.

And are you really suggesting this guy was making a statement on economics by shooting up a Holocaust museum?

guessing you'd all of agreed with him...

Guess again. Conservatives are by and large pro-corporation, not anti-corporation.

But while we're clutching at straws, may as well note that Noam Chomsky is a (so-called) left libertarian who's opposed to both strong government control of the economy and strong private-sector control.

I'm sure von Brunn would have thought much of Chomsky's economic theories -- that is, if Chomsky wasn't a Joo.

Wonder what he thought of interracial marriages and homosexuality...?

Dunno. From his writing he seemed to think "negroes" were mentally inferior to white people.

Guess he just hadn't taken the next logical step of running a political party that codifies that belief into soft bigotry by contending that Black people can't do anything without the gubmint paying them to do it.

Wonder what his views on immigration were?

He was an advocate of a racially pure nation of Aryans.

Hope you're not trying to equate that with an opposition to illegal immigration and the toll it takes on the economy - cos that would really be reaching.

Are you trying to do that?

Just because the man got one or two things right; ie Christianity is a farce cult, and that Bush was a loser, which the grand majority of the country felt anyway, doesn't make him a liberal.

Who said he was a liberal? Van Helsing and the rest of us quite clearly said he was a moonbat.

Are you admitting that moonbats and liberals are one and the same thing?

No you see the mcveighs and von brunns of the world are upset with the republicans because they are NOT right wing enough.

Lol, okay then.

Next your going to claim the KKK is a leftist organization.

Ahhhhhh.... You are aware the KKK was a Democrat organization, right?

And that part of the opposition to slavery by Republicans was that non-free labour was a distortion of the labour market...

I mean, you do know this stuff, right?

Own your kind losers!

Take your own advice, tool.

Tony of [course], gets it wrong. The extreme nationalism, wrapping oneself in the flag, and blind patriotism, my country right or wrong, are RIGHT WING phenomena

Wow, you're really reaching now.

There is no mention whatsoever in any of the above articles about "wrapping oneself in the flag," or "blind patriotism."

Believing that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Centre hardly qualifies as "blind patriotism," now does it?

So, on balance, your argument consists of: rightwingers are jingoistic, therefore since von Brunn was obviously a rightwinger, he must be jingoistic. Since we've now established that von Brunn is jingoistic and displays "blind patriotism," he must be a rightwinger.

Conclusion: He's a right winger!!111!!!111!@!111

You Fail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tony, I did not say the report was perfect by any means. However, in as little as 11 days two murders happen that had political undertones to them.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 11, 2009 5:38 PM

Actually there were three. Which one slipped your memory -- the recruiting centre shooting, or the abortionist?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He was a 9/11 Troofer (a conspiracy theorist claiming that the US government and Jews were behind the attack).

He was a white supremacist and anti Semite and had links to various members of different white supremacist movements.

He was a Holocaust denier.

He was anti-Christian, claiming that Christianity brought the downfall of the Roman Empire and that Christianity was a hoax.

He also apparently believed that President Obama's background was being hidden from the public.

He was an anti-Bush kook. More to the point, he was anti-government and had been for decades.

Maybe if this guy had gotten his own shown on MSDNC, he wouldn't have been so angry. (Hey, if they gave Ed Schulz a show...)

Posted by: V the K at June 11, 2009 8:34 AM

Yup. The only thing stopping this guy running for office as a Democrat is his apparent support for the 2nd amendment.

Madible Claw, keep in mind that the Democrats of 1865 are NOT the democrats of today. The ideologies of both parties have changed. Do you think a republican of today would have freed the slaves like lincold did? hell no, the only racists i know are republican conservatives. there is simply no denying it. there is no such thing as a liberal racist...the terms are CONTRADICTORY.

Whatdya think guys? Anonymous... just a troll? That'd be my guess. Sorry, Anonymous, you lack subtlety in your trolling. I'll be generous and give you a 3/10.

Ted -- You discredit all of the factual statements that you made about the Democratic Party by concluding, "Short History Lesson for LIBERALS." If you're looking for liberals during that era, you should be looking at the Radical Republicans. The Democratic Party was not the liberal party at the time -- especially the "Solid South," so to attempt to tie in today's liberals with those politics is absurd.

Back in my youth, I wrote a full 86-pages on the ideological purification that went on in our two party system from 1948-1968. It began with the '48 Democratic Convention and ended with Nixon's '68 Southern Strategy (a strategy that was described by Kevin Phillips, the architect of the plan, as an attempt to appeal to "negropohbe" white voters).

To make a looong story short, the Democrat candidate for POTUS won a majority of the Southern States from the post-Civil War period until 1964. In '68, HHH only won one Southern state. Since '68 (Nixon won 5, Wallace 5, HHH 1), the Republican candidate has won a majority of those states with the exception of Carter in '76, but that was an unmatched political climate in American history.

So, what caused this shift? Well, the Democratic Party sought out a stronger pro-civil rights position, a fight that was met with heavy resistance by the Southerners. This led to the AL and MS delegates walking out of the '48 convention and led to the Thurmond '48 Dixiecrat campaign.

Blah, blah, blah -- fast forward through the 50s and the in-fighting worsened. At one point, in one of the mid-term elections, I forget which now (potentially as early as '58 -- maybe '62) the Democratic Party majority grew in Congress, and the party began to vote Southern leaders with seniority out of their committee chairmanships.

The Southerns did not leave the Democratic Party, however, because there was no alternative. As late as 1960, both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms called for strong civil rights reform. Phillips realized however, the discontent in the South and recognized the political opportunity. By '68, the Southern Strategy was employed and the '68 GOP platform looked nothing like the '60 platform, instead cautioning against a strong national government trying to impose their way on the states, etc, etc.

Thrumond left the party in '63 to campaign for Goldwater, a strong move from the iconic Southerner that, after 85 years of marriage with the non-Party of Lincoln, it was time to move on. By '68, the South did.

That said, there is still a disproportionate number of registered Dems in the South compared to the votes the Dems get in the region. Party affiliation/identification is strong. A generation removed, it's getting weaker, but it is still true that some do not register as Republicans. As time has moved on, however, that is less and less true. Still, when Toby Keith, who was in some sort of controversy leading up to the election and stated that he "had been registered a Dem his whole life," I sure as hell believe him -- but I wouldn't be surprised if he had never voted for a Dem for POTUS.

All of these events (many of which I have omitted here), have led to the death of the Northeastern moderate Republican and the Southern conservative Democratic. In the 110th Congress, Olympia Snowe voted on party lines 65% of the time and she is labeled this liberal RINO and Rush wants her out. Oh, how the times have changed. In the '63-'64 session, Thurmond voted with the Dems 35% of the time.

Anyway, Ted, my point is that there is PLENTY to criticize the Democratic Party about from the post-Civil War period. I'll take all of the facts you displayed as true without searching further. But it is dead wrong to then call for "Liberals" to wake up to realize this. The parties have changed, the two party system in America has drastically changed. Lincoln was a Republican, yes. The Radical Republicans called for the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments; God bless them. They were liberals.

If I were alive 130 years ago, I too would be a Republican. Instead, I seek out the same equality and social justice that those liberals sought, and as such, I am a Democrat.

haha typical republican, dropping a red herring fallacy when it actually comes to the issues. why can't you reply to the actual point being made?

--formerly anonymous

I feel compelled to point out that the most important aspect of nazism is belief in the superiority of the aryan race

to say that liberalism trends towards socialism and therefore liberals are like nazis is akin to saying mustaches trend towards beards thus tom selleck is a bear.

You can find similarities between nazis and conservatives and nazis and liberals, but none of the similarities have anything to do with scapegoating an ethnicity to the point of genocide. that is an abomination that has nothing to do with economic theory.

Brandon, racism is not a trait that is exclusively liberal or exclusively conservative. That's why the Nazis could be both left-wing socialists (with programs very similar to those advanced by Democrats) AND genocidal maniacs (something most Democrats do not promote).

You shouldn't have touched this one with a 50 foot pole. It looks to me you go so far out of your way to appear not to be an extremist that it makes you look like an extremist.

I see nothing on your blog denouncing Scott Roder as a moonbat. But I do see a wonderful and well written posting about how the left has retaliated by offering to murder the unborn, free of charge.

The left is laughing at you as I type this.

Why not blog about how members and those brought up in the jewish faith are now screaming for an end to the founding american principal that allowed tolerance for their religion in the first place, our first amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That includes practice of the jewish religion and holocaust revisionism.

You ever stop to think what drove this man to madness, that drove him to kill.

A man who served in the navy for 14 years, who in WW2 served in the south pacific as a captain of a PT boat, received commendation and three battle stars.

You dont suppose 60 years of holocaust stories would do this to someone?

And is it holocaust or "THE HOLOCAU$T"TM.

How often do you hear about the
2 million ethnic Tutsis are murderd in Rwanda. In Turkey, it is a crime to say a genocide did take place against the Armenians, and anybody remember Pol Pot in Cambodia, ever hear on TV about the 20 million victims of Communism in Russia and eastern europe, and possibly even more were murdered in China under Mao.

Yet I hear about the alleged systematic and state sponsored extermination of the jews by the nazis, EVERY OTHER DAY! 6 MILLION, how many times have I heard that number. And in just about every country but America, it is a crime to disagree with that number.

I happened to read Eisenhower's, "Crusade in Europe" many years ago, and thinking on it, he makes no mention of the "holocaust", historical revisionist say the same thing, not only of Eisenhower's war stories, but Leon Degaul and Churchhill as well.

But I am not here to debate the holocaust, sure jews were murdered, sure atrocities took place, has a war ever happen without atrocities being committed.

Nor am I justifying Nazism, the principals America was founded upon and the principals of national socialism are incompatible.

The actions of the jews have gone too far. Anyone ever research who owns our news and entertainment media. Its no concidence that all their last names have a familal ring to them, Time Warner, Norman PEARLSTEIN
ABC, Gearld LEVIN
Disney, Michael EISNER
Viacom, Sumner Redstone, born Murray ROTHSTEIN
Warner Music, Edgar BRONFMAN JR.
Associated Press, Michael SILVERMAN
and thats just a few, here is many more on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews.

Oh wait, Bill Maher must now be a moonbat, he called the Council on Foreign Relations, "A bunch of jews". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrm3VDE2p2Y&feature=player_embedded

What about Henry Ford, who printed numerous articles critical of the jews in his Dearborn Independent, and for some time, included a free copy of "The International Jew" in the glovebox of every model A ford that was sold.

I could also find quote several of america's founding fathers concerning the jews, but there is better to do.

Jews are not god's chosen people folks, did not the bible warn against this in Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9., Matthew 23:27-33, and John 8:39-47.

Christ, the messiah was sent for the salvation of all mankind, god's chosen failed god and broke the covenant long before Christ, their descendants scattered throughout the earth and the middle east and Judaism is now nothing more than a religion.

They have no more right to Palestine than the moslems, christians or scientologist.

Those that call themselves jews are either

Ashkenazi, originated in central asia as the Khazars, a people created out of trade along the silk road, who converted to judaism in the 8th and 9th centuries and were later dispersed across europe and asia, in much the same way as the biblical Israelite were scattered.

then you have Sephardim,
Middle eastern jews, lived alongside moslems for over a thousand years, these people are quite possibly partial descendants of the biblical Israelites .

you also have Ethopian Jews (black jews), Chinese Jews and even white jews, such as Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, Anglo Israeli-ism. Other words, all the bad names I am about to be called.

I dont want to hear about the "holocaust" until I turn 88 years old. I dont want my children being brainwashed into guilt that their ancestors didnt do enough to save the poor jews from the nazis, or that (sic), our ancestors were somehow responsible for what happen, or end up in prison for disagreeing with what they are told.

So while my convictions force me to tolerate your religion, I will not tolerate the crimes you have done against my country and the world.

And this blog no longer amuses and gives me hope like it did before.

Tis better to die on your feet,
than live on your knees(and die on your knees)

an anonymous patriot

and liberals are like nazis, as they want complete control of everything and everyone and wish to silence all that do not agree with their agenda

And is it holocaust or "THE HOLOCAU$T"TM.

Moonbattery has its own Holocaust revisionist troll, quick get the camera! Yaaaayyyy!

Are you really going to equate the shooting of a late-term abortionist (which was condemned on this site, as you'd know if you read the appropriate thread), with the murder of a random guy who happened to work at the Holocaust museum?

Good luck with that. Look, you're in good company:

Another [Stormfront commenter] hoped the shooting would cause Americans to believe taking their children to Holocaust memorials is now “an insurance risk.”

There's a link to the stormfront post here, I'm sure they'd be happy to lay out the red (white?) carpet for you and your whining revisionism.

I dont want to hear about the "holocaust" until I turn 88 years old. I dont want my children being brainwashed into guilt that their ancestors didnt do enough to save the poor jews from the nazis, or that (sic), our ancestors were somehow responsible for what happen, or end up in prison for disagreeing with what they are told.

So while my convictions force me to tolerate your religion, I will not tolerate the crimes you have done against my country and the world.

And this blog no longer amuses and gives me hope like it did before.

Good. Holocaust revisionists deserve neither hope nor amusement. FOAD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Brandon at June 11, 2009 8:47 PM

You can find similarities between nazis and conservatives

No you can't. You can try to manufacture similarities, which is what the left has been doing since World War II.

The only remote similarities between nazis and Conservatives are nationalism and advocation of military strength -- the second being a completely tenuous connection as everyone from the Romans to tribes in Africa advocate military strength.

So you're left with nationalism. If you think it's convincing to argue that conservatives are similar to nazis due to nationalism, well, that's your hill to die on.

...and nazis and liberals,

....but none of the similarities have anything to do with scapegoating an ethnicity to the point of genocide.

Ohohohohohoh, yes they do, they do indeed.

What do you think would happen to Israel's Jews if the right (and, to be fair, mainstream Democrats) abandoned support of them?

The left - that's you - has participated eagerly and with a shocking level of enthusiasm in the demonization of that particular ethnic group for the last forty years.

....that is an abomination that has nothing to do with economic theory.

And? Who said it did?

But since you brought up the subject, may we remind you, again, that both brunn and the nazis are/were strongly ANTI-CORPORATE. The nazis were uber-opponents of capitalism in its entirety, and believed the economy must be nationalized in order to preserve the 'dignity of the workers.'

See, they were called national socialists for a very, very good reason - because they were socialists.

Anyhoo, since you asked, the following is a passage from brunn's manifesto, the first six chapters of which are available here:

JEWRY was politically invisible to the West, and its war against the West was always subterranean, cunning and deceptive. JEWISH strategy was to infiltrate the institutions of Western Culture and destroy them. JEWRY'S primary weapon was money manipulation and USURY.
Early Popes, and Christian monarchs invoked Biblical proscriptions against the “evil and pernicious practice of usury.” Money was used strictly as a means of exchange and a storage of value backed by the honor of the State and the productive capabilities of its citizens. Nonetheless, the end result of Christian proscriptions against usury was to make JEWS the masters of European banking.
JEWS have no religious scruples regarding money where goyim are concerned. They now have the means to carry out their war of annihilation of the West. They would not sur-face as a fighting unit and openly attack their hated enemy. They remained invisible. Their strategy was to organize the entire JEWISH People into a Fifth Column whose purpose is to penetrate the West and destroy everything. This is being accomplished by exacerbating natural disputes between the Western States and influencing the results in favor of Liberal-ism as opposed to Authority; that is, materialism, free trade and usury, as opposed to Western Socialism; International-ism as opposed to Western unity. MONEY was their sword
and buckler.

Another passage:

F. P. Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPI-TALISM and SOCIALISM, which emanated from the WESTERN CULTURE-ORGANISM. Capitalism and Socialism are how a Nation (Family, People, Race) feels, thinks, and lives, and secondarily are ECONOMIC CONCEPTS. One is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.

So, I guess brunn himself answered your economics question for you.

RE: Posted by: Brandon at June 11, 2009 8:47 PM

Brandon is still trying to sort this out, and offers this: "I feel compelled to point out that the most important aspect of nazism is belief in the superiority of the aryan race"

Actually Brandon, there's a lot more to it than that:

**********************************************
"The Programme of the German Workers' Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.

1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.

* On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler clarified section seventeen in the programme in order to stop political mischaracterizations: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land."
*********************************************

A lot of this was, simply put: Bulls#it.

Then again, a lot of it looks very familiar......VERY familiar.

I wonder just how long it took the Democratic Party to translate their platform to English from the original German?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 11, 2009 8:07 PM

Madible Claw, keep in mind that the Democrats of 1865 are NOT the democrats of today.

I guess not. Back in the day the democrats would probably have kicked robert byrd out after he left the klan.

The ideologies of both parties have changed. Do you think a republican of today would have freed the slaves like lincold did? hell no, the only racists i know are republican conservatives.

Haha, that's compelling.

there is simply no denying it.

Okay. Then I won't deny that the only racists you know are republican conservatives, since that seems to be the sole thrust of your argument.

I'll admit it sounds highly suspicious - since the last people I remember using the term "house n*gger" in public discourse were democrats talking about Condoleezza Rice - but you're right, by forming an argument based solely on the people you personally claim to know, you do indeed put the rest of us in the position of being unable to authoritatively refute you, since none of us know who the f*ck you are, nor care.

there is no such thing as a liberal racist...the terms are CONTRADICTORY.

Okay, in that case I'd like to propose a motion that democrats and other statists relinquish the term 'liberal' that they've spent so much energy on hijacking and applying to statist economics and social engineering. Works for me.

The man is a right winged conserative anti-semite.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 11, 2009 10:20 AM

Like Scott Roeder, Von Grunn posted on right-wing sites like Free Republic. To Free Republic's credit they took down his comments, but you can still find cached versions of it.

Nice spin you got there! So, Free Republic disapproved of his posts and took them down, that obviously makes them guilty.

The fact that brunn would try and hitch his wagon to a conservative site just means he shares your incorrect belief that that's where you go to find other anti-Semites. In other words, he's as dumb as you.

By the way, it seems that the Weekly Standard, a decidedly conservative 'neocon' publication, may have been brun's next target.

Jumped on the right-wing/Limbaugh bandwagon about Obama's birth certificate conspiracy, which has been debunked by Factcheck.org

And? That's what made him want to shoot Joos?

Was on board with Ron Paul about the Fed.

Newsflash: all white supremacists are on board with Ron Paul.

Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favour, and look up the term "socialist libertarian."

It's not a right-wing idea (hence the 'socialist' bit), nor is Ron Paul a right-winger in most ways, besides advocating limited government.

Was irked about the DHS report, which many of you were.

Um, possibly because it identified white males...? And, um, he was a white supremacist?

Nah, couldn't have been. Must have been because the DHS report sounded like it was aimed at those neocon types brunn loved so much.

I saw on the other thread where this came up, the Weather Underground was mentioned. The Weather Underground's activities were despicable, yet the only people killed were members of the group.

Weather Underground members killed two policement and a security guard in the 1981 Brinks Robbery.

They would have killed a lot more people if it wasn't for their own incompetence.

Odd, since right-extremists target ethnicity,

Really, that's odd. I could have sworn there was something about an anti-neocon, admitted socialist, corporation-hater, who recently killed someone due to his Joo-hate.

...liberals,...

Riiiight... So those black panthers at the polling booths last election were republicans, yeah?

...gays...

Mm hmm. I guess all those gay marriage supporters who threaten old ladies are anti-gay too?

and abortion doctors,

Of which how many have been harmed or killed - an average of less than two a decade since Roe vs Wade, was it?

And, when they are harmed or killed, such actions are condemned by the conservative mainstream as murderous circumventions of the rule of law?

and left-wing extremists target causes.

And people who work at Holocaust museums. And military recruiters. And anyone who shows up at a speech by the Israeli prime minister.

Etc...

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS ACTIVITY FROM EITHER SIDE!

No, you're just trying to pretend that a) your side doesn't do it, it's our side, when the facts clearly show the opposite is true, and b) when your side does do it, it's noble and only aimed at 'causes,' not people.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 11, 2009 10:20 AM

Like Scott Roeder, Von Grunn posted on right-wing sites like Free Republic. To Free Republic's credit they took down his comments, but you can still find cached versions of it.

Nice spin you got there! So, Free Republic disapproved of his posts and took them down, that obviously makes them guilty.

The fact that brunn would try and hitch his wagon to a conservative site just means he shares your incorrect belief that that's where you go to find other anti-Semites. In other words, he's as dumb as you.

By the way, it seems that the Weekly Standard, a decidedly conservative 'neocon' publication, may have been brun's next target.

Jumped on the right-wing/Limbaugh bandwagon about Obama's birth certificate conspiracy, which has been debunked by Factcheck.org

And? That's what made him want to shoot Joos?

Was on board with Ron Paul about the Fed.

Newsflash: all white supremacists are on board with Ron Paul.

Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favour, and look up the term "socialist libertarian."

It's not a right-wing idea (hence the 'socialist' bit), nor is Ron Paul a right-winger in most ways, besides advocating limited government.

Was irked about the DHS report, which many of you were.

Um, possibly because it identified white males...? And, um, he was a white supremacist?

Nah, couldn't have been. Must have been because the DHS report sounded like it was aimed at those neocon types brunn loved so much.

I saw on the other thread where this came up, the Weather Underground was mentioned. The Weather Underground's activities were despicable, yet the only people killed were members of the group.

Weather Underground members killed two policement and a security guard in the 1981 Brinks Robbery.

They would have killed a lot more people if it wasn't for their own incompetence.

Odd, since right-extremists target ethnicity,

Really, that's odd. I could have sworn there was something about an anti-neocon, admitted socialist, corporation-hater, who recently killed someone due to his Joo-hate.

...liberals,...

Riiiight... So those black panthers at the polling booths last election were republicans, yeah?

...gays...

Mm hmm. I guess all those gay marriage supporters who threaten old ladies are anti-gay too?

and abortion doctors,

Of which how many have been harmed or killed - an average of less than two a decade since Roe vs Wade, was it?

And, when they are harmed or killed, such actions are condemned by the conservative mainstream as murderous circumventions of the rule of law?

and left-wing extremists target causes.

And people who work at Holocaust museums. And military recruiters. And anyone who shows up at a speech by the Israeli prime minister.

Etc...

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS ACTIVITY FROM EITHER SIDE!

No, you're just trying to pretend that a) your side doesn't do it, it's our side, when the facts clearly show the opposite is true, and b) when your side does do it, it's noble and only aimed at 'causes,' not people.

Unicorn, name me one elected Democrat who was a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist? One? I can't

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 11, 2009 1:30 PM

What, Dennis Kucinich is chopped liver?

Great posts, mandible claw and Tony--really great information and rebuttals. That's why I love this site--it has a high percentage of smart, well-informed posters, and just enough trolls to provide foils for them to show their stuff!

Great posts, mandible claw and Tony--really great information and rebuttals. That's why I love this site--it has a high percentage of smart, well-informed posters (and just enough trolls to provide foils for those posters to show off "their stuff"!

Oh wait, Bill Maher must now be a moonbat, he called the Council on Foreign Relations, "A bunch of jews"."
Bill Maher has been a moonbat for years and years now. He openly promotes hatred towards conservatives, Christians, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with him, and devotes his show to slinging around all kinds of vile attacks towards anyone who fits any of these descriptions.

"Do you think a republican of today would have freed the slaves like lincold did? hell no, the only racists i know are republican conservatives."
So, you have the ability to predict what would happen in alternate realities? Claiming which of the two parties would today seek emancipation is irrelevant and pointless.
btw, What's not widely known is that Lincoln was a racist, as well. He basically, went along with the sadly all- too- common belief at the time that blacks should be viewed as second class citizens. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation not because he wanted to contribute to racial equality, but because he hated the institution of slavery itself, the notion that one human being (Of any race) could be legally considered the property of another person was repulsive to him, and to all of us today.

" there is no such thing as a liberal racist...the terms are CONTRADICTORY."
I know of several liberal racists. The black nationalists who hate all white people and demonstrate genuine racism toward them are very liberal in their politics, some more so than Obama (i.e. One of the Black Panthers who harassedwhite voters on election day 2008 lamented that Obama probably wouldn't even propose demanding reparations for slavery, a concept which if passed, would be the biggest act of overt racism by the U.S. government in decades). Consider people like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and especially Louis Farrakhan.

Mandible, Nice try.
Like Congressman Kucinich, I always felt a further investigation was needed in regards to 9/11, and I am hardly a "Truther". I have sat down with the Congressman in 2007 and discussed this at length.

Free Republic did not remove Von Brunn's writings until it revealed he was the shooter.

"As far as the Weekly Standard is concerned, well the Washington Post was also targeted. Ben Smith at Politico had two interesting thoughts on the WS
The suggestion that the Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn's white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a "right-wing extremist," but the substance of his views -- which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen -- are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification."
and then this one
"I'd suggested earlier that James Van Brunn defies easy left-right classification because he'd targeted the Weekly Standard, and Jon Chait makes the fair point that the fact that the new information doesn't mean the shooter is incoherent or doesn't fit into the extreme edge of the Buchananite right.

I could have been more precise: It's not that Von Brunn doesn't fit into an established tradition; it's that he doesn't fit easily into the current, mainstream left-right political spectrum, a point Jamie Kirchik also tries to make.

Indeed, he's so far out to the right that he seems to despise most of what we consider the right: The Washington, D.C. Fox News Affiliate reports that his notebooks included "a Fox News location" among potential targets. That could also be coherent with an extreme Buchananite, but it's far enough out that it seems silly to suggest he's really an "extreme" version of, say, a Fox News Republican, rather than the product of an ideology with different roots."
Again, Von Brunn was hardly a leftist, nor would I call him a Conservative like I would call you, or Bill Kristol Conservative, but he would certainly fit the mold that DHS was discussing..."far-right extremist".
His ideology would align more with the right than the left. Your Tea Party's were infested with chatter over the "birth certificate", Von Brunn was obsessed with it. And World Net Daily is still trying to buy billboards questioning it, and a Republican Congressman has H.R. 1503 which includes it.
Is Pro-States rights, is pro-guns, anti-immigration (in any form, if you read his writings), a member of Yahoo chat group group to support the Confederate flag etc.
As for the Weather Underground...you sir are a fool. The WU was defunct in 1973, and while their actions inspired the Black Liberation Army, they did not commit the Brinks Robbery. There is some culpability, but did they do it...no.
I have scoured Von Brunn's writings for research, and to call him a leftist is foolish. And I will admit to call him a Conservative is equally foolish, I would however put him on the far-right fringe. That is a title I would never attach to any of you, at least until you start shooting up liberals, minorities, etc.
Fair?
I will repeat what I do think needs addressed,and I am not talking about curbing free speech, but is there some argument to be made that accusing Democrats of "taking your guns" and repeatedly using language like "Tiller the Baby Killer" like it's Free Credit Report.com stirring emotions in these fringe people?

And this nonsense Mandible "Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS ACTIVITY FROM EITHER SIDE!
No, you're just trying to pretend that a) your side doesn't do it, it's our side, when the facts clearly show the opposite is true, and b) when your side does do it, it's noble and only aimed at 'causes,' not people." Really? I would venture a guess that most even here can recognize that I condemn all of these acts of violence. From WU, to Black Liberation, Black Panthers, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, AbdulHakim Muhammad, and Von Brunn etc.

Okay, GoW, explain one thing to me--if Obama is a natural born citizen who was born in Hawaii, and his long form birth certificate could prove that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions by now) to avoid publishing that long form bc?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

From FactCheck:

"The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns [AND place of delivery, why didn't FactCheck mention that?]. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details [including the detail that would put this issue to rest, the location of birth, why didn't FactCheck think that was important?]. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department [So what? A US passport doesn't require you to be a natural born citizen, only a naturalized citizen. How does this piece of trivia have any bearing on what is required to be a US President, which requires you to be a natural born citizen?]. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response. [Uh huh, and you wonder why people don't think FactCheck is the last word on this controversy.]

From the Hawaii Dept. Health
Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health. In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18)"
Judith, while I have always appreciated your candor here, always smart, never real snarky, and non-combative...which is more than could be said of myself or most others. We do have to be realistic on this conspiracy. This conspiracy has been debunked, with the most thorough work done by Fact Check. It has gotten to the point of ridiculous with this nut thinking Obama is owned by Jews, then killing people to H.R.1503.If Obama resurrected his parents, we have some that well, how do we know these zombies are actually who they claim. It's flogging a dead horse.

Check this out too.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

Your missing the point, GoW. For certain programs, even in Hawaii, the long form is required. See the following website for one such instance. If Hawaii requires the long form for certain purposes, it is something that can be obtained, so all this nonsense about it not being available statutorily to the person to whom it pertains is nonsense.

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

The last sentence in the prior post was brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

Ok. So forget seeing the original Birth Certificate. Nothing will be done here anyway.

But could we get an answer to the question as to why BO has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to suppress the issue?

RE: Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at June 12, 2009 7:30 AM

Wellstone's text this morning rambles much more than usual....he must not have had his coffee yet Hidden in there was this attempted attack on Mandible Claw - and it's a gem:

"As for the Weather Underground...you sir are a fool. The WU was defunct in 1973, and while their actions inspired the Black Liberation Army, they did not commit the Brinks Robbery. There is some culpability, but did they do it...no.

No, Welly - actually YOU are the fool.....and a gullible one at that. There were actually several members of the WUO involved, and Bill Ayers wife Bernadine Dohrn spent 7 months in jail for this. afterward, they also adopted Chesa Boudin, the son of Kathy Boudin, who was neck-deep in the WUO and got 20 years for the Brinks robbery.

You can argue all you want that the WUO was defunct in 1973 - unfortunately for all of us it's not true (and that's according to their statements). It's irrelevant anyway - just because the same cast of characters changes the name they are using doesn't mean they get a "pass".

Oh, and BTW Welly, Officers O'Grady and Brown, and Brinks guard Paige were not the "only" three people they killed - Bernadine Dohrn herself is implicated in the 1970 bombing that killed San Fransisco police officer Brian McDonnell and maimed another SFPD officer.

The WUO was also involved in the 1970 murder of Boston PD Patrolman Walter A. Schroeder, who was shot in the back three times with an M-1 military rifle by these cowards. Weather Underground terrorists Katherine Power and Susan Saxe went to jail for that, which I'm sure was a wonderful consolation to Officer Schroeder's wife and nine children.

Not all of thier victims died; Richard Elrod, a city attorney attacked during the Ayers-led 1968 "Days of Rage" attack has spent his life in
a wheelchair because of these animals.

There were others that were injured as well - it's a shame we forget them, but still have to think about Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn.

Bill Ayers himself was quite proud of his skills as a bomber, and used to like to wrap them with cable staples to maximize the effectiveness as an antipersonnel weapon. Ask the officer that survived the San Francisco bombing - he was struck in the eye and partially blinded by one of Bill Ayers' staples. The police and FBI matched lovebirds Bill and Bernadine's fingerprints to several of the bomb-making facilities they raided or found as well.

They would have killed more, but due mainly to stupidity and ineptness, many innocent lives were spared, even when the bombs did go off.

Fortunately, the aforementioned ineptness caught up with them when three Weather Underground Organization members were killed trying to build one in an apartment in Greenwich Village.

You want to know what I find most disturbing, Wellstone? It's that you would even attempt to defend these vile scumbags.

You claim to be a "Progressive Patriot" - so why do you want to defend these cop killing terrorist bombers and murderers?

Why would you do that?

This guy is from your camp. That's all I have to say. I've met and know plenty of conservative freaks out here in my western hillbilly state, and most of them talk this kind of junk.

Racist, freaky conspiracy theorists, the lot of you. Not to mention lovers of war and murder. You and Poplawski and Von Brunn and Scott Roeder can all hang out and tell each other what patriots you are.

No doubt you'll all believe each other, and grin in shy acceptance of this "praise"

RE: Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 9:13 AM

Yeah, and we love you too, Anonymoose....we really do. Hope you get out of mommy's basement some day and get a look at the real world, rather than that lurid fantasy you have about cartoonish, evil right-wing rednecks.

Oh, and if you want to see someone with hate and intolerance in their heart, there's a picture right over your bathroom sink.

Your post reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Ronaldus Maximus:

It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Hey Tony. You seem to know a lot about the experience of living in your mother's basement. Good luck getting out.

The conservative freaks I'm talking about are no fantasy. More like a living, waking nightmare. I'm telling you I've met and know these folks and talked to them. They are just like this. Racist. Conspiracy freaks. War supporters. Brainless flag wavers.

You can throw the name back my direction again if you care to, but it doesn't stick.

Admit it, this guy even looks like your drinking buddies.
Self-righteous smirk and all.

Hey, it's a free country, Anonymouse - you can insult me all you want.

It still does not change the fact that you're a self-righteous, misguided and immature jack#ss. It's no wonder why you want to be "Anonymous".

Grow up and get a clue, kid. You aren't fooling anybody but yourself - and sure as h#ll are not fooling anyone 'round here.

I'm not trying to fool anyone, just saying what I think like the rest of you. Its no trick that I have met people who sound just like this and identify as Republicans, with race, war, and hate always on the top of their minds. That's simply the demographic where I grew up.

I'm no kid and I'm not self righteous, I leave that to churchy righties to go around placing judgement and labels on people. That's the kind of righteousness that gets people to kill in this way.

They know best, and anyone who doesn't agree can just get gunned down.

"Like Scott Roeder, Von Grunn posted on right-wing sites like Free Republic."

Actually, no... he didn't.

He posted one of his more generic rants about the media at some obscure Norwegian forum, and some idiot Freeper named "wannabegeek" copied and pasted it to Free Republic.

And no, wannabegeek was not a pseudonym for von Brunn... it doesn't take much looking through his other posts at Free Republic to see why. Here is the first one to show up if you search for that username:
"Too late? Not really. I'm praying in Jesus Christ Name! that the SCOTUS will be vigilant enough, that they'll uphold the Constitution no matter what. I'll pray that they'll check mate the Zero!"

Ask yourself, why would someone who thinks Christianity was invented by the Jews as a conspiracy to destroy western culture be praying to Jesus Christ? He wouldn't... he hates Christianity.

Furthermore, there's this post complaining about some comments a fellow Freeper made:
"Yeah you are racist! Many posters here are racists. Please don't compare educated Filipinos coming to America for greener pasture with illegals sneaking via the southern borders."

Do you really think von Brunn would be capable of writing such a thing?

There's a simple explanation here: wannabegeek was trolling the internet looking for birther stuff to post, he stumbled across the rant von Brunn posted at the other forum, copied and pasted it to Free Republic without bothering to google von Brunn's name first, and went on his merry way never seeing von Brunn's main website or realizing what a racist dirtbag he was.

I know that doesn't fit the narrative you want to squeeze things into, but the facts are what they are... the vast majority of wannabegeek's posts are directly contradicted by von Brunn's other writings.