Fox News divided on whether Holocaust museum shooting validates DHS report
SUMMARY: Following the shooting at the Holocaust Museum allegedly by a white supremacist, Fox News commentators disagreed about whether the shooting validates a recent Homeland Security report alerting law enforcement to an increased threat from "rightwing extremists."
Following the shooting of a Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard allegedly by a white supremacist on June 10, Fox News commentators disagreed about whether the shooting validates a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report alerting law enforcement to an increased threat from "rightwing extremists," including "white supremacists." Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters rejected the notion "this tragic incident at the Holocaust museum somehow validates the disgraceful report from the Department of Homeland Security," saying: "It had nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security report. What it did have to do with is this: We're seeing a very dangerous convergence between the extreme haters on the right and the extreme haters on the left -- those on the extreme right who have always been anti-Semites, and now the anti-Zionism sentiment on the left." Additionally, after referring to the DHS report, Fox News host Glenn Beck said: "This is not the work of right-wing conservatives. This is the work of somebody today who is racist, crazy, or most likely both. Common sense tells you there are very hateful people on the right and the left."
By contrast, after reading a message from a viewer saying, "Shame on you and [Fox News correspondent] Catherine Herridge for perpetrating the obscene Department of Homeland Security report on military extremists," anchor Shepard Smith stated: "[T]his is a former military guy and he's gone extremist. They were warning us for a reason -- not about something political or social or anything else -- except they see signs that this sort of thing is bubbling up. They saw the signs, and now it has begun." Smith later said of the DHS report: "It was a warning to us all. And it appears now that they were right." Later that evening, Herridge said of the DHS report: "[Y]ou have to see those reports or assessments in a somewhat different light. I know from having interviewed every person who's been the secretary of Homeland Security since 2001 and also the FBI director that it's this type of lone wolf attack, which frightens the most, because of course it's a conspiracy of just one."
As Media Matters for America has documented, when the report was released, several Fox News hosts and contributors -- including Beck -- advanced the claim that the Obama administration was targeting conservatives and others simply because they disagree with administration policies and proposals, a claim Smith and Herridge previously debunked.
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Studio B with Shepard Smith:
SMITH: You know, we got this warning from Homeland Security, and, at the time, I mean, the right went absolutely bonkers. I mean, the wording on it -- I mean, they've all come back and said our wording should have been better on that. That was a little weird.
But, now, like, Savannah Stover has just written me from Colorado, "Shame on you and Catherine Herridge for perpetrating the obscene Department of Homeland Security report on military extremists. Shame on you." Is this a -- this is a former military guy and he's gone extremist. They were warning us for a reason -- not about something political or social or anything else -- except they see signs that this sort of thing is bubbling up. They saw the signs, and now it has begun.
I just wonder if there's really a way to put a hold on it. Maybe sending out a -- you know, it's like when they used to raise the threat level in the United States: "Oh, we've gone to code red." I'm like, so, what does this make me do? You know, do I put double bolts on the lock when I go in to use the bathroom? You don't really change anything.
But this warning as it turns out, there was something to it. It was not -- it was not obscene by Department of Homeland Security, Savannah Stover in Colorado. It was a warning to us all. And it appears now that they were right.
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
PETERS: Neil, I've gotta say something. On Fox News of all places, in the last hour, I heard that this tragic incident at the Holocaust museum somehow validates the disgraceful report from the Department of Homeland Security warning about a terror threat from our returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Neil, this guy served in World War II. He's been out of the military 64 years. He wasn't career military; he was a career nut. Ten million Americans served in World War II. Of the millions who survive, are we going to put them all on a terrorist watch list?
It had nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security report. What it did have to do with is this: We're seeing a very dangerous convergence between the extreme haters on the right and the extreme haters on the left -- those on the extreme right who have always been anti-Semites, and now the anti-Zionism sentiment on the left.
For instance, you just saw an American Muslim convert shoot an innocent young soldier outside of a recruiting office. Now, you've got this absolutely screaming nutcase right-winger, who's made a career of hate, attacking the Holocaust museum.
I'm afraid that a couple of things are happening: One, hate is back in fashion, if it ever went out; and two, anti-Zionism is getting a little too fashionable for my taste in the United States.
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security reports about right-wing extremists -- remember that came out a few weeks ago? Left-wing and -- left-wing bloggers and some in the media have blamed conservative hosts like me or Bill O'Reilly for just stirring the pot. I'm not stirring the pot. I am pointing out that the pot is boiling and there is trouble in America.
Since when -- have you ever heard of "don't blame the messenger"? This is not the work of right-wing conservatives. This is the work of somebody today who is racist, crazy, or most likely both. Common sense tells you there are very hateful people on the right and the left.
I'm going to show you some of them in great detail here in a second. The world will use any excuse to come after those people that they now deem unpopular.
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
SMITH: And through all of this, a reminder -- this and other instances of late -- a reminder of the Department of Homeland Security's warning to us not but a couple of months ago.
HERRIDGE: Hmm-mm. Well, I think you have to see those two assessments -- one that dealt with the extreme left and the other that dealt with the extreme right; the extreme right was the most controversial of the two -- you have to see those reports or assessments in a somewhat different light. I know from having interviewed every person who's been the secretary of Homeland Security since 2001 and also the FBI director that it's this type of lone wolf attack, which frightens the most, because of course it's a conspiracy of just one.
On the one hand, he must feel some vindication for his article, "O'Reilly and Fox News will have more right-wing vigilantism to explain."
On the other hand, the cost for that vinidication comes with the inexcusable loss of yet another life, and the knowledge that this may only be the tip of the iceberg must be as frightening for him as it is for the rest of us.
This website has gone way beyond just being a tool for illuminating the misinformation that comes from conservative media. It has become a frontline against the rhetoric that is enflaming the hate across this great country. The job these folks at MMfA are doing is vital to the security of our nation and they have earned and deserve our support.
2) Religious hatred
3) Religious hatred
That's funny. You see I hate religion, mainly because it inevitably promotes the three things above.
"In order to stop Schumer, Kerry and Kennedy and there fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.
"Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation, and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.
"So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution."
Here is a quote from von Brunn's (the Holocaust Museum shooter) friend, separatist John de Nugent in an interview yesterday with WTOP.
"Obama has been doing many things which are making many white Americans, who are conservative, paranoid. He needs to address our concerns and promise he will not violate the Second Amendment about guns or the First Amendment about freedom of speech, then these incidents won't happen. The problem is when white people are provoked, some of them will snap, and this is what happened yesterday."
Fox and its' political handlers need only look in the mirror to see why this kind of violence is on the rise. A political party that is using violent rhetoric to rile up its base is not entirely innocent when people start getting killed.
I don't get it.
The DHS report received as wide a publication as any report of it's kind ever has, much wider even... it not only appeared in it's entirety on the Internet Wire, but it was variously summarized and discussed and quoted widely, in newspapers and on network and cable television, in a way unequaled or undreamed of with regard to a report of this kind...
What good did it do anyone?
What good did it do the museum guard who was shot to death?
I don't think it's out of bounds to imagine for a moment that even the guard who was killed knew of the report, even read it in it's entirety (I'm proposing this completely unfounded speculation to make a point), if so, then what good did it do him?
What possible good could it have done, or does it continue to do?
I imagine the point will be lost on many, but I'll say it anyway, that the report contained nothing of value in it to anyone, it informed no one of anything specific, it gave nobody a 'heads up' on anything, it identified no one, it did not point law enforcement authorities to anything or anyone...
The DHS report contained nothing but vague and suspicious -isms and -izations, the things that people sit around and pluck from their own foreheads, and imagine to be the truth, when in fact they are not facts, and say nothing specific or substantial to anyone...
It was worth about as much as the prophecies of Nostradamus are, to law enforcement officers or to anyone else, such as the security guard who was gunned down.
When I heard of the man who was killed, this DHS report seemed about as remote and irrelevant to my thoughts as could be imagined... and so the shooter has been identified as a twisted old psycho who hated Jews I guess... and his bent and strange mind directed him to the museum with a gun in his hand, to shoot someone, someone who turned out to be a guard there...
What did the widely publicized almost universally known DHS report do for anyone in this matter, that they think it a triumph to point to it now, and say "See! See, we were right, we told you so!"
The DHS report did about as much for that gunned down security guard, as did the equally vague and worthless product of imaginations and fears, as are the prophecies of Nostradamus, which also tell no one any fact or anything of value, but sets it's author (or his supporters) in a position to point after the fact, and say "See! See, didn't we tell you about the -isms and the -istics and the -izations! We told you so! We knew!"
Knew what?
I don't get it... no one was told anything, no one was informed or warned of anything, no one was saved.
You think there was an expectation, widespread or otherwise, that a DHS publication could do that?
James von Brunn was a known convicted felon and a known racist radical. He was still able to obtain deadly weapons despite his criminal record and vehement racist profile. If there was any telling, informing or warning to be found about this incident, we need look no further than von Brunn's background.
The DHS report was about White Supremacists. This guy was a White Supremacist.
There is no debate over whether or not the DHS report is validated.
Be armed with that knowledge when you read Evil Conservative's derailing comments.
"Outrageous! This man is a sick, twisted jerk -- NOT a liberal. A true liberal would never resort to violence, let alone in this hateful, senseless way."
Notice I didn't complain that anybody was trying to paint me as an extremist. Interesting tactic, huh?
But, perhaps more to the point, your desire to play a rhetorical or semantic game to classify Von Brunn as a leftwinger is really irrelevant to the point. The point is that this DHS report classified violent extremists who were primarily hate-based as rightwing. In other words, James Von Brunn is exactly the sort of person the DHS report warned us about. Or to put it another way, the report was, sadly, correct.
It is true that a FOX News location was reported to be on Von Brunn's target list (as was the White House and the U.S. Capitol).
do not produce additional
substandard persons
For all those that missed it...proof that Brunn was a right wing extremist.
1)I'm wrong
2)I'm and idiot
http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=463
Bit by bit Liberalism ascended. Bit by bit the Constitution was re-interpreted. Bit by bit government institutions and Congressmen fell into JEW hands — then U.S. diplomacy, businesses, resources and manpower came under JEW control.
So this is written by a liberal? Are you freaking kidding me?
Did you know that he was a white supremacist?
Did you know that he blamed his previous conviction and imprisonment on a "Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys" and "a Jew judge?"
Did you know that he believes The Diary of Ann Frank was a hoax?
Not so easy to pigeonhole him now, is it?
So he was a racist I'm not refuting that...hello liberals/progressives can be racists too.
He was an anti-religion socialist...ooooohhh that is so conservative.
Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. He was also a huge racist. You're welcome.
Given the chance, I would have condemned him back then for his segregationist policies and views just as quickly as I do today.
Now doesn't that make sense?
***UPDATE*** More proof Brunn was a right-winger crazy
1)I'm Wrong
2)I'm and Idiot
3)He was a racist(duh)
4)I'm not funny and need to shut up.
Keep it coming...a few more like this and the jury will be back in no time.
a good solution might be to not give
him any further "play"
a tactical strategy of intelligent
discourse will automatically
exclude ec and his somewhat paltry
pitiful political punditry
You do know that it's possible to be so far out there that you hate people less radical than yourself, right? Is there anything to show that he held any liberal values?
This is good, very good we are getting somewhere, closer and closer to my point. I don't think this guy had any values...but his beliefs if they had to be aligned with politics were closer to today's liberals and progressives. However, this guy is a far cry from being a liberal and even a further cry from being conservative. So for this website and people on this website to overlook the ties to their own political beliefs and immediately name him a by-product of the hate on the right is not only disingenuous but factually wrong.
Liberals=Good
Conservatives=Bad
This marginalizes any argument and makes history and easy ride for liberalism and progressives. Conservatives have quarreled, debated, and had to answer for their wrongs through history. You have never had to because liberalism is automatically good.
Margaret Sanger was a racist and eugenicist...but the Secretary of State can still to do this day get up and honor her as one of her hero's.
What ties are there to liberal beliefs?
The above was from a rant posted by the aforementioned James Von Brunn.
Somehow I doubt a "radical liberal" would rant against his own kind.
A racist, an anti-semite, and his rant mirrors many conservative aurguments against liberalism and the current administration.
BTW He was also a "birther" who did not believe Obama was a citizen of the U.S.
Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPITALISM 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 [capitalism] is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.
The Age of Reason produced CAPITALISM in the West, the IDEA of rugged individualism: “Every Man for Himself.” Freedom from authority: “Don't tread on me!” At the same time, paradoxically, it was understood, that these rugged individuals should act in the best interest of the Nation-State. To the West ECONOMIC CAPITALISM meant: free trade, no personal income-tax, no state interference in money matters, private ownership, etc. USURY, however, was relegated outside the Pale, and proscribed. Capitalists found no fault with economically defeating, within the law, opposing economic groups. That was considered “healthy competition.” European States, goaded by Bankers, also competed with one another. Often with disastrous results. During WWI it became painfully clear that the IDEA of “rugged individualism” worked against the ARYAN NATION and its individual States.
WESTERN SOCIALISM, unlike Marxism/Communism and Capitalism, emanates not from Reason alone but from the ETHOS OF THE WEST. It expresses the instinctive and Intuitive feelings UNIQUE to the Aryan Nation. Its Idea is the Musketeers' cry: “One for All and All for One!” The ingathering of the White Nation-States into ONE CULTURAL ORGANISM — its own territory and its own State in which to house, protect, and nurture the Nation — precludes Marxist inspired class warfare and hate-struggles between its component parts. The ECONOMY springs from the CULTURE. MONEY becomes merely a tool, a means of exchange, a storage of value — not an ILLUMINATI weapon.” (pp. 143-4). “No intelligent person took MARX seriously. His Old Testament idea that work is evil — and New Testament idea that men and races are equally endowed — opposes Nature and the very Soul of the West.” Marxists, Bolsheviks, Communists denounce “capitalist pigs.” While from behind the scenes — in the on-going battle to implement the PROTOCOLS OF ZION — all wars and revolutions are financed by JEW CAPITALISTS. (pp. 143-5.)
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
"I know...he wasn't a liberal."
This pretty much sums up the strength of your position.
"He was an anti-capitalist socialist...which is far further from conservatism than it is liberalism."
I can play the same game...
HE WAS A RACIST, which is farther from liberalism than it is conservatism.
Try as you may, you can't pigeonhole him.
Yeah, spoken like a "radical liberal."
Try as you may, you can't pigeonhole him.
I will let it rest at that even though your one argument to tie him to conservatism is racism. Do some research on progressives and where they came from and you will see a history filled with racism. I'm not a conservative by the way...I'm a classical liberal.
P.S. Pete, one place you can start your history lesson on progressives is at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Obama gave a speech there after he won a couple democratic primaries and he said this "Where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the Progressive movement was born?". That movement he is talking was filled racists, nativists, and eugenicists at that University. They would have been repulsed by the thought of having a black president. Good Luck.
Then based upon the evidence, I conclude that you are a liar, Evil Conservative.
Liberal/Progressive=Good
Conservative/Classical Liberal=Evil
You guys like to marginalize the issues, I'm just getting a head start and doing it for you.
are you sentinent?
felons don't vote
in most venues
ay!
desertdiva
Now it has degenerated into a "this crazy was liberal/conservative" argument. He may be an anti-capiltilist socialist (most of them are) but; like a lot of people you have bought into the hype of if you aren't conservative then you must be liberal/solialist/marxist/facist, which are all different philosiphies that might share one or two ideas but; are totally differnt in use. What we need to understand was this man, by our current social standards, could be considered "crazy", in that he thought it was OK to murder someone to make his point. What we need to do is get away from name calling and finger pointing and try to come to some kind of accomadation. Pretty much, that is what democracy is about. People of divergent views working together towards the common good.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/10/holocaust-museum-shooter-had-close-ties-to-prominent-neo-nazis/
Following the shooting of a Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard allegedly by a white supremacist on June 10, Fox News commentators disagreed about whether the shooting validates a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report alerting law enforcement to an increased threat from "rightwing extremists," including "white supremacists
Since white supremists were SPECIFICALLY mentioned it is nothing but a red herring to argue whether this guy was rightwing or NOT. He WAS a white supremist and the DHS report SPECIFICALLY mentioned white supremists.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration
...(based on hatred of particular religious...groups...
As in "The JEWS made Obama"?
...rejecting federal authority...
As in trying to "arrest" Greenspan & the rest of the Fed?
Is this guy not the poster child for right-wing extremist?