About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media conservatives claim Holocaust museum shooter a "leftist"

June 11, 2009 6:13 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Several conservatives in the media have suggested that the alleged Holocaust museum shooter, reportedly a neo-Nazi, was a leftist.

149 Comments

In responding to the June 10 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, several conservatives in the media have suggested that the alleged shooter, James von Brunn, reportedly a neo-Nazi, was a "leftist," as Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth has noted. Indeed, in some cases, those media figures have stated or suggested that Nazism itself is "a leftist phenomenon" because the English translation of the official name of Adolf Hitler's political party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

In a New Republic review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning -- a book that furthers a similar premise and includes a chapter titled "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left" -- Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky wrote that Goldberg's theory constitutes "revisionism" because, among other things, "there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and [Josef] Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism."

Tomasky wrote:

We have also recognized, since at least the 1950s and in some prescient instances even earlier, that certain consanguinities between the far left and the far right did exist in those days, and that the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis -- and, always, a racial basis -- to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie. It was not called National Socialism for nothing. Goldberg goes into great detail on all this in his chapter titled -- are you sitting down? -- "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left."

Now that is revisionism. But for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions -- and on the day after May Day, 1933. Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned. And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike. Hitler did many worse things, of course. I single out this act because it would hardly seem to be the edict of a "man of the left." And there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism, none of which seem to have found their way into the pages of Liberal Fascism.

Similarly, UCLA sociology professor and Fascists author Michael Mann wrote in a Washington Post review of Goldberg's book:

Goldberg finds similarities between fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism -- and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists, communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Examples of conservative media figures stating or suggesting that von Brunn was a "leftist" include the following:

  • On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute said, "Well, this Von Brunn's culture is a tribe of racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant, everything, and therefore he's a phenomenon of the left, because racism is a form of collectivism. The right wing is individualist -- believes in individual rights, freedom, the dignity of each individual life. But it's the left wing -- you know, Hitler was National Socialism, right? It's a leftist phenomenon." Host Glenn Beck replied in part, "[Y]ou look at people who are Nazis, and you say that those are right wing. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever." As Media Matters for America has documented, Beck has repeatedly invoked the Nazis in talking about President Obama and other progressives and frequently uses his program to smear liberals as fascists.
  • In a June 11 FrontPageMag.com article -- headlined "Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist" -- managing editor Ben Johnson wrote [emphasis in original]:

Leftists have decided to exploit Von Brunn's madness to engender fear of rampant conservative terrorism. They overlook one point: the shooter was not a conservative.

A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a "HOAX" invented by the Apostle Paul to "DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE" from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: "SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West."

Johnson's post was subsequently highlighted by NewsBusters under the headline "Holocaust Museum Killer Conservative? Not So Fast!"

  • On the June 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh said, "Very predictably, ladies and gentlemen, the media, the American left is trying to score some political points as a result of this tragedy at the Holocaust museum in Washington yesterday, and as predictable, they are trying to blame this on me, other conservatives, and right-wingers. It's the traditional approach taken by the American left." Limbaugh continued: 

The facts of the case, however, are such that if we want to start assigning blame for this beyond this nutcase Jew-hater -- and notice that very few people actually want to do that. They want to claim this guy didn't have the ability to act on his own. He only could act if he was inspired by somebody. Well, who did he hate? He hated both Bushes. He hated neocons. He hated John McCain. He hated Republicans. He hated Jews, as well. He believed in an inside-job conspiracy of 9-11. This guy is a leftist, if anything. This guy's beliefs, this guy's hate stems from influence that you find on the left, not on the right.

From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BINSWANGER: It's only going to get worse, because under pressure, people should resort to their standards and principles, but they don't have any standards and principles today. Standards have been knocked down by our universities who tell us that truth is relative, there is no morality; it's all your culture or my culture.

Well, this Von Brunn's culture is a tribe of racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant, everything, and therefore he's a phenomenon of the left, because racism is a form of collectivism. The right wing is individualist -- believes in individual rights, freedom, the dignity of each individual life. But it's the left wing -- you know, Hitler was National Socialism, right?

BECK: How did, Harry -- how did it --

BINSWANGER: It's a leftist phenomenon.

BECK: How did it happen that this was -- that you look at people who are Nazis, and you say that those are right wing. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

BINSWANGER: Well, there was a deal made between the communists and the Nazis in Germany in the '30s where they each agreed to define themselves as the opposite of the other. You see the percentage in that -- you define my gang or your gang, and you rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang rule.

BECK: Right.

BINSWANGER: So it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the Weimar Republic in the '30s.

BECK: We're -- we're -- America, we're surrounded by people who want to control you. You've got the government that is -- I think, just going crazy out of control. You have -- you have some crazy nutjob who wants to control what races are here, you know, how -- what our makeup looks like. You have everybody who is struggling for control, and I think you are just somebody that just wants to be left alone, quite honestly. Just wants to be -- let me just, please, let my kids go to school, be safe. Let me go to work, let me -- let me just have a normal life. But it's getting harder and harder.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (June 11, 2009 6:21 pm ET)
      7  
      WAR IS PEACE.

      FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.


      WTF?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (June 11, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
        6  
        1. "Nazi" means "national socialist."
        2. We have been accusing Obama of being a "socialist."
        3. Therefore, anybody who hates Jews and Blacks is a liberal.

        Do you understand now, nerzog?

        P.S. See noted historian Glenn Beck for proof that Woodrow Wilson was a Fascist.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 10:59 am ET)
          4  
          I had someone make that exact example to me last night, and he was completely and totally serious about it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by the Grey Path (June 12, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
          4  
          Course the NAZI's were not socialists. They were fascists.

          I seem to remember the German Democratic Republic (Dictatorship) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Dictatorship). Just cause you call yourself something doesn't mean you are.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (June 11, 2009 9:41 pm ET)
        4  
        What would happen if they found a couple Glenn Beck or O'Reilly books in his house? Think we'll ever hear about it?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftym0m79 (June 11, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
      8  
      Glenn, you can't blast 'anchor babies' and then turn around and call the guy who wants to have control over what races are in America a nutjob.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 11, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
      6  
      Oh, and while we're on this subject, will one of you Right Wing apologists please explain which of Hitler's policies were Liberal?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (June 11, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
        7  
        HITLER SOCIALIST OBAMA MUSLIM RACIST SOTOMAYOR ILLEGALS SWINEFLU QUARANTINE CONFISCATE CONTROL HOMELANDSECURITY NAPOLITANO ATTACK TROOPS LIBERAL TRAITORS DESTROY AMERICA!

        You people just refuse to see the truth when it's right in front of you!

        </sarc>
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:29 pm ET)
          3  
          Wow! You did it better than I did yesterday...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
            3  
            But you needed more exclamation points... :o)
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jwn (June 12, 2009 9:07 am ET)
        3  
        Well, let's see...liberally applied torture, murder, intimidation. Liberally invaded other countries without justification, liberally applied the "with us or against us" principle, liberally dropped bombs all over the place, used slave labor liberally, ... oh, that's not what you mean, is it? Nope I guess he was the poster child for rightist scum. Idi Amin, however was a liberal, no wait, I'm thinking of Franco, ...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (June 12, 2009 11:58 am ET)
        2 2
        Hitler believed in state owned factories, state owned freeways, and cheap cars for the people. So, economically, he had some liberal policies, however, the rest of the stuff was crazy, hateful, nutjob garbage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
          2  
          State owned, so that he could control them.

          In a socialist state, they are state owned, for the benefit of the people. Hitler did it to reign in total control over the country.

          Hitler had NO liberal policies at all.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by the Grey Path (June 12, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
          2  
          State owned has no relationship to socialism or communism. Try reading Marx's texts. He never said most of which is attributed to him.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (June 11, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
      4 2
      His political affiliation is irrelevant. The guy is responsible for his own actions, nobody else is.

      However, I would hope that any decent person of integrity would evaluate what they say on our public airwaves and put their stinging, hate-filled political rhetoric aside for at least the day after such a tragedy occurs. Put this horrible shooting in perspective to your audience of listeners and focus on what is really important, instead of calling him a "leftist" and making sure the other side gets blamed. Is that too much to ask for Glenn Beck and the others? It is beyond irresponsible.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:30 pm ET)
        2  
        Is that too much to ask for Glenn Beck and the others?

        Consider of whom you just asked that, RO. Your answer is a decided yes...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 1:26 am ET)
          2
        His political affiliation is irrelevant. The guy is responsible for his own actions, nobody else is.

        Well said - thank you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jackdoitcrawford (June 12, 2009 10:11 am ET)
            3
          Objectivists like Dr Binswanger wouldn't have to emphasize that this man is a leftist, if the leftists weren't claiming he is a rightist.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 10:11 am ET)
        4 1
        WRONG AGAIN! How the hell can his 'political affiliation [be] ireelevant'? That's them most blatant, shameless responsability dodge I've even seen! I don't care who the guy VOTED for, the fact is that his philosophy is nothing more than the logical result of the very polices that YOUR PARTY pushes! We're not saying, "Republicans are stupid because this guy is a Republican." (And if he's NOT, it's becasue he's to the right of them!) We're saying "His philosphy is barbaric, so why do the Republican's want to embrace a watered down version (at best) of it?"

        After all, FRED PHELPS is a DEMOCRAT, but the Democrats as a party do not embrace a single policy or philosphy of indeed any of the filth that he spews out. OTH, the Republicans DO operate on a philosophy that, if taken to the extreme, gives you scumbags like Von Brun.

        His political affiliation IS important, because it's what motivates him. You should be more concerned with the fact the your lot seems to want to apologize him, or somehow make him one of US (the left) while continuing to expouse his very philosophy. And if you think they don't, you lack teh ability of (or the stomach for) introspection.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 10:56 am ET)
            5
          Political affiliation is not a motivator. Most of us have some political affiliation of one sort or another, and I believe I am pretty safe in saying none of us would ever act on that affiliation with violence, so that is absurd. He is motivated by twisted sick hatred and god knows what else.

          You're just out to score political points like Beck and the others are, so you have no place to criticize them.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 11:40 am ET)
            4  
            Wrong again. Beck, etc... Do what they do to score points iwth the very crowd that this guy comes from. He's not alone, and they're growing in number largely because of RW douschbags like Beck, etc... who enable them, feed them lies and the become apologists for them. If you DON'T see the problem with what your lot is doing with regards to these guys, if you don;t think you ARE doing anyting with regards to these guys, and you don't see that Beck, etc... have gone WAY beyond the mainstream, and are increasingly appealing the these guys, the (I'll say it again) you lack the ability of (or the stomach for) introspection.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 11:47 am ET)
                4
              Am I apologizing for Beck and the others? I believe I am doing just the opposite, so your grandstanding accusations of "my lot" are ridiculous. I am saying that this nutbag's political affiliation is irrelevant to the heinous crime he just committed. For the same reason that you cannot accuse peace loving Muslims for the actions of those that have perverted that religion into their own brand of terrorism.

              But I know that doesn't feed into your using this tragedy to score your own political points, so you refuse to see it. Your problem.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                3  
                It's not actually, because his political affiliation is far right conservative crazy.

                This does not mean all conservatives, or even a simple majority of them, but this particular brand of conservatives (far right wing crazies who do have a politcal agenda).

                Know what I mean?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
                    3
                  No, I don't. Because there is no political party or affiliation that would come within 1000 miles of anything this nut did. Sure, there are some media windbags who may fan the flames of hatred, but they are also perverting the ideology as well. It has nothing to do with one's political beliefs, they have managed to shred those beliefs and remake them into some horrific hatred for people they don't like. Any political affiliation they had has been destroyed and replaced with a terrifying sickness.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
                    3  
                    That is totally ridiculous to say his political beliefs had nothing to do with his actions. He shot a black security guard do you think that was just an accident. He choose a Jewish memorial museum to the holocoust to carryout his murder do you think that was just by chance? It makes absolutely no sense to sit here and argue that his political beliefs don't matter, his beliefs were what motivated him, how can you seperate them from his actions.JEZZZ!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
                        3
                      His actions are motivated by a perverted and sick hatred. If he wants to say those are his political beliefs, fine. It doesn't excuse his actions, nor motivate them.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
                        3  
                        How is attributing his political beliefs as a motivating factor excusing his actions? On the contrary it's giving a reason for his actions. He believed in fascism, and blamed minorities and Jews for his problems and that of the world, that is what motivated him! Motivate=to provide with motive. Motive=something(as need or desire)that cuases a person to act. Synonyms are:grounds,reason,wherefore,why,boost,goad,encourage,impulse. His political beliefs motivated him to carryout the shootings at the center and his beliefs were Fascist a right wing phenomenon.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    So why haven't the politicins of the right come out and roundly condemned BOTH the actions of the shooter and the apogolists for him in the media? Whay can't the admonish the extremists in their base, and stop this traitorous tea-baggin nonsense? Why try to paint him like he's a lefty? Why not admit he's a righty and try to pull everyone back to the middle, RW media rating be damned? He may be 1000 miles from your political philsophy (and I'm still not so aure) but he 2000 miles from mine. He still comes from your side. he still takes YOUR rhetoric to idiotic extremes. And more will follow.

                    And while you may accuse me of "trying to score points" at least I'm trying to score points for the side of GOOD. BECK is trying to score point s FOR EVIL!!! And he's ONE OF YOURS!!! And I don;t see a REAL critisicm of Beck. To my reading, your just saying that I'm as bad as he is. (1) That's far more insulting to ME than it is to him. (2) I'm critising the scholl of thought that this man possesses, while Beck criticies his critics. Night and day.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
                        5
                      Your ranting are incoherent at best, i.e "And he's ONE OF YOURS!!!".

                      Score your cheap political points elsewhere.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Whatever dude. Von Brunn is a Righty, Beck is a Righty and YOU are a Righty. The only difference in in the extent to which you take the philosphy. The philosphy of all three still come from the same side of the political spectrum. And it's not one I'd be particularly proud to be associated with or defending.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
                            4
                          I would be more proud to defend my core beliefs of conservatism than I would be exploiting tragedies to score cheap points against political enemies. In that vein, you and Beck are on the same page, even though you won't see it.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                          4  
                          You do know that Right ON (Tommy, JamesB) is just trying to make us forget the topic here. It's not that we are desperate to call this guy a righty.

                          It's that the right is desperate to call this guy a leftist, and it's clearly not true.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
                            1 4
                            Coming from you LuvLuLu (Sue), I wouldn't go there.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                              3  
                              The last two posters who tried to falsely accuse me of being a sockpuppet have disappeared off this site.

                              It's undeniable that your only point here is to distract us from the topic being covered. That topic is not that we insist he be called a righty.

                              It's undeniable that this is a version of WITH. I only posted a few times before Tommy disappeared, but according to older posters, JamesB was Tommy under another name, and now JamesB is gone and you are here. This was a trait of JamesB's posts, to derail the conversation and ignore the point that MMfA was making.

                              If you aren't a banned poster coming back under another name, how do you know about "Sue" anyway?
                              I only know about her because of the false allegations others have made. But they haven't been made recently. Like I said, those posters who used to make those accusations have disappeared, and likely were banned.

                              So, how do you explain your knowledge of stuff that happened before this screen name ever posted here?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
                                  4
                                I have been reading this site for years Sue, so I am fully aware of all your incarnations. You can search the archives for older posts of mine if you don't believe me. I stopped for awhile for personal reasons and that has changed so I decided to post again. You are too easy.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                                  1  
                                  And I am sure the everyone believes you, since you've shown so much credibility on this one and every other one we've seen you post on in this most recent incarnation.

                                  I am not Sue. But you are pretty clearly a sockpuppet. Maybe 'Tommy' created this screen name months/years ago to pull out in a pinch. I wouldn't be surprised, as that is the pattern trolls follow all across the internet.

                                  But what we saw here was me attacking your message, the junk about how we were being meanies for calling him a righty, a very accurate portrayal of your bogus argument. And what we saw you do was attack me, the messenger, and falsely accuse me of being someone I am not.

                                  That's the epitome of a sockpuppet troll trying to defend a bogus argument. They attack the person who took off their mask.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 12:43 am ET)
                                    1  
                                    Even more interesting is this thread from 2 days ago.

                                    http://mediamatters.org/research/200906100028#comments

                                    Several people on that thread about the Israeli-shoe-insult nonsense pointed out the similarities between RightOn's actions and Tommy's, and RightOn didn't deny it at all.

                                    Because it's the truth.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 11:16 pm ET)
                                      1  
                                      Of particular interest is the fact that JamesB didn't typically post on evenings or weekends - like a 40 hour workweek from 9-5 Pacific time was his job or something. And from what I've read, Tommy never posted on the weekends either. And funny, but RightOn doesn't post on the weekends either.

                                      Coincidence? Right ON would have you believe that it is all just coincidence - the effort to derail the conversation, the WITH posts, all just common to what any poster might do!
                                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 12, 2009 10:28 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Your ranting are incoherent at best
                        I understood it perfectly. Your reading comprehension is abysmal at best.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
                          1  
                          This is just another post by Right ON where he can't argue with the message so he attempts to insult the messenger with a putdown.

                          His reading comprehension is just fine.

                          He couldn't debate the point being made, so it was time to make fun of the poster to try to derail the thread that way.

                          Any port in a storm.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      Why try to paint him like he's a lefty?

                      Because those "conservatives" are idiots...
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
            2  
            "Political affiliation is not a motivator..." That is pure drivel!So your telling us that Nazism is just a movement of hatred and twisted people? That may be true but it's undeniable that it was a political movement that carried out murder and people who called themselves Nazis i.e.,those whose political affiliation was the Nazi Party were motivated by certain political beliefs. How can you argue sensibly against that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
                3
              You are not understanding what I am saying, obviously. Political affiliation is no more a motivator of this insidious crime than the Muslim religion is a motivator or terrorism. Perverting either of them to an irrational extreme to carry out violence cannot be blamed on Muslims, or conservatism. That is the point I am trying to make. We are talking about democrats and republicans here, not the Nazis. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party motivates anyone to slaughter innocent people. If someone aligns themselves with either one and then goes off the deep end with extremist violent actions, that is on them, not the political party.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
                  2
                motivator of terrorism, not motivator or terrorism.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
                4  
                No. The Republicans and Conservtaives in THIS country align themselve with the Christian Fundamentalists. Conservtaives in the mid east ally with the Muslim Fundamentalists. Religious fanatcism of ANY kind promotes hate, fear, violence, war and terrorism. History is repleat with religious attrocities from all sides. That kind of zealotry, whether religious, or nationalistic (xenophobic), or both lies with the Right, the Conservatives and the Republicans. You bought it - you own it.

                The last time a liberal went "off the deep end" was forty+ years ago and they just blew up an empty pentagon men's room. Wow. You show me ANY liberal (and that automatically precluded ANYONE motivated by religion) who's done ANYTHING to comapres to McVeigh or Von Brunn. (And remember: this is NOT Von Brunn's 1st offense: He made it all the way to the door of the boardroom of the Federal Reserve, ARMED, in 1981 inteding to kidnap the Governors of the Fed.) You give me ANY examples of rhetoric by the American Left that is as close to "going off the deep end" as the current Palin/Republican/Beck rhetoric is to Von Brunn's rantings.

                Lot's of luck with that.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                3  
                I understand perfectly what your saying. Nazism was his belief, Nazism and hatred of certain people and systems is paert of it. The Brown Shirts and the SS were real and carried out murder and terror and their party with the help of capitalist financiers took over a whole nation and plunged the world into the second war, with all the death and destruction and misery that ensued,their actions as was the shooters motivated by certain political beliefs. Your assertion that Democrats don't murder makes no sense without context and is not one of the stated aims of the Party, that is not the same for Nazism! That they don't carryout more terror can only be because their are consequences and laws against it, not because their political beliefs don't mot8ivate them to do it. Yes it is sick to dehumanize and murder people because of the color of their skin, but are you forgetting that at one time Afro-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a human being and had no rights a white person should consider. That belief and law led to actions. I know your familiar with the chattel slavery practiced in the Southern US. What I'am saying is this mans beliefs led to his political affiliation with a party that that believes violence against minorities and Jews is acceptable and necessary. He was not a Democrat or Republican, but he was a member of a far right extremist organization.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                    4
                  Nazism is not a mainstream, viable political party in this country, it never has been and never will. So you are arguing extremes, and that was not what I was referring too.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Your being ridiculos an now your parsing. You argued that his political beliefs had nothing to do with the shooting which made no sense at all. Now your asserting that because Nazism is not mainstream it had nothing to do with shooters motivation? Jezzz! At one time the KKK and Nazi's had millions of followers and members and had huge march down the main street of the nations capital. It was at a time of economic distress and uncertainty in the 20's so assertion that extremes don't happen is just a your belief, you forget that Hitler and his Nazi Party were laughed at and not taken seriously because Germans also thought it couldn't happen, but we all know it did! Your continual belittling of this event is dangerous and naive and your treatment of this as just that of some crazy is what would most certainly insure that it could happen again. Shining the light on these vermin and their movement and those that encourage, motivate and give cover to it is the best action.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
                        2
                      When Beck said the shooter was a "leftist", he was trying to link Nazism with the left in this country, that is ridiculous which is why I said it is irrelevant. Then the discussion went to motivation and I said that no political party motivates those that are affiliated with it to be violent murderers. I was not speaking of Nazis, so there is no parsing.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Right ON is not trying to have a lucid argument, or present a defense that holds water.

                      His sole purpose is to derail the thread. Remember other famous posters here whose aim has been exactly the same.

                      The postings by Media Matters that make the right look the worst and the stupidest, those are the ones that they most often try to distract us on.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 13, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Oh yeah, parsing is another thing both Tommy and JamesB were famous for.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
                3  
                RO said"...We are talking about democrats and republicans here, not the Nazis..." No where not, now your trying to parse and change the discussion. WE were talking about the shooter and his political beliefs and whether they emanated from the "right" or from the "left." You incredibly asserted that his beliefs had nothing to do with the shooting and you've yet to explain how the shooting of a black man inside a museum that honors the "Jews"that suffered and were murdered by said mans party has nothing to do with said shooters Nazi beliefs? Simply mind boggling that you would sit here and say his beliefs had nothing to do with it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
                    4
                  I am not changing anything. I was specifically commenting on Beck's assertion that he was a "leftist", which Beck was referring to as the political left in this country, not the Nazis. When I said his political beliefs were not a motivator I was speaking in the context of the mainstream political affiliations in this country, not extremist fringe nutcase affiliations. If you didn't understand that from the beginning, then you boggle the mind. Don't tell me what I meant or accuse me of parsing and changing the discussion.

                  My point was, and is, that political affiliations in this country are not a motivator for heinous violence. Nowhere did I bring up the Nazis until you introduced it, so you were the one who broadened the discussion and changed it, not me. Heal thyself.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
                    3  
                    You can make a blank statement,"that political affiliations in this country are not a motivator for heinous violence..." and believe it if you like ,but it simply is not true becuase someone is dead and someone did it and that someone has political affiliations that support and encourage it. I'am through with it because your are obviously being obstinate and you have yet to present anything other that your beliefs which you are entitled to but do not past the test of reality.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 11:25 pm ET)
        3  
        Right ON's first post on this topic - remember, the topic is "Media Conservatives claim Holocaust museum shooter a leftist".

        His political affiliation is irrelevant. The guy is responsible for his own actions, nobody else is.

        With his very first post, trying to change the subject. Then he keeps going down that rabbit hole, and turns it into posters here saying that he's a righty, and how that's the problem.

        Tried and true methods to derail a thread.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (June 11, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
      5  
      the shooter is right wing
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
        5  
        Of course he is. This is why the right, feeling the pressure that must be falling upon them in the wake of this string of violent attacks, feels the need to blame it on the other side. Those out there who buy the old "liberals are to blame for everything" canard will enthusiastically buy into it, and bingo! White supremacist racist terrorism is liberal. Presto chango!...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (June 11, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
      2  
      "racism is a form of collectivism"


      Does anyone have an idea what that means?

      "Well, there was a deal made between the communists and the Nazis in Germany in the '30s where they each agreed to define themselves as the opposite of the other."


      Why would they do that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:35 pm ET)
        2  
        Does anyone have an idea what that means?

        Loonz, sir, I'd be willing to make a fair wager that even Binswanger doesn't have an idea what that means, just that it makes liberals look bad, which is what he was after in the first place...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by d4bard (June 11, 2009 8:58 pm ET)
          2  
          You have to keep in mind that this is the AYN RAND Institute, after all, which couldn't even carry out the dying wishes of a serial philanderer and world-class bigot.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (June 11, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
        5  
        Wow, racism is a form of exclusivity, not collectivism. Holy cow, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. All racists want everyone to be together, and not seperated, right? WOW
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jackdoitcrawford (June 12, 2009 10:15 am ET)
             
          Collectivism is opposed to individualism. That's not hard to understand. The USA is a country where the individual is supremely important and the government is charged with protecting each individual's rights.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 11, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
      5  
      I'm pretty sure that the shooter was a far right wing radical, way outside the mainstream of normal right wing America (I know some of you will say that's an oxy moron, and I get it, but you all know what I mean).

      Same as the guy that shot Dr. Tiller.

      Same as the guy that shot the Army recruiters.

      All 3 were far right ideologues.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (June 11, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
        2  
        okay, for my second attempt in as many days...
        (pitch pipe)

        NO NO NO!!!! RACIST VON BRUNN IS A LIBERAL!!! ARMY RECRUITER MURDERER IS AN ISLAMOFASIST LIBERAL!!!!! SCOTT ROEDER IS A CHRISTIAN HERO WHO SAVED INNOCENT BABIES FROM LIBERAL BABY MURDERERES!!!!LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!! ONLY LIBERALS TRY TO DESTROY AMERICA!!!! WAKE UP AMERICAN BEFORE ITS TO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!

        Wow, that takes a lot out of me! No wonder those drive-by trolls only post once--they have to take a nap afterward! But seriously, ML--it's becoming harder and harder to distinguish mainstream conservatives from right-wing militiabots, mostly because most mainstream conservatives are too busy trying to blame von Brunn's attack on liberals. With the curious exception of Right ON, who has made several valid points on other threads today...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (June 11, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
            12
          It is my contention that fascism is a 'leftist' phenomena. But I define 'leftist' as one who sees the state as the most important tool available to man in his effort to self-civilize. The underlying assumption of the U.S. experiment is that government is at best a necessary evil, hence 'limited government.'
          That Binswanger fellow has it correct that Conservatives in the U.S. are defined by a belief in individualism and individual freedom (though Rand's brand of 'Egoism' is pretty sophomoric). As such, conservatism stands opposed to 'statist' or collectivist schemes of government.
          Fascism is a 'statist' (leftist) program. Tomansky quoted above says, i]"...the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis -- and, always, a racial basis -- to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie."[/i]
          The similarity of Fascism to modern 'progressives' (old liberals) in the American political scene is in this area of 'statism.' American progressives see the state as the ultimate good, or at least as the best hope for good. The way it plays out is that progressives want more government, more regulation, more centralized planning. Conservatives stand opposed to that incremental government encroachment on individual freedoms because they are rightly convinced that it will inevitably lead to tyranny.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (June 11, 2009 10:04 pm ET)
            7  
            All the "isms" are no match for human decency and common sense. No doubt no real conservative in the true sense of the word, or liberal in the true sense of the word, would condone evil.

            But be clear about fascism: it's dictatorial marriage between corporations and the government. It's when giant corporations write legislation and it gets rammed through, and the people matter not at all.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Fielder (June 11, 2009 10:29 pm ET)
            3 1
            In other words, you're an idiot. Good to know.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
              2  
              Can you explain why the Nazis and the KKK march together? You call them leftist? Mary is right Fascism is direct dictatorship of the capitalist class over society characterized by the destruction of all social and political organizations that threaten capitalist rule, as such it is a phenomenon that springs from the right.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mrhebert74 (June 11, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
            4  
            "It is my contention that fascism is a 'leftist' phenomena. [sic] But I define 'leftist' as"

            And that's all you really need to read.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (June 11, 2009 10:39 pm ET)
            4  
            "The underlying assumption of the U.S. experiment is that government is at best a necessary evil, hence 'limited government.'"


            -I see the state as evil when conservatives are in charge.

            "Fascism is a 'statist' (leftist) program. Tomansky quoted above says, i]"...the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis -- and, always, a racial basis -- to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie."


            -Fascism favored corporations over workers even though corporations were heavily regulated. The Fascists saw trade unions as a threat so they threw union leaders in jail and created a state union and curtailed the right to strike and the right to negotiate with their employers - the state made all the decisions about wages, benefits and work conditions. The Fascists also started creating monopolies in business destroying competition and the heads of corporations were making a ton of money.

            "Conservatives stand opposed to that incremental government encroachment on individual freedoms because they are rightly convinced that it will inevitably lead to tyranny."


            Conservatives are against individual freedom. They're always trying to tell people how to live their lives and trying to force their brand of morality on the rest of society.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 1:24 am ET)
                2
              Conservatives are against individual freedom. They're always trying to tell people how to live their lives and trying to force their brand of morality on the rest of society.

              Conservatives, in general, promote economic liberty while trying to legislate personal morality. Liberals, in general, promote personal liberty and while trying to control the economy for the purpose of "spreading the wealth". Libertarians try to promote both personal and economic liberty. Which would you rather have?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 11:02 am ET)
                3  
                I think you're very wrong about liberals wanting to "spread the wealth" so to speak. Very wrong. Obama's econmic policies don't bear that out at all, because he's basically following the same line previous conservative presidents have done.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
                    3
                  I think you're very wrong about liberals wanting to "spread the wealth" so to speak.

                  "Spread the wealth" is what candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber. Sometimes the phrase used is "a level playing field", or "more affordable (fill in the blank)".
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
                    2  
                    That's a gross distortion of the words and the meaning of what Obama said.

                    Why am I not surprised that you would do that?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
                        2
                      That's a gross distortion of the words and the meaning of what Obama said.

                      OK, what exactly did he say and how exactly did he mean it?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 12, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Look it up. You made the claim, and now you admit you were ignorant in doing so.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by hm1342 (June 13, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
                            1
                          Look it up. You made the claim, and now you admit you were ignorant in doing so.

                          I did not admit ignorance, and neither you nor LuvLuLu have actually bothered to refute my statement with anything resembling a fact. But just in case you want to come up with some other lame refutation, here's Obama's quote from ABC:

                          Obama said, "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

                          http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
                4  
                Liberals do not try to control the economy the way you claim. They try to keep people from financially drowning. They started Social Security because way too many elderly people lived in poverty until they died. They started the war on poverty in an attempt to help those people pull themselves up above the poverty line, not to help spread the wealth.

                The Libertarian philosophy will not work. Ever. It's pie in the sky that has catastrophic fatal flaws.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  They started the war on poverty in an attempt to help those people pull themselves up above the poverty line, not to help spread the wealth.

                  How successful has that been overall? Or for that matter the War on Drugs? At what point do you call either one a success?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    The War on Drugs has not been a success, but tht's not a liberal thing - it's a conservative thing to reject reality and try to solve the problem in another way.

                    The War on Poverty has worked, not perfectly, but that's also more because of the Republicans efforts to increase the wealth of the rich on the backs of the poor than because the War on Poverty was misguided or bad.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
                        2
                      The War on Drugs has not been a success, but that's not a liberal thing...

                      I neither said nor implied that it was a liberal anything.

                      The War on Poverty has worked, not perfectly, but that's also more because of the Republicans efforts to increase the wealth of the rich on the backs of the poor than because the War on Poverty was misguided or bad.

                      Has the overall rate of poverty significantly decreased since 1964? If so, then how much and how many billions of dollars has it taken? And which specific Republican efforts are you talking about?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by hm1342 (June 13, 2009 8:17 pm ET)
                    1
                  The Libertarian philosophy will not work. Ever. It's pie in the sky that has catastrophic fatal flaws.

                  No one political party's philosophy has worked swimmingly so far, has it? And seeing as how Libertarian-style governance has not been attempted (except for maybe Jefferson's administration), how can you say with certainty it wouldn't work? Can you name even one "fatal flaw"?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 12, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
                4  
                When you say liberals want to spread the wealth I can only assume you're talking about the far-left liberals that want the progressive tax increased on the highest wage earners. You know, the far-left like DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  Please don't assume anything, like equating a Republican as a conservative each and every time. Eight years of George W. Bush ought to an object lesson in that. Nixon tried to control wages and prices, hardly a conservative approach. And JFK reduced taxes while president, which isn't exactly seen as mainstream liberalism.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    Actually, anyone who controls a lot is exercising conservative principles.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                      1 5
                      Really? Tell that to roundhouse who said on the executive compensation thread that he thinks there should be a maximum wage. That is about as controlling as it gets. That ain't conservative, so you are 100% wrong.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 12, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Setting a maximum for executive wages is a conservative thing.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by hm1342 (June 13, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
                            1
                          Setting a maximum for executive wages is a conservative thing.

                          Since when is setting a standard on wages a conservative idea? Please be specific.
                          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 12, 2009 2:33 am ET)
            3  
            Yeah we know it is your contention it is flat out stupid but you believe it because you have been programmed to. Hitler put real leftists in concentration camps as we have pointed out every time you bring it up but Nazis are bad so they HAVE to be lefty to simpleminded brainwashed people like YOU. I could post the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and its all rightwing. You dont care. You dont CARE if what you say makes sense you dont care if its true as long as it is derogatory to the left you will say it anyway. We know how brainwashed you are so no one in their right mind takes you seriously
            Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (June 12, 2009 9:28 am ET)
            4  
            Conservatives in the U.S. are defined by a belief in individualism and individual freedom

            Wrong-o, buddy. Here's the literal denotation of liberalism, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

            "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

            Individualism is one of our strengths; your side is the one that is more likely to be of a robotic mindset.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                3
              Individualism is one of our strengths; your side is the one that is more likely to be of a robotic mindset.

              Is that why "diversity" is always framed in terms of group identities and never about individual qualifications and accomplishments?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (June 12, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                  6
                Great point. To many liberals here, individualism is not celebrated or respected at all. In fact, it is routinely trashed as being the trait of a greedy executive who has only stepped on his or her employees on the way to the top. That is why leveling the playing field and spreading the wealth attacks accomplished individualism and rewards mediocrity.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ex-punk (June 12, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
                  6  
                  Right on get out a history book and refresh yourself on the founding of this country. This is the United States of America. We were founded on Liberal Ideals that people from all over can live and pursue happiness, religion and liberty. This is done by compromise thru democracy, a pretty grand idea. We are all individuals but we are apart of something greater. Harry Truman said the whole point of government is to help the little guy get a leg up, so he isn't run over by the rich. What have the consevatives contributed to this country other than changing laws that allow them to take more profits? Then they reward themselves for their great failures, like Enron, Worldcom, the banking Industry and the Big 3. Most people are mediocre by definition and they are only asking for basic rights to work and proivide for their families. If you listen to what the far right is saying, how would this country be? I see a fascist totalitarian state, where business run the government and only the rich would have rights.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 10:32 pm ET)
                      5
                    Most people are mediocre by definition and they are only asking for basic rights to work and provide for their families.

                    That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, the federal government has run roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, the ones that would reserve powers to the states and individuals that are not delegated or specified for the federal government. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have ever reduced the size of the federal government outside of troop reductions. More centralized power in D.C. means less of a voice for you.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (June 12, 2009 11:38 am ET)
            4  
            Ah, so you're a Looneytarian. Statism is a fairly subjective term that basically means whatever government power you don't like. In American slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregated lunch counters, etc were defended by states rights and property rights. The big bad government broke down those barriers through populist movements.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hm1342 (June 14, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                1
              Jim Crow laws, segregated lunch counters, etc were defended by states rights and property rights. The big bad government broke down those barriers through populist movements.

              Well you're partially right. Jim Crow laws were the result of the Supreme Court ruling in 1883 (?) that several federal laws, including the 1875 Civil Rights Act, were unconstitutional. So even though Congress got it right, the Supremes got it wrong, and both are part of that "big bad government". And if I'm not mistaken, it was a Republican-led Congress that passed the legislation. That set up Jim Crow and eventually Plessy v. Ferguson, which set back civil rights back another 60 years until Brown v. Board of Education.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by diogenie27611 (June 12, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
            7  
            Conservatives always say they are for limited government but it is simply a lie. They only want to limit government when it comes to welfare programs, education, and healthcare. They want to expand the size of government when it comes to issues of the military and "homeland security." You can't have it both ways. The two presidents since LBJ too increase the size of the federal government the most were the previous president, George Bush, and that conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. The sort of conservatism you're talking about has NOTHING to do with the Republican party we see today and the claim to small government is as shallow as the claims to be "real americans" or claims to "family values."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
            3  
            What you wrote is pure BS!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (June 12, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
            4  
            Edross:
            Your contention that fascism is leftist is absolutely ludicrous. Look here and here. The United States emerged out of ENLIGHTENED LIBERALISM, not Conservatism, and you clearly don't understand that. Your statement that Conservatives are defined by a belief in individualism and individual freedom is directly opposite to the rhetoric coming out of the neocon leaders today. The best thing I can say about you is that you don't know what you're talking about.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Pinhead (June 11, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
         
      0:26--"anti-negro"?

      This must've been a show from the 1950's.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (June 11, 2009 9:09 pm ET)
      3  
      The guy hates Jews, hates blacks and hates Barack Obama. How is that leftist?

      BTW, what more proof do you need that the guy was a Righty than the fact that Fox News is barely even covering this murder?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 1:16 am ET)
        2 5
        The guy hates Jews, hates blacks and hates Barack Obama. How is that leftist?

        How, exactly, does hating anyone other than white Christians make von Brunn "right wing"? Didn't Rev. Jeremiah Wright allegedly make a disparaging comment about Jews the other day? Or Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1984 remark about "Himey Town"? No one considers either of them right wing...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
          2  
          hml said"...How, exactly, does hating anyone other than white Christians make von Brunn "right wing"? " Your answer can be found in his political beleifs which was Nazism a right wing pehenomenon.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
              3
            That's a great way to not answer a question. Keep in mind the word specificity - roll it around your tongue a few times and then explain in detail why von Brunn is "right wing". Don't hide behind a concept or name you cannot or will not articulate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
              1  
              What are you talking about the man was a Nazi that explains he was right wing!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 6:53 pm ET)
                  4
                OK, what makes a Nazi "right wing"? Please be specific.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 12, 2009 10:51 pm ET)
                  2  
                  80+ years of history, for one thing.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hm1342 (June 14, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                      1
                    80+ years of history, for one thing.

                    It seems you are either unable or unwilling to put any detailed thought in this thread to substantiate your belief that Nazism is right wing.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (June 12, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
          2  
          Just how many left-wing liberal groups do you know that say Barack Obama was not born in this country and that the country is controlled by Jews??
          Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (June 11, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
      4  
      This is so sad.
      I just watched the first 6 minutes of Hannity today and he is pitting two african americans against each other as it relates to hatred against jews.
      They played a clip of Obama's preachers' rantings during the time.
      Does he not know better? I bet he does.
      He is doing it for his beliefs, greed and, being the coward he is (and others like him) and not admitting to his true feelings.
      God save America, and the rest of the world too.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (June 11, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
        4  
        If there is God and places such as heaven and hell, I am convinced that there is special punishment awaiting Hannity for the hurtfulness he has caused...while pretending to be as pure as a nun.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 11, 2009 10:29 pm ET)
         

      I'll never understand this senseless use of the words 'right' and 'left' to describe opinions on Public and National Policy...

      If there's truly a relationship between those opinions, and horizontal directions with respect to the body, then it's lost on me... I hear people argue about the 'left' and the 'right', but without saying anything specific at all about Public or National Policy, and so I'm left to wonder just what it is they're saying, just as though I were listening to people arguing in the Chinese language... of course, if they were actually arguing specific Public or National Policy issues, such as the regulation of financial services companies and banks, then those would be the terms they spoke in, wouldn't they... they'd say "regulations" and "banks" and "AIG", wouldn't they... and what place then would there be for the words 'left' and 'right'... no place, and no sensible reason to say those words (unless you were indicating horizontal directions, like in "there's a copy of the proposed regulations just to your left", or "the bank I'm talking about is the one over there on the right")... but when people neglect the particulars of their Public and National Policy opinions, and substitute instead the senseless words 'left' and 'right' (truly senseless in the context of Public and National Policy), what are they really saying?

      I'll tell you...

      They're saying "I despise you and your political opinions"

      They're not truly saying anything about National or Public Policy when they say 'left' and 'right', because if they were, they'd have to mention the particulars in order to be understood, particulars such as regulation and emissions and Congressional ethics (Rules) and campaign finance law and IRAQ and Afghanistan and National Security... words and opinions so full, there'd be no room or need for the senseless diversion of descending into language that refers properly to horizontal directions with respect to the body...

      Otherwise, they say nothing substantial or real or sensible about Public and National Policy... they just say 'left' and 'right', or they dispense even with those coded words, and get mad and use the true words they are code for:

      "I despise you and your opinions"

      Of course, there is one truly sensible and meaningful and even preferred and even brilliant use of a word that refers to a horizontal direction, when giving your opinion on Public and National Policy, and that word is RIGHT...

      As in "I am right" or "I am on the right side" or "my opinion is right"

      Because the word RIGHT, in addition to being a horizontal direction, means also proper, correct, appropriate, genuine, and true.

      That's the only political use of the word RIGHT that makes sense to me... because when people say they are RIGHT, they are also saying they are correct and proper and appropriate and genuine and true, aren't they...

      Right or not right?

      I mean, true or not true? Correct or not correct?

      In discussing Policy opinions, about the only thing more backwards than calling yourself 'left', is calling those you disagree with 'right'...

      That's another thing I'll never understand about this 'left' and 'right' nonsense (except when I think my Policy opinions are right, or true or correct, in which case I say what those opinions are in the sensible particulars and details of them, and then I have no need to say the word 'right' in either of it's senses).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jackdoitcrawford (June 12, 2009 10:30 am ET)
           
        If you understand the point Dr Binswanger made on the Glenn Beck Show, you would understand the confusion.
        Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute on Glenn Beck
        Source: www.youtube.com
        Dr. Harry Binswanger, a member of the Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors, on Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel , June 10. Dr. Binswanger will discuss anti-Semitism in light of todays holocaust museum shooting.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (June 11, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
      2  
      Limbaugh must be in such pain. Not only is he losing on the issues and unsuccessfully taking on an extremely popular President, he's tying himself into knots putting his spin on htings.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ex-punk (June 12, 2009 1:56 am ET)
      3  
      If the liberals are the racisists, then why are the anti-racists also liberals?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Former Democrat (June 12, 2009 3:52 am ET)
        6
      Uh, OK, let's look at the "facts", I know that's a foreign concept for most of you that post here, but humor me, will you?

      The guy hates Jews, constantly rants and raves against "Neocons", and has an affinity for "cutting defense". He is a proclaimed member of the Aryan Nations, who subscribe to the following:

      •Promote and preserve the industry and livelihood of the citizens.
      •[E]liminate the current practice of damaging and poisoning life and environment.
      •Provide honest aid to farmers and other business people, and shall restore to all citizens rightful land ownership.
      •Make the necessary provisions for the aged, who have been impoverished by fraud (inflation).
      •Confiscate all unearned wealth, stolen by fraud or usury and that which is gain from war.
      •Nationalize all monopolies and multi-national interest[s].
      •Immediately bring about land reform….

      Right winger? I thinks NOT!! Left winger? Hell, this guy should run for the Democratic Nomination in 2012. His criminal record should push him right over the top of Obama.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (June 12, 2009 5:31 am ET)
      3  
      I'm having a real difficult time connecting the dots on this one. A right wing crackpot is really a leftist, and a leftist is a leftist.

      Will the real right wing crackpot please stand up, or can someone please let me off this merry-go-around?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (June 12, 2009 9:01 am ET)
      2  
      Oh it gets better, the Freeper's are dragging out the he's a registered Democrat meme. By which I am sure they mean he registered with the Southern Democrats is the 50's - 60's (Dixiecrats) when segeration was all the rage in the South. Most of those guys went on to become the heart of today's GOP. But they are still pushing this as proof the left is the issue, after they wound up this maniac.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 12, 2009 11:05 am ET)
        2  
        It wouldn't matter if he was a registered democrat. Wouldn't matter at all. I know plenty of people that are registered republicans that voted for Obama, that's doesn't make them any less republican, or any more democrat. How you register to vote means really very little.

        Look at his ideology, and what he espoused. Pure far far right wing extremism. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ufleirx (June 12, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
          2  
          I did not say it did, I am just saying get ready for this chestnut to start making the rounds.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (June 12, 2009 9:32 am ET)
      2  
      Adolf Hitler was a leftist? That certainly explains why Germany invaded the Soviet Union - the Nazis just wanted to be closer to the Communists...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by chip_nyc (June 12, 2009 11:17 am ET)
          4
        Part of the misunderstanding is that the term "liberal" was hijacked by the left-wing socialists/communists. What it used to mean was what is now remembered as "classical liberal," which meant advocating a government that protected individual rights, that was very limited in its functions (because the government is the greatest threat to individual rights), and the support of capitalism.

        THAT is the "liberalism" that Hitler and Mussolini rejected.

        If you could all just step back from your labels and think of reality a moment, it would help a lot.

        The two axes of socio-politics is freedom and individualism, or force and collectivism. Full stop. All history, all societies, have that fundamental choice. To be honest, you must recognize that Nazism and Communism are totalitarian, i.e. the very extreme of the force/collectivism axis. They must be on the same side of the spectrum, and we call it "leftwing" because that is, without a doubt, where people place communism.

        How can you defend having the fundamental, extreme alternatives, be the same thing -- i.e. totalitarianism? Do you want to place freedom/classical liberalism -- the antithesis of those extremes, in the middle, as if to imply it is a compromise between extremes? That is bizarre.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 12, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
          2  
          And the word "moron" is close to being hijacked by the right.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (June 13, 2009 9:14 am ET)
             
          You list two axes, but you seem to think only one acts as a determination of political definition. That's the source for your supposed confusion about how freedom can be in the "middle". How about a quadrant system, with an X and Y axis? That way you can recognize how one aspect can be similar, while another is so different that it qualifies the political philosophy as the opposite.

          Left-wing and right-wing philosophies can both go too far when they drift into authoritarian territory, that doesn't mean they're both on the "same side of the spectrum". That is bizarre.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 14, 2009 2:16 am ET)
          1  
          All of your confusion comes from the fact you are brainwashed and not very bright. You certainly dont know what you are talking about and simply repeat the idiocy you were programmed with by the Limborg screechmonkeys. Todays liberals are the natural progression of classic liberalism. I know you have been TOLD to think the stupid meme you regurgitated but its really REALLY dumb. Conservatives would LIKE to take credit for the good things liberals accomplished over their hysterical opposition but only the dumbest and most brainwashed of the sheeple can even possibly take such tripe seriously. I dont even want to take the time to argue with any of the obvious idiocy of your post but if Nazis were on the same side as communists why did they put them in concentration camps? Face it. You are brainwashed and repeating dumb things you arent bright enough to understand. You are embarassing yourself.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by proudconservative (June 12, 2009 11:40 am ET)
          3
        Hitler invaded the USSR to destroy an enemy that militarily threatened him. Remember that the Hitler had established a treaty with them prior to his invasion, to deal with economic and geographical matters. This lasted until Hitler decided that Stalin was taking to much territory, especially in the Baltic area, and that Stalin would look to Southern eastern Europe as well. He attacked on that premise, Operation Barbarossa was meant to destroy the military threat, not political.

        Communism, socialism, progressivism like facism in that the bonding of commerce to the government with the government as controlling entity, serving as political goal. It's just a matter of what in the government serves as power broker, an individual, people's committees or czars.

        Conservatism is all about the individual's power to control their own lifes, morally (don't mock ours), economically (don't make everyone indebetted to the government via regulation and feudal pay source)and politically (free expression of all views but not the demand that those views have to be agreed to)

        PS to the mm(fvl) censors, is this acceptable according to your standards, or is this obscene or hateful?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
          3  
          Hitler threw the communist in jail and murdered them and destroyed the trade unions at the behest of big business and international finance. The Hitler Stalin Pact was instigated by the Soviet Union to give it time to build up it's military force, and the taking of parts of Poland was a defensive manuveur to protect the Soviets border. Stalin knew that Hitler's intention was to destroy communism, you profess to know history but neglect that Hitler wrote of intentions in Mein Kampf(sp). Fascism i.e. Nazism was the dictatorship of finance capital and arose to destroy and turn back the growing working class movement in Germany and Italy and Europe. Remember the Spanish Civil War? Any student of history could see what was taking place in Europe. Fascism is not a pole of the "left" it arises and is financed by big business in response to the workers movemnt was was from the left. Communism and Socialism is the "left". As far as the other drivel about conservatism being about individual liberty, I think current events refute that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by proudconservative (June 12, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
              4
            In Hitler's Germany, especially while imprisioned, the idea of a Judeo-marxist conspiracy was rampant. His stated hatred of communism was much about his hatred of Jews and the state of Germany's economy and his use of it for his propaganda.

            Politically, take an elementary poly-sci course and see that structurally, Hitler's view of a government, it's control of the economy and the political arena are similar to communism. If he had been victorious over the russians, the only change in government would have been in the leadership model, not in philosophy.

            Facism, socialism, communism, progressivsim all see the ideal government as one that is top heavy with limited input from teh general citizenry. You say conservatism is not about individual liberty, please give an example of those 'current events' that proves your point.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
              2  
              PC your the one that needs the history lesson.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
              2  
              anti-choice movement, the shooting of Dr.Tiller,the
              Tea Party movement,Terry Sciavo,the Patriot Act,gay-marriage ban,state right movement...I could go on but you get the picture.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (June 14, 2009 2:21 am ET)
              2  
              You dont know what you are talking about. You NEVER do. Read the Communist Manifesto. It is the very opposite of top heavy government. Bottom line Hitler hated socialism and communism and put real lefties in concentration camps while he destroyed trade unions. Read the 14 tenets of Fascism it is a RIGHTWING political philosophy. Political science makes this quite clear. The rightwing is always trying to rewrite history and they dont even TRY to make sense when they do. The reason they dont even TRY to make sense is they know people like you will swallow and regurgitate any idiocy they toss out for you whether it makes sense or not. You flat out DONT know history
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hm1342 (June 14, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
                1  
                Read the 14 tenets of Fascism it is a RIGHTWING political philosophy. Political science makes this quite clear.

                http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

                1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
                Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

                2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
                Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.


                4. Supremacy of the Military
                Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


                5. Rampant Sexism
                The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

                6. Controlled Mass Media
                Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

                7. Obsession with National Security
                Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

                11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
                Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

                12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
                Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

                13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
                Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

                14. Fraudulent Elections
                Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


                Didn't these apply to the Soviet Union as well? Are they not considered "leftist" according to your own arguments?

                3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
                The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


                What political party or ideology does not attempt to identify some common foe?

                8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
                Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.


                And just how prominent was religion once Hitler or Mussolini took power?

                9. Corporate Power is Protected
                The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.


                And yet both Bush and Obama are out to protect businesses from failing...go figure...

                10. Labor Power is Suppressed
                Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .


                Unions have not been eliminated, and the bulk of the unions are in government, both at the federal and state level. That's quite a threat...

                Did you actually read any of these "tenets"? Even Naomi Wolf didn't characterize the Bush administration as fascist in her book, "The End of America" (by the way a very good read).
                Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 12, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
          4  
          PC you really need a history lesson. the russian military of 1939 1940 was inferior to the GERMAN military and both HITLER AND STALIN knew it.STALIN was not about to attack GERMANY then. In fact STALIN executed several of his agents that were trying to warn him of HITLERS impending attack in MAY,JUNE 1941.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (June 12, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
          3  
          Conservatism is all about the individual's power to control their own lifes, morally (don't mock ours), =PC That is a crock I've listed some examples below. It's your philosophy that wants to impose THEIR morality on others.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (June 12, 2009 11:09 am ET)
      4  
      I thought it was 2009, not 1984. The cable and AM "journatainment" uber-celebrity CRAAWM (Conservative Rich and Angry Aging White Male) cartel is getting increasingly Orwellian. Rhetorical inversions (reverse racism, the rich white male as the new victim, extreme right is really the extreme left, etc., etc.) and other slippages of signifiers out from under their signifieds are their only recourse at the moment.

      Language manipulation, obfuscation, demagoguery and doublespeak are their only hope for keeping their highly lucrative fear and paranoia industry afloat. Like cornered animals sensing their imminent end, the CRAAWMs are lashing out in desperation.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DTOM (June 13, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
          1
        Hmmm...Actually, I'd suggest you re-read Orwell's book, seeing as how you're so keen on careless quoting of it.

        Discrimination is discrimination. When someone is taking a test for a promotion, and then the test is scrapped and the promotion is denied because not enough people of a certain color passed the test, that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with Orwellian vocabulary, it's the very stark-cold facts and realities.

        If anything, it's the oft-encountered slogan "Islam is a religion of Peace" that fits the bill of Orwellian.

        And as for the Nazi museum murderer - I doubt he has any affiliation to any conservative convictions or even Republican tenets and platforms. I guess it's the Democratic party that excels in matters of white supremacy and gay-bashing (Robert KKK Byrd and Fred Phelps, respectively). As a Jewish gay guy who despises both parties, the way I see it Democrats are hungry wolves compared to the Republican foxes (no pun intended).

        Lest we forget - ELF - a vicious, murderous environmentalist terrorist group, the murderer of Dutch MP Pim Fortuyn, Stalin, Lenin etc...Many US presidential assassins had leftist leanings, the list goes on.

        And the reasons Hitler might be cast as leftist are (to put it succinctly): A. Socialism. B. Sacrifices made for the greater good (of the Aryan race of course).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hm1342 (June 14, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
          1
        And of course we all know the virtuous and self-sacrificing nature of those known as Democrats and liberals - hearts and minds pure as the driven snow and who have never uttered a single hate-filled word or raised fear in the hearts of the electorate. Nor have they ever lied, cheated or stolen elections...yeah, right...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (June 14, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
          2  
          That's a false equivalency. There is no liberal that even approaches the irresponsibility of the right.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.