Was Von Brun 'Right Wing'?... Some say he was a leftist.

[ponycar17]

Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians
Suspect in death of security guard defies easy stereotyping
Posted: June 11, 2009
11:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

James von Brunn, the man who allegedly shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., was a Darwin-lover who hated the Bible and Christians, and defies media efforts to classify him as a stereotypical "right-winger," according to reports.

The Moonbattery blog revealed von Brunn advocated the socialist policies espoused by Adolf Hitler and used Darwinian theory to support his anti-Semitism.

And in statements that later were stripped from an anti-religion website, he wrote, "The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION … CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES."

The blog had an answer to how to classify von Brunn, who remains hospitalized after being shot while attacking and shooting a guard at the museum: "If it barks like a moonbat, it's a moonbat."

Von Brunn's diatribe on religion, according to the website, included:

"The New Testament was written in Greek. Paul – who believed the World was flat, that Joshua made the sun stand still, and Jehovah spoke from a burning bush – wrote one-third of it, perhaps more. The events described in the 24 Books are often contradictory, fail the time-line, defy both archaeology's and nature's immutable laws, and are suicidal if practiced. Nevertheless, the shamans bought it, taught it, and the illiterate public was coerced, brainwashed, threatened, tortured, murdered, and enthralled. … The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews); give away their personal belongings; eschew knowledge; judge not, despise nature, abandon earthly pleasures, acknowledge that all YHWH's children are equal; and above all else worship YHWH, the jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father) created by Hebrews in their image and likeness. Omnipotent, omniscient YHWH promises Hebrews that they alone shall inherit the earth, that it is commendable to steal from Gentiles, better yet — kill them. Whereas Gentiles, if they fail to worship YHWH, are transported straight to Hell. And it is written, 'A little child shall lead them.' These dangerous, imbecilic, concepts, tenets, and teachings, often treasonous, DESTROYED the Roman Empire and drenched the soil of Europe with Aryan blood for almost 2000 years!"

According to writer Kathy Shaidle at Examiner.com, von Brunn left a trail of "unhinged" writings.

"The anti-Semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most 'white supremacists,' many of von Brunn's political views track 'Left' rather than 'Right.' Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue," she wrote.

Von Brunn, for example, hated both President George H.W. Bush as well as George W. Bush, and the writer confirmed his posting "reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists."

"None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg's bestseller 'Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,' which clearly demonstrates that 'fascism' of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect 'leftwing' views as 'rightwing' ones," Shaidle wrote.

She noted anti-Semitism, in fact, is something the "New Left" and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s.

"That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama's former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed 'the Jews' for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well," she wrote.

She wrote that von Brunn clearly was "deeply confused," but isn't the "mainstream conservative and/or rightwinger currently being depicted on leftwing blogs and by liberal commentators."

"In short, von Brunn's connection with conservative thought and action today – be it talk radio or 'tea parties' – is tenuous. Those trying to puff up such 'connections' are acting in bad faith, out of blind partisanship – of the sort which is as corrosive to the health of the body politic as von Brunn's own b[l]atherings," Shaidle wrote.

On the Examiner forum page, the assessments on von Brunn ran along similar paths:

* The man is a lunatic irrespective of ideology.

* This loon is now responsible for the same number of dead as Teddy Kennedy is!

* The guy is a nut, as was the abortion [doctor] killer, and the Army recruiter killer. There is extremism across the political spectrum. Have you ever heard that stereotyping people can be unhealthy and even dangerous, and something I hope we discourage in this liberal society.

Author Jame Glazov, whose book "United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror," is a rising star, also has examined the links between the left and tyranny.

Glazov, who is managing editor of Frontpagemag, wrote, "As history shows, leftist beliefs have spawned mass carnage and misery. Put into practice, they have caused the deaths of millions. Until now, it has been extremely difficult for rational people who value personal freedom to understand the motivations of those who live in comfort and yet embrace monstrous dictators, ideologies, and policies that leave only death and destruction in their wake."

Glazov in his book "presents startling new insights into the toxic beliefs and torturously contorted thought processes of the leftists who lust to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to exist."

Glazov, a refugee from the Soviet Union, contends there is an unholy alliance between jihadists and people such as Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Ted Turner and Noam Chomsky. At the heart of the mutual admiration, he says, is a willingness to accept massive numbers of deaths to achieve their objectives.

What's bound to be most infuriating to those Americans and many other westerners mentioned in the book is the way Glazov uses their own words to make the point.

"Not only do I think it's possible [a Muslim-leftist alliance] but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already," explains leftist British lawmaker George Galloway. "It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries, mainly Muslim countries."

From http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100882

Discuss...

[sakeneko]

When you're dealing with the lunatic fringe, particularly those who feel a need to control the behavior of others and are frustrated because they cannot persuade others to their way of thinking, you aren't dealing with "left" or "right" any more. The whole "left wing" and "right wing" categories break down at that point because what characterizes these idiots *is* the frustrated need for control and potential violence when it isn't possible to get what they want. The content of their beliefs is not relevant to the issue, and in any event is usually a hodgepodge mix of all kinds of stuff.

I'd suggest not labeling any group that commits acts of terrorism as "left" or "right". It tells us nothing useful. Instead, figure out who they are and (if they didn't die or get arrested in the attempt) who else was involved, and stop them. I'd prefer to jail them, but if they won't be taken alive, so be it.

As for Bob Unruh's argument in Worldnet, the whole thing absolutely stinks of playing political games with a tragedy and an outrage. Most of the "left-wing" types I know (and I know quite a few) would no more go shoot random strangers in a public place than most of the "right-wing" types I know. Attributing this outrage to the left wing is simple political grandstanding.

And so are the arguments of liberal and left-wing commentators who are trying to attribute this outrage to the right wing. :/

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by sakeneko

When you're dealing with the lunatic fringe, particularly those who feel a need to control the behavior of others and are frustrated because they cannot persuade others to their way of thinking, you aren't dealing with "left" or "right" any more. The whole "left wing" and "right wing" categories break down at that point because what characterizes these idiots *is* the frustrated need for control and potential violence when it isn't possible to get what they want. The content of their beliefs is not relevant to the issue, and in any event is usually a hodgepodge mix of all kinds of stuff.

I'd suggest not labeling any group that commits acts of terrorism as "left" or "right". It tells us nothing useful. Instead, figure out who they are and (if they didn't die or get arrested in the attempt) who else was involved, and stop them. I'd prefer to jail them, but if they won't be taken alive, so be it.

As for Bob Unruh's argument in Worldnet, the whole thing absolutely stinks of playing political games with a tragedy and an outrage. Most of the "left-wing" types I know (and I know quite a few) would no more go shoot random strangers in a public place than most of the "right-wing" types I know. Attributing this outrage to the left wing is simple political grandstanding.

And so are the arguments of liberal and left-wing commentators who are trying to attribute this outrage to the right wing. :/

+1. Very well said. This has nothing to do with politics or where someone falls in the political spectrum. We conservatives need to stop allowing liberals to make us apologists for the actions of every nutcase that may espouse some of the same beliefs as us. Timothy McVeigh was opposed to gun control. Does that make us like him? Are we responsible for his actions? Hell no! McVeigh was in my opinion a sociopath that had no respect for innocent human life. I know of no one in TFF that fits that description. Von Brunn was another sociopath that happened to be extremely antisemitic.

This guilt by association idea which the left tries to impose on conservatives is a classic example of a logical fallacy. An example of this type fallacy goes something like this:

1. Lassie is a dog

2. Some dogs have rabies

3. Therefore Lassie has rabies

I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that first said "liberalism is a mental disorder". I have found that to be so true. They just don't think right. (pun intended) A logical liberal is indeed a rarity.

[Marlin T]

There was nothing right wing about this guy, despite what Shepard Smith says.

Good posts everybody!

[sabashimon]

Seemed like an appropriate place for this:

Why Not Invite Von Brunn to the White House?

Von Brunn is currently under arrest for his attack on the Holocaust Museum. But instead of keeping him in jail, why not invite Von Brunn to the White House?

Considering that Al Sharpton has visited repeatedly, Von Brunn should certainly be good enough for Obama. Considering that Obama has based his foreign policy on pursuing diplomatic relations with the likes of Ahmadinejad and the "moderate" Taliban, not to mention the Holocaust denying terrorist leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas-- why can't he pursue diplomatic relations with Von Brunn?

Von Brunn's enthusiasm for Nazism shouldn't get in the way. Not when Obama cultivates ties with the likes of Abbas and Ahmadinejad. And as for Von Brunn's lone murder, that would be considered a slow day for Abbas or Sharpton.

In 1991, Al Sharpton led a mob of thugs to Crown Heights, large numbers of whom marched down the streets of the neighborhood chanting "Death to the Jews". Windows were smashed in and religious items were desecrated as the Jewish residents endured three days of anti-semitic rioting.

Yankel Rosenbaum, an Australian university student who had been working on his doctorate happened to be in the area, was surrounded by a mob shouting, "Kill the Jew". His skull was fractured and he was stabbed over and over again, leaving him to die.

Anthony Graziosi was driving home from work when he was shot and killed, by more of the thugs that Sharpton's race baiting harangues had attracted to the neighborhood. He was Italian, not Jewish, but he had a white beard and wore an old fashioned dark suit. That was enough for him to be murdered on the spot.

Bracha Estrin walked with a limp, a legacy of life in the ghetto during the Holocaust, had lost most of her family and experienced horrors beyond measure during the Holocaust. When the hatefilled murderess mobs that Al Sharpton had incited gathered below and began smashing at the doors of her apartment building, she saw the new wave of Nazis coming for her and threw herself out of the sixth floor window of her apartment building. Her great dark eyes which had seen so much suffering, would see no more.

Bracha Estrin is dead now. Anthony Grziosi is dead now. Yankel Rosenbaum is dead too. Al Sharpton however is very much alive today and a powerful figure in the Democratic party.

Nor was it Jews and Italians alone who were Sharpton's victims. Sharpton targeted Asian storeowners in blatantly racist boycotts. And in 1995 he targeted Freddy's in Harlem, by the time he was done spewing his trademark hate, one of his picketers torched the store. The dead were seven employees, most minorities, including a black security guard.

They are still dead. Al Sharpton is more powerful than ever. Obama has met with Al Sharpton more than he has with any other black civil rights leader. During the election Obama sent three top officials, including VP Joe Biden to Sharpton's National Action Network convention. And Obama's Religious Leadership Council included the President of the NAA's Dallas chapter.

In 2004, Sharpton not only ran for President but addressed the Democratic National Convention, receiving a standing ovation. It is inconceivable that David Duke could have addressed a Republican Convention. Let alone receive a standing ovation for it. But Sharpton whose incitement has killed more people than David Duke could do it at the DNC. Not only that Sharpton is described as a "civil rights leader", David Duke is described as a racist extremist. As if there was any difference between the two men beyond the color of their skin.

Yet when Obama proclaimed, “Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up,” he was endorsing a program of change by a violent racist, and treating the man who had spewed hate toward virtually every sector of America and incited numerous murderous, as a "voice for the dispossessed".

Which dispossessed? Certainly not Anthony Graziosi or Yankel Rosenbaum or Bracha Estrin. But with his numerous invites to the White House and his prominent place in the Democratic party, he clearly is a voice for Obama and the DNC. A voice for Barry Hussein who's driven to change America on behalf of the likes of Sharpton.

But if we can't have a moral government, then let's at least have a consistent one. Abbas received Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader. Perhaps Obama can get Von Brunn on the phone. Obama is pressuring Israel to turn over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to Abbas and his Fatah thugs. Can't Obama demand some part of Israel on behalf of Von Brunn as well?

Holocaust denial has not disqualified Abbas. Anti-semitic murders have not disqualified Sharpton. Why then must Von Brunn stay in prison, instead of being feted in the Oval Office? It couldn't be because Von Brunn hates Jews or tried to kill them. That gets you put on the top of Obama's invitation list. It can't even be because he was personally responsible for violent attacks. That didn't stop Ayers and Obama from being tight as two radicals can be.

With all the outrage being lavished on Von Brunn, you would think that the United States had not spent the last 17 years, arming, funding and agitating on behalf of Fatah terrorists who would make Von Brunn look like the amateur that he was.

Why in 2006 a charming young leader of the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade ran for office in the Palestinian Authority. Naturally he won. His birth name is Jamal Abu Roub. But the nickname he commonly answers to is Hitler.

As the New York Times charmingly describes the scene, "The candidate's name is Jamal Abu Roub, but everyone here calls him Hitler because, well, that is the name he has answered to quite comfortably since he was a teenager. When Mr. Roub was leaving after an interview, a group of Palestinian women spotted him and a buzz swept through the room. "It's Hitler; it's Hitler," they said, one after another. Mr. Roub could not resist speaking to them for 15 minutes."

If you're wondering what the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade does, it's kill Jews. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been responsible for murdering 130 Israelis in suicide bombings. If you're wondering who funds the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the answer is you do. The Brigade is the military wing of Fatah. And Fatah runs the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority in turn uses funds from the US and Europe to pay its militias, which include that charming fellow named Hitler.

After Israel finally arrested Marwan Barghouti, head of the Al Aqsa Martys Brigade, Condoleeza Rice demanded his release so he could participate in the 2007 Palestinian elections. Israel chose however to obstruct "peace" and chose to keep this mass murderer in jail instead. Fear not though, the Obama administration is ladling out billions for "security training" for Fatah miltias, which means training the Hitlers of tomorrow to be better and more vicious killers.

What is the senile Von Brunn whose plan was as feeble as marching up to the Holocaust Museum with a rifle, compared to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority marching up and down with automatic rifles? Why should they get an invite to the White House and not him?

If we cannot have a moral White House, then let us at least have a consistent one. Spring Von Brunn out of his jail cell and declare him to be a civil rights leader. Give him the right to demand any part of Israel that he likes. Let him lead homicidal mobs through Jewish neighborhoods in between speaking gigs at the Democratic National Convention.

If Al Sharpton merits it, if Abbas merits it, then why not Von Brunn? I eagerly await the day when Obama will meet with Von Brunn in the Rose Garden, embrace him and call him a man of peace. A voice for the voiceless. A murderer for all those who dare not raise their own hands and kill. A true spokesman for the aims and aspirations of the Obama Administration.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

[bcj1755]

The difference is that Von Brunn is white. Al Sharpton is black. Other than that, they're exactly the same.

[sakeneko]

No, bcj1755. The difference is that Von Brunn murdered random strangers because of his anger that others don't share his beliefs. Al Sharpton might be an extremist fool, but as far as I know he has never committed murder.

I doubt I like Sharpton any better than you do, or most people here do. He deserves to be compared to other extremist nitwits with a tenuous grasp on reality and no hesitation to use "enhanced truth techniques" to accomplish his goals. But that just puts him in the same category as whoever is running Handgun Control, Inc. (or whatever name it goes by nowadays).

Von Brunn belongs in the same category as Timothy McVeigh, or the Hezbollah suicide bombers, or the leftover Taliban in Pakistan who kidnap and murder schoolgirls because they don't believe in educating women, or.... (I'm sure you can think of some other worthy examples.)

[sabashimon]

I beg to differ Sakeneko.......in my book, incitement to murder puts the inciter on a par with the murderer, and Sharpton's done his share of inciting.
Your mention of Hezbollah makes my point. Nasrallah doesn't pull the trigger or wear the suicide belt, but through his incitement, he's every bit as guilty.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by sakeneko

No, bcj1755. The difference is that Von Brunn murdered random strangers because of his anger that others don't share his beliefs. Al Sharpton might be an extremist fool, but as far as I know he has never committed murder.

I doubt I like Sharpton any better than you do, or most people here do. He deserves to be compared to other extremist nitwits with a tenuous grasp on reality and no hesitation to use "enhanced truth techniques" to accomplish his goals. But that just puts him in the same category as whoever is running Handgun Control, Inc. (or whatever name it goes by nowadays).

Von Brunn belongs in the same category as Timothy McVeigh, or the Hezbollah suicide bombers, or the leftover Taliban in Pakistan who kidnap and murder schoolgirls because they don't believe in educating women, or.... (I'm sure you can think of some other worthy examples.)

I agree with sabashimon, Sharpton incited the riots in Crown Heights, therefore he is responsible for the murder of each and every person that died during those three days. (A quick google search will reveal Sharpton's role in starting the riots.) Just as Hitler is responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews that were exterminated on his order. Just as Stalin is responsible for the murder of over 20 million Soviet citizens during his purges. Just as Charles Manson is responsible for the murders commited by his "family." Sharpton use virulent anti-semetic rhetoric to incite those riots. In my book, Sharpton is an anti-semitic murderer, just like Von Brunn. But yet Obama kisses Sharpton's butt because he is a "community leader" and a "civil rights leader." Using that logic, then Barry should be saying the same things about Von Brunn. Barry Hussein is a Muslim, and a big part of Islam seemes to be anti-semitism. It's nothing but the typical liberal double standard at work. A "minority" can commit a crime, and they get a pass. But a white male commits the same crime, and he gets thrown so far back into the jail that the guards have to use a 12ga. to shoot him his beans every night for dinner.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by sakeneko

Attributing this outrage to the left wing is simple political grandstanding.

Why? If the guy is a left wing wacko, what's wrong will calling a spade a spade? The MSM sure do it to us, so why not return the favor? I don't condone murder no matter who commits it.

The guy that killed the Army Recruiters is a black muslim jihadist. So what's wrong with calling him that? If this man is a left wing wacko white supremacist, just say it and stop playing the PC game.

Just my .02

[mrkirker]

Piece of crap was a hate-monger, neither left nor right: barely anything, certainly not a 'man'.

Look at the mid-age photo and the more recent photo.
A lifetime of carrying and spewing hate will eat one up from within.
My 2¢

[Teejay9]

This man was a waste of time and life. An 89 year old, going into a museum and shooting an innocent security guard who was holding the door open for him. This man belongs in the wing of pure hate and evil. It ate him up and, now that the authorities have him, what would be a fitting punishment for this senseless crime? Just lock him in a psycho ward some where where he can spend his last days hating and being consumed with hate. Truly hell on earth. TJ

[mrkirker]

Well said, Teejay.

[sakeneko]

I'm not sure there's enough left of Von Brunn that he'd notice or experience any punishment beyond what he lives with just being him. ("Must suck to be you" type of stuff.) I do feel sorry for his children, though. (And congratulate his ex-wife for having the sense to get rid of him thirty years ago.)

Stephen Johns' mother has certainly spoken as I hope I would to Von Brunn's son, who condemned his father's actions unreservedly. As angry and grieving as she must be, she made it clear that she doesn't hold any of Von Brunn's family responsible for Von Brunn's beliefs or behavior, and is praying for them. By all accounts, Johns' was a good man and I think I can see one of the reasons why.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by sabashimon

Seemed like an appropriate place for this:

Why Not Invite Von Brunn to the White House?

Von Brunn is currently under arrest for his attack on the Holocaust Museum. But instead of keeping him in jail, why not invite Von Brunn to the White House?

Considering that Al Sharpton has visited repeatedly, Von Brunn should certainly be good enough for Obama. Considering that Obama has based his foreign policy on pursuing diplomatic relations with the likes of Ahmadinejad and the "moderate" Taliban, not to mention the Holocaust denying terrorist leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas-- why can't he pursue diplomatic relations with Von Brunn?

Von Brunn's enthusiasm for Nazism shouldn't get in the way. Not when Obama cultivates ties with the likes of Abbas and Ahmadinejad. And as for Von Brunn's lone murder, that would be considered a slow day for Abbas or Sharpton.

In 1991, Al Sharpton led a mob of thugs to Crown Heights, large numbers of whom marched down the streets of the neighborhood chanting "Death to the Jews". Windows were smashed in and religious items were desecrated as the Jewish residents endured three days of anti-semitic rioting.

Yankel Rosenbaum, an Australian university student who had been working on his doctorate happened to be in the area, was surrounded by a mob shouting, "Kill the Jew". His skull was fractured and he was stabbed over and over again, leaving him to die.

Anthony Graziosi was driving home from work when he was shot and killed, by more of the thugs that Sharpton's race baiting harangues had attracted to the neighborhood. He was Italian, not Jewish, but he had a white beard and wore an old fashioned dark suit. That was enough for him to be murdered on the spot.

Bracha Estrin walked with a limp, a legacy of life in the ghetto during the Holocaust, had lost most of her family and experienced horrors beyond measure during the Holocaust. When the hatefilled murderess mobs that Al Sharpton had incited gathered below and began smashing at the doors of her apartment building, she saw the new wave of Nazis coming for her and threw herself out of the sixth floor window of her apartment building. Her great dark eyes which had seen so much suffering, would see no more.

Bracha Estrin is dead now. Anthony Grziosi is dead now. Yankel Rosenbaum is dead too. Al Sharpton however is very much alive today and a powerful figure in the Democratic party.

Nor was it Jews and Italians alone who were Sharpton's victims. Sharpton targeted Asian storeowners in blatantly racist boycotts. And in 1995 he targeted Freddy's in Harlem, by the time he was done spewing his trademark hate, one of his picketers torched the store. The dead were seven employees, most minorities, including a black security guard.

They are still dead. Al Sharpton is more powerful than ever. Obama has met with Al Sharpton more than he has with any other black civil rights leader. During the election Obama sent three top officials, including VP Joe Biden to Sharpton's National Action Network convention. And Obama's Religious Leadership Council included the President of the NAA's Dallas chapter.

In 2004, Sharpton not only ran for President but addressed the Democratic National Convention, receiving a standing ovation. It is inconceivable that David Duke could have addressed a Republican Convention. Let alone receive a standing ovation for it. But Sharpton whose incitement has killed more people than David Duke could do it at the DNC. Not only that Sharpton is described as a "civil rights leader", David Duke is described as a racist extremist. As if there was any difference between the two men beyond the color of their skin.

Yet when Obama proclaimed, “Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up,” he was endorsing a program of change by a violent racist, and treating the man who had spewed hate toward virtually every sector of America and incited numerous murderous, as a "voice for the dispossessed".

Which dispossessed? Certainly not Anthony Graziosi or Yankel Rosenbaum or Bracha Estrin. But with his numerous invites to the White House and his prominent place in the Democratic party, he clearly is a voice for Obama and the DNC. A voice for Barry Hussein who's driven to change America on behalf of the likes of Sharpton.

But if we can't have a moral government, then let's at least have a consistent one. Abbas received Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader. Perhaps Obama can get Von Brunn on the phone. Obama is pressuring Israel to turn over the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to Abbas and his Fatah thugs. Can't Obama demand some part of Israel on behalf of Von Brunn as well?

Holocaust denial has not disqualified Abbas. Anti-semitic murders have not disqualified Sharpton. Why then must Von Brunn stay in prison, instead of being feted in the Oval Office? It couldn't be because Von Brunn hates Jews or tried to kill them. That gets you put on the top of Obama's invitation list. It can't even be because he was personally responsible for violent attacks. That didn't stop Ayers and Obama from being tight as two radicals can be.

With all the outrage being lavished on Von Brunn, you would think that the United States had not spent the last 17 years, arming, funding and agitating on behalf of Fatah terrorists who would make Von Brunn look like the amateur that he was.

Why in 2006 a charming young leader of the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade ran for office in the Palestinian Authority. Naturally he won. His birth name is Jamal Abu Roub. But the nickname he commonly answers to is Hitler.

As the New York Times charmingly describes the scene, "The candidate's name is Jamal Abu Roub, but everyone here calls him Hitler because, well, that is the name he has answered to quite comfortably since he was a teenager. When Mr. Roub was leaving after an interview, a group of Palestinian women spotted him and a buzz swept through the room. "It's Hitler; it's Hitler," they said, one after another. Mr. Roub could not resist speaking to them for 15 minutes."

If you're wondering what the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade does, it's kill Jews. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been responsible for murdering 130 Israelis in suicide bombings. If you're wondering who funds the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the answer is you do. The Brigade is the military wing of Fatah. And Fatah runs the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority in turn uses funds from the US and Europe to pay its militias, which include that charming fellow named Hitler.

After Israel finally arrested Marwan Barghouti, head of the Al Aqsa Martys Brigade, Condoleeza Rice demanded his release so he could participate in the 2007 Palestinian elections. Israel chose however to obstruct "peace" and chose to keep this mass murderer in jail instead. Fear not though, the Obama administration is ladling out billions for "security training" for Fatah miltias, which means training the Hitlers of tomorrow to be better and more vicious killers.

What is the senile Von Brunn whose plan was as feeble as marching up to the Holocaust Museum with a rifle, compared to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority marching up and down with automatic rifles? Why should they get an invite to the White House and not him?

If we cannot have a moral White House, then let us at least have a consistent one. Spring Von Brunn out of his jail cell and declare him to be a civil rights leader. Give him the right to demand any part of Israel that he likes. Let him lead homicidal mobs through Jewish neighborhoods in between speaking gigs at the Democratic National Convention.

If Al Sharpton merits it, if Abbas merits it, then why not Von Brunn? I eagerly await the day when Obama will meet with Von Brunn in the Rose Garden, embrace him and call him a man of peace. A voice for the voiceless. A murderer for all those who dare not raise their own hands and kill. A true spokesman for the aims and aspirations of the Obama Administration.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

As a black civil rights advocate you'd think Sharpton would appreciate the number of Jewish volunteers that were beaten, jailed, and even murdered on behalf of black civil rights. But gratitude isn't a characteristic of his ilk.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by walien

PonyCar,

You created the post. How about you discuss it first. I should assume that by posting the article you think that the moon is made of blue cheese and you have conversations with your dog over coffee each morning. Without adding some sort of commentary when you paste someone else's opinion like that, you're not making a very good post.

No sir... I said "discuss" the post. I don't appreciate your sarcastic, uncalled for response. I would think that previous discussions with me might have left you a bit bitter but that response was too far.

Perhaps in your exalted wisdom, you could have presented a case before asking for my response? Skipping to personal insults just isn't acceptable.

I highlighted the most contrasting portions of the piece from that which the major media has portrayed and that which this man actually portrayed. Personally, I don't think the man could align with either ideology of 'left' or 'right'. My primary concern centers on how the major media has called him a 'right wing' extremist and used that assertion to legitimize the Homeland Security memo sent out earlier in the year warning against 'right-wing activities'. I don't think the media comparison was fair, and I believe the DHS memo was sent in a fashion to discourage organized Tea Parties.

The Huffington Post is probably missing you while you post over here...

The rest of these posts were well thought out and provided a thought-provoking discussion. Yours does not...

[ponycar17]

Deleted...

[bcj1755]

Ponycar17, he's another liberal Obamite plant posing as a gun owning conservative. I gave up him after two days of reading his "facts."

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by bcj1755

Ponycar17, he's another liberal Obamite plant posing as a gun owning conservative. I gave up him after two days of reading his "facts."

You found facts?... I found a lot of conjecture and what-ifs but no facts.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

You found facts?... I found a lot of conjecture and what-ifs but no facts.

I found "facts", not facts

[ponycar17]

I found an objection to me citing facts. I was chastised once or twice by linking sources to fact when debating with the individual.

Look at this and count the number of legitimate firearms-related posts. Now, tell me why the poster is here.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/sear...=1179642&pp=25

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

I found an objection to me citing facts. I was chastised once or twice by linking sources to fact when debating with the individual.

Look at this and count the number of legitimate firearms-related posts. Now, tell me why the poster is here.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/sear...=1179642&pp=25

Linky no worky

But I already know what you mean. He's in here trying to teach us the error of our ways so we embrace the Obamism and partake of the tasty Barry-flavored Kenyan Kool-Aid.

He reminds me of another Obamite plant on the board (who's name I won't mention), he even types very similar to the other one.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by walien

You created the post. How about you discuss it first. I should assume that by posting the article you think that the moon is made of blue cheese and you have conversations with your dog over coffee each morning.

Flaming will NOT be tolerated on TFF, walien. I strongly suggest you consider that a warning. You will not get another.