Apparently Rush Limbaugh has made the claim that James von Brunn is a leftist. David Corn (Bureau Chief at Mother Jones) was in his glory calling him a fool on TV. Rush’s case is weak and illogical. But why do we have to put this guy on any political spectrum? David Corn makes the case for placing von Brunn squarely in the extreme right.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Since the folks on this blog have bantered back and forth about pigeon-holing and labeling, this video seems to shed some light on some of the very questions we have all been debating.
Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show, captured from Mother Jones.
I’m with Chris Cilizza on this one. Sometimes a delusional lunatic malcontent is JUST a delusional lunatic malcontent.
Regardless of which party is in the White House.
I’m hoping this is not part of a larger trend. But as the death toll continues to rise, when will it be time to admit that Rush is a fool, and that this hateful rhetoric he is defending is endangering and terrorizing Americans?
Look, President Bush and President Obama have both said we can fight Islamic terrorists without denouncing Islam or the entire Muslim world. Why can’t we at least take steps to protect our homeland from right wing extremist terrorists without having people who are normal Republicans go bonkers about it? Are these domestic terrorists killing innocent people just because they “hate us for our freedom?” Or are there political motivations to be found if just peek our heads out of the sand just a tad? This is not to be against normal Republicans. But it should be allowed to stand against terrorism no matter what the political leanings of the terorist. Otherwise, how can we claim we are fighting terrorism in any of our national security anti-terrorism efforts?
Corn’s right, anti-semitism is so repugnant to leftists. Oh, except Jesse “hymietown” Jackson, Rev. Jeremiah “Them Jews” Wright (Obama’s mentor), etc.
Do you see Jessie Jackson and Rev. Wright as leftists? Maybe a stretch with Jessie Jackson…but I see Rev. Wright as another religious zealot. I definitely do not see Wright as a leftist.
But Slowpoke, I give you credit for a good rebuttal.
Hmmm, now Jesse Jackson was a candidate for which party? and how many conservatives or republicans do you suppose sit in Rev. Wright’s church each week? Pardon me, but I don’t think Rev. Wright leans too far right in his politics.
There are all sorts of people who claim to be Democrats that I don’t necessary want to emulate. I am not a Democrat. (since you mentioned republicans) I also do not think Rev. Wright is left wing. I don’t know what he is, but I don’t think he fits comfortably on a political spectrum. He is a racist, in my opinion. But, that’s only opinion. Both examples seem to be unique. I can’t easily place them, nor do I feel it necessary to do so. Maybe its time to redefine who goes where.
Where would you put the Taliban? I guess Rush lobbed the first grenade on this one. I guess that’s how he makes his money though, stirring up all the ditto-heads– Mr. Family Values, himself.
The report by Homeland Security drove me bonkers, because it referred to veterans who had been deployed overseas and those with mainstream conservative philosophies as potential terrorists. It would have driven left-wingers nuts if a similar report had stated that environmental activists or animal-rights activists were potential terrorists. There are indeed terrorists who are environmental activists or animal-rights activists, but the fact that people have these philosophies does not make them MORE likely to be terrorists. It is people that belong to organizations like EARTH FIRST that are more likely to be terrorists. Because the Homeland Security report was so non-specific, it was virtually useless and appeared to be politically motivated.
That’s OK, 2 or 3 years ago CNN did a piece that basically painted all soldiers fighting in Iraq as terrorists. Indeed though, for the Homeland Security report to say that veterans deployed overseas are potential terrorists – or those with mainstream conservative philosophies – is just crazy talk. It also just invalidates the whole report.
Reverend Wright is definitely some kind of extremist – basically a religious one. Jesse Jackson is way out there on the left. Both are no friend to the Jews, that’s for sure. How Obama could sit there in church and listen to that stuff for 20 years and not do something about it is beyond me.
@Gainesville Resident
Just to be clear, the term “mainstream conservative philosophies” is MY reference to views that the report stated may lead to extremism. In particular, the report was concerned that those with mainstream conservative values such as pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, against government spending and intrusions, and/or against illegal immigration would become radicalized.
It appears to me that the shooter of the abortion doctor was already radicalized.
Kelly, on the other thread on this topic, someone posted a news article from 2005 saying that environmentalists and animal-rights activists were potential terrorists. They hypothetical you propose has already happened. Yet, somehow there was not an orchestrated media campaign imploring television and radio consumers to be angry. Perhaps this is because there were more serious issues to address.
You say you were “angry” about the fact that returning veterans were mentioned in this report. That’s odd, because I seem to remember that was one of the primary talking points of the “let’s be angry” campaign. My guess is that without the orchestrated media campaign to create false outrage, you never would have read the report. You wouldn’t even have heard of it. By the way, have you read the report or have you only been exposed to the talking points?
I have read the report, which by the way was commissioned by the Bush Administration, and it is not only thorough but also prescient. I fail to understand why those who fell for the anger campaign in April are now defending their own suggestibility.
What’s funny is that the Homeland Security report stirred up anger with veterans, but I don’t know if they were referring specifically to WWII veterans. I still can’t get over the fact that this nut was 88 years old. I think I’d be too tired to hate anyone or anything at 88 years old. Good Lord!
Slowpoke, I thought the same thing. I am stuck on his age. Maybe it just gets worse by the time you get to be 88.
I was amazed at the anger it stirred up also.
Kelly, I read both reports and I didn’t walk away feeling I had been targeted at all. I agree that there are certain movements that because of the issue, act as magnets for some people whose views are perhaps more abnormal. ‘Degrees’ seems to be the operative word here.
Let’s put it this way,using example: the anti-abortion movement can attract those with very strong feelings. Some of those attracted will join National Right to Life which is a mainstream anti-abortion group who seeks change via education and legislation.
Someone else might join Operation Rescue or Lambs of Christ who are much more radical and who have been known to break the law as part of their protest or to affect change. Some people will join groups who share their beliefs but will soon discover that these groups just aren’t cutting it in whatever it is the person wants to show or do. That is the dangerous part. That is when you might get violence or even a killer.
I don’t know, I would want to know this if I hadn’t figured it out already for myself.
Veterans–it should come as no shock that some veterans don’t return to civilian life as easily as others. Why does that make anyone angry? Some don’t.
@Witness Too
I have read the short, 10-page report, WT. As a consumer of such products in a past career, I recognize BS when I see it. The report is nothing more than speculation — it presents no evidence to support its conclusions. The fact that you are impressed indicates that you know nothing about the topic.
The entire premise for including veterans is that 1 out of millions in the Gulf War era engaged in a terrorist act. From a pure numbers standpoint, military service is not a very worthwhile indicator. And by all accounts, Timothy McVeigh did not even exhibit any mental issues. What it may do is provide justification for law enforcement to obtain a court order to tap a veteran’s phone without any other evidence, which is why I object to this report.
Speaking of “suggestibility”, I suggest that the recent violent acts may be more of a consequence of releasing the report, rather than of any prescience of the report itself.
Kelly, I understand that you feel the anger prescribed by your television set is always justified. I’ll give you that one. If the buzz word fits, go ahead and wear it. But I reject your suggestion that terrorism is what we get if we take steps to protect against terrorism. That is an awful thing to say. It sounds like a threat.
For the life of me I don’t know why people are defending the world views of these murderers and attacking Homeland Security. You do realize the report was commissioned by the Bush Administration, right? Why the sudden switch to being against Homeland Security?
If you hear about federal law enforcement concerns that are not to your liking, violent retaliation is in order? That’s scary. But not scary enough to say “okay, we won’t engage in counter-terrorism.” So what are these threats supposed to gain for you?
WT: Let me state categorically that I am against these violent terrorist acts and that I am NOT defending the individuals involved. There is absolutely no excuse for any citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) to take the law into their own hands.
What I am saying is that DHS should not have released this report publicly. Homeland Security could have taken steps to protect against terrorism without stating that they were doing so. There is no need for the public to know what is going on in its counter-terrorism efforts. My point is that a report stating that the current situation is ripe for terrorism may encourage deranged nutcases to do just that.
I am not against Homeland Security, but this report is still hogwash. The fact that the report was commissioned by the Bush Administration makes no difference to me. I would prefer that the DHS focus on real threats, rather than speculation.
Speculation? If only that were so.
When I saw the report my hope was that the publicity would deter acts of domestic terrorism. I guess it could have been predicted that extremist radio and TV pundits would use the report to engender still more hatred and hysteria. I had never seen a DHS report used in that way, so I’ll admit it caught me off guard. Still my guess is the attempt to use the report to create hatred was no less and no more effective than any of the other hatred and hysteria campaigns (birth certificate, socialist, pals around with terrorists, raised in a madrassa, they’re going to take away your guns, tea party, wise Latina woman, etc.).
Anyway, thank you for denouncing the terrorist acts. We are on the same page there. How interesting that you still blame DHS for these attacks. Do you think our government did something to deserve any of the previous terrorist acts? What specifically?
While some people might howl because the reports were released, and equal number of people couuld easily howl if they weren’t released. I suppose it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Speaking of oxen, I sure didn’t hear a howl when the first part of the report was released. That one flew right under the radar. I believe the reports were based on intelligence gathering, which we all know can be imperfect.
People shouldn’t be so sensitive. After all, J. Edgar Hoover spent 40 some odd years putting people on various lists, by name, based on supposition. Most of those people were……yes…the dreaded ‘left’ according to J. Edgar Hoover. Communists. Pinkos. Can’t get any more left than that. People like Pete Seeger, Martin Luther King, Joan Baez, just to name a few house hold names we all recognize.
Excellent point M-H. Also, Kelly, you should have seen what was on Anderson Cooper last night. They had a FBI agent who went undercover to infiltrate white supremacist hate groups, and actually got several of them convicted. I hate to break it to you, but this occurred when Bush was in office. Not everything can be pinned on Obama.
Witness, I think Kelly is saying that it is okay to gather intelligence on hate groups. But it is not okay to release the findings because this might give people ideas who would not have had that idea in the first place. Many have argued that Bush declaring an “Axis of Evil” and referring to the “war on terra” as a “crusade” has created more terrorists. Also, more terrorists were certainly created by invading the wrong country and staying there for how many years based on lies about WMD and false links to 9/11.
I am not saying I agree with Kelly, but it has happened that U.S. policy has led to terrorist attacks in the past. I would say at least 50 percent of the terrorist attack deaths that happen in the next century should be pinned on Cheney and Bush’s “crusade” in Iraq because of lucrative profiteering, oops, I mean because of WMD’s, oops, I mean a because of a connection to 9/11, ooops, I mean because Iraq didn’t attack us but the American people are too scared and too stupid to realize it, oops, I mean becasue there is oil in Iraq.
The first two lines of the report state that DHS has no specific information about planned acts of violence by right-wing extremists.
That is my point, MH. J. Edgar Hoover was using the resources of the FBI to target individuals with whom he disagreed. There was a program called COINTELPRO (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5347/Cointelpro.html) that resulted later in Congressional investigations and new rules to prevent such abuses.
I know that you favor talking points in your postings, ShellyB, but nobody lied about WMDs. I have actually done a study on the intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq. There was 100% agreement among U.S. agencies that WMDs were there. A U.N. report actually detailed the stockpile of WMDs that Iraq purportedly had. George Tenet (who was actually hired by Bill Clinton) told Bush that it was a “slam dunk” that WMDs were there — see Bob Woodward’s book. But it turned out that these assessments were built on very flimsy evidence. This is why I am very skeptical of any report that is not based on strong evidence (e.g. the DHS report).
It would have been good to include this in the DHS report — real evidence about people engaged in illegal terrorist acts. I would have welcomed this information rather than the shoddy assessment that was released by DHS.
DHS lacks history simply because it is a fairly new agency. However other groups have amassed intelligence on domestic terror.
I still don’t get all the grousing and complaining. There is such a thing as domestic terrorism. Certain organizations and certain classifications of people have more of a tendency than others to have people go off the deep end.
Should we ignore or be kept in the dark that SOME vets might have more of a propensity towards violence than say…oh…nuns?
The past 2 months certainly have been filled with domestic terrorism. 3 cops shot and killed, 1 doctor shot and killed, 2 soldiers shot, 1 killed, a security guard shot and killed. I am sure there are more.
So, did DHS lie? I feel they acted responsibly. If people get their feelings hurt, get over it. My feelings weren’t hurt.
I am grousing and complaining, because I am a huge fan of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment in particular, which prohibits unreasonable searches. The DHS report basically constitutes a profile of domestic terrorists for use by law enforcement agencies. The antibvbl site has correctly opposed the use of racial profiling for identifying illegal immigrants in Prince William County. I would think that you could see the analogy between using race to profile illegal immigrants and using military service to profile domestic terrorists. Just as race is a protected federal status, so too is military status. If you want to be consistent in your views against stereotyping, you too should have objections to the DHS report.
That is the exact same argument used for racial profiling. The previous law in PWC allowed police officers to check immigration status based on probable cause, which many believed was a form of racial profiling. Thankfully that law has been changed. If it is not acceptable to profile on the basis of race, why is it acceptable to profile on the basis of military status?
Kelly and Shelly, I wish we hadn’t gone down the path of WMD’s since this is not related. But FYI, there has been a great deal discovered since Bob Woodward’s book, including the fact that George Tenet doesn’t actually recall saying “slam dunk” but agreed to take the fall for Bush and Cheney out of loyalty and impotence (he’d have lost the media struggle if he’d tried to protest). Tenet, who was indeed a Clinton hold-over, was terrified that Bush would make him the scapegoat for 9/11 and ask him to resign. When Bush decided to stand by him and shield him instead, Tenet was so grateful he would have done anything for Bush. Cheney then took advantage of this loyalty as he sought to turn the CIA into a marketing campaign for the invasion of Iraq.
I have over-simplified, so please read THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE by Ron Suskind.
http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/
Good point, Kelly. Let’s try this one on for size: “should we ignore or be kept in the dark that SOME illegal immigrants might have more of a propensity towards violence than say..oh..American citizens?”
I wonder how that will play here.
M-H, I’ll go you one better: why is that for some Americnas, the DHS support more of an outrage than the deaths of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists?
And Kelly, there was no mandate for “profiling” former soldiers. If there had been a mandate for such actions, there would have been many a law suit, and the ACLU would have been first in line. This false outrage is flimsy, and not at all comparable to racial profiling. Soldiers were suggested to you as the best reason to be angry because our soldiers unfortunately, have become merely a rhetorical smoke screen for right wing pundits seeking to dress up flimsy ideas, false outrage, and counterproductive policy. Our soldiers do not belong to the right wing only. They are America’s soldiers.
My goodness, Witness Too, is there a single Democrat or Democratic appointee that you will hold accountable for their actions and words after 9/11? Are they really all such stupid, spineless placeholders that they could do nothing more than bend to the evil Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis just to keep their jobs?
If they really are such gutless yes-men, why would you ever want to be aligned with them?
@Emma
I appreciate your jumping into the discussion, Emma. Two conservatives against three “progressives” should make for a pretty fair debate. There probably needs to be at least one more progressive to be really fair (just kidding).
For what other practical purpose could such an assessment be used for? By issuing this report, DHS is in effect telling law enforcement to watch out for people with these qualities, because they are more likely to become radicalized. By definition, that is a profile.
I can’t believe that there is support here for the government “profiling” its own citizens in any way, or even for any kind of organization like SPLC keeping “watch lists” on private citizens and the organizations they join in a free society. I would like to see legal action taken against any organization that attempts this nonsense. These “watch lists” and “hate group” lists seem like nothing more than attempts to shut down freedom of speech and assembly. Shouldn’t we all be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Kelly and Emma,
Both of you are taking the DHS report and stretching it like old bubble gum. No one is profiling a specific group or any individuals in that report. Is someone stopping soldiers and asking them to demonstrate some sort of allegiance or sanity test? The military might be doing something but if they are, I am sure they have it covered and it has nothing to do with this report.
The over-reaction by some people who consider themselves conservative borders on hysteria. It actually makes me wonder what some people are hiding. Obviously there was evidence that far right groups were more active. (If we were discussing Muslim terrorism we might say there was more ‘chatter.’)
Emma, no one has proven to me that illegal aliens are more violent than American citizens. That is certainly a sweeping statement. I can think of all sorts of American citizens I might consider violent. However, if DHS wants to point out some kind of disturbance or potential disturbance out of anyone, go at it. Right, left, legal, illegal, veteran….non veteran. I don’t care.
Profiling is done all the time. It is perfectly legal. What is not legal is to see someone who looks hispanic driving down the road and pulling them over and asking them to prove they are here legally. That is bad profiling.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism
Here is the DHS report.
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm
Statement by Janet Napolitano.
You know, I just didn’t think they were talking about me.
PPPSSSTTTT Emma….you are aware that the FBI profiling school has been in Manassas for about 15-20 years now? How do you think they catch criminals?
Do I support it, darn right I do! If I make it on their list, I guess I will just have to get over it. I don’t want to do away with law enforcement. That would lead to anarchy.
If individuals make it onto various lists (Nativist, white supremacy, KKK…) set up by SPLC or ADL, then so be it. One of our local honorees was very proud of making this list. Shall I trot out his response? I feel certain that both organizations have very specific check lists.
M-H bless your heart for tryong to provide some basic information, but I do disagree with one thing you said. Our “conservative” friends (actually radical is the word) are not hiding anything. They are being quite open. Their politics is more important to them than anything, and they seem to associate white supremacists and other hate groups with their politics, by the nature of their political goals, if not their tactics. They seem to think any efforts by federal law enforcement to protect Americans from domestic terrorism at the hands of such hate groups tends to harm their political goals. I am not sure how or why. But it is the only explanation for criticizing those who aim to protect us from harm, rather than those who have recently committed politically motivated murders.
SPLC and ADL are a similar nuissance, as Emma so openly points out. It is okay to lable our President a communist or a terrorist, but God forbid some organization that wants death for all non-whites would be listed as a hate group. That is somehow an affront to due process. How amusing, if only she wasn’t so serious about it.
These people are too honest for their own good, because hate groups, hate crimes, and domestic terrorism are unpopular in the mainstream, little do they know. In fact, one might even say it is bad politics to associate with or to defend them in any way, even if you do use “due process,” our soldiers, or civil liberties as a false and improperly used smoke screen.
So, they are hiding their real names but their words are not hiding a thing.
I have no trouble with the DHS keeping track of people who are Nativists, white supremists, or members of KKK groups. These groups do have a track record of violence that suggests the possibility of domestic terrorism. The DHS should definitely keep track of such groups and people, regardless of their race, religion, military status, or whatever. That is good profiling. What I object to is taking it one step further to keep watch on those who served in the military, because they fit the profile to join one of these groups (but are not actually members). That one further step would be an example of bad profiling.
Law-abiding citizens who are exercising free-speech rights do not belong on “watch lists” any more than do our soldiers. If there is no history of violence or illegal activity, then they should be presumed innocent and free to voice their beliefs, no matter how unpopular those beliefs might be with Witness Too. He/she deliberately distorts what I am saying to make it seem like I support “domestic terrorism,” and uses the term “hate groups” and “terrorism” so loosely as to render them meaningless. What a stunning lack of tolerance for anything but that his/her own very lmited view is right and that everyone else’s is stupid, manufactured by right-wing media, and potentially violent. Give me a break.
Kelly, I’m happy to see you and Witness and M-H are finding some common ground. I can second everything in your last post. Your devotion to our troops is admirable and should be encouraged so long as it is not used as a weapon, i.e. “I support the troops but you do not support the troops so I am patriotic and you are evil.”
Emma, I think I would have to draw the line at hate groups and terrorists. I don’t care what job you used to do. If your current job is terrorist and you are making plans to kill innocent people, then I think our federal cops should be trying to stop you. Local cops too. You can’t extend support for the troops to defending hate groups. Even if they are in your political camp.
ShellyB, you are too funny with your non sequitur response to me about drawing the line at “terrorists,” etc. Someone who is “making plans to kill innocent people” is involved in conspiracy and is presumably already breaking the law. You can’t lump that person in with groups that are peacefully and lawfully voicing their opinions, no matter how much you dislike those opinions. Aren’t you and Witness just a little dizzy from all the spinning? Please. My meaning was very clear.
Kelly, I don’t think military people should be exempt. I think it should be case by case. I also don’t think you should land on a secret watch list. For instance, if you are a Vietnam Vet and belong to the NRA, you shouldn’t be a terrorist suspect or on a watch list unless your behavior is suspicious. Just fitting those 2 attributes should not do it. Now…if you run around in cammies and threaten people while carrying your weapons collection in your gun rack and have a machine gun hanging out the back of your truck…well maybe.
Emma, if you don’t mean to equate whatever it is you are defending with the topic on this blog (domestic terrorism), perhaps you should choose another venue to defend it. Veterans? Free speech? Right to assemble? Whatever it is you are willing to openly defend, you can do so if and when those things are legitimately jeopardized and there is some reason to express the alarm you have been feigning. Listen to Kelly, Shelly, and M-H if you won’t listen to me: our government has a right to defend itself and its citizens from terrorists of all shapes and sizes, even right wing domestic terrorists.
The reality is that innocent people are dead. If this is somehow inconvenient for you politically, tough.
When the issue of the day is domestic terrorism, and the topic of the thread is domestic terrorism, and you come on here spouting about unrelated topics, however hallowed they may be, it very much sounds like you are defending domestic terrorists by associating them with such hallowed institutions as the First Amendment.
I’m sorry if I misunderstand you. But if you think terrorism and free speech are defensable in the same breath, fine. Hone your argument until it is coherent, and come back and explain. If the topics are unrelated, however, and you just chose a conversation about domestic terrorism to interject your reverence for veterans and free speech, then I suggest you may have chosen the wrong thread for an 8th grade civics assignment.
You see, the anger points you were fed when the DHS report first came out no longer apply. That’s because innocent people are dead. The DHS report was right and last April’s false outrage was a poorly thought-out political stunt. That’s why the talking heads who got you riled up about the DHS report are radio silent about it now.
YOu sound awfully angry and frustrated, Witness. I hope you don’t end up on a watch list.
Kelly, I agree with you 100 percent that the DHS report is complete political bull and has done nothing–and will do nothing–to prevent acts by lone crazy people. I don’t care who initiated the report, it has done nothing more than give many liberals like Witness Too a false sense of moral superiority.
If one were to apply that sort of broad brush to any ethnic group, why, Witness would be up in arms with indignation. The numerous cases of child rape, gang violence and identity theft should certainly point to a closer monitoring of possibly illegal Hispanics, shouldn’t they? To use WT’s phrasing, the reality is that innocent children have been raped, identities have been stolen, individuals have been stabbed and murdered. If this is somehow inconvenient for you politically, WT, tough. Maybe we really should go back to the probable-cause aspect of the Resolution, by WT’s logic, shouldn’t we?
Probably cause–you are hispanic? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
Emma, what you are suggesting is that if a person is hispanic, they are more inclined to rape children, join gangs, and steal identities.
No one is saying that if you are ex military, pro life, or like guns you will have more of a propensity to kill people and that is not what the report says. You know it and I know it and you are slinging crap.
Actually, I have gotten tired of the moral outrage.
Randy Terry, that sweet New Yorker met with like minded people over the weekend to form his new group, Operation Rescue Insurrectus Nex. This sounds to me sort of like the 2nd Intifada or something. Jihad?
Randall Terry and his band of not so merry idiots should be on every wingnut list in America.