White supremacist kills guard at Holocaust Museum
posted at 4:39 pm on June 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An 89-year-old white supremacist attacked guards at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC today, killing one guard before taking a bullet himself. James Von Brunn, well-known in the lunatic fringe that is white supremacism, had attempted a similar attack in 1981 at the Federal Reserve, and had been on the radar screens of watchdogs for years:
The suspect in Wednesday’s shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist from Maryland, two law enforcement officials told CNN.
Von Brunn served six years in prison on federal attempted kidnapping, assault and firearms charges after what he called a “legal, nonviolent citizens arrest” of members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
On his Web site, “Holy Western Empire,” von Brunn said he was “convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge.”
“He is in our files going back way into the 1980s,” said Heidi Beirich, a researcher for the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center.
“He has extremely long history with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He’s written extremely incendiary publications, raging about Jews, blacks and the like.”
Yet again, we have a despicable attack based on hatred and political extremism, the third such attack in two weeks to result in fatalities. Doubtless many people will try to find ways to score political points, like the e-mailer who waited a whole 20 minutes to blame conservatives for dismissing the DHS report on right-wing extremism for this tragedy. To that, I’d respond that our criticism was that the DHS report didn’t focus on known, specific threats, instead making generalized threats about abortion opponents and other vague and broad generalizations about conservative issues. In fact, it never mentioned Holocaust denial at all, nor did it mention anti-semitism at all [see Update V below], either; those terms don’t appear at all in the report. And despite being well-known as a threat since the 1980s, the DHS never bothered to identify von Brunn or his organization as a specific threat in the report — which, again, was the heart of our criticism.
Michelle notes that one prominent blogger on the Left is already twittering that the Tea Party movement is to blame for the attack, which is as nutty an observation as anything I’ve heard. What do the anti-tax Tea Parties have to do with anti-Semitism? Only in the fevered imaginations of the most extreme on the Left can they imagine that groups calling for less government have something in common with neo-Nazis. And it certainly wasn’t a conservative talking about Jewish conspiracies in government earlier today.
People who commit crimes bear the entire responsibility for those crimes. Assigning guilt, real or imagined, to groups rather than individuals for their own actions is one of the reasons we have to have a Holocaust Memorial at all. It’s the kind of thinking that leads to genocide when allowed to run to run to its extreme.
Meanwhile, our prayers go to the family of the murdered guard and all who were traumatized by this shooting, which is where our thoughts should be, rather than political fingerpointing.
Update: Kathy Shaidle reports on von Brunn’s ideology, which was hardly “conservative” or even “right wing”. He was also a Truther. That doesn’t make all Truthers responsible for this attack, either.
Update II: As Mary Katharine Ham and Brian Faughnan said on Twitter, Godspeed, Stephen Tyrone Johns:
Update: My meaning was that white supremacism is lunatic fringe, but some people misunderstood it. I;ve rewritten the sentence for more clarity.
Update IV: Tommy Christopher:
Now, where does that leave Wright and Von Brunn? While their actions are, by no means, equivalent, Wright’s comment betrays a bigotry toward Jews that would seem right at home in Von Brunn’s repertoire. But, put to Clouthier’s voting booth test, how do we divvy these two up?
The answer is, we don’t. If we do, we do so at our own peril. While we waste time playing “pin the tail on the ideology,” we distract from the real enemies of freedom, who reside neither on the Right nor the Left, but beneath them.
Exactly.
Update V: I wrote that the report didn’t mention anti-Semitism, but it actually did. It talked about anti-Semitic extremists. I did a search on “semitism” and not “Semitic”, and I should have done both. Sloppy work. I apologize.
Update VI: Balloon Juice’s John Cole calls this the dumbest thing he’s read on the internet:
Anyone want to explain some of the many reasons why they might not have released the names of people under investigation by various federal agencies in an openly published DHS report (notwithstanding the central fact that identifying specific threats was not the intent of the damned thing in the first place)?
Gee, John, then why did the report on left-wing extremism actually name the groups that posed a threat?
(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times, violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal Defense League, and Earth First!.
— (U//FOUO) Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include entities within Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68.
Again, had the DHS focused on actual threats, then von Brunn — who had already committed a violent attack on the Federal Reserve and who was well known to the SLPC — and his organization might have been highlighted. Not to mention that the report is supposed to help law enforcement identify actual threats, not have them play guessing games and encourage them to spy on normal political activity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
I don’t know how I would have offered a prayer any differently, regardless of Stephen Tyrone Johns’ religion or lack of religion. Can you suggest a different prayer?
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 7:03 PM
orange:
That is a ridiculous analogy. It has no merit.
Terrye on June 10, 2009 at 7:04 PM
You:
Charles has kind of gone over hasn’t he?
Terrye on June 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM
You-Eh-Vee on June 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Meant to quote you…not me.
Kind of?
The hippie has lost his damn mind – as well as most of his original members.
He’s a twit.
You-Eh-Vee on June 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Thanks, but I really didn’t have to do any investigating. It’s common knowledge over there.
blink on June 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
I wonder what the guy’s FR handle was.
SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Try ANSWERING the question:
Why aren’t YOU proud of your Statist brethren from the past and present?
As is usually the case with tolls, they don’t respond to direct questions or comments that take them off their talking points.
Thank you for proving my point
Oh, as to:
It’s called ‘Projection’……………..
Chainsaw56 on June 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
You:
I never read LGF very much to be honest. I always felt a little uncomfortable over there.
Terrye on June 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM
R.I.P. Stephen Tyrone Johns
Condolences to the Johns Family.
maverick muse on June 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Embassy of Israel, Washington, DC:
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM
I am a right wing radical. This 89-year old hate freak is NOT. He is a murderous hate filled POS. I wish he was younger so he could suffer horribly in prison for a LONG LONG TIME.
My heart goes out to the family of the slain guard. This should NOT happen in America.
Ris4victory on June 10, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Let me explain this to you. Racism is the ultimate red flag of left-wing ideology.
Right-wingers believe in lack of government intervention because it isn’t NEEDED. We believe race, gender, sexuality, age, culture, origin and all other identity-politic issues are merely smokescreens designed to hide the simple truth of all economic, social, moral and biological conflicts: assets versus liabilities.
Right-wingers believe that man’s ultimate purpose is to be an asset to his species. That is to say he contributes more than he takes. He adds to the richness of his society, culture, community, family, economy. If you are a liability, then you need government to take care of you because you lack the motivation or ability to take care of yourself.
If a black man is financially successful, raises a well-adjusted family and makes life more pleasant for members of his community, then he is significantly more valuable than the white jackass in the trailer park beating up his babymomma and eating government cheese.
If a Cuban man comes to this country seeking a better life, follows the law, becomes a citizen, pays a fair tax, is a successful businessman, then he is worth more than the Mexican who hid in the back of a turnip truck, doesn’t pay taxes or social security, gets welfare and gets to trot to the head of the amnesty line.
Marx was right about one thing: everything can be essentially boiled down to an economic struggle. All parts of civilization follow the same asset/liability rules as supply-side economics. To be prejudiced against a race, color, creed, orientation, origin, gender or whatever else you can be prejudiced against is to alienate a potential producer/consumer sector that could potentially create growth in society and therefore is a fundamental violation of conservative/libertarian/classical liberal thought.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM
We thank you, sir!
Geezer on June 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Conservatives support Israel.
Conservatives abhor murder.
Murderers, by deed, are not conservative.
This murdering white supremacist was not a conservative.
I don’t understand how a white supremacist could honestly consider himself “right wing” since that movement (KKK, Fascism and Eugenics) is LEFT WING.
The reference “right wing extremist” is still being manipulated as a propaganda ploy. The Communists started that urban myth after WWI when they identified their competition (Fascists) as “right wing”, an illusion. Fascism is LEFT WING, another expression of Marxism, competing for membership from the SAME FLOCK OF ABUSIVE AUTHORITARIANS AND HATE MONGERS.
maverick muse on June 10, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM
The radical Leftist Obama ushers in the age of tyrannical terror in the USA. Radical Leftists come in all ages, colors, etc. They share in common the lust for blood.
maverick muse on June 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I hope this scumbag recovers from the surgery and then gets to die in prison.
Hopefully alone and without bowel control.
Dave Rywall on June 10, 2009 at 7:26 PM
This thread has brought out the most mis-informed,obtuse bunch of trolls I’ve seen in a loooong time.Looking at you Aprilorbit,equality?.For your edification and education which you apparently didn’t receive in school,let me suggest that you peruse maybe this will clear up your misunderstanding of leftwing government as opposed to rightwing government.
McBride on June 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
They are just repeating what they learned in school – no actual intelligence required or sought.
dpierson on June 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM
S/he may be a newbie but the question is certainly valid even if rhetorical. Obviously the left would prefer to falsely reclassify all of their historical embarrassments as “right-wing” to minimize the damage to their present agenda, and they’ll try to do it even in the face of objective reality. It’s revisionist history or double-speak at it’s worst, but regardless of what it’s called, it’s as dishonest and vile as holocaust denial.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 7:37 PM
My sympathy and condolences to Stephan’s family.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Continuing on, we next examine the question of right-vs-left in the context of historical American politics.
Once the dust had cleared after the Revolution and the Loyalists got used to independence, there was no clear left-right dichotomy. With the rise of the Abolitionists, this changed. Slavery was by that point a long-standing tradition, and the argument that blacks were people to constituted a major upsetting of the apple cart. The Republicans, whose proposals for abolition represented a markéd shift from the status quo vadis, were the left, and the Democrats, who sought to preserve the “peculiar institution”, were the conservatives.
Left and right, and thus also the term “conservative,” are labels that are only applicable in a particular historical context. That the Conservative movement has chosen such a name for itself, and that the left has co-opted the term “Liberal” for its illiberal policies, have unfortunate implications for a valid understanding of politics.
Returning to the question at hand–is a racist neo-nazi who hates Jews and Marxists, who believes in the supremacy of the alleged Aryan race, and who hates the Federal Reserve system, a member of the right-wing or of the left? Let us examine these issues one at a time.
Regarding antisemitism: I have specified in other comments elsewhere that antisemitism is neither left nor right. The extreme left hates Jews because, to them, they represent capitalism, high finance, and tradition. The extreme right hates Jews because, to them, they represent socialism, high finance, academia, the media, modernity, and the other. Clearly, Jews, if they can be taken to represent anything at all, cannot be taken to represent both capitalism and socialism, nor both traditionalism and modernism. Thus, the mere fact that the shooter was an antisemite is indeterminite for identifying his politics.
Next, we examine his opposition to Marxism and Liberals. (We will assume that, like most everyone else in America, he incorrectly uses the term “Liberal” to refer to leftists, rather than to those who espouse Classical Liberalism). Mussolini, a left-wing fascist, fought, both through the political process and in the streets, with the Bolsheviks. As his politics bore out, this was more due to opportunism than to actual opposition to the policies of the communists. Among leftists, where opposition to Marxism exists, it is most often because it goes to far, than because it goes in the wrong direction. Rather than wading into the cesspool that is the shooter’s website at the present moment, I shall instead take this at face value and assert that this seems to be a clear indication that the shooter is right-wing.
Next we examine the racial supremacy aspect of the shooter. One of the main thinkers behind the rise of Nazism was Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, who decided to apply Democritus’ dialectic to divine a teleology of history. He said that out of conflict are all things born, and that the conflicts of relevance to history are racial ones. Marx, to create Marxism, mostly just struck out all of Hegel’s references to race and replaced them with reference to class. Modern black liberation sociologists, typically avowéd Marxists and unquestionably leftists, strike out class from Marx’s writings and replace it with race, completely unaware of the irony involved.
At this level, then, it appears that racism is not left or right in nature. Historically, such a distinction was mostly impossible. The Social Darwinists among the progressives utilized eugenics to remove undesirable races from the gene pool. Rudyard Kipling meanwhile, himself clearly in the right-wing, conservative camp, advanced the idea of White Man’s Burden–that colored persons in the far-flung reaches of the world should be subjected to the soft slavery of colonial imperialism for their own good.
However, since the Democratic Party in the 1960s suddenly became the driving force for racial equality (and prompting many Southerners to switch parties), white-on-black racism has unmistakably become a feature of the right. It was deeply ingrained tradition to “know your place” and to avoid racial mingling. Equality under the law was a radical new concept that promised to dramatically re-engineer society, and thus was most un-conservative. Most of the right wing had no major problem with racial equality as such, but those who want to return to the days of Jim Crow (or the days before the 13th Amendment) to reclaim the glory of the South or the power of the White Man, are unquestionably right-wing. So far this is 2 points for the shooter being right-wing, and 0 points for him being a leftist.
To be continued…
hicsuget on June 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM
In other words, the lefts attempt to revise political classifications to wipe their bloody slate clean is convoluted.
You can take your formula and stick it where it belongs, because all the nuance in the world doesn’t change the fact that Hitler was a Fascist/Socialist, which doesn’t in any way describe the modern American Right, while it very aptly describes the left. All attempts to make it more complicated that this, objective reality, amounts to nothing more than an effort to disguise the truth.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 7:46 PM
People will always follow a good example; be the one to set a good example, then it won’t be long before the others follow…
How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway…
And you can always, always give something, even if it is only kindness!
– Annelies Marie Frank (1929-1945)
From the Diary of Ann Frank
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM
You can cut and paste an entire lefty college textbook on the subject but it still won’t alter the truth.
If Hitler is “right-wing” by todays standards, modern American conservatives and/or Republicans are “left-wing”.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Why say in a hundred words what can be said in ten. You seem to be pretty into yourself and your fine reasoning.
dpierson on June 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Orwell illustrated your kind to a tee.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM
The best remedy for those who are afraid,
lonely or unhappy is to go outside,
somewhere where they can be quiet,
alone with the heavens, nature and God.
Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be.
– Annelies Marie Frank (1929-1945)
From the Diary of Anne Frank
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Yeah, he’s pretty batty. I stopped going there a few months ago. I didn’t mind the evolution/creationism threads, actually I enjoyed the topic, but I was uncomfortable with the ideological purity he was trying to enforce. It seemed almost cultish to me.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Because political view is a 3D surface, and the distance between Communists and Nazis is very small on that surface. In fact, the word “Nazi” was an Anglicized abbreviation for their official name: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
That party hewed more to the group rights espoused by liberals rather than the individual rights espoused by conservatives.
The strong advocacy of group rights gives rise to fascism, which is why conservatives view fascism and socialism as bed-partners.
The killer is certainly a muddled man — he was a libertarian type who definitely wanted to deny rights to a certain group of people.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Please don’t. Keep it short.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I’ve found that there is always some beauty left —
in nature, sunshine, freedom, in yourself;
these can help you.
Look at these things,
then find yourself again, and God,
and then you regain your balance.
– Annelies Marie Frank (1929-1945)
From the Diary of Anne Frank
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Last, we will examine whether a hatred of the Fed is indicative of a left-wing or a right-wing orientation. (For those of you who haven’t been following the story closely, the shooter was arrested in 1981 for attempting to arrest the Federal Reserve Board.)
We begin with a quote from a post the shooter made to a website last May:
Let us next look at other persons vocally opposed to the Fed. Foremost among them is G. Edward Griffin, author of the book The Creature From Jekyll Island. His Wikipedia bio notes that he is a member of the John Birch Society, a former writer for George Wallace, founded a libertarian activist network, and endorsed Ron Paul in 2008 (himself an opponent of the Fed). He is, of course, only one man, so it would be more instructive if we could see which side of the aisle other opponents of the Fed fall on.
Lew Rockwell, a right-anarchist (his website bears the slogan “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market”), has some not-so-nice things to say about the Fed in his article “War and Inflation,” and his site also hosts a screed against the Fed by right-anarchist Murray Rothbard, among many others.
Meanwhile, extreme leftists also oppose the Fed. Federal-Reserve.net, part of the Lies.net right of conspiracy-mongering websites, attacks the Fed from a left-wing viewpoint. Advertisements on the site are included for a Paul Krugman book, a work called “Corporate Predators,” and troofer documentaries. Among the conspiracy theories listed on lies.net: “13) George Herbert Walker Bush authorized the assassination of Ronald Reagan.” Clearly this is left-wing lunacy.
Thus, we see that the shooter’s opposition to the Fed does not necessarily place his politics either on the left or on the right. Right still leads left for the dubious distinction of ideological claim to the shooter, 2-0. Further evidence must be culled from his writings, rather than from that which is ostensible.
hicsuget on June 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM
To paraphrase: That which is complicated is wrong.
That’s a very convenient mechanism you have there for keeping your mind from getting cluttered up with thoughts, ideas, and facts.
hicsuget on June 10, 2009 at 8:14 PM
You talk about cluttering up – your posts are nothing but pseudo intellectual reasoning. You are trying to convince everyone you are right be wearing them down with long blowhard posts with a good amount of Latin mixed in to make yourself look smart
dpierson on June 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM
What? How did you miss his point?
He’s claiming that you attempted to use the length of your post hide your factual and logic errors.
blink on June 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM
The shooter was clearly motivated by racism. His political leanings, right or left, had little to do with the shooting.
Hence, calling him a “right wing extremist” true or not, misses the point and attempts to misdirect the reader.
Craziness and racism are your problem here, not a preference for a particular system of government.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Sorry, but on a blog denouncing the broad and unfair generalizations made against the Right-Wing, your diatribe painting all of those on the Left with such a broad brush is just as unfair. Not all people who align themselves with either the Right or Left think with the same brain nor blindly adopt all elements of a party’s platform. There are people on both sides of the aisle that attempt to fight the extremist elements in their respective parties and then there are people in both parties that exploit it for political expediency. Sorry, but the Right, Left, and every ideology in between have their fair share of radicals. It’s best to debate the merits and ramifications of the ideology without demonizing your opponent.
Also, even though the Democratic party was chock-full of blatant racists/anti-Semites at one point, the party is a far cry from those days, even IF many construe policies, such as welfare and affirmative action, to be unhelpful to minorities (which is a valid argument). With all due respect, it is intellectually dishonest to portray the modern-day Republican and/or Democratic parties as a collective group of racists or compare them to Nazis.
Also, go to any White Nationalist / Neo-Nazi site and you’ll see clearly that these modern-day organized racists strongly dislike Liberals in general largely due to 2nd amendment issues and “equal opportunity” policies that they feel infringe on “white rights”. Just take a look at a few examples: Link. Still, just because they aren’t Liberal/Democrat doesn’t mean that they are Conservative/Republican either.
I do understand the frustration, backlash, and desire to “turn about is fair play” those who have unfairly painted you. It’s extremely tempting to do. But
how can one have any moral ground to stand on when we demonize those which whom we disagree? It just devolves into a meaningless mud fight.
EarthToZoey on June 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Agreed 100%. I wish I had made my point as concisely as you just did! :)
EarthToZoey on June 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM
No, that which is clearly and demonstrably wrong and flies in the face of objective reality is wrong. You and a hundred other people like you can write an entire set of encyclopedias on the subject of political classification but nothing can possibly alter the fact that Hitler was a fascist/socialist and, by modern American political classifications, is an artifact of the left.
Reality is unalterable by nuance.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM
“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” / “All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually correct.”
–OCCAM’S RAZOR
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Eloquently stated. Thank you.
EarthToZoey on June 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
anyone who is evil is ‘conservative’ and right wing…like Hitler, Ahmadinajad…I remember Yuri Andropov being called ‘conservative’
its a left-wing fiction driven by the media.
right4life on June 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
SEE ALSO: A ≡ A
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Right = individualist, personal responsibilities and individual rights.
Left = collectivist, collective responsibilities and group rights.
Racism is the primordial tribal collectivist, “us verses them”, left wing. This murderer is firmly and incontrovertibly in the leftist camp, along with the Nazis, Stalinsts, fascists, and modern democrat party.
Rebar on June 10, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Were white Southerners left wingers during Jim Crow? Was their states rights argument leftist?
dedalus on June 10, 2009 at 8:36 PM
How wonderful it is
that nobody need wait a single moment
before starting to improve the world.
– Annelies Marie Frank (1929-1945)
From the Diary of Anne Frank
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 8:39 PM
With a very high probability.
Occam’s Razor
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 8:39 PM
At this moment we are at the same turning point as just before WO-1 in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century.
Desperate people, feeling betrayed by their governments and their leaders, stand up with individual actions. A president that is no leader and seems to be ruling in his own interests and not the interest of the people. Who seems to adore our biggest enemies. It has nothing to do with right or left anylonger. It has nothing to do anymore with racism or anti semitism. The waiting is for the wrong person, killed by the wrong murderer and a total chaos will be a fact.
Read my words !!!
Dutchwolf on June 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM
They were pretty much all democrats. It wasn’t until after 68 that many southerners became Repubilicans
The civil rights legislation in 64 would have never passed if not for Republicans
kangjie on June 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Sorry. Didn’t see your comment before I made mine.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Oddly enough, in the last year of the Civil War, the Confederacy tightened government control over the economy, which naturally sped its collapse.
MadisonConservative on June 10, 2009 at 8:43 PM
No question.
Modern American political classifications are what they are, regardless of the history of political classification. Yet the left finds it convenient to make a single exception by continuing to use the legacy definition of “right-wing” when referring to the worst elements from their own history and modern examples.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 8:45 PM
I know huh!
Conservatives want less government, lower taxes, and to be left alone.
Liberals want government to take care of every little thing.
All those ideologies, communism, fascism, Nazism, everything is about more and more government. How in the world did we let them get away with saying Nazism was a right wing thing? That is just crazy…. Hitler made the trains run on time! Conservatives say what the heck is Hitler doing running trains anyway? Private industry should do that.
petunia on June 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM
No, but, as explained above, their racism and endorsement of slavery, the most flagrant violation of individual rights and liberty short of outright rape or murder, most certainly was.
Slavery is antithetical to true, classical liberalism.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Yes they became Republicans out of disgust with the super-liberal LBJ. The were conservative Democrats and became conservative Republicans.
dedalus on June 10, 2009 at 8:51 PM
I’d guess most countries in a serious war become marginally more authoritarian. Lincoln took some extra-Constitutional measures in the North. In WWII FDR nationalized industries. By the last year of the War the South was in short supply of vital resources. It seems logical that the government would take a very active role in making sure those resources were allocated based on the war priorities.
dedalus on June 10, 2009 at 8:54 PM
From reading this thread, it sounds as though Stalin originally labeled Hitler “right-wing”, and he was considered our ally at the time. But political classification have changed over time. Modern conservatives are basically Classical Liberals, for example, because the founders were left-wing in their time.
But it doesn’t take knowledge of history to understand the modern system of classification and which end of the spectrum statist fall into.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM
DING DING DING, the correct answer finally.
ProudinNC on June 10, 2009 at 8:59 PM
If you look at all of the civil rights legislation from the end of the Civil War all the way up through the mid 1960’s, every single one of the various Acts was a Republican act. If you look at who began the integration of schools and the integration of the military, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man almost never mentioned in the annals of civil rights.
Much of the Republican-sponsored legislation went down to defeat or was watered down by the Democrats. A prime example is The Civil Rights Act of 1957, voted against by none other than John F. Kennedy, then a Representative, who toed the line set by the Democratic House leadership in spite of numerous alterations by the Democrats to reduce the effectiveness of the bill.
The party numbers associated with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 certainly are worth examination. The credentials of the Republican Party as the premier party of individual civil rights is beyond dispute in 1964.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Man I came to this thread late to find the floor littered with myriad troll corpses.
daesleeper on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I could of asked any question – the point was that the Statist trolls don’t want to abandon their talking points and actually have a regular debate.
They only want to rile people up and get them to react.
Chainsaw56 on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Yes, though some classically liberal individuals believed in the superiority of one race over another. The US was founded on the notion that “all (white) males were created equal”. A huge advance for a system of government but work remained to be done.
dedalus on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
I disagree. Some animals are more important than others.
unclesmrgol on June 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM
You hate them Mr. von Brunn? Well they gonna looooooove you, baby. Bumpy and Leroy gonna turn you into such a double-wide–you’ll have to wear a safety orange flag on your butt. I don’t what the Muslim Brotherhood is going to want to do with you, though. Looks like that is going to be a love/hate relationship. All things considered, this might be the time to get your ticket punched, but I don’t thing your prospects are looking too good there either.
Amen.
smellthecoffee on June 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM
The conservative movement, though, was in opposition to Eisenhower’s moderate approach and to the civil rights legislation. Certainly Buckley, National Review, and Goldwater were in 1964.
They raised several very good reasons for their positions. Many of which I find compelling but they clearly defined themselves in opposition to the establishment Republicans, especially the North Eastern ones like Nelson Rockefeller.
dedalus on June 10, 2009 at 9:07 PM
updated
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Only insofar as their own self-imposed value. Again, asset vs liability.
Everything has an objective value of 1. A is A, and everyone is equal to himself.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM
I guess I was truly overmatched by the genius of the other HotAir commenters. I should have conceded to your superior intelligence long ago. My leftist partisan nature caused me to refuse to recognize the truth, but I admit it now:
Von Brunn is a leftist, Timothy McVeigh was a leftist, Lew Rockwell is a leftist, Hitler was a leftist, David Duke is a leftist, Pat Buchanan is a leftist, Vlams Belang is a leftist party, the British National Party is a leftist party, and the Ku Klux Klan is a leftist movement. Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
/stupid
hicsuget on June 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM
The BNP is for government nationalisation.
blatantblue on June 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
So was Bush 43.
hicsuget on June 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Sarcasm is the last safe harbor available to the terminally moronic in the storm of intellectual honesty.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM
…and?
blatantblue on June 10, 2009 at 9:26 PM
LOL! You’ve probably read 1984 and thought it was about conservatives! That’s pretty funny stuff considering that Orwell himself, (the author, in case you didn’t know), said it was about socialism. Ever wonder what EngSoc referred to?
/stupid
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM
ever hear of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY?? ie the NAZIS??
did ya miss that SOCIALIST PART hmmmmm??
duhhhhhh
moron.
right4life on June 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM
I think you should be more worried about this illogical desire to place crazy people in categories other than crazy.
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Einstein’s relativity theory applies to politics as well. We all view the political spectrum with ourselves as the center. So, hic, of course you would see these examples as right-wingers, since you’re farther to the left — and therefore, even more of a whackjob — than they are.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM
LOL!
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Reminds me of Ron White’s routine.
“We can’t kill him, he’s too crazy to know we’re killin’ him!”
“Well, if it makes no difference to him and it makes me feel better…”
“But he rolls his sh*t into little balls and eats crayons!”
“Look, you gotta stop lumping all the crazies into one category here. What does this guy do? ‘He rolls his sh*t into little balls and eats crayons.’ Fine, I’ll take care of him for the rest of his life. What’s this guy do? ‘He kills productive members of society.’ Well, he shoulda rolled his sh*t into little balls and ate crayons, cuz the penalty is much less severe!”
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Are you new? I think I like you.
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Nope, been a commenter since the site launched.
fusionaddict on June 10, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Christian “Right-wingers” believe that man’s ultimate purpose is “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”
That would, of course, benefit the “species.”
What makes a man/woman valuable is that he/she is created in the image of God; no matter how much that image has been marred by sin.
That notion is the impetus behind our Declaration of Independence: “[A]ll men are created equal, … they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Man has enacted laws to safeguard those rights. Violating those laws requires one be punished and pay restitution.
One such valid punishment is the forfeiture of one’s life. However, it does not diminish ones worth as a human being.
davidk on June 10, 2009 at 9:46 PM
That’s weird, I don’t recognize your name. I’ve only been here since the primaries. Maybe we just post a different times of the day.
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM
A rose by any other name is still a murderer.
davidk on June 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM
I’m not blaming him directly, but I believe Jon Voight’s mean-spirited speech towards our President is the kind of hate speech that contributes to terrorists’ mindsets like today’s shooter.
SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Hate speech as in the sermons delivered by our president’s minister during his twenty year membership? Yep, Mr. Voight is a desperado.
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 10:02 PM
More like an enabler.
SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 10:05 PM
yeah the truth is ‘mean spirited’
you hate those who dare disagree with your socialist ideology…the intolerance and hatred is on the left…and we’ve seen what the left does to those who dare disagree..
right4life on June 10, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Yesterday you were worried about the free market, but today you want to demolish free speech.
And you can go ahead and “blame him directly.” He’ll take full responsiblity for his words and not blame his upbringing or the bully down the street.
If you want to pass off responsibility, we could blame Brokaw and OsamabamabidenHussein for this man’s actions. They embolded him to murder by equating the Holocaust with Israel’s defense of His people against Hamas. (I say “His” because Israel, aka Jacob, is male.)
davidk on June 10, 2009 at 10:08 PM
That’s ridiculous! Voight is a Mark Levin fan so he can’t be anti-semitic like Obama’s pastor is, and I don’t recall anything hateful about Jon’s speech. There’s a difference between criticism and hate, in case you weren’t aware.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM
What is there to enable? I guess by Mr. Obama sitting in the pew of that church for all those years, enabled Rev. Wright to assume that he and the president agreed on those sermons.
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 10:13 PM
The Von Brunn shooting was a terrorist act and a horrible crime. His victim was a hero and I pray for him and his family. Von Brunn in no way represents my views, any more than scum like Fred Phelps represents view of most Christians. But I know that Charles Johnson and other mendacious individuals on the left will use the opportunity to blame this act on right wing extremism. Von Brunn was wearing a confederate hat wasn’t he?
But the Reverend Wright (why doesn’t Wright count as a Christianist to Sullivan?) gives another example of Jew hatred, with his rant today.
Granted Wright is not a criminal or a murderer. Wright just mentions that Israelis are engaged in ethnic cleansing in Gaza. That is true. The Israeli Defense Forces did do ethnic cleansing in Gaza, they evicted several thousand Jooooooooooz so the Palestinians could have their ethnically pure Shangra la. How has that turned out?
So let’s question President Obama about anti Semitism. Obviously Von Brunn is a violent murderer beyond the pale for any rational person, but Wright’s comments are not acceptable are they? Ask if it is true Barack Obama told Israel it cannot bomb Iran. These are all legitmate questions. I would suggest we start asking them now.
Mr. Joe on June 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I have a feeling Mr. Voight is regretting some of the hateful things he said in his speech the other day.
If he isn’t regretful, then he has no empathy.
SouthernGal on June 10, 2009 at 10:17 PM
WTF are you talking about? Can you provide a single example of his hate speech?
I didn’t think so.
FloatingRock on June 10, 2009 at 10:18 PM
To clear it up.
Hitler was considered to be an extremely left socialist.
After WO-2, the turn left socialistic European governments decided that he was to be mentioned extreme right.
The typical socialistic way…spinning and turning the truth into their own little pathetic cause.
Dutchwolf on June 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
*Yawn*
Cindy Munford on June 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
You are using the blood of Stephen Tyrone Johns to libel another person. Blood Libel.
Have you no shame?
How different are you from those who use the same tactics to slur Jews and other religious and ethnic groups?
Loxodonta on June 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »