Gunman Shoots Two at Holocaust Museum

A gunman today entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and shot two people. Developing...will update.

The gunman has been identified as James Von Brunn, "a man with apparent links to the white supremacist movement. " He is 88 years old.

< Canadian Supermax Inmate Also on Hunger Strike | Holocaust Museum Guard Dies After Shooting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ah yes (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    I remember that scandalous report about right-wing extremism, how could anyone possibly believe there are nutters on the far right, how silly of them...

    and elderly gunman (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    omg. why do I think there will be more of this as more of them realize the government no longer coddles their insane extremism and is not likely to any time soon.

    Even a child can use a gun. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    Age doesn't matter much.  A firearm can be used effectively by anyone who can hold it long enough to pull the trigger.

    by age (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    I was referring to the fact that it seems to be old people, myself excluded, who seem to be in the biggest panic about the direction the government is taking.

    Why the old people? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    They've done lived their lives already!  At eighty eight, this man had done almost everything he was going to do.  He even had more years to do it than most people do.

    excellent question (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    dont ask me

    At whatever age (none / 0) (#177)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    life is still lived until death ends it.

    Sez who? (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    That's news to me.  Did you see a survey or something?

    every survey I have ever seen (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    says people over a certain age are the ones more likely to vote republican watch fox news and be freaked out by the fact that we are becoming a "socialist" country.

    every single one.


    Something that I read (none / 0) (#180)
    by eric on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    about this:



    Exactly (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    So, can we count on the Obama DOJ to protect us from such people and organizations?

    only if they stop (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    apologizing for things like that report on right wing extremeism.
    looks like the fits the profile pretty well.

    But would it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    be appropriate to interfere with the freedom of association of all right-wing organizations, just because there are some nutters amongst them?  That's the serious question.

    What percentage of white supremacists need to be violent before we can justify infiltrating and monitoring all the white supremacist organizations on the basis of security?  When the tables are turned, consider how right-wing governments justify spying on environmental organizations because, after all, some environmentalists are eco-terrorists.


    lets face it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:48:01 PM EST
    the government has been spying on left wing groups since Hoover and probably before.  afaiac the time is now.  how many people have to die?

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    the tradeoff between security and liberty is not a trivial issue!  When you ask how many people have to die so that we can have rights like the freedom of association, my answer would be, probably more than zero.  I hope it's not you or me, but seriously, what's the alternative, a police state?

    Of course the government has always spied on left-wing groups, but aren't we in agreement that it's, you know, WRONG?  We agree that it's wrong because civil liberties are important, even though of course we'd concede that there are indeed some violent extremists on the left.  This isn't a case of "they spy on our guys, so let's get them back."

    Either we agree that it's appropriate to spy on people and infringe their civil liberties because of their membership in ideological organizations, or we don't.  Now, surely there are some organizations that are dangerous enough that we're justified in spying on them, like your local neighborhood al-Qaeda chapter.  But I'm pretty sure you can be a racist creep without being violent or criminal, which leads us to our problem.


    I agree that the civil rights here are (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    extremely serious.  The thing that both Roeder and Von Brunn have in common are run-ins with the law that were serious.  Had either been stopped today and found themselves in the unfortunate position of being Muslim in America, they'd have been put in jail with little hope of even having a trial.  I am no fan of that approach - in fact I hate it - but I just wanted to put this all into context.  A white American crusader with a gun or bomb parts is somehow less dangerous than a Muslim?  I'd venture to guess that Roeder and Von Brunn have more of a paper trail and longer records than most of the detainees at Gitmo do.  Based on what I am hearing on CNN, Von Brunn was prolific in his writings and has already been convicted on a weapons charge and something to do with what he called a "citizen's arrest" that sounds more like a kidnapping.

    In other news, many in the Congress are working hard to make sure you can carry your weapons all over the National Mall and other Federal Parks without challenge.  The deer hunting sucks around there, but there are tons of museums and museum goers.  Rolling eyes.


    exactly (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    thank you.  exactly my point.  every time its the same story.  long history lots in indicators and nothing done.

    government has always spied (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    on left wing groups and it has not stopped them from forming and operating successfully.  I guess that, at least for me, it comes down to this.  if there is a possibility that a group is going to do some harm to people or property, spy on them.  I am totally ok with that.  left or right.  as I said before PETA is insane.  spy on them.  if the destroy property arrest them.  if they really believe in what they are doing they should be fine with that.
    if they are not planning havoc they have nothing to worry about.  I am tired of reading stories like this.  

    i assume you don't mean this literally: (none / 0) (#44)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:11:35 PM EST
    "if there is a possibility that a group is going to do some harm to people or property, spy on them.  I am totally ok with that."

       There is always possibility. The initial  question to my mind is what quantum of evidence supporting a reasonable likelihood a person or group will do harm justiifes "spying." Then we have all sorts of questions as to what means and intensity of "spying" should be allowed in certain circumstances; who should be entrusted with authority to authorize "spying;" what level of oversight and by whom? etc., etc.


    what do you (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    suggest we do about events like todays?

    Feel angry and sad, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:26:03 PM EST
     but resigned to the reality that we can't prevent all violent  crimes regardless of motivation even if we choose to be a police state and that the costs of "spying" on anyone who might possibly be a threat is beyond our means and that the possible threatening people who will be selected to be spied upon ill usually be those who are most unpoular rather than most dangerous.

      If we really want to spy to prevent violence we need spies in all the houses of drunken husbands and boyfriends because they are responsible for hundreds of times more violence than whacked out political extremists.


    lets come back to reality (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    for a moment.  apparently he as a white supremacist.  we know these people are dangerous.  its not a matter of conjecture.

    as far as a police state.  spying on extremist groups has been going on in most western countries for decades.  when the only thing you are prevented from doing is taking innocent life that is not a police state.  thats law enforcement.

    I am not resigned to the fact that people have to keep dying like this.  not for a minute.


    We know some or even many (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:43:33 PM EST
     are dangerous. We also know some or many people in all sorts of organizational or other groups are dangerous. If we can spy on any white racist group just because we know some white racists are dangerous and without any other specific evidence then we set the stage for spying on just about everyone -- excpet maybe the spies and their masters.

    pretty much everyone (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    it seems except right wing extremist groups are already spied on.  we are all spied on.  they monitor our phone calls and our internet activity.

    perhaps is because I have nothing to hide the world you describe does not scare me.  the world we live in scares me.


    btw (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    absolutely literally.

    also (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    I would ask, why are you worried about being spied on?  I feel I have been spied on my whole life.  if you are not planning to harm anyone no one is going to trouble you.

    why do you care.

    I, personally, am willing to be spied on if it will save one innocent person like the guard who just died.


    that's not true (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:28:43 PM EST
      We know this from factual history not paranoia. Law enforcement has on many occasions spied upon people because of their political beliefs and actions. Do you think, as just one example,  MLK and SCLC were truly believed to be planning violent acts?

    I am not talking about what has (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:34:45 PM EST
    been done.  I am talking about what should be done.
    and I ask again.  what is your solution?

    do you simply accept that people have to keep dying so right wing nut cases can keep their privacy?


    I do (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    I accept that.  I don't like it, but a society can either be free and open or "safe".  And I "denounce" spying on right wing groups as strongly as I denounce spying on left wing groups.  

    Yes, the trade-off may be less safety.  As to that, I agree with Benjamin Franklin.

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    I guess you are right.  what is a couple of museum guards after all.

    I understand... (none / 0) (#152)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    ...that often a lot of people are comfortable with simple binary decisions, but sometimes it really is a choice between the lesser of two evils.  

    Sometimes -- rarely -- we are presented with a choice between the greater of two goods.  Those aren't simple binary decisions either.  This is one of them.  

    1.  Greater freedom
    2.  Greater safety

    Both come at a cost.  I choose door number 1.

    only people who think (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    in binary terms make binary decisions.  I am having a hard time understanding exactly what "freedoms" you or probably anyone on this site would have to forfeit in the monitoring of extremists groups.

    but then, who knows I suppose.


    No, you're not (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    I am having a hard time understanding exactly what "freedoms" you or probably anyone on this site would have to forfeit in the monitoring of extremists groups.

    Bemused said it best here. But I don't think you're really having a hard time understanding it.  You just disagree.


    I don't think it's a "binary" (none / 0) (#182)
    by Bemused on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 06:54:17 AM EST
     choice. As with most things, it's a matter of weighing and balancing interests and implementing procedures which necessarily fail to achieve "perfection" in either direction but protect the most vital interests on both sides the greatest number of times.

      I'm not advocating no "spying" of domestic groups or individuals (I put quotes around that just because it's an imperfect word for what we are discussing). I'm advocating rules that limit spying to cases where there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to believe "spying" is necessary to prevent violence and that require it to be authorized and overseen with great caution and care.

       The interest of people in being protected from violence is a fundamental interest and I don't advocate ignoring that.

      It's simply wrong to say that right-wing groups have not been taregted for domestic "spying." The KKK has been heavily infiltrated and only half in jest people have said every third person at a KKK meeting is an agent or CI. There have also been "militia" groups infiltrated in the recent past (and some of these groups bear striking resemblance to the bumbling Islamic  groups targeted more recently in that they were made up of big talking incompetents easily set-up by infiltrators).

      I'm not opposed to that sort of spying. If a person or persons come forward with CREDIBLE information that people are meeting and discussing committing violent acts then we need to act.

      What I am opposed to is to "spying" on people simply because they have racist, anti-government, virulently discriminatory religious or ethnic views, misanthropic attitudes fostered by environmental or animal rights beliefs etc. etc.

      Will limiting "spying"  cause us to miss some peope who do ultimately commit violent acts? Yes it will and I do not discount that or attempt to "de-legitimize" arguments that prevention should  be the paramount if not exclusive objective.

       I just don't agree. It's fair to say that in determing the costs of unfettered domestic spying is too high relative to the benefits, I don't place as high a value on each and every life as do some other people. I will state that this is a moral dilemma and no one should blithely reach my conclusion based on partisan sloganeering.

      I don't agree with Franklin's: "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." I think all law-abiding people deserve both. I just don't think it's possible to achieve everything that is "deserved" and that when deciding how much liberty to sacrifice in pursuit of security we need to be cognizant of the dangers of handing such powers to the government-- even a government that is not willfully abusing power-- and the very limited, if not false sense of, security actually achieved.



    then in fact (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:01:27 AM EST
    we are almost in complete agreement.  I dont always state my views in the most concise way.  the truth is I agree with almost everything you said.
    I do think that people like the murderer yesterday, who have a long history of talking about and even attempting to act on his crazy racist beliefs, bear watching.  exactly how that might be done is above my pay grade.  and I completely agree that crazies will be missed.  but I also think that if they simply knew they were being watched it would stop many of them.

    the thing is I just dont think most people understand the threat these crazy right wing paramilitary groups pose.  they just think they are stupid racist rednecks who are all talk or something.  that, in my opinion, is a huge mistake.  I have been around these guys all my life.  a branch of our family tree is most likely on a watch list.  some of the most dangerous and radical elements of this movement are in arkansas.
    I believe they are the biggest threat we face as a country.  bigger than North Korea or Iran or Iraq or Al-Qaeda. personally I think the next horrific attack will be home grown.  these people are completely freaked.  they have been coddled by the Bush administration for 8 years.  many of them have grown up and matured in the movement and never know anything but being coddled and stroked and pandered to by government.
    you are right of course about the KKK.  but I am also right that some of the most dangerous paramilitary groups have been almost completely ignored by the Bush admisistration.  because they were their base.  it is not a situation they are accustomed to.  thing are moving on the right fringe.  these attacks will continue and increase.


    Are we really seeing "these groups" (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    being involved in this type of violence, or mostly individual nutters?

    I dont see how you separate them (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    individual nutters who are members of, and get talking points from, these groups and the groups themselves.
    this guy yesterday had long long record of associations and writings.

    personally I think its a mistake to seen any of these guys from McVeigh to the guy yesterday and "loners".  they are part of a broad and active movement.


    If the "group" had planned and carried out the violence, that would be something entirely different. To me, anyway.

    I was reading some of the (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    stuff around the web about this this morning and was struck by this

    A Suspect's Long History of Hate
    By Darryl Fears and Marc Fisher
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, June 11, 2009

    James W. von Brunn was growing despondent.
    John de Nugent, an acquaintance who describes himself as a white separatist, noticed the change when they last spoke two weeks ago.  

    He was about to give away his computer, his primary connection to the fringe world of radical racists. He was living hand to mouth.

    The e-mails were getting violent in tone: "It's time to kill all the Jews."

    The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, has kept an eye on him since 1981

    "We had multiple entries on this guy," said Heidi Beirich, the center's director of research.

    De Nugent called von Brunn a genius but described the shooting as the act of "a loner and a hothead."

    "The responsible white separatist community condemns this," he said. "It makes us look bad."


    there you have it.  he condemns it because it makes them look bad.
    and he made sure he reinforced the "loner" BS.


    and about your MLK thing (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    even in that rather extreme example I dont think his work was hindered much by that was it?

    No problem. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Lacey on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    Why not let the government just raid your home, at any time, without a warrant. After all, you're not doing anything illegal so how cares. If it saves one life right?
    How many lives can be ruined from an intrusive government?

    maybe next time (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    you or someone you love will unfortunately be in the line of fire.  talk to me then.

    HORRIBLE THING TO SAY (none / 0) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    gets to the point (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:48:42 PM EST
    though doesnt it?

    Actually, no (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    it does not. It comes across more like a wish or a threat.

    No, I don't think so. (none / 0) (#142)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    I was just thinking about a possible trip to Washington and probably we'd visit the Holocaust Memorial. Had we planned our various trips differently, that could have been us in the museum today.

    So I don't think it's wrong to remind us that any of us could have been in that line of fire.

    It's a simple fact.

    I don't believe we should give up civil liberties but then again being alive is a pretty major civil liberty...


    thank you (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    thank you.   I have been feeling a little alone out here

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    Just like my building gets locked down at least once a week because nutter PETA and other animal rights groups protest outside because there is a sales office of a pharmaceutical company in the building somewhere (I've still never seen it). And yes, it's not even the LAB - it's a small sales office (according to our security guards). They haven't been violent, as far as I know, but the building management still feels they pose a risk. I could only imagine what a President Cheney would do with these people.

    afaiac (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    PETA is a menace it members are mostly insane and should be monitored as closely as the KKK.

    You're losing it now, Capn' (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    And kindly explain how spying on right-wing groups would have had any effect on today's event at all.

    Violent lone wolf nut jobs exist in every society except the most extreme totalitarian states.


    a violent "lone wolf" (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    who is a right wing white supremacist who has a long record of writing and advocating for this kind of stuff.

    and if you think he is alone you are very much mistaken.  I have written here before.  I know these people.  I have them in my family.  they are dangerous.  they are organized and they need to be watched.  only people who have never had any interaction with these people would defend them or worry about their privacy being impinged.


    There's a problem with that (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    many can't tell the difference between PETA extremist/Animals Rights extremists, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare activists. And there is a pretty clear difference if the time was taken to look into it. Much easier for most just to lump us all together and call us "PETA Freaks". Kinda the same with putting all environmental activists under the same "name".

    And a lil' FYI, not all PETA members are a menace or insane. Many people go the PETA route without a clear understanding of who they are (the extreme end). They love animals etc and that is their motivation. Many have very similar beliefs to mine, they just choose to go a bit farther and become (or already are) vegetarians/vegans and may never do much more in the way of activism than that (where as I do). They would generally fall into the AW camp.


    a bit farther (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:08:49 PM EST

    and another thing (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    you are probably the only person who would confuse PETA with animal welfare activists.  of which I am one, btw.

    No I'm not. I run into it a lot. (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:27:29 PM EST
    Just the other day as a matter of fact:

    Many so called animal welfare groups have an anti animal agriculture agenda.  That is different than trying to improve conditions for animals.  Many of them have stated they want the livestock industry shut down and for people to stop eating meat.  Some of them are engaged in terrorist acts of violence against producers and researchers.  To me that seems more like hate than anything I see or hear coming from people in agriculture.


    And then there are those that ask me to my face if I'm one of "those". Just because it doesn't effect your world doesn't mean it isn't out there.


    It's called personal choice (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:20:38 PM EST
    I choose to only eat sustainably raised, humanely treated animals and they choose not to eat any animals. There is nothing insane or menacing about that at all. Nor does it automatically make them more "extreme" than me etc. So yes, they carry their eating habits a bit farther than I do, but I prob carry my activism farther than some of them. Some AR folks don't think you should live with animals, others think it is ok. The head of the Humane Society has never owned a pet. His choice. The head of PETA has pets, she believes she needs to watch over them until all animals are free or some such sh!t, but she does love them and they are in fact PETS.

    Then there are the vegans/vegetarians that do it for "green" reasons, health reasons etc.


    somehow (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:27:05 PM EST
    I dont really think you think I was talking about eating habits.

    It's all part of disecting the labeling (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    of a group of people as one mass group of menacing and insane people. We could talk about how some PETA folks never protest physically and others throw paint on fur wearers if you like?

    then let me "go farther" (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    PETA is a sad joke.  they do more harm to the cause they pretend to be championing (which I care very much about) than good.

    I agree with you there (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    and if you had originally said it that way . . .  iirc, at one point they were a bit more "balanced", meaning they actually balanced good work with their craziness, but that seems to be a thing of the past. Kinda defeats the purpose to protest and make a ruckus about what Vick did to his dogs and then want to turn around and kill them all without even evaluating the dogs . . .  they would have killed more dogs than Vick! Their shelter kill rate is insane (yes, I used that word!), but their membership at large does not seem to be as extreme as some of their core. Same for HSUS, many people don't understand "exactly" what they are about, but they have a large amount of people that support and identify their selves with them regardless.

    one used to be me (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    I am a recovering PETA member.   they lost me years ago.

    If they had just stuck to (none / 0) (#143)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    responsible awareness . . . .

    Animal Activists (none / 0) (#176)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    "...they have a large amount of people that support and identify their selves with them regardless."
    And the groups that try to help animals (local shelters, large animal sanctuaries) get the short end of the financial stick.

    Well, Obama does seem to have some (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    interest in preventive detention, so it bears asking whether people like Brunn and Roeder would be candidates for such a thing, as well.

    I mean, I'm reading this thread and I see an opinion that we should just spy on right-wing groups, that no one should be bothered by that if they aren't engaged in any crazy activities, so isn't some kind of preventive detention the next suggestion - you know, in order to keep us all safe?

    I think this might still be America, though lately I'm not sure we have as firm a grip as I think we should on the principles and tenets that have made us a symbol of individual freedom.  Once we begin to accept that it's okay to not adhere to those elements for the scary "other," it's a short hop to beginning to ignore or dismiss them where citizens are concerned.

    Does it hurt my heart that there are people like Brunn who have such hateful beliefs?  More than you know.  I sure don't want to be minding my own business one day and find myself the victim of someone like him, but I don't know how far the government should be going to monitor and restrict the movements of someone like Brunn.

    And I sincerely hope that what seems like a rash of violent crime being committed by people with a definite axe to grind does not give anyone the bright idea that maybe there are some people who don't deserve to be trusted with their freedom and have to be "detained."  Who knows whether what someone heard us say, or what someone saw that we wrote would fast-track us to a holding cell - you know, for the good of the country.


    speaking only for me (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    I never used the word detain.  you did.
    I never used the word restrict.  you did.
    I said watch them.  monitor them.  just like pretty much every western ally we have has done for decades.

    I never said you did utter those words... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:24:03 PM EST
    what I suggested was that in the current atmosphere, where our own president is espousing a policy of preventive detention, it's a pretty short distance from restricting and detaining the scary brown Muslim people to considering the same for the scary citizen-type people right here in America.

    And the more willing people are to tolerate the incursion on the civil rights of others, the easier and the sooner it is to get them to accept it right here.

    Look what the American people have so far been willing to tolerate, all in the name of being "safe," and all propagated by your own government - where does it end?  What's the limit of people's willingness to erode our civil rights?

    Some of us would draw the line before you would, apparently; I'm not a big fan of "every other country is doing it," or "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," or the whole scare- and fear-mongering tactic of asking, "but what if it's your family member who is taken out by one of these nutjobs???"

    What you justify today, thinking it protects your particular interests, are the same things that in the hands of those who do not have your interests at heart, can be used to your detriment.

    Wish people could think about that a little bit more than they do.


    yeah (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    I guess I really need to go home and think about this since I have never done that.
    could you be more condescending?  just for fun why dont you try.
    personally, I am sick to death of murders being enabled by people who trot out the old next they will come after you saw. they are not going to come after me.  you know why?  because I am not going to plant a bomb or go on a shooting rampage.  yes people have given up some privacy in the last 8 years.  mostly all the wrong people.  the bush administration did not monitor those who needed monitoring because the were their base.  

    right wing extremists groups are a danger to this republic.  they need to be monitored closely.  if you have a problem  with that I am not sorry at all.


    No way (none / 0) (#185)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    Didn't Obama and our Democratic Party just allow a bill to go through that opens the door to fire arms in National Parks?

    Do so at your peril... (none / 0) (#186)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:41:09 AM EST
    there really is no defense against the lone whackjob intent to kill.

    Why do (none / 0) (#189)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    you all of a sudden label him right-wing?  Because he's right wing he must be racist?  I do not think racism is resigned to one party.  If you had done your homework, you would have found out this man hated both Presidents Bush.  He also hated neocons and believed 9/11 was a conspiracy.  I'm so tired of liberals automatically labeling anyone who commits a racist crime right wing.  There's been plenty of racism on both sides in the past.  Please do a little back reading before you jump the gun.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    He walked in to the museum and started shooting.  He shot a security guard (who is in grave condition) and then two other security officers returned fire, wounding the alleged shooter.  Both shooting victims are at GW Hospital. So, only two injured at this time.

    (Just watched the live press conference of the mayor, and Chief of Police).

    Has anyone read... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    ...Dave Cullen's new book about Columbine yet?

    It looks like Cullen's book might do a really good job in examining the way our culter rushes to conclusions about the details of tragedies like today's shooting.  The museum shooting looks like it's a much simpler event than Columbine, but it still might not be easy to keep the popular narrative about today's event completely accurate.

    So sad (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    The Holocaust Museum is an extraordinary site -- more than fifteen years in the making with national and worldwide fundraising so that we all would remember and realize why we need to say with the survivors: "Never Again."

    I hope that everyone here has had an opportunity to experience the most popular destination in D.C. -- and that more security measures that will be needed now will not deter visitors or damage their experience there.

    I feel very sad today for my many friends who are descendants of Holocaust survivors here, for my many Jewish neighbors -- with an Orthodox synagogue almost next door to me -- who have survived other horrendous experiences in other countries to emigrate here to escape religious persecution.  Today is a day of nightmares for them.

    If you want to hear sad (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    I don't remember a single Jewish person or synagogue in the community where I lived where I grew up -- we were located about 100 miles from Hayden Lake, ID...home of the Aryan Nations.

    I googled, and there is a Jewish group in the vicinity of Washington State University, but their members have the option of being "anonymous".  Just imagine, having to be anonymous because of your race or nationality....it's lucky that they can hide it, because they look almost white, I guess...sadly lucky.


    "Almost white"? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    Good God.  I can't believe the crap that's coming out in this thread from some people.

    I think (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:13:41 PM EST
    you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong way.

    What I was saying is you can almost pretend that you are just as much a "WASP" as an Aryan Nation member if you don't have completely brown skin.

    I was being sympathetic to a cause.  It's wrong to pick my words apart, as if you think I was trying to be racist.  That was clearly not my intention.


    WASP? (none / 0) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    Excuse me.  Are you saying that every evil SOB is a WASP (itself a thoughtless bigoted pejorative)?

    You may not think you're making racist remarks, many people who make such remarks are likewise unaware.


    I think the comment (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    was meant to be ironic

    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    they look almost English or Irish or Scots or French or or Polish German, I'm guessing?  Of course, there are English Jews, Irish Jews (the former mayor of Dublin among them), Scots Jews, French Jews . . . and there even are some Polish Jews left in Poland and some German Jews left in Germany.

    There is no "white."  It's a construction.


    Everyone should visit (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    at some point.  Very powerful.  In some ways more so than any of the other museums or monuments in D.C.  Truly well designed, so that it forces a physical and emotional response to the exhibits as you are walking through.  It is not a passive experience.

    Exactly. It even has given rise (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:05:16 PM EST
    to great growth in a fascinating field: museum studies, on how we construct public memory, etc.  

    it is one of the most (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:14:52 PM EST
    powerful places I have ever seen

    Cavuto on Fox is saying (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    This event is a wakeup call. We need to be vigilant against terrorism. Nary a word re gun control.

    well, (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    would you feel better if it was a bomb, a car crashing through crowds, fire, etc...These things happen too. It's not the method that is bothersome, it's the motivation...

    as an advocate for gun control (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    I still have to say "well put Jeff".

    Motivation is of interest (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    Result of gun use to act on motivation--an innocant man dead. But as you say--could have been worse w/different method.

    we will never get their guns (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:35:37 PM EST
    but we can watch them

    The shooter is an equal opportunity hater. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    And the security officer was African-American. I no longer think that the officer was collateral damage.

    what a sad day (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    for all involved, even the 88 year old....

    Oh come off it... (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Don't use this as an indoctrination of people who hold "right wing" views. White Supremacy is no more a right wing view than Black Supremacy is a left wing view. There are unhinged nuts on both sides (Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Guevera are all left wingers) but that is not a way to judge everyone who holds those views. Ethnocentric views stem more from xenophobia than from any political ideaology. Early indications are this was a lone gunmen with a history of mental issues. I do not dispute that you will see more extremism as the government seizes ever more power. Typically your extremist do not stem from either left or right but are flat out anarchist and there is a fair balance of anarchist on the left and right side.

    My main concern is how huge of a lapse in security was this? They said he drove his car right to the front door.

    Um (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    There is little dispute that white supremacists are categorized as a far-right group.  No one, except yourself, has even suggested that constitutes a condemnation of all people who hold right-wing views.

    And please, take the "Hitler was a liberal" silliness somewhere else.


    Love how he tried to slip that in (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    But you know, people on the American right actually believe that Hitler was a leftist. It's insane.

    technically... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    wasn't he a socialist who turned to fascism?

    He drove his car (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    and parked in front of the museum, which is right on 14th Street - he had a handicapped tag, although I don't think there's parking allowed there.  To be fair of course, someone who is intent on shooting up a  museum probably doesn't care about illegal parking.

    There is security there - metal detectors, and guards.  But this guy supposedly just came in shooting.

    (and Hitler, as all fascists are, was a right winger, FWIW)


    hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    in some other context someday I would love to hear it explained how Hitler was a left winger.

    I like how he put Che and Chavez in the same category.  as if fighting for the rights of the downtrodden is the same as sticking people in gas chambers.


    Che (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    I could kind of see, I mean even the man's defenders admit to extra-judicial killing, but Chavez- what is that crap, its like listing Berlusconi or Bush with Hitler.

    Che was quite the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    shot with a .32 ACP.  As Castro's head executioner, his choice of weapon indicates he was an excellent shot.  He knew where to put the small round to do the most damage.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    Hitler- not a Leftie
    Chavez- doesn't exactly fit in your list- seriously, listing Chavez a legitimately elected leader with authoritarian tendencies, along side murderous dictators is crap.

    funny how its (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    never the left wing extremists with the guns.

    now remind me about PUSH.


    You're kidding, right... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    The SLA, Weather Underground, etc... had plenty of weapons. Earth Liberation Front and some other environmental groups sure use a lot of weapons when they are burning down businesses, etc...

    The point isn't right wing or left wing nuts - It's the nuts period. You have this shooting and the abortion doctor and then you have the Muslim killing one of the military. Not to mention other issues.

    I do believe that their are does seem to be more disenfranchised nuts on the right (anti government, white supremacist), but I'm worried about all nuts.


    having weapons (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    is not exactly the same as killing people with them is it?

    sorry (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    bad choice of words

    funny how its never the left wing extremists gun down innocent people.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    We could talk about Bill Ayers and bomb-planting again....

    I dont think he actually killed anyone (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    but talking about him would only make my point.  dangerous people who intend to do harm to others need to be stopped.

    So is an Islamist extremist (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    right or left wing?

    Becasue one of those shot an Army recruiter last week.

    Who do we apply those extremists to?


    who cares (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    I believe I have been saying quite clearly and repeatedly monitor extremist groups.  left right and up and down.

    is there some part of that that is not clear?


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#188)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 11:45:32 AM EST
    not that I spend a time worrying about violent nuts...but it is the violence that is of concern, I couldn't care less if it is their right or left wing views or the dog talking to them that leads them to violence...nuts is nuts.

    speaking of nutters....make up your own mind.I did (1.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Iamme on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:48:09 PM EST
     was off yesterday, June 4 and personally went by three different mosque's. The first was in Fort Worth, number two in Arlington, and number three in Dallas. The mosque's in Fort Worth and Dallas would not let me in nor talk to me. The mosque in Arlington was very open to talk and actually let me in the front door but only to a hallway. I was not allowed anywhere else because I was not Muslim and, therefore, not holy. (Their statement, not mine). The cleric there flat looked me in the eye and told me that B.O. was the emissary of God and that this is the start of the Muslim Revolution in the United States (his words not mine). He, the cleric, also told me that even moderate and "peaceful" Muslims believe in totality that Islam is the only true religion and it is their destiny to once again be the "light if the world." (His words not mine). He also said that while he did not advocate violence, it was sometimes necessary to use it to achieve a common purpose. (His words, not mine). NOW, SOMEONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MODERATE AND PEACEFUL MUSLIM. So, my interpretation of this is that everything is on the table to achieve total Islam. They may not like some of the violence but understand and are even tolerant of it. I asked the following specific question: Would you, as a cleric, denounce the extreme violence of the Taliban and Hamas and other factions, intended to suppress a more central movement in the Islamic faith? His answer: As a cleric, and a leader of one of God's mosques, I cannot denounce what is just.

    My interpretation: Islam is hostile.

    Right (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    Of course that's what happened to you yesterday.  Sure.

    I once talked to an evangelical (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    and he told me they view themselves as "God's Warriors" and that only those who accept christ will see heaven, I think Christianity is hostile! (Or perhaps reading too much into the words of a believer is dangerous).

    Jesus Camp anyone? Oy. (none / 0) (#146)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    Islam is hostile (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    god know they certainly have no reason to be.

    Why I left here (none / 0) (#100)
    by Iamme on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    This is typical of this site.  I actually go out and do research and since it does not fit it is shrugged off or given sarcastic lip service.

    At least my new site asked questions like.  What other churches/religions do you know of that wont even let you in the door?  There may be some but I dont know of any.  If anyone can englighten me please do.  Any church/relegion that will not let you in the door seems suspicious since all others that I know of welcome new people with open arms.  They actually have greeters to welcome you in.

    It seems this site views facts differently.  Oh well.  


    keep up (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:29:35 PM EST
    the good work

    Research (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by sumac on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    Really? To put it mildly, your research sample was statistically unreliable/insignificant. You went to three mosques and spoke to one man and then feel you can make a blanket statement that "Islam is hostile"?

    Other than the cleric with whom you spoke, how many other Muslims do you know? Do you know if you know any?

    Since you are in the Dallas area maybe you should check out the Dallas Islamic Center in Richardson. All of the their classes and services are open to the public. Looks like they recently invited a female Christian reverend to speak and members visited a Rabbi at a local Temple. Sure, it's not a mosque but as a Muslim organization devoted to "religious, charitable, educational, and literary purposes" maybe you can learn something more for your research.



    Islam (none / 0) (#178)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    Has anyone ever studied a history of Islam?  They actually just might have the best record of the three 'peoples of the book' for being tolerant.  Way back before we 'modern, educated folk' came along, there was a good bit of theological and doctrinal  borrowing amongst the Jewish/Muslim/Christian theologians.  And, yes, I know that Iranians, Iraqis, and Palestinians don't win any prizes for loving their Jewish or Christian neighbors today.

    Mormans won't (none / 0) (#138)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:07:44 PM EST
    let you in the door.

    Give it a try.

    By the way I agree with you.  Most on this site like to equate right wing nut jobs to Islam so they don't have to deal with how radical "some" Muslims are.

    99% of Christianis would love to take your money and let you in the door.

    Equating radical christianity or right wingers to radical Mulsims is a foolsih waste of time and moral equivalency run amuck.

    Too bad.   As pointed out in another post a radical Muslim convert shot a army recruiter last week and I didn't see a post with all the Abortion doctor carrying on.

    Both equally horrible by the way as is this shooting.    

    It's always a mistake to apply a whole belief system of a group to the actions of an idividual and something that a true liberal wouldn't be so excited to do.

    I mean I don't group the fans of Kung Fu into a perverse sexual cult just because of the recent actions of David Karadine.


    if I may (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    and this is really a defense of the site you smear and not a response to that idiotic comment.  
    there are several reasons you did not see as many posts about the killing in Little Rock as the murder of Dr Tiller. that is what we expect crazy radical islamists to do.  it was not unusual.  it was tragic.  there are many tragic things we dont discuss here.  the murder of Dr Tiller hit very close to home for many here.  that is one reason.
    another reason is that we are supposed to be better than that.  we are not supposed to be like the barbarians who stone women and homosexuals to death.

    does that help?


    Not smearing the site (none / 0) (#181)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    just pointing out that it's too easy to use a tragedy to push a political cause and smear a group of people you don't care for.

    If I didn't like the site and all my liberal buddies I wouldn't post.


    Does this mean we should start monitoring LDS (none / 0) (#148)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    because the inner temple is sealed- who knows what they could have in their- spooky!!!!

    Were you dressed appropriately (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    to enter?

    Sure sure (none / 0) (#151)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    Today is June 10th, this all happened to you "yesterday, June 4th".  Implausible from line one.

    It's called "astroturf" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    Someone comes up with a story "proving" how Islam is "hostile", and then a bunch of drones go and copy/paste it at a bunch of websites.

    A nutter, true enough. (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    James W. von Brunn holds a BachSci Journalism degree from a mid-Western university where he was president of SAE and played varsity football.

    During WWII he served as PT-Boat captain, Lt. USNR, receiving a Commendation and four battle stars. For twenty years he was an advertising executive and film-producer in New York City. He is a member of Mensa, the high-IQ society.

    In 1981 Von Brunn attempted to place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest. He was tried in a Washington, D.C. Superior Court; convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals denied his appeal. He served 6.5 years in federal prison. (Read about von Brunn's "Federal Reserve Caper" HERE.) He is now an artist and author and lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore.

    a veteran (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    sad way to vindicate Nepolitano.

    Ah (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    All this stuff is what HE claims on his website.  None of this has been substantiated yet.

    yeah (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    that was probably a rash comment.  I would expect this has more to do with his age than his military experience.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:51:14 PM EST
    no one reveres WWII vets more than I do, but it was a total war.  We didn't exactly have the luxury of sending only the best and the brightest.

    Perhaps we should consider ourselves fortunate that he fought for the good guys when it sounds like he was more ideologically aligned with what the other guys believed.  Of course who knows what he was like back then.


    Sorry. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:16:08 PM EST
    Prove no one reveres WWII vets more than you.  Got like a link showing your proof?  

    Dude (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    Try to be a little less of a jerk sometime.

    I vow to never ask you (none / 0) (#84)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    to prove your ridiculous assertions any more.  Gotta admit though.  what you wrote is exactly something I would expect a pol to say.  I was hoping of pics of you at a Soldiers and Sailors home wiping chins.  

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    I appreciate your vow, and to be honest, it would be okay with me if you didn't respond to my comments at all.  Most normal human beings understand the meaning of the figure of speech I employed.

    LOL (none / 0) (#163)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    Never challenge a "progressive".

    Tell us (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    how you really feel about vets.  

    I have great respect for vets (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    99+% of them are heros and deserve our thanks.
    I have lots of friends who are veterans.  liberal veterans.

    I also know veterans who drift into extremism are usually the ones who do this stuff.  just like the report commissioned by the bush administration says.


    Your thanks (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    are welcome.

    Wingnuts always seem (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:09:31 PM EST
    to think they're accruing citizenship brownie points by talking about "our vets" as if they were sacred bulls from the Temple of Shiva, and then they're the first ones to cheerlead for the next war.

    Uh oh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    A midwestern university?  Hopefully not the same one I hold a degree from...

    Mensa member from (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    MSU?. Surely you jest.

    Meanwhile I continue to question the people's right to bear firearms.


    Hmm, seeing that Mensa claim (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    the nut made on his website, and the description of him as a loner all his life, I suspect -- if it is true -- we may be seeing a classic case of Asperger's syndrome.  At his age, growing up before it even got a name, it so often was dealt with so badly.  We learn more and do better with it every day.

    Asperger's can be tough. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:21:13 PM EST
    It has to be painful watching people do something casually, easily - that you struggle with constantly.  Social relations are to Asperger's what reading is to a dyslexic.  Only people don't usually think of social skills as acquired skills.

    Is it just me, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    or do a lot of these guys seem to have Gemanic surnames?

    Um, like, say (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    Kaczinski? Or maybe you were thinking of Timothy McVeigh?

    What an astonishingly ignorant and offensive comment.


    No. like Paul Fromm, Tom Metzger, (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    Frank Weltner, Frederick Toben, Mark Weber, Von Brunn, guys like that...

    But don't worry, I'm not easily offended by your astonishing ignorance.


    fwiw, the reports I'm reading (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    say two were shot - the guard and Von Brunn - not that Van Brunn shot two.

    Here's Von Brunn's (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    looong story about his Federal Reserve "Caper."

    Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws.
                         -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

    The story begins when he is 7 y/o.

    Way too long for me to read...

    He blames Jews for a lot (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    including his house burning down.
    In 1976, I plunked down $ 10- grand for 10 acres, near Mt. Lassen, with a beautiful view of Mt. Shasta across the valley, and a clear flowing trout stream nearby. In 1977 we designed, built and moved into a beautiful ranch house, thanks to Florence Robnett. That same year my youngest son, Erik, entered this world. Florence loved holding him. I sent the first shipment of Rob's book to a right-wing buyer. Meanwhile, I received anonymous threatening and vile phone calls. One claimed to be Meir Kahane. A group of Hassidic Jews lived near Redding. They gathered in the park at the base of Shasta Dam, seven or eight of them talking intently, gesturing, wearing black hats and beards. Florence and I would sometimes go there to watch the salmon fight upstream. Florence's health continued to deteriorate. Her physician placed her in a nursing home. She was still sharp as a tack. We took the baby to visit with her.

    Then came the bad times: I enjoyed giving the baby his 1:30 am bottle. I looked out the bedroom window at the pasture. The ground fog was pink. I woke my wife, handing her baby Erik, and ran outside. Flames were coming through the roof vents. I telephoned 911, then stretched the garden hose into the attic. The hose squirted, then died as flames ate through the wiring. While Linda held the baby, Pat and I had time only to save a few clothes. We stood in the crisp air and watched. The entire house was ablaze. Flames swirled into the heavens. Our white quarter horse frantically dashed back and forth across the pasture. He reared screaming against a full moon. The fire trucks arrived too late, they had gotten lost. Neighbors watched spellbound, some weeping.

    Drudge today (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    has Rev. Wright saying Obama never talks to him any more because "the Jews won't let him."  Nice timing there, Rev.

    I was just reading that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    they must be thrilled to have him back in the mix.

    Rev. Wright (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    The gift that keeps on giving......

    Well, I guess that seals it (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    if Drudge says he said it it HAS to be true.

    I did not read it (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    on drudge.  its true.

    Give us a link then (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    you know (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    there is this new thing called google

    Yeah I checked it (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    an incredibly poor and inaccurate choice of words for an educated man to use, if he actually said it.

    amazing coincidence (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    that he has made that same unfortunate choice hundreds of times.

    well, (none / 0) (#156)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:34:52 PM EST
    that's incredibly charitable. "A poor and inaccurate choice of words". Would the anti-semitism have been better said if he chose different words.

    Let's put it this way:

    I don't want "blacks" in my neighborhood".
    I don't want "African Americans" in my neighborhood.
    I don't want "you people" in my neighborhood.

    Is it the choice of words or the intent of the words that mean the most.

    By saying in was "a poor and inaccurate choice of words" you may be saying that you agree with the sentiment just not how it was said.


    If it's Black barbershop speak (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    for the Greater Israel Lobby than I agree with the sentiment, if it's an expression of some racist theory than I think he's a sh*thead.

    here (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    ya go



    Politico had it too (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:37:58 PM EST
    I dunno dude (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    I personally get tired of the game where if Drudge links a news story that magically makes it "something Drudge said" and thus less likely to be accurate, but whatever floats your boat.

    I sat down and spent a good twenty minutes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    skimming though his manifesto, located here.

    To say that this guy is the archetypical anti-Semitic hater is to understate the case.  And he doesn't limit his hatred to just Jews.  Blacks come in for it, too.  Or as the one guy once said "don't limit my antis".

    He blames the Jews for everything that ever seemed to have gone wrong in his life, from wrecking a car to burning down his house, to getting him run out of NYC and the ad business, to ... just about everything.

    And he is not happy about having tried to take over the Federal Reserve (he wanted to put Volcker and the Fed Board on TV to make them confess to the illegitimacy of the money system.  Or something.  Seems he had a plea available but wanted to get his story out, then tried to defend himself and the judge would not let him put his monetary/racial theories before the jury.  Worse, the judge would not let him subpoena prominent people to make them confess to being part of the Illuminati, etc.

    Seems like he got into the real estate industry at some point and his eruptions seem to have come about when real estate was particularly bad.

    A real piece of work and an archetype old-school nutter too mean to die, who decided to try one more time before time caught up with him.


    He's a nutter.

    Well, the clock was going to run anyway (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    and I figured "I can read it and tell you all about it so you don't have to."

    It's NOT my fault! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    Darn.  I need to rid myself of guilt and disappointment by finding some group to blame it all on.

    It didn't seem to work.  He just converted guilt into anger.  Not much of a bargain.


    Oh no (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    sounds like a security guard died.

    Ah $%#&^*! (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    Why is always just the guy who just went to work today and not the ba$tard that does the shooting that always dies?

    I dunno (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    What do you gain from killing a security guard?  RIP.  

    Entry to kill the Jews (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bemused on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:17:01 PM EST
     I would assume as his thinking. that or he just wanted to go ut with a symbolic gesture of hate.

    He's in critical condition. (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    You may get your wish.

    Too bad he's old (none / 0) (#80)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    I'm sorry that the shooter will most likely spend a short time in a Federal prison. I'd like him to endure having the hated Government supervising his every waking moment for decades.
    Of course this was a hate crime but so was the murder of Dr. Tiller. Let's see if any in the Media make that connection.

    Btw, Tiller's clinic is closing (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:03:38 PM EST
    without him, which leaves only two in the country to save lives of women who need late-term abortions -- many of them mothers, may we point out, whose children already born need them, too.

    At least this nut today cannot close down a museum, although it also will be changed by this incident.  But the anti-women's rightists won one today.


    Damn it. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    CNN interview is incredible (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    by Wolfboy Blitzer, who just interviewed a family in the Holocaust museum today.  Grandparents who brought two teen-age grandsons there to show them the result of hatred, etc.  They kept saying that over and over.  Wolfie wolfed it down, loved 'em up for it.

    And he never asked anything more than pap, even after -- early in the interview -- he asked them where they came from, how far they had come to give this valuable lesson to the grandsons, blah blah.

    They came to the Holocaust museum from -- wait for it -- Wichita.  


    I can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    Watching Lou Dobbs right now and he is just beside himself that this man, a convicted felon, was allowed to have a gun.  It's an excellent question - can't wait to see if it was legally obtained.

    I thought I heard it was a very old gun (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    as in "very" old. Be interesting to hear where he got it, or if he had it all along.

    A Neb Dr is stepping up (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    fwiw, according to NPR this week (none / 0) (#165)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:53:37 PM EST
    there are at least 10 places in the country that offers these services.

    Thankfully, they seem to meet the demand.


    That's different from every other source (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    I've read on this -- thanks, I'll follow up to try to find NPR's source and weigh its worth, too.

    It was the story where they interviewed (none / 0) (#173)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    other docs at the practice as well, maybe the doc from NE?

    They also said some hospitals offer the service although they don't advertise it.


    OK., it's 10 MD's. (none / 0) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    Carhart's the Nebraska MD who might take over Tiller's practice:
    With Tiller's death, there are fewer than 10 doctors who perform third-trimester abortions in the United States, Carhart estimated, and though he has worked with younger physicians before, he hasn't trained any abortion providers in third-trimester techniques for at least five years.

    well, (none / 0) (#88)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    his prison guards should be a Jew, a Black, and a Hispanic. Or, as like to say it, our future Supreme Court...

    This all reinforces my point... (none / 0) (#99)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    White supremacy and anti-semitism are not right wing traits, they are usually traits of xenophobia and extreme paranoia. Unless of course you are going to tell me Rev. Wright and the Black Panthers are right wingers of course.

    I'm still wondering about the security at this museum. How did this happen? He was nearly 90, I can't imagine he was exactly fleet of foot. How did he even make it to the door?

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    Is it Rev. Wright or the Black Panthers who are the white supremacists in this scenario?  Congratulations on being perhaps the only person on the planet who doesn't acknowledge white supremacists as a prototypical example of right-wing extremism.

    Sort of a waste to take up a ridiculous fight like this when you only get four comments a day, in my view.


    It's funny (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    People on the right think they're being so clever by yelping about Wright etc. Jews and other minorities don't buy it, because we know the true nature of the hate.

    I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by dk on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    I'm a left wing gay jewish/atheist and I think hate is hate.  Aryan nation hates jews, Reverend Wright hates jews, they all hate women, etc. It goes on and on.

    Sure, I think it's silly when one group claims the high road, but I think it's silly when any group claims the high road.  

    I certainly think that one side of the political spectrum, the left side, has better political policy views, but when it comes to hate in general I think there's plenty to go around among people of all political persuasions.


    Well, (none / 0) (#158)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    I think most Jews understand his hatred. They just agree with the politics more. And just because Pat Buchanan is on one side and Wright is on the other doesn't make either one less genuine.

    Oh he's probobly (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    just repeating another thing Matt Drudge said.

    Oy (none / 0) (#125)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    So white supremacy is right wing and black supremacy is left wing? I'm not being sarcastic I'm asking a serious question. My point is hate does not have a political ideaology and you have to quit trying to split everyone into sides. Trying to widen a division to make yourself somehow feel better or superior is doing no one any favors. Both sides do it but frankly and regrettably it is significantly worse on the left than on the right who seem much more tolerant of differing opinions.

    Also if you can't discuss a point with someone trying to marginalize them or dismiss them as is not a good strategy. I'm an independent who goes right on defense and criminal justice and left on social issues not exactly what anyone would describe as a right winger.


    And, um (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    My grandfather is 94 and still goes deer hunting, mows the grass (on a riding mower on hills), and bowls 2-3 times a week.  He's just disappointed that his average has slipped to a 190.

    Just because this guy is 88 doesn't mean he can't get out of the car at the curb, and walk the 30 feet in the door.  This museum doesn't have a parking lot - it's like getting out a of cab and going in a building.


    New thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:27:15 PM EST
    on the Holocaust Museum shooting is here. Please stay on topic. This one closes at 200 comments.