Von Brunn, The Liberal

Rush Limbaugh is leading the charge in claiming that domestic terrorist James von Brunn is actually a liberal.  Rush’s acolytes all over the blogs, even in our comments here, have been pushing this nonsense.  This spin, of course, has all the logic of a Von Brunnian conspiracy theory.

But like almost every bullshit argument from the Right, no sooner than its thrown out there, it blows up in their faces.  We now learn of the note found in Von Brunn’s car:

“You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America’s money. Jews control the mass media.”

Talk about your Rightwing bona fides.

Case closed.

10 Responses to “Von Brunn, The Liberal”

  1. Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Anderson Cooper and many others have already labeled Von Brunn a “Right Wing Terrorist” on their shows. Is that fair?? Limbaugh rightfully countered that notion on his show. Unlike the aforementioned, Limbaugh gave examples and context to bolster his case, I suggest listening to it. Limbaugh played clips of all these Progressives calling Von Brunn “Right Wing” in their reactionary sense without any context for this label. So who is correct??

    Well Von Brunn has elements of both extremes in his blood as I’ve outlined in previous comments. Certainly Conservative minded people care more about personal Gun Ownership. To discount the Leftist elements of what we know thus far about Von Brunn is intellectually dishonest.

  2. Acer says:

    “Right Wing” in their reactionary sense without any context for this label. So who is correct??

    Well now that the context is set with more information out about him and is support of an extreme right-wing party now known the people who consider him a right-wing nutter are correct.

    You’re welcome.

  3. Macswain says:


    You’ve shown us nothing that indicates Von Brunn had any leftist elements. You gave us a false equivalence between Von Brunn’s virulent and violent hate of Jews, on one hand, and legitimate and reasonable criticism of the rightwing policies of Likud and the conservative religious (pro-settlement) parties by the likes of Alterman and Rosenbers, on the other hand.

    Equating those two is far beyond silly. It is insulting and disgusting.

    You have accepted Limbaugh’s false representations as to the varied views held by progressives, liberals and the Left regarding Israel and the Palestineans. Your representations of those views are cartoonish and shows your eagerness to accept the strawmen Limbaugh throws you without the ability to do any critical thought or inquiry of your own on the issue.

    The only thing you have established are your credentials as a Rush Limbaugh Truther.

  4. Jack Jodell says:

    Limbaugh, by making such an outlandishly false comment, proves he has less credibility than the National Enquirer. Attention-seeking egomaniac idiots like him should be ignored altogether. What a jerk.

  5. So then what makes a Left Wing Terrorist Guys?? Anything?? I’d like to know from your view …

    Bottom line is that People of all Political Stripes refuse to associate themselves with the ideology behind any Violent Criminal Act. I hardy ever see the term “Left Wing” or “Extreme Left” used by the Mainstream Media to describe any person or group. Yet the term “Right Wing” is used all the time. Check out the coverage of these most recent European Elections … all described as a win for “facist Right Wing”. I can just feel the fear in the reporting by Liberals out of Europe … Another example of bias is the recent shooting of our Soldiers at a recruiting station. This act has received the least coverage of all the recent shootings? Why is that?

    After careful thought I understand why people on the Left deny any association in Ideology with violent acts. Firstly, it’s always blamed on the Right. Second, you guys feel “Progressives” don’t act out in criminal or violent manner. So no violent group or person can be called Progressive by default … even if the facts themselves disagree. So I ask again, what makes a Left Wing Terrorist? Can you name any Left Wing Terrorists?

  6. Macswain says:

    Dude, were you asleep for the Bush years?

    We were constantly bombarded by media stories covering the terrorism of the ALF & ELF. Massive amounts of taxpayer dollars went into to pursuing people associated with such groups and the arsonists that were caught were prosecuted in Federal court under the strict anti-terrorism statutes that were passed after 9/11.

    Those guys got way more media coverage than the rightwing terrorist who shot up the Unitarian Church in Tennessee last summer, killing two and wounding seven. Explain why lefties who engaged in property damage for political purposes received way more coverage as “terrorists” than a rightwinger who killed Unitarians because he believed them to be liberals.

    I’ll betcha Rush railed against the animal liberation nutters and said virtually nothing about the Tennessee liberal killer.

  7. Macswain so you sympathize with the ALF violence?? Yea ya do. I was awake during the Bush years and neither of these 2 organizations (ALF/ELF) received more than a day’s coverage for their hundreds of pranks … that’s what their acts were viewed as … pranks. But I thought I would test your hypothesis just to make sure so …

    A quick Google or Yahoo search reveals far fewer news stories on ALF or ELF Crimes in the Mainstream Media even though they have committed hundreds of crimes over the years. Google still thinks ALF is a TV show from the 90’s. The Tenessee Shooting, however, has hits or stories on most major news websites, more than ALF (Fox, CBS, Reuters, USAToday, ABC, etc). Go check it out. All the Big 3 Networks plus the cable news outlets ran segments on the Tennessee shooter (and they should) but not all covered the hundreds ALF arson acts over the years. Seriously, where did the ALF get much coverage?? In addition, BOTH organizations are STILL in business when they should be shut down for their acts. Go check out their site .. still advocating arson, harassment and violence against those whom they disagree: http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

    The Government had to spend more money to catch the ALF guys because they were tougher to find. The Tennessee shooter was captured at the scene. The AFL has wrecked billions of dollars in Research projects which will save lives … and promised to continue, so rightfully they should be hunted down. In wonder how many ALF members would reject a life saving treatment tested on animals …

    Colin Ferguson and the DC Sniper are 2 more examples of Left Wing killers .. in addition to the Unibomber, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn and the whole Weather Underground group which Obama fraternalized with for years.

    “Tennessee Unitarian Church Shooter” vs “animal liberation front alf elf arson” produce vastly different search results on all the major News sites I just checked.

  8. ernie says:

    Actually, Rush Limbaugh’s comments are part of a larger attempt by the right wing (particularly the John Birch Society) to propose that we accept a new formulation or understanding of a political spectrum.

    The basic premise of the new spectrum is that history proves that government is evil and dangerous and always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny. Therefore, the more government activism or intervention — the less freedom exists in society.

    Consequently, the new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right and totalitarian dictatorships [total government] on the extreme left and then groups we currently consider extreme right (such as Birch Society) place themselves in the MIDDLE of the new spectrum because they claim to favor “limited government”.

    It is a rather transparent attempt to pretend that everything despicable, dishonorable, frightening and dangerous originates from the LEFT side of the spectrum whereas everything decent, honorable, moral, and desirable is EXCLUSIVELY in the middle and non-extreme right side of the spectrum.

    Furthermore, the new “middle” (Birchers et al) propose that liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, nazism are ALL forms of “collectivism” or “statism” (aka PRO-government activism) and they inevitably produce tyranny — therefore, not much point in making fastidious distinctions between or among them.

    I recently completed a report which the reveals the RIGHT-WING ideas, personalities, and organizations which impacted and motivated Von Brunn.

    My report is based, primarily, upon first-time-released FBI files and documents and may be seen here: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/vonbrunn

    More info: ernie1241@aol.com

  9. Ernie, as a self described “Conspiracy Theorist” who researches only “Right Wing” Conspiracies … how are we to take as credible anything you write?? … when the dots connected and the conclusions you draw will always point to a Right Wing connection/conspiracy?

    Again, everything Progressives don’t like they call “Right Wing” even if the roots (Communism, Nazi Socialist) are based in their philosophy.

    Interesting script, but only in the first paragraph do you tie Von Brunn into any of it. Where are his connections to all these evil historical figures?

  10. ernie1241 says:

    Scrotobaggins: You apparently have not read anything I have written. Investigating right wing conspiracy theories necessarily involves research into every conceivable subject under the sun — including, of course, numerous matters related to the history of the communist movement. For that reason, I have acquired many thousands of pages of FBI files on the CPUSA.

    With respect to your question:
    “how are we to take as credible anything you write?? … when the dots connected and the conclusions you draw will always point to a Right Wing connection/conspiracy?”

    There is something fundamentally defective in your understanding. I do not “point to” anything in the sense which your comment suggests. I investigate the theories which are common in right-wing circles and the people who disseminate them and then report what I find. For example, my report on von Brunn shows conclusively that Rush Limbaugh’s description of von Brunn’s background is ludicrous.

    If you don’t see the connection between the persons and publications which Von Brunn explicitly approved and his overall ideological perspective — then what possible evidence would you recognize as compelling in that regard?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook