Friday Afternoon Roundup - Von Brunn and Who are the Terrorists Anyway

The media and assorted left wings groups are doing their cynical best to somehow place the blame for the Holocaust museum attack at the doorstep of conservative talk show hosts, despite the fact that the shooter hated FOX News and conservative talk show hosts just as much as the left wing does.

Out of power, the left and the media constantly insisted that Bush's War on Terror was impacting freedom of speech and terrifying people into not saying what they thought. Of course back in power, we're seeing the same game that the Clinton Administration played, with warnings about extremism and incitement emanating from their political opposition.

This is the same tactic commonly used in European and Euro-alike states such as Israel, to suppress political dissent from the right, by taking a particular violent attack and hanging it around the neck of everyone more right than the left.

The fact of the matter is that Von Brunn was a long time Nazi. His political connections were to the far right, to the Adelaide Institute, to the Ron Paul campaign, probably by way of Lew Rockwell, the likely ghostwriter for some of Ron Paul's more neo-nazish screeds in the Ron Paul Survival Guide. The only Republicans Von Brunn would have had anything in common with were far right anti-American figures like Pat Buchanan.

Those are however figures that the mainstream media will not touch, because Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are just as supportive of terrorists, opposed to fighting terrorism and contemptous of most Republicans-- as they themselves are.

By contrast Von Brunn's views about Jews, FOX News, Neo-Conservatives, Christians, Israel, etc would put him in the virtual liberal mainstream these days. So when it comes to politics, Von Brunn's brand of ugly hate has far more refuge among liberals, where conspiracy theories about Jewish power and hate for Israel, along with violent assasination fantasies toward conservative talk show hosts, have far more reach, than they do among Republicans.

And there is of course another issue behind it all. The attention Von Brunn is getting, is vastly out of proprtion to the scale and scope of his attack. By contrast when a Muslim gunman burst into the Seattle Jewish Center using a teenage girl as a hostage, shot 5 women and killed 1... the media didn't give it nearly the same amount of high profile attention.

But of course there...

1. The killer was a Muslim

2. The killer stated explictly that he hated Jews, Israel and the Bush Administration, and wanted US troops out of Iraq

The second is a mainstream liberal view, and the first insured that Haq, the killer, would be repeatedly described as acting because of mental illness, rather than as a political Islamic killer. Yet Von Brunn's crime was a good deal lighter than Haq. It has been repeatedly played up for its political value.

The hate toward Israel and Jews that is expressed by Muslims and their liberal fellow travelers, has caused many European Jewish institutions to become virtual fortresses. Synagogues and Jewish organizations in the US have not reached this stage yet for one reason and one reason alone... because the US has far less Muslims and because left wing rhetoric toward Jews has not yet reached the same pitch as in Europe.

The same media lavishing attention on the 88 year old Von Brunn are deliberately ignoring where most of the violence directed against Jewish institutions is coming from, because they play a role in inciting that same violence. When the media repeats the talking points about Israel emenating from Obama, they are promoting the same climate of hostility that has helped turn Jewish organizations in Europe, into fortresses.

When the media refuses to take seriously the ongoing climate of Muslim violence against Jews, they become accomplices in covering up for it. Just as the media did during the Holocaust by under-reporting Nazi atrocities because of anti-war attitudes leading up the Nazi invasion of the USSR and then pressure from the FDR administration to avoid hitting on Jewish themes.

In its final ugly gambit, the media which is anti-Israel, tries to blame Von Brunn's shooting on conservative media outlets which are pro-Israel.

The goal of course is to use Von Brunn to tar political opposition in general. Witness the Dallas Morning News editor Michael Landauer, exploiting the shooting, to warn people not to forward email news, lest they be guilty of inciting another killing.

Think about that next time you think that news -- real news -- is delivered to your inbox from anonymous sources who claim the media are hiding something. Maybe next time you'll wonder what these nutjobs are hiding. In this case, Von Brunn was hiding his murderous, racist rage that resulted in the loss of a boy's father.

This of course is just an example of how far the mainstream media is willing to stretch their exploitation of the attack on the Holocaust Museum, in order to silence any criticism and opposition.

But why exactly does the press condemn Von Brunn anyway, when it continues to support terrorists who do their best to murder Jews in Israel?

The current President of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas, wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial. Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Middle East, including "moderate" Turkey.

Yet the media continues to assail Israel for not immediately turning over more land and power to Abbas, when Abbas's terrorist militias have killed far more Jews than Von Brunn.

For that matter if Von Brunn is so evil, why is the media cheering Obama's diplomatic efforts with Iran's Ahmadinejad, who not only traffics in Holocaust denial, but has repeatedly called for, and is trying to implement another Holocaust.

While the media cynically exploits Von Brunn for their own purposes, they are whitewashing far worse monsters than him.

While the media inveighs against Von Brunn, the Obama Administration will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to arm and train the young Palestinian Arab versions of Von Brunn, in order to enable them to better kill Jews.

An Obama administration plan to train Palestinian forces and deploy them in the West Bank will receive its requested funding, Congress was expected to decide Thursday as Israeli officials said that the US had formulated a two-year plan to train a total of 10 battalions.

According to the decision, the 2009 fiscal year Supplemental Appropriations Bill will include $109 million for projects directed by the United States Security Coordination in Israel Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton. Congress is also currently evaluating an administration request to receive an additional $100m. to continue and expand the training in 2010.

Now time and time again, these "security battalions" have used their training to engage in terrorism. The US will be spending hundreds of millions to train members of terrorist groups filled with hateful beliefs about the inferiority of Jews and Christians, to be better killers.

They would be doing less damage by simply giving Von Brunn a bazooka and setting him loose in the Holocaust Museum... than they are by training large numbers of terrorists whose beliefs are every bit as hateful as Von Brunn's and whose training and skills will be far better.

The same media which has lionized Arafat and Abbas, which has promoted the right of Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews, is far more responsible for the murder of Jews by Abbas and Arafat's terrorist legions, than any conservative talk show host is for Von Brunn.

If we're going to take anyone off the air, we could begin with CNN.

But of course it is typical of left's tactics, just as Obama exploited the Holocaust in Cairo and Buchenwald in order to bash Israel, for the left to exploit the Holocaust museum shootings to attack the only pro-Israel media in America.

Caroline Glick writes further on Obama's High Commissioner,

Through their obsessive focus on Israeli building activities in Judea and Samaria, Obama and his advisers have sent regional leaders the message that they define their role here not as mediators, but as agents for the Palestinians against Israel. Consequently, far from giving the sense that they seek a peace deal that will be acceptable to Israelis and Palestinians alike, they have convinced the Israelis and the Palestinians - as well as much of the Arab world - that the US intends to coerce Israel into accepting a settlement that sacrifices Israeli security and national needs on the altar of maximalist Palestinian ambitions.

This is the view that Fatah leader and putative Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas expressed in his interview with The Washington Post last month ahead of his visit with Obama. As Abbas put it, the Americans "can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.'"

Second, Obama has pledged $900 million in US taxpayer funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza and is pressuring Israel to support Gaza economically in spite of the fact that Hamas continues to attack southern Israel with rockets and to expand and diversify its arsenals.

Third, the Obama administration is abandoning its predecessor's bid to isolate Hamas by pressuring Fatah and Egypt to offer Hamas full partnership in a Fatah-Hamas unity government which would work to cement Hamas's international legitimacy.

Sure makes von Brunn looks like an amateur, doesn't it? If only he had converted to Islam, strapped on a Keffiyah, and done the same thing he did, the Palestinian Authority would be naming streets after him, and the media would be pointing to his attack as proof of a cycle of violence that Israel is responsible for.

Meanwhile for those interested, there is some video of the Obama, No You Can't, rally in Israel.



However since it is primarily in Hebrew, it will not be comprehensible to anyone who does not speak Hebrew. I will look into possibly putting up a transcript sometime next week.

Meanwhile Arlene Kushner suggests other forms of protest

Lemon looks at the Stratfor Intel report's take on Obama's campaign against Netanyahu

'Given that, the question is where Obama is going with this. From Obama's point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do.If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn't give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split asa lever with Islamic states.'