#1 von Brunn Thread

[Myron]

I was at the grocery store and this mouth breathing kwan was talking about going to Washington DC, and the other stupid bitch was telling her, how the Holocaust Museum was a 'must do', like that was the only thing the bitch thought was a must do in DC, out of ALL the cool things to do there. What a moron. They actually get off on that morbid shit, it's like some form of necrophilia.

[Axel Faaborg]

Originally Posted by McKinley

This shooting is the main talking point on all of the radio talk shows today. I thought this one jew on kfi 640 am named Bill Handel was going to have an aneurysm spewing on this hollow hoax shoot out.

That Jew does a legal advice show that's simulcast on an AM station here on the weekends. You should have heard what he had to say on John Demjanjuk. He could barely conceal the hatred in his voice. Oh yeah, and he made fun of the fact that the guy's so old he had to be brought out on a stretcher.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Mike Parker

More people have now been killed in the Holocaust Memorial Museum than in the Holocaust.

Nice line, and the sort of thing that helps us if the SPLC quotes it.

[Bassanio]

I've always wondered what a gorilla in drag would look like.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Metal Warrior

And none of them jews.

In the aftermath, I am appalled by the instant and approved distancing from von Brunn's politics by so many "WN" posters at other sites. There is a reflexive rejection of any means of political expression beyond tapping keys and dropping flyers in driveways. Several posters compared the shooting to the Alan Berg hit, although that happened for an entirely different reason.

Well, both attacks were driven by politics.

The jews brought this attack on themselves. They have created an Official State Religion and attempted to force whites to worship at the altar of their puny, disgusting, immoral, deceitful and genocidal race. They now find that loxism, carried far enough, produces martyrs. And martyrs produce dead jews and jew tools. Jewish behavior, jewish evil, is driving White men to Muslim tactics.

Of course, I'm not surprised by the lockstep media which has gone so far out of its way to spin this shooting to the jews' advantage. I listen to talk radio to keep abreast of the ZOGling agitprop and ALL of the talking heads have been foaming about this, even tying it to the "need" to support Israel. Laura Ingraham was still chattering furiously about it this morning, condemning "White supremacists" to appease her employers, and generally pre-targeting anything which smacks of White responsiveness. "Collaborator" is indeed the right term, Alex.

Yes. I went through the same training program Ingraham did. She made her choice. I made mine. Collaborating with the jews might be a good short-term career choice, but long term there's nothing but death and dishonor for those who appease the jews.

About the actual event: I am, as Bassanio had discussed, rather surprised at two things. First, that it seemed almost unplanned. A Mensan would understand that the crowd in that place is almost entirely made up of gentiles there to "learn" about the 'Caust. If you are hunting elk, you don't travel to the Cayman Islands, you go to where the elk are. If he was on a jew-hunt, he was in the wrong place. (Yes, I understand the political significance of the site, but most of the lemmings will not; they will sympathize with their oppressors instead). The Negro he shot is already being trotted out as a martyr.

Let's see the nigger's criminal record. There's no telling how many rapes and murders were saved by von Brunn's act.

Second, why would anyone doing what he did, knowing it would be a suicide operation, select a rifle as his weapon? Why did he not use a pistol, or C-4 or even a pipe bomb for that matter? If he really wanted to use a rifle, why wouldn't he have targeted someone important from the Tribe? And if he was determined to use a rifle, he could have done a "DC sniper" thing and shot from a parked car. It's all a little murky.

He's a really old guy. Who knows what he was thinking? Surely he knew there would be security. He might have thought he could take it out, and then get to the players inside. I don't know who's inside that Little Jewy's Shop of Imaginary Horrors on a given day. Jews see these things coldly, and once the scam is established, they franchise it to lessers and pay no mind save cashing the checks. With the holo-scam the jews have proved they are not only Luftmenschen but Giftgasmenschen. They can make money not only out of thin air but out of imaginary gas!

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by White Winger

Surely Von Brunn ,by his age,had to know how the media works, and that this would be the fallout.

Any physical fighting back we do will be portrayed as evil. So that's not the standard to judge by.

[varg]

[Euroman]

Originally Posted by White Winger

In any case, our brother failed,and failed horribly. And now every level of the media, and especially,Un-Holy-wood has even more "proof" of how eeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiillllllll We are,

What do you expect? The enemy and its government sycophants have little respect for the typical American boob. The problem is that killing boobs is bad for public relations. All talk of "eeeeviiiiiilnesss" is about dissuading other boobs (like "our brother") from joining this racialist non-movement of inept keyboard commandos and to justify the implementation of anti-"hate" laws.

[J3115]

Originally Posted by varg

LMWAO!!! That is too funny!

[varg]

if digg.com didnt ban my account yesterday for truthful comments about the holyhoax.. I would have submitted that to the 'images' section

[A.S.]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Key words, folks:

decorated World War II veteran

It looked to me like 'Asphalt Soldier' was applying for quote in the next SPLC bulletin, so I removed his post and changed his name.

You can discuss violence, if you like, but you'd better keep your words serious. Anything in your name that suggests thuggery, hate, or clowning makes you suitable for use by the enemy. I won't allow it here, not even the modest forms we had grandfathered. From today on I will simply change names that don't fit our mission.

Hint, Asphalt Soldier: The enemy isn't bothered by an "asphalt soldier 88" talking about how he's going to crack back against a government crackdown. That's just good marketing to the jew-left. All you're doing is making me think that's your real purpose, to provide a stock pseudo-nazi response that can be used to perpetuate the stereotype.

By contrast, a guy named A.S. discussing the use of violence to overthrow a tyrannical regime that won't allow even verbal objections from an oppressed race...that's something else.

Yeah, you're right, all the kike face avatars and use of the word nigger will be ignored by our enemies now.

You can pick virtually any post on this forum for a quote that will make us look bad in the eyes of the lemmings.

However, I do agree that talk (or words on a computer screen) is cheap.

[James Hawthorne]

Interesting recent quote

Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me .... He's got to do what politicians do. And the Jewish vote, the AIPAC vote that's controlling him, that will not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that's talking this craziness on Israel because they're Zionists, they will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza—the ethnic cleansing of the Zionists is a sin and a crime against humanity

Rev Jeremiah Wright

[Myles]

Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews

By: Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz

Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.

It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.

Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.

But this was code.

In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.

And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.

More.

[Mike Parker]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

The public should ask itself why a WWII vet would do this. The answer is: not without a serious reason. Do you, public, have the courage to investigate von Brunn's reasoning?

Holocaust Museum Hullaballoo Reveals “Hate Crimes” Hypocrisy
By Peter Brimelow

The real question about the Holocaust Museum shootings: what drove James von Brunn, by all accounts an intelligent man who served his country honorably in World War II, to this terrible end?

Don’t expect to read the answer—or even the question—in the MSM any time soon.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/090611_holocaust_museum.htm

[steven clark]

I've caught the talk radio's take on it. Ingrahm goes on to say Von Brunn's actions and words 'were more like the left than conservatives.' Kind of desparate, and yes, Alex, we warmed up to support of Israel again. Limbaugh avoided it, although it was interesting two days before this a caller actually got to talk about WHO RUNS AMERICA? and mentioned National Vanguard. Limbaugh seemed flustered, said 'control of the media is varied', and immediately went to a commercial break. Savage said almost nothing. He was 'tired of politics' and told funny stories. I really expected him to be foaming at the mouth, but he says he's getting tired of it all, that we're under a dictatorship and what can we do?
I'm curious what kind of a trial Von Brunn will have if he recovers.

[Alex Linder]

[The left and neocons try to tie von Brunn to the libertarians, who resist.]

A New Low?
Posted by J.H. Huebert on June 12, 2009 09:09 AM

The lack of decency demonstrated by this post by professional Ron Paul smearer Jamie Kirchick — in which he attempts to tie Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul (who, we are told, is a “more extreme version of Buchanan”), and the Old Right to the Holocaust Museum shooter – is amazing, even by New Republic standards.

Not only does Kirchick grossly mischaracterize the libertarian Ron Paul and his beliefs, he also gets his conservative history wrong. National Review did not purge racists in the 1950s, as he suggests. Instead, National Review supported racial segregation — not just federalism, but the segregation itself, because whites were, in the words of a 1957 NR editorial, the “advanced race.” So National Review was fine with racism. What it really had a problem with — and what Kirchick and TNR really have a problem with — were people such as Murray Rothbard, who favored a foreign policy of peace.

[Alex Linder]

[the jew Kirchick post along with many TNR reader reactions (even more thru link):


11.06.2009
A Right-Winger, with Issues

As someone who has spent quite a bit of time researching and writing about the fever swamps of paleoconservativism, I have to take issue my colleague Jon Chait's dismissal of Ben Smith's contention that Holocaust Museum-shooter James Von Brunn's conspiratorial anti-war, anti-"neocon" and anti-Semitic beliefs -- as well as the new revelations that The Weekly Standard offices might have been a target of his violent rage -- "complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms."

Jon correctly identifies Brunn as essentially being "pretty clearly a violent and more extreme adherent of [Pat] Buchanan's basic worldview," that is, a racist, nativist, isolationist paranoid about the power of global elites (Jews). But where Jon is wrong, at least in my estimation, is his implication that these views are uniquely characteristic of the far right. They might have once been, but certainly are not anymore. Since 9/11, and to a lesser degree before that, similar views about Israel, the Middle East and "neocons" have been popularized by commentators on the fringe (and not-so-fringe) left. Indeed, they may even be more popular on the left than on the right (witness all the liberals who praised Ron Paul, an even more extreme version of Buchanan, during the 2008 presidential race, as being the "only" Republican willing to speak the truth). What makes Buchanan a stand-out figure is that he's such a lone voice on the right today (why does he find a home on the liberal MSNBC and not on Fox News? Partly, I think, because so many of the station's liberal hosts agree with him on matters of foreign affairs). All in all, I'd argue that the "fringe" right which subscribes to these views is no larger a component of contemporary conservativism than is the "fringe" left that subscribes to them a component of contemporary liberalism.

To be sure, Von Brunn is most certainly a "right-winger," albeit an extreme one, as his ideology conforms to an American political tradition that was marginalized from the mainstream conservative movement in the 1950's by William F. Buckley Jr. and others grouped around National Review. And Von Brunn's racism and nativsm, not shared by the fringe left which subscribes to his foreign policy views, confirm his classification as a man of the Right. But the newfound affinity for conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism among some elements of the left -- and the fact that von Brunn might have been planning to shoot up the flagship publication of neoconservatism and not, say, the offices of Mother Jones -- absolutley "complicates" the narrative that many liberals are cynically trying to construct around this tragedy.

--James Kirchick

Jonathan Chait Responds: "More on Von Brunn"
Damon Linker Responds: "Who's Right? What's Left?"



Posted: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:40 PM with 33 comment(s)
Comments
You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!
dabeffert said:

Is it your intention to become the next Fred Barnes or Charles Krauthammer? If so, you are well on your way.
June 11, 2009 4:00 PM
boneill said:

Jamie, I agree that the rise of left-wing anti-semitism is frightening, and very dangerous. I wouldn't say it has eclipsed right-wing radicalism, though. It is just more "interesting" because it is a fairly recent phenomenon, at least in scope. A few quibbles, though.

1) I think Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC because they want to have a "Republican" voice, not because of any ideological affinity. They can trot him out, like a small southern college putting their lone African-American student in the brochures, when charged with bias.

2) Lefties who supported Ron Paul did so- in my experience- less out of any real convictions than the idea that he was the next cool, outsider thing. I don't disagree that there were people who liked his stances, but I think most of it was surfacy anti-war rather than a deep agreement withhis isolationism and paranoia. Not all, of course, but I think in the main.

3) As for the right being eclipsed- I mean to say, have you seen the open comments section whenever there is an Obama article here? Those people are fucking crazy conspiracy nuts, and they all own guns. I remain far more afraid of them then some douchebag stoners who think the Jews don't let them buy pot.
June 11, 2009 4:01 PM
teplukhin2you said:

With Kirchick on this one. Nice catch re. the lefties for Ron Paul angle.

We're not talking about mainstream political parties or movements or the mandarins of new media (Stewart, Colbert, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, La PuffHo) but what you might call the American "street": the millions of daily addicts of blogs like Kos, firedogwhatever, redstate, freeper etc.

Spend some time on these and you'll see as much if not more anti-semitism on left-berzerker blogs as on right-berzerker ones. In the past 10 years the American right has become much more philo-semitic, the American left much less so. Convergence at the bottom, so to speak, of Schlesinger's political circle.
June 11, 2009 4:09 PM
Rhubarbs said:

Um, not so much. The only "complication" is that von Brunn was an anti-Semite in addition to being an extreme conservative. And anyone who believes that the "paleocon" right was "marginalized" in the 1950s (A) wasn't paying attention to the 2008 presidential campaign and (B) has never in the last thirty years encountered actual Republican electioneering. Sure, the think-tank jobs and staff positions at National Review mostly don't go to the neo-Birchers, and if that's what is meant by "marginalized," then fair enough. But in the real world, "marginalization" isn't a question of who gets invited to which cocktail parties. The plain fact is that the paleocon rightwing of nativism, Christianism, authoritarianism, and a dose of paranoia has always been the engine of conservative politics. It's where the votes are, it's where the pandering is directed every election year. Despite all the rhetorical window dressing of folks like Gingrich or Kristol, that is what American conservatism is and always has been.

But don't take my word for it. Take von Brunn's, who in a note explaining the attack left in his car had this to say:

"You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them."

Which is to say, von Brunn took seriously the claims by mainstream conservatives and Republicans at every level that Democrats and liberals generally and President Obama personally want to disarm Americans of their firearms. It doesn't "complicate" matters to discover that von Brunn happens to agree with conservatives such as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and the entire staff of Free Republic about the proximate cause of his attack, which we now know in his own words to be his belief that the Obama administration wants to disarm America in order to introduce socialism.

I'm sorry for Jamie's sake that von Brunn reveals the uncomfortable truth about the lingering existence of anti-Semitism on the right, but the only thing von Brunn's political leanings complicate are the illusions of the willfully ignorant.
June 11, 2009 4:11 PM
DC Spence said:

Utter nonsense. Let us know, Mr Kirchick, when one of these "fringe leftists" shoots up the Creationist Museum in Kentucky. Von Brunn is a righty. Timothy McVeigh was a righty. Comparing these real and dangerous right-wingers with lefties who pass out conspiracy leaflets outside their local CVS is laughable. In the 1970s home-grown terrorism was largely a left-wing problem. Now, it is clearly a right-wing problem.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is, frankly, an idiot.

And the reason Von Brunn wasn't planning to blow up Mother Jones is that even a nutjob like him would realize Mother Jones has had no impact on public policy in recent years. The Weekly Standard, on the other hand...
June 11, 2009 4:15 PM
WoodyBombay said:

I know plenty of right-wingers who expressed disappointment with Dubya because he allegedly "sold out" conservatism. I would not be surprised to find that Von Brunn's targeting the Weekly Standard and/or Fox News stemmed from a similar sentiment.

This JK post is utter nonsense.
June 11, 2009 4:15 PM
thejauntyboulevardier said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. However, I side with Chait on this one. I would ask kirchick to name any recent American "far left" (fringe or otherwise) person who has murdered anyone in cold blood in a place of worship, based upon a political difference.

The texture of craziness that the far right exhibits, unfortunately supported by easy access to deadly firearms and personal prediction to use them, makes this species of political nut unique.

I would concur that bigoted views are shared by both American conservatives and liberals but it does appear that when it comes to blowing up Federal Buildings and pumping lead into doctor's performing an unarguably controversial but legally sanctioned medical procedure, the right wingers do seem to own that particularly loathsome substrata of humanity, irrespective of kirchick's figments about the criminality of the "far left"...
June 11, 2009 4:17 PM

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...th-issues.aspx

[Alex Linder]

[National Review's original position on race]

Here's a rather different piece!

National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9: The most important event of the past three weeks was the remarkable and unexpected vote by the Senate to guarantee to defendants in a criminal contempt action the privilege of a jury trial. That vote does not necessarily affirm a citizen's intrinsic rights: trial by jury in contempt actions, civil or criminal, is not an American birthright, and it cannot, therefore, be maintained that the Senate's vote upheld, pure and simple, the Common Law.

What the Senate did was to leave undisturbed the mechanism that spans the abstractions by which a society is guided and the actual, sublunary requirements of the individual community. In that sense, the vote was a conservative victory. For the effect of it is--and let us speak about it bluntly--to permit a jury to modify or waive the law in such circumstances as, in the judgment of the jury, require so grave an interposition between the law and its violator.

What kind of circumstances do we speak about? Again, let us speak frankly. The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists--nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South.

If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting--why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.

What are the issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social sepaation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation, might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose consequences might be violent and anarchistic.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numberical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majorit of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?). The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro--and a great many Whites--to cast an enlightened and responsible vote.

The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve teh Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/001467.html

[Alex Linder]

June 12, 2009
The New War on Free Speech
Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 12, 2009 08:55 AM | Post a civil, substantive, and intelligent comment

The political murder of a security guard at DC’s Holocaust Museum is being used to justify a far bigger police state, even though such crimes are almost non-existent in America.

But the MSM and other statists always want to crack down on dissident speech, and this is their latest excuse. Keith Olbermann—who belongs in a remake of 1984—even drags Ron Paul’s name into it. See, some ex-volunteer from two years ago is supposedly the girlfriend of a guy who supposedly knows the murderer. This is East German-style argumentation. But statists like this want to smear and silence everyone who opposes the predator state, its domestic regimentation and redistribution, its murderous wars, its inflating central bank, and indeed anyone who defends free speech and civil liberties against the curent regime. Hate speech, according to Olbermann, consists of fundamental criticism of the state, or thinking that the Obama administration wants to disarm us.

But when have any of us ever had it easy? The Peace Democrats of the Civil War era; Mark Twain and the other opponents of US colonialism in the Philippines; the antiwar activists before WWI and WWII; the anti-New Deal, anti-Fair Deal, anti-Great Society movements; the opponents of the wars on Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; the Austrian economists; the Rothbardian libertarians; this website; and Ron Paul and his movement—we have all been demonized.Yet we are getting more and more support among the American people. That giant counterfeiting machine the Fed is being widely denounced. That is deadly for such a secretive operation.

By the way, the museum killer, in addition to being a National Socialist, was also a Lincoln-money man, a backer of massive inflation and low interest rates through direct Treasury printing. So much did he hate Paul Volcker’s high interest rates in 1981 that he sought to lower them by kidnapping Fed officials. Within the central bank paradigm, Volcker’s policies were exactly right. He shrunk the money supply, rewarded savers and iinvestors, and stopped the hyperinflation of the previous decade with high rates, making sound growth possible again. Bernanke is the anti-Volcker, with zero interest rates and Zimbabwean money creation. Bernanke is destroying the dollar and bringing back a hyperinflation that will make us nostalgic for the 70s, this on top of the Fed-created Depression

So no matter what the Olbermanns of the world say or do, we must continue our fight against state wars, state empire, state spying, state prison camps, state torture; state redistribution, state environmentalism, state medicine, state money printing, indeed all state intervention in the economy or our personal lives, or the lives of people overseas. We must raise high the banner of true liberty against that gang of thieves writ large, the state itself. End the Fed! That would be a great start.

__________________________________

[Keith Olbermann lies that von Brunn is like Limbaugh - vB regarded Limbaugh as a tool of the jews]

YouTube - Olbermann Drags Dr.Pauls Name Into The von Brunn Picture

YouTube - Olbermann Drags Dr.Pauls Name Into The von Brunn Picture

[Alex Linder]

Anyone who thinks von Brunn didn't achieve anything is a fool.

What doesn't achieve anything?

Conservatives.

Conservatives are cowards.

Conservatives are losers.

Conservatives are liberals.