Selective Editing

Conservatives are all abuzz today about Norman LaBoon.

And while they are right, that this guy is certifiable, they are ultimately framing this man and the narrative of his actions to somehow show that he's a left-wing extremist, they are missing the plot on this completely.

....LeBoon just so happens to be a Barack Obama donor. Somehow I doubt that’ll be part of any headlines.

There’s some confusion about whether the LeBoon in the videos is LeBoon “senior” or “junior” (or even whether a “Norman LeBoon Jr.” exists) and it’s not clear whether the “Norman LeBoon” of Philadelphia listed in the campaign finance disclosure database that JWF links is the same one charged by the FBI. But point about the double standards taken.

In any case, this dude seems certifiably loony and dangerous — no matter which political candidates he may or may not have supported. Glad the FBI took it seriously. Period.

Nice one Malkin, accuse him of being an Obama supporter and then follow it up by stating that it may be someone else with the same name. Typical.

Here's the part that they can't admit, as it completely blows there thesis out of the water. LeBoon made threats against Obama too.

Neoconservative Means Jew: How Malkin And Morrissey Are Excusing Their Ideological Idiocy

Last night, amongst the seemingly endless streams of information coming in about James von Brunn, you could almost feel the forced shift that right-wing, conservative, bloggers were creating. They had been called on their bluff about how the DHS report on Right-Wing Extremism was an attack on "conservativism" and their show-cards didn't look any better. And once von Brunn went all in, things got a little interesting on the internet.

Michelle Malkin, ever eager to shove her foot sideways into her gaping maw just to see how much attention she can garner, wasted no time in making excuses for why von Brunn doesn't meet the criterea of a "Right-Wing Extremist".

Through a list of quotes, some jabs at Markos, and several inverted flips of logic, Malkin concludes that von Brunn is a "loon" and has no real ideological affiliation.

Brilliant deduction there, ma'am.

Even though von Brunn's profile matches what the DHS reported listed ( anti-semite, anti-government, radicalized veteren, neo-nazi ) Malkin's citation of Kathy Shaidle is what struck me as not just out-of-place, but a blatant attempt at redefining the word "neo-con" in place it on the same level as anti-semitic speech.

As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”.

What Malkin leaves out is Shaidle's own leap of logic by not only citing "Liberal Fascism" as credible source material, but claiming that the "Left" and "radical Islam" are essentially "allies":

None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg's bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change , which clearly demonstrates that "fascism" of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect "leftwing" views as "rightwing" ones.

In fact, anti-semitism is something the New Left and the "Far Right" have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.

-----------------------------------------

Ed Morrissey at HotAir continues ranting about the DHS report and seems to think this wouldn't all be that bad had von Brunn been named in the report.

...our criticism was that the DHS report didn’t focus on known, specific threats, instead making generalized threats about abortion opponents and other vague and broad generalizations about conservative issues.

Morrissey seemed so rushed to make his own, ill-informed, judgement on this issue that he claimed that the DHS report never mentioned anti-semitism, when in fact it did.

His entire thesis is predicated on the fact that the DHS didn't "name" a right-wing extremist group.

Perhaps it's just me, but this says alot about the consumerist nature of our culture. We don't believe in something unless it has a brand-name stamped on it. We won't consider the validity of anything unless it has some sort of logo, a clever name that somehow creates a mental picture of what it does. Malkin and Morrissey believe that if a deomestic terrorist doesn't have enough "commercial value", then they aren't domestic terrorist.

But what of von Brunn's motives?

If we are to get overtly technical about it, von Brunn's a strange character to have to classify as explicity "right" or "left". But that doens't matter to Malkin or Morrissey. They have their metric and they are sticking to it. It doesn't matter to them that he displayed characteristic detailed by the DHS report. It doesn't matter that his writings and actions have been on the "radar" of respective authorities for years. It doesn't matter, because Malkin and Morrissey will do and say anything to keep from admiting that they are wrong.

Conservative Paranoia

Ever since the release of the DHS report on Right-Wing extremism, conservatives are beside themselves that Janet Napolitano's department is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Most, like Michelle Malkin, are pushing the notion that ANYONE with conservative beliefs are going to be targeted:

....the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

Interesting that Malkin didn't cite her source, only that she "spoke" with someone.

David Niewert @ C&L pointed out the obvious in Malkin's reactionay response:

So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?

Because, you know, the report -- which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle -- couldn't be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is "rightwing extremists," "domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups," "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," "white supremacists," and similar very real threats described in similar language.

Nothing about conservatives. The word never appears in the report.

Because, you know, we always thought there was a difference between right-wing extremists and mainstream conservatives too. My new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, does explain that the distance between them has in fact shrunk considerably, thanks to the help of people like Malkin.

And now she's evidently intent on shrinking it further

Once again, I'm reminded of Ann Coulter's latest book about "liberal victimhood". Sad, isn't it.

Media Matters has a video compilation of some of the loudest and most paranoid voices from the Right.



Interesting that Dobson would say that these people don't exist.

The recent murder of 3 police officers in Pittsburg - by a man that thought the government was going to take his guns away - in Pennsylvania and the church shooting in Knoxville don't seem to gel with the good doctors "facts".

Something that Malkin, Dobbs, Hannity, and others may have conveniently forgotten there has already been an asessment on Left-wing extremism done by the DHS.