June 12, 2009
The Poor Holocaust Museum Terrorist: No
Reason for the Left to Love Him
An 88-year-old by the name of James Von
Brunn allegedly walked into the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.
this week, gunning down a security
guard. Are leftists going to feel the
Holocaust Museum shooter's pain and find
ways to blame themselves for this act of
terrorism like they do when the “usual
suspects” do such things? I bet not.
In the left’s view, this guy doesn’t have
any boxes to tick off in the “victim”
column. He’s white, male and hence
“privileged”. That’s how they see it. How do
I know this? Because I’ve been called
privileged enough times by leftists who
don’t know a single thing about me beyond my
skin color.
Not to say that Von Brunn has any excuses
for his alleged actions. What I’m saying is
that the non-white terrorists don’t, either.
Every terrorist apparently has a giant axe
to grind – one the left is always happy to
retrieve for them the second it’s misplaced,
if they pick the right cause. The Unabomber
hated technology. (Nice try.) Bin Laden
hates American foreign policy. (Good
one!) Von Brunn had a vicious, longtime
hate-on for the Jews. (Not very PC!)
As a public relations strategist, if I were
forced at gunpoint to take this whack job on
as a client, I would play the "lack of
affordable mental health care for the
aged/veterans" card (Von Brunn served in the
military). And it would work. At the very
least, it would make leftists feel
conflicted about labeling him a terrorist.
For the time being, at least, he doesn’t
have any leftist pet causes working in his
favor. And because the various mainstream
media outlets don’t have to tiptoe around
the touchy race issue with Von Brunn, it’s
now finally safe to talk tough on terrorism!
In the immediate aftermath, CNN’s Campbell
Brown hosted a discussion on “homegrown
terrorists”. Finally, it’s safe to discuss
Americans who kill their fellow citizens –
because with Von Brunn, we can do so without
having to navigate the minefields of
religion and ethnicity.
Brown also asked her guests whether America
is “too tolerant of hate-mongers”. Could you
imagine having such a discussion in the wake
of an act of Islamic terrorism? People would
be accusing CNN of musing about
thought-policing. Yes, America is too
tolerant of people who muse about blowing
things up and committing terrorist acts –
but we have a solution for monitoring such
things, called the Patriot Act. Would the
left now suggest using the Patriot Act
against terrorists like Von Brunn?
As I see it, there could be a few windows of
opportunity here. For example, if President
Obama was looking for an excuse to keep Club
Gitmo open – because the status quo is much
easier than taking any action that could
result in a screw-up, given that they often
return to the battlefield upon release – he
should just tell leftists that Von Brunn
will be in there propping up the
walls. Until he comes up with an excuse the
left finds sufficiently self-serving, they
probably wouldn’t even mind if he’s pushed
against a hollow wall, put in a room with
caterpillars and ladybugs, or given an
aggressive face-washing by a federal agent.
Some are having a hard time categorizing Von
Brunn. That’s what happens when you try to
foolishly rationalize insanity. One expert
on CNN this week opined that a lone nut
acting outside the context of any organized
group effort isn’t a terrorist. “Loner” and
“terrorist” aren’t mutually exclusive
labels. Much of Islamic terrorism isn’t
“organized”, in the mob sense, either. Osama
Bin Laden isn’t Don Corleone. He just muses
about how much he hates things, and any
nutcase is free to pick up the ball and run
with it.
What this expert should really have said is
that, while Von Brunn is indeed (allegedly)
a terrorist, it’s not like he has any
palatable leftist rationale for his
actions. Such people will only become a
problem when they find better excuses and
give rise to the appropriate leftist
make-work projects.