Amy Bishop Is A Bad Person

I’m sure by now, you’ve heard about that far-left woman who shot up an Alabama college campus because she was denied tenure. And you heard about how she killed her brother back in 1986. And you heard about how that police report had gone missing. And you heard that she was released before booking back in 1986. And you may have heard Representative Delahunt (D-MA) was involved as a District Attorney.

The police report has been found, and the Boston Globe has a copy of it online.

Below is the 1986 police file on Amy Bishop’s fatal shooting of her brother, Seth. Initially ruled an accident, a Norfolk County district attorney recently reviewed the document and said there was probable cause to charge her in the incident.

(follow the link to see the police report.)

I just found something from Five Feet of Fury that adds to my belief that she has been an egocentric power-broker surrounded by enablers since at least the mid-80s. But it also has caused me to change my mind about her husband.

Again from the Boston Globe:

At least once, Bishop hinted that an ongoing confrontation with neighbors could become violent.
(snip)
Bishop, who was referred to as Amy Anderson at the time, called 911 regularly during her short time living in this North Shore community. She reported several neighborhood kids to the police for “disturbing the peace” by riding their dirt bikes and motorized scooters in the neighborhood after school. Police repeatedly informed her and her husband that kids are allowed to ride their bikes and scooters during the afternoon hours, especially on their own property.
(snip)
On June 25, 2000, during another complaint about kids making noise, Bishop reportedly told police that her dispute with one of the children’s parents may “come to blows.”
(snip)
Bishop once stopped a local ice cream truck from coming into their neighborhood. According to WBZ-1030 radio, she said it because her own kids were lactose intolerant, and she didn’t think it was fair that her kids couldn’t have ice cream.

There’s more megalomania presented in that article.

But there’s even more information available, again from the Boston Globe.

The professor who is accused of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama on Friday was a suspect in the attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993, a law enforcement official said today.
(snip)
Bishop surfaced as a suspect because she was allegedly concerned that she was going to receive a negative evaluation from Rosenberg on her doctorate work, the official said. The official said investigators believed she had a motive to target Rosenberg and were concerned that she had a history of violence, given that she had shot her brother to death in 1986.
(snip)
Shortly after the attempted bombing, Fluckiger said, Bishop told her she had been questioned by police. According to Fluckiger, Bishop said police asked her if she had ever taken stamps off an envelope that had been mailed to her and put them on something else.

“She said it with a smirk on her face,” said Fluckiger. “We knew she had a beef with Paul Rosenberg. And we really thought it was a really unbelievable coincidence that he would get those bombs.”

I have to wonder with this pattern of behavior, when was anyone going to stop her? I guess it took 3 more murders and 3 more attempted murders to finally stop her. And if she tries to use the “my mind went blank” excuse, there’s plenty pattern of behavior to throw that out.

UPDATE: From an update on Spin, strangeness and charm comes a question and observation that is tangential to the situation, but a few commenters on CSPT have already entered this tangent.

Ann Althouse has a “duh” moment: “If Amy Bishop had turned out to be right-wing or conservative [or even to watch Fox News once in a while --- NCT] we’d never hear the end of it.” Love this comment:

Man in cammies with “assault rifle” goes on a rampage and the lefttards heads explode. They rage against the Second Amenment. They rage against murderous Conservatives. The want to ban guns, ban people who own guns, and ban any speech about guns. Hell, they want to ban anyone who does not agree with them.

Stereotypical frumpy looking progressive activist professor goes on a rampage and not a word about her activism, socialistic ideas, or revolutionary thought. Not a word about banning guns- except on campus. Not a word against banning progressive activists.

Bill Ayers and his wife- both professors- are forgiven their sins because they contribute to the common good. Bobby Rush and Luis Guiterrez, urban terrorists, are allowed to stay in Congress. Murderous sins forgiven. They are the heroes of the revolution. The darlings of the left.

Yeah, the left is just full of hypocrisy and full of bovine excrement.

Via the same comments section, speaking of nutjobs, Gore Vidal compares Timothy McVeigh to Paul Revere. You can’t make this stuff up.

_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

68 Comments

  1. “Bishop once stopped a local ice cream truck from coming into their neighborhood. According to WBZ-1030 radio, she said it because her own kids were lactose intolerant, and she didn’t think it was fair that her kids couldn’t have ice cream.”

    Yeah, she’s a modern lib, alright.

  2. She’s like some sort of villain from an 80′s cop movie. Just intrinsically violent and self-centered and evil, and keeps coming back for more.

    I’m happy for conservatives that you have a liberal one of these to point at and jeer. Feels good, doesn’t it? Don’t go too nuts, though. It wasn’t politically-motivated. It was just crazy-motivated.

  3. This wasn’t a failure of the law. This was a failure of people who chose not to follow the law in dealing with her. It didn’t hurt that her mother had a political position during the 1986 incident. But the misuse of 911 can’t be tied to her mother’s exercise of political might.

  4. “I’m happy for conservatives that you have a liberal one of these to point at and jeer. Feels good, doesn’t it?”

    That statement is exactly how liberals make everything into politics.

    If you honestly believe any Conservative on this blog would “Feel good” because it was a liberal who murdered three people you need help.

  5. John C said: If you honestly believe any Conservative on this blog would “Feel good” because it was a liberal who murdered three people you need help.

    But, she being a Liberal was definitely the factor in bringing this story here. I’m quite sure this story would not have appeared here on CSPT if she was a Conservative.

    I wonder how old she was, if that would have be worth mentioning. Throwing a damning shadow on those her age. I don’t think so.

    Ted Bundy was a Conservative, active in the Republican party. Just thought I’d throw that in, and deflate the hot air that blows your chest out unnaturally, JH.

    Obviously, it’s just a rock, you are throwing, because she happened to be a Liberal.

    Very sad story.

    Oh, now’s the time to start screaming: “kook, kook, kook, Blu’s a kook”, JH.

  6. PB writes: I’m sure by now, you’ve heard about that far-left woman who shot up an Alabama college campus because she was denied tenure.

    JohnC writes later: That statement is exactly how liberals make everything into politics.

    Uh-huh.

    Let’s see – if we’re going to be discussing this far-leftist who murdered people, perhaps we should look at the politics of other high profile killers?

    Such as Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder, or James von Brunn.

    The research on RWAs comes to mind again.

  7. “I’m happy for conservatives that you have a liberal one of these to point at and jeer…”

    I was just pointing out how her ice cream ideology exemplifies modern liberal thinking. Her kids can’t eat ice cream because of their genetic makeup; therefore, no other children shall.

  8. Oh, and we should note the sterling quality of wingnut “evidence” yet again – one of her students ranted once on a web site for venting against professors that she was “socialist”. This is the evidence which they have used to determine she was, in fact, a “far-left woman”.

    I heard once that PB shot a man in Reno just to watch him die…

  9. Prior to Amy Bishop’s murderous rampage and before his name was linked to the case, Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) had announced that he was considering retiring from Congress. Now that Rep. Delahunt has been revealed as the district attorney who made the final decision to close the 1986 case in which Amy Bishop shot her brother–even before any real investigation was made–it is a reasonable conjecture that Delahunt will definitely choose not to run for reelection.

    Reportedly, Delahunt’s reputation was that of his being soft on crime, even before the specifics of the 1986 case became well known (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/15/next-target-soft-on-crime-dem-rep-william-delahunt/) In a way, it can be said that Rep. Delahunt’s political career is another victim of the “impetuous” Amy Bishop.

    [Edited to make the Michelle Malkin source a link -- JH]

  10. Oh, and we should note the sterling quality of wingnut “evidence” yet again – one of her students ranted once on a web site for venting against professors that she was “socialist”. This is the evidence which they have used to determine she was, in fact, a “far-left woman”.

    You doth protest too much …

  11. “… we should note the sterling quality of wingnut “evidence” yet again – one of her students …”

    Not so fast with the implications, troll.

    A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children – the youngest a third-grade boy – was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.

    The Boston Herald

    And it’s not only other children eating ice cream (see top comment) that enrages this Obama worshipping lefty. Why, some other kid might get a seat she’s entitled to.

    In 2002, Bishop was charged with assault, battery and disorderly conduct after a tirade at the International House of Pancakes in Peabody, Mass. Police said Bishop became incensed when she found out another mother had received the restaurant’s last booster seat.

    Bishop began shouting profanity and punched the woman in the head while yelling, “I am Dr. Amy Bishop!” according to the police report. She admitted to the assault in court, and the charges were dismissed six months later after she stayed out of trouble.

    Boston Herald

    Bishop was charged with assault and battery for a March 2002 incident, in which an enraged Bishop unleashed a profanity-laced tirade against a mother whose child got the last booster seat at the Peabody International House of Pancakes, according to a Peabody police report.

    She yelled “I am Amy Bishop” and then punched the frightened mother in her head. When police questioned Bishop, she claimed to be the victim, the report stated.

    Neighbors recall Amy Bishop as a crank

    And of course, like the standard issue lefty crackpot she is, she doesn’t look too closely at who it is that is really responsible for her imagined problems …

    In Huntsville, neighbor Sherry Foley, 63, recalled that Bishop wrangled with another neighbor over a barking dog.

    “Amy Bishop got all bent out of shape because she said his dogs were barking and disturbing her,” Foley said. “She would call him every hour on the hour. They weren’t even his dogs.”

    Boston Herald

    Yeah, Amy, standard production model leftist.

  12. You folks will stretch to any limit to politicize this tragic event, won’t you, using only the flimsy evidence of something a student said about the suspect years ago, a sign of how desperately weak your position is regarding this case? This is a criminal case, which has generated terrible losses of life and the grief of the families involved. Here is where our focus should be: condolences for the families of the dead, and punishment for the guilty. Politics has nothing to do with this!

  13. Amy and her enablers should all be locked up for life. Enabler #1 Killer her brother, Enabler #2 Pipe Bomb Excusers. Enabler #3, everyone who failed the system and now three very innocents are dead because the system failed, broke down, and made excuses for this psychopath.

  14. You folks will stretch to any limit to politicize this tragic event … Politics has nothing to do with this!

    This from the guy whose position re: Pho is – I regret that I have but one tongue with which to lick your boots.

  15. But, she being a Liberal was definitely the factor in bringing this story here. I’m quite sure this story would not have appeared here on CSPT if she was a Conservative.

    Back up your paranoia, blu. Have you forgotten this article I wrote? Obviously so.

  16. I will note that Perry’s bloviation completely ignored DNW’s heavily-sourced comment directly above his, which was posted 3 hours prior to his. Another instance in an ever-growing series of instances in which Perry has chosen to be willfully blind. Perry’s bloviation was destroyed by DNW an entire 3 hours prior to Perry’s bloviation.

    Since Perry has shown a very long history of partisanship-for-partisanship-sake with dishonesty mixed in, he has proven himself worthy of zero respect or trust in my book. And what respect I give him, if I do give him any, is wholly based on charity and not on anything he has earned.

  17. Just to be clear on what I am talking about, lest someone choose to misunderstand (bolding mine):

    Perry:

    You folks will stretch to any limit to politicize this tragic event, won’t you, using only the flimsy evidence of something a student said about the suspect years ago, a sign of how desperately weak your position is regarding this case? This is a criminal case, which has generated terrible losses of life and the grief of the families involved. Here is where our focus should be: condolences for the families of the dead, and punishment for the guilty. Politics has nothing to do with this!
    17 February 2010, 9:25 pm

  18. John, come-on, you are the one who politicized this sad case in the very first sentence of your topical post. There is the evidence right there, so there is no weaseling out of it. If it is blue, John insists it is red. There’s no discussion with a person with your attitude, John, only pity!

  19. Perry,Perry, if you went to any lefty blog after the baby killer was murdered, or even before the evidence came out about Fort Hood, you disgusting leftists had the picture already painted. Hypocrites.

  20. …using only the flimsy evidence of something a student said about the suspect years ago…

    This is direct evidence of your deceitfulness, Perry, which DNW refuted three hours prior to your posting it.

  21. John Hitchcock quoted Perry and responded:

    ” ‘…using only the flimsy evidence of something a student said about the suspect years ago…’

    This is direct evidence of your deceitfulness, Perry, which DNW refuted three hours prior to your posting it. “

    You have noticed John, that this is not the first time Perry has engaged in this kind of patently duplicitous reshaping behavior.

    It becomes increasingly obvious that when leftists say they don’t believe in the concept of truth, or even in objectivity, they really do operate on that principle interpersonally.

    That is why they cannot be trusted, and why they are psychologically unfitted for political association as peers with men and women who are trustworthy.

    It might not be as much of a problem in a libertarian political framework. There, they could be forced – by the withdrawl of others from involved cost sharing arrangements with them – to bear the cost of their own untrustworthiness and vicious morals. In this situation their claims to a share of the life efforts of more virtuous could be limited.

    But then, the whole political thrust, energy, and program of the modern liberal, aka the “morally deconstructed appetite entity” (thank you Aristotle very much LOL), is to ensure that it is precisely that, that is not allowed to happen.

  22. DNW the absolutist has spoken again as a relativist, cherry picking away as he sits on his throne, pontificating in his know-it-all demeanor.

    The point is, DNW, you defend John H., when in his very first sentence he politicizes a crime by ascribing a political viewpoint to the alleged perpetrator, based on a comment from one of her students. Flimsy is hardly a strong enough word for this weak-kneed political attack, when the focus should be on the heinous crime committed, on the families that have been impacted, and on the individual who is alleged to have committed these three murders and the two woundings as well.

    By your behavior on here, I happen to think that your apparent ideology is the “morally deconstructed appetite entity”, based on the destructive policies that you endorse.

  23. h.: “Perry,Perry, if you went to any lefty blog after the baby killer was murdered, or even before the evidence came out about Fort Hood, you disgusting leftists had the picture already painted. Hypocrites.”

    h., kindly do not attribute to me something that someone else says or does. How outrageous is that?

  24. Meanwhile

    (CNN) — An Austin, Texas, resident with an apparent grudge against the Internal Revenue Service set his house on fire Thursday and then crashed a small plane into a building housing an IRS office with nearly 200 employees, officials said.
    [...]
    In the lengthy, rambling message, the writer rails against the government and, particularly, the IRS.

    Say, has anyone heard from PB recently?

  25. Just asking – here we have someone who has committed an act of terrorism, citing anti-tax motivations.

    If it turns out he was a teabagger, I assume everyone here – applying the same logic they’ve used over the years for scary Muslim type people – has no problem with Obama designating teabaggers as “enemy combatants”, and arresting, torturing, and holding them indefinetly without trial?

    Or, you know, is it different for terrorists you agree with?

  26. This guy seems to fall outside the narrow definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right.’

    Fortunately.

  27. But we should probably start profiling angry middle-aged white guys who don’t like the IRS. It’s like bending over for the terrorists if we don’t.

  28. If it turns out he was a teabagger, I assume everyone here – applying the same logic they’ve used over the years for scary Muslim type people – has no problem with Obama designating teabaggers as “enemy combatants”, and arresting, torturing, and holding them indefinetly without trial?

    God, you are simple minded! If you can’t tell the difference between an organized terrorist group and a lone nut, then there’s not much I can say to help you.

  29. Nangleator:
    This guy seems to fall outside the narrow definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right.’
    Fortunately.
    19 February 2010, 9:02 am

    True enough. Nuts seem to be, well, nuts. Political labels seem not to apply …

  30. Nangleator:
    But we should probably start profiling angry middle-aged white guys who don’t like the IRS. It’s like bending over for the terrorists if we don’t.

    Then you’d have to profile half the USA. After all, most of us don’t like the IRS …

  31. God, you are simple minded! If you can’t tell the difference between an organized terrorist group and a lone nut, then there’s not much I can say to help you.

    Eric, how do you know he was a lone nut unless you pick up a few of his associates and “enhanced interrogate” them? Anything else would be appeasing the terrorists…

  32. Eric, how do you know he was a lone nut unless you pick up a few of his associates and “enhanced interrogate” them? Anything else would be appeasing the terrorists…

    Only if you’re a simple minded ideogical loon. To anyone with a brain, it’s obvious what acts are carried out by organized terror groups, and what are done by lone nuts.

    Really, it’s not that hard to figure out. Unless you’re an ideological loon …

  33. Perry, if you want to keep attacking me, I suggest you do so with trepidation. Because you know I got the goods on you. YOU KNOW IT. And like the scene from the movie Save the Last Dance, I will lay all your (expletive) bare. I am really tired of dealing with someone who plays fast and loose with the facts and totally ignores sourcing material (you demanded, DEMANDED) when it proves you totally wrong. I am tired of your claiming the right to the horns of the altar. Even that right has its limits.

    You, Perry, are a deceitful, willfully blind and deaf partisan-for-partisan’s sake. You are unbending even when faced with undeniable facts proving you wrong. You are arrogant and condescending. You have demanded people (more than one) take down their articles at your whim. You have gone so far as to try to get other people to censor people you disagree with. And I’m tired of it all.

    You wanna play footsie with me? I will (metaphorically) crucify you in cold blood. And you know I got the goods.

  34. “deceitful, willfully blind” says John Hitchcock. LOL LOL LOL Classic projection. You are wasting this planet’s oxygen, Penis Breath.

  35. Hitchcock, you have no concern for facts at all. You prove it consistently. No matter what people bring here to prove their point, many times more evidence than you bring. You simply ignore it. Your soul is as riddled with hypocrisy and is grotesque.

  36. The Phoenician wrote:

    Just asking – here we have someone who has committed an act of terrorism, citing anti-tax motivations.

    If it turns out he was a teabagger, I assume everyone here – applying the same logic they’ve used over the years for scary Muslim type people – has no problem with Obama designating teabaggers as “enemy combatants”, and arresting, torturing, and holding them indefinetly without trial?

    Or, you know, is it different for terrorists you agree with?

    But was it an act of terrorism? Patterico said it was, as did Amanda Marcotte. Me, I don’t think so. Terrorism is designed to provoke some kind of political or social change by causing people who aren’t attacked to fear that they will be next; a lone wolf like Joe Stack, who killed himself in the process, and wasn’t connected with any larger group threatening similar action, can’t (reasonably) inspire fear that others will be next.

    Miss Marcotte tried to justify her position by stretching the point:

    Stack’s beef with the IRS seems to have developed from personal problems stemming from possible tax evasion on his part. But it appears to have turned into a full-blown ideological stance, and again, it’s clear that he hopes others who share his ideological stance—and believe me, there are a lot of crazy right wing nuts in the area who do, and I have no doubt Stack was aware of this—will act on his wishes. This is what I mean by a mish-mash. Most of his ranting seems very left wing, but if you’re living in central Texas and you do something like this, you’re sending a signal to right wing nuts, and you know it.

    And on that basis, I have to conclude that this was in fact a terrorist attack, even if there was no criminal conspiracy (and it looks like there wasn’t). I wish I could say with certainty that the whole world, including the right wing nuts, will not look to Stack as a hero and an inspiration, but I can’t. Unfortunately, he performed this deed in a part of the country that’s thick with crazy conspiracy theorists, militia types, and extreme right wing nuts.

    Her logic is that Mr Stack hoped that his actions would be an inspiration to others, and that makes it terrorism, but I find that too expansive; if we accept such logic, then any time an armed robber shoots his victim, we would have to say he was attempting to inspire all other armed robbers to pull the trigger. It expands the definition of terrorism so greatly that it becomes meaningless; virtually all violence then becomes terrorism.

  37. John H., instead of your rage and threats, why not just ignore? If you are unable to do that, then you have a serious problem and need to look into it.

  38. Dana: “It expands the definition of terrorism so greatly that it becomes meaningless; ….”

    No, Dana, you are the one who is expanding “the definition of terrorism so greatly”, by hypothetically extending it to the armed robber turned murderer.

    I think Amanda’s expansion is warranted and reasonable. In effect, this man Stack has martyred himself. I strongly believe there will be multitudes of anti-tax ideologues on the Right extreme who will be sympathetic to Stack’s cause and inspired by his anti-IRS vendetta, the same way that Islamic extremists were inspired by the success of their 9/11 attack. There are strong parallels here, in my view.

    It is not enough for you ideologues on the Right to be told that we are the lowest taxed in the developed world, as your response is to want taxes to be even lower. Well that’s fine, provided essential services are not sacrificed in the process. Therefore, the debate should not be to lower taxes, it should be to define essential services, then to cut other spending, like defense spending and corporate welfare spending, so that we can provide essential services. Somehow, to you folks, current defense spending and corporate welfare are just fine! These are your values?

  39. The Phoenician wrote:

    But was it an act of terrorism?

    Yes.

    Now, Dana, could you at least try to address my question and the point I’m raising rather than evading it?

    Your “question” is simple silliness. I’m certain that investigators have looked at the available information, and have questioned Mr Stack’s friends, and found nothing there. He was a lone wolf, at least as far as public information tells us.

    I suppose that Mr Stack got the idea for his method of attack from September 11th, but copying a method doesn’t make him a terrorist; cluttering up the definition of terrorism with things which aren’t terrorism is, at the very least, intellectually poor, and, more probably, done to weaken the United States’ intellectual resolve to fight the real terrorists.

  40. Perry wrote:

    Dana: “It expands the definition of terrorism so greatly that it becomes meaningless; ….”

    No, Dana, you are the one who is expanding “the definition of terrorism so greatly”, by hypothetically extending it to the armed robber turned murderer.

    Perry, I was making the reductio ad absurdum argument; that was the whole point. I gave you a definition of terrorism which I believe is appropriate, one which includes an attempt to instill a reasonable fear that the act will be repeated, to try to force a social or political change. I don’t see Mr Stack’s action as one which meets the test of instilling a reasonable feat the action will be repeated.

    Now, something like Timothy McVeigh’s attack would have met that test, because Mr McVeigh, even though he had only one confederate who could be tied to the attack, attempted to escape, which would have left him free to attack again.

    I think Amanda’s expansion is warranted and reasonable. In effect, this man Stack has martyred himself. I strongly believe there will be multitudes of anti-tax ideologues on the Right extreme who will be sympathetic to Stack’s cause and inspired by his anti-IRS vendetta, the same way that Islamic extremists were inspired by the success of their 9/11 attack. There are strong parallels here, in my view.

    Hardly. The Islamists are networked, with leadership and financial arrangements to facilitate attacks; there is a strong probability they will continue to attempt attacks again. What you are postulating is that others will be inspired; that’s too weak a link.

    It is not enough for you ideologues on the Right to be told that we are the lowest taxed in the developed world, as your response is to want taxes to be even lower. Well that’s fine, provided essential services are not sacrificed in the process. Therefore, the debate should not be to lower taxes, it should be to define essential services, then to cut other spending, like defense spending and corporate welfare spending, so that we can provide essential services. Somehow, to you folks, current defense spending and corporate welfare are just fine! These are your values?

    Are not “essential services” defined by the will of the majority? And if we, in a democratic expression of our will, wish to cut taxes below the level that they can provide for “essential services,” do we not have that right?

    We do, I’m certain, have a vastly different notion of what constitutes essential services. To me, the services that are — or at least should be — state and local responsibilities (police, fire, schools and roads) constitute essential physical services. The federal government exists to provide for the common defense and those essential services which cannot be taken individually by states, such as the standardization of money and the adjudication of differences between the states. It should not be in the business of regulating the economy or providing for the support of individuals.

    Our debates on the meaning of the First Amendment inspired me to order a book through amazon.com, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, by Richard Labunski. (If you click on the link to buy it from amazon, I get a cut! :) ) I’m only half way through, past the point of the ratification of the Constitution, but I’ve noted that many of the arguments of the anti-federalists — those who opposed ratification, led by Patrick Henry of Virginia — that the federal government would become too powerful and too dominant over the states have come true, and done so with a vengeance.

  41. I have that book Dana and it is a very good read. I buy a lot of books on line (too lazy to go to B&N) so if you could link and get a cut I for one would gladly use your link. Around Christmas you’ll make a killing. Last year I handed out 22 books as “extra” gifts, either “Liberal Facsism” or “Slander” or “Liberty and Tyranny”. Link up to copies of the Constitution and such for those so challenged. Also, those Conservative t-shirts go over well in spring and summer. That could be a good link too. Last summer I had a bunch of (“drunkin” as Pho would say) friends sitting around the pool wearing “Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store not a government agency” shirts. Go forth and make money my free market friend.

  42. Dana: “I don’t see Mr Stack’s action as one which meets the test of instilling a reasonable feat the action will be repeated.”

    We’ll see! I think Stack’s action could well inspire activists having the tea party mindset. These people are forming a network. Some of them attended Obama meetings with weapons openly displayed, despicable signs, and a penchant to deny First Amendment rights. These are a pretty radical bunch, therefore their behavior under stress, say the stress of income taxes, is hard to predict, but something to watch very closely.

    “Are not “essential services” defined by the will of the majority?”

    Exactly! Problem is, due to the current attitude of the Republican Party minority of absolutists, we do not have a government operating according to majority rule, as you well know, and as you fervently support, I assume. They have made Washington dysfunctional.

    “Our debates on the meaning of the First Amendment inspired me to order a book ….”

    My contention about the First Amendment is that the Framers never envisioned the size and power of the Corporations we have today, nor that they would ever be able to take over the Government as they have in the last three decades. I simply cannot believe that they would convey the meaning thereof to apply to Corporations, as though they were individuals. I’ll be interested to hear what you learn from the Labunski book.

  43. Exactly! Problem is, due to the current attitude of the Republican Party minority of absolutists, we do not have a government operating according to majority rule, as you well know, and as you fervently support, I assume. They have made Washington dysfunctional.

    What you mean by “Dysfunctional” is “Democrats not always getting their way”.

  44. I suppose that Mr Stack got the idea for his method of attack from September 11th, but copying a method doesn’t make him a terrorist; cluttering up the definition of terrorism with things which aren’t terrorism is, at the very least, intellectually poor, and, more probably, done to weaken the United States’ intellectual resolve to fight the real terrorists.

    Too bad the FBI disgrees with you.

    Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

    From his suicide note:

    “I know I am hardly the first to decide he has had all he can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I ensure nothing will change. I choose not to keep looking over me shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass. I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me. I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.”

    “I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are.”

    SO we have a person who committed violence for the avowed aim of political change.

    Which is terrorism, Dana.

    Now that I have spent time establishing the obvious, deal with the questions.

    You state : “I gave you a definition of terrorism which I believe is appropriate, one which includes an attempt to instill a reasonable fear that the act will be repeated, to try to force a social or political change.

    I point out there is a movement in this country that expresses that same animus against the government, often in violent terms – the teabaggers. Further, in his note Stark talks about his association with other tax protesters.

    TERORRISM ISN’T A MATTER OF SKIN COLOUR OR RELIGION. You have spent years here defending the use of torture, government surveillance, unlimited detention, and the full weight of government power against Arabs and Muslims, even when you knew that many caught in that net were later found innocent.

    So the question begs – why are you not so advocating for that same power to be used against white or Christian groups who may be associated with terrorism?

    Or, in other words, why do you apply one set of standards for people you identify with, and another set (torture, detention, surveillance etc) for people you do not share a skin colour or religion with?

  45. I think Stack’s action could well inspire activists having the tea party mindset. These people are forming a network. Some of them attended Obama meetings with weapons openly displayed, despicable signs, and a penchant to deny First Amendment rights. These are a pretty radical bunch

    You may not like the Tea Party movement, but they are in fact exercising their First Amendment rights (and 2nd Amendment, too). At any rate, there were only a handful of people with guns, at a single Obama event, in a state where carrying an open firearm is perfectly legal.

    You seem to have somewhat of a problem with political dissent and opposition when it comes from Republicans. You don’t seem to understand that our views are simply different from yours, and that we have a perfect right to express them and act upon them.

  46. Of course, it’s trivial to show that the USA does better when Democrats are in charge.

    In charge of what? The White House? Congress? America did well in the 90′s, but the boom (and balanced budget) didn’t occur until the GOP took over the House and Senate. And does that account for wars? The USA wasn’t doing so hot in Vietnam under Johnson, no matter how groovy the economy was. And let’s not even mention the Carter years …

    Anyway, it doesn’t really address my point, which is Perry’s constant whines complaints that the GOP isn’t being “Cooperative” enough with the Democrats.

  47. Eric: “What you mean by “Dysfunctional” is “Democrats not always getting their way”.”

    What I mean by “dysfunctional”, Eric, is not allowing the majority party to govern, which is what they were elected to do.

    Please point out to me in the Constitution where it says that a supermajority is required to legislate.

    Added: Did you know that the 41 Republican Senators represent 11% of the population? So the obstruction is even more skewed than 59-41 in the Senate. The Senate Rules must be changed!

  48. Eric: “You don’t seem to understand that our views are simply different from yours, and that we have a perfect right to express them and act upon them.”

    Eric, you are making excuses for absolutely despicable behavior. I have said nothing about depriving these radicals of their First or Second Amendment rights, but I am speaking out about their judgment and their behavior, in exercise of my First Amendment rights. If they were radicals on the left extreme, I would make exactly the same criticism!

  49. Oh, I’d love to see your requirements to qualify as a leftist radical, Perry. So far, I’ve seen you welcome the leftist radicals in a warm embrace. I don’t know if anyone can be far enough left for you to declare that person a leftist radical. Do give your parameters of how to be declared a leftist radical.

  50. What I mean by “dysfunctional”, Eric, is not allowing the majority party to govern, which is what they were elected to do.

    You keep repeating this. What you don’t seem to “Get” is that, in a democracy, there is always a political opposition to the Party in charge. Their views are every bit as legitimate, and they have every right to use the tools at their disposal to oppose things that goes against their principles.

    In any event, the Dems did get through the Stimulus, and nearly got health care as well. The problem was lack of discipline in your own Party, while ours exercised effective discipline. Whose fault is that? In sports, if your team plays badly, you don’t blame the other team for playing well.

  51. Please point out to me in the Constitution where it says that a supermajority is required to legislate.

    I don’t think it’s in the Constitution, but the filibuster has been around a long time, and has become one of the Senate’s hallowed traditions. I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon, if ever.

  52. Added: Did you know that the 41 Republican Senators represent 11% of the population? So the obstruction is even more skewed than 59-41 in the Senate. The Senate Rules must be changed!

    Won’t happen. The Dems know eventually they’ll be in the minority again, possibly with a Republican president, so they’ll want to reserve for themselves the right to use the filibuster to block stuff they don’t like. It’s all part of politics.

    Personally, while you complain all you like about the Republicans holding up Dem proposals, I happen to like divided government. I don’t see it as “Dysfunctional” at all, indeed, it imposes moderation on the political system, and tends to keep radicalism in check.

  53. Eric, you are making excuses for absolutely despicable behavior.

    I see very little that is “Despicable” about the Tea Party. At most, you’re complaining about a handful of people out of a movement of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands. Even the guys with the guns, all half dozen or so, were behaving in an entirely peaceful manner.

    Nor do I see the “Radicalism” you speak of. The vast majority seem to be regular, ordinary folks with legitimate concerns. Again, you seem to have a problem with political opposition in this country, and believe that simply being in the majority means you get everything you want.

  54. I point out there is a movement in this country that expresses that same animus against the government, often in violent terms – the teabaggers.

    “Violent terms”??

    You seem to have an obsession with the “Teabaggers” (as you call them) yet don’t understand the Movement – at all. About the worst you can say is a few have shown questionable judgment – the guys with the guns in AZ, some controversial signs – but that’s about it. Certainly no worse or more inflammatory than left wing anti-Bush groups like MoveOn.Org or Code Pink and far less so than the various anarchist groups that show up to protest various economic conferences, breaking windows and fighting with police.

  55. Or, in other words, why do you apply one set of standards for people you identify with, and another set (torture, detention, surveillance etc) for people you do not share a skin colour or religion with?

    Except you seem to assume racism is our motive when it reality the people who attacked us just happened to be Muslim and Arab, so naturally the people we are fighting are Muslim and Arab (although, technically speaking, most Afghans aren’t Arab). Race has little if anything to do with it any more than our war against the Nazis was motivated by anti-German animus.

  56. So the question begs – why are you not so advocating for that same power to be used against white or Christian groups who may be associated with terrorism?

    Well, when a Christian group kills 3,000 people, hides on foreign soil protected by a regime of religious extremists, and has a proven track record of committing mass terror attacks across the globe, then we’ll talk.

  57. Except you seem to assume racism is our motive when it reality the people who attacked us just happened to be Muslim and Arab,

    Stark wasn’t. Neither was Timothy McVeigh.

    And the overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims and Arabs have not attacked you. Come to think of it, the majority of those imprisoned without rights by you have been released as innocent too.

    Now, what exactly is it in your mind that justifies the use of a police state against innocent Arabs, but not against white Americans who may or may not be innocent, I wonder?..

  58. Note the Constitution clearly says each house can set its own rules. That means the Senate’s filibuster rules are, indeed, constitutional. And in my book, that means violating the rules of the house, whichever house it is, is violating the Constitution.

    Rules is rules; they isn’t suggestions. And when the Constitution says they set their own rules, what is understood is rules is rules.

Comments are closed.