Monday, February 22, 2010

Stack Was a Domestic Terrorist

In the court of public opinion, there are many views that can be shared. However, when a man deliberately burns down his house and then intentionally flies a plane into a building to kill people who happen to work in that building - it can be labeled nothing less than domestic terrorism.

The craziness that has erupted surrounding Joe Stack's ranting suicide/homicide note just keeps getting crazier. For one thing, I think that his daughter (who lives in Norway) should have keep her creepy and irrational thoughts to herself.

The only sane response in that article belongs to the son of the man who was killed in the building:

Hunter's son, Ken Hunter, said he's alarmed by comments that called the pilot a hero.

"How can you call someone a hero who, after he burns down his house, he gets into his plane and flies it into a building to kill people?" Hunter told ABC." "My dad Vernon did two tours of duty in Vietnam. My dad's a hero."

Then, Samantha Bell (Stack's daughter) had the gall to "offer her deepest condolences to the Hunter family."


There is a HUGE disconnect there! How could someone approve of a person's actions by calling him a "hero" when he had the intent to kill as many people as possible in a building; and then say that she offers her condolences??? Apparently, she's as loony as her father was.

That's not American justice. It sounds more like the radical and harmful social justice thuggery techniques taught by the Alinsky/Cloward-Piven/ACORN/SEIU Communists and are typically used by ObaMAO and his thug czars!

And don't give me the "we don't know what his (Stack's) ideology was." Of course, the leftists want to blame it on the TEA Party Movement. Being the progressive-minded clueless idiots that they are, I'm actually surprised that they didn't blame it on one of the following:

1. Bush
2. Sarah Palin
3. Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome son, Trig

On second thought, if I searched long enough perhaps I would find that they already did blame it on Bush!

Look, the guy was obviously depressed, angry, severely disturbed, and crazed. He willfully and intentionally crashed his plane and committed a domestic terrorist attack upon IRS employees at that government building in Texas. Of course, the press and the blogs are all abuzz, trying to guess at what the man's ideology was.

What do you think was his ideology?

Was he closer to being a fed up anti-government lunatic and jilted former Obama supporter or a TEA Party Movement backer?

I think that we can get a hint when we read the final two sentences in his six page suicide note rant:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

It sounds to me like he appreciated the Communist Creed and hated the so-called "Capitalist Creed."

Hat Tip:

Fox News Channel


In other news, don't miss:

Daily Thought Pad: More Significant Under the Radar News


Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I looked up a bit on the origin of that phrase from Marx. Interestingly enough, it may have ultimately come from the New Testament!
See Acts 4:32-35: "4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.4:33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."
So does that mean that Christ was a Marxist or a Socialist???
It sounds like Capitalism really wasn't practiced by Jesus as well...

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

As is common with dictator types, you stop using the reference as soon as the context no longer suits you.

Act 5:1 Ananias and his wife Sapphira also sold a piece of property.
Act 5:2 But they agreed to cheat and keep some of the money for themselves. So when Ananias took the rest of the money to the apostles,
Act 5:3 Peter said, "Why has Satan made you keep back some of the money from the sale of the property? Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit?
Act 5:4 The property was yours before you sold it, and even after you sold it, the money was still yours. What made you do such a thing? You didn't lie to people. You lied to God!"

I think if you look through the lessons that Christ gave as well he was also very much into ownership. After all, if a man owns nothing, he has nothing to give. You'll notice that he never once talked to government leaders about what the government should do. He talked to people about what they should do with their wealth. And far from spouting anything so stupid as Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" Christ's entire mission was turning people back toward God. It would be easy to forgive such things as ignorance, but you seem to claim that you know so much it's hard to take such comments as anything but deliberate lies and misrepresentations. I'm sure that it goes quite well in the atmosphere you inhabit that passes for education, but some people still have standards involving truth and context. Perhaps one good thing about the increasing budget crises in California is that they may have to start caring about such things again as the coffers empty and the dead wood has to go.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks for your excellent reply to Kevin, Gary. Couldn't have said it better!

And Kevin, as Gary has already stated, notice that "government" wasn't involved in the sharing. It was more like a church group situation - where believers took care of their own instead of depending upon the government for a hand out.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary--I think it is time for you to actually stop calling me names and deal with the issue.
And now, when exactly are you going to sell everything YOU OWN and do what Christ says? Oh wait, I guess that part doesn't apply to you (and if it does, I'm sure you can think of some excuse why it doesn't).
By the way, you misunderstand the rest of the quote you seem to think I left out to be 'deceiving.' The whole point of that is cheating--and cheating against the Holy Spirit. The penalty for that was death. They sold what they had but kept some money. As usual, you have taken the original point somewhere else because you didn't understand what was going on. The passage you quote has nothing to add to the passage I can about everyone selling everything and making things equal.

Why can't a government do the same thing that the disciples did--collect money and spread the wealth and give it to those who need it? Do you mean they can't do it because they aren't a church? Shouldn't people mimic Jesus and the disciples? Or should they only mimic them when it benefits you?

And that comment about education--isn't it about time that you actually get one? I keep getting this vibe from you that is very much like the vibe that the Chinese communists gave before they wiped out the educated. If you don't know about that period, I can direct you. But I'm sure you know your history.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

By all means, let's deal with the issue.

"And now, when exactly are you going to sell everything YOU OWN and do what Christ says?"

In that quote, you are showing very typical liberal arrogance in thinking that you know more than you do. This is true in so many things, but especially in religion. I find it comical that those who have little or nothing invested in faith are constantly advising others. Ah well...

Refer to your New Testament. Christ met a lot of people. I can recall one case where he actually did tell someone to go sell all that he had and give to the poor and follow him. (Luke 18:22) Now, if he told everyone or even most people to do that, you would have a point, but to a great many people he said nothing like that. In fact, your comment sounds a great deal like what was said by one of the apostles when a woman, seeking to honor Christ, anointed his head with fine perfume. The apostle was indignant and said that the perfume could have been sold for a fortune to give to the poor. Christ honored the woman, and rebuked the apostle. The apostle's name was Judas.

The record is very clear on who gives more to the poor in terms of money, volunteer hours, blood donations, and most everything else, and the record is that Christians give over three times as much as secular types. Even better, we give of what we have without insisting on taking away from everyone else. That's called generosity.

Now, you are very correct that the couple was killed for attempting to lie to God, a very serious offense. The point that I was making, which I believe is quite relevant, is that it was acknowledged in scripture that the property was his to with as he pleased, and afterward the money was his (and his wife's). He could have given the half honestly and been rewarded. As it is, he wanted to appear more generous than he really was. Kind of like people who insist the poor have to be helped with other people's money.

Gary Baker said...

"Why can't a government do the same thing that the disciples did--collect money and spread the wealth and give it to those who need it?"

You make it sound as though you are advocating the same thing as is described in the scripture you quoted, and that is where your dishonesty lies. You are not.

In the scripture, everyone who sold and gave did so voluntarily. You are advocating the use of government force. Additionally, the apostles and church members were the ones that were determining the need, and at that time the "poor" were widows, orphaned children, and disabled. If you were able bodied, you worked. They could verify and decide where the resources went without the constraints of political cronyism. The transfer was also much more efficient. Basically, everything that was collected could be used to aid the poor. Government averages closer to 30%, making it a terrible waste. Finally, God designated the church and clergy as the mechanism for caring for those in need, not the government. Looking at how well the government generally handles such things, His wisdom is confirmed. I'm not saying that churches don't have problems, but they can be corrected much easier and anyone can stop giving as soon as they are unsatisfied.

"Shouldn't people mimic Jesus and the disciples?"

See above note on secular good works.

"And that comment about education--isn't it about time that you actually get one? I keep getting this vibe from you that is very much like the vibe that the Chinese communists gave before they wiped out the educated."

Here is a relevant link that you might find interesting:

A school district in Rhode Island where 50% of the students are failing all of their classes. The average teacher salary is 78,000. The average salary for the area is 22,000. Needless to say, most of the area is kind of poor. The school board commissioner had to come up with a turnaround plan, so she presented one to the union that would require an extra 25 minutes a day instruction time and some tutoring. Our big-hearted union educators told them to pack sand. No extra pay, no improvement. 78,000 just isn't enough for a functional school system.

This shows pretty much how qualified I feel you are to lecture me on both the subject of generosity and education. By paying dues to teacher's unions, you are doing more to damage the education of students than I could hope to, even if I did have that as a goal. And for all of your slurs about my knowledge, you have yet to produce the same type of cause-effect explanation of your reasoning that I do on a somewhat regular basis. You're great at slinging mud, as most liberals are, but also like most liberals when it comes to showing reason or insight you can't seem to go beyond insult and sarcasm.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
You mean you don't sling mud as well? I don't think I have ever met anyone (republican or democrat) who can't do that. :)

I just read that link. So 50% of the students are failing. There is no indication in that article why exactly students are failing. Before calling for the firing of the teachers, the whole system needs to be examined. I have students in my class that fail. I've tried everything except for giving them grades they don't deserve (of course we are talking about 17-21 year olds, so that is a bit different from kids). But I can't be blamed for that. There are a lot of factors in dealing with education that have little to do with the teacher. For example, the average salary is just $22,000. That right there tells me that many families are probably at or under the poverty level. That has nothing to do with the teachers. What if some of these students are coming to class without breakfast? Is that a reason to fire a teacher? I don't think so. Then again, if the teachers aren't teaching what they are supposed to, then maybe it is time to get rid of a few. But to dump all of them? Sounds a bit high-handed. Maybe the school administration had better look at itself before letting these teachers all go.

Gary Baker said...

"Before calling for the firing of the teachers, the whole system needs to be examined."

Exactly so. I quite agree. The point that I was making in this case, however, was that firing was not the first option. The first option was to get the teachers to pitch in a little more effort (25 minutes a day). The teachers refused unless they received extra pay. They felt that they could do that because the union would protect them. Which goes back to my two major reasons for brining this up:

1. Unions prevent accountability of teachers.

2. Liberals, who embrace unions, are not really inclined to help out the poor. They had a perfect opportunity to help out a poor community. As soon as it was going to cost them something, extra time in this case, it was "You're on your own."

As for the notes about the average salary being low being a contributing factor, I would agree that it can be but does not let the teacher's off the hook. I live in a poor district (over 50% on free or reduced price lunches). Our local schools, however, do not accept excuses from the teachers or the students. As such, our results stay high. I read of lots of areas where poor students produce outstanding results because that's what the teachers, parents, and admin demand. Not surprisingly, most of these examples come from non-union charter schools or schools in right to work states where the unions can't block effective reform or demand more for doing the job they were hired to do in the first place.