« | »

Loughner In 2007: ‘Die Bitch, Die Cops’

From an ever so discreet Washington Post:

A mailbox outside the home of Jared Lee Loughner is seen in Tucson, Arizona January 11, 2011.

‘We don’t understand why this happened,’ parents say

By Dana Hedgpeth and David A. Fahrenthold
Wednesday, January 12, 2011; A01

TUCSON – Three days after their son allegedly killed six people and left a congresswoman critically wounded, Jared Lee Loughner’s parents issued their first public comments Tuesday night, saying that they, too, cannot comprehend what had motivated the shootings.

"There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better. We don’t understand why this happened," said their statement, signed "the Loughner family." The parents made no mention of their son.

Hours after the statement’s release, two law enforcement sources said that FBI agents had found a 2007 letter from Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) to the shooting suspect, with the words "Die, bitch" and "Die, cops" scrawled on it.

The letter, which thanked Loughner for attending an event of hers, was found in a safe in his Tucson home, the sources said…

Note the timing of the release of this last bit of information. We have heard about the 2007 note from Rep. Giffords thanking Loughner for attending her event for several days now. But for some reason we have never heard about Mr. Loughner’s comments on it until today.

And even then the news is effectively buried, as it is here by the Washington Post. You would think such information would rate a headline and a mention in the lead paragraph, but you would be wrong. It doesn’t fit with the narrative that the media is still trying to perpetuate.

As we have said previously, there was no Tea Party in 2007. Nobody outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin. Only Democrats were putting targets on Congressional districts.

So why have Sherriff Dupnik and the rest of the authorities and the media held this news back? – You know damn well why.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 12th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

29 Responses to “Loughner In 2007: ‘Die Bitch, Die Cops’”

  1. proreason says:

    How many families resist the lure of the media spotlight, no matter what the cause? This one has. I think that makes one. Only tiny crafted comments have come out, this one through the liberals’ media organ, wapro.

    I’m not blaming the famly in any way. The shooter is certifiably insane. But I still think the family has a dark secret the media is determined to make sure never comes to light, or comes to light under the tight control of the liberals’ propagandists.

    Supercop is involved as well. It has just come out that the police visited Loughner more than once. That isn’t a smoking gun, but it sure is curious coming out 72 hours after the loony sheriff of the department has appeared on dozens of TV shows spewing his libel 360 degrees about every conservative who walks the face of the earth.

  2. untrainable says:

    We don’t understand why this happened…
    It happened because you took no action to get your creepy ( have you seen that mug shot?) and obviously unstable son the help he desperately needed. His “friends” all say he was a whacko. He was thrown out of school pending a mental health evaluation for Christ’s sake! BUY A CLUE PEOPLE! Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

    You wish you had something to say to make us feel better? What could anyone say to make us feel better about YOUR SON committing premeditated murder? Everyone would feel better if maybe you’d done something for your son before his insanity resulted in murder. That aside, perhaps if the police had done their job and followed up on his list of death threats over the last 4 years, this all could have been avoided. Too late now.

    At least their first statement wasn’t to blame talk radio, or the evil right wing conspiracy, or Sarah Palin, or the Tea Party, as the drive-by media has decided to. It all comes down to blind or just plain ignorant parents letting overt signs of insanity go unnoticed, and inept law enforcement not following up on obvious signs that this punk was a danger to society. Serving and protecting, in this particular Sheriff’s opinion, apparently means serving his political masters and protecting his own incompetent a$$.

    • mcg says:

      I would encourage everyone to lighten up a bit on Loughner’s parents.

      Mental illness is a an extremely difficult thing to deal with. Frankly, denial as a coping mechanism is not out of the realm of reasonable. Our civil libertarian approach to involuntary commitment is such that it’s extremely hard to force anyone to get treatment they don’t want. And if they are fortunate enough to get treatment, there is sometimes a vicious cycle where the person ceases medication once they “feel” better, and subsequently relapse. When mental illness turns criminal, the perpetrator *still* doesn’t get the treatment they need, because they are treated first and foremost as a criminal. That, too, is understandable.

      I’m not poking fingers at societal flaws or trying to assign blame to this or that political movement. I’m simply saying that this is an extremely difficult challenge. Indeed, even if we as a nation were united in our *desire* to handle the problem, I don’t think we know objectively *what* to do.

      I wish I could say I’m just talking out of my ass here, but unfortunately I have some personal experience dealing with this—far, far less than the Loughners have had, but more than anyone should.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Compare and contrast what we’ve seen of the Loner parents to the father of Christina Green, the murdered nine year old. Interesting excersize.

      Letter summary:

      – We feel awful
      – We know you feel awful
      – We wish we had the power to turn back time fix this
      – No idea how it happened.

      Classic Liberal perspective when they’ve effed up.

    • proreason says:

      mcg, I agree that the problem of a mentally ill child can be an extremely difficult one to deal with.

      But something has been carefully hidden about this family so far, which makes me very suspicious.

      While no information was revealed about the family and very little about the son’s manias, the liberals’ media were ferverishly spinning the story into a Sarah Palin / Talk Radio crime.

      Now we are beginning to hear the bits and pieces that inquiring minds were interested in from moment 1 of this tragedy.

    • mcg says:

      @proreason: Oh, now I am *very* open to blaming the authorities for dropping the ball. I just hope we don’t start hearing calls to prosecute or sue the parents as accessories—that is, of course, unless we hear they hid evidence of his specific plans to kill.

      And of course, keep in mind that he’s 22. He might have even been 18 when he received the infamous 2007 letter. And certainly it seems his friends noted a significant degradation in the last 2-3 years. So again, there may have been little his parents *could* do at this stage.

    • proreason says:

      One other point.

      My hunch is we are going to find out that the parents were borderline radicals in the 70’s, perhaps even with arrest records.

      Some report said the father bought the house he still lives in in 1977. That puts him at the correct age to have been involved in radiacl activity in the early 70s, perhaps even the late 60s. They both work for the government, as do many ex-radicals. They have infiltrated the government, after all.

      I know it’s a thin trail at this point, but there is a reason the lid has been kept tightly on the matter.

      Can you imagine if this had happened to a conservative family. We would know every family secret going back generations by know. They would already be pilloried in the public square.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Oh, if the family were in any way Conservatively politically active, or did anything in their normal life that reflected Conservative values, you better believe it’d be 24/7 on the Liberal’s media. In fact we’ve heard one fact about the parents more than the that Mother worked in Parks and Rec: the father works on cars, a nice optically generic non-Liberal activity.

      But I do agree that the accountability rage needs to stay on Dupnik, who does not deserve the title of sheriff, unless the word derelict goes in front of it, or it’s just replaced by activist.

    • proreason says:

      “that is, of course, unless we hear they hid evidence of his specific plans to kill.”

      See the other thread about the wildlife officer stopping the shooter the day of the crime.

      The father observed the shooter putting a black bag in the trunk of his car the day of the shooting and challenged him. Later the kid was stopped by a wildlife officer. So let me see. Obviously deranged 22 year old with a skull on an altar in the back yard, who had recently shaved his own skull, who had a known grudge against a public figure, a boy who had been kicked out (?) of the parent’s house at least once, is observed by the father the day of the mass murder putting a black bag into the trunk of his car, after which he drives to a public meeting for the object of his grudge.

      Well clearly, the first thing we should do is protect the parents.

      How many years did Laughner live with the parents after the 2007 incident with the Congresswoman? Whose yard was the altar in? Whose house was the safe in? What did the parents know about the 5 (that we know of) incidents at school, and the multiple arrests and the excessive drug usage, and the videos in the desert, and the extrardinarilly strage utube channel, and the lunatic rantings about grammar, and the purchase of the gun with a 30+ special magazine?

      I wouldn’t much care. The parent’s didn’t commit the murders…………..if the salivating media hadn’t already crucified their favorite villains, while working triple time to protect the family of the mass murderer. So now I want to know why.

    • proreason says:

      And the Slimes is now reporting that the police had made multiple visits to the parent’s home about the psycho.

      The universtity had called the parents in for a consultation.

      He was living with the parents at the time of the shooting, which sort of implies that the altar and the safe were at the parents home, and that the gun and 30+ ammunition clip was stored at their home.

      But I certainly can’t see any issues with any of that. The logical conclusion would be that the boy needed a girlfriend or a hobby.

    • wardmama4 says:

      I want to add something to this – from personal experience – even if the alleged shooter had obtained mental health treatment even as a minor – much of the information is denied to the parents – so indeed their statement that they do not understand what happened might be true. Most especially after he turned 18 – if it was with specific institutions – they would indeed not know anything.

      I have to agree with mcg – the parents may not have ignored or covered up this – They may actually not know a darn thing – I thank liberals for that – they see the mental health system as punitive and mean and parents as intruders in their child’s life – Hmmm, I wonder why?

      The mother works not for the gov or the county – she works for a non-profit (I think it was in the NYTs article I read this AM). As was the info that the alleged shooter has been shooting a 9mm (bet if we follow this story through the trial – it will be the same gun) since High School – therefore he could not have bought it himself, legally. Someone over 18 would have had to buy it – or other ‘criminal’ ways to have gotten it.

      And one more thing – if it is schizophrenia which the alleged shooter has – which many of the symptoms/behaviors indicate – that appears in young adult hood and would not be present in his teen years.

      All facts that the msm just can’t seem to get into most of the ‘news’ articles about this terrible tragedy.

  3. River0 says:

    I suspect the family is complicit to some degree. Frequently, criminal children are proxies for malicious parents who use their children as tools, thus escaping penalty, like Ma Barker and her boys.

  4. mcg says:

    To be fair: we don’t know when he wrote those comments on the note. But as we learn more about him, I’m wondering if Loughner had an obsessive psychotic crush on Giffords, and the 2007 meeting was, to him, a spurning.

  5. mcg says:

    Hmm, I think I’m willing to go there :) But I want to be better than our opponents here, and wait for the evidence. (Or find it myself.)

  6. untrainable says:

    mcg, I’m not insensitive to the circumstances surrounding mental illness. It can be brutal on family members to acknowledge that kind of problem in their midst. But I have to disagree that denial is reasonable. Denial is denial. It is a conscious choice to avoid acknowledging something because of the stigma, or because of personal discomfort, or because you simply don’t care. Denial not only hinders any chance of recovery, it facilitates escalation of the problem. The more background information we get on this punk, the more it seems that his problems were obvious to everyone he had any regular contact with. Friends, coworkers, schoolmates, the request by the school to get him evaluated before letting him return to class. The fact that he built a skull-topped shrine in the back yard of his parent’s home while living with them should have been at least a clue. That’s a LOT of denial. I mean fingers in the ears screaming blah blah blah at the top of your lungs denial.

    As pro said, the fact that the media hasn’t made cannon fodder out of the parents yet makes me think there are still a few shoes waiting to drop. I also just heard that the activist sheriff is refusing to release the files he has on poor poor Jarrod. I wonder why THAT is. More denial maybe? This time though, I think it’s the C.Y.A. kind of denial. Liberal denial.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Slam dunk. Well said.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      No more calls please; We have a winner.

    • mcg says:

      untrainable: unfortunately, you speak from inexperience.

      That is obvious for one reason: you seem to have an unwarranted faith that if they had just called the authorities and reported what they knew, that their son would have been taken care of somehow, and that this would never have happened. I mean, strictly speaking, they could have altered the timeline of his life, in which case this *particular* event might not have occurred.

      Here is a far more likely scenario: they report his “suspicious behavior” to the authorities. They don’t have enough under current law to do a damn thing. He gets pissed off, leaves the house. He can’t take care of himself worth a flip, so he’s out on the street. And at some point, violence happens. Still.

      And armchair quarterbacks whine that they should have known.

      You simply do not have an adequate appreciation of the difficulty of dealing with mental illness. I say denial is reasonable *not* because it is the right thing to do. I say it is reasonable because doing the right thing is so difficult that it is beyond many people’s capabilities.

    • proreason says:

      Just for the record, I haven’t said that the parents should have known, or that if they had, that they could have easily corrected the problem, or even corrected the problem at all. In fact, I acknowledged that such a problem is extremely difficult. I have a relative who is subject to bouts of severe depression, and even though it must be many times less difficult than scizophrenia, it is horrendous to deal with.

      My point has always been that there are some secrets that are only slowly coming out because they don’t fit the pernicious narrative that the left has constructed.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “I say it is reasonable because doing the right thing is so difficult that it is beyond many people’s capabilities.”

      With any luck, that’ll be part of the defense. I’d love to see how that plays out legally.

      When there is a noticeable problem, one can either address it or not. They may have tried to, but they failed. How do I know? People are dead and there is a reason, and they are the parents of a very clearly disturbed child. Does it all fall on them – no, we have other institutions that are supposed to serve as additional safety nets for this, and proper scrutiny is rightly directed at them. The prosecutor will try and argue that Jared made his choice consciously and in full knowing, and I believe the evidence supports that.

      Perhaps his radical descent into madness happened after he was a legal adult, thereby restricting the parent’s authority. Perhaps they continued to let him drag on at home into his 20’s because they knew he wasn’t fit or safe for independence after his accumulated criminal record during the time he had his own apt. Perhaps their error was that they didn’t lay enough boundaries of authority or take enough personal interest in his outside influences throughout the years (when children are in a healthy environment, parents by far play the biggest and most effective role in social and cognitive development). Perhaps they were incredibly abusive in one way or another, selfish, and never taught their son a thing through their own actions except how to hurt people.

      But any possibility doesn’t make it inappropriate to assert the Loughner’s are failures as parents. Innocents are dead, their son is a mass murderer. However difficult it is to recognize or deal with mental illness, you either do so effectively or you don’t. If others aren’t culpable for their inaction, then why is Jared culpable for his actions. It goes hand in hand with the belief that mental illness just randomly and inexplicably strikes normal people, that this was all just a freak random act on the part of a disturbed kid without the neurochemistry to understand his choice; nothing, no one’s to blame. God, if anyone, for making the boy like that, that’s the dirty little secret that accompanies that argument.

      The parents, the sheriff, the school, they all were in a position to take more drastic action to prevent this, which at least in the school’s case it seemed they tried to the best of their extent, albeit after five seriously notable incidents. For the parents, I imagine that’s what they think “What could I have done?” Then when someone tells them what they could’ve done: “Oh that’s too hard I couldn’t embarrassed my child like that. If I let my child think I think he’s crazy, that probably will make him crazy!” That’s not a Conservative or Liberal response but one of a parent that doesn’t want to admit their little angel has gone off the fringes. It’s a tough thing to deal with, exactly because the parent has to take on some level of blame and shame.

      But if parents don’t accept this responsibility, good ol’ Big Government has it’s own machinations of how to deal with this problem. But they’re not quite as discerning, nor would the rehabilitative care be as genuinely helpful if it were coming from someone who actually cared about them personally.

    • untrainable says:

      I say denial is reasonable *not* because it is the right thing to do. I say it is reasonable because doing the right thing is so difficult that it is beyond many people’s capabilities.

      I’m sorry, I think you just made my point again. They dealt with obvious signs of mental illness by ignoring them. For the record, I never said anything about it being easy. I just don’t think the degree of difficulty is an excuse for inaction. I don’t have unwarranted faith that one phone call would have cured the kid. But I know that making no call at all certainly didn’t help. IMHO Given the choice between inaction that definately won’t help and making a call that might help, there is no choice.

    • wardmama4 says:

      I have to chime in again – Inaction or the appearance of such is NOT proof of your point. This entire thread line IS proof of what mcg and I are attempting to point out – that the parents are pointed out as _____(fill in the blank, at fault, in denial, oblivious, covering up etc) – When until you walk into this particular corner of hell – You don’t have a real clue.

      I can’t tell you the number of therapists – Who won’t take ‘children’ – Who won’t take our insurance (gov – please remember that one in coming years) – Who won’t/can’t. But by then it was TOO DAMN late.

      I can’t tell you the number of school staff/admin – who looked the other way at fights, assaults and threats to my son – but suspended him for using the F word and told me – he was the problem. Never did anyone but one principle and one teacher listen – when I said he was bored in school – challenge him and let him do work he wants to do (he ended up a 4th grader on the middle school math team – go figure). . .And in middle school he was invited to test for the International Baccalaureate® program – but less than 15 months later attempted suicide as a failure in HS.
      Yeah Right – he was the problem and we were to blame for his failures. //sarc off//

      My older son went through the EXACT same thing – they (school) listened in 6th grade & immediately changed his entire class schedule – and he now has his Masters Degree – that is how much our ‘educational’ system has plummeted in a mere 10 years. My only regret is that I did not have the foresight and guts to say ‘S*rew you and homeschool my son. Maybe our lives would have been different. Certainly my son’s would have been.

      And one final perspective on this – My husband and I thank God every day our son turned his pain inside – or we would have the guilt that the Loughners are mired in to live with every single day for the rest of their lives.

      Compassion and tolerance mean nothing in the World today – and for that I DO BLAME LIBERALS.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “My only regret is that I did not have the foresight and guts to say ‘S*rew you’ and homeschool my son. Maybe our lives would have been different. Certainly my son’s would have been.”

      Okay here comes another Marathon post, I’m sorry that these keep being so long, the tangents keep flowing out. I’m trying to keep this on topic as much as I can. There are just so many variables that factor into this that one literally needs a research paper to properly analyze it.

      But your statement there was the principle behind our point Wm. My Mom, who tried to be very proactive with my development, said pretty much the exact same thing by the time we had reconciled. She just didn’t realize how much culture outside of the home bubble had degraded morally and how all these outside voices from school, mass media, etc, were impacting me. But even if it did play a major role, neither of us could solely blame others for how they were hurting me, we had to take our share of the responsibility for our bad decisions with eachother. My Mom saw I was hurting but instead of trying to understand why just figured the old mantra of “suck it up, get over it, it builds character” lecture applied because that was the conventional wisdom when she grew up, and mainstream society was indeed a lot healthier back then. Kids were allowed to be kids back then, they weren’t always grappling day in and day out with adult issues like homosexuality, predators, existential global politics, extreme Leftist ideas and their cross-institutional machine to manufacture group think.

      That template isn’t that uncommon these days, parents not knowing just how distressing modern life is for kids these days, especially for the one’s who are being taught traditional values at home. Not saying that’s what you did, just giving you our personal experience.

      Pretty much every teenager goes through their own spouts of depression, confusion, anger, rebellion and identity crisis and yes thanks to the Liberals harranguing kids day in and day out to challenge and rebel against traditional authority and moral standards, those feelings can easily get compounded and twisted. And what’s worse is that the disconnect between parents and their young adults grows as the child turns more and more to the wrong answers and fights with their parents for control over their own lives like Liberals tell them they deserve (again, so that they can brainwash them and make them into good little socialists – or nihilistic anarchists, who cares so long as they don’t realize the Truth in Conservatism, right?) Parents don’t like to fight that premise, because giving a child more control over their lives as they grow up is something every parent has to do, but the child has to prove to a fair degree that they understand the responsibilities of freedom.

      If I can speculate, here in California at least the majority of parents probably know less about what goes on their kids’ lives and minds than they know about their favorite hobby, TV show, movie star, or whatever. And a majority of those parents THINK they have a normal grip on their normal kid.

      Whether or not parents are consciously aware or able to tell if there’s a developing mental/emotional problem IMO doesn’t excuse that they’re the chief authority and potentially biggest and most capable healer. If this shooting teaches the public anything, I hope it’s that in today’s fast-paced, cutthroat, and cynical world, more parent’s will strive to educate themselves on protecting their child’s mental and spiritual health as they do in protecting physical health and the health of their child’s opportunities for success in the future.

      My deepest prayers go out to your son and your family Wm. I sincerely hope God can help him find peace. Mental Illness, IMO, is one of the Devil’s cruellest inventions. The important fact is that on top of rightly seeing Liberalism’s role, you took action on your other son’s behalf.

  7. proreason says:

    Another interesting aspect of this situation is whether or not the madman was influenced by political rhetoric. I am interested in tn’s cut about that subject.

    When I was that age, neither I nor anybody else that I knew was interested in politics. We were getting our lives going, figuring out what we could do or not, getting in and out of relationships, sowing our oats, being a little wild, having fun and not having fun. We didn’t have time for political stuff.

    I think I’m as aware as the next guy, but I didn’t listen to Rush or any other radio commentator until about 5 years ago. I would occasionally watch the evening news, but there weren’t many days when I wasn’t doing something I thought was more important. I would get interested in some major events like the first Iraq War, the hanging chad election and 9/11, but I wasn’t really a devote of Fox until the last 5 or 6 years. I watched more CNN than Fox because that was the better known outlet. I wasn’t even aware of their political bias.

    I only go into detail because I think I’m probably MORE political than most people, not just now, but for my entire life. My exposure to 20 year olds is limited, but I would be really surprised if a 22 year-old shooter was listening to anything on the radio other than music and watching anything on TV other than entertainment shows. I would be surprised if more than a tiny % of people in their early 20’s are politicized at all. Of those that are, I expect most would have been recruited by the left, not the right. Oh sure, a good percentage vote, but we all know you can vote without knowing much about the right vs the left.

    tn may be able to tell us that things are different now. They obviously are for him, but I’m curious whether it’s common for young people to spend a lot of time on politics nowadays.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’m honored that you’ve asked, Pro. Here’s my assessment, 20-something demographic first:

      The Left’s penchant for making everything political has made the discussion of politics a bigger mainstay in young people’s lives, yes. That isn’t to say statistically speaking that the majority of us still aren’t self-consumed heathens, but the perpetually partying are notoriously unrealiable voters that probably can’t be count on as a central part of the Obama swindle again. A lot of them are living in crumbling fantasies themselves.

      Those that did come into politics invigorated by the Won have quickly turned cynical not just because their lives haven’t improved one bit (most are getting worse), but in no small part because they’ve been assaulted by politics tenfold ever since. Pop Culture always had a slant and that’s why today’s youth can parrot the anti-capitalist template, but ever since 2008 Liberal propoganda in music, movies, and comedy shows has become abusive. It’s blatant now, and everybody that knows how to recognize it is apprehensive to say the least. No coincidence that Hollywood, the music industry, and basic cable are all collapsing – just like with the rest of Liberalism’s fall, the internet is not to blame.

      Those in my age bracket that have stayed issue-oriented are very wary of the Dims, many have full blown come over to Tea Party. The common theme among new young Conservatives is that it dawned on them that no one else was going to take care of them, and that it took a long time (and personal hardship) to get out of the socialist big clique high school mindset and finally understand what it means in terms of their own behavior to be personally responsible. The other thing that goes without saying is that my generation is incredibly wired, which has served no small threat to the Left in the continuing evolution of the New Media, especially Sarah Palin’s brilliant effectiveness on Facebook. But there are a lot of zombies out there whose compasses are legitimately backwards because of the life-long brainwashing of mass media, teachers, politicians or even parents sadly.

      To get to your first question though of whether political rhetoric “influenced” Loughner, I guess I’d have to ask you to establish what qualifies “political rhetoric.” I don’t completely disagree with Hillary that he was an extremist in his own right (even if she’s playing politics with the language). Would I blame it specifically? Never – nor do I advocate for public regulations on political rhetoric, heavy metal, any type of beliefs, or pot abuse (other than necessary laws that protect society from the intoxicated). It’s my belief that anything – ANYTHING (even an obsession with Christ) – can be mentally unballancing, or the stigma which triggers evil behavior. Obssessing over politics day in and day out, right vs left, religion, what is good, what is evil, all of this can drive someone insane if they forget to appreciate the blessing of life. When it comes to mental illness, it’s my belief that it’s probably due to ALL the negative stigma in an individual’s life, not any single one. That’s why I latch on to looking at this first through the lenses of personal responsibility.

    • proreason says:

      Well tn, it sounds like youngsters today are more aware politically than in my day. Probably due to all the info sources they have. Frankly, I’ve got way more than I want or need. I had the opportunity to give a bunch up a few years back and did so gladly. But I understand people want what they are used to.

      Even so, the known data points for Loughner indicate that he didn’t pay attention to, no matter be influenced by conservative news sources. I don’t think he’s an extremist either, certainly not in the accepted political meaning of the word. The Hildabeast is stretching the accepted definition to suit her political purposes. Everyone, of course, is an extremist about something. I even have a friend who is an extemist about being a moderate! I think he’s the biggest kook of all.

    • tranquil.night says:

      If we get past this current regime, then I think my generation’s got a fair chance at overcoming our big challenges fairly well, culturally, economically and politically, if only because circumstances are forcing us to engage, contemplate, and learn. This is a rapidly changing and uncertain world at the moment, everybody gets that. Fortunately, Liberals won’t have the control over media like they did circa 1960-2008 for a long time, if ever. People of all ages have been waking up from the Matrix everyday for sometime now, and the results on the nation are profound.

      Well I consider Anarchy to be a political ideology of pure anti-authority, anti-establishmentism, and the bulk of heavy metal preaches it to one degree or another. It may have influenced his thinking simply by giving him words and ideas to go along with or even justify his violent feelings, kinda like what they claim on Rush, or Rap or whatever. That’s why I was curious for a definition. But the huge odds are he didn’t shoot Giffords out of any extreme political motivation, not even to directly promote Anarchy. It sounds premeditated and personal, executed solely for the greatest amount of public infamy. So I see your point regarding Hillary in that respect.

      Oh, and I know exactly what you mean when it comes to extremist moderates.

  8. merkelerk says:

    Proreason, you make an interesting and valid point.

    When I was in my twenties (1980’s) few of my peers were interested in politics or history, those few that were tended to the right.
    It seems that todays youth are more politically active but with a decided anti-corporation, anti-liberty, pro-social bent.
    Witness the recent actions in my backyard at the G-20 summit in Toronto.

    In spite of the gross overt blame being hurled at the right by the media, evidence and logic all point to a lone wacko or a product of the left.

  9. proreason says:

    New info on Loughner. A girlfriend from several years back has emerged. She is normal, pretty, well spoken.


    The parents wouldn’t let her in their house. She blames the shootings on some deep dysfunction in the family, but doesn’t speculate what it might be. She said the parents were more like roommates. She also says she thinks he is faking mental illness but admits he was differenent when she last saw him 3 months ago than when they dated several years ago in high school.

    Some other info about the family ties to this fairly well:
    – another friend said that he would have to wait for 10 minutes before Loughner could get out of the house (although he also said he had spent a lot of time in the house).
    – neighbors said the family had become increasingly reclusive through the years. They build a fence to block a porch, grew foliage to block the house
    – the father hadn’t worked outside the house for years.
    – the father and son fought a lot, but not violently.
    – the story of the father on the day of the murders chasing the son into the desert because of the black bag

    This tends to bolster my hunch about family secrets. Some further possibilities (like little Paulie, with no evidence):
    – did / does the father have mental problems of his own?
    – was the father or both parents abusive?
    – were they deep into something out-of-the-mainstream, drugs, the occult, etc.
    – whose altar is it anyway?
    – was the shooter so unbalanced at an early age that the family felt they had to withdraw from the world?

    In a way, it sounds like the shooter was trying everything he could to escape, but couldn’t really make it out. He had a girlfriend, other friends, jobs, lived alone for a while, tried to get in the army. He was smart, knew a lot of things, could speak well, was good at math, had a website. I don’t know if that all ties into scizophrenia or not, but I continue to wonder about the family. (apologies in advance to mcg and wm. I know it’s painful to you guys.)

« Front Page | To Top
« | »