Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Report Criticizes EPA Oversight of Injection Wells






Truthdig Bazaar
Citizen Stan

Citizen Stan

By Patty Sharaf with Robert Scheer
$15.00

White Heat

White Heat

By Brenda Wineapple
$18.45

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

How Many Crazed Gunmen Is it Going to Take?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 10, 2009
Flickr / dbking

Inside the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

An 88-year-old anti-Semite shot up the U.S. Holocaust Museum on Wednesday, killing a security guard in the process. President Obama said in response “we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism.” Sure, but how about getting a little vigilant against guns?

The alleged shooter served six years in prison after showing up at a Federal Reserve meeting with a sawed-off shotgun among other weapons, but he obviously had no trouble rearming.

AP via Yahoo:

In 1983, he was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board and served more than six years in prison. He was arrested two years earlier outside the room where the board was meeting, carrying a revolver, knife and sawed-off shotgun. At the time, police said von Brunn wanted to take the members hostage because of high interest rates and the nation’s economic difficulties.

Writings attributed to von Brunn on the Internet say the Holocaust was a hoax and decry a Jewish conspiracy to “destroy the white gene pool.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Trithoverlies, June 16, 2009 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Robert if you would look at a map you will find Hebron on the West Bank and is a part of the Palestinian Athority and has been for years or atleast a large part of it is. If you are in the Iseaeli settlement at Hebron you are in th minority and yet you atempt to paint Israeli occupation of an area mostly under Palestinian control. Large sums of money are sent to the Palestinian Authority but almost none has ever reached the Palestinian People it ends up in Swiss bank accounts of Palestinian leaders, and in the hands of Hamas, and Hezbullah. So why blame the Jews is it the same mentility that has presisted for 3400 years. What of the 1 million Arab in Israel they are citizens of Israel. Only where militancy runs rabid is their a problem. But social engineers and leftist leaning liberals blame the Jews and the Conservatives for all that is wrong in this world, I am fed up with the lies being spread of Jewish atrocities not to mention the terrorist attacks against Israel. We want the Israeli’s to give more land without getting the assurance from the Palestinian Authority that the State of Israel will be recognized. Throughout the Middle East most Arab and Muslim nations don’t recognize Israel. Isreal never occupied all of the Gaza stripe only the settlements placed their after Egypts desasteious deffeats in 1967 & 73, Gaza was under Egyptian occupation for most of the time the camps were built by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria not Israel. So who segregated the Palestinians, the Jews NO, Arabs did. Why because they needed a group whose hatred they could exploit to further their own ambitions and agendas. Al Naqbah the Disaster the Arabs have been handed four such disasters for their hatred 1948-49, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Its not about Jerusalem which was only theirs from 642-680 AD. It was under three differant Turkish Groups from 680-1917 with 100 years under the Crusaders from 990-1100 AD. So when was there a Palestinians Kingdom Never! Who has lived there 3400 years A Remnant of Jews so if it belongs to any body other than God who made a covenant with Abraham around 2200 BC. Since then all the Gentile nations have been blessed. The U.S.A. has been blessed; but since 1967 the Government and State Department has pushed Israel to trade land for Peace, and bend over backwards to appease the Palestinians who noever met one single agreement made with Israeland in he end there is no Peace. Every time we push Israel to accept a new land for peace lie with no assurance we lose alittle more of God’s Blessing. Pres. Obama talks about precieved wrongs done to the Palestinians who were not evan called that till the 1930’s. The Romans didn’t call Arabs, Palestinians, the Turks didn’t called them that name, and the British called them mostly those bloody wogs not Palestinians only after the New Mufti of Jerusalem was named in the mid 30’s did any one begin using the name Palestinian, and it was one of the big lies promoted by the Mufti to the illiterate muslims, as was his second big lie that Jerusalem was the third holiest site in Islam. It was not even thought of for Mohamids night ride and ascension. In the 680’s when the Dome of the Rock Mosque was started as was the Al Aqasa Mosque. The lie is a late invention. the far Mosque at Mohamids Death in 630 AD was about two hundred miles, so not even close to Jerusalem was then under Roman/Byzantine control not Arab, or Turkish control and there were no mosque there a couple paegan temples but nothing even remotely Arab, four are five Jewish Synagogues were there.  All this to say the Israelis aren’t the problem neither is Islam. It’s Islamic extremist Hamas, Hezbullah, Al Qada, the Talihban, Shia Extremest and the Wahabi.
    Trithoerlies/Truthoverlies.
      John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, June 14 at 11:40 am #

Yes millions died and the exact number will never be known as periforal deaths have occured from it long after that evil happened.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 14, 2009 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

PatrickHenry:
‘Here is a good source and research site, albeit an holocaust “industry” site which will broad bush an investigator as a denier in a flash, pre-emptively.

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html’

I’m familiar with Nizkor.  As the article you cite mentions, Hilberg et al., the reliable historians, never accepted the proposition that four million or more were killed at Auschwitz, so they would have no reason to revise their accounts if new information about it came out.  In any case, the overall figures of six million Jews and six million non-Jews have always been rough estimates.  No one really knows exactly how many were killed, not even as meticulous a student of the event as Hilberg, who examined evidence down to the level of train schedules.  This does not mean that several million people were not exterminated with genocidal intentions, as Holocaust deniers typically assert.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 14, 2009 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, June 14 at 12:05 am #

Here is a good source and research site, albeit an holocaust “industry” site which will broad bush an investigator as a denier in a flash, pre-emptively.

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 13, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry:
’... Russians liberated Auschwitz and obtained the records there, the official 4 million who died was later changed to 1.5 million in 1990 by release of the Russion records, but no correction was made to the 6 million figure. ...’

The most detailed account of the Holocaust was made by Raul Hilberg, not the Russians.  I haven’t heard that he changed his findings in 1990, which he certainly would have had new evidence come to light.  Still, I’d like to examine this story.  Where is it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

Fadel:

Thanks for the correction.  I know “Al” means “The” in Arabic, but I was merely guessing that “Allah” meant “The Lord” rather than “The God”. 

Perhaps your view of me should be revised—I am probably not as simplistic as you might presume—and CERTAINLY not a simple as FT presumes!

Report this

By Sepharad, June 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the information, Inherit. (Even Fadel.)It’s been a long time since, too long, since I reread my Mohammed bios, Islamic religious history development, as well as the basics— Haditha & Koran. I’ll go back to them before commenting on what was in Mohammed’s mind. But I do stand by the main point, that unlike Moslems, the Jews have not tried to expand to Medina or Mecca or Baghdad or Damascus do not continually yearn for a new caliphate. All we want is a small, defensible part of what was once a larger Israel. With Jordan, the Arabs got the lion’s share right off the bat. The remaining 20% is hard for both Jews and Arabs to divide. And Jews don’t push conversion.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, June 13, 2009 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, June 13 at 8:53 am #

Sepharad, June 12 at 10:39 pm #
==========================================
In reference to the two comments referenced above, I got two surprises from two of my most notorious nemesis: one is a bad surprise and the other is a good one.

The bad surprise came from Sepharad in her so ignorant statements about Islam. This is despite all her continuous claims to being a learned journalist and a scholar of history. One wonders what will she say if she would admit that her knowledge about Islam is as good as a high school drop out!

The other good surprise came from no other than Inherit The Wind, who corrected Separad’s ignorant statements, and was mostly on the mark. And I take my hat off to ITW in respect for this enlightenment, with which I concur, except for the following statement: 
=====================
“After all, while I’m no Arabic scholar, I do know that “Allah” isn’t God’s name but is merely Arabic for “God” (I guess it’s actually “The Lord”).”
==============================================
Wrong on this part ITW! The word “Allah” is the proper Arabic word for “The God” or “The One God” or “The One Universal Transcendent God” versus the other minor “ilahs” (i.e.“gods”)which the people worshiped before Islam in the form of idols and statues. So in that sense “Allah” is also the God of Jews and Christians, minus the concept of Trinity in the case of Christians.

So as a man of faith, I have two different prayers / supplications for my nemesis.

To ITW I would say: May you continue in your path of truth and enlightenment till I start seeing you as a friend, and not an enemy!

And to Sepharad I would say: May you find more time and motivation to become wiser through basic learning, before you rush into exposing your ignorance, till I start seeing you as a neutral objective observer, and not a fanatic and ignorant enemy!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 13, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

By hippie4ever, June 13 at 3:30 am #

I don’t deny that the holocaust happened, I most certainly do believe it, millions of jews, poles, gypsys, gays, russian peasents, soldiers, etc. died there and the proof is physical and documented. 

Russians liberated Auschwitz and obtained the records there, the official 4 million who died was later changed to 1.5 million in 1990 by release of the Russion records, but no correction was made to the 6 million figure. 

So, where did this 6 million figure come from? one Ilya Ehrenburg, chief Soviet propagandist during WWII who later died in Israel. It was Ehrenberg who first coined the mystic number on Dec. 22, 1944 long before tens of thousands of Jewish internees in German camps were given the choice of staying to be liberated by the Russians or fleeing West with their German captors, they did not hesitate to choose the latter option.  The lies of Ilya Ehrenburg succeeded in creating a climate of rabid, anti-German hate which led to the death of millions. A typical example of the genocidal daily fare served up to Soviet troops, taken from an Oct. 1944 leaflet to the Red Army: “Kill! Nothing in Germany is guiltless, neither the living nor the yet unborn. Follow the words of Comrade Stalin and crush the fascist beast in its lair. Break the racial pride of the German woman. Take her as your legitimate booty. Kill, you brave soldiers of the glorious Soviet army!”  The end result was the rape of every woman left in Berlin.

Questioning “facts” surrounding one of the biggest mass evils in modern history does mean you have to believe all or nothing as zionists would have you believe.  Just like slapping an antisemite label on those they don’t like, they will slap the holocaust denier label on those who question their revisionist history.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 13, 2009 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

By Sepharad, June 13 at 4:07 am #

“There are Hamas militants operating around Hebron, was a recent shootout between them and Fatah police, but that’s no excuse for harrassing the Bedouin, who were not (according to Peace Now) aiding Hamas.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sepharad says that Israel’s IDF is “harrassing” the Bedouins. How can one call bulldozing and crushing someone’s home…“harrassing”? This is NOT harassing the Palestinian Bedouins; it is ethnic cleansing. These Palestinian Bedouins have been living under those same squalid conditions of Israel’s brutal occupation for the last 42 years with NO basic human rights, no electricity, no indoor plumbing or water.

If you saw the video, you saw or heard the translation of what Ezra Nawi was attempting to say to those racist IDF…“Why are you laughing soldier? You are only causing more hate. Those children will be sleeping outside tonight.” Those racist IDF just continued to laugh.

I don’t think that anyone would call it “harrassing” if one’s home were to be bulldozed by a racist & nazi/ zionist Israeli regime for NO reason. Its Zionism’s ways & methods of stealing more Palestinian land by evicting the Palestinians & bulldozing their dwellings/homes.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 13, 2009 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

Sepharad, June 12 at 10:39 pm #

pgg804 - re June 12 1:38 post, you say “The Arab countries sell the U.S. oil. In return we give the Israeli military aid so they can murder the Arabs.”
Are you kidding? The American government since Israel’s inception has TEMPERED their support only BECAUSE the Arabs have oil to sell and Israel does not.

Considering that there were Jews throughout what is now Arab land 1,300 years BEFORE Mohammed woke up and discovered yet a second monotheistic god (of whom he conveniently was the only prophet), one can only assume Jews in general are not warlike and expansionist by nature. They did leave Medina and Mecca so the Arabs could worship whatever in their holy cities, and were quite content with Israel and its capital Jerusalem. Jews don’t even try to convert people, whereas Arabs do, like evangelical Christians.
*********************************************

Sepharad, I rarely take issue with you but this time I must:
Mohammed did not “discover” a second God—he fully acknowledged that his God was the same God as that of the Jews and Christians—this is why they are considered “incomplete Moslems” and “People of the Scripture”—LITERAL interpretation would make us all brothers and sisters in different branches of the same religion.  The Koran has a book of Mary, and worships Jesus as a prophet.

Mohammed is not God’s only prophet, he is described as God’s Last and Greatest prophet—very different.

There is a theory proposed amongst Moslem scholars that the Mohammed wasn’t interested in converting Jews and Christians because they were ALREADY worshiping the one true God and his mission was to bring that God to the Arabs who were heathen.

As I am frequently accused of hating all Moslems I think it’s important to make clear that Islam is NOT the enemy, that it is in many ways very similar to the other two Abrahamic religions, not a different one.

After all, while I’m no Arabic scholar, I do know that “Allah” isn’t God’s name but is merely Arabic for “God” (I guess it’s actually “The Lord”).

Report this

By ardee, June 13, 2009 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

hippie4ever, June 13 at 3:30 am

I would add two comments to your well posed response.

The Germans were meticulous record keepers thus there exists literally tons of documents, reports and statistics, schedules and data of all kinds proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what occurred in those camps.

Secondly, Holocaust deniers do so , not because they really believe that history was subverted to gain advantage for Jews, but for reasons quite other and quite a bit more despicable.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 13, 2009 at 1:07 am Link to this comment

Robert, thanks for the Ezra Nawi story. Peace Now has been helping him but more letters are needed. There are Hamas militants operating around Hebron, was a recent shootout between them and Fatah police, but that’s no excuse for harrassing the Bedouin, who were not (according to Peace Now) aiding Hamas.

Report this

By hippie4ever, June 13, 2009 at 12:30 am Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, I’ve been to Auschwitz-Birkanau and Dachau. Guess what? They are real—they actually exist in time and space, are visited by many people including some who have been incarcerated there.

Those people who were incarcerated and managed to survive said the camps were real; so did the SS who worked there.

I saw showerheads inside “the showers” of Dachau and guess what, PatrickHenry? They didn’t connect to any plumbing—they were just there for show. But there was venting on the roof, and that was where the poison pellets were dropped.

There is a room in Auschwitz that has a whipping bench as well as meat hooks on the ceiling. The bench is still stained by the blood and gore that occurred there—really and truly!!! Prisoners were indeed beaten and hanged there.

There are rooms inside the museum area where there are thousands and thousands of eyeglasses. There is also an enormous mound of shoes. During the war these items were difficult to procure; their existance, their massiveness, is damning and compelling testimony against deniers of the Holocaust. The Nazis were killing inmates faster than they could steal their valuables.

So where in “Mein Kampf” are you now?

Report this

By Sepharad, June 12, 2009 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment

Trithoverlies, I know today’s evangelical Christians don’t kill people for not converting. I don’t hold their beliefs, but everyone has the right to their own. The Christians at the time of the Crusaders killed Jews along with Moslems, and later came the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions. The discovery of the New World used a god to justify a quest for personal riches and gold to fill the Spanish and Portuguese treasuries. Later, Protestant and Catholic countries fought one another, still later the Protestans split into into different divisions serious enough to fight over, and still later, after coming to what would become America, Protestants split into many divergent sects, many of which feel they alone are going to go to heaven. I don’t disrespect people for believing any kind of religion, as long as they don’t persecute or undermine anyone else’ religioin or lack of same. In Israel, there is a segment comprised of extremely religious Jews who are willing to die and see others die because of their religion, and that I’m also opposed to. I’m an American Jew, I support Israel and have family and many friends there, both Jew and Arab, and I do believe that Israel has an undeniable right to exist as a Jewish majority state. I also believe that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs need two separate states, and that Israel must defend itself to hold its own. I wish it did not take fighting to do that, but if that is what is required then Israelis must fight. However, I do not believe that extremely religious Jews have the right to impose their religion on other Jews, or have any religious-based right to attack or displace Arabs who are not attacking them. I don’t think any religion is better than any other; and I don’t think anyone should have a right to impose their religion on anyone else.

My math isn’t so great: thanks for correcting it re ancient history.

Don’t stop posting. The wider array of voices, the better.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

I am a Evangelical Christian and yes I would tell you my story and hope that you would see something in me that you are missing but my trying to convert you stops when you tell me to go. I don’t then come back and blow up your home are point a Gun at your head and say convert or die. I want walk into a crowded mall and blow myself up for a god which is man made. My God I read created the universe from nothing the scientist say it started with a big bang and force that view to be the only view taught and that we have ancestors that evolved over billions of years into us. but even they the scientist can’t say what caused the suposed big bang or what started the two amino acids mixing together or the how did they come into existance, and what caused the ouzz that they were in on a planet with no atmosphere so please don’t tell me your bias against Chritianity its lame and an excuse to do as you please.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
      John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. The Temple was built 1000 years befor Christ and Aberaham settled in Canaan 2200 years before Christ and the first Arabs moved in about 640 AD. and even then they were a minority for the Romans and the Armenians and the Persians and the Turks were there along with about 300,000 Jews. the Area being ocuppied by the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians since 1931 were supose to inherit according to the Balfour Agreement when the Turks were deffeated in WWI the lands from the Jordan River which is today Jordan. The West Bank and Gaza were until 1967 occupied by Jordan, and Egypt and the so called Palestinians were herded into camps by Jodan and Egypt not the Jews so again people keep trying to blame the Israeli’s for what Arabs did to Arabs. learn true World history and stop listening to far left professors that have axes to grind.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

ardee—“Right” and “left” are used pretty inexactly.  Hence I said angles, referring to style rather than to content.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 12, 2009 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

pgg804 - re June 12 1:38 post, you say “The Arab countries sell the U.S. oil. In return we give the Israeli military aid so they can murder the Arabs.”
Are you kidding? The American government since Israel’s inception has TEMPERED their support only BECAUSE the Arabs have oil to sell and Israel does not.

Considering that there were Jews throughout what is now Arab land 1,300 years BEFORE Mohammed woke up and discovered yet a second monotheistic god (of whom he conveniently was the only prophet), one can only assume Jews in general are not warlike and expansionist by nature. They did leave Medina and Mecca so the Arabs could worship whatever in their holy cities, and were quite content with Israel and its capital Jerusalem. Jews don’t even try to convert people, whereas Arabs do, like evangelical Christians.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

The problem in each of the latest shooting sprees was not guns, but no communication to stop them before they went off. In all three cases the F.B.I. and Homeland securities knew that these three were Trouble with a capital T, and did not stop them, nor were they registered on any State Bureau of Investigation regestry of offenders so when a gun store checked each had no records so they were sold weapons. The 88 year old was a felon he did not even have the right to buy a gun any gun, but it was the Bureacracy that feailed us not guns. The second shooter the 23 year old was known to have gone to Somalia for terrorist training so the big government Bureacracy failed us by not listing him as a dangerous character. the third incident was a known danger as well yet again the S.B.I.‘s showed a clean record in his case it was because his conviction had been overturned by a Clinton appointee Federal Court Judge, so the system must be fixed stop blaming a cold piece of metal which has no mind; but has also saved more lives from criminals than the number of murders of nut jobs. Due to a big mess of a Bureacracy that doesn’t work guns continue to be found in the hands of Lawbreakers, so fix the Bureacracy trim back the redundancy that does not communicate with other deptments. But the left wants all of us unarmed and at the mercy of the Law breakers. Some times a person snaps but you have no right to infringe on my rights as a law abiding citizen because .03% of the population snap three tenths of a percent snap so we are all suposed to lose our Rights granted by our creator and the U.S. Constitution so to the people that want to take my guns away I don’t mind if you don’t own one but I want no infrengement on my right to have and bear firearms.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
      John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. The Virgina Tech Student had been ruled to be a danger by a Virginia Judge so his name should have been on the S.B.I. register but a clerical error had the notice slip through the crack and He was able to buy two pistols not because the pistols were bad not because the Gun Shop didn’t do its job but some Bureacratic law clerk didn’t do his job. So blaming the gun for the problem is like saying all Muslims are bad guy’s because 3 million of 1.6 billion are. There 13,000 murders committed last year this includes the murders of spouses, of children and criminal on criminal and the psychos. Do the math but remember also that each victem was a person but that stil doesn’t meaan blame the gun for the choises made by people.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Meanwhile, back in Israel

06.11.2009 | Haaretz

By Gideon Levy

“So let’s take a look at what’s happening in our country after U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech. A historic speech like his was supposed to make waves in Israel, stimulate discussion and spark debate. And here is what has happened: Our own Barak, Defense Minister Ehud, who used to be considered at least as brilliant as Obama, told Etgar Keret in an interview with Haaretz yesterday: “Where does the [Palestinian nation] live? In a cage? A jail? A swimming pool?” And Barak’s own answer to this question: “It lives in its country.”

After the prime minister’s top diplomatic adviser determined that two states is a childish solution, along comes another statesman and determines that we’re all children. Stupid children, it must be said, to whom you can sell any bit of nonsense, including all the nonsense in that interview.

The Palestinians, who cannot travel from one village to another without permission from Israel, who have no basic human rights and who have been trampled underfoot, humiliated and imprisoned without any sign of sovereignty, are already living as a free people in their country. If the defense minister really thinks so, then there is grave cause for concern: Mr. Security is deranged and has lost touch with reality. If he doesn’t think so, then he’s messing with us. Which is worse?”

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/that-was-the-week-that-was-not/

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

To Inherit the Wind:

You said “You have also hinted that you are a Holocaust denier as well.

All of your posts lead me to suspect you are either a white-supremacist or a Moslem fanatic far outside the mainstream of Moslem opinion”.

Instead of addressing the substance of my post, you chose to label me with some insults.  That comes in handy when you’ve lost the argument.

I’m none of the slanderous insults you tagged on me.  But, you demonstrate the anti-Muslim feeling in this country when you speak of Moslem fanatics.  As the guy said in the article I posted “since 9/11 not a single American has even been punched in the nose by an angry Muslim, as far as I can tell”.

But when you look at the other article, the American posters sound like they want to form a lynching party if someone says something they don’t like.  500 years ago they burned “witches” at the stake, 2000 years ago they killed Christians and your fellow travelers want to beat suspected “holocaust deniers” to death.

Report this

By ardee, June 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 12 at 9:32 am
Whether it’s the “right” or the “left” angle being worked by the ruling class, one set of principles prevails: the government should be more powerful and the ordinary people more submissive and more carefully surveilled and manipulated.
................................

The ruling class certainly , but the way you pose this could be open to belief that left and right are in favor of more restrictive and intrusive govt. Elements of both believe in less govt., or perhaps a more effective and streamlined model.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 12, 2009 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment

From an educated Jewish fellow I admire.

http://www.henrymakow.com/index.html

Report this

By tahitifp, June 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, June 12 at 5:01 pm #

Paracelsus—“Keith Olberman is making a tie-in between Ron Paul, Truthers, and this Von Brunn nutter. This is not right….”

*****************
Was it Matthews yesterday that tied nut-cases in with progressives?  I heard it in passing and couldn’t believe it.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 12, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

ITW, since when does being a holocaust skeptic make one a white supremacist?  Thats a stretch. 

If the facts are truely the facts surrounding the holocaust were rock solid then I would think honest and open debate about them would be an exercise that you would endorse.

Theres alot out there on this subject and I don’t recognize you or I as being credible historians on the issues.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus—“Keith Olberman is making a tie-in between Ron Paul, Truthers, and this Von Brunn nutter. This is not right….”

Now you know how it feels to hear you group Socialists with Nazis.(National Socialists)..its not right…its crap.

Robert—thanks for link. I signed that a coupla days ago…people should see it.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

pgg804, June 12 at 10:24 am #

To Inherit the Wind:

So an African-American man becomes president and thats going to cause anti-semitism.  Is that because Obama (his father was Muslim) is anti-semitic or because he is pro Jewish.  I don’t see the connection.  You are correct, I think Eugene Robinson’s quote of the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of rising domestic terrorism has no validity what so ever.  Read below for why.

Here is an article on a terror plot that the FBI arranged so they can whip up the press and people like you.  But as the author of the article says “since 9/11 not a single American has even been punched in the nose by an angry Muslim, as far as I can tell”.

Yet Another Bogus “Terror” Plot

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-sky-is-falling -the-sky-is-falling/


The above article shows how pro Jewish our government is and how it works against other Americans (in this case Muslims) to advance Jewish interests.  Jewish organizations know one of their most powerful weapons is to scream anti-semitism every time someone says something they don’t like.

***********************************************

You have also hinted that you are a Holocaust denier as well.

All of your posts lead me to suspect you are either a white-supremacist or a Moslem fanatic far outside the mainstream of Moslem opinion.

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Robert, thanks for posting that video.  I haven’t seen that before.  The Israeli soldiers are real pigs.  I hope Americans become aware of that filth that they support someday.  I wonder, are those soldiers examples of what the American media calls “nice Jewish boys’?

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

@ Folktruther

As for blaming TC truthers for a wacko killing people at random in a museum, you are a dingbat.

That tactic of guilt by association has been used way too much over the past 8 years. I remember how the Truthers and the antiwar movement would be continuously undermined by a propitiously released Bin Laden video. Remember the Bin Laden video that came out just before the 2004 Presidential election? “Bin Laden” gave his negative opinion of GW Bush, thus making Kerry voters allies of Bin Laden.

Report this

By pgg804, June 12, 2009 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

To Inherit the Wind:

So an African-American man becomes president and thats going to cause anti-semitism.  Is that because Obama (his father was Muslim) is anti-semitic or because he is pro Jewish.  I don’t see the connection.  You are correct, I think Eugene Robinson’s quote of the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of rising domestic terrorism has no validity what so ever.  Read below for why.

Here is an article on a terror plot that the FBI arranged so they can whip up the press and people like you.  But as the author of the article says “since 9/11 not a single American has even been punched in the nose by an angry Muslim, as far as I can tell”.

Yet Another Bogus “Terror” Plot

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-sky-is-falling-the-sky-is-falling/


The above article shows how pro Jewish our government is and how it works against other Americans (in this case Muslims) to advance Jewish interests.  Jewish organizations know one of their most powerful weapons is to scream anti-semitism every time someone says something they don’t like.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 12, 2009 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

http://tinyurl.com/mudthrowing

Keith Olberman is making a tie-in between Ron Paul, Truthers, and this Von Brunn nutter. This is not right. I am reminded how the anti-Vietnam war protesters in another era would get connected with smelly hippies, rioters, and the Weathermen. I remember reading of a mentally ill man, said to be a communist, who was blamed for the Reichstag fire. This is crap.

Olberman who had a guest who said that the anti-government types think the government wants to take their guns as if their thinking has no basis in reality.
There was action in Congress to ban large swaths of the population gun ownership just for mere suspicion. Where’s the due process here? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159

I don’t think that every time a nutter goes postal, that we should be conducting inquisitions against people who hold counter establishment political views. Now Ron Paul who pushed for a Fed Reserve audit is being grouped with a fellow who tried to “arrest” some Fed officials. I can’t stand Olbermann. He’s a slimeball.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 12, 2009 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

His name is Ezra Nawi

06.10.2009 | FreeEzra.org

By Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Neve Gordon

Dear Mirene:

“Every so often someone comes along who is so brave and so inspiring that you just can’t sit by and remain silent when you learn they need your help.

We’re writing to you today about one of these rare people.

His name is Ezra Nawi.

You’ve probably never heard of him, but because you may know our names, now you will know his name.

Ezra Nawi is one of Israel’s most courageous human rights activists and without your help, he will likely go to jail in less than 30 days.

His crime? He tried to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinian Bedouins in the South Hebron region. These homes and the families who live in them have been under Israeli occupation for 42 years. They still live without electricity, running water and other basic services. They are continuously harassed by Jewish settlers and the military.

Nawi’s friends have launched a campaign to generate tens of thousands of letters to Israeli embassies all over the world before he is due to be sentenced in July. They’ve asked for your help.

His name is Ezra Nawi.

We keep saying his name because we believe that the more people know him and know his name, the harder it will be for the Israeli military to send him quietly to jail.

And Ezra Nawi is anything but quiet.

He is a Jewish Israeli of Iraqi descent who speaks fluent Arabic.

He is a gay man in his fifties and a plumber by trade.

He has dedicated his life to helping those who are trampled on. He has stood by Jewish single mothers who pitched tents in front of the Knesset while struggling for a living wage, and by Palestinians threatened with expulsion from their homes.

He is loved by those with little power, to whom he dedicates his life, and hated by the Jewish settlers, military and police.

Now that you know Ezra, you have a chance to stand up for him, and for everything that he represents. Especially now, as Israel escalates its crackdown on human rights and pro-democracy activists.

He needs you. His friends need you. Those he helps every day need you. So please send a letter to the Consulate, to the media, to your family and friends.

Take just a moment to write your letter. Do it now. And then share his name with a friend. Do it for Ezra Nawi.

Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Neve Gordon “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Click on link to watch this short video. Watch Israel’s brutal/racist IDF. Watch them laughing at Ezra Nawi and at what they have just done:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/what-we-can-do-19/

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 12, 2009 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

Virginia777:
‘I disagree with you Folktruther, about the gun thing, and this:

“It is government power that is the chief danger”

Thats been the philosophy of the the extreme Right for something like forever, and look what its done to our country.’

The “extreme right” would be people like Nazis, and in spite of some of the heated rhetoric we’re suddenly deploring around here, Nazis have never had much political success in the United States.  If you’re talking about people like Reagan and the Bushes, they like to say that they think government is the problem, but in fact they all greatly expanded the powers, scope, expenditures and indebtedness of the government.

Whether it’s the “right” or the “left” angle being worked by the ruling class, one set of principles prevails: the government should be more powerful and the ordinary people more submissive and more carefully surveilled and manipulated.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 5:06 am Link to this comment

pgg804, June 12 at 1:38 am #

As my posts below demonstrate, there is no problem of anti-semitism in this country.  On the contrary, there is too much pro-semitism.  I’ll bet the Palestinians or other Arabs wished they received the press and money we give Israel.
****************************************************

Then I guess you deny the validity of Eugene Robinson’s quote of the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment of rising domestic terrorism:

****************************************************
In April, a prescient Department of Homeland Security memo predicted that the election of the first African-American president and the advent of economic hard times could worsen the threat from “right-wing extremist groups.” In particular, the memo warned of an increase in anti-Semitic activity by extremists who buy into the whole Jewish-banker-secret-cabal paranoid fantasy—and would blame “the Jews” for engineering the global financial crisis, just as they blame “the Jews” for everything.

See, I view YOU as part of the problem.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 12, 2009 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, June 12 at 12:44 am #

So if I say Bush and Cheney should probably be tried as war criminals, and someone pops them off, I’m responsible?
***************************************

Of course not. You’re asking for a legal solution. However, if you suggested that they SHOULD be popped off because they are war criminals and someone DOES pop them off, then, of course you would be responsible.  In fact, you may be liable to be charged with a felony for incitement.

Report this

By ardee, June 12, 2009 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

Virginia777, June 12 at 3:05 am

you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as biased, judgmental and stupid as it may be…Hows that for inflammatory?

Virginia, I find your politics naive to say the least, inexperienced probably, and shallow as hell.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 12, 2009 at 12:09 am Link to this comment

I disagree with you Folktruther, about the gun thing, and this:

“It is government power that is the chief danger”

Thats been the philosophy of the the extreme Right for something like forever, and look what its done to our country.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 12, 2009 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

to ardee:

There is nothing worse, than someone who says something inflammatory, and then denies its bite.

Something of which you are guilty of, in spades.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, June 12, 2009 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

I’m with Ed, the second amendment is illogical.

The first part specifies that we need a “well regulated Militia”

and then the last part says “the right of the people (meaning ALL the people) to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What happened to “well regulated”??

it just kinda got dropped off,

and thats the big problem.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

..and then there are people who only show up for Civil War re-enactments and gun shows…

Arguing gun laws may be one thing, but, wouldnt most admit that every article TD has on gun ownership, how should I say this, “draws a strange element” here? I never see some of these people posting on any other topic.

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

As my posts below demonstrate, there is no problem of anti-semitism in this country.  On the contrary, there is too much pro-semitism.  I’ll bet the Palestinians or other Arabs wished they received the press and money we give Israel.

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

My coments below have all been addressed to Inherit the Wind.

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

Israeli War Crimes (pictures):
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/deutschland-uber-alles/

Israelis to Africans: “Niggers don’t expel Jews”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3633163,00.html

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

So using your logic, Americans share responsibility (I say a large part of that responsibility) for the war crimes and mass murder the Israeli army perpetrates.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

I agree with Anarcissie and Paracelsus on owning guns. The progressive ideology in the US is liberal and governemental, and therefore identifies with govenment power in limitiing them.  It is government power that is the chief danger.

Inherit, you’ve got Jews on the brain.  On the other hand, in a real deomocratic society the goverment would restrict anti-semetic and White supremist wackos.  The US power structure tends to tacitly encourage them. 

As for blaming TC truthers for a wacko killing people at random in a museum, you are a dingbat.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

IHT said:

“But I am arguing if you create a climate of hatred, a climate where it’s OK to demonize an individual or group, you damn well share responsibility when an asshole or group of assholes goes on a killing spree.”

*****************
That’s waaaay too slippery a slope.  What is constructive criticism to one person may be demonizing to the next.  And who’s gonna make that decision?  Our gov’t?  This is very close to shutting down completely free speech and the next thing is *thought* crime.

By your logic, every single American should be held responsible for the war crimes committed by our present and past presidents. We voted them in.

Maybe we could have a group water-board and call it bobbing for apples.

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind:

No one is demonizing Jews in this country or western Europe.  Jewish organizations work to demonize Arabs and Germans.  Thats how Israel can murder 1,400 Palestinians (about half were women and children) and get the media to tell us the Palestinian women and children are the perpetrators.

The Holocaust Museum demonizes Germans as do movies (we had 4 or 5 holocaust movies out last year), books and the every day media.

Israel has received over 3 billion dollars a year, every year for over forty years now.  For over forty years they have been the biggest recipient of American foreign aid.  Since the end of WW II Germany has given Israel approximately 150 billion dollars.

Demonizing Jews?  Are you stupid?  There is no other ethnic group that is portrayed in the media as such wonderful people who are 100% good, even the murderous Israeli soldiers.  We’re told they have the bravest and best army in the world.  Some Americans even say when our military has a problem,  “get the Israelis to do it”.

The Arab countries sell the US oil.  In return we give Israel military aid so they can murder Arabs.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

So if I say Bush and Cheney should probably be tried as war criminals, and someone pops them off, I’m responsible?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

I’m not arguing for restricting free speech.

But I am arguing if you create a climate of hatred, a climate where it’s OK to demonize an individual or group, you damn well share responsibility when an asshole or group of assholes goes on a killing spree.

You can’t abdicate that responsibility.  I don’t care if it’s demonizing Dr. Tiller or Jews—you did the demonizing.  Now it’s YOUR guilt, not mine.

And all your rationalizing and pedantic Scalia-like arguments and angry vituperation won’t help you escape that guilt.  It’s yours, like stink on skunk.

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment

“<”“i”“<“Where do you put the body in this HTML?”<”“/i>

I’m not getting this.  And I have a MAC.  Does that matter?  *&*&^^%#

Nevermind.  I’ll do it my way!  grin

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

The purpose of the Holocaust Museum is to create feelings of sympathy towards Israel and Jews in all countries and shame in European countries so they will give in to Israeli and Jewish demands.

Report this

By pgg804, June 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

Its a shame how the media reports this as a racially motivated shooting.  As if he went there to shoot a black man.  They are creating hatred by how they report this. 

The Holocaust Museum was built to generate hatred and disgust towards everything German and German people like von Brunn.  It, like the holocaust museum in Los Angeles and the hundreds of other smaller holocaust museums built in the US were also built to create sympathy for Israel so they can commit mass murder against Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs without receiving any criticism.  A few months ago Israel murdered 1,400 Palestinians without a peep from our government. 

The third purpose of this monument of hatred is so Jewish organizations could continue to extracts billions of dollars from European governments.  Read Norman Finkelstein’s (a son of holocaust survivors) book “The Holocaust Industry” on how Jewish organizations used blackmail and extortion to rob Europeans of 20 billion dollars so they could build holocaust museums, holocaust university programs and enrich themselves personally. 

Besides the obvious problem that the US government helped fund this monument of hatred, the US has shown itself to be the most hypocritical country in the world.  It will build a memorial to the suffering of Jews that occurred thousands of miles away from its shores, but it ignores the hundreds of years of slavery, rape and murder it inflicted on African Americans and the genocide it committed against the American Indian in its own country.  Perhaps Germany should build a memorial to the murdered American Indians and Africans.

His anti-semitic feelings are most likely due to the hate Jewish groups have worked so hard to create towards everything German.

Report this

By Twin Towers, June 11, 2009 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

People are being killed every minute around the world. Everyday, there is another report about a bombing by some people who oppose some other people.

It could be worse. I think bombs are banned everywhere, nevertheless, it keeps happening.

Good fences make good neighbors, perhaps. Why doesn the subject of individual rights and tolerance become the subject everyone is discussing?

Believe what you choose, but please do not force me to change to your ways. That makes people hateful and frustrated.

All governments who serve as a sausage grinder, of sorts, enforcing “sameness” is more a religion than a secular government that believes in liberty and freedom. Diversity is the opposite of “sameness.”

Until you think of something better, consider the question Robert Frost raised in his poem.

Report this

By maasanova, June 11, 2009 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another staged event to make Americans fearful of talking about all the things that are wrong with the US:

The Federal Reserve
Puppet presidents
Zionism
9/11
Chilling of free speech
Gun grabbing
No open debate on the Holocaust
Overbearing Israeli influence within the US government

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

@ ITW

Yeah, “TC”, you contribute to the climate that led this shithead to murder a heroic security guard just as much as Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly helped make the climate that led to Dr. Tiller’s death less than 2 weeks ago.

Should “contributing to the climate” that led to murder be considered a crime, ITW? I remember how the anti-globalist movement in Seattle was considered to contributing to a climate of anarchism that led to vandalism of buildings. Where do you get your talking points, ITW?

Report this

By ardee, June 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 11 at 11:07 am #

Re: By ardee, June 11 at 9:48 am:

Ardee denounces me for “nurturing”  the “climate” which resulted in this man’s actions.

And Ardee is such a model of restrained prose, as when he wrote:

“Obama IS as much a front man for for fascism as was Reagan.”

Look, Ardee, you write what you honestly think is true, and you don’t care what happens to the “climate”. And I do the same thing.

If some violence befalls Obama, somebody will be accuse you of “nurturing the climate”, and I hope you tell them that’s just baloney.
....

I wonder if you have any pride in your efforts, one cannot tell from this inedible and incredible comparison between my statement which shows no hatred, and the typically divisive crap you generally post?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi:
‘I just have to ask, though, you said that people have to choose freedom or security and guns are security.

That doesnt really make sense to me. ...’

I just expressed myself badly.

The usual argument for submission to authority is that the authorities will protect those who submit, the evil ones will be restrained, and the world will be a better place.  In other words, by giving up freedom, one will obtain security.  However, this would require the authorities to be better than the rest of us, whereas history teaches us that they are generally worse than the rest of us.  The ostensible choice is between freedom and security, but in practice, a loss of freedom usually entails a loss of security, if not sooner, then later.

This applies to many areas of political life, not just guns.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment


Ed Harges:
‘Anarcissie writes: “Grammatically, the first clause does not restrict the second clause.”

Your thinking is incredibly narrow and mechanistic. The legal interpretation of legal prose is not a strictly grammatical affair. Contextual information is critical to interpretation. ...’

Incredibly mechanistic?  I don’t think so.  I think it’s fairly credible; and grammar is pretty mechanistic.  You said that the Second Amendment was “a total piece of crap”, by which I took it you were criticizing the mechanics of the writing—other remarks of yours seemed to follow this theme.  I think I’ve shown that, far from being a total piece of crap, it’s clear, economical, and unambiguous, if a little bit out of the contemporary style.

If you’re now saying, Yes, but it has to be interpreted, I agree.  That’s an entirely different question.  It’s not crap that we’re interpreting, however; it’s the very striking, very leftist notion that the common people should be able to retain weapons to resist oppression—a cogent, rational idea, very plainly and succinctly expressed.  That’s what you’re arguing with.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, June 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

Under The Radar Media

Complete silence from the Anti-Defamation League on racist Obama hate video.


“I noticed that as of June 6, 2009, the Anti-Defamation League had not yet issued a statement condemning the Zionist hate video that surfaced on June 3, 2009 and since created a firestorm on the internet. I created a response video to note that there was a complete non-response on the issue by the ADL, and to offer some commentary to the video in general. Mondoweiss, the group that made the original video, has some very interesting commentary on the ongoing controvery this has caused, as well as Gawker,  who broke the story about Huffington Post censoring the video .

The Anti-Defamation League purports to fight bigotry, racism and intolerance, but it has been noted here at Under The Radar Media that the organization selectively chooses which issues that it wants to address. HR 1913, the House version of the hate crime bill, was authored by the ADL and they hailed it’s controversial passage on April 29, 2009. While the bill purports to protect gays and minoritys, it’s true intention is to make criticism of Israel and Zionism a “hate crime.”

If YouTube decides to censor this video you can watch it here or here.”

http://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/complete-silence-from-the-anti-defamation-league-on-racist-obama-hate-video/

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 11, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

This 88 year old disgruntled malcontent had an axe to grind yesterday, one does not wake up, arm and drive into one of the most heavily policed cities in the U.S. to shoot a security guard.  Maybe he wanted to make a misguided statement against the holocaust, in which many others besides jews died or maybe he felt wronged by some event in his life that was perpetrated by minorities, jewish bankers ( The Fed) or black security guards.  More likely he wanted to end it all and have someone put him out of his misery. 

Whatever his political, racial or religious beliefs were, he will now live in infamy for those beliefs.

Guns are tools, if he had wanted a body count he could of rented a dump truck and ran the sidewalks.

I am not suprised by the canned “ant-semite”, and white-supremacist charges in the media and here at Truthdig.  Zealots need an excuse like this to focus the publics attention (media) on being a victim once again than being the perpetrators of such acts.

Hate speech legislation is in the wind and you need a few of these timely examples to press your point. (of course that means they can use hateful speech but others cannot respond in kind.)

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

I just have to ask, though, you said that people have to choose freedom or security and guns are security.

That doesnt really make sense to me.

Given all or none, I would choose the freedom. I just wish that we could have both. I wish that there were no guns on the planet…

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

Anartcissie—Most so-called liberals, agree with you in fact. I find the opposite odd. But, I have had bad experiences with guns, which may be more a function of where the people I knew who were gun owners lived than anything else, or who they were. Either way I have a visceral reaction to them and I cannot change that. I still have plenty of friends who have guns…long term friends. We just dont talk about it anymore and they dont bring it up.

But, neither one of us is going to change our minds on this, I guess.

I take that back—I’m listening to the Dem Senate running a hearing on health care. Could happen…

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie writes: “Grammatically, the first clause does not restrict the second clause.”

Your thinking is incredibly narrow and mechanistic. The legal interpretation of legal prose is not a strictly grammatical affair. Contextual information is critical to interpretation.

For example, we know that the first amendment grammatically is utterly unambiguous in granting unabridged (unlimited) freedom of speech. It does not even state a purpose for this unabridged freedom (which might imply that certain speech is particularly important or protected). So it sure looks absolute and limitless.

But in practice, we are not free to “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre”, to cite the classic example. So we know that there is some “abridgment”, of this “unabridged” freedom, as a matter of settled law. You would be laughed out of court if you tried to argue about this strictly on the basis of grammar.

So, implicitly, in the Second Amendment, there is a limit implied by the first clause, even though the second clause doesn’t follow from the “reason” given in the second clause.

But it’s ultimately unclear, because it wasn’t well written to be clear. Perhaps the framers, for some political reason, wanted it to be unclear.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—Yes, the debates about weapons are about security—whether you can best obtain security from overlords and bureaucrats at the cost of your freedom, or from yourself and your community while retaining some freedom, maybe.  One would think the favored leftist form would be the latter, not the former.  I find the anti-gun thing very odd, in fact.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges:
‘I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be an unlimited right to bear arms. I’m arguing that the second amendment, because of its opening clause, fails to grant such a right without ambiguity. ...’

Grammatically, the first clause does not restrict the second clause.  It gives a reason or circumstance associated with it.  The construction, in English, is called the “nominative absolute”.  It imitates a similar Latin construction called the “ablative absolute” which was used similarly.  In the 18th century, most educated people knew Latin and it was considered good form to use Latinate constructions and vocabulary when possible.  Notice the word absolute.  The name of the construction includes this word because the meaning or effect of the main clause does not depend on the subordinate clause—the clauses are free-standing.  That is, according to the Second Amendment, the keeping and bearing of arms is not supposed to depend on the formation of well-regulated militias, it is supposed to precede them and make them possible, because the writers of the amendment thought they were necessary to the security of a free state.

While the nominative absolute may have gone out of fashion, we can still understand it, that is, if we want to.  The only problem with the Second Amendment is that a lot of people don’t like what it says.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Please dont make this thread about the Israeli/Gaza debate…it is not about that.

Anarcissie—I thought that owning a gun was about security. (thats what people always say, you know, cold, dead hands…)I’ll go along with banning cars, if we could get high speed bulllet trains.

Cars on “as needed” basis.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, June 11, 2009 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

By Jim Yell, June 11 at 10:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Once more I feel it necessary to point out that the Arabs never had an independant state in Israel. The area was always for the last 2000 years ruled by outsiders. The Jews were not outsiders. They settled in their traditional homeland after years of persecution.”
==================
This peace of shit is not even relevant to the theme of the thread! Can’t you ever give humanity a break from your irrelevant shit and the extremely bad odor it brings with it?!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Ed—I continue to think the language of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear.  It’s grammatically correct, and the words are not ambiguous.  The explanatory clause does not seem to me to be phony in any way—I am pretty sure it was exactly what Madison and company were thinking about.  The great objection to the ratification of the Constitution, the reason the Bill of Rights was written, was fear of a tyrannical central government, something anyone who had read history in the late 18th century would have heard a lot about.  An armed citizenry organized into local militias was supposed to balance that threat.  They assumed the citizens would want to preserve their liberties.

I agree that the various rights specified in the Bill of Rights have been considerably weakened.  The Fourth Amendment, for instance, has been practically done away with in pursuit of such follies as anti-Communism and the Drug War.  In the case of free expression, we see more and more of what can be published falling under absurdly extended copyright laws.  I could given many more examples.  I don’t think these are desirable developments, however.

I don’t understand the attraction to government, to the state, to ruling-class power, on the part of those who seem to be of the Left.  I would think we would be pushing the other way.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be an unlimited right to bear arms. I’m arguing that the second amendment, because of its opening clause, fails to grant such a right without ambiguity.

It’s like saying, “Because I need to drive to work on Wednesdays, I need the car every single day of the week without exception.”

It’s internally inconsistent. It doesn’t add up. It’s bad legal writing.

Report this

By herewegoagain, June 11, 2009 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anarcissie writes: “Of course, gun control fans don’t usually mean that all guns should be banned; they are okay with authoritarian organizations like the army and the police possessing them, and all kinds of other weapons.  But I’m a leftist, a believer in freedom and equality, so I don’t agree.”

Same here. Plus, this guy’s anger was so intense, he would have found another way to carry out his mayhem if he couldn’t get access to guns. It’s not like guns are the only form of weaponry, to state the obvious.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie writes:

“However, it seems we have at least cleared up the supposed illogic or lack of clarity in the language of the Second Amendment.”

No “we” haven’t.

(You can’t mean the plural “we”, so I guess it’s the royal “we”?)

Any-“we”..., you write, “if the right were subject to any degree of limitation, the question would immediately arise as to who had the power to limit it, since they could thereby effectively do away with it.”

That’s baloney. You’re saying that they wouldn’t accept a limitation on an important right, because that would open the door to the elimination of the right altogether. The constitution is full of limitations on rights. Why would the framers have only made this right absolute and unlimited, while accepting limits on other rights that are just as important?

For example, we have the right to be free from search and seizure without “probable cause”. Well gee, wouldn’t the question immediately arise as to who had the power to define “probable cause”?  Aren’t venal legislatures or judges going to be involved in establishing this? Why didn’t they make the right absolute, guaranteeing that we can never by subject to search or seizure for any reason whatsoever?

I suppose you’d find this amendment sensible: “Well regulated symphony orchestras being wonderful things, the right to make noise shall not be infringed.”

Look, if the second clause is really what you mean, you should not precede it with a phony “explanatory” clause.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges:
‘Anarcissie writes:

“In order to form militias, they had to be armed.”

Yes, but in order to form militias, they didn’t need an unlimited right to be armed. ...’

The writers of the Amendment used rather strong language in that case.  Infringe means “encroach upon”; if the right were subject to any degree of limitation, the question would immediately arise as to who had the power to limit it, since they could thereby effectively do away with it.  The writers of the Amendment were all too well aware of the venality of legislatures and the corruptions of power. 

However, it seems we have at least cleared up the supposed illogic or lack of clarity in the language of the Second Amendment.  It couldn’t be clearer or more explicit.  Now you can argue with James Madison, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Re: By ardee, June 11 at 9:48 am:

Ardee denounces me for “nurturing”  the “climate” which resulted in this man’s actions.

And Ardee is such a model of restrained prose, as when he wrote:

“Obama IS as much a front man for for fascism as was Reagan.”

Look, Ardee, you write what you honestly think is true, and you don’t care what happens to the “climate”. And I do the same thing.

If some violence befalls Obama, somebody will be accuse you of “nurturing the climate”, and I hope you tell them that’s just baloney.

Report this

By michael, June 11, 2009 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I seems that the point being missed is that a person who was not legally suppose to have a gun managed to get a gun.  So what do we do now outlaw all guns?  Well it obvious a criminal would still be able to get a gun.  I am for tighter control of sales I am for some kind of license but outlawing them will only take them out the law abiding citzens hands and not stop the bad guys.

Report this

By Jim Yell, June 11, 2009 at 7:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Once more I feel it necessary to point out that the Arabs never had an independant state in Israel. The area was always for the last 2000 years ruled by outsiders. The Jews were not outsiders. They settled in their traditional homeland after years of persecution.

If the Arab residents had not hoped and tried to kill the Jews they would not have left the area and if then the Jews had tried to move them, the Jews would have been to blame, but what did happen is the Arabs fled behind the Arab armies hoping for the death of the Jews. So now they are in a sad situation. They have made themselve odious to the Jews who are in control in the Isreal area. If they would stop letting people use their land to attack the Jews than the Jews would lose reason to shoot back.

To the other issue, the Jews have been with us since the very beginning of the country and they have contributed their share of work and ideas to make our democracy work.

No one is obligated to like anyone else, but they must keep their hands to themselves, otherwise we will have chaos and that goes for the homicidal Christian splinter groups who kill doctors, which they should be reminded the wonderful Old Testement that they treasure makes it clear that a fetus death is not homicide, so their excuse for killing the doctor is also bogus, as is their religion.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie writes:

“In order to form militias, they had to be armed.”

Yes, but in order to form militias, they didn’t need an unlimited right to be armed.

It’s like saying, “Mom, I need twelve dollars to buy lunch today, and so I need you to give me permanent, unlimited access to your checking account.”

Report this

By Amerikagulag, June 11, 2009 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Absolutely!  Remain vigilant against anti-semitism:  SUPPORT THE PALESTINIANS and the reclaiming of their homeland..

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, June 11, 2009 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

This tragic incident, deplorable as it is, should be considered a mere statistical crimes among the many crimes that take place on daily basis in this sadly tragic land of America. It should not, however, be used by any nation or political-ethnic group to use it as a blackmailing tool to gain political or moral power. I can already see that the Z-Gang fanatics are using this isolated single crime to cash on the Holocaust industry!

Sad and tragic that the Holocaust industry, after more than sixty years, continues to claim victims, remotely distant in time and place from the time and place it took place. And the victim this time is not a Jew, gypsy, Russian, or Palestinian, but an Afro-American young man who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but he had the bad luck of having the job of guarding the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

This brings me to the point of the wisdom behind erecting huge prominent monuments to commemorate tragic events, especially in a land where the event did not take place. If a prominent monument needs to be built, let it be built in the country and among the nation that perpetrated that tragic event, so they can bear the moral and financial responsibility of maintaining and guarding it, as a punishment for what was done.

The Palestinians have been having their own mini-Holocaust for over sixty years. However, as a surviving victim of the Israeli terror, wars and occupation, if this condition ever comes to an end, I would be strongly opposed to erecting a Holocaust memorial in any part of Palestine. If need be, it should be erected in the heart of Israel as part of the punishment and reminder for the wrongs they’ve done. Let them bear the responsibility and cost of building it, maintaining it and guarding it. Unless you consider such monuments as an industry to generate money and to use as blackmailing tips, huge memorial museums don’t bring the victims back to life or give them a measure of justice.

I know in advance that the Z-Gang will react strongly to this comment, so bring it on, but before you do go and read the book “The Holocaust Industry.”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

I don’t see anything illogical in the Second Amendment.  The people who wrote it thought it would be a good thing if the people were able to form militias.  In fact, they thought militias were “necessary to the security of a free state.”  In order to form militias, they had to be armed.  The second phrase of the Amendment follows directly from this belief and its meaning is simple and explicit.

If you want illogicality, take the article that begins this topic.  One person shoots up a public building; therefore, all guns should be banned.  By the same reasoning, if one person has an accident with a car, all cars should be banned, and if one person’s dog bites someone, all dogs should be exterminated.

Of course, gun control fans don’t usually mean that all guns should be banned; they are okay with authoritarian organizations like the army and the police possessing them, and all kinds of other weapons.  But I’m a leftist, a believer in freedom and equality, so I don’t agree.  That’s not a question that can be solved logically because it comes from one’s values: freedom versus security; trust in the high and mighty, versus trust in oneself and one’s community.

But the Second Amendment is plain enough.  The problem with it is not its meaning, but that people wish it didn’t exist, or said something else.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

I propose that we amend the Constitution as follows:

“Since formal rose gardens are good things, citizens will have an unlimited right to cultivate plants.”

I’m sure the gun lobby people will agree that this amendment gives me the right to grow marijuana, right?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

re: By ardee, June 11 at 9:48 am:

Oh, piffle. The manipulation of US foreign policy by Israel is still a noxious thing to be strenuously deplored, regardless of this person’s actions.

Report this

By tomack, June 11, 2009 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

I agree that the Second doesn’t make sense now, whether or not you consider nominative absolutes, but it did when it was written. When you consider the state of mind post revolution it was a good idea to have every American citizen armed to the teeth; just in case They came back. Also, many needed those “muskets” to hunt FOR FOOD. These days we don’t need an AK47 to hunt for food. We don’t NEED hand guns that can blow a hole through steel for any practical purpose whatsoever. And we certainly don’t need to own 20 of them! 

Using the Second as your main platform to support owning a 30 calibre machine gun is the real illogical choice.

Report this

By ardee, June 11, 2009 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 11 at 8:18 am #


Oh good lord, this is all we needed. I didn’t think ITW could get any higher on his horse. Yes, ITW, this certainly does prove that Zionism and ethnic nationalism in general are wonderful ideas. Not.

.....................................

ITW is perfectly capable of defending himself but I wonder why you choose to distort the meaning of his post when it appears rather obvious?

As one who repeatedly descends to hyperbole and distortion, one who posts unreasonable and untruthful diatribe in place of ordered and logically rationale, you especially should reread that effort you demean and distort.

The actions of that crazy stem assuredly from the climate that folks like you nurture.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

re: By Anarcissie, June 11 at 9:18 am:

No, it’s not clear.  And it’s not my problem. It’s bad legal writing. The amendment is inherently illogical.

What if it said, “Since formal rose gardens are good things, citizens will have an unlimited right to cultivate plants.”

The “reason” given in the first phrase is illogical. An unlimited right to cultivate plants is not necessary in order to promote formal rose gardens.

Report this

By JDK, June 11, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Read the Second Amendment in the original meaning of the words.  A “well regulated militia” is simply the able bodied population of military age well versed in firearm usage.  The 2A then makes perfect sense.  It says a free state (i.e., the freedom of that state) requires a skillfull armed citizenry to ensure that freedom and therefore that the right of citizens to bear arm shall not (i.e., must not) be infringed.  The 2A makes perfect, cogent sense.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 11, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges:
’... The second amendment is just useless. No reasonable person can honestly say what the hell it’s supposed to mean.’

I don’t see the problem.  There are two phrases.  The first phrase gives a reason for the second.  The construction is called a nominative absolute in English grammar.  The second phrase is simple and completely explicit.  If the vocabulary seems obscure, consider consulting a dictionary.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

I must say, as a piece of legal writing, the 2nd amendment is total piece of crap:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What??

I mean, it’s like saying, “Since having a large family is a good thing, the right to have sex shall not be infringed.”

Does that mean that infertile people can be forbidden to have sex? I mean, there’s a whole lot of infringing of the right to have sex you could do, without in any way interfering with the enlargement of families. But if you pass a law against rape, for example, you are certainly “infringing”.

The second amendment is just useless. No reasonable person can honestly say what the hell it’s supposed to mean.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 11, 2009 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

Why was a convicted felon, convicted of a violent terrorist act, able to get ANY gun more potent than a “Super Soaker” water pistol.

Criminals don’t obey laws. Good citizens do. Oh to be a Jew in Nazi Germany who didn’t register his handgun during the Weimar years! Such criminal conduct could have taken down a brownshirt or an SS officer. Such a Jew might have lost his life, but life taken paid for life stolen. How brave would those G-men be if they knew they may forfeit their own life for their official tyranny? If only 20% of the Nazi opposition had “unlawful” guns… I am not so worried about nutters; it’s the government that worries me.

Report this

By will, June 11, 2009 at 5:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So, let me get this straight, liberals and progessives are being targeted—some would say liberals and progressives should arm themselves for their own protection, but you say guns should be outlawed.  You really think the other side will just turn in their guns?  I’m sorry, I don’t live in bizarro world.

Report this

By RdV, June 11, 2009 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

Did Obama say anything about the Dr murdered in church? Did he say anything about preserving a woman’s right to choose and protecting the law? If he said anything, I didn’t hear it.
  We won’t hear much about the history of this guy, but we will see it exploited when they converge “anti-semitsm” with any critism of US/Israeli policies.
  The more people find out about how much money goes to Israel and the banks while Americans are lectured to about making sacrifices, how their spies get off, how they control our government, how they are pushing the US to confront Iran after the war crimes of Iraq—which US soldiers fought, after the Liberty…

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 11, 2009 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

In fact the NRA should not only be assisting in sound legislative proposals, they should be assisiting the FBI in exposing any groups or people in their membership who pose a threat to others or the general public.

Yes, the NRA should spy on its membership. They should work as a branch of the government. After all they have all those names and addresses of potential troublemakers. That’s so far left that it’s right. You have to admire the genius of such Hegelian logic. As for myself, I will advocate for gun control when my government no longer tortures people or runs false flag operations or forcefully experiments on US citizens and soldiers or bails out criminal organizations. If my government quits wars of empire or creating wmd’s or running cocaine into the country I will strongly advocate turning in guns. When my government quits building reservations, concentration camps, and prisons I will call for giving up guns to the government. Yes mark me pro-gun control.

Report this

By Paracelsus, June 11, 2009 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

-As one famous Justice put it, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

You mean Robert Jackson. He wrote that phrase in a dissenting minority opinion in regard to a priest, who was cited and convicted for disorderly conduct for some antisemitic rant. William O. Douglas with his majority overturned the breach of peace conviction. Apparently Father Terminiello had inspired a crowd to riot in Chicago.

Abe Lincoln had uttered many statements to the same effect during the Civil War. Pres. Lincoln’s administration was responsible for jailing of many journalists, who voiced opposition to the war in that era’s prevalence of preventative detention.

Robert Jackson would later preside over the Nuremberg process. I hope advocacy for free speech won’t be equated with being anti-government, pro-Nazi, or antisocial. Already Glenn Beck has equated 9-11 Truthers with white supremacy groups. Thank you ITW for that nugget. Remember that bad cases makes for bad laws. Also I would caution against using life experience as an interpretation for law.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 11, 2009 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

“Guns don’t kill people..People Kill people”
Fine lets get guns out of peoples hands!
It will not be the efforts of the Lefts anti gun coalition that ultimately causes a restriction of gun ownership, it will be the violence committed by the Gun Proponent’s Lunatic Fringe.
Don’t Cry to me NRA, when it’s not only your semi automatics and handguns, but also your rifles and shotguns in jeporady- look to those crazed gunmen who terrify even the moderates.
The NRA should be working with Gun legislation groups not only to assure public safety - but to save the own reputation and protect the rights of sane, responsible gun owners.Because there is building a national backlash in response to the horrendous number of domestic acts of violence and public shootings. In fact the NRA should not only be assisting in sound legislative proposals, they should be assisiting the FBI in exposing any groups or people in their membership who pose a threat to others or the general public.
The NRA should not only be showing their community mindness, but their balls in taking on the violent fringe of their membership.
If the NRA proved that they are a ally in this effort to stem gun violence- more people would not only applaude their efforts,but gain a greater degree of respect for their organization and help defend the Rights of sound minded responsible Gun owners.
By pushing back by making outrageous claims about all people should be allowed to own guns, or even remaining silent as these violent events unfold, is doing a grave disservice to their organizational image, the 2nd Amendment and thus their members.Time to start Weeding out, Rebuking and rejecting the Whacked out element of your Group, NRA or they will be the death of your organization, and the 2nd amendment, Thus your beloved hunting seasons and days at the range for Target practice.
Don’t balme US on the Left when the shit hits the fan- we haven’t been able to ban guns for the last few decades- Look in the mirror NRA’ers, Ya will have done it to yourselves.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2009 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Oh good lord, this is all we needed. I didn’t think ITW could get any higher on his horse. Yes, ITW, this certainly does prove that Zionism and ethnic nationalism in general are wonderful ideas. Not.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 11, 2009 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

On the gun control issue:
Why was a convicted felon, convicted of a violent terrorist act, able to get ANY gun more potent than a “Super Soaker” water pistol?

As one famous Justice put it, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. (meaning there are reasonable limits).

Report this

By coloradokarl, June 11, 2009 at 2:32 am Link to this comment

Elpaso County, Colorado Population 300,000 has about 16,000 concealed weapons permits. When I am at the Mall during My once a year dive into consumerism I am assured 1 in 50 people are packing some heat. The second Amendment protects us from the oppression of tyrants, these tyrants come in many forms. From an over zealous government to the desperate crack head…....

Report this

By tahitifp, June 11, 2009 at 12:33 am Link to this comment

Yes, it’s an interesting confluence of events that the crazies are coming out shortly after Obama’s speech in which he suggested “preventive detention.”

If enuf people are afraid of the crazies now, preventive detention might start looking good, eventually to a majority of Americans, since fear seems to be catching and it overrides common sense and the desire for liberty.

The timing of news events is fascinating, isn’t it?  Which is contrived, which not?

Has the threat level been raised to plaid yet?  This month is Black-Watch!  grin

Report this

By M Currey, June 10, 2009 at 11:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to know was this man after the security guard because he was black, I mean would he have shot a white security guard also if he had the opportunity.

Report this

By Sepharad, June 10, 2009 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind, agree that “The Contingent” and people like them “have a measure of responsibility.” If the same thing happened in an Arab museum by an anti-Arab shooter you can bet the TD slant would place the gun issue way down on the list. And your comparison to the climate leading to Tiller’s murder is apt.

I think there should be significantly better screening as to who can purchase a gun, but to do so would also raise privacy issues. But the illegal selling of weapons, especially those not for use as hunting or self defense but obviously intended to kill people in large numbers—AK47s etc.—should be considered a capital crime with the possibility of life imprisonment, because they DO amount to capital crimes in the end.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 10, 2009 at 10:57 pm Link to this comment

I wish people would defend rights to free speech and not being spied on the way they defend the right to bear arms.

The Democrats are just afraid of losing NRA money.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.