May 22, 2007

Pre-Emptive Stupidity At Falwell Funeral

Police arrested a 19-year-old student of Liberty University for bringing homemade gasoline bombs to the funeral of Jerry Falwell. The student, Mark Ewell, claimed that he wanted to disrupt any anti-Falwell protests at the funeral, presumably including those threatened by Fred Phelps:

The student, 19-year-old Mark Ewell of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No information was available on the third suspect.

Authorities were alerted to the potential bomb plot by a concerned relative of Ewell.

Stupidity knows no bounds. People who want to use violence for political purposes are terrorists. Fred Phelps and his merry band of homophobes have every right to protest, obnoxious as it is to do so outside of a funeral. Tossing bombs at Phelps and his crew (if they were Ewell's intended target) amounts to terrorism just the same as tossing pipe bombs at abortion clinics or planting explosives at universities. It also applies to any other organizations who would have shown up to protest outside the funeral, whatever their political or cultural positions.

It appears that no one bothered to protest at all. Neither did Falwell's funeral attract any of the GOP presidential candidates, who must have thought better of attending the funeral of so divisive a figure. Maybe the country moved past Falwell years ago, and so his funeral turned out to have no political significance at all.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10039

Comments (36)

Posted by Trevor | May 22, 2007 4:39 PM

I'll go with the last sentence.

Posted by instafaggot | May 22, 2007 4:52 PM

Christianists eat their own.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | May 22, 2007 5:16 PM

What a strange footnote to the funeral of a controversial man.

DU

Posted by Rose | May 22, 2007 5:20 PM

Maybe it would have been terrorism, maybe it would have been counter-terrorism, maybe it would have been something else - seems like it only depends on where it happens, what the definition of it will be...

If this nation breaks out in a Civil War, this type incident, actually being accomplished, is precisely the way it will start.

It could have been another "Shot Heard Round the World".

People are rather fed up with being put upon by Socialists trying to use violence in a democratic republic as a legitimate means of forcing the change they want on an unwilling majority.

But then, those imposing, destructive houseguests from hell are always totally shocked that all their helpfullness wasn't appreciated, when the doormats finally rise up and vomit them out of their homes, or what is left of them.

Posted by Rose | May 22, 2007 5:32 PM

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

At some point, if the Socialist Liberals don't stop using this agenda, the Doormats are going to do something even more drastic - I don't think that the average American Joe has USSR,Jr mentality stamped into his forehead.

When you push folks too far, something is going to give.

Posted by Rose | May 22, 2007 5:45 PM

But that is what gives incentives to the adults in the room to take care of business properly before they let everything get out of hand, because doing the Right Thing is more emotionally stressful than they want to deal with, when things are manageable.

For instance, Farmers Branch just had an election with a 68% return for the measure in question - but a Judge SUSPENDED it.

What Constitution in the USA allows a JUDGE to overturn a 68% ELECTION return - whichis ABOVE the level an Amendment requires for passage...yet nobody already has a RECAL PETITION DRIVE started on said Tyrannical Judge, YET!

Yet failure to take care of business according to Constitutional Protocol in a timely manner will create INJUSTICE and supreme frustration - pure bitterness and fierce antagonism.

Eventually, the injured eye will know NO pity.

Finally, things will blow up in every one's face in a totally unmanageable way.

Thing is, those who push it over the edge NEVER count on the full range and scope of the consequences.

We all KNOW the Socialists want all-out ANARCHY, so they can attempt to grab the reigns of power and establish a dictatorship on the ruins and ashes of America.

The asshats aren't going to like it when their sedition instead results in a Queen Victoria reign, instead!

Posted by Iany77 | May 22, 2007 6:08 PM

Wow, Rose, it's almost like you want to murder liberals, and you're on your knees every night feverishly praying for an excuse.

Posted by Terry | May 22, 2007 6:14 PM

"People who want to use violence for political purposes are terrorists. "

Yes, but the problem is the government decides what is "for political purposes".
If Americans say shot a bunch of FBI agents who were coming to serve them an arrest warrent for violating the McCain-Feingold act would you call them terrorists or patriots?
The answer is obvious.

Posted by SDN | May 22, 2007 6:15 PM

Hey, lany, wasn't it your side that came up with the idea that one man's terrorist (Nelson Mandela and the ANC, Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat and the PLO, etc, ad infinitum nauseam) is another man's freedom fighter? Careful what you wish for, you might get it.... right in the neck.

Posted by Iany77 | May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Hey, I'm just confused how a post about a Christian conservative trying to napalm other Christian conservatives became a thread about murdering liberals.

Posted by lexhamfox | May 22, 2007 6:43 PM

Rose is sounding rather apocalyptic.

Write an article about right wing Christians preparing to do battle (at least they did not go off) and Rose wades in to blame miscreant Socialists. Too funny.

Start gathering ammo Rose... the Civil War is coming and I hear those Socialists are pretty cavalier with their female prisoners.

Posted by AgainstRococo | May 22, 2007 7:04 PM

Why didn't Mr. Ewell just get himself a concealed-carry permit? A bomb is a weapon after, all.

Posted by TyCaptains | May 22, 2007 7:07 PM

Wow, someone needs meds...

Anyhow, back on topic. Looks like both sides have their crazies.

Posted by Terry | May 22, 2007 7:20 PM

TyCaptains wrote, "Looks like both sides have their crazies."
Are you calling me crazy Ty? Crazy for wanting to protect my and YOUR rights?
Please answer my question sir.
Right now, I take offense.

Posted by William Teach | May 22, 2007 8:10 PM

An interesting point to this whole issue is liberal blogs, who seemingly have no problem with muslim bombers, are pitching fits over this one Christian "fundie."

Posted by ck | May 22, 2007 9:46 PM

Rose - I know nothing else needs to be said - but - sorry, I feel compelled to -

First off - Socialists are not Anarchists. Anarchists are Anarchists. Socialists are pretty much the opposite.

I do wonder, though, how this would be viewed if the person was muslim. I know this has been posed before, but it would be of great insight to look into it with an open mind.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | May 22, 2007 9:47 PM

And this conversation is rather fitting of Falwell.

Even in death, it has to be a neverending battle of convservative vs. liberal. Congratulations, Reverand, for popularizing this sad kulturkampf.

DU

Posted by ck | May 22, 2007 9:53 PM

Terry -
The answer is not obvious.
What are you trying to say? If someone violates the McCain-Feingold Act (which I'm wondering if you even know what it is), and are about to be arrested, they should be allowed to kill the people responsible for arresting them? You can't be serious -

One major thing is that people who would be the most likely candidates to violate the McCain-Feingold Act would probably not be the killing type -

William Teach - Please show me one liberal blog (somewhat mainstream) that does not have a problem with terrorist bombers, be they muslim or christian or whatnot.
Seriously - Prove your insane point! You never will! You are so out there you actually believe people condone terrorist acts merely because they don't agree with you on how to stop the terrorist acts. -nutz

Posted by Rose | May 23, 2007 1:48 AM

So, Liberals cannot read with adequate comprehension, either. No surprise there.

The Liberals have been using such violence ever since the days of the Vietnam Protests - the Conservatives and Christians never have, and this attempt to prepare for a DEFENSIVE response to DIM LIBERAL PROTESTERS didn't come off, eiother - the Police caught them FIRST.

I spoke to the underlying anger of regular citizens against Liberals who use these tactics all the time, for 40 bloody years, and have it as a written and published part of their agenda.

So for Liberals who have been busy burning American flags, and American soldiers in effigy, supporting Illegal Aliens who do the same IN AMERICA, and merely turn out when the ILLEGAL ALIENS do such things on America soil to MAKE SURE THE ILLEGAL ALIENS are properly MULTIPLIED TIMES registered to vote DEMOCRAT - and you act like one group of 3 or 4 kids doing a bit of preparation to COUNTER ATTACK protesters is the onslaught of another round of the CRUSADES.

Who should be surprised?

Meanwhile, the DIM LIBERALS have poured a hell of a lot more onto American shoulders than the British did with the Stamp Act and other violations of Citizens' rights in the 1760's and 70's.

Paul Revere, James Otis, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Bejamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Nathan Hale, and thousands of others DID NOT TAKE THIS MUCH ABUSE fromthe British, as you DIM LIBERALS have heaped upon us American citizens and taxpayers, with all your Socialism and hysterical fantasies.

You people wouldn't be capable of running a nation at all.

You don't even know what it means to be a citizen, a responsible member of a community - you are abusive to your neighbors.

Posted by jpe | May 23, 2007 7:40 AM

I'm not surprised by the passionate if inelegant right wing defenses of terrorism on this site.

Posted by prozacula | May 23, 2007 10:38 AM

People are rather fed up with being put upon by Socialists trying to use violence in a democratic republic as a legitimate means of forcing the change they want on an unwilling majority.

this has to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen.

Are you aware, Rose, that this blog post was about CHRISTIAN, right-wing terrorists? How does this have anything to do with socialism?

you types are the craziest.

Posted by prozacula | May 23, 2007 10:45 AM

hoo, boy.

I just finished writing that Rose made the biggest, horse-assed comment in the world, but then I read her follow-up comment. Man. What can be said about this train wreck?

The Liberals have been using such violence ever since the days of the Vietnam Protests - the Conservatives and Christians never have, and this attempt to prepare for a DEFENSIVE response to DIM LIBERAL PROTESTERS didn't come off, eiother - the Police caught them FIRST.

what? WTF?

Um, are you aware that this was a CHRISTIAN, right-wing terrorist, planning to attack other CHRISTIANS?

And, to disprove your entire psychotic rant, I will issue two names:

Eric Rudolph

Timothy McVeigh.

There. Two Christian terrorists who have used violence as a means to force unwanted change on people in our democratic republic.

You are crazy. There is no way for you to deny it.

I would say stupid, but crazy just fits too well.

Posted by Terry | May 23, 2007 1:00 PM

Ck at May wrote, "The answer is not obvious.
What are you trying to say? If someone violates the McCain-Feingold Act (which I'm wondering if you even know what it is), and are about to be arrested, they should be allowed to kill the people responsible for arresting them? You can't be serious - "

Ck how else are you going to protect your rights? Trust the very people, the FBI, who took an oath to protect the Constitution, who are violating it?
You really are a goddam schmuck. A real shit for brians who has no understand of the US Constitution or history.

Posted by TyCaptains | May 23, 2007 1:07 PM

Terry,

At first I ignored your reply to me because I thought you were simply joking.

But after this last reply where you essentially state that the only way to protect your rights if the FBI came to arrest you is to kill them is pretty out there IMO.

You speak about adhering to the Constitution but do you fight against Bush's erosion of it as well?

Posted by Terry | May 23, 2007 2:29 PM

TyCaptains wrote, "But after this last reply where you essentially state that the only way to protect your rights if the FBI came to arrest you is to kill them is pretty out there IMO."

How else are you going to protect your rights when the FBI comes to ENFORCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL law?
Appeal to a judge, write your congressman and/or Senator? Appeal to the President?
How?
Specifics please you schmuck.
I am surprised at the number of shitheads who post on this site.

Posted by TyCaptains | May 23, 2007 3:51 PM

The normal way; hire a good defense attorney and raise whatever public support you need.

Coming out, guns ablazing just because you think your constitutional rights have been violated is 110% pure nutcase clap trap.

And I see that you completely ignored my comment about Bush eroding your precious constitutional rights, eh? Answer that one, pal.

Posted by Terry | May 23, 2007 5:54 PM

TyCaptains, say here and now that the McCain-Feingold is constitutional?
Say that the ATF's unannounced checking of gun dealers records is constitutional?
Say that subsidies to farmers and ranchers are constitutional?

Posted by ck | May 23, 2007 6:49 PM

First off, I think Captain needs to do something here - We simply cannot advocate the killing of federal agents - Terry needs to be shutdown.

Terry - I'm not sure if you were one of the ones saying that if you don't like this country then you should get out. But if so, heed your own advice.

We live in a society with rules/laws to help keep the peace. We have systems in place for change. They are usually cumbersome, but they are there. We need to utilize those for the welfare of everyone involved. Believe it or not, those FBI agents aren't just objects (just like the Iraqis aren't just objects), and they too have families and their own feelings on issues. You can't just kill because you don't want to go to jail. If you don't agree with the law, work to change it, or if you are in a minority, then accept the fact that this is a democratic nation and your personal view will not always be the majority's view.

You need help quick -

Posted by Terry | May 23, 2007 7:56 PM

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE KILLING OF FEDERAL OFFICERS.
I AM ADVOCATING SELF DEFENSE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO PREVENT ME AND ANYONE ELSE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS.

If you knew anything about the law, the minute Federal Law officers violate your rights they are no longer officers of the law, but criminals.
Nuremberg you schmuck. Look it up asshole.

Posted by STS | May 23, 2007 8:28 PM

So if a police officer doesn't give you your Miranda rights, you can kill him?

Posted by TyCaptains | May 23, 2007 8:32 PM

Terry,

I answered your question. You have refused to address mine TWICE. Tit for Tat...

Posted by ck | May 23, 2007 8:35 PM

Terry - whatever -

We don't get to interpret our laws - The Supreme Court gets to do that - So if you want to go by what you think, then you will end up in Jail.

And guess what? If you kill those FBI agents, you will not escape. You will not accomplish anything. More than likely you will end up dead with a bunch of FBI agents standing over your body and a bunch of TV crews talking about the nut who shot at the FBI.

Have fun with that -

Posted by Terry | May 24, 2007 12:32 AM

Ck posted, "We don't get to interpret our laws - The Supreme Court gets to do that ..."
Where in the US Constitution does it say that Ck?
So if the Supreme Court said Churches could only hold mass on Sundays and Christmas that would be constitutional?
Ck you are an ignoramous. You have no idea what you are talking about.
None, zilch.

Posted by Terry | May 24, 2007 12:37 AM

Ck posted, "We don't get to interpret our laws - The Supreme Court gets to do that ..."
Where in the US Constitution does it say that Ck?
So if the Supreme Court said Churches could only hold mass on Sundays and Christmas that would be constitutional?
Ck you are an ignoramous. You have no idea what you are talking about.
None, zilch.

Posted by TyCaptains | May 24, 2007 12:25 PM

Still waiting for you, Terry, to answer my question about Bush eroding all of our Constitutional rights. Come on, answer it pal.

BTW - your argument about the SC determining when mass could be held makes no sense. For this to occur a few things would have to happen FIRST.

1> Congress would draft a bill stating when or rather restricting (this is a subtle but HUGE difference) mass to Sundays.

2> President would have to sign off on it.

3> Only then would the SC determine the validity of said law and either strike it down or let it slide.

Posted by ck | May 24, 2007 7:34 PM

Terry - I hate to break this to you, but you are actually the ignorant one.

If the supreme court says something is constitutional, then according to law, it is constitutional. If you would like to change that, then I suggest you talk to your representatives.

Exactly what system do you think we are being governed by here? The personal feelings system? Do you really think YOUR interpretation of the constitution should be the guiding principle of the whole country? And if so, that's scary - considering you advocate the murder of federal agents if they dare to hold you accountable to the laws of this country.

You've lost all credibility Terry - sorry to say it, but this thread exposed you - You might as well switch screen names now to save yourself the embarrassment -