There are lunatics on both sides of the argument, as verified by those who suggested that after the Branch Davidians murdered 4 law enforcement officers, perhaps it would have been kinder to just ignore them:

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/10/21/so-thats-fbi-integrity/

On the other side of the issue, the current crop of Democrats in the Presidency, the Senate, and the Congress seem determined to tear down capitalism and begin turning us over to a fledgling world government in Copenhagen next month.

Those of us who sat in classes for the “Special Ops” of the 60’s, were taught how to teach peasants to be “insurrectionists” (we didn’t call them terrorists then). Often, someone would ask the instructor to verify that we would be under orders NOT to help those peasants fight, when they came to the attention of their government, because of the success of our teachings. What happens to these people, and their families, their women and children? The answer invariably came back, “They die”.

I see individuals in the TAC Blog claim that the US is illegitimate, and that one must have sympathy for those who attack us. I don’t think the government must place all of us under surveillance. But I DO believe that it is a duty to balance the conversation, even when at times I buy into the elitists’ notions that I may be somehow inferior to themselves in some way.

Because I often see encyclopedic knowledge and intellect coupled with a distinct lack of common sense.

Government surveillance MUST be used against MOVEMENTS and PLOTS, but NOT against INDIVIDUALS. This will obviously be a perpetual political battleground. The people from the US 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s, I trust. Some of you new people I don’t know very well, and I hope you are up to the task, of striking and maintaining the correct balance.

Oh, and ZZ, I think you forgot to hit the CAPS LOCK button.

Now that’s baiting.

(BTW, hi from near your old stomping grounds in – where was it again – Downey? Norwalk? can’t remember – age does that to us or at least me).

Monfort’s background as a 50-50 Af-Euro is certainly at least potentially relevant to his ideology and actions. If Monfort had/has written a book or biographical manifesto (for all I know he has: I read the linked articles but haven’t done any more reading on him) that specific relevance might be clearer; lacking such details the prior probability of relevance of his biraciality is high.

The degree to which Monfort might physically/facially resemble Obama doesn’t seem in any way relevant, based on facts presently in evidence. I don’t think you can blame ZZ for being suspicious of what certainly looks like pure baiting on your part. Perhaps you can elaborate on the connection you see?

Kidding aside, ZZ, I’m not proposing someone use the massacre to promote the (Obama supported) extension of the “lone wolf” provision, but suggesting that someone likely will, after an indecently short interval.
If you were familiar with the magazine and its “scum” (charming devil you!) you might (might) have picked up on that.