Letter defends killer [from Captain Emma Shlarp of Constitutional Republic - Massillon, Ohio]

Beacon Journal (Akron, OHIO) ^ | Aug. 14, 2002 | Beacon Journal staff writer Ed Meyer contributed

[drjimmy]

A most excellent post! It is a much better response to He Who Rides a White Horse than I could ever come up with. I do so hope he returns to this thread as promised, since he seemed so eager to have a "showdown" with those he deems his intellectual inferiors.

[wimpycat]

I didn't say quibbling was unfair, I simply said I didn't see the point in it. You, of course, do see a point in it.

As I said before, I had never heard of a "Constitutionalist" before this event. But following along the lines I mentioned earlier, calling oneself a Constitutionalist doesn't necessarily mean one has the best interests of the Constitution in mind, just as some Communist country labeling themselves the "Democratic" anything doesn't mean they are democratically minded. That's the point I was trying to convey about labels.

I've never understood some people who are so far into a certain ideology that they lose all sense of proportion, practicality and common sense. I made this point on another thread a couple of days ago, but it is worth repeating. It never ceases to amaze me that some of our ideologues will use the worst possible scenarios to defend their ideological views. For example, you've got the 2nd Amendment crowd (of the overzealous type, not all of them) crying over government "persecution" when some dude gets caught with 50 zillion guns and bazookas and what-have-you, and then you have the more extreme members of the right-to-life crowd almost sticking up for an abortion doctor murderer, and then you have the anti-WOD libertarians crucifying a teenage boy who called the cops on his pot-growing dad. Now I'm pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life, but damn! You won't see me calling some guy with enough firepower to outfit a brigade stored in his house any kind of "victim", and you won't see me equivocating and using weasel words on any thread about a guy who kills an abortion doctor or bombs a clinic.

If you have a problem with traffic laws being unconstitutional, the very worst place in the world to start preaching the gospel about your "right to travel unmolested" is on a thread about a guy who actually murdered a cop because he thought traffic stops were unconstitutional.

[Cultural Jihad]

"America is at that awkward stage;
it's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards."
-Claire "Che Guevara" Wolfe

A good question to ask is: What is anyone who ascribes to this dictum doing here on FR? Will they be busy helping us to elect conservatives to office? Or just busy spreading ideologue poison from a murderous mindset?

[lavaroise]

Seat belts? Have you heard of unintended consequences? They are real.

[Cultural Jihad]

If you have a problem with traffic laws being unconstitutional, the very worst place in the world to start preaching the gospel about your "right to travel unmolested" is on a thread about a guy who actually murdered a cop because he thought traffic stops were unconstitutional.

Well said, wimpycat. Many excellent and right-on points.

[Cultural Jihad]

... the husband of Matthew's disciple ... shushed his disciple-wife when she expressed support for the killing of the police officer. The ideology is hideously ugly and dangerous and must be kept well-masked lest others see it for what it is. The time has not yet come for the uprising. The mask must be kept in place until then.

Worthy of a repeat. They do try to mask their true feelings, which does show a small measure of rationality, since they know most sane and normal people (those neighbor, employer, and juror types) would lash out at them if they were to be honest and open about their murderous rage simmering inside.

[drjimmy]

You were under the impression
That when you were walking forward
You'd end up further onward
But things ain't quite that simple.

[decimon]

Matthews proudly described himself as a "Constitutionalist"--not an ordinary specimen of the species, but a highly regarded thinker of their ranks. By all accounts he was accepted as such.

I'm not aware of any libertarians who take the Constitution as some sort of bible.

Among other things, the "esteemed Constitutionalist thinker" Matthews taught other eager self-described Constitutionalists that police officers could be executed for daring to perform their functions without having taken an oath. He had been teaching this crap for some time even as he ascended in the dismal poorly-populated pantheon of Constitutionalist scholordom.

I'm not aware of any libertarians who think it's OK to off police officers for disagreeing with the laws they enforce. I know of one who is anarchocapitalist who advocates offing narcs but I don't make the one the many.

I haven't seen any freepers calling themselves libertarian and advocating cop killings but I suppose they could exist. Have any in particular to cite?

The Constitutionalist website is a real work of dark art, and if you descend into its neo-anarchist hell pit, you will find listed in its party platform every obscene and twisted doctrine in its arsenal--all drafted with one obsession in mind: paranoid hatred of governmental authority.

I don't know what a "neo-anarchist" would be but then I don't know of any anarchists who are Constitutionalists. Something of a contradiction there.

The anti-government spleen-vent doctrines listed at the Constitutionalist website could have been cut and pasted from the posts of over-the-top self-described libertarians--particularly the atheists--who regularly post at FR. The fit is amazing.

Have you some example of that? First you equate Constitutionalism to anarchy and now you see an amazing fit between atheists and religious nuts.

Matthews may have considered himself religious, but his murderous rampage didn't proceed from his religious convictions--but from his bizarre, irrational, pathological anti-government paranoia. This warped anti-government obsession appears to find resonance with the decimons and Demidogs who post at FR.

The fact is that you don't know what impelled Matthews to murder that cop any more than I do. His religious views or his breakfast cereal could have been a factor.

Now I can understand why decimon would fight so hard to disown Matthews while defending the mental/ideological poison that created Matthews. He is similar to the husband of Matthew's disciple who shushed his disciple-wife when she expressed support for the killing of the police officer. The ideology is hideously ugly and dangerous and must be kept well-masked lest others see it for what it is. The time has not yet come for the uprising. The mask must be kept in place until then. (and yes, there have been MANY posts at FR that have announced that in the dim future someday, there will be total, brutal, physical, and final revenge on anyone who supported "statist" laws such as the War on Drugs; they are stockpiling their .50 caliber weapons in anticipation of the day),

Good dramatic diatribe that says nothing. I have nothing to disown in Matthews as he did in no way represent me.

You may be concerned about unfair "labelling" and "quibbling." I am not. I don't view it as unfair, but wise and wholly accurate. Neither is it quibbling. It is decimon who is quibbling, vainly tap-dancing in an attempt to draw attention away from the hideousness of the whack-job Constitutionalist-Libertarian doctrines that coalesced in Matthews' head and led him to commit his murderous act.

Well, you expose yourself as being as whacked as Matthews but that is all you do. I'm not in fact much concerned with your inaccurate labelling or with any quibbles. I just felt like countering some bizarre misrepresentations.

How is it that you so well understand Matthews' head? You're the only one who does.

[wimpycat]

The fact is that you don't know what impelled Matthews to murder that cop any more than I do. His religious views or his breakfast cereal could have been a factor.

He was known to have stated to different people at different times, dating back to 1998, that he would kill the next cop who tried to pull him over, that any LEO who tried to apprehend him did so at his own peril. In his writings he declared LEO's who didn't provide proof of an oath were unconstitutional, therefore traitors and deserved to hang.

So when he actually killed a cop, you say you have no idea what Matthews' motivation was? Give me a break! Don't play dumb on this. Use some common sense. I am aware of no religious dictum against law enforcement officers, but lots of nutcases use the Constitution as an excuse to flout the law.

What motivated Matthews was paranoid hatred of authority, manifested by his warped, twisted and demented interpretation of the Constitution. So stop saying we don't know. YOU might not know, but anyone using their common sense can figure it out.

[decimon]

"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last."

" The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."

" History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

-Ronald "Constitutionalist" Reagan

[Cultural Jihad]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

[decimon]

Sorry wimpycat, but I can't take seriously the excuses of someone like this. If he'd at some time become enthralled with Marxism then I believe he'd have used that as his excuse.

I don't blame anything about the Constitution or religion for what he did. I blame him.

[decimon]

Kewl Dewed! Me, you, Curry and anyone else can come up with some irrelevant quotes. Now what?

[Admin Moderator]

OK, that's enough of the flaming on this thread. Jim has set up a forum where if you want the debate to involve flames back and forth, you can knock yourself senseless. Feel free to post a copy of this thread in the Smokey Back Room and duke it out there, but let's keep it civil here.

Thanks, AM