The alleged shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Federal Judge John Roll has now been identified as Jared Lee Loughner.
What can we learn about the shooter from his YouTube channel?
His favorite books include the Communist Manifesto and the founding document of national socialism in Germany. Yes, Hitler was a socialist.
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
I won’t link to a flag-burning video, but that video and the book list are right on his Youtube page. He favorited a video of someone burning an American flag. As a supporter of flag-burning, he would have opposed the Tea Party and their pride in their Constitution and their country. Only the left is anti-American. Right-wingers never burn flags.
One of his other videos comments that he resented being given a Bible by a military recruiter since he professes no religion or faith. In short, the man is likely an atheist who resents people who hand him Bibles when he has no need for one.
The video says this:
Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenis is receiving one mini bible before the tests.
Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix.
Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.
I didn’t write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application; None.
[…]No! I won’t trust in God!
If he likes communism, then he is necessarily an atheist, since communism is an atheist worldview that asserts that religion is the “opiate of the masses”. Is it really so surprising that someone who thinks that the universe is an accident and that there is no judgment for sin after death would shoot up his innocent neighbors? I don’t find it difficult to believe. Just take a look at the suicidal Columbine murderers – they were anti-Christian atheists and Darwinists.
A 22-year-old woman in Arizona, Caitie Parker, claimed on her Twitter feed that she went to high school and college with the gunman, and was in a band with him. She described his politics in the past as “left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.” She also described him as having a lot of friends “until he got alcohol poisoning in ’06” and dropped out of school. “Mainly loner very philosophical.”
Parker described the gunman meeting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords previously: “He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent.'”
That MSNBC link has transcripts of his videos, in which he professes having no belief in God, and no trust in God.
More details are emerging on Michelle Malkin’s blog, too. Including this post from the Daily Kos showing the rage on the left against Giffords for voting against Nancy Pelosi as House Leader of the Democrats. (The post has now been pulled with an apology, but the Malkin link goes to a screen shot of the original post before it was pulled – and you can still find it in the Google’s cache).
- Communist atheist Mao Zedong killed 45 million people
- Eco-terrorist who shot up Discovery Channel building is a Darwinist
- Harvard-educated evolutionist arrested for multiple-victim school shooting
- The link between Darwinism, nihilism and public school shootings
- Democrats attacking campaign offices with guns and explosives
- Pro-abortion thugs arrested at McGill University pro-life event
- Pro-abortion shooter murders two people
- Pro-lifer dodges SUV driven by pro-abortionist
42 thoughts on “Atheist who shot Gabrielle Giffords read Communist Manifesto, liked flag burning”
Hmmm . . . atheist, pot smoker, unhinged, like Communist literature — must be a TEA partier!
He mentions Brave New World among his favorite books. I wonder if a guy like him likes the centrally planned society there?
(Personally, I remember the book for giving me a new perspective on the “Why is there evil in the world? Could God not have made it impossible for us to experience bad things?” question. A society where you are satisfied with your station in life because you were designed for what life dealt you without your choice, where you take a soma at the first sign of distress, where you are so replacable that nobody will feel pain at losing you, will be meaningless.)
On what planet does Mein Kampf qualify as communist literature? At least you’ve reproduced the whole list so people can see that it’s basically all high school assigned reading with a few wild cards thrown in. Hitler and Ayn Rand do not a leftist radical make, especially if they’re on the same list as the Phantom Toll Booth.
Given the evidence we have, all signs point to “crazy”. Everyone (left and right) frantically trying to pin Loughner on the opposite side of the political spectrum is coming off as very self-serving and crass right now.
Um, excuse me? The Nazi party is the NATIONAL SOCIALIST party. Hitler was a socialist. Surely you knew that? He was a left-winger who favored stimulus spending on public works projects.
Would really recommend Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”.
It’s always interesting how whenever some muslim/atheist/far leftist does something like this everyone conveniently dismisses the person as just your garden variety nutcase, like the Virginia Tech Shooter and DC sniper.
On the other hand, if you fit a certain profile like being a member of the tea party, white male, or Christian, the leftist media will bend over backwards to describe you as part of a dangerous hate movement intent on blowing up abortion clinics, bullying homosexuals in school, and terrorizing innocent third world countries who simply want to be left in peace.
It’s all about the profile and the template. Of course I could care less what these hypocrites think, but its always extremely satisfying to point out their own behavior to them.
Just to continue my thoughts from above.
In the case of the DC sniper, before the guy was caught the media went out of its way to speculate that it was probably an angry white male. Turned out to be a black Muslim convert named Muhammad and an illegal alien from Jamaica. On the other hand, a white male truck driver (Ron Lantz) prayed to his Christian God that the sniper be caught and ended up helping to apprehend him. (By the way, can you IMAGINE anyone in the media or government speculating that a perpetrator of a crime was probably a black male, Muslim, or illegal alien?)
There is the case of Timothy McVeigh. If I only had a nickel for every village liberal on the internet who has proclaimed that McVeigh was a Christian. Instead, McVeigh was a self described agnostic who said, “Science is my religion”. Yet to this day the media and the liberals relentlessly portray McVeigh as the proto-typical angry white Christian male on the anti-government crusade.
And finally, the case of Hitler, who is also relentless portrayed by the left as a Christian, when in fact Hitler was a socialist who hated Christianity and made many anti-Christian quotes that would fit nicely on any liberal blogs.
Well, I guess there’s no need to let a few facts get in the way of advancing the agenda, eh liberals?
Books don’t kill people. Guns do.
Yes, MCS. Guns killed Hitler. But you oppose killing Hitler, right? After all, he was a socialist.
And do you know who else doesn’t like legal firearm ownership? Criminals. Another group favored by the left.
See here for a full explanation of how legal firearm ownership deters violent crime:
It’s MSNBC, MCS. You love radical leftist networks. And lots of good links in that story for you too.
Sorry, McS, I couldn’t resist.
Guns don’t kill people, Physics kills people.
Guns don’t kill people. People do. Get it right.
And abortion doesn’t kill babies. People do. Get it right!
Actually, people who perform abortions do kill babies – that’s the point of abortion. But people who own guns legally are not owning them in order to kill anyone. They are used for self-defense as a deterrent to criminals. And they can also be used to stop military aggression, as with Hitler in World War 2.
People who favor gun control wants criminals and tyrants to be unopposed in their evildoing.
To continue the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” analogy: contraceptives don’t cause abortions (as you have claimed on your blog): People do. Just the way drugs don’t cause overdoses (people do) and divorce laws don’t cause divorces (people again) and sex ed doesn’t cause teenage pregnancy (you got it again: people do). So what do you do to prevent all that? You try and ban abortion, you lament divorce laws, you try and ban sex ed and you try and prevent kids from getting a hold of drugs and condoms. Otherwise you’d simply spend your time letting these things freely proliferate and instead, lecture everyone on the dangers of their use. But since that doesn’t work, you try and regulate their access. Or, in cases when that doesn’t go far enough, you try and ban it outright. C’mon Wintery: banning things is one of the conservative movement’s favorite solutions for fixing what it doesn’t like, just as it is for the left.
The study I cited showed that increase use of contraceptives resulted in increased abortions.
We agree on the drugs.
No-fault divorce laws caused the number of divorces to skyrocket and the marriage rate to drop.
Sex ed has resulted in more people having sex at earlier ages and massive increases in teenage pregnancy.
I don’t try to ban sex ed, I promote school choice – let the parents decide how to purchase school like any other product.
Guns kill. You know that. You just don’t want to accept it.
Yeah, cos they like totally take aim and fire ALL ON THEIR OWN. Way out, man! ;-)
One chased me to work this afternoon! But fortunately I ran into a gun-free zone and it had to leave. Because, you know, those signs totally prevented all the recent multiple victim public shootings since criminals obey signs that say that no guns are allowed.
This is why men don’t marry. We need to protect our families. Women vote for gun control because they are scared of guns and the loud noises. They are basically voting to remove the role of protector from men. That makes men not want to marry. It’s extremely frustrating to a man to think that he is helpless when his family is threatened and that he has to rely on others.
Wintery: “Women vote for gun control because they are scared of guns and the loud noises. They are basically voting to remove the role of protector from men.”
This comment is too simplistic and offensive to me. Women don’t vote for gun control because they are voting to remove the role of men from their homes. It’s leaps like this the undermine your better arguments.
Sigh. Well by ALL I mean just over 50%.
WK: If you mean over 50%, then give the percentage. Exaggeration doesn’t help make your point. It only alienates your audience.
Mara: I don’t think WK means that women who vote for gun control are intentionally voting to undermine men. I think he means it’s an effect of voting for it, when they vote for it because they are scared of guns. At least, I hope that’s what he means.
Sigh… can’t I be mean once in a while? Just once? Just exaggerate a little to annoy Mara?
Oh, yes – that’s what I meant. I mean it’s an effect that is not intended because women are not aware of how much men worry about being able to protect their families.
Of course you may exaggerate, WK. (She says sweetly.) Just know that when you do I will pinch you with my snippy lobster claws. (She says less sweetly.) ;-)
When I say simplitic what I mean is that you should not say the motivation of these women who vote against guns is all about wanting to remove the role of men from their homes.
The reasons of these women, whether noble or base, whether right or wrong, cannot be pigeon holed into this one single catagory.
I know women who had guns in their home, and due to a gun accident and the loss of their child (or brother/sister/cousin…), they decide they are in favor of gun control.
I know another situation where a guy was arguing with his girlfriend about their dog. He shot the dog, his girlfriend, and himself.
Then the guys that ran the race track(demolition derby?) that he went to honoered him at one of their races. This sent a clear signal to their women about how little value the life of a woman really is to them. These women see this, realize that all men are not the protectors they should be and realize that they also could be the victims of gun violence. And they decide that guns in the hands of men is not always a good thing for women. And these women think that they should remove this particular boy toy away from their men because it can be (and actually has been in their world) used to kill women.
I’m still for law abiding citizens being allowed to armed themselves.
But I’m opposed to all simplistic generalizations that don’t have a clue.
Such generalizations, besides being pretty heartless, cause problems and defeat your argument.
Yeah, Guns kill. So do knives, plastic bags ropes, gravity, lead pipes, candle sticks.
Didn’t you ever play clue?
Unless it is an accident, like a plane crash (gravity) usually the gun, knife, rope etc, is in the hand of a person. It is the person who has to take the initiative. The gun, knife, rope, etc, can’t pull it off by it’s own volition, because it has none.
Oh, and the pen is mightier than the sword.
Often, it is ideas that kill people. Some warped ideas are written and published and mess with the minds of the mentally unbalanced.
But what can I say?
I believe in freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms.
These three freedoms, along with a few others, do cause a great deal of tension.
Who said anything about outlawing guns? My responses are entirely on the killing power of guns.
Guns are able to kill.
I don’t have a problem with that.
Sorry that I jumped to the conclusion that you used the fact that guns kill as a reason to outlaw guns.
It’s pretty common among liberals.
Sorry for being prejudiced and assuming your view meant you wanted to outlaw guns.
Will probably be just like that left wing loon who hated George Bush and crashed a small plane into a federal building in Austin.
He was a right wing fanatic and they just shut up when the truth came out and never reported he was a left wing extremist.
Right. And if that nine year old shot and killed had been your kid, you’d all be singing a different tune. Guns seem a lot less threatening when they’re pointed at other people–or you’re the one taking aim.
If it’s your house that was being broken into and robbed, and your family being raped and tortured and murdered, then you might have a different view of gun control.
Anyone who favors gun control opposes self-defense and favors criminals.
This is what guns are for:
Read it. And think.
Not everyone’s convictions shift with changing circumstances. If it had been my kid, it wouldn’t change the fact that firearms keep ordinary people from being at the mercy of those who are stronger, more brutal, have illegal firearms, or who are trained in unarmed mayhem. Disarmed people are sheep, dependent on others for their fundamental responsibility to defend themselves and their families.
Guns = shooting. Any five year old knows that.
You don’t know what you are talking about because you have never read any research on this topic. In defensive handgun uses to prevent crimes, the weapon is almost never fired (98% of cases). When the weapon is fired, it is rarely fired directly at the assailant, but is instead used as a warning shot. That kind of scenario prevents millions of crimes ever year. That is not my opinion, that is published research – published by the University of Chicago.
Get the 3rd edition:
If you watch the debate I linked to, you could see those statistics sustained in a debate situation with real opposition.
I have 5 guns. None have ever shot anything but paper, aluminum cans and pine melons, and God willing, none ever will. My five-year-old knows that.
But if someone attempts to bring death or grave injury to her or the rest of my family, I’d rather one of my guns = shooting the perpetrator than his intended harm come to pass.
And you would probably fire a warning shot first, unless he was armed with a loaded, readied firearm being pointed at you. Most law-abiding people fire warning shots, and only if brandishing the weapon fails.
As someone succintly put it: “When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws have firearms.”
A lobbying group put up posters years ago with the words: DISARM NOW. Someone else added these handwritten words: DAT ARM NEXT.
The religious right is guilty of certain sweeping solutions that are based on a shallow understanding of the issues. They really believe that feminists are enemy number one and they scapegoat all feminists and women who don’t line up with their very narrow and constricting view of family and roles.
The left has a similar blind spot concerning guns. They scapegoat guns and law-abiding citizens who own guns.
They believe taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is somehow going to save lives.
Both views are short sighted.
Both views are far more concerned with the outward structure and one stroke solutions than with dealing with the heart of the issues.
People, men and women, need to be able to defend themselves.
The criminal rate is increasing, our prisons are overpopulated, criminals are walking free among us. And they are armed.
One armed citizen could have stopped the shooter in this story before he got all six of those people.
And if that shooter had been taken down by an armed citizen, and if shooters know that someone could be armed in the malls, homes, and other public places, it could deter them.
Criminals are cowards. They go for the weak and unarmed.
If a government disarms its own citizens, it is forcing them to become helpless lambs for the slaughter. Fair game for criminals and hostile forces who want to overthrow or take over our government by force.
I distrust any government that wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Somewhere in our constitution or other papers, one of the founding fathers says that the people have a right to rebel against an oppressive government. And the right to bear arms and form militias is part of that.
Because there are a few wack-jobs out there, this doesn’t mean that no one should be able to own guns.
Because there are a few very vocal feminists who truly do hate men and want to remove them from families, this doesn’t men all women who call themselves feminists are pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-father/husband/men.
The scapegoating on both sides, left and right, is what makes me want stay away from politics and stay secluded in my little rural area far away from the battle. I prefer the company of the simple farmers and small town folk who own guns, have no clue of the existence of CBMW, and live peacefully together in spite of all the arguments of how evil guns and feminists are and how feminists or guns (take your pick) will singlehandedly destroy life and civilization as we know it.
Amen, Mara, for a balanced appoach.
Wintery: “This is why men don’t marry. We need to protect our families. Women vote for gun control because they are scared of guns and the loud noises. They are basically voting to remove the role of protector from men. That makes men not want to marry. It’s extremely frustrating to a man to think that he is helpless when his family is threatened and that he has to rely on others.”
Hate to beat a dead horse, but I will anyway.
My friend Esther is conservative and for gun control.
She just said so on her blog yesterday. The comments have shot up to 78 both supporting and trying to reason with her.
She is not a ditzy unthinking girl who is scared of guns and their loud noises. She’s concerned about human life.
There are thoughtful men and women over there laying out the facts for her to help her see the full argument.
I’m providing the link, not so anyone over here can run in there, shoot first and ask questions later.
I’m linking it so that if any of you pro gun people can add a thoughtful and respectful comment concerning the need to uphold the right to bear arms that you could do so.
I’m also linking it out of frustration for the prejudice of men against women who are for gun-control.
God made women with high empathy on purpose so that we would be good wives and mothers. It is part of being a strong help to our men and families.
Sometimes that strong empathy encourages the desire to protect our families from gun violence by being pro-gun control. It is born out of our God-given difference to men.
Please be more sympathetic of that difference rather than make snide comments about women being scared of guns and their loud noise.
Sorry, Wintery. I guess there is a part of me that wants you to be more sympathetic of women’s concerns rather than just sweeping them away with blanket judgments.
I was getting ready to say that you have a chip on your shoulder concerning all that women want to do to lessen the position of men in the family.
But then I realized, I probably have a chip on my shoulder about men’s judgment and prejudice against women. I see on the one side that men want women to be feminine. But that when that femininity expresses itself in certain ways, men are ready to jump all over it and judge it and belittle women over it. Women lose, no matter what. They either act feminine and are judged for it. Or act unfeminine and are judged for it.
So, yeah. I’ve got a chip too.
So, Sorry. Guess I’m still working through it all.
Anyway, here’s the link.
“God made women with high empathy on purpose so that we would be good wives and mothers. It is part of being a strong help to our men and families.”
Good point, but the empathy needs to be corrected by facts – specifically the statistics show how guns are used in self-defense situations and to prevent crimes. For example, she can start with empathy, but she should inform the empathy by watching a debate. It may turn out that more guns actually result in less crime because of the deterrent effect, and that is just what the statistics show.
Actually, reading the Dr. Morse book on “Love and Economics” showed me how valuable women are as mothers in the first 5 years or so. A lot hangs on that mother-child relationship, and I just don’t think that men can substitute for a woman during those 5 years. They can try, but they usually don’t like it and won’t do a good job.
I know, Wintery. This is what I mean. My friend, Esther, might be won over with the facts. There are several people, male and female, over there doing just that and saying the things you are saying.
It just concerned me that you had reduced it all down to making women sound like frightened little creatures with no sense.
There is sense to it and a real, even overwhelming reason for her to take the position she has.
There is also a reasoning process by which a person can be won over that is thoughtful and respectful and takes into consideration their concerns and fears. It is a much better approach than belittling and insulting.
Yes, you’re right. I find it irresistible to tease women though because they are so confident about their emotions. I have had some crazy experiences where feelings are asserted as a way of verifying propositions! It’s just crazy to me. I think that feelings are real and they really need love and counseling and patience to deal with, but I don’t think they should be the basis of a worldview. They should be the caboose, not the engine.