Bombs found near Kansas statehouse during anti-immigrant hearings

Posted by Josh Rosenau on February 16, 2012
(13)
More »

As the SPLC and ThinkProgress report:

Yesterday, police arrested an unidentified man at the Kansas Capitol after discovering several homemade bombs in his truck close to the Kansas Capitol. The truck had stickers on its back window saying, “Welcome to America. Now speak English’’ and “Does my American flag offend you? Call 1-800-LEAVE THE USA.’’

This arrest came on the same day that Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), an anti-immigrant official who drafted Arizona’s and Alabama’s harmful immigration laws, urged Kansas lawmakers to pass stricter immigration policies.

It should be recalled that Timothy McVeigh began his bomb plot in Kansas, buying key components for his bomb and mixing them in Kansas before crossing into Oklahoma. McVeigh’s co-conspirator Terry Nichols lived in Kansas and stayed home in Herrington, KS (where he bought and stole the fertilizer, diesel fuel, blasting caps, etc.) during the bombing.

Fortunately, alert police saw the empty gun holster and other warning signs in the truck today, and acted quickly to detain the truck’s owner as he headed to the capitol after having illegally parked the bomb-laden truck near the building.

It isn’t clear whether the bombs are connected to the anti-immigrant laws being debated today, or the testimony of Secretary of State Kobach. Kobach has a long history on this blog: I spent much of the blog’s first few months cataloging his ties to hate groups, white nationalists, and Christian Dominionists as he ran for Congress.

(13)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Eric Dondero
    February 16, 2012

    Actually, McVeigh had an accomplice – Husain Al-Husaini who was with Iraqi intelligence services. He was at the scene when McVeigh ingnited the bombs in downtown OKC. 23 witnesses confirmed this, including a city councilman and his two aides.

    But you see the guy was Muslim, so the liberal media and the Clinton administration quickly lost interest in him, and blamed it all on the two white guys.

  2. #2 dean
    February 16, 2012

    Since the only sites that discuss the “muslim” connection to the bombing are loony-bin right wing sites, no credence should be given. What seems to have occurred is that the original rush to assume it was due to Middle-Eastern terrorists (for example

    “According to a government source, it has Middle East terrorism written all over it,” said CBS’s Connie Chung (4/19/95). Her colleague Anthony Mason followed up: “Sources tell CBS News that unofficially the FBI is treating this as a Middle East-related incident.”

    has morphed into the foolish statements by folks like eric that “the evil media hushed proof that they were involved”. Apparently libertarians don’t want to believe any of their own can be extremely crazy instead of simply delusional.

  3. #3 Eric Dondero
    February 16, 2012

    Actually that’s “libertarian,” as in L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N. Again, libertarian NOT CONSERVATIVE!

    In fact, I’m a diehard Darwinist.

    Favor legalizing drugs, prostitution, swinger’s rights, repeal of seat belt laws, no smoking bans, oppose alcohol prohibition in all its forms, love topless beaches, and am in favor of gentleman’s clubs.

    I think you’ll find religious conservatives are only halfway reliable on fighting Islamo-Fascism. You see, the religious right half-way agrees with the Muslim fundamentalist agenda on sex, booze and rock ‘n roll. They’re not as crazy as the Islamists, but they’re okay with some of their prudetarian agenda.

    Only we libertarians are truly principled full-blown anti-Islamist.

    Is it wrong that we don’t want our prety wives and girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, our gay friends hung in town squares, and our marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life?

  4. #4 dean
    February 16, 2012

    “Darwinist”? Your language use works against you.

    Is it wrong that we don’t want our prety wives and girlfriends forced to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, our gay friends hung in town squares, and our marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life?

    No, but since there is no danger of that occurring in the US your comment is more bigotry motivated than reality motivated.

    Your “reasoned arguments”, if that is what you intend them to be, really fall short, and don’t do anything to contradict the fact that the assertion you made in the first post is so much crap.

  5. #5 Conspiracy nut
    February 16, 2012

    Whta McVeigh did was bad, but we will neber know the real reason why he committed this crime. After the bombing incident numerous firemen reported UN tanks and vehicles in underground bunkers below the building. The CIA shut them up rapidly.

    Maybe McVeigh knew things and knew the media would not beleive him. The NWO is beating down the door.

    Hell recently we learned that Osama Bin laden was killed in tora Bora in 2002. it was his son that we killed recently. The very navy seals who took him out were targeted by CIA linked taliban guns to make sure they didn’t talk. The CIA is still working with, not against, the taliban and other groups. It’s all part of the global government plant.

  6. #6 dean
    February 16, 2012

    I call really bad attempt at parody on the fifth poster, because
    the possibility it isn’t is too depressing to think about.

  7. #7 Eric Dondero
    February 17, 2012

    “No danger,” of Islamists taking over the United States.

    Why don’t you tell that to the good citizens of Salt, Spain (Catolonian Province near Barcelona). Their city now has a 40% Muslim immigrant population. Muslim city councilman have recently been elected, near majority. One of their first acts their talking about initiating? Requiring women to be covered in public buildings.

    And the Muslim population of Dearborn, Michigan is now nearing 30%.

    Nah! Can’t happen here. No way. Just alarmism from the “far right.”

  8. #8 dean
    February 17, 2012

    Eric are you really that stupid? (Oh, wait, I see how you identify yourself. You are.) Check a map: is Salt, Spain, in the United States? Just so the answer doesn’t have too many words: NO. It is true that your claim seems to be overblown.

    And yes, Dearborn is a large Muslim center, WITH NO conflicts of politics or society at all of the type you hint at. Maybe you should actually visit and live in Michigan (I’d be surprised if you do) before you type such stupid things.

    No, it can’t happen here, it isn’t a threat of happening here, except in the huge imaginations of small bigoted minds.

  9. #9 Anthony McCarthy
    February 18, 2012

    Eric, you are a bigot. I’d guess most American Muslims are about as dangerous as your typical member of the Presbyterian church. Up till 9-11 it was pseudo-Christian white guys who had the record for mass murder in a single event in the US.

    Libertarians are Republicans with kinky tastes and a fear of getting arrested.

    “Darwinist” Richard Dawkins, any number of other Darwinists have called themselves “Darwinists” over the years. I’ve traced the recent folk etymology that “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” are words used only by creationists to another of the Scienceblogs. That folk etymology is only useful in showing how many of the rabidly pro-Darwin people on the blogs have obviously read next to nothing written by Darwinists who have been using those words to describe themselves and their interpretation of evolution since the 1860s. Sorry to point that out but it’s rather a pet peeve of mine. There have been many right-wing Darwinists over that time. Not all on the far right are creationists.

  10. #10 Pete
    February 18, 2012

    If this guy was anti-immigrant, why would he be trying to blow up a bomb at a hearing that seems to be supporting his cause? Kobach’s legislation is anti-illegal immigrant, the author left that keyword out. Also, the only connection to McVeigh is the state of Kansas. Why should that be recalled? Is the author trying to say that the state of Kansas breeds homegrown terrorists based on two completely separate incidences? By the way, the original title of Origin of Species was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

  11. #11 dean
    February 18, 2012

    Don’t know, why did he have explosives in his car?

    By the way, the original title of Origin of Species was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    Just what in the heck does this have to do with the current post? (I really, really, don’t think you want us to make the inference that you meant bombing those you dislike falls under the realm of evolution in action.)

  12. #12 RedApe
    February 18, 2012

    Actually the original intended title was “AN ABSTRACT OF AN ESSAY ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES AND VARIETIES THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION” but was changed by the publisher…to which Darwin deferred.

    http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=168

    Creationists try and assert that Darwin was intent on discussing human races in the Origin of Species and thus was, I guess, asserting that human races are different species. But nowhere in the Origin does Darwin discuss human evolution, and from the above title one can see he was also using NS to discuss the origin of “varieties” within a species. Unless one holds that features like skin pigmentation and lactose tolerance are not the product of Natural Selection, and beneficial to the ancestral populations that evolved them…then what’s the issue?

    And nowhere does Darwin suggest that human beings should be eliminating other peoples based on their traits. Darwin, an abolitionist, believed that the human brain was quite capable of great achievements in all groups of humanity. This was contrary to the views of most Creationists of the time who argued that blacks where allocated their lot as servants to whites…either as a separate Creation…or as the result of degeneration after “the Fall” or the “flood”.

  13. #13 Anthony McCarthy
    February 18, 2012

    Oh, for crying out loud. Evolution doesn’t stand or fall on the every word of Charles Darwin and his sacred person. His Descent of Man, in which he did talk about human beings, is a completely awful book.

    Evolution is badly served by the Darwin cult. He had a few ideas about an enormously large, enormously complex fact of natural history. We know that it was hardly the last word on the subject.

    Larry Moran didn’t exactly say that the Darwin fixation is damaging evolutionary biology but that’s what I gathered from this:

    Students are still being taught evolutionary biology as though natural selection were the only game in town. They don’t know anything about random genetic drift or Neutral Theory. Biology students at my university are graduating without ever being told that the vast majority of alleles that are fixed during evolution are fixed by random genetic drift. Worse than that, they can’t even define evolution correctly. They’ve been taught that “evolution” and “natural selection” are practically synonyms.

    And later:

    I hate to break it to you but students are graduating from universities all over the world with only a rudimentary—and mostly incorrect—understanding of evolution. It’s not just at the University of Toronto. Not only that, there are students getting Ph.D.s in biological sciences who don’t know anything about population genetics, random genetic drift, or neutral theory. We have quite a few in my department.

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/02/dawkins-darwin-drift-and-neutral-theory.html

    The discussion is fascinating and a real eye full. Reading between the lines, I’d think it’s something worth considering about the possibility that the “ultra-Darwinian” orthodoxy is having bad consequences.