And Now for Something Completely Different

An Act of Cowardice

Posted Monday, February 22, 2010, at 12:49 PM

Last week as we all know a man who was tired of paying taxes, torched his home (attempting to kill his wife and child) and then flew his plane into an IRS building injuring several and killing on man.

I've completely stopped watching coverage of this cowardly act because in the media they only seemed to care about one thing. Who was the man who flew his plane into the building? I know all I really need to know about him. He was a coward who only thought of himself and his poor terrible life and he decided to end his life by flying his plane into a federal building. I've always seen suicides as cowardice. I do not understand people that think suicide is easier on them or how they think it's going to be easier on their family. But this coward took it to another level deciding that he was going to take out as many people as possible.

Fortunately only one person was killed in this act of cowardice (and that's one too many) but one would be hard pressed to find any news coverage of that man.

Turns out the man was a Vietnam vet by the name of Vernon Hunter. People have come out of the woodwork trying to prop the suicidal coward up as some kind of anti-tax hero and patriot but as Mr. Hunter's son put it, Vernon was THE hero and patriot, he "...served two terms in Vietnam. This guy never served at all. My dad wasn't responsible for his tax problems." Think about it. Vernon Hunter served two tours in Vietnam fighting for our rights so that this coward could have the opportunity to live in the freest country in the world. How does he repay Vernon Hunter? He kills him because he was unhappy with his taxes?

Since the act of cowardice both sides of the political spectrum have been far more interested in painting him as either a socialist liberal or nutcase conservative (in trying to blame the other side for this tragedy) than focusing on the victims. It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum he was on, he was a coward who doesn't deserve 1/10th the media coverage he is getting.

Was it an act of domestic terrorism? I tend to believe it was but even that is immaterial. Let's instead focus on the Vietnam vet who lost his life for doing nothing more than serving his country and going to work that day.

His neighbor, Robert Foster, described him as "just a real tender man ... It was always good to talk to him. He was just a nice guy."

Vernon Hunter leaves behind a wife, a son and daughter and six grandchildren.

R.I.P. Vernon Hunter

-portions of this blog were written using the story from News 8 in Austin, Texas

Comments

View 12 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Nice column, Mike. Prayers for Mr. Hunter's family and those that loved him.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, at 1:36 PM
Mike,

More than good to know someone else cares about the men who served.

We have a 100% disabled Afghan vet who has managed somehow to accumulate down payment for a house and is trying to buy a 4-Bedroom so his grown children, a son who is in management, and a daughter who provides home health-care can live with him.

All these years after an IED ripped his thin-skin truck apart, we start by calling his home -- if we don't hear back fairly soon -- drive to the VA Med. Center.

If he's not home, he's in the hospital. When we have more information for him -- that's the drill.

He wants to buy a house so his kids will have a home if he doesn't make it.

How do you define HERO?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, at 2:29 PM
Exactly. Exactly.

This murderer/ domestic terrorist went after middle class Americans who work 9-5 jobs to support their families and their country.People who have absolutely no control over the things that angered this nut.

I don't know what these people are thinking... the ones lending sympathy to his "beliefs". A guy burns down his house and flies his plane into a building. I KNOW! Let's talk all about the causes he cared about.. as if that will stop this from happening again? It will encourage more acts like these. I think I hear more people talking about the causes Stack cared about than they did Princess Diana's after her death.

It is besides the point, but this guy DIDN'T have a valid claim anyway. He had a big house and a plane but didn't want to pay a few thousand dollars in taxes? Boo-bleeping-hoo. His life was HARDLY being ruined beyond repair. Guess what? It costs money to run a country.

Let's talk about the hero, veteran, husband, father who coached his son's sports and worked for his country right up until the day he was murdered at 67.

-- Posted by MGennette on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 2:47 PM
Mike, Thank you for putting the focus where it belongs, on the victim, not on the insanity of the person perpetrating the deed.

Sadly, News-hype, and Political fault finding seems to forget that a family, expecting to see a loved-one return home, will not, no matter the logic of the person who terminated that portion of their lives.

Thanks again. Arley

-- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 11:01 AM
Off topic but goes back to one of your last blogs on hypocrites.

I would be interested in hearing your views Mike with the hypocrites in your party?

Sorry in advance for going off topic.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-po...

-- Posted by right_all_the_time on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 3:13 PM
Thanks reformed that was the point I was going to make ... Right all the time IF the Democrats were actually talking about the nuclear option I would call them on it, but they are talking about reconciliation but people like on breitbart.tv don't want you to know that The only time the nuclear option was ever proposed was by Republicans. Democrats are trying to get reconciliation which is allowed by rule in the Senate. There is nothing hypocritical about what they are doing now because the two issues are not even comparable. Republicans used reconciliation in 2001 to pass the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans are walking a very fine line that they will be able to traverse as long as the "liberal" media continues reporting their version of the story and not the truth.

Again, reconciliation, which the Democrats are trying to use is allowed in the Senate

The Nuclear Option, which was proposed by Republicans and has not been mentioned by Democrats is a complete change in the rules.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:23 PM
On my last sentence ... The Nuclear Option, which was proposed by Republicans and has not been mentioned by Democrats ... should have had a comma. So there is what the statement should have been.

The Nuclear Option, which was proposed by Republicans and has not been mentioned by Democrats, is a complete change in the rules.

Sorry for any confusion.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 8:23 PM
My post is not wrong. Reconciliation and the Nuclear Option are tools to avoid a filibuster. Reconciliation is suppose to be used for budget reconciliation all relating to changes in taxes, spending, or debt.....not policy changes like we see in health care.

Reconciliation in this situation is far reaching as the nuclear option was in 2005.

Excerpt from a story on Fox news quoting Robert Byrd

As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, "Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to...restructure the entire health care system." He warns that using reconciliation for health care would "violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate." In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the "Byrd rule," which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any "extraneous issue" that does not directly change revenues or expenditures.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/24/michael-d-tanner-reconciliation-obama-...

-- Posted by right_all_the_time on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 9:38 PM
right_all

Good luck getting Mike to even contemplate the hypocrisy amongst the Democrats. I've been riding that horse a while and getting nowhere.

Using Reconciliation for purposes other than what it was intended for was wrong when Republicans talked about it, it's still wrong when Democrats do it. Did we all forget what our mothers taught us about two wrongs?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, at 9:36 AM
The Byrd Rule which is being completely misrepresented here does not specify that reconciliation be used solely for budgetary uses. In fact, the Byrd Rule actually opens it up for further use rather than just the budget.

Reconciliation and the nuclear option are not even in the same ballpark.

Republicans have used reconciliation three times in the last ten years and tried a fourth time when they wanted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling but failed to get the signatures.

I guess my question is why is NOW that you are suddenly against using reconciliation for bills that aren't budget bills. Republicans have used reconciliation several times to pass tax cuts that were not in the actual budget. Then it was fine, now? Not so much.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 25, 2010, at 3:31 PM
I'll bite what is your definition of a very large % of our economy?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 26, 2010, at 6:02 PM
Backassward Henri,

Please provide us with your scholarly evaluation on how this nation can survive with one-fourth of the Gross National Product being soaked up for health care.

Every economic model developed today shows that when a nation gets past 15% of GNP going into Health Care -- That nation is in deep, deep Doo-Doo.

With the latest insurance premium increases, plus increasing costs for actual medical services and medications, plus that portion of the federal budget devoted to Medicare, Medicaid, VA Medical Services and other public health expenditures --

Guess what -- THE U.S. IS ALREADY WELL PAST 15% OF GPN DEVOTED TO HEALTH CARE.

What is it you don't understand about actual bankruptcy.

You dig up the figures for GNP in 2005, which was the last "near-normal" year for our economy -- calculate one-fifth of the total EACH AND EVERY YEAR -- and see how long it takes for that 20% of GNP to exceed even the $12-TRILLION in national debt we have today thanks to DubYah and Shotgun.

A big problem with the entire equation -- While DDD -- aka DubYah and Shotgun -- destroyed the economy, they forgot to reduce the cost of health care -- which jumped again this past week with HUGE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASES.

When you get lost in all those numbers, there is one hint -- It is more easily determined if you calculate in months, rather than years.

We either get our national Health Care overhead reduced to less than 12% -- or we are more than bankrupt. We are well enroute to being a Third World nation.

All thanks to the Bush family and their GOP buddies.

But not to worry, The Oil Companies, Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater will still be loaded.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Sun, Mar 7, 2010, at 5:50 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register