Sunday, June 14, 2009
Definitions
The enemy-controlled media are "discussing" the three recent assassinations, as usual confusing and conflating all three under the rubric of "hate crimes".
First, there's no such thing as a "hate crime". The 14th Amendment was passed for the SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF REMOVING "HATE CRIME" "LAWS". Any "law" that creates a greater or lesser penalty based on the race or other innate quality of the criminal or victim is prima facie unconstitutional and invalid. It is not a law.
More to the point, these three assassinations need to be treated separately. In an earlier and saner America, commentators would have distinguished them like this:
1. Killing George Tiller was a classic vigilante action. Tiller had been violating both moral and written laws for many years. Several months ago he was finally brought to trial for his mass murders, and the alleged so-called "legal" system failed completely. Thus Roeder was taking the law into his own hands because the law was not in the hands of the alleged so-called "legal" system.
2. The murder of an Army private by a black Mohammedan convert is an act of war by an enemy soldier. Not very large or significant, but still an act of war.
3. The killing of the security guard at the Holocaust Museum is an act of terrorism, intended to produce fear and make some kind of point, though the victim wasn't Jewish and the point is unclear. Needless to say, our enemy-controlled media are making a big splash out of this killing because the assassin is white and "right-wing". Our enemy-controlled media nearly ignored the much larger and much more purposeful slaughter in the Seattle Jewish Community Center two years ago, because the assassin in that case (Naveed Haq) was an actual enemy soldier, on the same side as our media. Incidentally, a retrial of Haq is in preparatory stages right now in Seattle. ¶ 7:21 AM
First, there's no such thing as a "hate crime". The 14th Amendment was passed for the SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF REMOVING "HATE CRIME" "LAWS". Any "law" that creates a greater or lesser penalty based on the race or other innate quality of the criminal or victim is prima facie unconstitutional and invalid. It is not a law.
More to the point, these three assassinations need to be treated separately. In an earlier and saner America, commentators would have distinguished them like this:
1. Killing George Tiller was a classic vigilante action. Tiller had been violating both moral and written laws for many years. Several months ago he was finally brought to trial for his mass murders, and the alleged so-called "legal" system failed completely. Thus Roeder was taking the law into his own hands because the law was not in the hands of the alleged so-called "legal" system.
2. The murder of an Army private by a black Mohammedan convert is an act of war by an enemy soldier. Not very large or significant, but still an act of war.
3. The killing of the security guard at the Holocaust Museum is an act of terrorism, intended to produce fear and make some kind of point, though the victim wasn't Jewish and the point is unclear. Needless to say, our enemy-controlled media are making a big splash out of this killing because the assassin is white and "right-wing". Our enemy-controlled media nearly ignored the much larger and much more purposeful slaughter in the Seattle Jewish Community Center two years ago, because the assassin in that case (Naveed Haq) was an actual enemy soldier, on the same side as our media. Incidentally, a retrial of Haq is in preparatory stages right now in Seattle. ¶ 7:21 AM
