The Colorado Springs shooter is "whacko" and "insane" (terms I heard from various people in the media). Why? Who is to say that he is? Why isn't he just a murderer, who likes to kill people? When we say someone is "insane", then by law we have excused their acts. So are the radical jihadists who slaughtered all those people in Paris insane? No? So are you telling me radical Islam is not a mental illness? Just want to get all this straight. While we are on the subject, what's a "hate crime" and why did we create something so cumbersome and un-provable to confuse and confound juries with? If I deface someone's home because I hate them, it's not a hate crime, unless I hate them because they are a particular race or religion. Is this not ridiculous?
Speaking of hate, there is this guy John Ritzheimer, an Arizona man who has been vociferous--if not totally menacing--in his anger and hatred of Muslims. He has vowed to "confront" them, and he walks the sidewalks wearing a t-shirt that says, "Fuck islam." He has called President Obama a "stupid, sorry, sack of shit" and in his video brandishes a handgun. Is he a "hater"? Insults the president? Yes. But none of things are against the law. Our country allows hatred of anyone you want to hate, and allows criticism of government and its leaders. In fact, the First Amendment of our Constitution protects Ritzheimer's speech, up until the point that he calls for the overthrow of the government, or he incites unrest (rioting) that would cause harm to the general public. Johnson vs. Texas even allows you to burn the American flag to express your feelings. Ritzheimer is, according to an article in the New York Daily News, being investigated by the FBI. The feebs apparently "warned" the New York Police Department about Ritzheimer after he threatened to come to NY and personally tell Muslims, "fuck you." Again, though this seems to me to be an idiotic way to spend ones time, it's his time, and his privilege to express himself the way he wants.
At the same time, marchers in New York protesting the recent shooting death of a black man, chanted loudly, "We want dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"
As far as I've read, no one is investigating them. What's the difference between Ritzheimer's remarks and the protestors? Ritzheimer is expressing vitriol and hatred of Muslims and Obama. He never said anything about killing anyone. In fact, when he racks his pistol in the video, he is proclaiming that he's "ready" to defend himself against terrorism. The protestors have called for the deaths of police officers, and they have done so in organized groups, not just as one individual. That deserves a glance or two from the FBI, and a warning to the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies, no?
Here's the biggest threat of all, bigger than the Ritzheimers and "death to cops" protestors combined: the political correctness movement, a wave of overcompensation so wildly out of control that our current generation of young people are quick to use the term "racist" and "awkward" for any kind of speech that is in any way critical of anyone or any group. It's a movement that has given birth to the idea that the expression of our feelings are somehow open to legislation. During a discussion about Michael Huckabee's comments about Dear, the Planned Parenthood killer, the host of the show asked a guest if Huckabee should be "arrested for hate speech."
Arrested for hate speech. Let that one sink in for one moment.
I say leave Ritzheimer and the protestors alone. They have made themselves very vocal and very public, and most often people like that never become violent. It's the ones who sit fomenting in a dark corner somewhere who end up going out in public and gunning down innocents. Here's who we should "watch" and "warn" about: those who think that speaking your mind--if it does not fit into their construct of social acceptability-- is deserving of a jail cell. Those are the ones who are spreading a dangerous message, one that has the potential to plunge us into an Orwellian nightmare.