Jews: "Go Back to the Ovens"

"Go Back to the Ovens" is (one of several offensive) signs carried at a "pro-Palestinian" demonstration in Houston. Same sign evidently carried previously by demonstrators in Ft. Lauderdale. ("pro-Palestinian" is put in quotes because never in the history of man has the ordinary citizen been sold out by his leaders more than the ordinary Palestinian has been sold out by his supposed "leaders" over the years since the creation of Israel--used as a political football and cannon fodder, as Hamas is even now using civilians, including children, in Gaza.)Is this "hate speech" (clearly it is that) a "hate crime". Well, if you read this blog, you know I do not believe in the concept of "hate crimes" (as distinguished from punishing crimes motivated by all kinds of hate as they deserve to be punished). Let us back up and analyze the concept, in light of the hate spech of Islamic extremists and others (yes, this does mean Reverend Wright, and does mean that Obama supported hate speech all of those years he supported Reverend Wright).The Supreme Court has held that "symbolic speech" is part of the doctrine of free speech, even when it involves actions rather than words, and even when it is "hateful" to most of us. Flag burning is an example of this. Yes, I think that particular Supreme Court decision was spectacularly stupid, with every relationship to the religion of leftism and no relationship to the Constitution. However, the concept that free speech includes freedom to engage in hateful speech is one I endorse (in general, with obvious exceptions for things like "yelling fire in a crowded theater", deliberate and seriously meant threats, and the like--the line not being crystal clear, as is true of all such lines).Is not the hanging of a noose "speech" under this Supreme Court concept? Of course it is. How is is different from putting "Go Back to the Ovens" on signs? Answer: It is not (unless it is meant as a specific threat of harm to specific people--a "terroristic threat" instead of a comment on race; as I told you, the distinctions here get subtle). If you extend the concept of "terroristic threat" to mere "hate speech", how can you defend not arresting these "pro-Palestinian" demonstrators for "hate crime"? You cannot--especially if you adopt the view that there is no distinguishing between actions meant as speech and actual speech.So how do most leftists reconcile the inconsistent application of the concept of "hate crimes"? They do not. To leftists, it is a matter of "Alice in Wonderland". Words mean what leftists say they mean at any individual time--no more and no less. It is like the old queston of whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there is no person (or living creature) there to hear it. For leftists, it is a "hate crime" if leftists declare it a "hate crime"--no more and no less. Now Jewish leftists are probably willing to call these hateful "Muslim" extremist signs a "hatte criime". However, leftists in general are not willing to accept the idea that "hate crimes" exend to people that leftists did not design the concept for (such as Communists, other leftists, or--in this case--Muslim extremists). Conclusion: Leftists are the worst sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, and only selectively belive in free speehc. Q.E.D. No, I don't believe that these "pro-Palestinian" demonstrators should be arrested for "hate crimes". However, I don't believe in "hate crimes", as distinguished from crimes that can be defined beyond hateful speech (and then only as that kind of crime, and not as some sort of different crime called a "hate crime"). Does this mean I don't approve of arresting people for hanging a noose? Yes and no. I definitely don't approve of arresting people for a sign saying almost anyting (including "nig... are animals" or "go back to slavery"). However, like I believe flag burning goes well beyond "symbolic speech"--or at least the Constitution does not prohibit legistlators for so deciding, hanging a noose can easily consitute a "terroristic threat"--especially as part of a serious campaign of terror. However, I regard the idea of placing it as a general "hate crime" as indefeinsible--as that law (or laws) is indefensible--designed merely to go after people leftists think prosecutors should go after. If you do have such a general "hate crime" law applicable to nooses, there is absolutely no excuse not to lock up demonstrators with this kind of signs (or "kill whitey" signs, for example). P.S. Why are Jews generally leftist? It is conservatives who are the strongest supporters of Israel, and who see the "Islamic terrorists" for the Nazi clones that they are. Are not Jews doing themselves in--seemingly because they are uncomfortable with evangelical Christians who might actually believe in their religion the way some Jews believe in theirs? Oh, maybe most Jews believe in Big Government, like Preisdent Bush does, even though that means they pay more taxes to be distributed by non-Jews (albeit maybe leftist). This allegiance of what appears to be a majority of Jews to the Democratic Party is someting I believe they will eventually regret, as maybe some already have. However, remember that Joe Liberman remained a Dmocrat even after the beating the Demopcratic Party gave him. It is too bad the entire country has become irrational, as we have lurched solidly to the left in the face of history, exerience, and our own ultimate self-interest.