US government vs. "antisemitism"

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/st...43197241638973

[Brian4Liberty]

And the sponsor isn't even a Dispensationalist or a Jew. He's Catholic.

Not unusual at all. There was a time when some people weren't allowed to join WASP country clubs. And WASPs didn't go the the K of C. Clubs were like that.

But then the world was turned into groups of oppressors and victims...and you know where that leads.

The war on WASPs is not new. This nation was founded as a Protestant Christian nation. Those in positions of power, who play power games, and don't consider themselves as members of that group, have long conspired and plotted together to neutralize WASPs. In those terms, everything makes sense. The Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965 was a major turning point, championed by the Catholic Kennedy family. It was an inside joke in the movie "Caddyshack". Immigration from south of the border also fits that agenda. The Supreme Court is made up of nothing but Jewish and Catholic members now.

The transformation from a WASP nation to a Judeo-Catholic nation is almost complete. Combine this with Marxist-Globalism, and the war on WASPs can be out in the open now.

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1786129023879262494

[susano]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1786129023879262494

Matt is consistently on the mark. Laid it all out perfectly. Now watch as he gets sideways with Ben Shapiro.

[susano]

Pollack didn't fair too well...

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...61822766268662

Breitbart may as well be the Jerusalem Post. Now, Pollack is urging Democraps not to have in an person convention because it will make them look bad, though he framed it as being upsetting for the wonderful city of Chicongo when $#@! inevitably goes south with the Marxists. He is such a transparent manipulative POS. Breitbart always headlines any article about the protests as "Hamas students...", "Pro Hamas protesters", etc.

[acptulsa]

[susano]

Thankfully, everyone ignored it.

[acptulsa]

Thankfully, everyone ignored it.

Not to the degree with which Swordsmyth and dannno are ignoring this thread, no.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/st...83035778535698


Ok. ...

March 20, 2017
Members of Congress
United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20510

RE: The Constitutionality of The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

Dear Senator/Representative:

I write on behalf of the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, and the Jewish
Federations of North America. These four organizations have differing perspectives on many
issues, but they speak with one voice in their support of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. That
bill would supplement existing law prohibiting anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses by
providing a much-needed and workable definition of anti-Semitism, one that is already employed
by the federal government in other contexts. This proposal passed the Senate unanimously last
year, but it stalled in the House of Representatives based in part on suggestions that the Act
would violate the First Amendment.

While efforts by public universities to directly regulate student speech do raise serious
First Amendment issues, the Act is fundamentally different and concerns about its
constitutionality are misplaced for multiple reasons...

[Anti Federalist]

Too bad only invaders and Marxists have the balls and the sense to ignore $#@! laws.

[PAF]

Mises Wire
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
05/15/2024


The House of Representatives passed the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” on May 2, by a vote of 320-91 in reaction to demonstrations on numerous university campuses and elsewhere against the brutal and genocidal policy of Israel in Gaza. The Act has now been sent to the Senate, where it seems certain to pass. This is an extremely dangerous bill that could criminalize the Bible, many Christian Churches, as well as any negative remarks about Israel and Jews. In brief, it threatens us with totalitarian thought control. We must do everything we can to oppose it.

First, let’s take an overview of the Act.

.
.
.

Continue:

https://mises.org/mises-wire/beware-...-awareness-act

[Madison320]

Mises Wire
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
05/15/2024


The House of Representatives passed the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” on May 2, by a vote of 320-91 in reaction to demonstrations on numerous university campuses and elsewhere against the brutal and genocidal policy of Israel in Gaza. The Act has now been sent to the Senate, where it seems certain to pass. This is an extremely dangerous bill that could criminalize the Bible, many Christian Churches, as well as any negative remarks about Israel and Jews. In brief, it threatens us with totalitarian thought control. We must do everything we can to oppose it.

First, let’s take an overview of the Act.

.
.
.

Continue:

https://mises.org/mises-wire/beware-...-awareness-act

I don't see how this is any worse than the original civil rights act of 1964. We already punish thoughts with discrimination laws. This just seems to be adding another protected class.

[PAF]

I don't see how this is any worse than the original civil rights act of 1964. We already punish thoughts with discrimination laws. This just seems to be adding another protected class.

I don't know... can't win for losing?

There's no difference, however what anarchists don't understand is that there's no other option. There's always going to be a "state", "mafia", "warlord" presiding over a given area. Government is force and force is not going away anytime soon.

[Invisible Man]

Can anyone substantiate the claim that this act could potentially criminalize the Bible, or even that it could potentially criminalize antisemitic speech of any kind at all?

I don't see what in the bill leads to that claim.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...ill/6090/text?

[Invisible Man]

I don't see how this is any worse than the original civil rights act of 1964. We already punish thoughts with discrimination laws. This just seems to be adding another protected class.

That's the way this looks to me too.

In fact, I haven't looked into it. But I bet the 1964 law has already been used effectively to prosecute discrimination against Jewish people. This act probably doesn't add anything new to the US code that actually affects anything. It just gives politicians a chance to say they did something, rather than nothing.

[PAF]

Can anyone substantiate the claim that this act could potentially criminalize the Bible, or even that it could potentially criminalize antisemitic speech of any kind at all?

I don't see what in the bill leads to that claim.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...ill/6090/text?

What government giveth [legislation], government shall taketh [legislation] away?

Boy, I'm full of questions today.

[jmdrake]

I don't see how this is any worse than the original civil rights act of 1964. We already punish thoughts with discrimination laws. This just seems to be adding another protected class.

The civil rights act didn't criminalize speech. It didn't even stop all racial discrimination. It stopped racial discrimination in public accommodations. (Businesses that serve the general public). You can still have your all white country club if you want. It wasn't until 1990 that the PGA quit having tournaments at country clubs that discriminated against blacks and that was due to public outcry and calls for boycotts of PGA sponsors, and not by government action.

[Invisible Man]

The civil rights act didn't criminalize speech.

Given that, then what is the basis for the claim that this Anti-Semitism Awareness Act criminalizes speech?

[jmdrake]

That's the way this looks to me too.

In fact, I haven't looked into it. But I bet the 1964 law has already been used effectively to prosecute discrimination against Jewish people. This act probably doesn't add anything new to the US code that actually affects anything. It just gives politicians a chance to say they did something, rather than nothing.

You've just explained why @Madison320 is wrong in his analysis. The 1965 Civil Rights Act IS used to prosecute discrimination against Jews. There's nothing specific in the act about black people. The act also covers religious discrimination so that would cover observant Jews as well. This new law that @PAF is bringing up is talking about criminalizing actual speech. This is one of the definitions of "antisemitism" this bill seeks to address:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

There is no comparison at all between this bill and the 1964 CRA.

[jmdrake]

Given that, then what is the basis for the claim that this Anti-Semitism Awareness Act criminalizes speech?

From : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...sts-rcna150170

"Speech that is critical of Israel or any other government cannot, alone, constitute harassment," ACLU leaders wrote in a letter last week urging lawmakers to oppose the measure.

The letter pointed in part to an example of antisemitism included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, which says antisemitism could include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Do you remember the video where Candace Owens defendant herself against a Rabbi who was calling her antisemetic? He went so far as to say that even Jews who criticize Israel are antisemitic. What law do you know of that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing black people? Certainly not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Madison320]

The civil rights act didn't criminalize speech. It didn't even stop all racial discrimination. It stopped racial discrimination in public accommodations. (Businesses that serve the general public). You can still have your all white country club if you want. It wasn't until 1990 that the PGA quit having tournaments at country clubs that discriminated against blacks and that was due to public outcry and calls for boycotts of PGA sponsors, and not by government action.

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

I don't like the bill, but I don't think it changes anything.

[PAF]

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

Calling @devil21

[Invisible Man]

From : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...sts-rcna150170

"Speech that is critical of Israel or any other government cannot, alone, constitute harassment," ACLU leaders wrote in a letter last week urging lawmakers to oppose the measure.

The letter pointed in part to an example of antisemitism included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, which says antisemitism could include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Do you remember the video where Candace Owens defendant herself against a Rabbi who was calling her antisemetic? He went so far as to say that even Jews who criticize Israel are antisemitic. What law do you know of that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing black people? Certainly not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That relates to how the act defines antisemitism. But the act doesn't ban antisemitism. So I don't see what that proves.

[jmdrake]

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

You're fine to have your own opinion but not your own facts. You don't have to agree with the Civil Rights Act but you shouldn't mis-characterize what it does. It doesn't do what you said it does College students regularly said racist things on campus well into the 21st century. And even now when students get in trouble on campus for being racist it's not the federal government coming down on them but rather campus honor codes.

[Invisible Man]

What law do you know of that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing black people? Certainly not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

None. Nor am I aware of any law that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing Jews. Including the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

[jmdrake]

That relates to how the act defines antisemitism. But the act doesn't ban antisemitism. So I don't see what that proves.

The civil rights act doesn't even address racist speech.

[Invisible Man]

The civil rights act doesn't even address racist speech.

But it addresses discrimination based on race. And racist speech can be used as evidence that someone discriminated based on race.

[jmdrake]

I don't like the bill, but I don't think it changes anything.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...aza-rcna146674

The legislation would also require federal agencies to submit a report to Congress detailing their implementation of the strategy, enabling oversight authorities to identify and recommend new, better ways to counter the spread of antisemitism — including online.

It would specifically direct the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center to produce an annual threat assessment of violent extremism directed at Jews.

And it would demand that the Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator ensures the agency has sufficient resources and personnel needed to support places of worship, community centers and nonprofit organizations with physical security enhancements via the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

The bill would also formally establish the month of May as “Jewish American Heritage Month” in federal law.

If you don't think the FBI being directed to target people who call Israel racist changes anything....well I can't even take such an opinion seriously.

[jmdrake]

But it addresses discrimination based on race. And racist speech can be used as evidence that someone discriminated based on race.

And saying "I want to murder X" can be used as evidence that you indeed murdered X. This bill directs the FBI to investigate people for merely criticizing Israel! Not at all the same thing.

[Invisible Man]

This bill directs the FBI to investigate people for merely criticizing Israel!

Can you quote the part of the bill you're alluding to here? I can't find that.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...ill/6090/text?