• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


US government vs. "antisemitism"

Occam's Banana

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
37,846
https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1716457180189085834
nunnvEM.png

https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1717525248608784498
{Nikki Haley @NikkiHaley | 26 October 2023}

You can’t fight antisemitism if you can’t define it. Joe Biden and the Left refuse to call anti-Zionism antisemitism.

As president I will change the official federal definition of antisemitism to include denying Israel’s right to exist, and I will pull schools’ tax exemption status if they do not combat antisemitism in all of its forms – in accordance with federal law.

College campuses are allowed to have free speech, but they are not free to spread hate that supports terrorism. Federal law requires schools to combat antisemitism. We will give this law teeth and we will enforce it.

The United States of America will not use taxpayer dollars to fund antisemitism. Period.

The Oct. 7 massacre and the ensuing weeks have proven what many of us have long known: There is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

In order to combat antisemitism, we have to define it, and that starts at the top.
 
Nikki Haley said:
The United States of America will not use taxpayer dollars to fund antisemitism. Period.

It shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to fund prosemitism, either, you braying jackass.
 
No it is not. The thruth is the government of Israel uses the sympathy felt for the genocide commited against the Jews in WW2 to commit genocide against the Palestinians. Opposition to the war crimes of the Israeli goverment isn't hatred of Jews or support of Hamas. It's so easy to fall into the trap of name calling, blaming or "picking a side".
 
"Zionism" is a political ideology.

"Semitism" is relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

These terms aren't related.
 
There are two kinds of Zionism. There is Zionism as we know it, which is really an attempt by humans to fulfill the promises of God on their own might, in God's place, while denying God's Messiah, who is Jesus. This false Zionism is doomed. It does not even need to be "opposed" by a "movement" because it is ultimately God who is opposing it.

Then there is God's Zionism, which is all about faith in Jesus. Ultimately, God is going to fulfill all the promises he made to Abraham and his descendants, Aaron and his descendants, to the Levites, to David and his descendants. That these promises are genealogical is significant, even though the Gospel is spiritual, because Jesus is both fully man and fully God. His genealogy matters, and his genealogy includes the genealogies of these others (and the promises God made to them). It is Jesus himself who will fulfill them, and it is around him that God's Zion will be rebuilt, not only spiritually in our hearts (the church Age), but materially, as a part of our daily lives in the next Age. This is not an abstraction and the headlines we read today emphasize this point. There is nothing abstract about the developing ME conflict, and the rising threat of global war. God's Zion is going to obliterate the false Zion which the wicked have constructed to bring about their evil plans, Daniel 2:44,45.
 
https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1717970173410386407
Not to be outdone, @NikkiHaley stepped in to promise that as president, she would change the official federal definition of antisemitism to include anti-Zionism. In other words, under her regime, questioning Israel’s right to exist could bring Federal reprobation to your college campus.

*Note: You’re still more than free to question Palestine’s existence.

**Note 2: The “It’s not free speech it’s hate speech” argument is one the right *used* to mock.
 
Massie casts the only "no" vote against "Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism" resolution

Rep. Massie Casts Lone No Vote Against Bill Equating Anti-Zionism With Antisemitism
The resolution, which passed in a vote of 412-1, says denying the modern state of Israel's 'right to exist' is antisemitism
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/11/28...bill-equating-anti-zionism-with-antisemitism/
{Dave DeCamp | 28 November 2023}

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the lone member of the House to vote against a resolution equating criticism of the modern state of Israel with antisemitism.

The resolution passed in a vote of 412-1-1, as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) voted "present." The bill states that the House "reaffirms the State of Israel has the right to exist" and "recognizes that denying Israel's right to exist is a form of antisemitism."

Massie explained his opposition in a post on X. "I agree with the title 'Reaffirming the State of Israel's Right to Exist' and much of the language, but I'm voting No on the resolution because it equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Antisemitism is deplorable, but expanding it to include criticism of Israel is not helpful," he wrote.

Tlaib said she didn't vote in favor of the resolution because it "ignores the existence of the Palestinian people" and "brings us no closer to peaceful coexistence." The resolution states that Jewish people are "native to the Land of Israel" without mentioning that the modern state was founded mainly by recently emigrated Jewish Europeans who drove over 700,000 native Palestinian Arabs out of the land in 1948.

Massie has voted against other Israel-related legislation, including a bill to give Israel $14.3 billion more in military aid to support its war in Gaza. For his position, Massie has been targeted by the Israel lobby.

"Why does Israel historically get more foreign aid than any other country? Because they have the most aggressive lobbyists working for them. I voted NOT to send another $14.3 billion overseas, so now they're running ads on radio, TV, and facebook. I won't vote to give them your $," Massie wrote on X on November 16.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Massie Stands for Free Speech, Even When He Stands Alone
by TJ Roberts | Nov 22, 2023

On Monday, Thomas Massie was the lone Republican in Congress to vote NAY on Amendment 114 to H.R. 5894, the Appropriations bill for Labor, HHS, and Education Spending. The Amendment, introduced by New York RINO Mike Lawler, prohibits any federal funds from going to any university “that authorizes … any event that promotes antisemitism.” While Thomas Massie has been an adamant supporter of cutting education spending, going so far as to introduce legislation to abolish the Department of Education, one’s Commitment to the Constitution must come first.

One may immediately think that no one has the right to government funding for their speech, but that would better support Rep. Massie’s bill to abolish the Department of Education, not Lawler’s Amendment. But the government cannot give money to messages with which they agree and then deny funding to messages with which they disagree.

In 1987, the Supreme Court outlined the limit of Congress’ Spending power, their ability to appropriate funds, in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 283 (1987). In Dole, the Court held, in part, that the federal government cannot condition funding upon policies that would violate separate provisions of the Constitution. Dole, 483 US at 310 (holding the Spending Power “may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional”). This is known as the “Independent Constitutional Bar” restriction on the Spending Power. This ensures that Congress cannot use the power of the purse to trample upon your rights. This doctrine is the reason why Congress cannot ban funds from going to states that allow you to own a firearm, because coercing a state to ban guns would be a clear attempt to violate the Second Amendment.

Likewise, coercing government universities, which are state actors, to ban antisemitism would be a violation of the First Amendment, thus causing Amendment 114 to run afoul of the Independent Constitutional Bar. Justice Sam Alito puts it perfectly: “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” Matal v. Tam, 582 US 218, 246 (2017) (quoting United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Matal v. Tam was a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision holding that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, even the most horrific speech must be protected. The Supreme Court knew this when they allowed actual Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, ​​432 US 43 (1977). The Court knew this when they protected the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket outside a fallen soldier’s funeral because he was Catholic. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011). If we only protect free speech when we agree with it, we are not protecting free speech; we are protecting the viewpoints with which we agree.

But the First Amendment’s protection of antisemites, neo-Nazis, and other hateful people is the same protection that protects people who lovingly preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and give free hugs and the expression of your viewpoint… even if you disagree with this article. We can disagree with the antisemitism Amendment 114 attempts to address, but we cannot violate the Constitution in our disagreement. As Rep. Massie puts it: “Protecting free speech means protecting speech you don’t like, even if it opens you up to criticism.”

The Supreme Court has applied this logic to college campuses too. In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the University of Virginia Violated the First Amendment when it refused funding to Rosenberger’s Christian Ministry while giving funds to groups expressing other viewpoints. 515 US 819 (1995). As mentioned previously, Congress could defund the universities in their entirety, but they cannot condition their funding on a university banning a particular viewpoint. Therein lies censorship.

As Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams observed, “‘Cancel Culture’ is not just a left-wing phenomenon. Rep. Lawler is plainly attempting to use the force of the Federal Government to solicit state entities – public universities which are known for discriminating against Christian, conservative, and libertarian students – to violate the free speech rights of individuals. If Lawler had defunded all public universities regardless of the viewpoints of their students, this would have been a perfectly constitutional provision. That is not what he did. One must never disregard the Constitution, even if it gets in the way of their desired outcomes. Thank you for keeping your oath, Rep. Massie.
...
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/thomas-massie-stands-for-free-speech-even-when-he-stands-alone/
 
Back
Top