US government vs. "antisemitism"

[jmdrake]

But it's not a perfect summary. You can check the text of the bill. It doesn't say what his summary says it says.

Yes it does. Again my summary:

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

And this group's definition of antisemitism is used under this bill to show intent to discriminate whether that's creating a hostile work environment, firing someone, retaliation or whatever.

[Madison320]

To the contrary, anarchists attempt to minimize Starve the State wherever/whenever possible. It is the statist on whatever side who believe there must be at least some state and/or federal taxation. Which messes people like me up.

I do not support or endorse "term limits". It is yet another attempt to give a false sense of hope to "voters". If person is bad-bad-bad, they would be for the most part replaced with another bad-bad-bad. Look at Boehner, and Trump, for 2 off-the-top-of-my-head examples. If person is very good, such as Rand Paul, Tom Massie, term limits would simply do away with them, and then what do you do? So, term limits are bogus and not important to me at all. Grounded-in-principle-and-moral PEOPLE who engage in non-compliance are much more useful and effective.

Term limits were just an example of a one possible way to reduce government. Are you against all practical attempts to minimize the state? What about ending the federal reserve?

[PAF]

Term limits were just an example of a one possible way to reduce government.

Nope. It's a fallacy.

Are you against all practical attempts to minimize the state?

Not by supporting it. My way would do it quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

What about ending the federal reserve?

Do you actually think that I would be or am in favor of the federal reserve?

[Anti Federalist]

Where does it say anything about the FBI investigating anybody for that?

This strikes me as essentially no different than a resolution with no impact on the law at all. It's just politicians passing a law to express an opinion that has no teeth to it.

Yes it does.

The very opening sentence says it's purpose is:

To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.

That's the teeth.

To incorporate the definition of anti-semitism, as defined by a Jewish political pressure group on a rapidly changing basis, into the CFRs, which carry the force of law.

Charges of violations of the various and sundry civil rights acts are very much investigated by the FBI.

The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes

[jmdrake]

Yes it does.

The very opening sentence says it's purpose is:



That's the teeth.

To incorporate the definition of anti-semitism, as defined by a Jewish political pressure group on a rapidly changing basis, into the CFRs, which carry the force of law.

Charges of violations of the various and sundry civil rights acts are very much investigated by the FBI.

The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

And that's the sneaky part. Candace Owens was right to reject that rabbi's claim that definitions for bigotry must be allowed to morph and change over time.

[Madison320]

Not by supporting it. My way would do it quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

I'm going to assume you mean by not having taxes. I'm in favor of that as long as the state can collect enough taxes voluntarily to still have the most force in its area.

[Invisible Man]

Yes it does.

The very opening sentence says it's purpose is:



That's the teeth.

To incorporate the definition of anti-semitism, as defined by a Jewish political pressure group on a rapidly changing basis, into the CFRs, which carry the force of law.

Charges of violations of the various and sundry civil rights acts are very much investigated by the FBI.

The FBI investigates violations of federal civil rights statutes

That teeth that you mention is already in existing law. That is what it explicitly says.

If you were under the impression that the Civil Rights Act hasn't already been enforced against antisemitic discrimination, you were mistaken.

And that is explicitly all that this act legislates. In the actual text of the act, I can't find a single new thing that it bans or authorizes the FBI to investigate that isn't already banned and that the FBI isn't already authorized to investigate under current law. In order for a violation of the CRA to take place there still has to be discrimination in the form of not affording people equal opportunity to have goods, services, accommodations, associations, etc., from some place that the government considers a public establishment. Without that kind of discrimination, speech and opinion by itself doesn't constitute a violation. All that speech and opinion can do is point to the motive for the violation. And this act does nothing to change that.

[Snowball]

a classic from the turn of the century (this one)

HonestMediaToday was driven offline. A couple of its videos survive on archive.org

https://archive.org/details/understandingantisemitism

[Anti Federalist]

That teeth that you mention is already in existing law. That is what it explicitly says.

If you were under the impression that the Civil Rights Act hasn't already been enforced against antisemitic discrimination, you were mistaken.

And that is explicitly all that this act legislates. In the actual text of the act, I can't find a single new thing that it bans or authorizes the FBI to investigate that isn't already banned and that the FBI isn't already authorized to investigate under current law.

@jmdrake already mentioned what is different and dangerous about this new act.

That is uses the definition of what will be a prohibited act on a loosely defined, fungible and rapidly changing set of examples promulgated by a Jewish political pressure group.

[Invisible Man]

@jmdrake already mentioned what is different and dangerous about this new act.

He made some assertions. But I saw no support for those assertions in what is actually written in this act.

That is uses the definition of what will be a prohibited act on a loosely defined, fungible and rapidly changing set of examples promulgated by a Jewish political pressure group.

What prohibited acts are you talking about? I saw no acts being prohibited in the text of this act. You have to go to the original text of the CRA to see what acts are prohibited.

Edit: I'm sure there is plenty of other legislation between 1964 and today that expands on the CRA and adds to the list of banned acts. But if there's anything in this act that does that, I can't find it.

[jmdrake]

That teeth that you mention is already in existing law. That is what it explicitly says.

If you were under the impression that the Civil Rights Act hasn't already been enforced against antisemitic discrimination, you were mistaken.

It's never been enforced based on an expansive definition of antisemitism that includes what most sane people would NOT call antisemitism. That's the point that I and @Anti Federalist and Matt Gaetz are saying. Congress would never be able to pass a law that included a definition of antisemitism that said "If you say Jews killed Jesus that's antisemitism." Based on the text from the law that I already gave you this expansive definition of antisemitism can be used to trigger a federal instigation and can be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. You're just being obtuse now.

[Invisible Man]

It's never been enforced based on an expansive definition of antisemitism that includes what most sane people would NOT call antisemitism.

I don't know for a fact. But I doubt that you are correct about this.

If somebody actually discriminated against someone in the form of not allowing them equal enjoyment of some goods and services at a public accommodation, and their reason was because of exactly what this act defines as antisemitism, I bet that they could already be prosecuted for violation of the CRA under current law.

The holding of the beliefs that are being defined as antisemitic, or even the vocal support of those beliefs, does not constitute discrimination by itself, either under current law, or under this act. This antisemitism (whether rightly or wrongly defined) would still need to be accompanied by discriminatory acts in order to be a violation of the law.

[Snowball]

The bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with discrimination.

It is all about changing history and facts, and keeping them away from learners. Read it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7228163

[Invisible Man]

The bill has absolutely NOTHING to do with discrimination.

It is all about changing history and facts, and keeping them away from learners. Read it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7228163

What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?

That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about giving politicians a chance to make themselves look like champions for Israel without having to actually do anything.

[jmdrake]

I don't know for a fact. But I doubt that you are correct about this.

If I was not correct then they wouldn't be offering this amendment! Yes there have been CRA cases based on antisemitism such as calling someone "Jew boy" but this is an escalation.

If somebody actually discriminated against someone in the form of not allowing them equal enjoyment of some goods and services at a public accommodation, and their reason was because of exactly what this act defines as antisemitism, I bet that they could already be prosecuted for violation of the CRA under current law.

Part of proving discrimination is showing animus against the protected class. The definition that this bill brings in by proxy includes saying you don't support the state of Israel as evidence of such animus. That is the problem. Read the case I linked to above before responding so we can have an intelligent conversation.

[Anti Federalist]

What prohibited acts are you talking about? I saw no acts being prohibited in the text of this act. You have to go to the original text of the CRA to see what acts are prohibited.

In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.

Look, I know this is convoluted and confusing.

The CFRs are like that, believe me, I've spent the last 25 years of my life wading through as part of my job.

Here's what's going on:

Jews, petrified at the Marxist golem they themselves created now running amok on colleges all across the country, prompted them to pressure congress "to act".

They cooked up this bill to add new and ever expanding additions to the CRA based on the definitions provided by a Jewish political pressure group.

The enforcement "teeth" is the force of law written into the CRA.

The DOE is hereby directed to use those definitions that the IHRA comes up with as prima facie evidence of anti-semitism in any investigation of violations of the CRA.

If you cannot see what is wrong with that picture, I can't say any more.

[PAF]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to @jmdrake again.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to @Anti Federalist again.

[Snowball]

What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?

That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about giving politicians a chance to make themselves look like champions for Israel without having to actually do anything.

What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?

That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about giving politicians a chance to make themselves look like champions for Israel without having to actually do anything.

Would you agree that Jews are already protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Yes or No.

"Yes", I would assume. Correct? What this bill would do, and it is on the dovetails of Trump EO's that expired, as outlined in the bill itself, is to CODIFY a law that Jews, as a group, are to be treated with a favoritism unlike any other group, in Federal law enforcement activities, and in the Department of Education, and in the distribution of funds which it makes, and in decisions of institutions that comprise our "learning" establishments.

It is not about discimination. It is about elevating world Jewry to an EXCEPTIONAL and NEW LEVEL of UNIQUE TREATMENT, when speaking and writing of history, finance, entertainment, foreign affairs, ETC. (There is important emphasis on certain "historical positions" of the elites in World Jewry here, and some Jews disagree, so it's not only about elevating Jews, but narratives and worldviews.)

Here is the relevant segment of the "working definition" the bill seeks to CODIFY. A police force and/or beaurocratic detective force on the Federal level would be charged with finding and stopping instances in education, or in public which could be construed as:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go
wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media,schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel
or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be,Jewish or linked to Jews.

full doc
https://www.ajc.org/sites/default/fi...TED_022020.pdf

[Invisible Man]

Would you agree that Jews are already protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Yes or No.

"Yes", I would assume. Correct? What this bill would do, and it is on the dovetails of Trump EO's that expired, as outlined in the bill itself, is to CODIFY a law that Jews, as a group, are to be treated with a favoritism unlike any other group, in Federal law enforcement activities, and in the Department of Education, and in the distribution of funds which it makes, and in decisions of institutions that comprise our "learning" establishments.

It is not about discimination. It is about elevating world Jewry to an EXCEPTIONAL and NEW LEVEL of UNIQUE TREATMENT, when speaking and writing of history, finance, entertainment, foreign affairs, ETC. (There is important emphasis on certain "historical positions" of the elites in World Jewry here, and some Jews disagree, so it's not only about elevating Jews, but narratives and worldviews.)

Here is the relevant segment of the "working definition" the bill seeks to CODIFY. A police force and/or beaurocratic detective force on the Federal level would be charged with finding and stopping instances in education, or in public which could be construed as:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go
wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media,schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —
such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel
or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be,Jewish or linked to Jews.

full doc
https://www.ajc.org/sites/default/fi...TED_022020.pdf

Notice how nowhere in this post did you answer my question.

[Snowball]

Notice how nowhere in this post did you answer my question.

Yes I surely did. Disciminating against Jews is already illegal. This bill is about what it says.

[jmdrake]

Yes I surely did. Disciminating against Jews is already illegal. This bill is about what it says.

Yep. The bill expands on the definition of what "discriminating against Jews" is and outsources that to a private entity.

[devil21]

Calling @devil21

Too easy. Honestly? Considering the knowledge I've dropped here over the years I'm growing weary of repeating myself.

It's all commercial contract law now. ALL CAPS NAMES engaging in commerce.

[Invisible Man]

Yes I surely did. Disciminating against Jews is already illegal. This bill is about what it says.

What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?

[Snowball]

What does this bill actually accomplish that in any way keeps facts and history away from learners?

Seriously, if you can't read all those bullet points and think about some instances where it causes the understanding of history, current events, economics, and many other fields to be hampered by thought police, and research police, I can't help you. What I can tell you is that the author of the working definition has been a vocal critic of attempts to codify it as law, because he himself, Kenneth Stern, is a defender of free speech, dialogue and research.

[Invisible Man]

Seriously, if you can't read all those bullet points and think about some instances where it causes the understanding of history, current events, economics, and many other fields to be hampered by thought police, and research police, I can't help you. What I can tell you is that the author of the working definition has been a vocal critic of attempts to codify it as law, because he himself, Kenneth Stern, is a defender of free speech, dialogue and research.

I read your bullet points. But none of them answer my question.

I'm not sure if you understood the question at all. Or if you understood the meaning of your own words when you claimed, "It is all about changing history and facts, and keeping them away from learners."

I don't understand how it's even logically possible for a legislative act to change facts.

Are you under the impression that if Congress passes a law that defines a word a certain way that somehow this limits what facts are discoverable by people who do research?

[Invisible Man]

Here's a relevant fact to add to this discussion.

The federal government has already been using the IHRA definition of antisemitism in its enforcement of the Civil Rights Act since 2019. This policy was adopted via an executive order by Trump.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov...anti-semitism/

[Anti Federalist]

Here's a relevant fact to add to this discussion.

The federal government has already been using the IHRA definition of antisemitism in its enforcement of the Civil Rights Act since 2019. This policy was adopted via an executive order by Trump.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov...anti-semitism/

Yes, that has already been mentioned.

This act codifies it into law.

[acptulsa]

Administrations come and administrations go, but these things proceed seamlessly along, step by step.

[Invisible Man]

Yes, that has already been mentioned.

This act codifies it into law.

I bet you must have been really upset with Trump when he did that. He didn't even wait for Congress to codify it into law. He just dictated it to be so by his own fiat.

I bet there are some fiery threads in the forum from 2019 with comments from you rhetorically ripping Trump a new sphincter for that.

*does search of forum*

Whoops. Nope. I was wrong. You were all for it. Your exact words were, "I happen to agree. Good for him."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6899701

[Anti Federalist]

I bet you must have been really upset with Trump when he did that. He didn't even wait for Congress to codify it into law. He just dictated it to be so by his own fiat.

I bet there are some fiery threads in the forum from 2019 with comments from you rhetorically ripping Trump a new sphincter for that.

*does search of forum*

Whoops. Nope. I was wrong. You were all for it. Your exact words were, "I happen to agree. Good for him."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6899701

Whoa...good shooting there Tex, you got me!

They (colleges and their students) have no absolute right to my extorted tax dollars.

$#@! them, bunch of Marxist pricks the whole lot of them.

You want to hang Moshe and Stein in effigy, be my guest.

All Trump is saying here is that you're not gonna do it with taxpayer funds.

I happen to agree.

Good for him.

There's a big difference to me between cutting off federal funding, which these institutions should not be getting, and turning something into law which can carry criminal penalties.

So I stand by what I posted.

But hey, think whatever you like, I lose, you win, you're the winner.