Israel and Iran

H.R. 6090 passed the House. It basically gives a non US entity the IHRA the right to define what antisemitism is. They recently tried twice to pass something similar and failed, this time they made it.

The group defining anti-Semitism is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Apparently the State Dept agreed to a non legally binding definition back in 2016. Congress is pushing to codify it into law. IHRA definition on anti-Semitism labels Christian iconography as well as teaching the Gospel as anti-Semitic.

1714755432897.png

1714755559488.png
Larger list with security concerns:
1714756505750.png

The Department of State has used a working definition, along with examples, of antisemitism since 2010. On May 26, 2016, the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), of which the United States is a member, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism at its plenary in Bucharest. This definition is consistent with and builds upon the information contained in the 2010 State Department definition. As a member of IHRA, the United States now uses this working definition and has encouraged other governments and international organizations to use it as well.

Bucharest, 26 May 2016

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism :

“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.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

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.
  • 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.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Oddly enough the IHRA scrubbed the page this was on. However someone managed to save it.
What is antisemitism?

About the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism

The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combating it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.
The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the Plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level.
Information on endorsement and adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism can be found here.

The working definition of antisemitism

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”


To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

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.
  • 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.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

H.R. 6090 : https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text

State Dept (non-legally binding) definition of Anti- Semitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

Related Bills: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/related-bills?s=1&r=2&q={"search":"H.R.+6090"}
 
I'm going to a convention in Madison Wisconsin this July. Same time frame as the RNC Convention in Milwaukee.

Expressed concerns yesterday that we may get bleed over. Hope not.
 
Just to add, both sides suck. One group excels at blowing themselves and others into pieces, while the other group excels at lawfare and sucking the monetary marrow from our treasury. Neither of these of these groups were problems when they were political minorities. Now the issues of the old world are at our doorstep.
 
No surprise. The rioting's just going to get worse....

Bombings are a likelihood. Anti-war radicals in the 60's and 70's made bombs. Now we've got people rioting who quite likely have ties to foreign terrorist organizations...

I'm patiently waiting on the sidelines for the "bubba effect" to kick in.
 
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.
 
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.

I am opposed to 6090.
1) It is being made in the heat of the moment.
2) What group do "you" belong to that could itself be protected, or even unprotected, from future bills?
3) This is just a bad precedent.
4) Our Congress has nothing else to do?

Like it or not, I think hate speech is considered to be free speech and this bill starts shutting down what we can't and can't say. That in mind, if someone drops an N bomb or whatever and takes an ass beating for their troubles? "Officer, the gentleman with the Nazi tattoos fell off the curb and that nice, young Black gentleman was helping him to his feet. That's what I saw."
 
I am opposed to 6090.
1) It is being made in the heat of the moment.
2) What group do "you" belong to that could itself be protected, or even unprotected, from future bills?
3) This is just a bad precedent.
4) Our Congress has nothing else to do?

Like it or not, I think hate speech is considered to be free speech and this bill starts shutting down what we can't and can't say. That in mind, if someone drops an N bomb or whatever and takes an ass beating for their troubles? "Officer, the gentleman with the Nazi tattoos fell off the curb and that nice, young Black gentleman was helping him to his feet. That's what I saw."
I think those are fair points.

1) Elements of it do remind me of the Patriot Act, in terms of how it had a "good purpose" but was eventually used for a nefarious one.
2) Fair Point.
4) They get paid far more than they are worth, that's for damn sure...

3) The only push back I initially have is that it is directly tied, if I am reading it correctly, to title VI of the Civil Rights Act which just makes it illegal to discriminate based on somebody's race/religion/etc. Since that law is already on the books, this wouldn't necessarily set precedent, just further clarify definitions, which I am ok with. However, the government's ability to stretch laws to meet their goals really is a major sticking point, and may be the sticking point.

The last part actually reminds me of this scenario with some Marines :ROFLMAO:
1714765738906.jpeg
 
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.
There are already laws on the books against discrimination and killing people. Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech? The First Amendment is first for a reason. Freedom of Religion is also one of our founding national principles and Christianity is part of that founding backbone.

Don't you find it odd that this tiny group of people are trying to criminalize core American structures and beliefs? The timing of which is very suspicious.
 
I'm going to a convention in Madison Wisconsin this July. Same time frame as the RNC Convention in Milwaukee.

Expressed concerns yesterday that we may get bleed over. Hope not.

Madison and Milwaukee are worlds apart, even though only a 75min drive exists between the two.

If any protests happen in Madison, they stay pretty isolated to the bottom of State St (a street that runs 7 blocks from campus to the Capitol) at Library Mall or the top of State St in the 100 block looking at the Capitol building. They will take occasional strolls down or up State St. There is always a protest of some kind at the top of State St, varying in size from 10 to 100 people. It's just the normal there, and they largely get ignored.

Spend your time around the Capitol and the streets that shoot off of it (minus State St) and you would never know that one block away there is a protest. The best bars and restaurants are located around the Capitol Building and on these streets.

Plus, it will be summer, and most of the students disappear. It's by far the best time to visit.
 
There are already laws on the books against discrimination and killing people. Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech? The First Amendment is first for a reason. Freedom of Religion is also one of our founding national principles and Christianity is part of that founding backbone.

Don't you find it odd that this tiny group of people are trying to criminalize core American structures and beliefs? The timing of which is very suspicious.
This is relevant I promise, but...

Hypothetically, if a person is walking across the street and he/she gets hit by a car...what is your first course of action??? As in, what is the first thing you would do???
 
This is relevant I promise, but...

Hypothetically, if a person is walking across the street and he/she gets hit by a car...what is your first course of action??? As in, what is the first thing you would do???
Check my carry piece, make sure the car isn't turning around, then go grab them?
 
Back
Top