A number of new initiatives to curtail freedom of speech by conflating opposition to Israeli crimes with anti-Semitism are underway in the United States andÂ Canada.
The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism CPCCA issued a report in early July recommending the adoption of strict new standards defining anti-Semitism and the types of speech and campus activities that would violate them. Its report urged the Canadian government to adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's definition of anti-Semitism "Report on the Inquiry Panel," 7 July 2011 [PDF]. That definition suggests that any questioning of whether Israel has the right to exist as a state that privileges Jews over people of other religions or ethnic backgrounds amounts toÂ anti-Semitism.
I stand against the policies and practices of every nation-state that seeks to advantage any ethnic group over another based solely upon ethnicity, per se. I will extend this to include Jewishness, Judaism, and all the other iterations, whether vague or not, promoted by Zionism.
I state emphatically that Zionism is supremacism in the same sense that Nazism was and remains racial/ethnic supremacism.
I am not opposed to people simply because they are of Jewish extraction. I am opposed to Zionism. Zionism is not Jewishness. To be a Jew is not necessarily to be a Zionist. In fact, by my definition of true Jewishness (per Jesus Christ), a Zionist is not and cannot be, a real Jew.
The Zionist Project horned its way into Palestine and by terrorism and other reprehensible means, ethnically cleans large swaths of the land of Arabs and regardless of their religion, be it Islam or Christianity. Today, that same Zionist Project, which named itself Israel (Jacob abhors it), on a daily basis, is still using lying, fascistic, criminal tactics against the Arab Palestinians.
Only yesterday, I read and heard that the Zionists attacked and killed many Gazans based solely upon the supposed fact that some people who attacked some Jews used Kalashnikovs. On Twitter, I wrote: "Israeli's proof the Gazans did it: the attackers used Kalashnikovs. Ergo, all Kalashnikov users are Gazans or some Ashkenazim are dimwits." I stand by that statement.
Now, I will once again go on record here that I will not abide by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's definition of anti-Semitism. It is a stupid definition. It is an anti-American definition, and by that I mean that it violates the US Constitution's position on freedom of political speech (which position I support). Most importantly to me and for a host of reasons, it violates my religion: Christianity.
If the US is stupid enough to adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's definition of anti-Semitism, which I doubt it will be, I will not be conforming to that law. I will not be conforming to it even if the Supreme Court upholds that law as constitutional, which I doubt it would even with conservatives and Zionists on that bench.
I state that such a move would be a declaration of war by the ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) of the United States upon all who uphold the US "Bill of Rights." The US government is already lawless enough without going that far. If it were to go that far, a violent revolution would be made inevitable by the ZOG and the ZOG would lose that civil war, and rightfully so, even though I will continue promoting pacifism.
Furthermore, I state that it is time that Europe stand up against this ridiculous European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's definition of anti-Semitism. The Europeans should be ashamed of themselves for knuckling under to the bullying of the Zionists. It is past time for the German people to cast off their wet pants and to stand erect for what is right.
To cower under the browbeating of those who have distorted both the history of WWI, WWII, and the European Zionists' colonization of Palestine, to cower to show sympathy for such pathological liars and false propagandists, to go along with and to enforce laws that even dare to question Zionists and their motives, to lump all Jews in with the Zionists, is disgustingly weak and cowardly. I want no part of it.
I'd rather go to the cross than to lie by saying that the Zionists had a right to do to the Palestinians what they have done. I don't care how many second-class-citizen Arabs live in "Israel" under better conditions than many Arabs in other parts of the area. That is totally irrelevant.
No place on Earth should be set aside for any ethnic group that claims the right to superior treatment based upon its ethnicity, period. I say that as an Anglo-Saxon about England as well. I say that about The United States of America, founded by Anglo-Saxons.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)