From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 8/27/26 7:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 27, 2026 at 7:05:54 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

In May and June, a bipartisan coalition of 15 House Republicans
and 14 Democrats formally sponsored the Jewish American Security
Act (JASA), a piece of legislation that if passed would
constitute one of the most sweeping attacks on the 1st
Amendment in American history. The bill enjoys practically
universal backing from Jewish non-profits and Zionist activist
groups.

The new law presents four major demands: mandatory state
monitoring of online social media platforms in order to force
them to censor "anti-Semitic" political speech on their
platforms

And what would this "forcing" look like? Because with or without this bill, the FBI or the DOJ just calling up Facebook or TikTok and saying, "You must not allow ____ type of speech" is completely illegal government behavior. They
can pass all the laws they like and none of them will be superior to the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminate it.

So you feel that unjust laws are harmless?

After the black eye they received when they knuckled under to the Biden Admin's illegal social media strong-arm tactics during Wuhan Flu, I don't think going forward that any of them will be in the mood to censor their users
at the behest of either the FBI or AIPAC.

What black eye? They violently censored their content
about covid and Black Lives Matter and got away with it.
Are you claiming, like youtube videos do, that criticizing
something powerful like twitter or facebook or CBS "destroys"
it?

and officially reorienting the mission of the FBI,
Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterintelligence
and Security Center as instruments for targeting critics of Jews
and Israel as foreign enemy actors and domestic terrorists.

Targeting how? Are they suggesting this law would allow the FBI to just> flat-out arrest people for saying negative things about Israel?

On the education front, JASA strengthens and makes permanent

Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14188 ("Additional Measures to
Combat Anti-Semitism"), which emphasizes that Israelis are a
protected class above criticism under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That's nonsense. No group is protected from criticism under the Civil Rights Act.

Under executive orders signed by Joe Biden and Donald Trump, this
interpretation of the law has been used to weaponize access to
federal subsidies to American higher learning institutions in
order to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-war activism among
students.

No, they didn't shut down "activism". They shut down illegal violence, threats
of violence, and things like blockading Jewish students from accessing parts of campus. Which was completely appropriate. No group has the right to engage in such behavior.

We have to take your word for that. I heard vaguely that
the protests were against colleges making major investments
in Israel as political statements of solidarity, that has been
going on for decades, not, merely a recent event. Colleges
like governments and businesses have been blackmailed into
investing in Israel as well as the ten trillion dollars in
Blackrock.

In addition to having an "anti-Semitism coordinator" micro-manage
this ongoing war on dissent, JASA calls for a public awareness
campaign that will plaster propaganda posters in high-traffic
public places, such as a cafeteria, gymnasium, or student center,
and digital posting on 1 or more high-traffic institution web
pages, such as a web page for a student services department,
warning students and professors about the consequences of
partaking in speech and activism that offends Jews or singles out
Israel.

There are no (legal) consequences for offending Jews or singling out Israel and any law that purports to impose them would be void on its face as repugnant to the 1st Amendment.

So? Are you suggesting that any law or practice that
outlaws free speech is harmless, or do you reserve that
judgement to laws intended to benefit Israel?

JASA also seeks to bump FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant program,
which currently provides $300 million dollars meant to be shared
among different houses of worship facing security threats up to $1
billion in subsidies directed for the exclusive use of Jewish
organizations. This specific Jewish set-aside likely violates
normative Constitutional provisions preventing government
favoritism to a single religion, but this does not seem to be a
concern in the legislation.

It absolutely would violate the Establishment Clause. And unless the legislators enjoy having the Supreme Court nullify their laws and embarrass them for flouting well-established constitutional norms, they should be concerned by it.

Ditto, the described activity is maybe unconstitutional,
but is that enough to pretend that the injustice doesn't
exist or is harmless? Is crime harmless because it is
illegal?

Most concerning is JASA's requirement that online social media
companies provide mandatory reports every six months to Congress
on anti-Semitic and anti-Israel opinions being shared on their
platforms, outline their strategies for content removal and
suppression, as well as coordinate with federal law enforcement
in real time to combat what the bill's authors judge as
"extremist antisemitic calls".

Again, this is so blatantly unconstitutional, I don't know why they're even bothering. It's like they bizarrely want to generate cutting-edge Supreme Court precedent that explicitly bars the very thing they're fighting for, leaving no question whatsoever that they're on the wrong side of the law with this nonsense.

Good call, it's possible that the proposed law was not
meant seriously, but to make a political statement, to
see if that balloon can fly. All by itself it provides
ideological ammunition for the criminal gang called Israel
to attack it's critics.

But the Supreme Court predestinarianism is silly, despite
the Left constantly using it as an excuse.

Free Speech, by the way, is a very English thing, the concept
of which is universal, and not, as the mainstream media
uniformly berates us with, a conceited American concept
encapsulated by the First Amendment. I understand English
history to be violently divisive, and this thousands of
years of civil warfare caused the English to seek peace by
embracing Free Speech. Though not to hear the British say it!:
"their" media is as stupid as ours and use the same
American journalistic rhetoric of some=all; some killers
kill after making death threats and the media will blame
the murder as a consequence of free speech, for example.

In response to this supposed "foreign interference" seeking to
"erode public trust in institutions," JASA calls for action
against "inauthentic amplification on digital platforms, such as
bots or campaigns, and any involvement of foreign state and
non-state actors". Under the new law, federal law enforcement and
intelligence services will be officially transformed into a
secret police force dedicated to combating antisemitism and
required to create reports categorizing protected political
speech as violence by featuring "(i) an overview of violent
extremist ideologies that include antisemitic components; (ii) a
review of the extent that actors in the United States have
engaged in violent conduct in furtherance of the ideologies
described in clause (i); (iii) the origins and online platforming
and online activity or presence of antisemitic domestic violent
extremist ideologies, groups, and individuals."

They're actually going to make me defend Hasan Piker, aren't they? Goddammit...

Such a law, if passed, would treat figures as prominent as Tucker
Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie, Ana
Kasparian, Ilhan Omar and Candace Owens, as well as many smaller
critics that have arisen in recent years, as terrorists and
enemies of the state.

Well, in the case of Omar, they'd be right. She, along with her husband/brother, needs to be stripped of her citizenship and air-dropped back into Mogadishu, since she admires Somalia so much. But not because of her speech. Because she's a malignant, law-breaking, anti-American fraudster.

I don't recall her breaking laws, what laws she broke.
Surely criticizing Israel is not one of them. She, like
her comrades, does condemn whites, by race, and has
received endless praises by the media for it. Israel
fully endorses the slogan that racial hatred against
whites is always justified.







--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:41:49 AM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

On 8/27/26 7:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 27, 2026 at 7:05:54 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

In May and June, a bipartisan coalition of 15 House Republicans
and 14 Democrats formally sponsored the Jewish American Security
Act (JASA), a piece of legislation that if passed would
constitute one of the most sweeping attacks on the 1st
Amendment in American history. The bill enjoys practically
universal backing from Jewish non-profits and Zionist activist
groups.

The new law presents four major demands: mandatory state
monitoring of online social media platforms in order to force
them to censor "anti-Semitic" political speech on their
platforms

And what would this "forcing" look like? Because with or without this bill, >> the FBI or the DOJ just calling up Facebook or TikTok and saying, "You must >> not allow ____ type of speech" is completely illegal government behavior. >> They
can pass all the laws they like and none of them will be superior to the 1st
Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminate it.

So you feel that unjust laws are harmless?

Whatever harm they may or may not cause, we have a constitutional remedy for them.

Under executive orders signed by Joe Biden and Donald Trump, this
interpretation of the law has been used to weaponize access to
federal subsidies to American higher learning institutions in
order to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-war activism among
students.

No, they didn't shut down "activism". They shut down illegal violence,
threats
of violence, and things like blockading Jewish students from accessing parts
of campus. Which was completely appropriate. No group has the right to
engage
in such behavior.

We have to take your word for that.

I personally witnessed it at UCLA. I was on campus to get some research material from one the libraries and saw them refusing to let a group of Jewish students through the makeshift barricades they erected to go take an exam.
They were wearing their little hats, so it was obvious they were Jewish. I don't know how the 'protestors' were determining who is Jewish and who wasn't if they didn't have the little hat on.

Free Speech, by the way, is a very English thing

Not anymore.

Such a law, if passed, would treat figures as prominent as Tucker
Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie, Ana
Kasparian, Ilhan Omar and Candace Owens, as well as many smaller
critics that have arisen in recent years, as terrorists and
enemies of the state.

Well, in the case of Omar, they'd be right. She, along with her
husband/brother, needs to be stripped of her citizenship and air-dropped
back
into Mogadishu, since she admires Somalia so much. But not because of her >> speech. Because she's a malignant, law-breaking, anti-American fraudster. >>

I don't recall her breaking laws, what laws she broke.

Well, there's immigration fraud for one. Then there's the fact that she's deeply connected to all the Somali fraud uncovered in Minnesota. Then there's her fake winery that she claims is worth millions but never produced even one bottle of wine. Her wildly fluctuating net worth. She comes to Congress in the red, $40,000 in debt, and within just a few years is worth $30 million. And
she openly says she condemns America and her priority is using her position in the U.S. government to work for the people of Somalia, not the people of the United States, which is an open betrayal of her oath of office.

We should eject her from this country and arrest her if she ever tries to return.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 8/30/26 9:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:41:49 AM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On 8/27/26 7:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 27, 2026 at 7:05:54 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> >>> wrote:

In May and June, a bipartisan coalition of 15 House Republicans
and 14 Democrats formally sponsored the Jewish American Security
Act (JASA), a piece of legislation that if passed would
constitute one of the most sweeping attacks on the 1st
Amendment in American history. The bill enjoys practically
universal backing from Jewish non-profits and Zionist activist
groups.

The new law presents four major demands: mandatory state
monitoring of online social media platforms in order to force
them to censor "anti-Semitic" political speech on their
platforms

And what would this "forcing" look like? Because with or without this bill,
the FBI or the DOJ just calling up Facebook or TikTok and saying, "You must
not allow ____ type of speech" is completely illegal government behavior. >>> They
can pass all the laws they like and none of them will be superior to the 1st
Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminate it.

So you feel that unjust laws are harmless?

Whatever harm they may or may not cause, we have a constitutional remedy for them.

Under executive orders signed by Joe Biden and Donald Trump, this
interpretation of the law has been used to weaponize access to
federal subsidies to American higher learning institutions in
order to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-war activism among
students.

No, they didn't shut down "activism". They shut down illegal violence, >>> threats
of violence, and things like blockading Jewish students from accessing parts
of campus. Which was completely appropriate. No group has the right to >>> engage
in such behavior.

We have to take your word for that.

I personally witnessed it at UCLA. I was on campus to get some research material from one the libraries and saw them refusing to let a group of Jewish
students through the makeshift barricades they erected to go take an exam. They were wearing their little hats, so it was obvious they were Jewish. I don't know how the 'protestors' were determining who is Jewish and who wasn't if they didn't have the little hat on.

I'll wager that the opposition to the described violence
is not the crime of it but it's supposed political content of
opposition to Israel. As political terrorism go, that's
pretty mild compared to the organized violence that's
inherent in the movement to outlaw free speech throughout
the West. Many criminal groups, among them Israel, equate
criticism of their lobby to be murder, often using the slippery
slope argument, that if the public is allowed to thumb their
nose in any way against the pompous and arrogant, that may
escalate into more opposition leading to mass murder and
extinction of humanity; that's the view of humanity by the
criminal, the "f--- the public" attitude.

Free Speech, by the way, is a very English thing

Not anymore.

Of course England is about free speech, or are you under the
impression that because all reputable British politicians are of
the unanimous opinion that free speech is worse than murder
really prove anything but that all reputable British politicians
are all of the same opinion, and do not represent the people?
Of course I can't prove that free speech is valued in Britain,
because to do so would require free speech, for example.

Such a law, if passed, would treat figures as prominent as Tucker
Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie, Ana
Kasparian, Ilhan Omar and Candace Owens, as well as many smaller
critics that have arisen in recent years, as terrorists and
enemies of the state.

Well, in the case of Omar, they'd be right. She, along with her
husband/brother, needs to be stripped of her citizenship and air-dropped >>> back
into Mogadishu, since she admires Somalia so much. But not because of her >>> speech. Because she's a malignant, law-breaking, anti-American fraudster. >>>

I don't recall her breaking laws, what laws she broke.

Well, there's immigration fraud for one.

Felony, which can be prosecuted, and when the authorities are
corrupt and don't do so they can be denounced too, by the "court
of public opinion".

Or are you being figurative, suggesting that if she supports
immigration fraud, then that's proof she committed the crime?
But the entire Immigration Lobby, by consensus, supports the
crimes she may have committed as described, on Principle,
with Jewish support of course.

Then there's the fact that she's
deeply connected to all the Somali fraud uncovered in Minnesota.

Same thing.

Then there's
her fake winery that she claims is worth millions but never produced even one bottle of wine.

I consider fraud to be a serious crime, no matter how lightly
it's spoken of ("it's just business").

Her wildly fluctuating net worth. She comes to Congress in the
red, $40,000 in debt, and within just a few years is worth $30 million.

And did she commit these crimes or are merely accused of it,
akin to the advertising hype about "opposing Trump's crimes"?

And
she openly says she condemns America

It's condemned every day by those who claim free speech
is worse than murder by the extremely powerful politicians
in the Corporate Left, unanimous as criminals always are,
who are especially terrifying because they can't be voted
out of office, unlike merely an isolated congressman.

and her priority is using her position in
the U.S. government to work for the people of Somalia,

Are the "real" Somalian People criminals, so supporting
Somalian criminals is elevating Somalians, as the media always
puts it, or are the Somalians committing these crimes traitors
to Somalians and operating under the auspices of traitors to
America? Could be both! I know the Mainstream Left consistently
claims that crime is "progressive", and appears to honor organized
crime as the most legitimate section of an ethnic group,
essentially branding each ethnic group as criminal.

not the people of the
United States,
which is an open betrayal of her oath of office.>
We should eject her from this country and arrest her if she ever tries to return.

But your inferred reason is because she was accused of opposing
Israel, not that she committed the crimes stated.

Supporting the Israel Lobby as an antidote to the Immigration
Lobby has been an abject failure, especially since they appear to
be on the same side, having the same characteristics: they both
claim not to exist, can proudly claim 100% support by all reputable
people (those who refuse to praise them are attacked), are
unanimous, as all criminal groups are ("unity"), rely on
media approval to condemn skeptics, utterly opposed to free
speech, a consistent "f--- the public" mentality, besides
directly supporting each other, materially and ideologically.















--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 9/3/26 12:56 AM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On 8/30/26 9:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:41:49 AM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

On 8/27/26 7:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Aug 27, 2026 at 7:05:54 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> >>>>   wrote:

  In May and June, a bipartisan coalition of 15 House Republicans
  and 14 Democrats formally sponsored the Jewish American Security
  Act (JASA), a piece of legislation that if passed would
  constitute one of the most sweeping attacks on the 1st
  Amendment in American history. The bill enjoys practically
  universal backing from Jewish non-profits and Zionist activist
  groups.

  The new law presents four major demands: mandatory state
  monitoring of online social media platforms in order to force
  them to censor "anti-Semitic" political speech on their
  platforms

  And what would this "forcing" look like? Because with or without this bill,
  the FBI or the DOJ just calling up Facebook or TikTok and saying, "You must
  not allow ____ type of speech" is completely illegal government behavior.
They
  can pass all the laws they like and none of them will be superior to the 1st
  Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminate it.

So you feel that unjust laws are harmless?

Whatever harm they may or may not cause, we have a constitutional remedy for >> them.

  Under executive orders signed by Joe Biden and Donald Trump, this >>>>>   interpretation of the law has been used to weaponize access to
  federal subsidies to American higher learning institutions in
  order to shut down pro-Palestinian and anti-war activism among
  students.

  No, they didn't shut down "activism". They shut down illegal violence, >>>> threats
  of violence, and things like blockading Jewish students from accessing parts
  of campus. Which was completely appropriate. No group has the right to >>>> engage
  in such behavior.

We have to take your word for that.

I personally witnessed it at UCLA. I was on campus to get some research
material from one the libraries and saw them refusing to let a group of Jewish
students through the makeshift barricades they erected to go take an exam. >> They were wearing their little hats, so it was obvious they were Jewish. I >> don't know how the 'protestors' were determining who is Jewish and who wasn't
if they didn't have the little hat on.

I'll wager that the opposition to the described violence
is not the crime of it but it's supposed political content of
opposition to Israel.  As political terrorism go, that's
pretty mild compared to the organized violence that's
inherent in the movement to outlaw free speech throughout
the West.  Many criminal groups, among them Israel, equate
criticism of their lobby to be murder, often using the slippery
slope argument, that if the public is allowed to thumb their
nose in any way against the pompous and arrogant, that may
escalate into more opposition leading to mass murder and
extinction of humanity; that's the view of humanity by the
criminal, the "f--- the public" attitude.

Free Speech, by the way, is a very English thing

Not anymore.

Of course England is about free speech, or are you under the
impression that because all reputable British politicians are of
the unanimous opinion that free speech is worse than murder
really prove anything but that all reputable British politicians
are all of the same opinion, and do not represent the people?
Of course I can't prove that free speech is valued in Britain,
because to do so would require free speech, for example.

  Such a law, if passed, would treat figures as prominent as Tucker >>>>>   Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Megyn Kelly, Thomas Massie, Ana
  Kasparian, Ilhan Omar and Candace Owens, as well as many smaller
  critics that have arisen in recent years, as terrorists and
  enemies of the state.

  Well, in the case of Omar, they'd be right. She, along with her
  husband/brother, needs to be stripped of her citizenship and air-dropped
back
  into Mogadishu, since she admires Somalia so much. But not because of her
  speech. Because she's a malignant, law-breaking, anti-American fraudster.

I don't recall her breaking laws, what laws she broke.

Well, there's immigration fraud for one.

Felony, which can be prosecuted, and when the authorities are
corrupt and don't do so they can be denounced too, by the "court
of public opinion".

Or are you being figurative, suggesting that if she supports
immigration fraud, then that's proof she committed the crime?
But the entire Immigration Lobby, by consensus, supports the
crimes she may have committed as described, on Principle,
with Jewish support of course.

Then there's the fact that she's
deeply connected to all the Somali fraud uncovered in Minnesota.

Same thing.

Then there's
her fake winery that she claims is worth millions but never produced even one
bottle of wine.

I consider fraud to be a serious crime, no matter how lightly
it's spoken of ("it's just business").

Her wildly fluctuating net worth. She comes to Congress in the
red, $40,000 in debt, and within just a few years is worth $30 million.

I forgot to say, that is suspicious.

And did she commit these crimes or are merely accused of it,
akin to the advertising hype about "opposing Trump's crimes"?

And
she openly says she condemns America

It's condemned every day by those who claim free speech
is worse than murder by the extremely powerful politicians
in the Corporate Left, unanimous as criminals always are,
who are especially terrifying because they can't be voted
out of office, unlike merely an isolated congressman.

and her priority is using her position in
the U.S. government to work for the people of Somalia,

Are the "real" Somalian People criminals, so supporting
Somalian criminals is elevating Somalians, as the media always
puts it, or are the Somalians committing these crimes traitors
to Somalians and operating under the auspices of traitors to
America?  Could be both!  I know the Mainstream Left consistently
claims that crime is "progressive", and appears to honor organized
crime as the most legitimate section of an ethnic group,
essentially branding each ethnic group as criminal.

not the people of the
United States,
which is an open betrayal of her oath of office.> We should eject her from this country and arrest her if she ever tries to
return.

But your inferred reason is because she was accused of opposing
Israel, not that she committed the crimes stated.

Supporting the Israel Lobby as an antidote to the Immigration
Lobby has been an abject failure, especially since they appear to
be on the same side, having the same characteristics: they both
claim not to exist, can proudly claim 100% support by all reputable
people (those who refuse to praise them are attacked), are
unanimous, as all criminal groups are ("unity"), rely on
media approval to condemn skeptics, utterly opposed to free
speech, a consistent "f--- the public" mentality, besides
directly supporting each other, materially and ideologically.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sep 3, 2026 at 12:56:03 AM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

On 8/30/26 9:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

And she openly says she condemns America

It's condemned every day by those who claim free speech

Most people haven't taken an oath to support and defend America and its Constitution above all else. An oath that Omar, by her own rhetoric, has abrogated. She should be removed from Congress at a minimum as no longer fit for office.

is worse than murder by the extremely powerful politicians
in the Corporate Left, unanimous as criminals always are,
who are especially terrifying because they can't be voted
out of office, unlike merely an isolated congressman.

and her priority is using her position in
the U.S. government to work for the people of Somalia,

Are the "real" Somalian People criminals, so supporting
Somalian criminals is elevating Somalians, as the media always
puts it, or are the Somalians committing these crimes traitors
to Somalians and operating under the auspices of traitors to
America? Could be both! I know the Mainstream Left consistently
claims that crime is "progressive", and appears to honor organized
crime as the most legitimate section of an ethnic group,
essentially branding each ethnic group as criminal.

not the people of the United States,
which is an open betrayal of her oath of office.
We should eject her from this country and arrest her if she ever tries to >> return.

But your inferred reason is because she was accused of opposing
Israel, not that she committed the crimes stated.

You seem to infer "Israel" in literally everything. But I certainly didn't imply it.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2