As to the SA, again read what I wrote above. It is very clear.

Instead of reading Wikipedia, which an idiot such as yourself would take as gospel, why not try an actual law school? Perhaps Cornell. Note the later section concerning the 14th applying to the first:

“The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti) from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentxiv).

I doubt any of this would make a difference to such a blighted moron such as yourself as your clearly state in your last post that since the Constitution is Federal it can only apply to actions by the Federal government. No doubt your thinking is still very popular in some sections of Mississippi, but actually the goddamn question was settled at Appomattox a long time ago. Or are you still a supporter of slavery and Jim Crow segregation? As to the SA violating other’s right read again what I wrote and then try to squeeze a few thoughts through that disease-ridden brain of yours.

And frankly, as far as I can tell, you’d support Israel down to the last drop of everyone else’s blood.

And if you think I support the way Israel handles minority groups, aka ME, you couldn’t be any more wrong.

It applies to all government actions, not just Federal but state and local as well. But your entirely legalistic argument on this point misses the target on just about everything. Our democracy is based on the belief in the free marketplace of ideas and debate, the importance of which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. So to deny or hinder someone in the expression of that, especially after one has agreed already to rent them the space to do so, is clearly a violation of that principle. The law suit now taking place may not argue on exact 1st amendment grounds (I have no idea if they do or not) but the principles involved certainly rest on the spirit.

The notion here is that once you agree to rent your facility to a group then let the damn thing continue. That should apply to Arabs as well as Jews.

First, the Christian church is hardly a singular entity so to call the Salvation Army an “arm” of that broadly defined faith is a claim beyond ignorance and well into paranoid lunacy. Next, no doubt, you’ll claim the JDL to be an arm of the Jewish faith.

Second, just to be exact, the venue is managed by the Salvation Army not owned, but more to the point the concert in question was already arranged to take place at that venue before the demand was made to place an Israeli on the stage or be canceled. This was not as you so stupidly claim an incident where some group is demanding out of the blue to use some private group’s stage and then crying foul - an agreement already existed. But bigots such as yourself rarely allow fact to get in the way of your argument.

And finally, yes, we have the paranoid and gratuitous attack on Palestinian refugees. Of course, if anyone dared such an ugly comment concerning Jewish refugees you’d be screaming Nazi anti-semitism like a stuck pig.

For the record, I believe in the right of return for all refugees, of this conflict, Jewish or Palestinian. But it is interesting that you a partisan of Israel should bring up the rights of Mizrahi Jews, who along with Ethiopian Jews (to say nothing of Israeli-Arabs), are systematically discriminated against in Israel, the so-called land of the Jews.

No, but you keep on citing the Salvation Army as violating Al-Awda’s 1st amendment rights, but the first amendment only applies to the federal government. Did I mention that the Salvation Army is merely an arm of the Christian church? That means it’s private and can decide for itself who can or cannot play in their auditorium. Do you think the local Islamic Cultural Center five blocks down the street should be forced to book the Klezmonauts if AIPAC says so? Should my synagogue be forced to book some shitty christian rawk band like DC Talk because (insert name of one of a million christian hardliner groups) says so? I think we are both agree the answer is ‘no’.

And y’all need to stop fetishizing Palestinian refugees like sorority girls fetishize kids from Darfur. And you claim that it’s me that’s the orientalist… You pap smears reek of hypocrisy. And by the way, when are the Mizrahi Jews going to get their homes back? Or is that violation of international law not sexxxy enough for you?

Do you really believe that only the Federal Gov’t can, or should, be held responsible for violating one’s civil liberties?

How is it that at this late date in our history there can still exist someone so entirely ignorant?

You make my own argument for me. The notion of which Palestinian voices are “valid” and which are not is entirely immaterial. One does not first determine the “validity” of a voice (and God knows how that might even be accomplished) before according that voice the right to be heard. And it is certainly not left to the opposition to make that determination. (and by the way CAIR was just recently denied a voice, attacked as a conduit for terrorist money).

As to your hypothetical claim that a setter’s groups would never find a venue outside of synagogue, would you please name one instance of that ever occurring? Nor have I ever once encountered any pro-Zionist group - in a synagogue or out of one - ever once demanding on the pain of canceling the event that a pro-Palestinian voice be included for “balance.” You will clearly say anything, make any claim, no matter how baseless.

You baldly claim the right to determine the validity of any one voice before according it the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and thereby demonstrate your complete ignorance of the 1st Amendment - which, by the way, does not exist to protect the speech we all agree with, for that speech needs no protection. It is there to protect the rights of those we disagree with.

Your ending on a note throwing me in with the Nazi exterminators for supporting the free speech rights of those you disagree with is typical: scratch a Zionist and out steps an ugly little fascist. It never fails.

You argue as though Palestinian voices are all equally valid. No one would be starting up petitions of Hamas was denied a venue in the US. And yet it would be unheard of if CAIR was denied the space. These are two different organizations that support Palestinian rights, and on the continuum of extremity, Al-Awda is firmly planted between the two. Al-Awda advocates for a goal unattainable without acts of violence that would spark nothing short of war, and they acknowledge this both implicitly and explicitly. A Jewish organization that had settler’s rights as it’s sole mission would never get space anywhere outside of a synagogue, and even then I don’t know a single one that would let them hold an event without some sort of opposing view being represented.

So in conclusion, you’re wrong and your desperate attempts to point out a Zionist conspiracy strangling America are pitiful and, while not ostensibly anti-Jewish, specifically echo the claims of those who advocated for our extermination (and therefore are rejected by those of us who have yet to be convinced that such a genocide is no longer possible). In other words, freedom of speech doesn’t prevent the rest of the world from being disgusted and appalled by your speech.

But, of course, its not a Jewish group its an Arab group, and because they are Arabs and not Jews, or not white, Anglo-Saxon members of the NRA, or African-American members of the NAACP, or even neo-Nazis wishing to march through the streets, their rights can be trampled upon with impunity.

The ugly racism of it all is quite clear, as is the clear demand for ideological conformity. Note the argument of Dan above. He’s off arguing about Israel/Palestine. Yet this is not Israel and the issues at stake do not concern Israel, they concern the United States and how we are to live as Americans. But this crucial fact never enters his empty little Zionist head.

This is not about Israel/Palestine, its about the meaning of Free Speech and Democracy in America.

Zionist Ideologues, not unlike Dan, pressure and scream anti-semitism at the drop of a hat. For them the rights enshrined in the Constitution mean nothing, for them it’s support Israel in the exact manner we want you to support Israel or be damned.

The fact that we are a democratic republic based on free speech for all, on the notion of the open marketplace of ideas and open debate, on the notions of pluralism and equality matters not a whit. All they care about is that all those who support Palestinian rights be silenced, in any way possible.

Ideologues of all stripes have always held democratic pluralism and free speech in contempt, for it allows ideas differing from their own to be argued and considered in same light as their own. This they cannot stand.

Zionism and its thuggish followers are no different. Scratch one and a little man in jack boots jumps out.

Article 11 of the Hamas Charter:

“…nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).”