NJ lawmakers advance bill defining antisemitism after hours of testimony

An Assembly panel advanced a controversial bill that would create a state definition of antisemitism Thursday after more than seven hours of impassioned testimony from hundreds of supporters and critics alike.

Supporters cited rising rates of antisemitic hate crimes as a reason why lawmakers must pass the bill, which has more than 50 cosponsors.

Opponents said the bill, which would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, would violate free speech rights by criminalizing criticism of Israel. Several cited crackdowns on campus protests and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who the Trump administration detained and aims to deport after declaring his anti-Israel activism antisemitic.

The disagreement ran so deep that tensions exploded even hours before the Assembly state and local government committee’s hearing on the measure started. Pro-Palestinian advocates held a morning rally outside the Statehouse to condemn the bill, and several pro-Israel activists tried to disrupt it, prompting state troopers to scramble to defuse the resulting shoving match between both sides.

Things didn’t go much more smoothly inside.

Troopers had to open four overflow rooms to accommodate the crowds who showed up to testify, and testimony grew so heated that Assemblyman Robert Karabinchak (D-Middlesex), the committee’s chair, repeatedly pounded his gavel to restore order and threatened to have troopers remove disruptive spectators.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-Passaic), the bill’s chief sponsor, kicked off the testimony just after noon. Four other Assembly members from both parties beside him also testified in support of the bill.

Schaer denied that the bill would infringe upon the First Amendment, saying its goal is simple — to combat rising antisemitism.

“A statutory definition of antisemitism gives law enforcement a clear lens to determine the motivation and/or intent behind a criminal act or bias incident that may have been motivated by antisemitism,” he said. “It may also be incorporated into policy development and anti-bias training. However, the legislation does not create new criminal penalties or criminalize protected speech. Instead, it ensures that when an individual paints a swastika on a synagogue, shouts slurs at a Jewish student, or otherwise targets someone based on their Jewish identity, we have a consistent, recognized standard by which to evaluate.”

Dozens of Jewish groups, mayors, and others echoed that support.

“The Jewish community must stand up to the bullies who see this bill as a threat to their ability to harass and intimidate us,” said Jason Shames, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey.

But DaWuan Norwood, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition conflates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination.

Keep reading

Military pilot on no-fly list after probe into faith conversations ends without charges, lawyer says

A Catholic Air Force pilot remains on the military branch’s no-fly list, despite an official probe having failed to substantiate allegations he talked about his faith in an inappropriate way with fellow airmen, his lawyer says.

The pilot, Capt. Forrest Doss, of the 6th Airlift Squadron, at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, has served in the Air Force since 2018 and is now an instructor pilot and aircraft commander.

Despite no violations having apparently been found, Doss received an official letter admonishing him for comments that created a “hostile work environment” and that also directed him to get counseling to avoid future problems.

According to the Air Force’s June 17 Letter of Counseling, Doss, in late June 2024 and early January 2025, at various locations around the world, “made inappropriate and unprofessional comments towards members of the 6th Airlift Squadron during the critical phases of aircraft operation.”

LOC – Capt Doss_Redacted.pdf

“It is your responsibility to act in a professional manner and create a safe environment to successfully execute the mission,” the letter states. “This includes refraining from discussing potentially charged topics.

“Intentionally or not, your conduct created a hostile work environment for members of your crew. Moving forward, I expect you to deliberately consider your comments and refrain from discussion that could be uncomfortable for your teammates. Your conduct is unacceptable and further deviation may result in more severe action.”

The letter doesn’t state what Doss said that was found to be “inappropriate and unprofessional.”

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst and the Air Force didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The LOC turns it into an equivalent of a [Uniform Code of Military Justice] violation for answering questions truthfully about what his church teaches,” R. Davis Younts, Doss’ lawyer, told Just the News last Monday.

Keep reading

Army Sends Letter to Pro-Life Groups Apologizing for Referring to Them as ‘Terrorists’ During Training Under Biden

The Gateway Pundit reported that during Joe Biden’s regime, the Defense Department categorized pro-life organizations as “terrorist organizations” during an anti-terrorism briefing held at Fort Bragg’s Directorate of Emergency Services, formerly known as Fort Liberty.

Citizen journalist Sam Shoemate, or @samour, shared the disturbing slide on X.

“An anti-terrorism brief was held on Fort Liberty (Bragg) today where they listed several Pro-Life organizations as “terrorist organizations.” The slide you see here followed right after a slide about ISIS, a terror group in the Middle East,” Shoemate wrote on X.

The presentation slide, which was widely circulated on social media, lists these pro-life organizations that oppose “Roe[sic] v. Wade” under a headline reading “TERRORIST GROUPS.”

The presentation specifically targets groups like National Right to Life and Operation Rescue, which have long been pillars of the pro-life community.

These organizations are dedicated to peaceful advocacy against abortion, grounded in the belief that every life is valuable and worth protecting.

The slide shockingly equates their activities, such as demonstrations, protests, mass demonstrations, Life Chain, The Rescue, The Truth Display, and picketing, along with counseling efforts at sidewalks and crisis centers, with terrorism.

Now that the DOD has rational, non-woke leadership, U.S. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll sent a letter offering a “sincerest apology” for the actions taken under the prior administration on behalf of himself and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Keep reading

ENOUGH OF THE ABUSE! Michigan Attorney Sues AG Dana Nessel Over 2-Year “Lawfare” Nightmare Against Elderly Trump Electors

This afternoon, Michigan Attorney Kevin Kijewski, who is representing Cliff Frost, one of the 15 Republican alternate electors in the 2020 election, announced the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Frost v. Nessel. The case against Michigan’s politically motivated Attorney General, Dana Nessel, challenges her two-year lawfare criminal case against her client and 14 other electors. In his lawsuit, Kijewski argues the lawsuit against the alternate electors “exemplifies the weaponization of government by current Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.”

In his press release today, Kijewski mentioned a video of Nessel who attended a private Zoom call with a leftist group that was released several months ago.

In the video below, Michigan AG Nessel told a far-left group that it’s challenging to get the electors to flip on each other because, “They legit believe that President Trump won the 2020 election.” The premise of her case against the 16 (mostly senior citizens) electors is that they knew President Trump was not the winner of the 2020 election, yet they cast their electoral votes for him anyhow. The truth is, the electors cast their votes for President Trump in Michigan and other hotly contested states because they needed to protect the electoral votes in the event that enough election fraud was proven to flip the states for Trump. Had they not cast the alternate slate of electoral votes, no votes from that state would have been given to Trump.

Keep reading

Welcome To The Land Of The Free… Until You Express An Opinion

Britain’s cancel culture is a purposely designed social credit system.

Say the wrong thing, and you’re done for. One ‘offensive’ tweet? Straight to prison.

Say a silent prayer? You’re nicked.

Point out that men don’t have wombs, or that climate change hysteria is exaggerated? You’re sacked and shunned.

Post a meme that contradicts a government orthodoxy or expresses concerns about illegal immigration? Congrats, you’re now persona non grata and at risk of being given a holiday at His Majesty’s pleasure.

Welcome to the land of the free… until you express an opinion…

Great Britain, 2025, where the air is thick with sanctimonious twaddle, and our inalienable rights are under attack from the self-proclaimed elite. Those pompous, hypocritical overlords of ‘correct’ thinking have decided our words, thoughts, and even our chickens need their approval. Free speech? In the U.K., members of the public are in prison for sending a single tweet. And just wait until they roll out digital ID (the so called BritCard) and the Stasi levels of censorship which will follow.

The Establishment has closed its grip harder than Keir Starmer on free Arsenal tickets. Wielding censorship like a sledgehammer and telling us what constitutes ‘approved truth’ as though we’re living in Orwell’s 1984.

But fear not, because there’s a growing rebellion. Increasing numbers of Brits simply aren’t having it anymore. They see through this dystopian farce, preferring instead to give it the middle finger. Our great nation isn’t China or North Korea (though they’d like it to be). Britain is the crucible of free speech and has long championed open expression across literature, the arts and politics.

Amidst the madness, we salute a titan of liberty: John Milton, whose Areopagitica in 1644 stands as a blazing beacon for free speech. With a poet’s fire and a rebel’s heart, Milton faced down Parliament’s suffocating book licensing laws, daring to proclaim that truth thrives only when it wrestles openly with falsehood. “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” he thundered, crafting a vision of Britain as a place for ideas, where no censor’s pen could silence the quest for truth. His words, a clarion call against tyranny, sowed the seeds for our nation’s proud claim as a bastion of free expression.

Keep reading

‘Did Jesus pack heat?’: Progressive professor who censored Christian student faces backlash

An English professor at Eastern Maine Community College faces blowback — including calls from Republican lawmakers in the state to resign — after instructing a Christian conservative student to drop the issue of gun rights from her essay.

Katherine Parker, a student at Eastern Maine Community College, was instructed to choose a topic for a persuasive essay assignment in Professor Carol Lewandowski’s oral communications class.

After choosing a topic, students were to identify and respond to an opinion piece from a public source. Parker chose a piece from Maine columnist Douglas Rooks titled “Maine Legislature derelict in its duty on ‘red flag.”

In it, the longtime journalist called for the Maine legislature to hold a public hearing on a red flag bill, which would allow firearm removal from individuals posing imminent danger, and to ultimately pass the measure, calling it a “reasonable” restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Parker agreed with holding a hearing, but objected to restricting gun rights.

“I’m a big Second Amendment advocate,” she told The College Fix in a telephone interview. “I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and defend their family, and to defend against tyrannical government, should the case arise.”

Keep reading

NORTHERN DYSTOPIA: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Warns Citizens To Be Vigilant, for ‘People With Traditional Values Can Be Extremists’

Woke Canada keeps descending into pure madness, led by the Globalist Liberal party. Justin Trudeau is out, Mark Carney is in, but the dystopian developments continue unabated.

For the canucks in power, it is progressive to defend mass migration, abortion and euthanasia, transgender dysphoria, ‘net zero’ and the church of climate change… the list is endless.

But, of course, the majority of normal people in Canada need to be kept in check by their Liberal overlords, so common, ordinary behavior needs to be vilified.

So now, warnings by Canadian Police arise that ‘people with traditional values could be extremists’.

If you like “traditional values,” such as mothers raising their children instead of daycare workers, this RCMP spokeswoman says you might be an extremist. pic.twitter.com/TpDBPAYmec

— Billboard Chris (@BillboardChris) July 9, 2025

The Telegraph reported:

“Staff Sgt Camille Habel, the spokeswoman for Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), urged people to be vigilant following the arrest of four people in Quebec, who were allegedly involved in ‘ideologically motivated violent extremism’.”

Keep reading

German Court Fines Man €8,400 For Posting Banned Phrase

A court in the German town of Lindau has issued an €8,400 ($9,801) fine to a man over a post on X containing the phrase “Alles für Deutschland.” The man, identified as Andreas M., had written, “That’s exactly why I vote for the AfD. Everything for Germany,” in July of last year.

Months later, his home was raided at dawn by police, who confiscated laptops, phones, and hard drives.

According to Apollo News, authorities charged him under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code, a law banning slogans or symbols tied to unconstitutional or terrorist organizations.

While prosecutors pushed for a seven-month prison sentence, the court opted for a financial penalty. Both the state and the defense have filed appeals.

Andreas M. has stated that he was unaware of the slogan’s past use by Nazi Stormtroopers and said he intended the comment as a satirical show of support for the Alternative für Deutschland party.

His explanation was not enough to prevent prosecution. In modern Germany, the legal system increasingly treats such social media posts with suspicion.

This is not an isolated event. A growing number of Germans have faced police raids and fines over social media activity deemed offensive or unlawful in a nation without free speech protections.

The boundary between humor and criminal conduct has narrowed considerably, especially when directed at figures within the political mainstream.

Keep reading

‘Delete, Silence, Abolish’: America’s estranged allies ramp up perceived censorship, speech rules

Overt government control of the internet is expanding within America’s increasingly estranged allies and threatening to spill over national boundaries, likely renewing earlier confrontations with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the world’s richest man and creator of America’s newest nascent political party.

The European Union last week made its officially voluntary three-year-old “Code of Practice on Disinformation” legally binding under the Digital Services Act. It’s now a “Code of Conduct” to be used as a “relevant benchmark for determining DSA compliance” for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Bing, TikTok, YouTube and Google Search.

These “very large” online platforms and online search engines were already signatories of the 2022 code, whose commitments include taking “stronger measures to demonetise disinformation,” increasing fact-checking across the EU and its languages and improved reduction of “current and emerging manipulative behaviour.”

Australia imposed an age-verification law for harmful content that makes the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court look like a type-your-age prompt, applying to not only pornography but also “violent content” and “themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating,” in the words of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Last week she registered three of nine “codes” submitted by the online industry, covering “search engine services … enterprise hosting services and internet carriage services such as telcos,” and has sought “additional safety commitments” on remaining codes for “app stores, device manufacturers, social media services and messaging” and broader categories.

The same day, Canada suspended a U.S. tech firm tax to avoid trade recriminations from the Trump administration. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is taking a “fresh” look at predecessor Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act, which went down in Trudeau’s political downfall.

Anti-censorship group Reclaim the Net flagged pressure on Carney’s government to revive C-63, which famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson claims would criminalize wrongthink. Trudeau-appointed Senator Kristopher Wells pressed Government Representative Marc Gold to commit to further criminalizing “hate” in a “questions period” last month.

Keep reading

The Coward’s Bargain

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason, and facts, though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “That can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me that they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during Covid sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

Keep reading