Donald Trump and the United States Constitution by Paul Craig Roberts!
(2024-11-19 at 02:05:28 )

Donald Trump and the United States Constitution by Paul Craig Roberts!

Will the Constitution Be Voted Down with Trumps Support Prior to Trump Taking Office?

It looks like Philip Giraldi ( "please see here:" ) and Mike Whitney ( "please see here:" ) are correct. Israel, not MAGA, won the election.

The current Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate, the current Republican Speaker of the House, the current Republican President-elect all agree that it is more important to protect Israel from criticism than to protect the First Amendment.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hopes to attach his "Antisemitism Awareness Act" to the National Defense Authorization Act. By avoiding a standalone vote against the First Amendment, Schumers maneuver allows senators to vote for national defense rather than for censorship. Schumer self-describes himself not as a guardian of the United States Constitution, but as a Guardian of Israel (see video: "please see here:"). For Schumer, shielding Israel from accountability is more important than upholding the Constitution of the United States.

House Speaker Johnson got the Atisemitism Awareness Act passed months ago on a standalone basis. Obviously, House Republicans agree with Democrats that protecting Israel from accountability is more important than the First Amendment and truth.

Last Friday President-elect Donald Trump said that American universities must "end antisemitic propaganda" or "lose their accreditation and federal taxpayer support" ("please see here:" ). For Trump, protests against the massacre of Palestinians is "antisemitic propaganda."

The Constitution and the First Amendment have withstood through time many assaults, but no longer has sufficient commitment from those sworn to uphold it to withstand the Israel Lobbys assault.

The legislation does not define antisemitism. It seems to be anything the Israel Lobby does not like. Criticism of Israels treatment of Palestinians, for example, would seem to qualify as demonizing Jews as murderers.

Criticism of the Holocaust narrative on a factual basis would seem to be guilty of stereotyping Jews as liars or as endangering Jews by denying an attempted genocide against them.

It is unclear what the penalties are. Campus protests against Israel seem to trigger a cancellation of federal aid to the university for not somehow preventing the students from protesting.

In a way the act is an attack on Christianity. To celebrate Easter could become antisemitism as Christs resurrection is from death from cruxifixction demanded by Jews. This could be considered threatening to Jews by supporting a stereotypical image and by demonizing them as enemies of Christianity.

The question is why is a law that is a direct attack on the United States Constitution, that is, a direct attack on the United States, with such a wide range of possible adverse consequences needed?

It is not needed.

White gentile ethnicities, and white gentile civilization are attacked every day in United States university classrooms, and no one is calling for protection for gentile Western civilization against free speech. Iran and Muslims are verbally attacked. Putin is attacked. China is attacked. The rich are attacked. How is it that Jews are too special to be criticized?

The reason that censorship is about to become law is because Trump, Schumer, Thompson and the members of the House and Senate want and need Jewish campaign contributions. This is far more important to them than free speech, without which there can be no truth.

A country in which free speech is impermissible or regulated cannot be made great, not even by Donald Trump.

Think about it: How is it possible for Donald Trump to put any pressure on Israel to moderate in the interest of peace when pressure on Israel implies criticism? Any United States pressure on Israel would be antisemitic and grounds for a new range of accusations against Donald Trump.

Think about it: As the Antisemitism Awareness Act is unconstitutional on its face, why are Republicans and Democrats unified in passing an unconstitutional act? For the Supreme Court to accept the constitutionality of this legislation would mean the United States has fallen off the Constitution and most certainly cannot be made great again.

Paul Craig Roberts columns may be reprinted, disseminated, and translated on the condition that a link is provided to the articles on "Paul Craig Roberts" and that the following disclaimer is included:
~
Permission to reprint Dr. Roberts columns does not imply that Dr. Roberts endorses the websites or media organizations that republish his columns or that he approves of the content of the websites, media outlets or books that republish his columns.