This didn’t happen at just any synagogue. This was at the Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters. That is the home base of all Chabad synagogues around the world, and where the Lubavitcher Rebbe led his faithful from. Over the past week, keffiyeh-clad radicals allied with the Antifas taking over the campuses have been staging multiple protests there, which turned violent.
The far left opposes Chabad mostly because of the Chabad movement’s stance regarding Jews in the Holy Land (which also applies to anywhere else Jews may be in the world), that practical defensive measures are necessary and ought to be in readiness.
If someone rises to kill you, rise up to kill him first.
The Rebbe sermonized this Jewish dictum. It doesn’t necessarily mean to actually kill him, but rather to have the means and willingness to. After demonstrating our readiness to use lethal defensive force, in many cases the attacker will be dissuaded. It actually says, “…rise up TO kill him first,” (LE-hargo) not “… AND kill him first,” (VE-hargo) as many places misquote. We are very happy if nobody gets shot, but/and peace through strength is the only language certain enemies understand.
This same idea is why I decided to learn firearms years ago, and also why I am letting the world know that many Jews are trained and are carrying concealed. I want to dissuade any attacker from doing anything in the first place; that is better for us both.
I have doubts about whether the woman was actually uninvolved. From her own account, she went to the location because she learned about the protest. Not only that, she covered her face because people were recording video. That sounds just like how the campus occupiers are trained to operate. As soon as a target is identified (often on-the-fly via group chat), they swarm to the location to try to surround their target, and then begin their offensive. And of course they try to cover their faces to avoid being identified and prosecuted.
The woman seen harassed in the videos told CNN she learned about the protests after she heard helicopters circling overhead Crown Heights, where she is a resident, and went to the location.
“There were no protesters left by the time I got there. But there were just, like tons, like hundreds of Orthodox Jewish people in the street (and) on the sidewalk,” she told CNN.
“Then some people near me began filming, and I pulled a scarf up over my face because I didn’t want to be filmed by anybody,” she said, adding that putting the scarf on appeared to escalate things as a woman nearby began screaming.
“And as soon as she started screaming at me, this group of 100 men came almost immediately and encircled me,” she said.
In several instances now including this one, I’ve seen that Jews successfully deescalated and defended themselves against far left terrorists targeting their synagogues by counter-swarming.
Antifa cells divide themselves into greens, yellows and reds. The greens are the peaceful protestors and the useful idiots; the yellows are covert agitators who will support the attack if they think they can get away with it; and the reds are the black bloc brawlers who are willing to get arrested.
They divided their “workforce” into green, yellow and red teams.
The job of green rioters was to show up and provide a physical presence, protest signs, chants and general support for others. Yellow rioters engaged in set-up actions—-for example, hurling cement-laden milkshakes at human targets. Once blinded by the milkshakes, and thus rendered defenseless, red team members attacked. They were emboldened by masks that concealed their identities and left them feeling they could act with impunity. Their weapons included hard objects—metal rods and a bicycle lock in at least one case. They deliberately aimed for the victims’ head. They attacked repeatedly.
I suspect this woman probably thought she would be a green or yellow, and so did not show up in any uniform. But, having had some Antifa training, she tried to be part of a swarm and had a bandana because she foresaw possibly doing something where she needed to avoid identification.
Due to modern usage people don’t grasp that easily, but it is true
But
is a problem as it sets the defense of actions, hence the whole Russia nuclear stand off before the elections, they were pushed hard to react so those reactions could be used to justify further reaction, an attempt to get public sympathy and backing.
All conflict causes the need for conflict resolution and serves as a catalyst for an argument to disarm everyone, which only means actually killing will be far more brutal and far easier for those who retained weapons, i.e. criminals who didn’t obey legal edicts to disarm.
Religion has always been a great igniter for conflict, no reason to not use it again, now in this age.
Following the paradigm that Jewish history is world history in microcosm, you can see this intolerance of dissent being used as a motive to genocide the world’s Jews in the Book of Esther:
Esther 3:5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai would neither kneel nor prostrate himself before him, Haman became full of wrath. 6 But it seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai’s nationality, and Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout Ahaseurus’s entire kingdom, Mordecai’s people. […] 8 And Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and separate among the peoples throughout all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws differ from [those of] every people, and they do not keep the king’s laws; it is [therefore] of no use for the king to let them be. 9 If it pleases the king, let it be written to destroy them, and I will weigh out ten thousand silver talents into the hands of those who perform the work, to bring [it] into the king’s treasuries.”
Ultimately Haman’s plot boomeranged when G.d orchestrated that Haman and his friends be killed instead. This same pattern has echoed for millennia. As we Jews just recited over Passover:
For it was not one alone who stood against us to destroy us, but rather in every generation they stood up against us to destroy us; and the Holy One blessed is He saved us from their hand.
~ Haggadah of Passover
A rabbi in Maryland is being supported by the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon in a lawsuit against an anti-gun ordinance turning houses of worship into gun-free zones.
The law makes no exceptions for carriers with express permission to carry arms, nor for those with carry permits. Therefore, since it is targeted at houses of worship, the DoJ powerfully argues that it is additionally a First Amendment violation.
The legal notice also notes that it is part of the rabbi’s sincere beliefs that the Torah commands Jews to personally defend themselves from danger, to the point of carrying weapons - a belief that I of course share.
Not to diminish your celebration I also want to see all these BS laws struck down. I am simply looking beyond the good news on its face and wondering whether, in the present climate, it could become more of a curse than a blessing.
I will try to state the issue carefully, because criticism involving Jewish identity is too easily dismissed as antisemitism or “anti-Zionism” without addressing the actual point.
First, consider 42 U.S.C. §2000h-2:
Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.
The operative word is “may.” The Attorney General may intervene or “may” not. That leaves federal assistance dependent upon discretion.
I am not claiming that §2000h-2 was invoked in this particular case. I cite it because it illustrates the broader concern: federal power can be activated in one civil rights dispute while remaining absent from another.
On its face, this is not a Jewish civil rights case or a case requiring Jewish specific protection. It concerns constitutional rights shared by everyone and a restriction applicable to places of worship generally. The concern arises when Jewish identity is emphasized as what makes this the “proper” case for exceptional federal attention.
The video explains why this rabbi is supposedly the ideal Second Amendment claimant: he believes Jewish law obligates him to protect himself, his family, his congregation, and his synagogue. The commentator emphasizes that this makes him a far better claimant than the others.
But why should that make him a better claimant? The right to protect oneself, one’s family, and one’s community is not uniquely Jewish. He appears to have been selected and presented to fit a religious liberty narrative that a universal constitutional right should not require.
That is what troubles me.
The rabbi has every right to challenge the law, and ideally a victory would protect everyone. But when Jewish identity is emphasized as part of what makes him the “proper” claimant, while federal attention remains discretionary, the appearance of favored access becomes difficult to ignore.
DOJ now has specialized antisemitism initiatives, and Congress considered H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, which passed the House but did not become law. None of that means Jews should receive less protection. The purpose of civil rights should be equal protection not elevated protection for whichever identity currently receives the most government attention.
The danger is the appearance that one identity receives exceptional federal urgency while comparable injuries involving others receive ordinary, delayed, or no attention. In the current climate, where Jewish identity and Israel remain constantly in the news, appearance alone can become combustible.
Jewish identity is repeatedly emphasized → discretionary federal power is visibly activated → people infer privileged access → resentment is wrongly transferred onto Jews generally.
It seems to me that these measures may not reduce antisemitism so much as risk increasing it.
I look forward to when you update this as won, but hope for a bigger win than simple permission granted, thats to narrow.
Mark Smith meant, this is a better, more sympathetic fact pattern than an IRGC-linked crack addict (Hemani) or a violent kidnapper who tried to kill his witnesses (Rahimi). I would be happy if it was a Christian who brought up an identical claim. In this case, I feel pride that a fellow Jew, standing for Torah, is helping us fight for our basic civil liberties. His case also serves as an important deterrent against those who might attack us, since we are very much in favor of our congregations being armed, in accordance with the founding principles of this nation.
None of that is objectionable, I just feel this with what I’ve tried to show you concerning British and other involvement concerning creation of modern Israel should be something that catches your attention, ask why.
You’ve said what I expect you to say before
and yet you’re pushed/directed to center stage, as I said the DOJ “may” help, very arbitrary, and “may” only help if “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” and while we can all claim those things this is fundamentally not about any, it’s about common sense and self defense, a human right shared among all peoples, a Jew was not singled out for attack but Jews were singled for preservation of a right.
Why?
The DOJ could certify this as a “case is of general public importance” but even that is contrary to selecting/claiming “race, color, religion, sex or national origin”.
But, think, on its face it is a case is of general public importance, and law makers know these things, they don’t play scrabble to make laws right?
Pick some letters from a pile and earn points for the largest law they make without thinking trough what it is and why they’re doing (it).
My minimal schooling/history tells me Jews would want and do better to say
yet…not the case and not the case in a very big way concerning Israel in particualr.
True of course, but is this even a case of public perception? Is this not a case of law?
That angle can not be diminished, it exists, but in front of a judge vs a jury it 100% should not, the only thing that should matter is the constitution is the law of the land and it’s under attack by the very people who swear oaths to protect it.
To put any law in front of a jury risks jury nullification, on a case by case basis that can have a lot of leeway, as you say things like
add context, there’s no truly viable context to a Jewish Rabbi’s belief that pertains to anyone the same, an atheist can have a sincere religious belief to self defense.
It comes down to this, do you want fervor and public opinion of Jews or do you want
as historically how were German people able to be lead to turn an eye in the first place?
Lead to boycott Jewish merchants?
Are Jews the enemy or politicians who are writing the unconstitutional laws, and whichever you decide, who directs the show?
If you look solely at Nazi GE the relevant historical mechanism was a very small minority of Jews were repeatedly highlighted as a distinct political and social category until ordinary Germans learned to see Jewish identity rather than individual conduct as something requiring special public attention.
I can list the events but don’t need to surely they’re all known, so does history repeat or just ryme?
100% with you on that, pity it appears so familiar.
Ocam’s Razor. It is a Jewish congregation that is suing. It is not BECAUSE it is Jewish but BECAUSE THEY feel discriminated against. That is a rational conclusion. If it were a Baptist congregation, ?would you still express the same “reservations” as here. I see nothing here but a congregation attempting to assert its proper rights against a tyrannical state. It just happens to be - Jewish.
If its not “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” then there is no way the DOJ will involve, first off, at best, it is a “may” situation, yet you just said it, this is NOT due to plaintiff being Jewish…except…the DOJ is involved.
Look hard friend look hard, then look back, Nazi GE less than what, .75% Jewish population 500k and yet 6M across EU murdered?
Because it is a religious group that is complaining. But by your standard all religious groups are entitled to DOJ help - except Jews. ?Why is that.
My statement about it not being about JEWS but instead Jews standing up for rights may not have sounded correct in the way I phrased it, but the idea stands. Jews have as much right to sue for relief as Baptists or Lutherans or Catholics. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
I’ll be a bit firm here, not to be mean but to try to pull all of this into perspective, if you allow yourself to handle it you may well have an experience, Mark Twain said it is easier to fool a man than to convince him he’s been fooled, here on its face this is a small issue yet you backpaddle before we get to firm ground
No, your statement makes sense, its the situation that does not make sense, a religious group bringing a complaint does not automatically make the alleged violation religious discrimination.
The DOJ statute applies when equal protection was denied on account of religion not merely because the plaintiffs happen to be religious. Here, armed self-defense and the Second Amendment belong to everyone. Jewish plaintiffs may be excellent parties to expose the violation, but Jewish identity should not be what makes the constitutional right important.
“If” the statute was even applied, have they declared their authority to intervein yet?
If you’re beginning to see that don’t hinder yourself as that well may be the beginning of a revelation to you on the entire State of Israel not being Israel you think it is.
But… for arguments sake, you’re a hard line protestant, you don’t accept the Pope, but also don’t seem to accept Paul’s writing either here
the gospel = good news, that good news is Jews no longer hold the keys to the kingdom, the gospel is no longer confined to an ethnic nation. Jew and Gentile alike must enter through Christ.
This is a major power upset, you think people like to loose power?
So concerning the gospel the Jews are enemies and here’s a couple verses that show the power
you surely can’t be a traitor
they will excommunicate you
you’ll be damned.
But it’s not just that, you would not hold your tongue or hide behind closed doors solely for fear of excommunication if you already believe salvation is through Christ
Jesus offers peace, Jews are antichrist, they deny Father and Son.
If you grasp that then you want to share Christ with them, not join them to rebuild a sacrificial temple in Jerusalem, how do you endeavor to support rebuilding a sacrificial temple and confess Jesus as the final sacrifice?
The Scofield notes did not alter the KJV text; they placed a dispensational system beside it that sharply separated Israel from the Church and helped turn support for national Israel into a prophetic duty for generations of Protestants.
That reverses the Christian posture, instead of bringing non believing Jews to Christ, you are taught to defend a national religious/Jewish program as though defending it were standing for Christ.
But when that program points toward restoring the temple altar and sacrifices, what does your support do to your confession that Christ was offered once for all?
It pollutes and divides your witness, your mouth confesses the finished work of Christ while your politics labor toward its symbolic undoing.
What is faith without works, dead, so then, works contrary to confession?
What do you think the modern state of Israel really exists for?
This really isn’t so far from the title of the thread now is it?
There’s been an attack on Christianity since Christ came, but also the Church He established and as well the bible.
The British and Foreign Bible Society stopped funding editions containing the Apocrypha in 1826, the American Bible Society adopted the same position in 1827. Through the nineteenth century, 66-book Protestant Bibles became increasingly standard, so by the late 1800s the Apocrypha had largely disappeared from ordinary Protestant use.
Scofield came soon after, the first Scofield Reference Bible appeared in 1909, revised in 1917, and it contained the already shortened Protestant KJV arrangement without the Apocrypha. and then Scofield placed a new interpretive system beside the remaining text, one that sharply separated Israel from the Church.
Israel is separated from the Church precisely so that Israel can retain a separate national destiny which Christians are then taught to defend.
What your response shows is the divide I am trying to expose. I question why a universal constitutional right is being framed through a specially protected religious identity, and you hear that as opposition to Jews.
I question the modern State of Israel, and you hear that as opposition to Israel in Scripture.
I question a theology that separates Israel from the Church, and you defend the political result without first examining the doctrine that produced it.
Can you separate the Jewish person from the modern state, the modern state from Israel in Scripture, and Israel in Scripture from its fulfilment in Christ?
Because until you can, you may be defending something very different from what you think you are defending.
I used the 1611 as a foundation to test the RCC when I went from Protestant to RCC, note my links are not from any other scripture except what is found in the 1611, if you like editor footnotes, get a facsimile of the 1611 they are very revealing IMO.
Because Harmeet Dhillon is based, is the short answer. She would have stepped in even if it were just about 2A, and even if it weren’t Jews suing the city but some other group. Thank G.d she is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ.
It seems you aren’t familiar with her record.
She challenged the COVID restrictions in California, New Jersey and Virginia.
As assistant AG, she is leading investigations fighting affirmative action and DEI in hiring and admissions policies, as well as antisemitism, at federally-funded universities.
Also as AAG, she has personally argued in court at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against Illinois’ ban against semi-auto firearms, and is filing suit against Virginia Gov. Spanberger regarding a similar semi-auto ban.
She is demanding federal access to state voter registration data to investigate election fraud.
She is investigating policies putting men in women’s prisons for multiple states, calling it an “open and shut” civil rights violation. She is likewise protecting women from men who call themselves women in sports.
Her department was previously a swamp of DC leftists, which has been 75% drained. A new hiring policy is in place, to hire replacements from across the nation and allowing remote work, which is likely to bring in a larger proportion of conservative and centrist lawyers than DC.
I’m not no, and appreciate your good report as good reports on good people are in short supply.
More so in a subject matter likes this, leadership/justice/equal rights etc.
If you credit her and she deserves it I surely wont poo poo that.
The thread itself did keep me going nicely and I found a bit more on DOJ involvement which is 28 U.S.C. §517, I say a bit as finding context to that is, well it’s not present in the code itself so you have to dig.
