American Patriot REFUSES to Sign Oath of Loyalty to israel- Gets FIRED!!!

[95thrifleman]

The law was passed to combat the BDS movement, which is intrinsically anti-Semitic. Arabs are generally hostile to Israel solely due to its Jewish nature. You'd be hard pressed to find a BDS campaign aimed at any other country. Out of all the countries in the world, Israel is specifically singled out for delegitimization, demonization and destruction, just like Jews are singled out as the cause of all the world's problems. "Israel" is code for "Jews", usually.

Really? The Arab-Israeli laws and occupation of Arab territories was no factor in the enmity right?

Arabs tend to dislike Israelis because they set up a nation in the middle of territory the arabs had been promised by the British in WW1 and then went on to kick the arab's when the arabs decided to do something about it.

Arabs dislike israelis for the same reason the germans and french dislike the british, they won.

[Prodromos]

Really? The Arab-Israeli laws and occupation of Arab territories was no factor in the enmity right?

Arabs tend to dislike Israelis because they set up a nation in the middle of territory the arabs had been promised by the British in WW1 and then went on to kick the arab's when the arabs decided to do something about it.

Arabs dislike israelis for the same reason the germans and french dislike the british, they won.

Thank you for sharing the Hamas version of history, I guess. Needs more Farfour but I give it an 8/10.

[sumskilz]

Remember that the law explicitly applies only to companies doing business with the government. Companies are prevented from discriminating against (i.e., boycotting) all kinds of people. It's perfectly legal under the Constitution, as currently understood. This law is pretty tame by comparison, since it doesn't actually prohibit private companies from boycotting Israel, but simply boycotts the boycotters.

It seems pretty clear to me that it's not unconstitutional according to a plain reading of the letter of the law, but the ACLU will argue that it is according to precedent.

Essentially this:

The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions posits that if the government is prohibited from directly limiting the exercise of constitutional rights in a given situation, the government may not achieve the same result indirectly by offering benefits subject to the condition that the recipients waive their constitutional rights. The doctrine has not been strictly applied, however, because in certain situations a condition is justified even though a direct limit on the exercise of the right would not be.

As you can probably see, this sort of argument is contingent upon assessing the intent of the law, and has the potential for, and has arguably resulted in, legislating from the bench. It is arguably applied when judges feel it is justified. Now I would say that the government is not offering contracts just to be able to take them away from those who boycott, but you never know how a judge will interpret it with all the weird quirks of legal language involved.

It was already sort of tested with a similar law in Kansas. Like with the Trump travel ban that eventually went through in some form, the judge instituted a temporary injunction. So the Kansas legislature attempted to remove ambiguity from it by removing the restriction from sole proprietorships and companies which make less than $100,000 annually. The ACLU subsequently withdrew their lawsuit and claimed victory, while continuing argue out of court that the law is unconstitutional. That suggests to me they don't think they can really win against the watered down version.

Of course in reality the law was never actually going to apply to this woman in any real way. As far as I understand, she's a speech pathologist that works with Arab speaking kids. What was she going to refuse to help an Arab Israeli kid if he or she ended up at the school? I doubt that.

The public discussion should really be about the underlying principle of it rather than the specific political cause. If applied consistently, a lot of people won't like the result either way it goes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here are the facts:

Some anti-Israel activists, like Greenwald (who apparently was one of the first to report this story), might have intentionally misconstrued the law in order to further their agenda, but that type of dishonest reporting can't be blamed on the legislation itself. The onus is on the media to accurately report the facts, not on the legislature to craft a bill that's magically immune to misinterpretation.

Remember that the law explicitly applies only to companies doing business with the government. Companies are prevented from discriminating against (i.e., boycotting) all kinds of people. It's perfectly legal under the Constitution, as currently understood. This law is pretty tame by comparison, since it doesn't actually prohibit private companies from boycotting Israel, but simply boycotts the boycotters.

There is definitely an argument to be made that all anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, or at least unwise, but this is an odd place to start making that argument. What about discrimination against black people, gay couples, women, immigrants? Is that constitutionally protected?

Why is discrimination against one class acceptable but not another? How do we determine what classes should be protected? Different states recognize different protected classes. The democratically elected legislature of Texas unanimously declared that an allied nation, which is under special threat, deserves protection. That's sufficient for me, personally.

P.S.: I wonder if the blatantly false and click-baity thread title will be edited, as forum rules require?

Thank you for sharing the Hamas version of history, I guess. Needs more Farfour but I give it an 8/10.

Amazing how you fail to address any point refuting your claims while calling any position on the boycott as an Hamas version of history. Clearly, your own position and your own arguments have no merit. Otherwise you'd have no problem actually addressing them with intelligent arguments.

It seems pretty clear to me that it's not unconstitutional according to a plain reading of the letter of the law, but the ACLU will argue that it is according to precedent.

Essentially this:

As you can probably see, this sort of argument is contingent upon assessing the intent of the law, and has the potential for, and has arguably resulted in, legislating from the bench. It is arguably applied when judges feel it is justified. Now I would say that the government is not offering contracts just to be able to take them away from those who boycott, but you never know how a judge will interpret it with all the weird quirks of legal language involved.

It was already sort of tested with a similar law in Kansas. Like with the Trump travel ban that eventually went through in some form, the judge instituted a temporary injunction. So the Kansas legislature attempted to remove ambiguity from it by removing the restriction from sole proprietorships and companies which make less than $100,000 annually. The ACLU subsequently withdrew their lawsuit and claimed victory, while continuing argue out of court that the law is unconstitutional. That suggests to me they don't think they can really win against the watered down version.

Of course in reality the law was never actually going to apply to this woman in any real way. As far as I understand, she's a speech pathologist that works with Arab speaking kids. What was she going to refuse to help an Arab Israeli kid if he or she ended up at the school? I doubt that.

The public discussion should really be about the underlying principle of it rather than the specific political cause. If applied consistently, a lot of people won't like the result either way it goes.

The Kansas case was brought forward when Esther Koontz, who is a member of the Mennonite Church, was asked to sign a similar pledge. The law was changed as a result of the case:

In April, the Legislature enacted changes to the law, narrowing its scope in three ways. First, the anti-boycott certification requirement no longer applies to individuals or sole proprietors. Second, the certification requirement applies to companies only if they conduct more than $100,000 worth of business with the state. Finally, companies required to sign the certification must now state that they are “not engaged in a boycott of goods or services from Israel that constitute an integral part of business conducted or sought to be conducted with the state.”

That change changed the situation for the plaintiff. That last part is also very interesting. It sort of has that national security flavor to it rendering the law practically useless.

[95thrifleman]

Thank you for sharing the Hamas version of history, I guess. Needs more Farfour but I give it an 8/10.

So in your version of history the Israelis did not set up a nation in the middle of territory promised to the arabs by the British and lost the arab isreli wars? That would be the hamas fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence

Fact is, the arabs got screwed by the british on a diplomatic level then got screwed by the israelis on a military level. Israel has the most basic right to exist that there is, the same one the British and Americans have, they planted a flag and kicked the arse of anyone who disagreed. I find the arab-israeli wars fascinating, Israel re-wrote the book on armoured warfare, Israel Tal is one of my heroes, bloody military genius.

[Genghis Skahn]

It does seem odd that you can not work for a Texas school unless you agree to be nice to Israel.

Of course, it's absolutely silly and ridiculous. The person that this thread revolves around probably did nothing wrong.

American support for Israel is pretty long-standing, and increasing. Anti-Israel advocates are a small minority.

American support for Canada is even greater(and AFAIK it's never plummeted to 37% within the last 30 years) and yet to my knowledge there is no "anti-canada" boycott measures in place or in motion(nor do I think there should be any). It's silly Israeli favoritism, nothing more, nothing less.

Boycotting Israel because because of its policies in West Bank is not hating Jews or anti-Semitism.

This.

Also, for those of you discussing Arab resentment towards Israel, you should also remember that the history of the Jewish oppression has something to do with the problem as well(at least in my amateur opinion). As was stated in the graphic novel "Palestine" some Arabs(in this case, an Egyptian man at the beginning of the book flips his lid over this) find it revolting how poorly the Jews have treated the Palestinians after being viciously discriminated themselves throughout the centuries and the extermination, expulsions and ghettoization(this one is most relevant to the Palestinians) they endured during the holocaust. Many people internationally find the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to be highly hypocritical in light of this and thus find the actions of Israel towards the Palestinians to be disagreeable(to put it lightly).

[Heathen Hammer]

There should be an investigation on collusion between US politicians and Israel.

[conon394]

There should be an investigation on collusion between US politicians and Israel

In what way Realistically. Evangelicals think Israel is important to the End of days. Evangelicals are critical to the Republican party and their red state majorities. Not Collision just politics.

[Prodromos]

So in your version of history the Israelis did not set up a nation in the middle of territory promised to the arabs by the British and lost the arab isreli wars? That would be the hamas fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence

Fact is, the arabs got screwed by the british on a diplomatic level then got screwed by the israelis on a military level. Israel has the most basic right to exist that there is, the same one the British and Americans have, they planted a flag and kicked the arse of anyone who disagreed. I find the arab-israeli wars fascinating, Israel re-wrote the book on armoured warfare, Israel Tal is one of my heroes, bloody military genius.

I was referring to your description of the land as "occupied Arab territory." And I don't know what you mean by Arab-Israeli laws (maybe you meant wars?). In general, your post made it seem like Israelis are foreign invaders who are oppressing the indigenous population.

American support for Canada is even greater(and AFAIK it's never plummeted to 37% within the last 30 years) and yet to my knowledge there is no "anti-canada" boycott measures in place or in motion(nor do I think there should be any). It's silly Israeli favoritism, nothing more, nothing less.

That's probably because Canada isn't facing a BDS movement though. A US ally under threat is more likely to receive assistance than an ally that's safe.

[Heathen Hammer]

In what way Realistically. Evangelicals think Israel is important to the End of days. Evangelicals are critical to the Republican party and their red state majorities. Not Collision just politics.

Not really, maybe in the 80s and 90s, but now it is mostly about pro-Israeli lobbies, hence the recent 35+ billion of taxpayer funds that were just given to Israel with no benefit for taxpayer. All politicians involved should be investigated for collusion and pro-Israeli lobby sound like more like foreign spies then allies.

[Caduet]

That's not a poll of Israelis, it's a poll of American Jews. The reason a lot of them rate Evangelicals low is because they have the same biases as other American progressives. Those American Jews with the lowest opinion of Evangelicals are also the least likely to be supportive of Israel.

Anyone who can make aliyah, including American jews who are unable to mask their contempt of their slaves, are de facto israeli citizens. Pollard didn't carry an israeli passport when he was committing his treason, but its pretty obvious where his loyalties were. Same with israeli Chuck Schumer enshrining into law the billions we are now legally obligated to give israel, and israeli Ben Cardin trying to make this boycott legislation federal. And you're telling me that israelis are completely unaware that the devotion of evangelicals towards israel is because they want the jews to be exterminated as a sacrifice to kick-start the Rapture?

For those interested in the actual story, instead of the false version the OP got from the Jew-hating blogger Greenwald, here you go:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18...he-texas-bds-l

The author, Reb Bernstein, gets btfo pretty hard in his article's own comments, especially him using Rumsfeld v FAIR as an example. You'd think a lawyer would be better at pilpul. It's fair to assume the Supreme Court would have a different position regarding military recruitment for the US Armed Forces than it would for a foreign entity. As a commenter points out, its doubtful the college in question would have had such a problem preventing ISIS from recruiting on campus. Another commenter actually manages to make Reb Bernstein harrumph and admit defeat when the commenter points out that state overreach into foreign affairs is a no-no as made clear in Zchernig vs Miller. I can see why most israeli media is dead-set on removing comments from most media since its usually shreds the israeli damage control narratives.

Cool it with the Haterade, bro. We get that you just discovered Nietzsche and realized that Israeli lobby is a thing. But not everything is a (((Zionist))) plot.





Yes, we can agree that we probably shouldn't have loyalty oaths. But I doubt this incident is a massive (((Zionist))) plot to take over our country.

Whoa now buddy, cool it with the echoes. This site's moderators, and I swear i'm not making this up, will unironically call that "anti-semitic punctuation" and will ding you for "hate-speech". I found this out the hard way. But yes, it is an israeli plot, or at least the plot of their dumber evangelical cultists. Not to take over the country, because they have clearly already succeeded in that goal, but to tighten their stranglehold over America and intimidate and bully anyone who might dare criticize israel. There can be no other intent to this legislation. If this were an isolated incident you might have a point. But this is happening all over the country. A sitting senator, who just happens to be israeli, is trying to sneak similar legislation into the upcoming spending bill, making it federal. Its pretty obviously more than just a plot.

It seems pretty clear to me that it's not unconstitutional according to a plain reading of the letter of the law, but the ACLU will argue that it is according to precedent.

Essentially this:

As you can probably see, this sort of argument is contingent upon assessing the intent of the law, and has the potential for, and has arguably resulted in, legislating from the bench. It is arguably applied when judges feel it is justified. Now I would say that the government is not offering contracts just to be able to take them away from those who boycott, but you never know how a judge will interpret it with all the weird quirks of legal language involved.

It was already sort of tested with a similar law in Kansas. Like with the Trump travel ban that eventually went through in some form, the judge instituted a temporary injunction. So the Kansas legislature attempted to remove ambiguity from it by removing the restriction from sole proprietorships and companies which make less than $100,000 annually. The ACLU subsequently withdrew their lawsuit and claimed victory, while continuing argue out of court that the law is unconstitutional. That suggests to me they don't think they can really win against the watered down version.

Of course in reality the law was never actually going to apply to this woman in any real way. As far as I understand, she's a speech pathologist that works with Arab speaking kids. What was she going to refuse to help an Arab Israeli kid if he or she ended up at the school? I doubt that.

The public discussion should really be about the underlying principle of it rather than the specific political cause. If applied consistently, a lot of people won't like the result either way it goes.

Actually, the ACLU did not withdraw the case, the judge dismissed the case and forced Kansas to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, presumably since the law no longer conceivably applied to the plaintiff after Kansas watered it down. Said judge also stated in his opinion that

“[T]he Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.”

It would seem your hypothesis of the ACLU believing they can't win this on 1A grounds is based on incorrect information. Furthermore, if they don't think they can win the 1A argument, why keep trying? As Kansas shows, they ARE winning with the 1A argument, but if they had lost, why not switch to an argument based on Zchernig v Miller or something? Not even the ACLU would keep beating that dead horse if it didn't work.

That said, you are correct that this is about the underlying principle: that israeli subversion is a pandemic that has tainted and corrupted legislatures across the nation and is poisoning this country in order to make us more obedient shabbos goyim.

[Prodromos]

It's fair to assume the Supreme Court would have a different position regarding military recruitment for the US Armed Forces than it would for a foreign entity.

On what basis?

Another commenter actually manages to make Reb Bernstein harrumph and admit defeat when the commenter points out that state overreach into foreign affairs is a no-no as made clear in Zchernig vs Miller.

That's already been addressed. How is Texas engaging in foreign policy by enforcing anti-discrimination laws wholly within state boundaries?

[Vanoi]

That's already been addressed. How is Texas engaging in foreign policy by enforcing anti-discrimination laws wholly within state boundaries?

Do you not understand the Constitution? Texas is involving itself by creating a law protecting a foreign nation. That's a blatant overreach.

[Prodromos]

Do you not understand the Constitution? Texas is involving itself by creating a law protecting a foreign nation. That's a blatant overreach.

What does "protecting a foreign nation" mean? How does an entirely local anti-discrimination law encroach on the federal government's foreign policy prerogatives?

[Vanoi]

What does "protecting a foreign nation" mean? How does an entirely local anti-discrimination law encroach on the federal government's foreign policy prerogatives?

I've already showed you and you've admitted yourself this law is used to protect the economic interests of Israel and Texas. That's overreach. How is it so hard to understand states can't involve themselves in foreign matters?

[Prodromos]

I've already showed you and you've admitted yourself this law is used to protect the economic interests of Israel and Texas. That's overreach. How is it so hard to understand states can't involve themselves in foreign matters?

What does "protecting the economic interests of Israel" mean, in this context? Is Texas sending the National Guard to protect Israel's trade routes? Again, how is Texas involving itself in foreign matters by passing a completely local anti-discrimination law? Who are the foreign actors involved in the case? The state of Texas just doesn't want to give money to Jew-haters. How does that interfere with the federal government's foreign policy responsibilities?

[Caduet]

On what basis?

The basis that the US government treats foreign entities differently than it treats its own army.

That's already been addressed. How is Texas engaging in foreign policy by enforcing anti-discrimination laws wholly within state boundaries?

idk, read the opinions in Zschernig v Miller or American Insurance Association v Garamendi. How was Oregon engaging in foreign policy when it wouldn't let East Germans inherit a deceased Oregonian's property? How was California engaging in foreign policy when it required insurance companies to divulge information on European policy holders between 1920-1945? Precedent makes it clear that states aren't allowed to meddle in foregin policy even if the state policies don't directly interfere with federal ones.

[Vanoi]

What does "protecting the economic interests of Israel" mean, in this context? Is Texas sending the National Guard to protect Israel's trade routes? Again, how is Texas involving itself in foreign matters by passing a completely local anti-discrimination law? Who are the foreign actors involved in the case? The state of Texas just doesn't want to give money to Jew-haters. How does that interfere with the federal government's foreign policy responsibilities?

It doesn't have to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zschernig_v._Miller

Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968),^[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an Oregon statute for unconstitutionally intruding into the federal realm of foreign affairs even though the statute did not conflict with any federal treaty or statute.^[2]

Here is a quote from an earlier post by you:

Okay, but that's not what the law is about. The law doesn't regulate trade with foreign countries, nor does it tell private citizens what to do. You can still boycott Israel to your heart's content.

The law simply directs the government not to do business with companies that discriminate against Israel. Israel and Texas are economic partners. Texas has no obligation to contract with companies whose policies impair trade with its allies.

Thats you claiming that Israel and Texas are economic partners and that BDS impairs their trade and thats why this law was passed. Only Congress though can pass laws protecting trade or their economic partners.

Here's my source form earlier that quotes the governor of Texas:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/370...outlawing-bds/

“You can always count on Texas,” Abbott said at the signing ceremony at the Austin Jewish Community Center. “Any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy.”Read more: https://forward.com/fast-forward/370...outlawing-bds/

He is basically stating this law is there to protect Israel. Thats an intrusion into the federal realm of foreign affairs as stated by the Supreme Court in Zschernig v. Miller.

[Prodromos]

The basis that the US government treats foreign entities differently than it treats its own army.

So what? The US government also treats native-born citizens differently from permanent residents and naturalized citizens, but that doesn't invalidate anti-discrimination laws based on national origin.

idk, read the opinions in Zschernig v Miller or American Insurance Association v Garamendi. How was Oregon engaging in foreign policy when it wouldn't let East Germans inherit a deceased Oregonian's property? How was California engaging in foreign policy when it required insurance companies to divulge information on European policy holders between 1920-1945? Precedent makes it clear that states aren't allowed to meddle in foregin policy even if the state policies don't directly interfere with federal ones.

Neither ruling seems particularly relevant here.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Oregon law at issue in the case provided that a nonresident alien could not inherit property from an Oregon decedent unless: 1) the alien's government granted Americans the right to inherit on the same terms as its own citizens, 2) the alien's government gave Americans the right to receive payment in the U.S. from foreign funds, and 3) the alien was able to receive "the benefit, use or control" of the Oregon bequest "without confiscation" by the alien's government.

Negotiations at the national level produced the German Foundation Agreement, in which Germany agreed to establish a foundation funded with 10 billion deutsch marks contributed equally by the German Government and German companies to compensate the companies' victims during the Nazi era. The President agreed that whenever a German company was sued on a Holocaust-era claim in an American court, the Government would (1) submit a statement that it would be in this country's foreign policy interests for the foundation to be the exclusive forum and remedy for such claims, and (2) try to get state and local governments to respect the foundation as the exclusive mechanism. As for insurance claims in particular, both countries agreed that the German Foundation would work with the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC), a voluntary organization whose mission is to negotiate with European insurers to provide information about and settlement of unpaid insurance policies, and which has set up procedures to that end. The German agreement has served as a model for similar agreements with Austria and France.

Meanwhile, California began its own enquiry into the issue, prompting state legislation designed to force payment by defaulting insurers. Among other laws, California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act of 1999 (HVIRA) requires any insurer doing business in the State to disclose information about all policies sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945 by the company or anyone "related" to it upon penalty of loss of its state business license. Mter HVIRA was enacted, the State issued administrative subpoenas against several subsidiaries of European insurance companies participating in the ICHEIC. Immediately, the Federal Government informed California officials that HVIRA would damage the ICHEIC, the only effective means to process quickly and completely unpaid Holocaust era insurance claims, and that HVIRA would possibly derail the German Foundation Agreement. Nevertheless, the state insurance commissioner announced that he would enforce HVIRA to its fullest. Petitioner insurance entities then filed this suit challenging HVIRA's constitutionality. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing HVIRA and later granted petitioners summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding, inter alia, that HVIRA did not violate the federal foreign affairs power.

Held: California's HVIRA interferes with the President's conduct of the Nation's foreign policy and is therefore preempted.

In Texas' case no foreign parties are involved. The law instructs Texas not to do business with companies that discriminate against a protected group, that's pretty much it.

It doesn't have to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zschernig_v._Miller

I was asking how it encroaches on the federal government's foreign policy prerogatives, not what federal law it violates.

Here is a quote from an earlier post by you:

Thats you claiming that Israel and Texas are economic partners and that BDS impairs their trade and thats why this law was passed. Only Congress though can pass laws protecting trade or their economic partners.

Here's my source form earlier that quotes the governor of Texas:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/370...outlawing-bds/

He is basically stating this law is there to protect Israel. Thats an intrusion into the federal realm of foreign affairs as stated by the Supreme Court in Zschernig v. Miller.

Defending a popular ally in the form of such solidarity doesn't involve regulating commerce with foreign nations, or encroach on any foreign policy responsibilities reserved to the federal government. It's a local anti-discrimination law, and each state reserves the right to determine what classes to protect from discrimination, like gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity. It's completely local and no foreign parties are involved. The law doesn't even prohibit boycotting Israel, it only boycotts the boycotters. The government is under no obligation to give money to any private company, especially one that discriminates against a protected group.

I like that we've abandoned the First Amendment argument already, which is the entire basis of this lawsuit. But how about we drop the amateur lawyering, and just wait for the courts to rule on the law.

[sumskilz]

Actually, the ACLU did not withdraw the case, the judge dismissed the case and forced Kansas to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, presumably since the law no longer conceivably applied to the plaintiff after Kansas watered it down. Said judge also stated in his opinion that

It would seem your hypothesis of the ACLU believing they can't win this on 1A grounds is based on incorrect information. Furthermore, if they don't think they can win the 1A argument, why keep trying?

Your link is inconsistent with what the ACLU are themselves saying:

Following amendments to a Kansas law that required a public school educator to certify that she wouldn’t boycott Israel, the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to dismiss its lawsuit challenging the law.

My assumption is that they wouldn't settle if they were confident of winning.