MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 month ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Hits of the Day
Congress Is Trying to Use the Spending Bill to Criminalize Boycotts of Israel and Other Countries
By A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 9:37am |According to recent reports, congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle are planning to sneak a bill criminalizing politically motivated boycotts of Israel into the end-of-the-year omnibus spending bill.
URL:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/congress-trying-use-spending-bill-criminalize-boycotts-israel-and
- Add new comment
- 2520 reads
Comments
It's quite odd seeing the ACLU championing corporation's rights to discriminate for biased political reasons. There is no plan to limit individual's 1st amendment rights to boycott Israeli businesses or anyone else. The Palestinians who work in these Israeli businesses won't be helped economically by the BDS movement and it's doubtful it would help them politically. The SJW in Iran might be strengthened by anything that weakens Israel but most Palestinians know Iran is not their friend.
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 2:43pm
This just seems like fear mongering from the left. I doubt that the amendment will be included in the bill and even if it is I doubt that the courts will allow it. As your article pointed out similar bills on the state level have been found unconstitutional and I doubt that even this conservative Supreme Court will find them constitutional.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 3:26pm
If you are accusing the ACLU of fear mongering by employing the tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue, then I disagree. If in fact there are Congressional leaders from both sides of the isle attempting to criminalize politically motivated boycotts then that is news worth shouting from the rooftops, IMO. That holds true even if they fail to pass the bill or if they do pass it and it is ultimately found to be unconstitutional. Why they would want such a bill is worth questioning. And how would they try to justify it? Are they motivated by an ideology of unquestioned support for a particular foreign country to a degree that they would try to enforce an infringement on our own country’s ideology of free speech in the interest of that foreign country? Are they deciding how much they like carrots while they think of how scared they are of sticks? Whatever the real reason, and regardless who is handing out the carrots or who is waving sticks around, it would cost them my vote.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:12pm
This is what I see as the purist vote over the pragmatic vote. I look at the whole of a politician's policy to choose who to vote for. If some politician with a large Jewish constituency has to make a symbolic vote on a policy I disagree with that has no real consequences I'm not overly concerned. If I eliminated every politician who I disagreed with on one or two policy matters there would be no one at all left for me to vote for.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:44pm
As is so often the case, we see different aspects of an issue to be significant.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 9:03pm
Nothingburger. It's an amendment to the Export Administration Act, has to do with government loans. It's a reaction to some UN committee blather.
It says:
(your boycott must be proven to be) supporting:
If the DOJ can prove that you might not get a government loan. If you want to boycott Israel in a movement based in the US, the law exempts you.
by NCD on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:14pm
I am reminded by the purported "sneaking" technique here: this kind of thing is why past presidents argued for line-item veto power.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:20pm
And everyone would celebrate how great that line item veto worked when their party controlled the presidency and what a disaster it was when the other party was in control.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:48pm
(aargh, another damn dupe!)
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 5:24pm
Who you calling a dupe, lady...
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/15/2018 - 7:52am
This sheds a whole new light on the ACLU's defense of the KKK's right to march through Skokie Il back in the '70s!
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 12/14/2018 - 11:42pm