I didn't know whether to post this in the comedy section, but anyway I guess it does make sense that when working for the federal government you'd have to swear a loyalty oath to Israel as much of our taxes go there for various things. Who cares if it violates the 1st amendment.
That video was a hilarious take on an extremely troubling issue. America has been an occupied country for decades now, with the occupying force (the government) available to the highest bidder. And most Americans are none the wiser, sitting in front of their televisions in a trance while the oligarchs rob the country blind.
Mind explaining why you needed to respond if you couldn't even make it through a video? I don't really care how terrible it was. Terrible things, as explained in the video, are a fact of life. But if you look above Ethereal gave some good examples of what the video was generalizing.
Actually, it was pretty damn funny. The video perfectly depicted American Israeli loyalists as the obtuse, dishonest quislings that they are.
Because I was assuming you wanted people to post in your thread? Not my fault it was really slow and the fake rick Perry voice was annoying.
Point of clarification, there is no loyalty oath. That's hyperbole, the issue is the state doesnt want state money going to those who actively boycott Israel. No one is asking loyalty to Israel.
Seems silly to me. Not wanting to exterminate the Jews seems like a pretty basic precondition to holding office, so you shouldn't be able to be a supporter of Hamas or the PLA. But support Israel? That's too far.
Whatever you want to call this, it's an egregious affront to the freedoms and independence of Americans. But Americans haven't controlled the government for a long time, so this affront is just another in a very long line of affronts against the sovereignty of Americans.
Point of clarification. These people are being paid for a job, what they do with that money is up to them. What in reality is the difference between swearing loyalty and swearing you will not boycott something? It's really not a hyperbole at all. If they fail to do their job however, that is a separate issue. It is not hyperbole and it still violates the first amendment.
Israel is extremely important to U.S. interests in the ME. I can think of no other U.S. aid recipient or ally as strategically important currently, but admittedly didn't think long and hard on it. Moreover, have never understood the LW's animosity towards Israel generally. It would be simplistic to think it is just veiled anti-Semitism, but Occam and all that. No, didn't watch the video, I read and post here to see opinions, claims, statements, sometimes supplemented by video, not video in place of those things.
I would not be 'okay' with signing any loyalty oaths or promises about my private conduct that does not directly and significantly impact the employer, but depending on how badly I need the money to support my family and how likely I was to find other comparable employment, I might feel forced. Employers both private and public, often feel unencumbered by these concerns when they write their policies. I am definitely not comfortable with this policy. Who I reward or punish, with my consumer decisions does not directly and significantly impact my employer in this case, unless I work as a public employee for state of Israel.
It is hyperbole and very different. If you swear loyalty to a country that comes with a whole set of responsibilities and expectations. Not boycotting Israel is just that, not boycotting them. Nothing more and nothing less. As for if a state should be able to restrict their contracts/money to only to those who agree to not boycott Israel, that's a different matter up for debate. Personally I'm ok with it. It's not a free speech issue because no free speech or freedom is being denied. They can boycott Israel then they voluntarily are not eligible for state contracts. The state has sovereignty and the right to set eligibility standards for their contracts as they see fit. Israel is a close ally, if the state doesnt want their money going to those who are actively boycotting them, so be it.
People wonder why there's no peace between Israel and whomever... It's because they know it's a sham. They're probably like "Psst. They did the same thing with the Indians. It's not called the United States of Mudda F'in Indians is it?"
Or for a company that does a significant amounts of business with Israel or one that is owned by Jews.
I think most of our allies are more important than Israel. Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan. All far more important than Israel in my opinion.
I don't understand how anyone could be okay with a foreign government exercising this much control over American society.
Because that's not true? No foreign government ordered texas and 25 other states to make the law. The states chose to because they didnt want to do business with those actively boycotting an ally. Perfectly reasonable. If people started boycotting Germany I'd be fine with a law saying no state money to those boycotting germany.
Of course it is. And how do you know that? Except there are no laws to that effect. The only laws pertain to Israel and no one else. Gee, must be a big coincidence.