Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Make them own it
Robert Byrd after filibustering 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Besides having announced his candidacy for president in 2020, Senator Cory Booker has called on the U.S. House of Representatives to designate lynching as a federal hate crime. Why? Because of an alleged incident involving the gay black actor Jussie Smollett, who stars in the TV series “Empire.”
Liberty Counsel has called for a provision in the bill, passed by the Senate in December, under unanimous consent, to be removed. That provision is claimed to create a federal protected category of gender identity and sexual orientation, prelude to using this category, through the 14th Amendment, to gut the 1st Amendment. Indeed, the left has shown its hand already, smearing Liberty Counsel as an “Evangelical ‘hate group.'”
Anyone who has been paying even a little bit of attention to developments in our culture and politics will see that Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) is right and that his warning must be heeded. https://t.co/50GWDV3r7a
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) January 19, 2019
Senator Tim Scott, sadly, was silent, as history was hijacked for a feel-good vote, averting his eyes from the amendment that actually attacks the faith he professes. While he was leading the band in the Washington Post to drive Representative Steve King out of the Congress, and the Republican Party, as a “racist,” he, like Senator McCain before him, seems selective in the targets of his moral outrage. He certainly has not felt led to take bold public stands against the judenhass resurgent in the Democratic Party. Perhaps this is for the same reason explained in “Why Liberals Don’t Call Out Democrat Hate.”
Liberals have no escape from their party’s embrace of hate. For a liberal to criticize Democrat’s hatefulness towards whites, men, Jews, Christians, Catholics—it can’t be done. It would destroy a liberal’s career, perhaps his or her marriage, in an instant. Dissent is punished swiftly and ruthlessly by liberals. Apple’s black, female vice president of diversity and inclusion was fired after six months in her new position (she was a 20-year veteran at Apple, on the leadership team expanding retail worldwide). Her crime? She said twelve white men from diverse backgrounds with different life experiences and perspectives also provide “diversity.”
The correct answer is for the Republican chair(s) of the relevant Senate committee(s) to hold hearings, in which the whole sordid past of Senator Booker’s party is laid out, without equivocation. Lay out the decades of Democratic Party resistance to federal anti-lynching legislation (protected by that sacred filibuster rule that Mitch McConnell relies upon to evade ever actually enacting decades of GOP party platform promises). Lay out the difference between Wild West frontier justice lynchings and the ritualistic torture murders–by whites, of blacks–euphemistically called “lynchings.”
Lay out why an anti-lynching law was once necessary, to stop domestic terrorism by Democratic Party affiliates and allies, who monopolized political power in former Confederate states. Use every single written and photographic piece of evidence. Enter into the record every single day of the Congressional Record where Democrats fought to protect their terrorist wing.
Enter former president Bill Clinton’s mentor, Senator Fulbright’s, voting record into the modern record. Enter the modern Democrats’ eulogies of Senator Robert KKK Byrd into the record.
Then enter every last Jew-hating social media post, article, and meeting, past and present, into the record. Then enter every last anti-Catholic utterance of the current Democrats in the Senate.
Robert P. George, of Princeton, ties it together (via PowerLine Blog):
Similarly, today’s leading Democrats will move from support for Israel, to merely nominal support for Israel, to neutrality, to quiet, somewhat ambiguous opposition, to something effectively indistinguishable from “Zionism is racism.” The left calls the tune, and just as the left settled in on abortion in the early 1970s and marriage redefinition in the 90s, it has now settled in on opposition to Israel–not merely the policies of its government, but its very existence as a Jewish state and homeland of the Jewish people. Do you doubt me? You can do a test of your own. Go to the center of campus at your local university and hoist a placard bearing a large blue star of David and the words “Long Live Israel!” (Notice: Please make sure your health and life insurance coverage are in good order before conducting this experiment.)
Speak real inconvenient truth to cultural and governing elite power. Break their fraudulently constructed, would-be permanent, political coalition of intersectionally superior identity groups. Bury them in their own vile record.
Published in Politics
No. They are not. Ilhan Omar got complete media protection through her primary and general election campaign. They knew what they were getting. Pelosi gave her the mildest possible verbal rebuke, conditioning it with an escape hatch that gave away the game. Shorter: “go ahead and target the Jewish state and its supporters, just be careful about your verbiage, for now.” Proof: not one committee assignment lost, not for a single day. No sensitivity reeducation training.
It should be pointed out that the overly ardent supporters of the Israeli nation are also doing pretty much the same thing. The idea that Americans who criticize Israel should be charged with a hate crime for their self expression, or that anyone organizing or even participating inside a boycott of products from Israel should be dealing with criminal charges is in total violation of the First Amendment.
I last followed the legislation a few weeks ago, when it lost being passed by some four votes. I think it may be proceeding ahead though, and that is worrisome.
Normally I don’t find myself listening to the ACLU on any issues but their discussions on this legislation is spot on:
The Israel Anti-Boycott Act cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a sustained legislative campaign in the state and federal governments to suppress boycotts of Israel. Just a few weeks ago, a federal court in Kansas agreed with the ACLU’s First Amendment challenge to a law requiring state contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel. The court recognized that the Kansas state government could not constitutionally suppress our client’s boycott to silence one side in the public debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In halting enforcement of the law, the court held that our client’s boycott of Israel:
The Powers that Be have designed this coming Civil War by first subtly using the notion of racism and White superiority.
Now however, this “discussion” has been in the offing for over 2 years, and it is no longer a subtle discussion. To avoid being called a racist or a white Supremacist, one must consider the rightness of donating monies to the man who killed Kate Stenle. After all, as the new ideology emphatically insists, no newly arrived immigrant could possibly be a low life individual, but instead must be seen as a blameless individual.
On the plus side, more and more African Americans are realizing that the type of “honor and consideration” that the Left is offering as the gold standard of a new type of “racial equality and a better form of superlative diversity” is certainly not about ending racism nor is it about a superlative anything. They realize that the newly arrived immigrants are bussed into Watts, not Malibu or the tonier communities of Los Angeles.
They also realize that with a five year cap on participating in social welfare benefit program, they can’t have help in paying their rent as their rents increase by 50%. Meanwhile the social contract has been altered so that any individual who hasn’t been on welfare of five years gets help even if they work full time. This means the immigrants are sheltered from the very inflation they are causing, while at the same time the immigrants are depressing wages for the long time residents of Watts.
This is simply not so. BDS is targeted at the elimination of the only Jewish majority state in the world. It pretends to be about fairness and justice, when it is about Jew hatred. If participants in BDS gave a fig about human rights, they would be entirely occupied with the horror show of Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence, plus Palestinian-on-Israeli violence.
However, regardless of who it is that people see as the leaders of these boycotts, for any American to give up their right to free speech, and by extension, the right to boycott, the fact remains that it still requires that I lose a right I previously held as being inalienable.
If the people who want me to not sympathize with movements like BDS aren’t careful, they will end up causing more people to join against the BDS opposition, especially once the BDS opposition are establishing their right to eliminate my rights!
Does this law actually charge someone with a “hate crime” for criticizing Israel? I find that hard to believe.
I’m wondering why is it that the 1st Amendment bars government agencies from choosing companies that do not boycott Israel, when our government has the power to actually bar private companies or government agencies from dealing with foreign governments. Such is the case when we put economic sanctions on places like Iran and North Korea. Would this not be infringing on companies free speech as well.