As countless have said…read the summary of the bill.
Those of us arguing against it are not confused @asaratis
This is plain language.
The bill prohibits any U.S. person engaged interstate or foreign commerce from supporting:
- any request by a foreign country to impose any boycott against a country that is friendly to the United States and that is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation, or
- any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or any request by any international governmental organization to impose such a boycott.
The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the government of Israel.
I’m not a NatSoc and I think this is completely out of control.
Can’t wait for the day when mandatory hummus purchases are made part of the tax code.
3 Likes
Good to know that those who are a part of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about fully support this measure.
That tells me all I need to know.
I want to see it stated IN THE BILL…not in somebody’s summary of the bill.
1 Like
So you don’t accept the summary of the bill provided by the author’s of the bill? WHAT??? 
1 Like
I am a bit worried that this is the first time some have actually seen a proposed bill. The summary is very much a part of the bill and is what is provided to POTUS to facilitate a decision.
This thread was about the Senate Bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720
Both S.720 and HR 1697 share the same language and intent, which is the criminalization of political speech and activism.
It was crafted by AIPAC lobbyists.
3 Likes
I was going to ask that… perhaps we have a socialist bent to government contracts that forces any business that works for the government to sell to China… or Burma or… hell Australia… Do you really beleive that government should have the right to ‘force’ private business to support all of its foreign policy decisions universally… or does the citizen have no right of descent whatsoever and by the way
Boycott is
A lawful concerted attempt by a group of people to express displeasure with, or obtain concessions from, a particular person or company by refusing to do business with them.
So the words
Are in fact redundant words and there omission really change nothing in the meaning of the sentence as the act of boycotting is in fact an act of commerce…
4 Likes
Thanks for getting my blood boiling on a Sunday morning.
The audacity of these sons of bitches should have everyone who cares about American sovereignty and the rights of citizens FURIOUS.
1 Like
Then why did the opponents of the bill in this thread go out of their way to delete certain words of the summary?
Whoooops!
You guys maybe could have even taught me something -assuming there is something I dont know - had you started out with the real words - real and complete of the bill… or for even the summary for gods sake. As it… it appeared that you have an agenda… one that has nothing to so with the 1st amendment.
Oh come on now. This is not even an argument. The initial excerpts posted were followed by the full line-by-line text, which you should have read and understood before posting the link.
1 Like
I have a saying I use. Goverment must at all times remain neutral, it cannot discriminate or take side when it comes to private citizens or private business.
Well at least the concept sounds good anyway. 
1 Like
It is AIPAC with the agenda - to curtail the speech and trade of US citizens which is something that you clearly support.
You still haven’t addressed the points that I and @Scott made above. Why?
You seem to be trying very hard to avoid any discussion about this and are attacking the quality of the posts. A subjective exercise that accomplishes nothing other than preventing you from actually defending this garbage.
1 Like
This is what Typhoon posted as the being from the summary:
There appears to be one inconsequential error in the omission of the word “in” between “engaged” and “interstate” in the first sentence. I’m not arguing that point but it does point to sloppy editing.
What I do argue is that the bill apparently applies only to (a) ANY REQUEST BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY and (b) ANY BOYCOTT FOSTERED OR IMPOSED BY ANY INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION…
(a) applies to any country that is friendly to the US
(b) applies to Israel
Tell me how that applies to boycotts or requests for support of boycotts generated within the US by a US citizen.
Show me wording within the text of the law.
In that specific instance it does not. That doesn’t make the slope any less slippery. Also, what if a US citizen signs a petition online that proposed boycotting Israeli products. There is no way to determine if the author of the petition is a) an American citizen and b) not working for an international organization.
Also - why are we only concerned about Israel? Why doesn’t this apply to every country? Both @FatLazyCat and @Scott raised those points.
Finally, do you TRULY want the government involved in dictating what private citizens are permitted to support politically?
1 Like
Show me in the text of the law where the government is prohibited from linking general anti-Israel sentiment with the boycott actions fostered by any international organization.
As I read the bill, it amends a previous bill to add Israel to the list.
It also clearly targets the UNHRC
The mechanism is irrelevant. The outcome is what matters.
1 Like
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to gitcha!