Talk:Bourke Hickenlooper

Hickenlooper amendment

So from what I'm reading, Hickenlooper proposed an amendment to the 1962 Foreign Assistance Act that would have ended foreign aid to any country expropriating U.S. property. [1] According to WP, it was defeated with a 35–45 tally [2], though from what I found on GovTrack, it says that it had been a 40–45 vote... [3] —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 14:02, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Sounds like this is directly related to the Cuban government under Castro seizing the phone company, ITT property. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:12, 21 February 2021 (EST)

(Note: you should be clear on the distinction between "U.S. government property" and property of U.S. citizens and corporations. The contemporaneous reports of that "pre-globalist" era are loaded with ambiguities, referring to private property as "U.S. property"). RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:15, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Yeah, the amendment was particularly related to targeting Castro. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 14:19, 21 February 2021 (EST)

So was "U.S. property" referring specifically to federal government property? —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 14:21, 21 February 2021 (EST)

(ec) So it is not really "U.S. property"; it is property of U.S. citizens, corporations, and taxpayers subject to jurisdiction of U.S. courts. This is how, in an age of a peacetime military draft, the military-industrial complex could brainwash young people to die for U.S. global corporate interests by calling private property "U.S. property".

ATT is American Telephone and Telegraph; ITT is International Telephone and Telegraph, ATT"s global parent, although the term "globalism" wasn't even in currency yet. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:28, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Ah, I see. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 14:31, 21 February 2021 (EST)

The term "U.S. property", from World War II and throughout the Cold War, is very much a collectivist nationalist term.

In today's world, it would be the same as calling Google and Microsoft operations in China "U.S. property." RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:33, 21 February 2021 (EST)

When ITT lost its $2 billion investment in Cuba to Castro, it had no recourse to Cuban courts. In the U.S., where ATT was a big employer and taxpayers at all levels of government, it could win an unenforceable judgement against Cuba, but that wasn't enough. Hence the Hickenlooper Amendment. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:37, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Ah, that makes sense. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 14:41, 21 February 2021 (EST)

ATT had at least 2 million employees in the U.S. at a time when the population was half of what it is now; Microsoft doesn't have 80,000 employees in the U.S. and has to cowtow to the CCP to be allowed into China. While both ITT and Microsoft are global monopolies, nobody would dare say that Microsoft's mistreatment by a foreign government somehow hurts U.S. national interests. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 14:47, 21 February 2021 (EST)

This mislabeling of the interests of U.S. shareholders as "U.S. national interests" has a long history that predates WWII and was particularly exploited in WWII and the Cold War (and even WWI). You still see remnants of it today, but as I pointed out above, global entities such as Microsoft (or General Motors) don't have many U.S. employees anymore, so their claims of acting in the U.S. national interest ring hollow now.

This even explains why globalists hate Trumpism, cause Trump has called their bluff after decades of MSM misleading people about what exactly is "U.S. national interests" or what constitutes "U.S. property". RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:06, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Hmm, interesting... —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 15:11, 21 February 2021 (EST)

Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying here; I'm not saying Hickenlooper was deceptive at all. I'm saying you have to understand the idioms of that decades long era, where "U.S. property" and "U.S. interests" were thrown around loosely and accepted by all, when it's real meaning aaplied to the private property interests of private-sector shareholders. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:17, 21 February 2021 (EST)