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)