Texans applying for relief from Hurricane Harvey faced an unusual stipulation to receive aid. Over 20,000 people in Dickinson, Texas, had their lives affected by the storm. The US federal government is offering to provide some form of aid, but first, residents must agree to support Israel.
The “Verification not to Boycott Israel” clause states that by signing the agreement, “the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”
This is absolutely outrageous as once again our government places its boot on the neck of the people to force them to abide by their agenda. There is absolutely no correlation between Israel and the hurricane as this measure is simply all about power and forcing the people to submit.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a warning that the local government is violating the First Amendment by withholding aid from those who disagree with the war on Palestine. “The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to boycott, and the government cannot condition hurricane relief or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression,” said ACLU of Texas Legal Director Andre Segura. “Dickinson’s requirement is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths requiring Americans to disavow membership in the Communist party and other forms of ‘subversive’ activity.”
Furthermore, Texas passed a law that requires all contractors to verify that they will not boycott Israel. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas said that anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas when signing House Bill 89 (HB 89), known as the Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions). “As Israel’s number one trading partner in the United States, Texas is proud to reaffirm its support for the people of Israel and we will continue to build on our historic partnership. Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally,” Abbott stated.
Boycotts and speaking out against wars are permitted and protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) that the Constitution does indeed protect boycotts. That lawsuit involved the boycott of white-owned businesses amid segregation.
The ruling held:
- The nonviolent elements of petitioners’ activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 458 U. S. 907-915.
(a) Through exercise of their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, association, and petition, rather than through riot or revolution, petitioners sought to bring about political, social, and economic change. Pp. 458 U. S. 907-912.
(b) While States have broad power to regulate economic activities, there is no comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case. Pp. 458 U. S. 912-915.
It has been said that everyone in politics has an assigned APIAC representative. The corruption is not on one side as both the Democrats and Republicans have sold out. None of this is Constitutional but our decision-makers have been sold out to foreign entities. Now, American businesses are prohibited from engaging with state agencies if those said businesses do not support Israel. Individual citizens are being coerced into supporting a foreign nation simply to receive aid. How much further will they take matters? Will they de-bank citizens for posting support for Palestine on social media? Government power knows no bounds.
