Banks Targeted

PUBLISHED: 8:29 PM 4 Oct 2018

GOP Sen. Introduces Legislation To Ban Gov. Contracts To Banks That Discriminate

He reportedly introduced the bill in an attempt to ensure that banks focus less on being partisan and more on being safe.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) recently introduced a piece of legislation to ban government officials from granting federal contracts to banks that stop doing business with other law-abiding businesses simply because they disagree with their social policy (pictured above).

Just recently, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a pro-gun bill to prohibit granting federal contracts to banks that create their own ‘social policy’ and do things like cut off gunmakers from using their services.

In defense of the legislation that he brought to the Senate, which could potentially pass, Sen. Kennedy claimed, quite understandably, that America doesn’t need partisan banks, we need safe banks.

Specifically, the GOP lawmaker recently proposed a bill to ban government officials from entering into contracts with banks that stop doing business with other law-abiding businesses, simply because they disagree with their social policy.

Basically, this means that a bank would not be able to discriminate against businesses they disagree with politically if they want government contracts, which is something that started to occur following some of the more recent mass shootings.

According to reports, the pro-gun bill that the conservative senator recently introduced to the legislature came a little more than a year after Bank of America (BoA) and Citigroup, or “Citi,” made an announcement amid pressure from anti-gun activists that they would no longer be doing business with any gun manufacturer or retailer that sold certain semi-automatic weapons.

“It’s very simple, it just says that we can’t issue contracts to banks that decide they want to make social policy,” explained Kennedy while speaking to reporters, alluding to the actions of BoA and Citi.  

“I just believe that we don’t need red banks and we don’t need blue banks, we need safe banks, and that’s what Citigroup and Bank of America need to be worrying about,” the lawmaker continued.  

“Not going belly-up in the next recession and having to come whine to the American people to bail them out,” he added, noting, “and I think that’s a full-time job.”

While speaking to the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Kennedy also pointed out that his legislation, which many conservatives consider absolutely amazing, helps protect the Second Amendment, which is a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to bare arms.  

“Targeting firearms owners and business owners is not only an affront to responsible gun owners across this country; it’s a threat to the sanctity of our Constitution and the Second Amendment,” reasoned the republican lawmaker during his address to committee members.

When asked about Kennedy’s proposed legislation, a bank spokesperson mentioned in an emailed statement that they “adopted this policy because we believe it is a positive and balanced step to promote gun safety without undermining free markets or Second Amendment rights.”

After making this point, they added, “it is disappointing that some are attempting to politicize the competitive process through which we bid to provide critical financial services to the government as a result.”

Another lawmaker who recently proposed a piece of legislation that many conservatives would view as amazing was Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Specifically, Sen. Paul proposed a bill last month to basically defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics of tax dollars and redirect that money to local community health centers that do not perform abortions.

“One of the top priorities for a republican Congress that professes pro-life values on the campaign trail should be to stop taxpayer funding for abortion providers,”  explained the conservative lawmaker in defense of the legislation.

“This is our chance to turn our words into action, stand up for the sanctity of life, and speak out for the most innocent among us that have no voice,” he added.

Basically, by saying this, Paul was pointing out that while countless people say they are opposed to the slaughtering of unborn children, their actions are what really matter.

In introducing the legislation, he was essentially giving them an opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words and demonstrate that they are truly opposed to abortion.

Thankfully, Sen. Paul is far from the only one who has been making an effort to defend the lives of the unborn.

Last month, for example, three people in Washington DC were all taken into custody for reportedly ignoring commands to stop peacefully praying inside an abortion clinic and refusing to cooperate with local police officers for roughly two hours.

According to reports, the individuals who were arrested were reportedly engaging in a “Red Rose Rescue,” which purportedly involves handing out red roses, as well as quietly speaking with and praying for women who are considering having their unborn child slaughtered.

Prior to that, state committee members in Pennsylvania passed a pro-life bill banning dismemberment abortions, which countless consider a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, if signed into law, the legislation would also prohibit doctors from performing abortions on women after twenty weeks.   

However, while many are actively working to defend the lives of helpless fetuses, numerous others are pushing to make abortion as accessible as possible.

For example, earlier this year, one of the numerous Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates reportedly filed a lawsuit against Idaho due to a new law making it a requirement for licensed physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics like PP to fill out a thorough report any time there is a complication related to an abortion procedure that they had done.

A few months before that, Judge Carlton Reeves, who is a United States district court judge, issued a “temporary restraining order” against a pro-life bill in Mississippi that largely banned pregnant women from ending the life of their unborn child after fifteen weeks.

And before Reeves decision, which many would consider utterly absurd, another US district court judge, Judge Lee Yeakel, ruled against a Texas law banning doctors from performing dismemberment abortions.

Around the same time Yeakel issued his controversial ruling, Judge Myron Thompson, who’s a US district judge as well, ruled against a similar law protecting the unborn in Alabama.