I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?

And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.Since you're all being frustratingly obtuse and refusing to actually explain anything in detail I actually went and read the bill, as it's not long.It does seek to extend the scope of the previous act. It proposes that people should be prevented not only from doing things 'with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country' but also form 'request(ing) to impose any boycott by a foreign country' against a US ally. (the amendment if passed makes the already clunky legal language a mess - but that's another thing).But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to? Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees? If the former, then the law strikes me as unjust. I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.I'm thinking it means the latter, though - that this doesn't apply to private companies but rather those involved in government business, since it asks the President to issue regulations prohibiting such-and-such. Does the President have any authority to impose regulations on the actions of private business? Can any of you Americans clarify this?