RESTRICT the First, Fourth, Eighth Amendments?
RESTRICT the First, Fourth, Eighth Amendments?
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 3/27/2023
Banning TikTok is the subterfuge The RESTRICT Act (S. 686) has been given. On it’s face it makes sense. China does not exist to promote the values of the United States – it exists to promote it’s own value system. A Chinese state-owned social media platform could be used for espionage if the wrong people used the application in the wrong manner. It makes perfect sense to restrict government employees and officials with access to sensitive information from using the app. That’s not what this bill does – it goes much further than addressing any viable national security threat. It creates a singular ‘point of truth’ in the United States. It nationalizes the entire communications and information industries. It also creates an official US-state media organ with the purpose fo getting rid of all other news sources. It will literally be the narrative or nothing.
Blatantly apparent in the bill is the repugnant idea of this Act applying ex post facto, or after the fact. Any communications transaction which has ever occurred will suddenly be able to be dealt with under the RESTRICT Act. Nauseatingly, it also provides for eliminating the possibility of future acts of transgression by employing pre-crime ideas to it. This appears at section 2(4)(D). At section 2(13) the definition of person is given, “The term “person” means a natural person, including a citizen or national of the United States or of any foreign country.” Whenever person is included it means anyone and everyone.
All of Section 3(a) is included because what is laid out is the termination of some of the most important aspects of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, bold italics mine:
“In General.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines—
“(1) poses an undue or unacceptable risk of—
“(A) sabotage or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology products and services in the United States;
“(B) catastrophic effects on the security or resilience of the critical infrastructure or digital economy of the United States;
“(C) interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or
“(D) coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or
“(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons”
This will be determined by the Satan-worshiping losers who fill the Secretary offices of the Departments of Treasury, State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, and the heads of the Office of US Trade Representative, Director of National Intelligence, Administrator of the US General Services Administration, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and others. All kinds of Congressional committees are also included – these can be found at section 2(15). ‘The Secretary’ in the opening of the above passage is the Secretary of Commerce. Under the current Marxist regime, the Secretary of Commerce will gain the incredible power of information and communications czar – her name is Gina M. Raimondo. She is a Marxist economist (Keynesian) who is affiliated with the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Sustainable Developmetnt Goals neither of which benefits any US citizen and promises death and destruction for all of us. The RESTRICT Act would give this monster first crack at being the head of the speech police and much more and, by her allegiances noted above, it will reflect her (and her regimes) predilection towards totalitarianism.
The RESTRICT Act leaves it up to the Secretary of Commerce to define what, exactly, constitutes an ‘undue or unacceptable’ risk. ‘Donald Trump won the 2020 election’, ‘man-made climate change is a hoax’, ‘mRNA technology is murder’, and ‘Trump 2024’ will all likely be seen as undue risk to national security and been subject to the remedies sought by the US government against the speakers of such dangerous ideas. In regards to codifying that idea – section 8(a) reads “Regulations.—In carrying out the responsibilities under this Act, the Secretary may establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary considers appropriate.”
Section 9(b) suspends the Fourth Amendment entirely:
“Authority.—In carrying out this Act, the Secretary may—
“(1) require that information or reports required to be submitted under subsection (a) include the production of any documents relating to any act, transaction, or property relating to a transaction or holding under review or investigation;
“(2) require information or reports required to be submitted under subsection (a) before, during, or after consummation of a transaction or holding under review or investigation; and
“(3) conduct investigations, hold hearings, administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive evidence, take depositions, and require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any documents relating to any transaction or holding under review or investigation, regardless of whether any report has been required or filed in connection therewith, including through another person or agency.”
Any attempt to evade or refusal to comply with the RESTRICT Act carries a potential $1 million fine and up to 20 years in prison. Anyone deemed to have violated the United States’ speech codes are also opened up to the potential to have anything facilitating the crime physically stolen from them under civil asset forfeiture schemes. Houses, cars, phones, computers, laptops, routers, and CAT5 cables all become suspects of a crime under this ruse. The crime, of course, is free speech. These are located in Section 11.
In addition to all of the fun already included here, it is important to note that the dumpster fire provisions of USA PATRIOT Act are called upon as well as a reliance on the wonderful US star chamber known as the FISA court. Anything obtained by the government under this Act is not subject to FOIA requests.
My analysis is based on the actual definition of the word transaction. The website The Law defines the term, “contracts, civil law. An agreement between two or more persons, who for the purpose of preventing or putting an end to a law-suit, adjust their differences by mutual consent, in the manner which they agree on; in Louisiana this contract must be reduced to writing. Civil Code of Louis, 3038. 2. Transactions regulate only the differences which appear to be clearly comprehended in them by the intentions of the parties, whether they be explained in a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what is expressed; and they do not extend to differences which the parties, never intended to include in them. Id. 3040. 3. To transact, a man must have the capacity to dispose of the things included in the transaction.”
The same site also offers an alternative, “In the civil law. A transaction or compromise ia an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit adjust their differences by mutual consent In the manner which they agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing. This contract must be reduced into writing. Civ. Code La. art. 3071. In common law. Whatever may be done by one person which affects another’s rights and out of which a cause of action may arise. “Transaction” is a broader term than “contract” A contract is a transaction, but a transaction is not necessarily a contract.”
The government is going to claim that the word transaction means only the buying and selling of information and communications devices. They made these same claims when they passed the wonderful tyranny we are living under now which allows TSA agents to cop a feel on anyone they want, tap our phone lines, and declare US citizens enemy combatants in the USA PATRIOT Act. Despite what the government will claim, this is obviously not what the word transaction is limited to. The RESTRICT Act does a poor job of defining the term by only noting in Section 2(4):
“(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered transaction” means a transaction in which an entity described in subparagraph (B) has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), or any class of such transactions.
“(B) COVERED ENTITIES.—The entities described in this subparagraph are:
“(i) a foreign adversary;
“(ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and
“(iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
“(C) NON-EVASION.—The term “covered transaction” includes any other transaction, the structure of which is designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
“(D) TIMING.—The term “covered transaction” includes a current, past, or potential future transaction.”
What the author did here is to make sure that applications of the RESTRICT Act will cover the speech of US citizens. Writing down the idea that free speech is over in more black and white terms would cause great alarm. Instead they used legal gymnastics to avert that guaranteed resistance. Perhaps a more common definition of the word transact would serve our understanding better here. My copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary from 1966 renders the meaning, “to carry on, conduct, or complete (business, etc.). […] to do business, negotiate.” Dictionary.com defines it today, “1 to carry on or conduct (business, negotiations, activities, etc.) to a conclusion or settlement. […] 2 to carry on or conduct business, negotiations, etc.”
So what am I really doing by saying, “Mike Pence is a traitor”? I am stating a fact as I see it. You may see it very differently. I am trying to negotiate you seeing it the same way I do. The gain is a growing body of people who are believe that Mike Pence committed treason and want to take the necessary steps to see him LEGALLY and PEACEFULLY held accountable. Any speech is, at it’s core, a transaction. It is a transaction in which one party provides knowledge and processes that knowledge how they see fit. This is the bedrock of our entire civilization because without speech, we would not be able to learn from others – it would go against the narrative. The RESTRICT Act suggests we do exactly that. The literal end of history is written in this bill.
It will get rid of TikTok in the United States. But it will do so much more than that, too. To put it into perspective – Jesus Christ would have been fined and imprisoned under the RESTRICT Act for preaching because it ran afoul of the narrative of the times he lived on earth. Jesus Christ is, to many, the most important person to have ever lived on the earth – and I agree with that idea. But this applies to any figure in history as well. Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. would have all been arrested, had all of their property seized, and been thrown in jail by the powers that be for attempting to change the narrative. So would the likes of Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Josip Broz Tito; however. And while it is always alluring to think ‘they should pass a law’ to stop those who use speech to change the narrative for evil, it will also stop anyone from changing the narrative for the better.
It is up to us to determine what is good and what is evil and the Messiah and His Father clearly laid out what that means. One of the more notable passages in the Bible appears at Mark 10:17-22 (CJB version) 17 As he was starting on his way, a man ran up, kneeled down in front of him and asked, “Good rabbi, what should I do to obtain eternal life?” 18 Yeshua said to him, “Why are you calling me good? No one is good except God! 19 You know the mitzvot — ‘Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t give false testimony, don’t defraud, honor your father and mother, . . .’” 20 “Rabbi,” he said, “I have kept all these since I was a boy.” 21 Yeshua, looking at him, felt love for him and said to him, “You’re missing one thing. Go, sell whatever you own, give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me!” 22 Shocked by this word, he went away sad; because he was a wealthy man.
For our purposes, Jesus stated bluntly that not even He is good – only God. Only God. So how are we to discern good versus evil on this planet when all of us are evil? We can look back to what made Jesus perfect – the fulfillment of the law, the fulfillment of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20). Good and evil are really the desire to follow the law given by God or to turn one’s back on the law given by God. This law is, literally, the Torah as it is still able to be applied. Jesus’ sacrifice for all of mankind’s sin made it unnecessary to make animal sacrifices to God for our sins ever again. That doesn’t mean the food regulations can be disregarded. It doesn’t mean to lie, cheat, and steal. It doesn’t mean the day of the Sabbath changed from Saturday to some other day….
Sorry, for the preachiness whether you agree or disagree. This is the speech this bipartisan RESTRICT Act is really targeting. They want to make it impossible to speak the name of Jesus in the United States. They want to make it impossible to talk about God. It’s not in their narrative because their narrative is kill everybody. Who is they? ‘They’ is the sponsor who wants to preemptively use nuclear weapons on Russia Mark Warner, an especially maggot-filled pustule from the democrat party’s Virginia plantation. But ‘they’ is also the cosponsors from the democrat party – Tammy Baldwin (WI), Joe Manchin (WV), Michael F. Bennett (CO), Kristen E. Gillibrand (NY), Martin Heinrich (NM), Ben Ray Lujan (NM), Tim Kaine (VA), Richard Blumenthal (CT), and John W. Hickenlooper (CO). Democrats hate us plebes having any say over our own lives and have long sought to destroy the Bill of Rights, so this is a somewhat expected piece of legislation. Unfathomably stupid and deceitful are the republicans who always run on the promise of protecting liberty supporting this bill. Republican ‘they’ is John Thune (SD), Deb Fischer (NE), Jerry Moran (KS), Dan Sullivan (AK), Susan M. Collins (ME), Mitt Romney (UT), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Kevin Cramer (ND), Chuck Grassley (IA), and Thomas Tillis (NC). The republicans-in-name-only on this list make me absolutely sick.
I suggest we all call each of these people and demand they remove their sponsorship from this legislation immediately and, if your Senator(s) are not listed here, to call each of them and demand they vote against this legislation. It may not be invoked in the manner I described immediately but it will follow the path of the USA PATRIOT Act and be used to target US citizens domestically at some point. Pray for these people as well – let them see the evil they are about to commit themselves to and ask God gives them a change of heart. Maybe, just maybe, their hearts will change enough that they will stop looking at US citizens like cattle which exist to fatten up and slaughter for their own gain.
Bless God and God bless.