This Is How Disingenuous Politicians Steal Power

“The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance.”
– Thomas Paine

By now you have come to understand just how overtly the Communist Chinese have deployed their data and intelligence-gathering apparatus into the United States. In addition to their traditional methods of espionage – that target our intellectual property and military capabilities, they are now actively attempting to condition – or “groom” – the American people to their way of thinking through a clandestine use of data from the social media app TikTok.

Those of us in the independent media – more concerned with reporting on and spotlighting the truth (and sometimes exposing the nefarious and the lies) than gathering clicks via sensational headlines and advancing Swamp narratives – jumped on the issue of TikTok and started amplifying what the Communist Chinese were up to.

Enter the opportunistic political class to “save the day,” taking center-stage with all the braggadocios swagger of a Clinton escaping a subpoena.

In The Beginning, They Had Good Intentions

I browbeat the political class because they have done things to deserve it. The overwhelming majority of those elected to political office – and especially at the federal level…and on both sides of the aisle – are in it for the power and the financial byproducts The Swamp and K Street bestow on someone who has navigated the abattoir that is holding political office.

That said, there are some honest people who have entered the political arena who suffer the slings and arrows of those who see them as a threat to the Deep State “system”. They entered it to do what was right; in an effort to serve the people of the United States. The problem is, the good intentions of the honest are always co-opted by the opportunistic and power-hungry.

A good example of this comes in the RESTRICT Act (S.686). This piece of legislation was crafted in response to the actions taken by the Communist Chinese in their use of TikTok against the American people. At its core, the intentions of this legislation are good. It’s in the legislation’s text that we begin to see how the power junkies ply their craft.

The summary of the bill reads, in part:

“This bill requires federal actions to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology (ICT) products and services. It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations under the bill.”

In and of itself, this is a common sense approach to a very egregious act by a disingenuous foreign actor. And this legislation would have been a great way to achieve bi-partisan legislation that would have been seen as a win-win for both sides of the aisle; legislation through which the American people could actually be served.

The kneejerk turn to the Deep State in the language of this legislation that makes it just another power-grab by the proponents of an ever-expanding centralized government comes in the vague and general language of Section 3(a) of the bill:

“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…”

There are two things Barack Obama was correct about, but little else. He was correct in saying that words matter. Sadly, he was also correct in saying his administration would usher in the “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

Alluding to the former, the language used in the RESTRICT Act would provide an avenue for the Secretary of Commerce to decide that any platform – not just TikTok, but any platform – is a threat to US national security, doing so without hearings or immediate oversight by those elected to represent the American people.

To The Point That Words Matter

In addition to the vague and generalized language bestowing censorship authority on the US Commerce Secretary, there is red-flag language in Section 2(10) and Section 2(11):

In Section 2(10), the definition of “ICTS covered holding entity” is explained as, in part:

“...owns, controls, or manages information and communications technology products or services;...”

In Sec(11), the definition of “information and communications technology products or services” reads, in part:

“...any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.”

Examining this language, the US Commerce Secretary could designate any social media platform as posing “an undue or unacceptable risk” to the United States. Additionally, any party to this designation, under this legislation, would be culpable because of the broad language of the bill in Section 3(a) that gives the Secretary wide latitude to impose and enforce “any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person.”

Pressure Must Be Applied Regardless Of What NGOs Say

If you read this legislation’s language as overly totalitarian you are not alone. A growing number of people – including US Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) – are vocally opposing this legislation's broad reach; a reach in-exclusive to TikTok or the Communist Chinese.

The Skopos Labs, a group of researchers and data scientists focused on public policy, gives the legislation a 5 percent chance of becoming law, in the end. But that end requires pressure from the public – from you and me – to make sure the elected class understands there will be ramifications if they support this assault on the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech.

This is a typical tactic used by the opportunistic elected class to further the acquisition of power to a centralized form of government here in the United States. They take a common sense idea; a simple idea, and tuck totalitarian overreach into it deep in the folds of the legislation’s language where very few think to look.

In addition to this overused tactic – but one that has been successful since the Wilsonian Era, the crafters of this legislation continue in the practice of writing legislation with broad, generalized language to facilitate unconstitutional latitude to the Executive Branch agencies and departments, centralizing power to the federal government.

Centralized Government Is Despotic Government

Our Framers and Founders understood the despotism of centralized government. They fought a war against the British monarchy to establish the British Colonies in America as free and separate states.

Through the ratification of the US Constitution, a covenant was established between the free and separate states that left the overwhelming onus of government with the states, leaving a lesser role for the newly created federal government.

This all changed with the election of President Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive Democrat, who established the precedent of empowering the Executive Branch through the employment of so-called “experts'' who would rule by regulation by way of weakly crafted legislation from the Legislative Branch. The more general and broad the language, the more power that was concentrated into the Executive Branch.

We see a perfect example of this scheme in the RESTRICT Act; broadly crafted legislation without the courtesy of minutiae so that more power can be concentrated into the Executive Branch.

The COVID event allowed us all to witness the penchant for tyranny the federal government wields in absolute power; in centralized power. The manipulative decisions and decrees; the totalitarian edicts emanating from the Executive Branch without input from the Legislative Branch, or constitutional oversight from the Judicial Branch. It was a disaster in every way, in every way.

Baby Steps To Get Back To Good

There is a clear pathway our nation can take to get back to the sanctuary of constitutionality. It consists of two immediate needs and one long-term commitment.

First, the good and honest people in federally elected office must both push back against legislation centralizing power to the federal government and also insist that legislation be crafted that limits the scope of purview in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch is the only branch of government-mandated with the constitutional authority to create legislation. The Executive Branch does not have the authority to use regulation as a replacement for law.

But equally as important is the need for the American people to insist – to insist – that both the government and the people adhere to and abide by the US Bill of Rights and acknowledge the limitations placed on the federal government by the US Constitution.

The First Amendment is painfully clear:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I emphasize the portion dedicated to free speech because the RESTRICT Act completely ignores this inalienable right guaranteed to each and every American. The fact that the federal government and the fascist elements of the private sector sympathetic to its despotism routinely ignore the rest of what’s in the First Amendment, not to mention the rest of the Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is a testimony to how far down the road to serfdom we have progressed.

Please, contact your federally elected officials and tell them that the RESTRICT Act needs to be roundly defeated. Include the need for common sense and restrictive legislation taking action directly against the Communist Chinese government and its lackey minion TikTok.

If they can craft simple legislation taking action against a specific entity without deceptively attempting to carve out more political power to the federal government, then maybe we should lower their pay so that it commiserates with the work they actually do.

Take Back Your Mind
Think For Yourself
Support Independent Journalism