The Restrict Act S686 with Bipartisan (Deep State) Support

[ExomatrixTV]

• "The Restrict Act" Takes Away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS – Not Kidding!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ucUgC8qzWts

The “Restrict Act” being pushed through Congress with bipartisan support, ostensibly just to keep the Chinese government from spying on us, will allow the U.S. government to restrict the websites Americans can visit. In fact, by using a VPN to circumvent restrictions, Americans could possibly put themselves at risk of being sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss this Draconian effort to monitor Americans’ online lives.

The RESTRICT Act (S. 686) is proposed legislation that was first introduced in the United States Senate on March 7, 2023.

Introduced by Senator Mark Warner, the Act proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.

The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans."[1][2] It grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:[3]

• Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
• "Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
• Interference and manipulation of federal elections
• Undermining the democratic process to "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".

The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States.[1][2] The initial text of the Act classifies China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, Russia, and the Nicolás Maduro regime of Venezuela as foreign adversaries.[3]

It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or "twice the value of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed", whichever is greater, and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment.[4][3]


Reception

While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok from conducting business in the United States.[1][2][5][4]

The bill has faced bipartisan criticism for having a lack of judicial oversight and transparency in its enforcement mechanisms,[6] and for containing wording broad and vague enough to potentially cover end-users (such as, for example, potentially criminalizing use of a VPN service or sideloading to access services blocked from doing business in the United States under the Act, due to the text stating that no person may "cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act" that violates orders issued under the Act).[5][4] Many individuals have negatively compared the bill to the Patriot Act.[6][7]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed their opposition, arguing that the blocking of entire services violates the First Amendment rights of citizens.[6][7] Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believed in regard to the bill's implied target that the federal government should instead prioritize internet privacy legislation that also impacts U.S.-based companies.[6]

Republican U.S. Senators J.D. Vance, Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul have all expressed their opposition, with Paul considering it contradictory for Republicans to advocate "censor[ing] social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese" while at the same time being opposed to censorship.[6] Vance and Hawley both noted that while they support a ban on TikTok, they felt the RESTRICT Act possessed too many negative implications.[6][7] Several Democratic officeholders, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also criticized the legislation, with Ocasio-Cortez believing that it was being rushed, and citing that Congress had never received any classified national security briefings related to TikTok.[6] Libertarian groups including the Mises Caucus and Reason Foundation condemned the bill, with the former arguing that it would "gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad."[6][7]

Warner's office stated that the bill was intended to target corporate entities "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S." (such as causing harm to "critical infrastructure" or tampering with federal elections), and not target end-users necessarily, despite such wording not having been used in the bill itself, and has not commented on complaints about possible uses beyond the bill's stated intent.[5][4][6]

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESTRICT_Act

Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act or the RESTRICT Act

This bill requires federal actions to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology (ICT) products and services (e.g., social media applications). It also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations under the bill.

Specifically, the Department of Commerce must identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate transactions involving ICT products and services (1) in which any foreign adversary (such as China) has any interest, and (2) that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.

Additionally, Commerce must identify and refer to the President any covered holding (e.g., stock or security) that poses an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons. If the President determines that the holding poses such a risk, the President may compel divestment of or otherwise mitigate the risk associated with the holding.

Commerce may (1) designate any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary upon a determination that the foreign government or regime is engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons, and (2) remove such a designation. Commerce must notify Congress before making or removing a designation; these actions are subject to congressional disapproval.

The bill outlines (1) enforcement mechanisms, including actions by the Department of Justice; and (2) civil and criminal penalties for violations.

• source

[ExomatrixTV]

• The RESTRICT ACT (Bill S.686) Explained: "This Bill Isn't Really About Banning TikTok. This Bill Could Give Enormous And Terrifying NEW Powers to the Federal Government to Punish America Citizens." - Tucker Carlson:

• source

• congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686

¤=[Post Update]=¤

• The RESTRICT Act Restricts More Than TikTok:

• source

• The Restrict Act Is The Patriot Act on Steroids:

• source

[ExomatrixTV]

• Rand Paul RIPS Republicans For Censoring TikTok!:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gVLNIGpWQ_c

The Restrict Act currently making its way through Congress has bipartisan support in the Senate, mostly among the highly pro-establishment members of both parties. Rand Paul recently took to the well of the Senate to light into his Republican colleagues for criticizing obstructions to free speech online while simultaneously supporting this effort to censor American’s online activities. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss Rand Paul’s accusations of hypocrisy directed at his fellow Republicans.

• Rand Paul is right: Banning TikTok would be idiotic.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=88UHR33__58

• The Restrict Act (Bill S686):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nqg06pUaMVc

[ExomatrixTV]

• TikTok Ban Bill Is PATRIOT ACT 2.0 Trojan Horse:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FWQGA_n5Z4M

Ryan and Emily break down the RESTRICT Act being proposed in Congress under the guise of banning TikTok with much far reaching implications.

• The RESTRICT ACT S 686 is a massive violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and an complete Nationalization of the internet.

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xv5TrTrXKAKZ

@SenateGOP if you attempt to pass this Bill, you will be sealing the nail in the coffin of Freedom and expect a 80 + Million Americans to be as pissed as the colonist at the forming of this country.

This is about one of the most tyrannical Bill brought about in the last decade.
Call your Senator today and get this shut down.

[ExomatrixTV]

• "The Restrict Act":

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/V5TJrq7lHByh

• Tucker: This Would Give The Government Terrifying Power:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AZJ-hHxSqkw

• The Restrict Act is The Patriot Act 2.0:

• source

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Restrict Act Is Pure Treason:

Is Senator Lindsay Graham a liar or incompetent or both? Sure, Congressional staffers get legislation cosponsored with a rubber stamp all the time as Senators line their pockets over lunch with lobbyists. But hours before Graham appeared on Jesse Waters the news had broken on the treasonous bill deceptively presented by its supposed author Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner.That Graham and 11 Democrats and 10 other Republicans co sponsored known as the Restrict Act.

The language in the Bill reads like a George Orwell novel. Crushing the 1st and 4th Amendments with doublespeak aimed at combating foreign adversaries. While awarding sweeping powers to Biden's Secretary of Commerce to set in motion the rounding up of those standing in the way of the compromised Biden Administration's NWO directives. Unleashing enforcement by an AI driven surveillance state. While, by seeming coincidence, major banks fall like dominoes to the coming CBDC maelstrom.

As Congress continues its theater of confronting Chinese data harvesting. The architecture of the American surveillance state is set in stone. Wikileaks published the CIA's Vault 7 documents in 2017. Detailing the malware tools developed by the agency's Operations Support Branch to compromise smart devices, operating systems, most web browsers, and smartphones. While the Artificial Intelligence poised to police those who seek the truth is so far advanced, that tech leaders are calling to pause AI development because it poses too big a threat.

Currently the RESTRICT Act and a similar bill policing election interference in the house known as the DATA Act have barely met any resistance. If the bills pass, a 21st Century Cyber Stasi will be given carte blanche to infiltrate any form of internet technology deemed fit. Silencing and imprisoning dissent in jackbooted situations that will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look antiquated. While ushering in a Bohemian Grove inspired nightmare of tyranny and perversion as our children are openly preyed upon and transgender petty tyrants keep the remaining population under Agenda 2030 submission. Contact your representative right now before self government becomes a thing of the past.

• source

• rumble.com/search/all?q=%22The%20Restrict%20Act%22

[ExomatrixTV]

• They Are Coming for Us: Jon Bowne Exposes How S.686 is Targeting Infowars

• Senate Bill 686 is the Capstone to the Technocratic Matrix

• The Tik Tok Ban Smokescreen

[ExomatrixTV]

• Even if this Bill S686 will not pass ... they showed who they really are ... they let their true face to be seen ... and what their intent is for years to come!

• The Bi-partisan Deep State Minions should be exposed 24/7

• Their Tyrannical Plans Supersedes Chinese Authoritarianism ... China tries to ban Tik Tok in their country because Tik Tok users expose Chinese Abuse in Taiwan and so much more!
  

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Patriot Act on Steroids: D.C. Uniparty wants to use anti-TikTok legislation as Trojan Horse for Censorship and Mass Surveillance

Beltway lawmakers are setting up a smokescreen to curtail rights.

TikTok is indeed a pestilence upon our society. But there are right ways to go about minimizing this “digital opium” and its impact on our lives, and other means that will allow the American government to leverage the situation to further curtail our individual rights. And unsurprisingly, the latter idea is making lawmakers in the beltway beyond giddy this week.

• The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act (S.686), which was introduced in the Senate earlier this month, would do much more than just ban TikTok.

This bill is no mere “TikTok ban,” it is a mechanism for a massive, sweeping surveillance and censorship overhaul. The RESTRICT Act goes far, far beyond potentially banning TikTok.

• It gives the government virtual unchecked authority over the U.S. communications infrastructure.

The incredibly broad language includes the ability to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to “national security” today and in any “potential future transaction.” The Senate legislation currently has 19 cosponsors, all of whom are Uniparty members in good standing. It is fully “bipartisan,” consisting of 9 democrats and 10 republicans.

Timcast’s Ian Crossland fittingly described the legislation as The Patriot Act for technology.

The Mises Caucus published a great rundown on the threat posed by the Restrict Act:

A similar bill has been introduced in the House, called the Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act, which has similar over the top security state initiatives. Unfortunately, the ongoing TikTok hearings in D.C. have very little to do with protecting the rights of Americans from potential Chinese Communist Party data harvesting, and lots to do with protecting the Uniparty’s dominance over the communications and surveillance space.

source

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Restrict Act Is True Digital Tyranny

• source

[ExomatrixTV]

• A Tiktok Ban Would Set A Dangerous Precedent!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YS7KLdSNGoI

Live with Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz, Coin Center's Peter Van Valkenburgh, Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller.

"Your platform should be banned," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R–Wash.) said to TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew during her opening statement at a March 23 congressional hearing.

The attacks on TikTok were wide-ranging and bipartisan, with Rep. John Sarbanes (D–Md.) describing American children as "drowning" in TikTok's powerful algorithm, Rep. Buddy Carter (R–Ga.) accusing TikTok of engaging in "psychological warfare" on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas) characterizing the platform as a weapon capable of "destroying our society from within."

In the Senate, Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) sought unanimous consent to pass a bill banning TikTok in America, an effort blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), who warned Americans "to beware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties, to regulate and limit our First Amendment rights" and said that Hawley's bill would "emulate Chinese speech bans."

Join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller this Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion of the looming TikTok ban with Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz, who's spent much of her career covering the effects and cultural impact of social media apps like TikTok. Lorenz wrote in a recent column that lawmakers made a number of "claims that were inaccurate or at least debatable" during the TikTok hearing. For the second half of the conversation, Coin Center research director Peter Van Valkenburgh will join the stream to help analyze the details of the RESTRICT Act, a far-reaching Senate bill that aims to shut down TikTok in America but which a recent Coin Center report describes as creating "blanket authority, with few checks, to ban just about anything linked to a 'foreign adversary.'"

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/DustinStockton/s...432593922?s=20

[mountain_jim]

[arwen]

It is truly amazing how they are framing this as simply a TikTok ban, and are just not mentioning all that is in that bill. And of all the many things in that bill, the one thing NOT covered is a ban on Tik Tok directly.

And with the daily bombardment of distractions, this may very well just slip though as they have done so many times with so many others.

Human rights groups come out against potential TikTok ban, citing free speech concerns

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/berniemoreno/sta...618294784?s=20