total-news-1024x279-1__1_-removebg-preview.png

LANGUAGE

ROOKE: Is The TikTok Ban Bill A Blow To China Or Gift For Biden?

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday called the Protecting Americans from Applications Controlled by Foreign Adversaries Act. Although the bill is intended to curb the influence of China and other adversaries on the United States, its broad language and unilateral powers given to the executive branch mean that in reality it A sinister interpretation by a politically motivated president could be forgiven.

Banning TikTok has quickly become America’s most polarizing topic, giving birth to strange bedfellows like Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former President Donald Trump who oppose it. The bill’s proponents say: HR 7521 Critics worry the language gives the federal government more power than it needs as it bans TikTok and cracks down on the Chinese Communist Party’s influence over impressionable Americans.

First and foremost, eliminating Chinese influence in the United States is a good thing. No commentator or official has successfully opposed this bill by arguing that having a digital system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party in the United States is good for Americans. It is different. The federal government should force any application, Internet hosting service, or other corresponding digital service company to be independent of America’s foreign enemies.

But there are problems with this bill, and to deny it betrays a naive view of how the federal government exercises the powers it receives (or doesn’t receive) from Congress. (Luke: Republicans fail to protect elections from illegal immigration even in border states)

The main problems with HR 7521 are its broad language in several key areas and the lack of necessary checks and balances to prevent the president from abusing the powers granted in the bill.

HR 7521 Bill Summary Screenshot

If HR 7521 becomes law, only the president would have the authority to determine whether an app is controlled by a foreign adversary, within the bill’s definition of the term.

The federal government is currently considering six countries. foreign adversary American:

  • People’s Republic of China (including Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) (China)
  • Republic of Cuba (Cuba)
  • Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran)
  • Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)
  • Russian Federation (Russia)
  • Venezuelan politician Nicolas Maduro (Maduro regime)

There is a small caveat. If the president makes that decision, he would need to make public the White House’s intent to pursue foreign adversary distinctions for digital companies. He must also send a written report to Congress detailing the evidence justifying the distinction.

Comparing this to the Patriot Act, as some experts have done, is wrong. This bill does not target ordinary Americans in the same way that the Patriot Act was weaponized here at home. Unlike the Patriot Act, which allowed the federal government to secretly spy on Americans, this targets companies rather than individuals, and the evidence must be made public.

Still, any Congressional report sent by the president will probably include a “classified annex” consisting of information from the U.S. intelligence community that must be hidden from the public for security reasons. Of course, this is the most polite way of looking at why this information is kept private.

But Congress’ power to restrain the president ends there. What can Congress do if it disagrees with the president’s decision?

The short answer is nothing. The executive branch’s obligation to transparency ends once Congress receives the document. If Americans are lucky, a hearing on political weaponization may be scheduled. Yet, in reality, HR 7521 does not give Congress the power to stop presidential abuses of power. (Luke: MSNBC’s rich liberals are laughing at their worst nightmares)

If Congress or other agencies object to a president’s decision to go after Internet companies that are allegedly controlled by a foreign enemy, only the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) can investigate. If the Justice Department is politically motivated to align itself with the president (as many Americans feel the current system is), then the public will have no right to believe that the Justice Department will find the president to have broken the law. Does it have such a guarantee?

Of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to this bill. Essentially, the federal government is asking Americans to trust that the federal government will not abuse its power. The same group that was recently disciplined on January 6th for overcharging political prisoners to get them to pay the highest possible punishment is now making an app available to Americans on their phones. I’m trying to manage it.

Americans are accustomed to Congress abdicating its responsibility to protect the American people from federal overreach (e.g., the Patriot Act, the FISA warrant extension, the no-vote deployment of U.S. troops). Now, to be sure, this bill is another extension of Congress’s reckless security expansion.

Still, the lack of checks and balances is just one of the issues plaguing HR 7521. The wording of the bill regarding “qualified divestitures” and who will determine the new owners of related companies indicates further cause for concern.

HR 7521 Qualified Sale Screenshot

As mentioned above, requiring apps to be independent from foreign adversaries is good and wise, not only for domestic security, but also to prevent the left from capturing American children. . However, H.R. 7521 does not provide that anyone with money without foreign hostilities could buy TikTok, which would allow the federal government to force sales to U.S. companies or individuals. .

Through an interagency process, the president would have discretion to approve a buyer for TikTok. That’s a lot of power considering the New York Times report. report TikTok is the most used app for Americans under 30 to get news, and they say its coverage of President Biden’s economy is terrible. (Luke: Biden’s spy agency targets conservative journalists. The America you grew up in no longer exists)

“TikTok is full of viral videos lamenting the U.S. economy, despite low unemployment and declining inflation. One popular group of posts is called “Silent Depression.” terminology,” the article states.

The Biden campaign is very active on TikTok, frequently using the app’s biggest influencers to amplify messages coming directly from the White House. This would mean Biden would appear to have the power to choose his favorite donors to buy the apps Gen Z loves and use them as an extension of his campaign.

This is not a true ban, meaning there will be no more apps that enforce left-wing ideology on American children. Instead, it will definitely end up in the hands of those who will use it to ensure this trend continues.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp