Everything Everywhere All at Once Unlisted Video

1 year ago
118

~ Supplemental Material ~

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

- H. L. Mencken

Senator Lindsey Olin Graham's (R-SC); a fixture of Republican politics for decades and his interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters - the Senator's statement, "I don't support the RESTRICT Act" - is forever preserved on digital record. Yet within moments, the screen delivered a dissonance so profound it cut to the core of representative accountability.

Watters, wielding the irrefutable ledger of the United States Senate itself, countered: "You're a co-sponsor, Senator." The visual evidence was unambiguous: Graham's brow furrowed, his gaze momentarily adrift - not merely denying his support but seemingly unaware of his own sponsorship. His virtual signature, a matter of public record; stood in silent, damning contradiction to his televised words.

Graham's foundation is quintessentially American - forged in the crucible of humble beginnings and honed by service. The son of a tavern owner, his path led first to the uniform of his country. As a JAG officer in the United States Air Force, he served with distinction, retiring as a Colonel. His transition to politics, beginning in the House in 1995 and ascending to the Senate in 2003, initially held promise for a brand of South Carolina conservatism rooted in principle.

Yet, the jarring scene with Watters illuminates a trajectory both familiar and deeply corrosive to the constituents he's supposed to represent: the metamorphosis from principled service, into an entrenched fixture of the Washington machinery - a machinery lubricated by complacency and the quiet abandonment of the very limited-government ideals that propelled him to office.

The charitable interpretation of this rupture is profound dereliction of duty - a failure of oversight so staggering, that a United States Senator appears oblivious to his own sponsorship of significant legislation. The less charitable, yet inescapable, interpretation is deliberate deceit: a calculating politician attempting to disavow an unpopular stance when confronted by a skeptical conservative audience.

Both possibilities represent an unconscionable breach of faith, with constituents who rightfully demand their representatives serve as vigilant stewards of liberty and paragons of transparent action. Neither aligns with the discipline of the uniform he once wore, nor the foundational Republican creed of accountable governance.

This episode transcends mere political clumsiness. It resonates with a deep, historical unease within the Republican conscience - the haunting fear of the leader who loses his moral compass, seduced by the permanence and perquisites of high office. The specter of Ulysses S. Grant, the titanic Union General, whose presidential administration descended into a morass of scandal and cronyism.

Despite his unimpeachable military valor, is not invoked lightly. It serves as a stark, timeless reminder: noble past service, confers no entitlement to present power, nor does it bestow immunity from the corrupting currents of ambition and expediency. The rot of Washington respects no prior laurels.

The true measure of an era, however, often lies not in its loudest declarations of principle but in the silent, incremental architecture of power it permits to be constructed. Beyond the stark paradox of a single Senator's disavowal lies an unsettling pattern emerging within recent legislative efforts: the quiet erection of mechanisms designed, not merely to secure a nation against external threats but to systematically curtail the very digital liberties upon which its modern identity and founding ideals depend.

The RESTRICT Act, standing at the center of Graham's bewildering contradiction, embodies this insidious shift. Its provisions represent more than policy; they are the underlying currents actively shaping the battle for the soul of America in the digital age - a battle where the tools of security threaten to become the instruments of control.

Framed by its proponents as a necessary shield against foreign technological adversaries, the Act grants the Executive Branch; specifically the Commerce Secretary; unprecedented and disturbingly vague authority. It empowers the unilateral identification, regulation or outright banning of entire platforms, technologies, and transactions deemed to pose an undefined "undue or unacceptable risk" to national security.

This is not surgical precision; it is a blunt instrument wielded behind closed doors. Crucially, the Act establishes labyrinthine processes; shrouded in secrecy, minimizing judicial review, circumventing meaningful public debate and offering scant due process for entities or individuals caught in its expansive net.

To advocates of limited government and individual liberty, this framework embodies the toxic convergence of "surveillance capitalism" and "crony capitalism" they have long denounced - a regulatory windfall for entrenched Silicon Valley titans, who can navigate its complexities, while crushing smaller competitors and eroding digital privacy; all sanctified by the guise of national security.

It constitutes nothing less than the "apotheosis of bureaucratic overreach," standing as the diametric opposite of constrained governance. For Senator Graham, a senior Republican standard-bearer; to sponsor such an instrument, only to publicly disavow it amidst bewildered denial; transcends mere hypocrisy. It signals a wholesale surrender of the ideological ramparts he was elected to defend - a betrayal of the foundational compact between representative and constituent.

https://rumble.com/v2h5jl8-reject-restrict-act-patriot-act-2.0-for-the-internet.html

The RESTRICT Act's substance reveals a profoundly alarming agenda. It represented not a scalpel, targeting genuine threats but a sledgehammer, poised above the edifice of American digital liberty. Its architecture exposed a disturbing appetite for centralized control:

- Vast, Ambiguous Authority: Granting the Commerce Secretary unprecedented powers to "identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate or otherwise mitigate" transactions involving foreign information and communications technology (ICT), with dangerously open-ended terms like "otherwise mitigate" and "foreign adversary."

- Shadowed Deliberations: Empowering critical determinations and investigations to be conducted in secret, shielded from public scrutiny and judicial review, under expansive national security claims.

- Criminalization of Digital Life: Section 11's threat of criminal penalties - fines up to $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment - extending beyond corporations to potentially ensnare "individuals" merely for circumventing government-imposed technology bans (e.g., using a VPN).

- Unaccountable Bureaucracy: Establishing a powerful new interagency committee, dominated by the Executive Branch, with minimal Congressional oversight; effectively creating a digital oversight body, with power to dictate technological access for Americans.

This framework stood in direct opposition to the bedrock Republican principles of limited government and individual liberty. A legislator's paramount duty - to meticulously scrutinize every bill, for its impact on foundational freedoms - seemed utterly abandoned. The RESTRICT Act wasn't crafted to protect civil liberties; it was designed to subordinate them, to the discretionary judgments of unelected officials operating under a veil of secrecy.

While the national outcry against the RESTRICT Act's draconian measures forced it into legislative limbo by mid-2023, the underlying impulse to control the digital public square merely shifted tactics:

- The Montana Gambit: Montana enacted a complete ban on TikTok, set for January 1, 2024, now facing a pivotal legal challenge on First Amendment and federal preemption grounds.

- Stealth Revivals: Persistent attempts to resurrect a TikTok ban surfaced repeatedly on the national stage, including efforts to embed prohibitions within unrelated legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) - a bill Senator Graham actively champions. This marriage of child safety concerns with a geopolitical platform ban, epitomized a potent, yet deeply concerning, legislative stratagem.

The RESTRICT Act episode is emblematic of the quiet crusade to constrain digital freedom. It reveals the seductive potency of state power, even to those who rhetorically champion its limitation. It underscores the peril when national security justifications eclipse fundamental liberties.

It highlights the non-negotiable imperative for legislators to maintain unwavering vigilance over every proposal they endorse - a vigilance that, in his moment with Jesse Watters, Senator Graham appeared to have tragically misplaced.

That fleeting moment, captured in an interview, became emblematic. It revealed how easily the weight of a signature, affixed perhaps amidst a flood of legislative business, can become a chink in the armor of digital liberty - a signature later met with the jarring dissonance of public reconsideration. It was a stark reminder that sentinels are not elected to rest but to stand watch.

For liberty, as the Founders well knew; is not preserved by parchment alone, nor by the mere election of guardians. Its survival hinges on their unyielding vigilance against power's inexorable, often imperceptible, creep. The covenant binding representative and constituent is sacred, demanding not occasional attention but unwavering fidelity.

This fidelity is measured not in forgotten endorsements but in the courageous, consistent defense of the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights - principles now fiercely contested on the new frontier: the digital landscape where America's next chapter of freedom will be authored. In this eternal contest, independent voices, operating free from establishment orthodoxies, serve as our indispensable compass, while the Constitution remains our fixed and immutable star.

Crucially, the incremental maneuvers of the political class - the subtle expansions of authority, the complex bills laden with unforeseen consequences - have frequently unfolded beneath the dimmed lights of mainstream scrutiny. Too often, the corporate press; entangled in established narratives or fleeting spectacles; failed to pierce the carefully "retouched portrait" of legislative normalcy.

This portrait, airbrushed with assurances of necessity and safety, sought to obscure the deeper currents eroding digital autonomy. It fell, instead, to the tenacious reporters and analysts of independent news sources, operating beyond the gravitational pull of establishment interests, to dissect these efforts with surgical precision and sound the clarion call.

Their role, often unheralded but profoundly vital, has been to strip away the artifice and illuminate the true stakes for a self-governing people. Below are essential independent voices committed to this critical vigilance:

https://rumble.com/c/FactsMatterWithRomanBalmakov

https://rumble.com/c/Redacted

https://rumble.com/user/PressForTruth

https://rumble.com/c/CBNNews

Yet, awareness alone is insufficient armor. Preserving liberty demands active stewardship within the body politic. Engaging with principled political organizations provides the structure and collective force necessary to translate concern into effective action - informing strategy, mobilizing citizens and holding power accountable; at the crucial local and state levels; where the foundations of national policy are often laid.

The struggle for digital freedom is woven into a larger tapestry of American self-determination. For those seeking deeper context, historical parallels or insightful analysis on the interplay of technology, privacy and state power; the following resources offer valuable perspectives and artifacts for the vigilant citizen:

https://gab.com/groups/6569

The pivotal exchange highlighted within the featured video, emerged from a national platform. For those seeking to engage further with the perspectives of Jesse Watters or follow the work of commentators and reporters contributing to these critical dialogues on the Fox News Channel (FNC); their material can be explored below.

https://rumble.com/c/Foxnewslivestream

The American experiment was never promised permanence. It was bequeathed as a challenge: a demand for constant, conscious renewal against the encroaching shadows of concentrated power. The digital age, for all its marvels, presents perhaps the most complex arena yet for this enduring contest. The RESTRICT Act episode is not an endpoint, but a potent lesson inscribed in our recent history.

It reminds us that the defense of liberty migrates with the times, finding new battlegrounds in the codes and networks that now underpin our lives. The signatures of our representatives carry the weight of that legacy; their vigilance or lack thereof, shapes the digital inheritance we bequeath to generations yet unborn. True fidelity to the Republic's covenant, demands more than rhetorical homage to freedom.

It requires the courage to question the state's expanding reach; the wisdom to discern security from suffocation and the unwavering resolve to defend; in the vibrant digital town square, as fiercely as on any physical battlefield; the inviolable rights that define the American idea. For in the vigilant heart of the citizenry, armed with truth and bound by constitutional principle; resides the enduring power to ensure that the next chapter of American freedom is not one of quiet surrender but of resolute, illuminated triumph.

In conclusion, for those who value this channel and desire to make a positive impact, the most impactful gesture is through prayer. Offering prayers for the well-being of this channel is a sincere and meaningful way to contribute.

In consideration of the presence of various officials and supporters of the Woke movement, the identity of the operator behind this communication will remain undisclosed. Nevertheless, individuals are encouraged to offer prayers for "the individual managing the channel, Blue Enigma zero-one." Your intentions will be recognized by God.

"If everything around you seems dark, look again, you may be the light."

- Rumi

Post Scriptum: In the contemporary age that we live in, the proliferation of false information and propaganda in daily life is extensive.

https://rumble.com/v6sefv7-the-soulmate-search.html

A useful tool that facilitates the differentiation between reality and falsehood:

https://freespoke.com/

Individuals seeking spiritual solace through prayer, a valuable resource is available at:

https://prayer.social/

Those who have not yet registered with Rumble, consider signing up through the provided link below:

https://rumble.com/register/ourjewishroots

The aforementioned channel represents a reputable Christian organization, with a mission to serve Christians and reaches out to the Jewish community. They are not in any way affiliated with this channel. Why recommend them as a referral?

To put it simply: Rumble offers a benefit program, where new members who sign up through their referral link, can contribute financially to the ministry. To learn more, visit the link provided:

https://rumble.com/v46ztf3-wheres-the-money.html

In case the referral field is empty, kindly insert the following:

ourjewishroots

Addendum: Within the "Supplemental Material" section (situated beneath the date of the video post, the number of views and assigned tags); there lies a treasure trove of valuable content waiting to be discovered. This segment frequently comprises an abundance of extra information and resources.

Exploring this segment could prove to be advantageous in obtaining deeper insights. The purpose of this detailed explanation, is to accommodate the varied terminology used by different individuals; which can sometimes make it challenging to locate the desired content.

(DISCLAIMER: All videos posted within this channel are for educational and historical purposes only. Under the auspices of the Copyright Act of 1976; under section 107 of the copyright disclaimer; all material within this channel is posted with the aforementioned purpose.

The participation of all individuals involved in the creation or association with the video, as well as those referenced in the description section - including any linked resources - does not imply any acknowledgment, endorsement, support or affiliation with this channel or the content produced by its operator.

Moreover, neither this platform, nor any associated individuals necessarily concur with or endorse the views expressed by the operator of this channel. All opinions and perspectives are exclusively those of the channel's operator.

Conversely, all images, videos, quotes, etc., the facilitation of such, does not necessarily equate usage as an endorsement (e.g., the use of the images from Anonymous, isn't an endorsement of the movement). The utilization of said items, within video posts, is for aesthetic purposes or to underscore an issue.

Permission is granted in the use of written content; which has been constructed by the operator but the utilization of the videos themselves; permission can NOT be granted, since they are NOT owned by said operator. Only that which is authorized by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the guidelines in which it is given; is what is allowed, in terms of videos.

All materials pertaining to health, nutrition, dietary supplements and associated topics; may not possess approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Therefore it is advisable that inquiries related to health matters and any associated concerns, should be directed to qualified professionals. Furthermore, any financial recommendations provided should be thoroughly evaluated, prior to implementation, as there are no assurances of successful outcomes.)

Help rekt the system of ctrl and abuse by the ieleetz

Loading comments...