4 June 2020
LANCET PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED AS A PARTISAN POLITICAL MOUTHPIECE
As Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, is facing deeper scrutiny over its publication of the increasingly questionable study claiming that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were associated with increased risks of dying in hospital when treating COVID-19 patients, critics of the journal are pointing to a previous 2011 Lancet study which demonstrated that it acted as a complicit mouth-piece.for leftist political agendas via a demonstrably false study it refused to retract.
In April 2011, as the Canadian government was defending its 2008 decision before the Canadian Supreme Court to curtail or close Insite, Vancouver’s Safe Injection Facility for heroin users, Lancet published a false study claiming that the facility reduced opiate overdose deaths in its immediate vicinity by 35%, with similar reductions across the rest of Vancouver of 9% (official British Columbia coroner’s data showing only increases in Vancouver OD deaths during the years studied). The study was conveniently published only weeks before the Supreme Court was to hear final evidence, and was highly influential in the Court’s decision against the Canadian government.
In an extensive letter published in Lancet in January 2012, a team of Australian, Canadian and US professionals within the addictions arena, including the founder of the US National Institutes of Drug Abuse (NIDA), Dr Bob DuPont, exposed major errors in the study which showed it to be either fraudulent or inept.
This 2012 letter demonstrated that the Lancet study’s results were almost fully explained by changes in policing in Vancouver’s DTES which had changed from a drug “containment” approach to one of “zero tolerance”, inspired by New York’s previous “broken windows” successes, in the months before Insite commenced operations. These policing changes were so seismic that complaints were lodged with the UN Human Rights Watch at the time. The 2011 Lancet study had denied knowledge of any policing changes that could drive down overdose deaths around Insite, despite the fact that a number of their research group had done a CMAJ study in 2004 tracking the displacement of drug dealers, users and their overdoses away from the DTES to other areas in Vancouver, while being highly critical of the policing crackdown.
Lancet’s response to the 2012 letter was to publish a written response by the original five researchers in which they claimed, against all evidence, that the policing crackdown had ceased soon after Insite opened, despite being sent a second letterfrom Drug Free Australia, with written testimony from the then DTES police commander, John McKay, that the zero tolerance approach had never ceased as alleged and was still entirely operational even in 2011. It was this written testimony from McKay that the Lancet’s Chief Editor Sir Richard Horton, refused to publish, allowing this false study to remain as the centrepiece for the proliferation of Safe Injection Sites throughout Canada, and now into the United States to this day.
Other evidence sent to Lancet demonstrated that the very same evaluation cited in the Lancet researcher’s published response letter, ‘evidencing’ their claim that the policing crackdown had ceased in September 2003, clearly stated that the policing crackdown was still active in August 2004 (see p49), at the evaluation’s time of writing. Clearly the policing was responsible for most of the reductions in overdoses around Insite.
Drug Free Australia, which initiated the original letter to Lancet challenging the study, later demonstrated that Sir Richard Horton was a Science Board colleague of two of the 2011 study’s researchers, Julio Montaner and Evan Wood, in a Canadian drug legalisation lobby group, evidencing a severe conflict of interest in hushing the truth about the false but highly influential study.
Gary Christian, the Drug Free Australia Research Director who originally coordinated the exposure of Lancet’s false study, said, “Lancet has already shown that it is willing to stand by a study proven to be either fraudulent or inept, raising the question as to whether Lancet is motivated by leftist political agendas to intervene with questionable or demonstrably false studies when the situation demands it.”
Contact: Gary Christian +61 422 163 141
The above is a screen shot from the Hill TV.
This is a fine treatment of the 4-part Netflix "Filthy Rich" segment on Jeffrey Epstein, noting the Bill Clinton revelations. Saagar Enjeti is the host. it's about claims that Bill Clinton was on Epstein's private island.
Please read my column on this: Why No Protests or Riots Over the Death of Jeffrey Epstein?
New York Magazine notes the claims of Steve Scully, the IT contractor on Epstein's island: “I saw Bill Clinton sitting with Jeffrey on the living-room porch area, which was Jeffrey’s favorite spot,” Scully said. “I saw no other guests there at that time at all. I just thought, ‘Hey, wow, Jeffrey’s sitting with Bill Clinton.’”
Why No Protests or Riots Over the Death of Jeffrey Epstein?
By Cliff Kincaid – June 3, 2020
In the Michael Brown case, we were told that a white cop killed a black man for no reason. That was a lie. Brown, high on marijuana, lunged for the cop’s gun and got shot in the process. In the George Floyd case, we were told he was just minding his own business passing counterfeit currency when he was killed with the knee of a white cop on his neck. We now know he was using meth and fentanyl. Protests and riots broke out. Meanwhile, pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his network of elites rest in peace.
The medical examiner’s report shows Floyd was using meth and fentanyl, while the Minneapolis police union chief notes Floyd had a long criminal history that included cocaine and robbery. The report indicates that the drugs in his system were a factor in his death. It was truly unfortunate and sad. Perpetrators should not be dying in police custody. But Jeffrey Epstein died in the custody of the police, in this case prison guards, too. Yet, the political left doesn’t seem to want to hold those responsible for his convenient death legally accountable. Does that have something to do with his connections to such institutions as Harvard, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Bill Clinton? Or is it because their 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault and a race war is a distraction?
Some accounts of the George Floyd incident suggest he may have been in custody and escaped from the police car before being cornered by the cops and subdued. All of this will come out in the trial of the police officer. Perhaps the cop ultimately went too far, in using a knee on his neck, but this does not seem to be deliberate murder and it is a police procedure that has been used to keep a potentially violent criminal from attacking the cops. In this case, the cop may have suspected he was high on drugs, some of which can provoke frenzied and aggressive behavior by the perp. Meth can cause people to stop breathing and suffer heart attacks and strokes. That can mean death, the outcome in this case.
Strangely, there has been no follow-up regarding the death in federal custody of Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile with high-powered connections to those who run our political establishment. The story they want you to believe is that the prison guards were asleep when Epstein hung himself using sheets by constructing a hangman’s noose.
We are supposed to believe that his federal prison guards just didn’t notice that their Big Money inmate was in the process of killing himself with bed sheets.
How convenient for the George Floyd case to now arrive on the scene, to help make us forget about Epstein’s light sentence for child trafficking and the politicians who associated with him and the lawyers popular on the Fox News channel who helped him escape serious penalties in the first place? Some on the left AND the right seem to have an interest in this scandal going away.
The scandalous handling of the Epstein case has been forgotten as our attention has shifted to the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, as marauding bands of communists inspired by Mao kill people, including cops, and lay siege to many of our major Democrat-run cities. Trump’s threat to call out the military to restore order has been undermined by his own Secretary Of Defense.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein’s murder is the subject of a four-part Netflix series “Filthy Rich” that only touches the surface of his operation of an international child sex trafficking ring. Where are the demonstrations in the streets calling for justice in this case? They don’t happen because they don’t serve the interests of members of the political establishment. There are too many powerful people in America who want the Epstein case buried. Some are connected to Bill Clinton. Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago after learning that he sought a young girl for purposes of prostitution.
America has been played over and over again by the race war agitators eager to burn down America, and it is happening again, for obvious political purposes. The police union chief, Bob Kroll, says Minneapolis has been a hot bed for “terrorist” elements for some time, and that liberal officials have failed to buttress the ranks of the police to deal with the growing problem of lawlessness. He says a request for 400 more officers was rejected by the powers that be, and the money was instead diverted to “community activists with an anti-police agenda.”
Now, jumping into the mix, some outfit called the Minnesota Department of Human Rights is launching an investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department for “discriminatory” actions. That’s typical. The lynching in this case will be of white police officers. The situation on the ground will get worse, as criminals arrested for rioting will be released when a second wave of coronavirus hits.
This railroad of racial “justice” is designed to rev up the black base to get Joe Biden elected president. The Democrats know Biden is uninspiring and barely able to talk coherently and function. He was propped him up before a teleprompter on Tuesday to lecture America for 20 minutes about racism. Here was a guy who co-sponsored every major piece of pro-cop or anti-drug legislation over the last 20 years and now he is sounding like a bleeding-heart liberal who will somehow restore law and order by giving blacks reparations. The deception is carefully coordinated.
Biden is as believable as the claim that Epstein hung himself after jumping off a bunk bed in a heavily guarded jail cell.
None of this seems to matter much anymore, as the Party of Socialism and Liberation is predicting a long hot summer of racial unrest. This communist group is playing into Biden’s hands by changing the subject away from Biden’s sexual behavior and that of Epstein’s close friend Bill Clinton.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
The Bible Won’t Save Us, Only Brute Force Will
By Cliff Kincaid – June 2, 2020
President Trump emerged from his White House bunker on Monday night to give a short speech and then travel to a burned-out church just a block away. He made sure that the police and the military cleared a path for him. Then he held up a Bible. He should have held up a copy of the Constitution, with the Second Amendment highlighted in red.
The government won’t save you or your property. You have to save yourself.
Millions of Americans don’t have personal body guards, in the form of the Secret Service, and can’t call on the military to use pepper spray and tear gas against rioters down the street.
In the middle of a civil war, Trump holds up a Bible, as if it can repel invaders that vandalized some of our nation’s greatest monuments in Washington, D.C. It was too late. The damage was done.
Trump promised to get tough, but that night the communists were out in force again in many different cities.
Tucker Carlson of Fox News gave an eloquent speech on Monday night, taking “conservative” leaders to task, such as Mike Pence, Nikki Haley and Kay Coles James of the Heritage Foundation, for feeding the fires of rage and failing to advocate action to take out the killers on our streets.
He didn’t spare Trump, saying, “For people who voted for Donald Trump, who support his policies, who have defended him for years against the most absurd kinds of slander, this was a distressing moment.”
What is it going to take for Trump to realize that the liberal mayors and governors don’t want the riots to stop?
“Pride Was a Riot” was the title of an email sent out on Monday by the LGBTQ Victory Fund, dedicated to making sexual perversion mainstream and getting trans candidates elected. The term “pride” now refers to homosexuals demanding their rights, even rioting to do so. The group said, “…remember that the first Pride was a riot. The modern LGBTQ civil rights movement was born when Black and Brown trans women had enough.”
As noted by Carlson, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee in Virginia had released a statement that “Riots are an integral part of this country’s march towards progress.” The rest of the statement was that “When President Obama included the Stonewall Riots in his 2nd inaugural, he didn’t make that decision lightly.”
Barack Hussein Obama celebrated the 1969 homosexual riots at a seedy Mafia-run bar known as the Stonewall Inn in New York City. Several police officers trying to enforce the law at the sleazy establishment were injured by violent homosexuals.
Obama, whose childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a bi-sexual drug-using communist, said that “…the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day.” They attacked the police and destroyed property. That’s what’s going on now.
So-called “Pride” is in fact a template for the George Floyd riots.
Perhaps the reason Trump hasn’t yet deployed “dominating” force against the rioters and looters is that too many in the Armed Forces and the police forces of the United States are on the other side of this civil war. Just like our intelligence community, those who are supposed to defend us have been infiltrated.
If it were not for the coronavirus, the Pentagon would be physically hosting another “Gay Pride Month” event this month. Which means that ordinary Americans can’t depend on our military or the police to defend us. We certainly can’t depend on governors and mayors.
Prior to his photo-op with the Bible at the burned-out church, Trump gave a few remarks, such as that he will defend the Second Amendment. “I am mobilizing all available federal resources -- civilian and military -- to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights,” he said.
Those are nice words. But Trump should have gone further, encouraging people to arm themselves and quickly.
Dr. Miguel A. Faria told this columnist, “The destructive riots and looting in Minneapolis, including the burning down of a police station, underscore the need for citizens to be prepare to protect their businesses, homes, and families. Rioters are marauding and destructive thugs who will use any pretext to destroy, rob, and even kill defenseless people. The fact is police cannot be everywhere to protect us. As these violent riots demonstrate, they cannot even protect their own police station! For the protection of businesses as well as home defense, especially during any national emergency, the only reliable method is the firearm, the great equalizer!"
His recently released book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements, is an exhaustive look at the forces that are determined to disarm the citizens of America. One of his many insights concerns how liberal politicians and the public health establishment work together to deny our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
We are seeing some strange things in America. The same governors and mayors who locked down law-abiding citizens during coronavirus are now refusing to protect them and their businesses against looters and rioters.
Facing a civil war that is accelerating, Trump cleared the streets around his house and walked to a church to hold up a Bible. That’s not good enough.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
May 1, 2020
Official Press Release
WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush introduced H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act. This bipartisan bill would establish a grant program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to fully mobilize coronavirus testing and contact tracing efforts. Grantees would include Community Health Centers, School Based Health Centers, academic medical centers, non-profits, and other entities who would hire and train individuals to operate mobile testing units, as well as outreach in hot spots and medically underserved areas.
“Reopening our economy and getting back to normal will be all but impossible if we do not step up our testing efforts and implement robust and widespread contact tracing,” said Rep. Rush. “Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.
“The COVID-19 TRACE Act will allow us to do this by creating a $100 billion dollar grant program for local organizations to hire, train, and pay individuals and to purchase supplies to run mobile testing units and door-to-door outreach as is safe and necessary, with special preference being given to those operating in hot spots and medically underserved communities, as well as those entities who commit to hiring from these neighborhoods.
“I am immensely proud to see this bill receive bipartisan support and I hope to see the COVID-19 TRACE Act swiftly adopted by the House as a stand-alone bill or as part of a larger coronavirus response package.”
Maoist Thugs Target Christians, With Support from Justice Roberts
By Cliff Kincaid – June 1, 2020
With all that’s happening in the United States and the world, you may have missed the ruling from our “conservative” Supreme Court on May 29. The “conservative” Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, joined the four liberals in ruling that churches are not entitled to First Amendment protections and that they have to obey the dictates of liberal governors.
Two days later, St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. went up in flames as rioters were threatening to attack the White House. The more than 200-year-old church sits near Lafayette Park, across from the White House, where Secret Service agents and police fought with communist agitators.
It appears that arsonists have better access to churches than the parishioners.
In other anti-Christian actions, graffiti was written on St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York that included BLM, standing for Black Lives Matter, and “F--k F--k” in red letters. In Louisville, Kentucky, professional protesters broke windows in the rectory of the Cathedral of the Assumption. They were then boarded with plywood.
I returned to the disgraceful Roberts ruling after contemplating the Bible readings for May 31, including the Gospel of John 20:19-23, about the disciples of Christ hiding in a room because they were scared of the religious authorities of the day. Suddenly the resurrected Christ appeared and they were given the spirit of God and the authority and power to defeat the demonic forces of the secular world. The rest, as they say, is history, except that many of today’s ministers are hiding in rooms, conducting fake church services over the Internet, some with “spiritual communion,” rather than the real thing. They defend their sanitary “church services” with a camera crew while wondering when the state will decree that they can meet with real people. Many such “virtual” services conclude with requests for online donations for the invisible collection plate. After all, the religious bureaucracy that depends on the state for favors and even grants must be fed.
I watched one “virtual” service over the Internet on Sunday night, with the minister reciting the reading about Jesus appearing to his disciples after rising from the dead and showing them his hands and his side, the evidence of the crucifixion. The reading says, “The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’”
The minister reading these words didn’t seem to comprehend the significance of telling the story of disciples hiding in a room while he read the Bible from a small room himself, filmed in isolation so it could be presented to his flock through a computer connection.
It’s fact that many of today’s ministers are afraid to challenge the secular authorities of this era, such as “Lockdown Larry” Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, or Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California.
A major exception is South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, which challenged Newsom’s lockdown order that resulted in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling against the First Amendment.
Charles LiMandri, the Chief Litigation Counsel for the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, handled the case for the church and its pastor, Bishop Arthur Hodges. He insists it was not a complete dismissal of South Bay Church’s case but was “largely based on the very high standards required for our obtaining an emergency injunction.” LiMandri noted that Roberts’s ruling was “a solo concurring opinion with little to no precedential value.” That is true but the implications of this 5-4 opinion are nonetheless startling. This is a real decision with practical consequences.
The four dissenting justices, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, said the California restrictions were clearly discriminatory. The dissenting opinion noted, “In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.”
That’s right: the secular authorities have determined that marijuana businesses selling dope have more rights than churches. It appears that the stoners are more inclined to vote the way the liberals want them to vote.
The conservative Catholic writer, Vic Biorseth, noted that it was the “conservative” Roberts who approved Obamacare when he changed the nature of the legislation in a controversial court ruling and “illegally adjudicated it into law.” Yet, it was unconstitutional on its face to begin with. “So it doesn't matter what the law under consideration says, nor does it matter what the Constitution says; all that matters is the balance of the partisan division on the Court and which way the political wind is blowing at any particular moment in time,” commented Biorseth.
The wind in today’s “moment in time” is to close down churches while keeping pot shops, abortion clinics, and liquor stores open. That’s how communist riots in the streets can be termed “unrest” and “peaceful” by the secular press. But when five members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, accept this garbage, you know we as a nation are in deep trouble.
Biorseth concludes, “If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the government is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning, and America has lost it very purpose for being.”
Those are strong words. But when Roberts joins the four liberal justices to restrict Christian worship in California, can we explain it any other way? And isn’t it a fact that the churches, for the most part, have become slaves to the state, willing and even anxious to please the corrupt authorities?
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
Maoist “Rebellions” in America Inspired by China?
By Cliff Kincaid – May 31, 2020
As patriotic Americans salute our astronauts, in space through a public-private partnership of NASA and SpaceX, we are dismayed by the seeming inability of the government at all levels to keep our citizens safe on the ground. It’s time for Congress to reestablish committees designed to expose internal security problems and examine whether some of these agitators are communist terrorists who find their inspiration in history’s greatest mass murderer, Chairman Mao.
Attorney General William P. Barr warned on Saturday that groups of “outside radicals and agitators” are exploiting the George Floyd situation “to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.” Barr added, “In many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by anarchistic and far left extremists, using Antifa-like tactics, many of whom travel from out of state to promote the violence.” What he didn’t say is that the FBI, under his jurisdiction, is clueless about who is planning and organizing the chaos.
President Trump said on Sunday that Antifa, a term referring to the latest incarnation of communists active on American soil, will be designated as a terrorist organization. But there are literally dozens of Marxist or radical organizations that are not covered by the “Antifa” designation.
While Barr noted it is a federal crime to cross state lines to incite or participate in violent rioting and said “We will enforce these laws,” the question remains: who or what is he talking about?
Sadly, the FBI doesn’t investigate communist groups on American soil anymore because some of them are integrated into the Democratic Party, whose congressional members do not go through background checks and yet conduct House oversight of America’s intelligence agencies. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA), once aligned with and funded by Moscow, openly supported Barack Hussein Obama for president in 2008 and 2012. Obama’s CIA director John Brennan voted for the CPUSA in college.
The CPUSA says, “We call on our members and friends to join the protests for justice in every way possible and to make justice for George Floyd part of every demonstration going forward.” The Movement for Black Lives calls the riots “rebellions” and is active on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. “We are rising up by every means,” they say.
Some communist groups are still loyal to the memory of Chairman Mao, who said in his Little Red Book, “Every Communist must grasp the truth: ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’"
Mao’s 1968 statement in “Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression” in the United States is significant in this regard. Mao used the occasion of the Martin Luther King assassination riots in more than 100 American cities to declare that “The struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of all the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution.”
For those unfamiliar with Marxist jargon, this means that communists have been exploiting blacks to make America into a communist state. This is still the communist mission.
During a time when conservatives find themselves increasingly censored by social media, the communists are able to organize without any hindrance whatsoever. Dan Scavino Jr., who handle social media for President Trump, wrote, “Twitter is targeting the President of the United States 24/7, while turning their heads to protest organizers who are planning, plotting, and communicating their next moves daily on this very platform…” Those protests, of course, quickly turned violent, to the point where the Minnesota governor finally called out the National Guard to restore order after the Democratic Party mayor of Minneapolis refused to act.
The existence of a major communist threat, China, makes some of these organizations devoted to agitation worthy of close scrutiny.
One Maoist group, the Progressive Labor Party, is “a communist organization that fights to smash capitalism and class society in order to establish a communist world!” and operates a newspaper called Challenge, with headlines about “police terror” and the “kkkiller cops.” It has a web site and is also present on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Its “Capitalism is the Virus. Communism is the Cure” video is available on YouTube.
These American Maoists use American freedoms to organize against our institutions and our system of government.
American Maoist Bob Avakian started out with the SDS and the Revolutionary Union before running the Revolutionary Communist Party and setting up his own institute. He has broken ranks with another SDS leader, Mark Rudd, who was a member of the terrorist Weather Underground and has recently signed a letter endorsing “capitalist Democrat” Joe Biden for president. Avakian accuses Rudd of a “reformist accommodation” to the “monstrous system” of American capitalism.
Rudd’s fingerprints were once found in a Weather Underground bomb factory, a location that included Chinese and Russian pamphlets and books on communist revolution.
It has been dawning on many that China has been interfering in our internal and sovereign affairs. “Today,” President Trump said on Friday, “I will issue a proclamation to better secure our nation’s vital university research and to suspend the entry of certain foreign nationals from China who we have identified as potential security risks.”
Trump should ask his FBI director Christopher Wray to take a hard look at the “potential security risks” in various communist groups on the streets of America and ascertain whether they are operating at the direction of Beijing.
The Congress, or at least the Senate, has a role to play, too. Senators can review the work of the old congressional committees on un-American activities and internal security problems, such as the 1971 hearings on the Progressive Labor Party, the 1973 report on “America’s Maoists” in the Revolutionary Union and the Venceremos Organization, and reports on the Weather Underground and Workers World Party. All of these groups are still around in one form or another.
FBI informant Herbert Philbrick’s 1965 book, Communism and Race in America, is another good place to look. He discusses communist use of front groups and its “dialectical approach” to subversion that emphasizes how anything which creates tension in society “is a part of the path of progress,” from the communist point of view.
Chances are, however, that none of these volumes is in the FBI library.
Before more lives are lost, Senator Marco Rubio, the new acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, can order immediate hearings into what, if anything, FBI director Wray has done about investigating terrorist networks.
If the answer, as expected, is that he considers them legitimate political organizations, he should be fired immediately.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression
Source: "Marxists Internet Archive."
A New Storm Against ImperialismApril 16, 1968
[SOURCE: Peking Review, April 19, 1968, pp. 5-6.]
[“Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression” (April 16, 1968)]
Some days ago, Martin Luther King, the Afro-American clergyman, was suddenly assassinated by the U.S. imperialists. Martin Luther King was an exponent of nonviolence. Nevertheless, the U.S. imperialists did not on that account show any tolerance toward him, but used counter-revolutionary violence and killed him in cold blood. This has taught the broad masses of the Black people in the United States a profound lesson. It has touched off a new storm in their struggle against violent repression sweeping well over a hundred cities in the United States, a storm such as has never taken place before in the history of that country. It shows that an extremely powerful revolutionary force is latent in the more than twenty million Black Americans.
The storm of Afro-American struggle taking place within the United States is a striking manifestation of the comprehensive political and economic crisis now gripping U.S. imperialism. It is dealing a telling blow to U.S. imperialism, which is beset with difficulties at home and abroad.
The Afro-American struggle is not only a struggle waged by the exploited and oppressed Black people for freedom and emancipation, it is also a new clarion call to all the exploited and oppressed people of the United States to fight against the barbarous rule of the monopoly capitalist class. It is a tremendous aid and inspiration to the struggle of the people throughout the world against U.S. imperialism and to the struggle of the Vietnamese people against U.S. imperialism. On behalf of the Chinese people, I hereby express resolute support for the just struggle of the Black people in the United States.
Racial discrimination in the United States is a product of the colonialist and imperialist system. The contradiction between the Black masses in the United States and the U.S. ruling circles is a class contradiction. Only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and destroying the colonialist and imperialist system can the Black people in the United States win complete emancipation. The Black masses and the masses of white working people in the United States have common interests and common objectives to struggle for. Therefore, the Afro-American struggle is winning sympathy and support from increasing numbers of white working people and progessives in the United States. The struggle of the Black people in the United States is bound to merge with the American workers’ movement, and this will eventually end the criminal rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class.
In 1963, in the “Statement Supporting the Afro-Americans in Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism,” I said that the “the evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the Black people.” I still maintain this view.
At present, the world revolution has entered a great new era. The struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of al the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution. I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against U.S. imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States! People of the whole world, unite still more closely and launch a sustained and vigorous offensive against our common enemy, U.S. imperialism, and its accomplices! It can be said with certainty that the complete collapse of colonialism, imperialism, and all systems of exploitation, and the complete emancipation of all the oppressed peoples and nations of the world are not far off.
Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.
HTML revised 2004 by Marxists.org
“Conservative” GOP Senator Labeled as “Pot Whore” by Critics
By Cliff Kincaid – May 28, 2020
The Soros-funded American Bridge organization notes that Democrats only need to win four seats to take back the majority in the Senate and claims that, right now, Democrats are tied or leading in eight. It says, “Mitch McConnell is in danger of losing his seat, and Democrats are surging in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, and South Carolina.” Colorado is perhaps the most interesting race, as the incumbent Republican Senator, Cory Gardner of Colorado, is running for re-election as a “common sense conservative” who serves the needs of the marijuana industry and the potheads who depend on it.
Attorney David Evans, Senior Counsel to Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL), stated that "Many of us, including physicians, have communicated with Gardner or his staff over the years to inform them about the damage that marijuana is causing to our public health and safety and our kids. Mothers who have lost children to marijuana addiction or marijuana-related suicide or mental illness have joined us in this effort. Despite knowing the damage that he is causing, Gardner has time and again chosen the pot industry over our health and our kids. I am a conservative and I am ashamed of him. He is a pot whore."
Those unfamiliar with Gardner’s dependence on the dope industry should take a few moments to review the Politico story, “Cory Gardner’s marijuana problem,” about how the Senator is trying to persuade his Senate Republican colleagues to back his quest for passage of federal marijuana banking legislation. The piece reveals how Gardner is a marijuana zealot, something you would expect from someone with a financial interest in the industry.
The prospect of big money changing hands is what the FBI is now openly warning about in a podcast on corruption in the marijuana industry. The FBI podcast discusses bribes for politicians stemming from expensive licenses to operate pot shops where they grow and sell drugs.
The Politico story, which fails to emphasize in any way the dangers of marijuana, wonders if Gardner can somehow get marijuana banking legislation passed so that the industry can expand its profits and the number of pothead users. That’s how more money is made – addiction. It a product that brings the customers coming back for more.
Gardner’s “Marijuana Moment” is all about passing this legislation so that the Big Marijuana movement, initially backed by Democratic Party donor George Soros, can expand into the Republican Party and back Gardner for re-election this fall. It’s all a pipe dream. Conservatives are deserting Gardner in droves.
Gardner seems unconcerned that House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives was ridiculed for loading up a stimulus bill with 68 pro-cannabis references. The bill, called the Heroes Act, was dead on arrival in the Senate, and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell wondered why the legislation emphasized the “health” of the marijuana industry over the health of American workers thrown out of their jobs by the China virus.
Gardner’s aides are quoted as saying he’s doing his best for the dopers but keeps running into road blocks.
However, there is a ray of light. “Last week,” the article said, “he [Gardner] met with top White House adviser Jared Kushner to tout cannabis banking as a tool for economic recovery, said a friend of Gardner’s and two lobbyists.” Kushner is Trump’s son-in-law and regarded as liberal on marijuana issues.
While cable channels like CNBC hype “pot stocks” as money makers (see screen image above), treating dope as helpful to “economic recovery” sounds like something out of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where the drug Soma was prescribed for the obedient population. it’s how “progressives” recruit hopeless and homeless people into an army of addicts ready to vote for the likes of AOC and Bernie (and even Joe Biden, who is now pro-marijuana).
Is this a viable path forward for Republicans?
Judging by the Politico story, most Republican Senators reject that approach and recognize Gardner as a loser who is desperate to please the marijuana industry so that he can reap the “benefits” in the form of campaign contributions.
The state of Colorado, the base of the Big Marijuana industry, is trending blue, the author tells us, but “blue” is really green, meaning marijuana money and plants to harvest and smoke. This is a case study of how an industry that depends on addicting people to a mind-altering substance can take over a state and make its Democratic Party and even some Republican politicians into mindless slaves.
Gardner campaign spokesman Meghan Graf is quoted in the piece as assuring the dope lobby that Gardner will continue to work to make it easier for marijuana businesses to get easy access to tons of money through the national banking system. In effect, he wants to make it easier to launder drug money, since the drug is still illegal on the federal level.
The Senator seems to have a single-minded focus, even fixation, on pleasing the dope masters in Colorado and nationwide. The National Cannabis Industry Association is based in Colorado, with a government and media relations staff working out of its Capitol Hill office in Washington, D.C.
The false advertising by Gardner, whose Senate re-election website touts him as a “Common Sense Conservative,” is evident. He says he must win this November in order to protect the Republicans’ Senate Majority but the polls show him down by as many as 18 points to his likely Democratic Party opponent, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Gardner is drawing only 36 percent, a reflection of the fact that many conservative Republicans won’t even support him.
Politico reported that Gardner’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview “but encouraged a number of emissaries from the cannabis industry to reach out” to the publication “and make the case for his value as an industry ally.”
In effect, Gardner is pleading with people to support the dope who protects the dope. No wonder Republican Senators are balking at such a pitch.
Gardner must know in his heart and “soul” that he is destined to lose the seat and that he will bounce back next year as a lobbyist for Big Marijuana. That is the only explanation that makes any sense. Like former Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who became a pot lobbyist, Gardner can provide an additional Republican veneer to a movement started by Soros. So Gardner will go through the motions of running for re-election, knowing that his goose is cooked.
The problem for President Trump is that this may guarantee that Trump will lose the state as well, as conservative turn-out is depressed and many decide to eventually escape the cannabis hell-hole of Colorado after not voting for Gardner. It’s just common sense.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
White House release:
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.