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.
PRC National People’s Congress Proposal on Hong Kong National Security Legislation
05/27/2020 11:47 AM EDT
Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State
Last week, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress announced its intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. Beijing’s disastrous decision is only the latest in a series of actions that fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms and China’s own promises to the Hong Kong people under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a UN-filed international treaty.
The State Department is required by the Hong Kong Policy Act to assess the autonomy of the territory from China. After careful study of developments over the reporting period, I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997. No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.
Hong Kong and its dynamic, enterprising, and free people have flourished for decades as a bastion of liberty, and this decision gives me no pleasure. But sound policy making requires a recognition of reality. While the United States once hoped that free and prosperous Hong Kong would provide a model for authoritarian China, it is now clear that China is modeling Hong Kong after itself.
The United States stands with the people of Hong Kong as they struggle against the CCP’s increasing denial of the autonomy that they were promised.
Letter to U.N.
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR JOHN BARSA LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL GUTERRES
For Immediate ReleaseMonday, May 18, 2020
Office of Press Relations
The United Nations Secretary-General
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
Thank you for your continued efforts to advance the purposes and principles of the United Nations (UN), including the sovereign equality of all its Member States, which the UN Charter established decades ago.
As the largest donor of global health and humanitarian assistance, the United States always has led the world through times of strife, turmoil, and uncertainty. The current pandemic of COVID-19 is no different. Thus far, of the $650.7 million allocated from supplemental funding by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to combat the pandemic globally, we have provided $45.3 million to UN agencies. This is a fraction of USAID’s overall financial support for the UN’s activities, which in Fiscal Year 2019 totaled more than $3.5 billion in funds disbursed.
As the UN and Member States around the world work to address the pandemic of COVID-19, I urge you, your staff, and the UN’s funds, programs, and specialized and technical agencies to stay focused on life-saving interventions. The delivery of essential health care is the first priority around the globe during this time. In addition, severe food shortages could represent a second, deadly impact of the pandemic in many countries. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan (Global HRP), and its $6.71 billion coordinated appeal, must remain focused on addressing the most urgent, concrete needs that are arising out of the pandemic.
Therefore, the UN should not use this crisis as an opportunity to advance access to abortion as an “essential service.” Unfortunately, the Global HRP does just this, by cynically placing the provision of "sexual and reproductive health services" on the same level of importance as food-insecurity, essential health care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation. Most egregious is that the Global HRP calls for the widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings.
Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States has made clear that we will “never tire of defending innocent life.” President Trump said in his address to the 74th UN General Assembly that the UN simply has “no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.” Indeed, the UN should not intimidate or coerce Member States that are committed to the right to life. To use the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification to pressure governments to change their laws is an affront to the autonomy of each society to determine its own national policies on health care. The United States stands with nations that have pledged to protect the unborn.
To achieve global unity toward this goal, it is essential that the UN’s response to the pandemic avoid creating controversy. Therefore, I ask that you remove references to "sexual and reproductive health," and its derivatives from the Global HRP, and drop the provision of abortion as an essential component of the UN’s priorities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Member States are deeply divided over the use of the term “sexual and reproductive health” and its derivatives, and it is among the most polarizing issues raised in UN negotiations. The Global HRP, and the activities of UN agencies and bodies moving forward, should use clear language and take clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world without promoting abortion. Now is not the time to add unnecessary discord to the COVID-19 response.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. The United States remains committed to working with you to preserve human life and defeat the pandemic of COVID-19. I wish you good health and safety during these challenging days.
Cc: The Honorable Kelly Craft, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Kissinger’s “Red China Gambit” Is Killing America
By Cliff Kincaid – May 25, 2020
Journalist Mike Allen’s father, Gary Allen, wrote the great book, Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State, describing how Henry Kissinger’s “Red China Gambit” included the abandonment of the free people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Kissinger’s power play was based on the false hope that China had abandoned communism.
Gary Allen described the Red Chinese as “unquestionably the bloodiest mass murderers in human history,” adding, “Red China practiced a smiling and beguiling diplomacy toward the West, while serving as the world's major pusher of drugs.”
Things haven’t changed. Today, in addition to the mass murder inflicted on the world by the coronavirus, the Red Chinese are the leading exporters of fentanyl. In addition, Red China backed North Korea’s war of aggression on South Korea. Casualties of the United States during the Korean War included 54,260 dead (of whom 33,665 were battle deaths), 92,134 wounded, and 8,176 listed as missing in action or prisoners of war.
Gary Allen examined how the world and Washington really work. “Gary Allen’s writings conveyed great distrust of the established order,” is how the New York Times put it. “He saw conspiracies in both parties, despised Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger for their internationalism and the ‘establishment media’ for enabling the ‘communist conspiracy.’”
On the other hand, Mike Allen was described in the article as someone with “a boyish and almost star-struck quality toward the assumed order.” He co-founded Axios, launched in January 2017 and based on the belief that “Media is broken, and too often a scam.”
Yet, Axios panders to the elites who have lucrative careers and lord over those who don’t. It was quick to solicit and get a $5 million small business loan under the Paycheck Protection Program designed to save small business. Then, under fire, it returned the loan, saying it found “an alternative source of capital.”
Mike’s father encouraged Mike’s involvement in the Boy Scouts, before the Scouts turned gay/trans and admitted girls, and he came out an Eagle Scout. That’s a fine achievement. I went through the same program and became an Eagle Scout, one of the proudest days of my and my father’s life. It taught me many lessons about truth and honesty.
In my view, Mike Allen should lose his schoolboy crush on the elites and subject the establishment to the scrutiny they deserve. He could start with deciphering Henry Kissinger’s April 3 Wall Street Journal column, in which he declares the U.S. must start “the urgent work of planning for a new epoch.” It’s the same New World Order he has been pushing for decades.
Or perhaps he could ask Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, the China reporter at Axios, to take a look. She has an impressive career, having previously served as a contributing reporter at Foreign Policy magazine, where she wrote about a Beijing-linked billionaire “funding policy research at Washington’s most influential institutions.”
In this very revealing article, she documented how the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) serves as “a registered foreign agent bankrolled by a high-ranking Chinese government official with close ties to a sprawling Chinese Communist Party apparatus that handles influence operations abroad, known as the ‘united front.’” That official is Tung Chee-hwa, the vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a government advisory body.
She examined how the CUSEF has “cooperated” on projects with numerous U.S. institutions, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the East-West Institute, the Carter Center, and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
Henry Kissinger just happens to serve as an “honorary adviser” to the CUSEF.
Except for the Foreign Policy magazine account and a story from a Taiwan journalist, noting how the Chinese Communist Party has been “covertly funding certain think tanks in Washington D.C.,” I couldn’t find any other serious journalistic treatments of this threat.
I did find an excellent report, “China’s Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States,” on how China uses “United Front” work to neutralize potential opposition to the policies and authority of the Chinese Communist Party. But this, too, failed to receive any significant media attention.
By the way, the Center for American Progress was founded by John Podesta, the head of Obama's first transition team who served as counselor to Obama as president (and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman in 2016). It has been supported by foundations or companies associated with such figures as George Soros, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg.
Even more importantly, the official Chinese news agency article, “Xi meets Obama, discusses China-U.S. ties,” reveals that, after the election of President Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Obama in Beijing. The British Guardian said that Chinese media “fawned” over Obama and Xi, dubbing the pair “veteran cadres”, a term usually applied to retired Communist officials.
It sounds like a story for Axios reporter Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian. Mike Allen should let her loose on that one. It could lead her back to what President Trump calls Obamagate.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
Americans Must Demand Justice in Obamagate
By Cliff Kincaid - May 24, 2020
As we remember those who served our country, fighting for the great American experiment in self-government and individual liberty, the fate of America’s constitutional republic hangs in the balance. This is not because of the threat posed by China but because of a seeming inability by our criminal justice system to hold lawbreakers and traitors accountable.
“I have a chance to break the Deep State” said President Trump in his interview with Sharyl Attkisson (pictured above left) on Sunday. Yet, his Attorney General Bill Barr says he doesn’t see grounds for prosecuting Obama and/or his Vice President Joe Biden for a criminal conspiracy to destroy the Trump presidency.
Attkisson, who was essentially forced out of CBS News for being too tough on the Obama administration, filed suit over illegal government surveillance of her activities. She had dared to report on Operation Fast and Furious, in which the Obama administration shipped guns to Mexico which were later used to kill U.S. border agent Brian Terry.
Attkisson was willing to confront the Deep State before the same forces tried to take down Trump. “You happen to be a victim of the Deep State,” Trump told her during the interview.
By contrast, Kimberley Strassel (pictured above right) of the Wall Street Journal wrote a May 18, 2017, column about the appointment of Russia-gate prosecutor Robert S. Mueller, saying the former FBI director was “as skilled and upright as they come” and insisted that “A Robert Mueller word-association game would go something like this: integrity, honor, respect, order, discipline, honesty, fairness.” She added that “…nobody doubts Mr. Mueller will lead as professional an investigation as he is capable of conducting.”
I doubted it. I wrote extensively about the fact that Mueller’s FBI bungled the post-9/11 anthrax case and fingered several innocent people. He was sued by an agency whistleblower. He followed up by ordering FBI training materials to ignore the role of the Islamist ideology that inspired the enemy.
Now, Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, is defending Barr, saying in a column, “Biden Will Answer for FBI Abuse,” that it is sufficient to hold Biden, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, accountable at the ballot box.
The Strassel column is just another indication that, unless ordinary citizens rise up and demand justice, Obama and Biden will not be held accountable for Obamagate. Trying to explain Barr’s decision not to prosecute Obama/Biden, Strassel says that “While their actions may not rise to a ‘crime,’ both men [Biden and Obama] may be guilty of an outrageous abuse of power. Such abuses require political accountability, through elections.” But Obama is not running for anything. He may be pulling the strings behind the Biden for president campaign, but he is not technically on the ballot.
This kind of “abuse of power” involves the attempted destruction of an elected government. In a previous column, “Republicans Don’t Dare Call It Treason,” I quoted various honest liberals and progressives as saying that Obamagate is a scandal that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy and even treason. Somehow, establishment conservative journalists like Strassel can’t see it that way.
The Wall Street Journal is willing to let Biden escape justice because he is being propped up for a presidential run and his puppet masters operate behind-the-scenes.
Her concluding paragraph is another excuse for doing nothing except wait for the elections. She says, “Americans can’t expect or want the Justice Department to settle political disputes through drummed-up criminal investigations. The country has a tried and true way of settling those fights: a vote.”
It is not a “drummed-up criminal investigation” when the evidence shows that the Obama-Biden administration used American intelligence and law enforcement agencies to sabotage the incoming Trump Administration and destroy the career and life of Trump National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn.
We have waited for over three years for the pieces of this puzzle to fall into place. Now that the evidence is emerging, Strassel wants America to wait for elections that the progressives intend to steal through mail-in ballots.
When Strassel and other conservatives like Andrew C. McCarthy praised Mueller, the left-wing forces in this country knew they had a green light to wreck Trump’s presidency with almost two years of legal harassment that failed to turn up any evidence of so-called Russian collusion.
Strassel changed her mind about Mueller over the course of his investigation, but I don’t remember a simple “I’m sorry” coming from her lips, in the form of a column or during her appearances on the Wall Street Journal show on Fox News.
In addition to initially failing to tell the truth about Mueller, and now failing to hold Attorney General Barr accountable for letting Obama/Biden off the hook, Strassel failed to appreciate the nature of the forces trying to take down Trump.
For example, in her column praising Mueller, she said, “In tapping Mr. Mueller as special counsel to look into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has certainly doused the political flames. Democrats were forced to tone down their chant for instant impeachment.”
In fact, it just wetted the appetite of Trump’s enemies to accelerate their campaign to destroy his presidency.
Nevertheless, she developed a reputation as a sophisticated critic of the political left. Her 2019 book, Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America, was described as an examination of how the left “has become dangerously reckless in its obstruction of President Trump.”
For his part, looking for friends anywhere he can find them, President Trump has tweeted about Strassel or retweeted her commentaries about Russia-gate. On April 18, 2019, he tweeted: “Kimberley Strassel should get the Pulitzer. She is a treasure (and I don't know her) who correctly called the Russia Hoax right from the start!”
Not really, Mr. President. She was wrong from the start about Mueller. She paved the way for Mueller’s legal malpractice.
Attkisson is the one who deserves the Pulitzer.
Now we learn that Mueller's former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann will headline a virtual fundraiser for the Biden campaign. Strassel wrote about him in her book on the Trump Haters, noting that he had attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party in 2016.
But Strassel thinks the American criminal justice system ought to leave Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden alone.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org
Biden accuser Tara Reade: “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes. And then he went down my skirt but then up inside it, and he penetrated me with his fingers. And he was kissing me at the same time.” Source
From the Biden Foundation archives:
Biden Foundation Announces Advisory Councils Focused on Ending Violence Against Women, Advancing LGBTQ Equality
Members named to the Advisory Council for Ending Violence Against Women include:
From the White House archives: About Vice President Biden's Efforts to End Violence Against Women
China, Not Fauci, Is the Enemy
By Cliff Kincaid – May 21, 2020
A “conservative” columnist recently called for Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx to be tried as criminals and imprisoned. This is crazy. American scientists and doctors are not the enemy. China is. And America can respond to this attack of the coronavirus by confiscating Chinese financial assets and property. Much of it is in California. It’s time for action.
Looking back, President Trump followed the advice of Fauci and Birx about locking down the economy, although he left most of this task to the governors of the 50 states. So, logically speaking, the columnist angry with Fauci and Birx should be advocating the jailing of the Commander-in-Chief because he took their advice. Such a course is lunacy. Trump did what made sense at the time.
Medical professionals can and should be second-guessed. There is also a need to investigate the collaboration of the Medical Deep State with China, including the millions of dollars that flowed to the Wuhan lab. But the finger-pointing ignores the ultimate source of the problem – Communist China.
As Americans, we should be united in our hatred and disgust for the Communist Chinese rulers. We should want to make them pay. How? The answer is simple -- by seizing their property in the United States. Much of that is in California.
To understand what we have to do, we have to remember how we got there.
In a difficult situation, brought on by China’s release of the virus, Trump was advised on a course of action he was told was necessary to avoid more than two million deaths. When he was looking for how the federal government should respond, he turned to people wo have handled other infectious diseases in the past and were on the government payroll. He turned to the government “experts,” Fauci, Birx, and others, in order to delay and contain the spread of the coronavirus. He did what anyone in that position would do. He had very little time, as a result of Chinese lies and cover-ups, to respond.
Fauci and Birx are not perfect, and there is legitimate criticism of the advice they gave to the president. In the past, for example, they both worked on an HIV/AIDS vaccine, a project 23 years in the making but is still a bust. Government decisions have been questionable, on such matters as to whether or not to wear a mask and how long the virus lives and spreads on surfaces or objects. One day, a careful review of their advice and whether it was correct will be done.
But it’s silly to fault President Trump for turning to these people. These experts are being attacked and threatened with jail time by conservatives upset with the economic damage and dislocation caused by the government response to coronavirus. The critics of Trump, on both the right and left, are losing sight of the real villain – the Chinese authorities.
Even now, despite the brouhaha over a vaccine, our “experts” do not yet completely understand the nature of this virus and its ability to spread and mutate, possibly making a vaccine unlikely or even impossible. Curiously, China destroyed early samples of the virus. We need Fauci and Birx, and many others, involved in finding a solution. Trump would be wise to expand his circle of authorities and go beyond the Medical Deep State. But that doesn’t mean the authorities he relied on initially should be banished to Siberia.
In the meantime, our leaders need to quickly consider a necessary response to the Chinese regime. One approach to China is to sue the corrupt and evil rulers. When it comes to suing the Chinese government, one of the few lawyers I would trust to do so in an aggressive manner is Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. Klayman isn’t content to file Freedom of Information requests; he goes for the jugular. His lawsuit against China demands $20 trillion in damages and he intends to make the Chinese Communists sweat blood in court. He would tie the communist lawyers into knots, which would be something to see. He would humiliate them. And the communists deserve to be humiliated in a public forum.
John Yoo, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and his co-author, Robert J. Delahunty, argue for other measures, such as the imposition of economic sanctions on Chinese officials, general tariffs on Chinese imports, restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S., and the expropriation of Chinese property in the United States.
“Conceivably,” they argue, “Washington could even cancel Chinese-held treasury debt and using the proceeds to create a trust fund that would compensate Americans harmed by the pandemic.”
Grzegorz Górny, a writer for the global publication Remix, did some digging into the controversy and points out that the U.S. Department of the Treasury clearly has the power to “confiscate Chinese assets in the U.S.” and “freeze all operations using American government obligations which were purchased by China…” The latter is estimated at $1.2 trillion. He concludes, “In one swift move, the U.S. may annul that debt and free itself from the Chinese loop.”
In looking for Chinese investments to expropriate, the place to go is California. “California became the number one recipient of Chinese FDI [foreign direct investment] in recent years, with more than $16 billion in 2016 alone,” notes a report from the Asia Society and the Rhodium Group. “Much of the investment has gone into two important areas – real estate and technology.” Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, the China reporter for Axios, assembled the facts and figures about Chinese aid-and-trade with the United States, confirming that California is “hooked” on China. Of the top 10 states with the highest net trade with China. California is number one by far.
Last September, Democratic Party Governor Gavin Newsom’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) announced the expansion of the China Trade & Investment Network (CTIN), in order to facilitate the state’s trade and investment efforts in China. “The trade relationship between California and China is one of the largest in the world, with two-way trade valued at $177 billion in 2018,” the release said.
Just a few months later China unleashed the virus on the world. That was quite an import for California.
Incredibly, Newsom made a nearly $1 billion deal to receive surgical masks from China to protect against the virus. They failed to arrive on time.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org