Rep. Adam Schiff Sued by Physicians for Censoring Vaccine Debate

 

 

American Association of Physicians & Surgeons

 

 

“In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Jan 15, 2020, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with Katarina Verrelli, on behalf of herself and others who seek access to vaccine information, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Adam Schiff has abused government power and infringed on their free-speech rights.

“Who appointed Congressman Adam Schiff as Censor-in-Chief?” asks AAPS General Counsel.  “No one did, and he should not be misusing his position to censor speech on the internet.”

In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.

Within 24 hours of Schiff’s letter to Amazon dated Mar 1, 2019, Amazon removed the popular videos Vaxxed and Shoot ’Em Up: the Truth About Vaccines from its platform for streaming videos, depriving members of the public of convenient access.

Under a policy announced in May 2019, Twitter includes a pro-government disclaimer placed above search results for an AAPS article on vaccine mandates: “Know the Facts. To make sure you get the best information on vaccination, resources are available from the US Department of Health and Human Services.” The implication of this disclaimer is that if information is not on a government website, then it is somehow less credible.

On Facebook, a search for an AAPS article on vaccines, which previously would  lead directly to the AAPS article, now produces search results containing links to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visits to the AAPS website have declined significantly since March 2019, both in absolute terms and relative to the decline that would result from a story’s losing its recency.

“The internet is supposed to provide free access to information to people of different opinions,” stated AAPS Executive Director, Jane Orient, M.D.

Dr. Orient continues, “AAPS is not ‘anti-vaccine,’ but rather supports informed consent, based on an understanding of the full range of medical, legal, and economic considerations relevant to vaccination and any other medical intervention, which inevitably involves risks as well as benefits.”

AAPS argues in the complaint against Rep. Schiff: “The First Amendment protects the rights of free speech and association. Included within the right of free speech is a right to receive information from willing speakers. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional, and courts analyze such restrictions under strict scrutiny.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.

“Amazon Took Over Collecting Illegal Sales Tax for the States”

Secure the Republic

“If you are the elected officials in a town or city, DO NOT support any resolution supporting a federal internet sales tax (especially (coming from Municipal League)! If your area has passed such an oppressive resolution, please reconsider, and withdraw this life-altering, fascist legislation. Brutal taxation chaos is staring us straight in the face! If Arkansans think we have been taxed enough already, just wait until the Streamline Governing Board gets through with us! “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Secure Arkansas mentioned in our last article that we would be writing an alert very soon about Amazon and their illegal collection of the UNconstitutional internet state sales tax, so here is a brief introduction followed by our thoughts and plenty of documentation (as always).

For years, internet shoppers have been able to make online purchases without paying sales tax — as long as the company from whom one was purchasing didn’t have a NEXUS (a physical presence) in that shopper’s state. Brick-and-mortar companies have fought this because they believed it gave internet companies an unfair advantage. However, it seems that because some states think they’re losing money since sales tax isn’t being collected, they have pushed harder for Congress to do something, and – in case you haven’t noticed – Amazon has actually started collecting sales tax on internet purchases here in Arkansas as of April 2017. They collect that sales tax VOLUNTARILY which is illegal and goes against the Supreme Court ruling in Quill v. North Dakota (read more about that below). And, if illegal sales tax collection isn’t enough… according to this Fortune magazine article, “A Missouri retail lobbyist speaking to Bloomberg BNA in January said that Main Street stores still wanted a national law standardizing sales tax policy for online sellers.” (Wait a minute… Whatever happened to states’ rights and state sovereignty???)

From where is the push coming for taxation — besides the states? Keep reading…

Four To Eight Year Olds Searched For Weapons! (UPDATE)

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Interesting news.

The Rutherford Institute site explains exactly why the American People cannot question these searches:

A federal court has dismissed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute challenging the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) airport security screening policy of requiring air passengers to either submit to virtual strip searches involving advanced imaging technology (AIT), which exposes intimate details of a person’s body to government agents, or submit to highly invasive pat down searches during which TSA agents may go so far as to reach inside a traveler’s pants. U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., justified his dismissal by declaring that the court has no jurisdiction over the case, citing a secret order issued by the TSA which requires that the D.C. Court of Appeals hear any reviews of TSA orders. Insisting that it contains “sensitive security information,” the government has yet to make public the order embodying the TSA enhanced screening procedures.

Secret orders?