US taxpayers are being fooled found out tariff on Chinese goods are not paid by China, but by Americans through higher price.

Video: Forget Indo Pacific! Asia Pacific Is Not US Backyard Anymore! China’s third aircraft carrier is coming, and it may possess 5 or 6 carriers in the coming decades. 忘記印度太平洋！ 亞太地區不再是美國的後院！ 中國第三艘航母即將到來，未來幾十年可能擁有五六艘航母.
https://vimeo.com/668264976
https://youtu.be/Pg5ryeqlZWE
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/642394106983918/?d=n

US owned companies whether it is professional or otherwise, Chinese received censorship or termination for being friendly to China. I am sharing what my friend in Shanghai went through. 美資公司，無論是專業還是其他公司，中國人都因為對中國友好而受到審查或終止。 分享我在上海的朋友的經歷。

这是我给网信办发的信：希望国家能尽快完善对弱势群体维权保护支持的法律法规，公平，公证。还有对弱势群体举报内容的奖励机制

弱势群体：1.我就是一个受害者的最典型例子。我是领英的消费者（共消费2400多元），是领英的9年领英会员。自从香港暴动事件，我开始为国发声，于是领英从2019年9月18日就开始公开打压我，共封了我的5次账号。最后，当我要维权，维护我的正常中国公民网络主权，消费者权益时：我国的北京12345，北京金融局，给我的结果是：让我起诉领英。我起诉领英？ 我怎么能赢？按照我国现在的法律法规，我一个弱势群体起诉领英不可能赢.
例如案例：青岛律师段贵城起诉领英，败诉。总结：一些公开的中国领英会员起诉过领英的案例，大部分中国领英会员都是败诉。或者是撤诉。2.我在网上查到的案例是：韩国，美国，欧盟起诉微软的几乎所有案件，都是微软败诉。3。我在举报领英期间，为网信办，提供了大量的有效证据，花费了我的大量时间，精力，可是国家对我没用一点奖励机制，实属让我这个弱势群体心寒。4.弱势群体的另外案例“斯特拉男女车主”都遭到斯特拉再次起诉。阿里巴巴性侵事件女主，也遭到起诉。揭露震旦女教师的学生遭到网暴，揭露新疆为国发声的老外，德国女孩遭到网暴。

强势群体：复旦的教授公开发布有损国家利益形象的不当言论，反华言论，却没有遭到一点惩罚，没人处理。照样有名有利，名利双收，在中国过的日子滋润。公理何在？
还有在武汉任教的华人教授：在外网上，德国之声发表反华文章，言论，等等。都没用受到应该有的惩罚和处置。 重点：他和复旦那位都是教授。这样的影响大不大？重不重要？公平吗？公理何在？
还有那些宣传素食的明星：举例：张静初，陶虹。她们的言论影响大不大？国家给这些明星处罚了吗？

总结：中国的弱势群体和强势群体的保护机制，惩罚机制，非常的需要完善。

谢谢。
此致

US decided NOT boycotting Beijing Olympics sending 46 diplomats 美國言行不一, 吹水治國, 抵制北京冬奧是謊言, 46美國外交官申請獲中國簽證.

A totalitarian Gov’t w/2 warring factions controlled by 1% elites, Fortune 500 companies and military industrial complex.
美國是假民主獨裁國家由二個黑幫控制,利字行頭,你死我活,合作:天荒夜談

The proper term is karma. A majority of the 1,000 cases reported to the Gov’t can be explained by environmental causes, undiagnosed medical conditions or stress, CIA officials said. 恰當的術語是美國壞事做盡的報應, 天收你. 在向政府報告的 1000 例病例中，大多數可以用環境原因、未確診的醫療狀況或壓力來解釋，C.I.A. 官員說，描述了一項綜合研究的中期調查結果.

Video: What Do American Athletes Think of Beijing Olympics ? Adrian Adams | Team USA Bobsled 美國運動員如何看待北京奧運會？ 阿德里安·亞當斯 | 美國雪橇隊

https://vimeo.com/668061096
https://youtu.be/22nw-MA_pCE
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/642093823680613/?d=n

In today’s video I sit down with Team USA Member Adrian Adams who has traveled to Beijing for the Olympics test event and shares his thoughts on Beijing 2022. Thank you to Boentiancheng Sports Consultants for sponsoring this video and supporting Olympic athletes.

Asian Times: NYT* equates China’s health workers with Adolf Eichmann, a twisted narrative by a paper unhinged by China’s success with Covid-19 《亞洲時報》：《*紐約時報》將中國的衛生工作者等同於阿道夫·艾希曼一篇因中國在新冠病毒上取得成功而精神錯亂的論文扭曲了敘述. By JOHN WALSH, MD, JAN 19, 2022

In a article on the front page of The New York Times on January 13, reporter Li Yuan equated the public health and medical personnel behind China’s successful battle against Covid-19 in the city of Xian to Adolf Eichmann, a principal architect of the Holocaust. The article’s opening sentence views these personnel as typical of “the millions of people who work diligently toward” containing Covid-19 in China.

The anti-Covid campaign in Xian, a city of 13 million, has terminated the spread of Covid-19 without a single death and limited its spread to about 2,000 cases. The Nazi Holocaust designed and managed by Eichmann resulted in the extermination of millions of Jews.

The piece takes aim at the millions of Chinese who have worked tirelessly to do the rapid mass testing, tracing, quarantining and vaccinations and to staffing the lockdowns including ensuring that those under lockdown were supplied with necessities of life.

As a result of their work China has reported about 100,000 cases Covid-19 and fewer than 5,000 deaths. The mortality count has been verified by a count of excess deaths in a peer-reviewed article by a team from Oxford University and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the prestigious British Medical Journal; it is summarized here for the layman.

Peter Hessler, who was living and teaching in Chengdu, Sichuan, during the first of the lockdowns, described these workers as follows in a New Yorker piece in March 2020:

“When I asked if there had been much resistance to the new policies, he [the Communist Party official in charge of the lockdown in Hessler’s neighborhood in Chengdu] shook his head. ‘Ninety percent of the population agrees,’ he said. ‘We have some people who think it’s not convenient, and they want to go out and play mah-jongg or something. But most people follow the rules.’

“From what I had seen, he wasn’t exaggerating. The overwhelming compliance was one of the most impressive features of the lockdown, along with the dedication of grassroots officials. In Wuhan, the government had sent 1,800 teams of epidemiologists, each consisting of at least five people, to trace the contacts of infected citizens. The WHO report noted that the containment effort had been possible because of ‘the deep commitment of the Chinese people to collective action.’” (Emphasis added.)

Contrast that with this from Wikipedia’s entry on Eichmann:

“Eichmann and his staff became responsible for Jewish deportations to extermination camps, where the victims were gassed. Germany invaded Hungary in March 1944, and Eichmann oversaw the deportation of much of the Jewish population. Most of the victims were sent to Auschwitz concentration camp, where about 75% were murdered upon arrival.

“By the time the transports were stopped in July 1944, 437,000 of Hungary’s 725,000 Jews had been killed. Dieter Wisliceny testified at Nuremberg that Eichmann told him he would ‘leap laughing into the grave because the feeling that he had 5 million people on his conscience would be for him a source of extraordinary satisfaction.’”

How can the NYT’s Li Yuan equate the two? The polemic used to justify the equation deserves examination, because it demonstrates how the paper’s construction of the narrative of the day often works.

The tone and target are set by the online headline, which reads ominously, “The Army of Millions Who Enforce China’s Zero-Covid Policy, at All Costs.” (Emphasis added.) Later the case for the Eichmann equation begins as follows:

“The government has the help of a vast army of community workers who carry out the policy [of dynamic zero Covid] with zeal…. The tragedies in Xian have prompted some Chinese people to question how those enforcing the quarantine rules can behave like this.”

What are these tragedies? The author comes up with three presented near the very beginning of the piece.

First was a man with chest pains whose hospital admission was delayed by six hours and later died of a heart attack; the bureaucratic delay related to his living in a medium-risk district.

Second, a pregnant woman whose admission was also delayed because her Covid test appeared invalid; after admission she miscarried.

Third, a young man who was violating a curfew and got into an altercation with security guards.

Certainly, each of the first two these events is a tragic and unacceptable error. The third is hard to judge – if it is true. But in a city of many millions threatened with a deadly outbreak of the Delta variant of Covid, there were bound to be some mistakes. And if these are the worst of them, then it would seem that praise should be heaped on Xian’s hospital and public health workers.

Nevertheless, the first two of these incidents caused an outcry far and wide over the Internet, leading officials to take action. (Note that the disclosure and widespread discussion online belie the idea that there is no opening for criticism in China.)

The mass complaints led to the temporary closure of the hospitals to examine their procedures and ultimately to the punishing of those in charge. A national declaration made it clear that no patient was to be turned away from a hospital under any circumstances.

Building on these three anecdotes and neglecting any context up to this point, reporter Li continues:

“‘The banality of evil’ is a concept Chinese intellectuals often invoke in moments like Xian. It was coined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who wrote that Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust, was an ordinary man who was motivated by ‘an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement.’

“Chinese intellectuals are struck by how many officials and civilians – often driven by professional ambition or obedience – are willing to be the enablers of authoritarian policies.”

Who are these unnamed “intellectuals”? That is not clear. Certainly, there are a good many Chinese intellectuals in the country and abroad who are proud of China’s handling of the pandemic.

In summary, the anatomy of the article is a headline, then a cherry-picked set of anecdotes to set the tone. It is important that this mood be set as arrestingly and strikingly as possible. The most outrageous exceptions to the rule must be presented as though they are the norm. Finally based on these anecdotes, far-fetched conclusions are drawn based on the assumption that the anecdotes are representative.

Later on, buried deep in the article some context may be slipped in as a way to cover the writer’s derriere. Noam Chomsky many years ago suggested reading the NYT’s articles beginning with the end, since that is where the real information may lie. Often, any such qualifications are left out, resulting in a giant lie of omission.

That is how it is done.

There is a bright spot, however. Many if not most of the comments posted online, at least at the time of my reading, found Li’s polemic to be baseless, even downright absurd. Americans are not so easily deceived as the NYT editors may think. This is heartening, because the daily demonization of China in the US mass media, relentlessly and prominently so in the NYT, is a prelude to conflict and war.

As author Caitlin Johnstone tells us, “Before they drop the bombs, they drop the narrative.” The NYT is carpet-bombing us Americans with an anti-China narrative these days.

One must ask in the end, what is the animus that drives this anti-China diatribe? Is it fear of the loss of the US role as global hegemon? Is it the self-righteousness and arrogance of the Exceptionalists? Or is it simply careerism in the service of an evil agenda, the very thing Hannah Arendt deplored?

John V Walsh, until recently a professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for Asia Times, EastBayTimes/Mercury News, LA Progressive, Antiwar.com, CounterPunch and others.

Video: China’s Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon 国产战机歼-20像一把尖刀, 要发挥好尖刀的作用, 首先得练就刀尖, 空军航空兵某旅, 就是这样一支尖刀部队, 在磨砺“尖刀”的路上, 旅长李凌和他的“刀尖” 经历了什么？
https://vimeo.com/667989229
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/641985433691452/?d=n

Both WhatsApp and Instagram owned by Facebook will turn over address-book contacts for a targeted user as well as other WhatsApp users who have the targeted individual in their contacts, according to the FBI. 據 FBI 稱，Facebook 旗下的 WhatsApp 和 Instagram 都將為目標用戶以及其他聯繫人中包含目標個人的 WhatsApp 用戶提供通訊錄聯繫人。

They also provide backdoors to NSA to spy on anyone, domestic and foreign without a court warrant.

*WhatsApp has another problem, image and video will eats up your smart phone storage.

Based on discussion with technology experts, all US made network equipments have backdoors including all smart phones.

The reason why US banned Huawei Equipments are 1) Huawei equipments do not have backdoors 2) If friends and foes adopted Huawei equipments, US could no longer spy on everyone and anyone at will.

Telegram does not have all of the above problems.

他們還為美國國家安全局提供後門，以便在沒有法庭令的情況下監視國內外的任何人。

WhatsApp 還有一個問題，圖像和視頻會佔用你的智能手機存儲空間。

我們根據與技術專家的討論，所有美國製造的網絡設備都有後門，包括所有智能手機。

美國禁止華為設備的原因是1）華為設備沒有後門2）如果美國朋友和敵人都採用了華為設備，美國就不能再隨意監視每個人和任何人了。

*Telegram 不存在上述所有問題。