欢迎加入中国茉莉花行动部落

我们来自同一个家园,那里毒草丛生。
我们来自同一个部落,那里毒蛇横行。
我们播种茉莉,为了呼吸自由的芳香。
我们移植鲜花,为了拥抱春天的曙光。

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Huawei spies for China, says ex-CIA head

Huawei spies for China, says ex-CIA head

Christopher Joye

The former head of the US Central ­Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, Michael Hayden, believes Chinese telecommunications manufacturer Huawei Technologies is a significant security threat to Australia and the US, has spied for the Chinese government, and intelligence agencies have hard evidence of its activities.
The retired four-star general told The Australian Financial Review it was his “professional judgment” that ­Huawei supplied sensitive intelligence to ­Chinese officials, an assessment that backs up the federal government’s decision in 2011 to ban it from helping build the national broadband network. ­
Critics said the move was an over­reaction that hurt relations with China.
General Hayden said Western intelligence agencies had information about Huawei’s clandestine activities and it had, at a minimum, “shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with,” he said. “I think that goes without saying – it’s one reality,” he said.
Federal Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm ­Turnbull has said the Coalition would revisit a decision to ban Huawei from the national broadband network if it won government.
Photo: Andrew Meares

General Hayden’s comments are the first time a leading Western official has categorically stated in public that there is evidence to back claims that Huawei, the world’s largest telecoms infrastructure supplier, has spied for the Chinese state.
The comments are likely to be damaging to the company, which has embarked on an extensive lobbying campaign in Australia and elsewhere to promote itself as a low-cost and reliable equipment maker independent of the Chinese government. Huawei’s global cyber security officer, John Suffolk, described Mr Hayden’s comments as tired, unsubstantiated and defamatory, and said the company’s critics should present any evidence publicly.
“It’s time to put up or shut up,” said Mr Suffolk, a former chief information officer of the UK government.

Coalition will revisit NBN decision


Huawei has funded more trips to China by federal politicians – mostly Coalition MPs – than any other Chinese company, according to the parliamentary pecuniary interests register.
The Coalition’s communications spokesman, Malcolm ­Turnbull, and deputy leader, Julie Bishop, have said they would revisit the NBN decision if the Coalition won government.
General Hayden, in his most extensive interview since he left the CIA, said the security risks of hiring Huawei were too great for governments.
“It’s simply not acceptable for ­Huawei to be creating the backbone of the domestic telecommunications network, period,” he said.
“Frankly, this is where I think the state has a role to play – to ensure we don’t make decisions that compromise the foundations of our national security.”
Huawei Australia’s chairman, John Lord, recently told the Financial Review that “Malcolm Turnbull is making positive statements about us and that is a good position for us to be in”.
Photo: Andrew Meares

General Hayden is the only person to have led America’s two highest-profile intelligence services. He ran the NSA, which collects information from ­electronic sources, between 1999 and 2005 and the CIA from 2006 to 2009. He noted he could not comment on specific classified matters.
General Hayden is a visiting professor at George Mason University, a principal at the Chertoff Group, a security consultancy, and a director of Motorola Solutions, which provides radios, smart tags, barcode scanners and safety products for law enforcement agencies, and does not regard Huawei as a direct competitor. A Huawei Australia spokesman said it does compete against Motorola Solutions, albeit with different products.
Huawei, which is China’s second-largest company, has been dogged by controversy in its efforts to sell telecommunications infrastructure to the Australian, Indian, American, European, UK, Canadian and New Zealand markets.
Since the Financial Review reported in March 2012 that Huawei was banned from helping build the NBN on the advice of security agencies, the company has worked hard to improve its image in Australia. 

Turnbull ‘making positive statements’


The director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, David Irvine, has personally briefed Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop on the company. Mr Turnbull said ASIO didn’t disclose the top-secret advice it gave to the government.
Huawei Australia’s chairman, John Lord, recently told the Financial Review that “Malcolm Turnbull is making positive statements about us and that is a good position for us to be in compared to 18 months ago”.
“I think the board and management has been quite successful opening up and showing people there is nothing in Huawei other than a very, very smart company that can bring benefits to Australia,” Mr Lord said.
Former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer is a member of Huawei Australia’s board. He wrote last year that “Huawei is a tribute to capitalism’s creativity”.
James Lewis, a director of the ­Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and former State Department official specialising in commercial technology risk, said General Hayden’s remarks reflected the view of the US government.
The CIA says that Huawei’s chairman, Sun Yafang, previously worked for the Ministry of State Security, China’s foreign intelligence service.
Photo: Bloomberg

“Officials within several agencies have privately told me that Huawei is a national security threat,” he said.
“While you hear rumours of the evidence, it has never come out in public before.”
General Hayden said that given the “over-arching national security risks a foreign company building your national telecoms networks creates, the burden of proof is on Huawei.”
Huawei has fallen “well short” of meeting the test, he said.
“These guys are not even transparent to themselves,” he said. “There’s no transparency around who appoints the board or who controls the ownership of the business.
“And there’s no independent ­Chinese ­government oversight committee that could give us confidence that Huawei would not do what they promised not to do.”
The CIA says that Huawei’s chairman, Sun Yafang, previously worked for the Ministry of State Security, China’s foreign intelligence service.

Hayden approached to join Huawei’s board


The company’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, was a deputy director in the People’s Liberation Army’s Information Engineering Academy, which is responsible for telecommunications research. He was elected to the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1982.
General Hayden said he was approached to join Huawei’s American board. “Two or three years ago Huawei was trying to establish a pretty significant footprint here,” he said. “And they were trying to get people like me to endorse their presence in the US.
“I reviewed Huawei’s briefing paper. But God did not make enough slides on Huawei to convince me that having them involved in our critical communications infrastructure was going to be OK. This was my considered view, based on a four-decade career as an intelligence officer.”
Former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer, a member of Huawei Australia’s board, wrote last year that “Huawei is a tribute to capitalism’s creativity”.


America’s Congressional Intelligence Committee and Britain’s ­Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee recently published reports concluding Huawei is a security risk to domestic phone networks, although they say it spied for China.
“I understand that this can be tough on business in Australia and the US because we’re taking the lowest bidder out of the competition,” General Hayden said. “But this isn’t very hard for us to do in the security domain: it’s almost reflexive, given what we believe.”
In a public hearing of the Australian Parliament’s intelligence committee last September, Mr Lord, ­Huawei Australia’s chairman, confirmed the company had been designated a “national champion” of strategic significance by the Chinese state.
Under aggressive questioning, Mr Lord also confirmed Huawei was a network provider to Iran, and con­tinues to provide it with tele­communications services.
In 2001 a Huawei representative revealed the company supplied equipment for the PLA’s first national telecoms network, which it reportedly maintained and upgraded.

READ NEXT:

Spy agencies ban Lenovo PCs on security concerns

Christopher Joye, Paul Smith and John Kerin
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/spy_agencies_ban_lenovo_pcs_on_security_HVgcKTHp4bIA4ulCPqC7SL


Computers manufactured by the world’s biggest personal computer maker, Lenovo, have been banned from the “secret” and ‘‘top secret” ­networks of the intelligence and defence services of Australia, the US, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, because of concerns they are vulnerable to being hacked.

Multiple intelligence and defence sources in Britain and Australia confirmed there is a written ban on computers made by the Chinese company being used in “classified” networks.

The ban was introduced in the mid-2000s after intensive laboratory testing of its equipment allegedly documented “back-door” hardware and “firmware” vulnerabilities in Lenovo chips. A Department of Defence spokesman confirmed Lenovo ­products have never been accredited for Australia’s secret or top secret ­networks.

The classified ban highlights concerns about security threats posed by “malicious circuits” and insecure firmware in chips produced in China by companies with close government ties. Firmware is the interface be­tween a computer’s hardware and its operating system.

Lenovo, which is headquartered in Beijing, acquired IBM’s PC business in 2005.

IBM continues to sell servers and mainframes that are accredited for secret and top-secret networks. A Defence spokesman said Lenovo had never sought accreditation.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government entity, owns 38 per cent of Legend Holdings, which in turn owns 34 per cent of Lenovo and is its largest shareholder.

Malicious modifications to ­Lenovo’s circuitry


AFR Weekend has been told British intelligence agencies’ laboratories took a lead role in the research into Lenovo’s products.

Members of the British and ­Australian defence and intelligence communities say that malicious modifications to ­Lenovo’s circuitry – beyond more typical vulnerabilities or “zero-days” in its software – were discovered that could allow people to remotely access devices without the users’ knowledge. The alleged presence of these hardware “back doors” remains highly classified.

In a statement, Lenovo said it was unaware of the ban. The company said its “products have been found time and time again to be reliable and secure by our enterprise and public sector customers and we always ­welcome their engagement to ensure we are meeting their security needs”.

Lenovo remains a significant supplier of computers for “unclassified” government networks across western nations, including Australia and New Zealand’s defence departments.

A technology expert at the ­Washington-based Brookings ­In­stitution, Professor John Villasenor, said the globalisation of the semi-conductor market has “made it not only possible but inevitable that chips that have been intentionally and maliciously altered to contain hidden ‘Trojan’ circuitry will be inserted into the supply chain.

“These Trojan circuits can then be triggered months or years later to launch attacks,” he said.

Hardware back doors can be very hard to detect


IT security industry analyst at tech research firm IBRS, James Turner, said hardware back doors are very hard to detect if well designed.

They were often created to look like a minor design or manufacturing fault, he said. To avoid detection, they are left latent until activated by a remote transmission.

“Most organisations do not have the resources to detect this style of infiltration. It takes a highly specialised laboratory to run a battery of tests to truly put hardware and ­software through its paces,” Mr Turner said. “The fact that Lenovo kit is barred from classified networks is significant, and something the ­private sector should look at closely.”

Professor Villasenor said malicious circuitry known as “kill-switches” can be used to stop devices working and to establish back doors. French defence contractors reportedly installed kill-switches into chips that can be remotely tripped if their products fall into the wrong hands.

AFR Weekend has been told the electronic eavesdropping arms of the “five eyes” western intelligence alliance, including the National Security Agency in the US, GCHQ in the UK, and the Defence Signals Directorate in Australia, have physically ­connected parts of their secret and top secret computer networks to allow direct communications between them. This means that security bans on the use of products within the secret networks are ­normally implemented across all five nations. Two commonly used suppliers are Dell and Hewlett-Packard.

The ban on Lenovo computers also applies to Britain’s domestic and foreign security services, MI5 and MI6, and their domestic equivalents: the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Secret Intelligence ­Service.

Not connected with foreign ­counterparts


In contrast to the other ­agencies, ASIO’s top secret network, called “TSNet”, is compartmentalised and not connected with foreign ­counterparts because of its counter-intelligence role.

All these secret-level defence and intelligence networks are “air-gapped”, which means they are physically separated from the internet to minimise security risks. ASIO, ASIS, and DSD are colloquially known as Channel 10, The Other DFAT and The Factory. An academic expert on computer hardware implants, Professor Farinaz ­Koushanfar at Rice University’s Adaptive Computing and Embedded Systems Lab, said the NSA was “incredibly concerned about state-sponsored malicious circuitry and the counterfeit circuitry found on a widespread basis in US defence ­systems”.

“I’ve personally met with people inside the NSA who have told me that they’ve been working on numerous real-world cases of malicious implants for years,” she said.

“But these are all highly classified programs.”

Australia’s defence department runs three networks managed by the Chief Information Officer Group: the Defence Restricted Network; the Defence Secret Network; and the Top Secret Network.

The DRN is not classified and is linked to the internet via secure gateways. The DSN and TSN are air-gapped and off limits to Lenovo devices. An official with clearance to access all three networks can switch between them using a diode, called the Interactive Link, connected to a single computer. Previously officials used multiple desktops connected to individual networks.

Anti-China trade sentiment


In 2006 it was disclosed that the US State Department had decided not to use 16,000 new Lenovo computers on classified networks because of security concerns.

The change in procurement policy was attributed to anti-China trade sentiment after ­Lenovo’s acquisition of IBM’s PC business.

Some experts argue that blocking specific companies from classified networks is not a panacea for security threats given the global nature of supply chains.

Many western vendors have semiconductor fabrication plants, or “foundries”, based in China, which exposes them to the risk of interference.

Huawei Technologies made the same argument in response to the Australian government’s decision to exclude it from the National Broadband Network. Huawei says a better approach would be to evaluate all products in a single forum overseen by security agencies.

The Lenovo revelations follow allegations in The Australian Financial Review last week by the former head of the CIA and NSA, Michael Hayden, that Huawei spies for the Chinese government. Huawei officials and China’s Australian embassy strenuously denied these claims.

READ NEXT:
◾Hacking the hardware
◾Lenovo shares jump after surge in earnings
◾Huawei spies for China, says ex-CIA head
◾China denies Huawei spied for state
◾Interview with former CIA, NSA chief Michael Hayden

Monday, July 29, 2013

ZT: 薄熙来疑与中共达成护子协议 瓜瓜入读哥大

薄熙来疑与中共达成护子协议 瓜瓜入读哥大

email: gb2468@columbia.com

哥大学生信息系统,显示薄瓜瓜所在学院、学生编号及其个人邮箱

根据美国哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)网上学籍信息显示,一位名叫“Bo Guagua”的学生在该校法学院法律系注册就读。考虑到这一名字重名的可能性很小,外界纷纷猜测,此人即为中共前重庆市委书记、前政治局委员薄熙来之子。但哥伦比亚大学校方并未确认薄瓜瓜已在该校注册就读。

到目前为止,薄熙来之子薄瓜瓜本人并未对此作出回应。

分析人士认为,鉴于薄瓜瓜母亲薄谷开来身陷囹圄,其父薄熙来又面临审判,按照一般人的逻辑,薄瓜瓜在国外继续求学是个最好的选择,也可以在国外更好的环境中打磨自己的学业。分析人士人也称,可以推论的是,薄熙来与薄谷开来的海外资产需要有人打理。

据称,哥大法学院是美国学费最为昂贵的法学院,2013-2014学年的学费为57,838美元,该学院毕业生毕业时的平均贷款为141,607美元。据薄瓜瓜可能的同学称,薄瓜瓜有家族的财力为支持,这在哥大并非罕见之事。

此前有报道称,薄熙来为保护其子已经与中共达成协议。

7月25日,据大陆官媒新华社消息,原政治局委员、重庆市委书记薄熙来涉嫌受贿、贪污、滥用职权犯罪一案,“经依法指定管辖,今日已由山东省济南市人民检察院向济南市中级人民法院提起公诉”,“依法应当以受贿罪、贪污罪、滥用职权罪追究刑事责任,并予以数罪并罚”。

有分析人士认为,从起诉书上“数罪并罚”之类的请求,检方有求重判之意。薄熙来有可能面临无期徒刑、死缓甚至是死刑。也有媒体分析认为,薄熙来有可能获刑17年或18年。

Saturday, July 27, 2013

晒晒赵岩和叶宁的下流文章

原文网址:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_6605.html

叶宁曾经是赵岩的左膀右臂,曾经追随赵岩,甚至是不惜给赵岩拎包,有图为证:

叶宁手里紧紧抓住赵岩的绿色书包和赵岩的围巾,就象是抓到了一个救命稻草。


叶宁鞍前马后服侍赵岩,是赵岩的马前卒外加马后炮。

还有录像为证:


赵家军有一个赵家军军旗,上面用中英文写着:

“强烈要求胡锦涛主席还我诉权! 前 New York Times 记者 Yan Zhao”。

叶宁隔三差五就到联合国门前去高举这个赵家军军旗,参加赵家军的升旗仪式!

近来,赵岩已经被我揭露得体无完肤,不敢抛头露面,赵岩甚至是被他的中共上司严厉批评,批评他违法中共国安纪律,一张大嘴巴到处乱讲乱说,泄露了许多机密,使得许多中共间谍被无辜暴露,特别是使得中共派驻北美的最大特务头子暴露并被FBI逮捕。中共下令赵岩回国接受审查。赵岩担心回国后会被中共清算,因而拒绝回国。

唇亡齿寒,兔死狐悲。赵岩受到中共追杀,叶宁是赵岩的老部下,曾经同赵岩狼狈为奸,作恶多端。叶宁自然也是担心被中共清算。为了挽救败局,叶宁还在千方百计地为赵岩两肋插刀,为赵岩鸣不平,并且为赵岩来辱骂我。我不妨在此转发几篇叶宁的辱骂文章。

赵岩自封为“纽约时报记者”、“世界第一影评家”,叶宁被赵岩誉为是“享誉中外的世界知名交响乐作曲家”,北美第一华人大律师。这两位都自称是中国“公知 ”“母知”。可这俩世界知名的“公知 ”“母知”戴上面具后就是粗言秽语,粗俗下流。下面的图片中列出一些他们辱骂我的粗话脏话。


赵岩和叶宁用各种笔名在中文网站上对我进行造谣污蔑和人身攻击。这是他们在2013年6月26日在东西南北网站对我进行攻击的部分脏贴。我从来就不曾在这个网站上发表这些文章。那些以我的名字发在这里的文章都不是我贴出的,而是其他网友转贴的。赵岩及其喽罗们就是在这些网站上自说自话,对我进行造谣诽谤。可见这些中共爪牙的人品和手段。

也就是在2013年6月26日,叶宁注册了推特。马上,叶宁就得到了北风温云超的大力推介。从叶宁发出的这五篇推文来看,叶宁是急于为江泽民辩护,同时,叶宁正在配合赵岩深揭温家宝的27亿贪腐,狠批胡锦涛的万亿贪腐。

这几篇推文暴露出叶宁正在联手赵岩、北风温云超,他们将有一系列大动作,这目的无外乎是为拯救周永康和薄熙来。让我们拭目以待,看看叶宁、赵岩、北风们还能玩出什么花样来。



下面这篇文章是叶宁的手笔。

鸡毛蒜皮,同室操戈,何必下此狠手——与刘钢先生商榷
——叶宁——
刘钢先生:

不知道你注意到没有有人以XXX的名义公开发表如此妖魔化赵岩先生的长篇文章,其行为之乖张,文字之卑劣,心理之阴暗,理智之昏聩,实在达到顶峰造极,无以复加的地步。须知此人如此痛下杀手的对象,是一个在你四面受敌,孤立无援,身处险境时一再为你着急,情真意切的着急,对你施以援手,实实在在的援手,情同兄弟手足的友人。如果此人不是你,请你在阅读我回复该文时使用的第二人称变成第三人称。并请多多包涵我判断失误的过失。

你我之间,原本并无深交,是赵岩在你遭到摩根斯坦利银行秉承中共旨意,对你突然袭击下狠手时,也因为接到你的紧急求援电话时,才在并不完全明白事情到底严重到何种程度的情况下,一再催促我去帮助你,救你脱困。你一向自视甚高,自认是中共锁定的战略对手,如果赵岩真如你栽赃诬陷的那样是所谓“中共特务”,会为你的受困表达出如此发自内心,感同身受的着急?

紧接着,你因为追求小曾,和同为你们两人的房东打得不亦乐乎,双方抢着报警,这又是赵岩,搭上了我,冒着暴风雨,打的赶来调解这场显为无聊的纠纷,为的是和警察抢时间,以免此地素质良莠不齐的警察不分青红皂白,把你们吵架的良方都铐进去。是我,也是赵岩的意思,立即电告警方阻挡他们把警车开到现场。也是我和赵岩,给同是民运人士的房东,塞了一百美元,名为补你那几天租用一个客厅床位的房费的任何可能的或根本不存在的差额,免得又起事端。无非是为了息事宁人,更多的考虑难道不是着意于保护你吗?这种事情,如果不是你这次如此行为无状,我根本就不会提及,你可能也不完全了解,因为当时你又钻到小曾的单间去了。

如果赵岩是共产党特务,而又如此发自内心地保守你,呵护你,心疼你,那只有一个解释,就是你也是共产党特务,出于物伤其类的悲悯心或者任务观念,才一再这么这么实诚地帮助你。如果赵岩不是共产党特务,你也心知肚明与此,却硬要为了一己那点小鸡肚肠,莫名其妙的无名火,恣意妄为,往你本因情同手足的兄长头上泼洒脏水,下手如此不知轻重,无端造谣诬蔑,形同疯狗,你的为人,你的人格品行实在是出了大问题了。

我怀疑在你幻觉中是否真把赵岩当成一个和你争抢小曾的情敌了?这未免太过滑稽。当日赵岩拉我去房东处搭救你时,早就知道你和小曾的恋情了。如果赵岩和你一样小鸡肚肠,重色轻友,那本因让你出洋相才符合逻辑。之前赵岩接到饭局邀请,就非要拉上我,房东一大堆人一起吃饭,为得就是预防你那点小鸡肚肠乱开无轨电车,疑神疑鬼。

你应该明白,在色友两者之间孰轻孰重,你和赵岩实在是天壤之别。没法比。那天你去华府搞抗议,赵岩忙前忙后地陪着你,硬是错过了和他约好见面的,各方面都非常出色的可能的女朋友的约会,搞得各方都很尴尬。人家赵岩可是一声没吭。

你说这篇人身攻击的文章是小曾写的?别懵了。文章里面连第一人称,第三人称都是颠三倒四。活脱就是别人在替小曾捉刀。滥用小曾的名义,刘钢啊,你出此损招,昏招,实在是不智,不可,不仁,不义,不耻:。

你作为小曾事实上的律师,你怎么可以如此放肆地随意公开你客户的资讯,并且把你的女朋友如此烘烤,如此滥用?此为不可;

你处处树敌,把朋友,战友,难友,亲友,得罪了个遍,本来就形同孤家寡人,在身处低潮困境中,是赵岩力排众议,向你伸出强有力的援手,如此真诚待你,你却来一个如此狠毒的以怨报德,为的是那么点屁大的猜疑误解,是为不仁;

你重色轻友,为巩固眼前的那点情欲情爱而不惜对情同兄长的友人下这种不知轻重的狠手,实在是自绝于江湖,是为不义;

你在进行那种无聊勾当时,栽赃诬陷,造谣诽谤,无所不用其极,手法下作,是为不耻;

你在诽谤文字中信口雌黄,胡编乱造,无端撒谎,蒙骗世人。你把赵岩真诚帮助小曾丑化说成是中共特务对小曾的处心积虑的引诱拉拢,实属不通。只能用来骗骗脑子有病的白痴群氓。小曾在你嘴里再怎么膨胀,再怎么狂妄,再怎么沐猴而冠,充其量也不过是个告地状的失业小贩,这里本人无意贬低作为反抗暴政,争取正义的维权群体的广大访民,但为了说明一个简单的事理,也只能就事论事。中共的情治机构再愚蠢,再脑残,也不致于不明事理到如此不分品级,动用如此素享盛名的国际知名人士来“破坏”“统战”一名普通的商贩。如此以大事小,显非常理。举个未必恰当的例子: 如果硬要在当年作为随车乘务员的张玉凤和作为中共党魁的毛泽东之间编排出一个整治对方的“特务”来,那么有资格充当特务候选人的只能是服务员张玉凤而不可能是党主席毛泽东。如此比喻可能失之夸张或极端,但事理是一样的。把同样的道理用在你刘钢本人身上也是一目了然。如果哪一天你旧病复发,和小曾也闹翻了,有人指着你的鼻子说你当时猛追小曾不是为了S-E-X,而是为了替中共特务机关搞垮小曾,如此指控不显得不伦不类吗?

本人早就反复指出过,在民运圈子内恶搞抓特务闹剧,用来糊弄白痴,是民运内部的一种浅薄,轻率,无效,恶俗的不正之风。有百害而无一利。

最后要指出的是:该文作者吹牛撒谎任意而为。骗完国人骗洋人。居然把入禀联邦法院的诉状,也用来信口开河。说设么小曾家“祖传的”“15亩”地,被共当抢去修造高铁。此话用来糊弄美国人或许能蒙混过关,对于深谙中国大陆国情的我等,那简直是黄口小儿,随嘴糊咧咧。中共现行宪法物权法白纸黑字载明:城市土地国有。农村土地集体所有。你小曾一家何来法外开恩,居然拥有一片大到15亩的私有土地,而且是祖传的!你忘了中国大陆有过暴力土改,有过人民公社?在此之前,“祖传”私有土地多了去了,但经过土改,公社化,还能“祖传”吗?但到了修建高铁的21世纪,即便是贵为党的总书记,也不会有哪怕是一分的“祖传”土地了。要是你那15亩“祖传”私有土地,那是江南的土地,祖传到共党土改,也非失传不可。因为拥有15亩上海郊区的祖传沃土,不够定地主也够定富农了。哪里传得到你今天才二十啷当的小曾这里。您走笔至此,忘了自己到底是替中共修改了宪法?还是提着自己的耳朵飞到火星上去了?

最后我希望署名为曾敏慧的谤文作者自己站出来善后,以减少该文对自己和别人带来的恶劣影响,也为了环境卫生。

叶宁顿首


送交者: -逗二混- 于 July 22, 2013 23:07:07:

神经病乎,共特乎?“特二代”刘刚和米勒法官之间的一出双簧

赵岩原创

严冬过尽,盛夏来临。刘刚这条毒蛇也走出了不死不活的冬眠状态,最近又像打足了鸡血针的发疯赖皮狗一样,吐着臭舌信子,毒液四溅,到处乱咬开来。又开始到处散布欲盖弥彰的诽谤博文,把一长串有名有姓的民运人士--刘刚的主子中共所恨恶的人物,从赵岩开始,逐一进行无中生有的抹黑,诽谤。信口开河,鱼目混珠,刘冠赵戴,贼喊捉贼。

前一阵子刘刚因为其受领全薪的共党五毛间谍身份暴露,为了让这个“家学深厚”,由中共苦心培养,长期潜伏在学运中充当学贼,民运中充当搅屎棍的特工尖子刘刚金蝉脱壳,全身而退,逃避美国政府重罪起诉,紧急启动红色应变方案,通过中共在美国手眼通天的第五纵队,搞出一系列诸如离婚-重婚-开除-入狱等等的苦肉计,并且假手新泽西州日落郡托马斯-米勒法官,绕过所有复杂严密的专业精神病认证过程,直接做出刘刚患有精神病的司法裁定。并且司法宣告刘刚不具备行为能力,给刘刚制定了常年监护小组。为刘刚逃脱任何因为充当中共特务而起的所有刑事责任预先做好脱罪的铺垫。对于被司法宣告为需要全程监护,无行为能力的精神病人这样难堪的,被捆绑的安排,任何有正常思维能力的人都会奋起反抗,都会用一切可能的手段和方式去寻求正义,摆脱困境。刘刚对此却是欣然接受,甘之若贻。甚至为了帮助米勒法官排除漏洞百出的精神病司法裁定的障碍,特意开革了完全有能力挫败米勒法官阴谋的世界知名庭审律师。免得这位不明真相的律师的热忱帮忙搅黄了刘刚和米勒法官之间的一出双簧。让已经数次锒铛入狱的刘刚最后不得不终老在美国联邦监狱。

刘刚的父亲蹬腿以前,是中共公安情治机关的一名下级特工。是个终其一生死心塌地地效忠于中共流氓无产阶级专政的杀人机器,以残害人民为业,死有余辜的中共鹰犬爪牙。传承了如此罪恶的共特父亲的基因,阶级感情,和专业培训,刘刚这个“特二代”,实在是青出于蓝而胜于蓝。其特工搅局的段位能量早就超出乃父的格局。奉劝各位要对刘刚这样的“特二代”,不仅要保持警觉,还要保持距离。要实行彻底隔离政策。因为刘刚和你任何接触讲话都是暗藏特工录影录音设备的。而且刘刚属于法定精神病患,害人是不负任何后果和责任的。而他的法定监护人卡尔律师也无需为刘刚干下的坏事负责。
对于刘刚这样的特二代赖皮狗,离他越远越好。

博讯为国安代言放料:斯诺登不是中国间谍!此地无银!

原文网址:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_27.html

博讯早已经被中共国安收买,成为中共在海外的放料网站和御用工具,这早已是不公开的秘密。

早在2011年2月,在中共战略特务赵岩以及唐宇华的统一指挥下,《博讯》网站冒充中国茉莉花革命的首发网站,对早已经广为散发的中国茉莉花行动计划进行篡改,篡改集会时间和地点,将集会者引入中共布置的陷阱。同时,孔灵犀和王军涛也密切配合赵岩来完成中共国安歧引中国茉莉花革命的任务。

现而今,中共国安因为斯诺登叛逃事件而成为众矢之的,万夫所指,美国朝野尤其认定是中国国安策划了斯诺登叛逃,并认定斯诺登是中共统战策反的间谍。中国国安有口难辩,于是乎,博讯在此关键时刻再一次充当中国国安的传声筒和放料源。《博讯》网站发表独家爆料文章,声称斯诺登不是中国国安间谍,中国国安只是在斯诺登叛逃之后,才出面调解斡旋斯诺登事件,而且斡旋的目的也是为了美国的利益受到最小程度的损害。

按照《博讯》的爆料文章,这中国国安简直就是美国的情报机构,是处处为了维护美国的利益。《博讯》真是欲盖弥彰,此地无银三百两。这恰恰暴露了中国国安就是斯诺登事件的始作俑者。

明眼人不难看出,《博讯》的爆料文章就是中国国安的杰作,是中国国安的口气,是为中国国安撇清责任,甚至是为中国国安歌功颂德。是急中国国安所急,想中共政权所想。这又一次暴露了《博讯》网站是中国国安的御用传声筒,是中共当局的爆料深喉。

刘刚
2013年7月27日

下面就是博讯的独家爆料文章。


斯诺登案:国安部副部长带队紧急秘密赴港
http://boxun.com/news/gb/taiwan/2013/07/201307270015.shtml#.UfOth2XD_IU
请看博讯热点:斯诺登事件
(博讯北京时间2013年7月27日 综合报道)
最新一期《博讯》杂志长篇报道“中情局叛諜滯港兩周 國安特別小組秘密斡旋,北京化解中美情治危機內幕大爆光”中揭秘,斯诺登事件后,国安部副部长带队紧急秘密赴港。以下是摘要:

中央国安工作领导小组决定,由国家安全部主理此事

本刊获悉,自6月10日媒体披露斯诺登大爆美国国家安全局机密内幕,引起美国和世界舆论譁然后,北京的国家安全工作领导小组(即中央外事工作领导小组)随即召开紧急会议应对,判研事件。


消息指,因中共情治系统以前从未遇到过此类情况,高层第一个反应,就是了解斯诺登是否由我方策反,因事发正好是习近平与美国总统奥巴马会晤后,高层判断是否我方情报系统为反击美国对中国就互联网窃秘的指控,策反了斯诺登,制造此事。

但中央国安工作领导小组听完各情报部门,包括国家安全部、解放军总参谋部、新华社、外交部等的报告后,排除了斯诺登被我策反的可能。

领导小组又判研,事件是否与中美情报部门内部想破坏「习奥会」所为。因为在这次习近平与奥巴马的非正式会晤中,美方焦点正是所谓中国对美国的网路攻击问题,但会谈中奥巴马并没有表现强硬,是否有美方情治系统人员不满,借此破坏习奥会达成的共识。但鉴于斯诺登事件对美国伤害较大,当局最终排除了美方情报机关所行。

北京当局甚至还调查自己的情报系统,怀疑是否有自己人不满习近平在会晤中向奥巴马「投降」,同意「调查」中国黑客攻击美国网络事件,并答应中美两国商磋拟定共同守则,制约各自在互联网安全上的冒犯行为,因而参与策划制造斯诺登事件。换言之,北京曾调查是否有自己人要破坏习奥会的协议精神。

据悉,美中情报部门私下都认为,两国元首在达成的所谓「共识」,成立「网路安全小组」调查网络攻击,以及订立共且守则制约两国的互联网行为,「完全是无稽之谈」。无论如何,此时爆发斯诺登事件,实在太诡异巧合。事实上,中美两国情报机关的互联网大战,早己打得如火如荼,只不过中方在舆论上处于弱势,被美国媒体压住追打。而白宫一直以捍衞互联网自由自居,斯诺登事件无疑令其颜面大失。

接近中南海的消息指,国安工作领导小组经过判研后认为,事件虽然亦给我方创造了很好的舆论把柄,但斯诺登毕竟只是一个普通的特工,而且并非在位,已经退出情报系统,对我方价值不大;但事件对美方造成震盪,如果收留斯诺登,势必会惹怒奥巴马当局,很可能对中美关係,特别是对中美两国元首刚达成的共识,造成负面效果。

北京特别感到庆幸的是,事件发生在香港特别行政区,根据「一国两制」原则,香港可以有借口「独立」处理此事,免让北京「尴尬」。但同时,香港基本法又规定,香港的外交和国防属中央政府的事务,即北京如果认为有必要,也可以借斯诺登这张牌跟美国「玩一下」。

为此,中央国安工作领导小组决定,由国家安全部主理此事。国安部立即成立了一个特别工作小组,由一位副部长带队,急赴香港展开秘密工作。小组成员由国安部八局(反间谍侦察局)、四局(港澳台情报局)、二局(国际情报局)等人员组成。

由于美方和西方媒体紧张斯诺登会否与中国情报部门接触,甚至担心被中方策反,中共高层指示国安特别小组,不用情报部门名义,而用外事工作名义赴港,私下与港府有关部门联络,进行工作。

据了解,北京高层对特别小组的指示是:一,不得让事件影响习近平与奥巴马刚刚达成的全晤默契,不能影响中美关係走向大局;二,适度利用事件,揭露美国虚假的民主和资讯自由;三,在不曝光身份部门情况下,尽量接近斯诺登,争取从其身上了解更多情报;四,检讨修正我方情报工作,尤其是网络安全情况。

根据北京指示,特别小组通过各种途径,包括港府、媒体、有关社团等,秘密查访及接近斯诺豋。同时,北京也透过《环球时报》等媒体配合放风,表示对斯诺登「应由香港特区自行处置比较合适」,避免外界揣测中央介入事件。

斯诺登事件之初,中国内地媒体一片叫好声,各媒体一度大篇幅、重头戏报道事件,把事件作为批评反讥美国的最好素材。据透露,北京当局经过分析评价后,认为不宜大事宣传,一是情报叛谍历来是各国敏感话题,二是事件宣传并不能给中方带来更多舆论好处,相反极有可能诱发民众对本国互联网监控发出更大更多的质疑声音。

何俊仁对斯诺登印象:是个孩子
何俊仁说,一路上斯诺登很少讲话。到了朋友家以后,斯诺登把文浩正拉到一旁,「他对浩正耳语,要求所有人的手机都必须放进冰箱,所有的手机都放进去。之后,他变得非常直言不讳。」何俊仁说。因为担心,他们都不敢拍照。

何俊仁形容,刚满30岁的斯诺登给人的印像是聪明、有分析能力、机智灵敏。不过,何俊仁补充说,他没有一个经过仔细思考的计划就从从檀香山来到香港,高估了披露机密之后他能在香港能自由行动的程度,也低估了他会受到的公共关注程度。

何俊仁说:「他是个孩子,我真的认为他是个孩子,我觉得,他从未料想到,这事在香港会成为如此一件大事。」何俊仁补充说,「他喜欢百事可乐,他更喜欢百事可乐而不是葡萄酒,因此我认为他是个孩子。」

本期《博讯》杂志封面

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Judge Miller helped Chinese spy to persecute Chinese dissident

http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/judge-miller-helped-chinese-spy-to.html

 ----------------------------------------
YINGHUA GUO                        )            SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                      Plaintiff,                 )           CHANCERY DIVISION - FAMILY PART 
                                                     )           SOMERSET COUNTY  
 vs.                                               )
                                                     )           DOCKET NO. FM-18-301-11
GANG LIU                                 )            CIVIL ACTION
                       Defendant             )           
                                                     )           Request Emergency relief and request the Court to investigate the
                                                     )           correctness of the procedure for creating this case, etc.
----------------------------------------

1. I am Gang Liu, Pro Se for this case.

2. All the facts stated by me herein are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

3. Judge Thomas Miller hadn't handle the divorce case (docket number FM-18-301-11) fairly. Actually, Mr. Thomas Miller manipulated this case in early September 2010 in favor Yinghua Guo. In a motion Gang Liu submitted on March 26th, 2013, I listed some of the facts to show how Judge Thomas Miller handle this case unfairly to favor Yinghua Guo, and manipulated this case to persecute Gang Liu. That motion can be found at the following link:

http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/03/motions-of-recusal-of-judge-thomas.html

4. This testimony will only list one fact to show how Judge Thomas C. Miller helped Yinghua Guo to create this divorce case through illegal process or procdure.

5. Somerset County Counsel Thoms C. Miller contacted with Yinghua Guo's Attorney via Fcacimile on June 23rd, 2010. As shown in Exhibit 1. This file shows that Judge Thomas Miller has known Elisa Guo before the divorce case created.

6. On September 2nd, 2010, Ms. Natalee Picillo, Gang Liu's ex-attorney, submitted the divorce complaint  along with this file to the Somerset County Superior Court, as shown in Exhibit 2. This file clearly indicated that Gang Liu was the Plaintiff, while Yinghua Guo was the Defendant. However, County Counsel Thomas Miller and some other court staffs asked Ms. Natalle Picillo to wait for few days to submit the complaint, so that Yinghua Guo could submit the complaint first. Obviously, Mr. Thomas Miller and some court staffs had manipulated the case to favor Ms. Yinghua Guo.

7. On September 9th, 2010, right after the final trial for another case, Ms. Picillo asked Gang Liu to sign on the file named "Answer and Couner-claim". As shown in Exhibit 3.

8. Gang Liu had never been served with the original complaint. Gang Liu asked Ms. Picillo to provide the original complaint. Ms. Picillo told Gang Liu that Yinghua Guo's attorney would provide a copy once they submitted it to the court! Gang Liu's attorney had prepared the Counter-complaint before the original complaint was served! It must be the court staffs, especially Mr. Thomas Miller, who make the two attorneys work together on both original complaint and the counter-complaint, and to set up Gang Liu.

9. The court record file shows that the Plaintiff's original complaint was submitted on September 10th, 2010, which was one day behind the submitting date of the defendant's counter-complaint! It clearly shows that some staffs of the Somerset County Superior Court manipulated the case to have Gang Liu's attorney to work with Yinghua Guo's attorney to set up Gang Liu.

10. Once Gang Liu signed the Counter-complaint file at the court room, Ms. Picillo immediately met with Mr. Allen P Comba, who was representing Yinghua Guo at that time, and they submitted the original complaint and the Counter-complaint at the same time.

11. I believe the proper procedure to create this divorce case should be as following:

11.1.  The plaintiff submits the original complaint to the court.

11.2. The plaintiff serves a copy to the defendant properly.

11.3. The court issues a notice to both sides and requests the defendant to response to the original complaint, the responding date should be at least 21 days.

11.4. The defendant tried to retain an attorney.

11.5. The defendant or his attorney to file Counter-complaint.

12.  This divorce case, DOCKET NO. FM-18-301-11, was not created properly. It was created illegally and manipulated by some of the Court staffs, especially Mr. Thomas C. Miller.

13. The defendant had never been served with the original complaint. Gang Liu asked the court to provide evidences for the serving the original complaint to the defendant.

14. The court hasn't issue a court notice to the defendant regarding the original complaint. Gang Liu requests the Court to provide the copy of the notice and the evidences for serving that notice to the defendant.

15. Before the divorce complaint was created, Mr. Thomas C. Miller and Mr. Allen P Comba had approached Ms. Picillo to discuss how and when to submit the divorce complaint. It was Mr. Thomas C. Miller to arrange the two attorneys to meet privately.  Both of the two attorneys violated the professional ethics.

16. The defendant requests the Court to investigate this case and see if the case created properly.

17. If this case was not created properly, the defendant requests the Court to subpoena all the relevant individuals, including Ms. Natalee Picillo,  Mr. Thomas C. Miller and Mr. Allen P Comba. They should explain to the court why they manipulate this case, and who asked them to do so.

18. If the Court wanted to give a final trial for this case, the defendant request for a jury to give final trial for this case.

19. The major difficulty to have this case resolved is the discovery. In early September 2010, the defendant has submitted files to request the plaintiff to provide the discovery files, especially the bank statements for her 14 bank accounts. However, the plaintiff hadn't provided the requested files until 2013.

20. The Plaintiff provided some of the requested bank statements. However, the plaintiff provided only partial of the bank statements: only 3 bank accounts were provided, and many of the statements for these 3 bank accounts were missing! The plaintiff tried to cheat the court by providing partial bank accounts. The defendant request the court to subpoena Yinghua Guo to force her to provide all the requested bank account statements. The court shouldn't allow the plaintiff to cheat the court and to hide the asset to the court.

21. The defendant has listed more requests in his previous motion submitted on March 26, 2013. The defendant asked the Honorable Judge to reconsider the requests listed in that motion.

22 The Plaintiff had transferred large amount of cash from the joint accounts to her personnel accounts, about $280,000 in total. The transferred money need to be returned to the defendant.

23.  The Defendant requests emergency relief. There are about $90,000 in the escrow account. The Defendant requests $45,000 from the escrow account for emergency relief, so that he can retain an attorney to resolve this case.

24. The Defendant requests the Court to have Mr. DeTommaso resigned as the legal Guardian of the Defendant.


Gang Liu

On the day of July 22nd, 2013





Exhibit 1. Somerset County Counsel Thomas C. Miller contacted with Yinghua Guo's Attorney via Fcacimile on June 23rd, 2010. This file shows that Judge Thomas Miller has known Elisa Guo before the divorce case created.



Exhibit 2. On September 2nd, 2010, Ms. Natalee Picillo, Gang Liu's ex-attorney submitted the divorce complaint along with this file to the Somerset County Superior Court. This file clearly indicated that Gang Liu was the Plaintiff, while Yinghua Guo was the Defendant. However, County Counsel Thomas Miller and other court staffs asked Ms. Natalle Picillo to wait for few days to submit the complaint and let the wife submit the complaint first. Obviously, Mr. Thomas Miller and some court staffs had manipulated the case to favor Ms. Yinghua Guo.

 
Exhibit 3. On September 9th, 2010, Ms. Picillo submitted this "Answer and Counterclaim" to the Somerset County Superior Court. At the same time, Mr. Allen P Comba represented Yinghua Guo submitted the original divorce complaint to the Court. Obviously, it was Judge Picheca and County Counsel Thomas Miller arranged the two attorneys submitted Yinghua Guo's complaint and Gang Liu's Counter-complaint at the same time!


Exhibit 4. The court files indicated that the Plaintiff's original complaint was submitted on September 10th, 2010, which was one day behind the submitting date of the defendant's counter-complaint! It clearly shows that the some staffs of the Somerset County Superior Court manipulated the case to have Gang Liu's attorney to work with Yinghua Guo's attorney to set up Gang Liu.










Honorable Judge Michael F. O'Neill will handle this case starting from July 22nd, 2013. Hope he would give a fair trial to this case.

Michael F O'Neill
 Honorable Judge Michael F. O'Neill.

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/07921-nj-michael-oneill-1600843.html

Photo: Congratulations to Michael F. O'Neill for being confirmed by the New Jersey Senate today to be a Judge of the Superior Court. O'Neill joined Senator Tom Kean on the floor of the Senate today for the confirmation vote.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tom-Kean/47230373268

Saturday, July 20, 2013

周永康拒交联络图,孟建柱搂草抓特务

原文网址:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_20.html

2013年7月16日,中国著名的所谓维权人士许志永被北京市公安局拘留。随后,一篇由许志永编写的文章在网络上窜红,见链接:

疑似许志永被捕前与国保警察的对话曝光
http://msguancha.com/a/lanmu4/2013/0719/7972.html

立即,有大量的许志永的朋友、饭儿、追随者、律师等等开始为许志永鸣冤叫屈、呐喊助威,甚至是惊动了美国国务院发声,要求中共政权立即释放许志永。

好么,目前,在网上网下,国内国外,为许志永被拘一事闹得天翻地覆,不亦乐乎,大有炸平中南海之势。

许志永为何被抓?许志永及其团伙又为何如此嚣张,竟敢同北京市公安局长叫板叫阵?本文详解这其中的猫腻。

1. 许志永中共维稳大将,是周永康安插在反对阵营中的卧底

以下几个事实足以证明许志永是周永康安插的卧底特务:

1.1. 2010年12月25日,浙江乐清钱云会村长离奇死亡,村民指认是副镇长等人蓄意谋杀。可许志永立即组成公民调查团,在乐清调查了几个小时,立即得出结论,证明钱云会是“普交死”,同中共一个口径,急政法委之所急,想周永康所想,急为中共政权张目代言,助纣为虐,为虎作伥,是为中共死党帮凶。见下面的截屏和视频:




纪录片《平安乐清》资料之八,许志永认定钱云会是普交死


纪录片《平安乐清》资料之八,彭剑认定钱云会是普交死

1.2. 我多次发文揭露刘沙沙是中共卧底,彭剑的一系列行为也证明彭剑是中共帮凶。许志永在中共最危急的时刻,召集刘沙沙和彭剑组成公民调查团前往乐清调查钱云会死亡事件,足以证明许志永这个调查图就是中共政法委秘密组织的调查团,证明许志永是中共政法委的维稳大将。

1.3. 《中国改革》杂志社一直是中共官方的智囊机构,后来成为王岐山的智囊团,是王岐山用来招降纳叛的机构。早在2003年,许志永和赵岩先后被王岐山秘密召为麾下,成为中国改革杂志社的记者,同时被培养成为中共的战略特务。后来赵岩被派往美国,统领海外中共特务,而许志永留在国内,统领国内卧底水军。有哪位被中共严密监视的反对派统军人物能够在中共主办的杂志上发表文章?下面是许志永在中国改革杂志和中国改革论坛上发表的部分文章:


1.4. 从许志永的一贯表现来看,许志永是中共特务。从许志永所接触的人来看,许志永是周永康派出的卧底。他走起来象鸭子,叫起来象鸭子,他必定是鸭子无疑。

2. 北京市公安局为何逮捕许志永?

既然说许志永是中共政法委派出的卧底特务,中共又为何要逮捕许志永呢?这岂不是大水冲了龙王庙,自家人不认得自家人嘛!

其实,这是中共政法委新旧主人在争夺联络图在血拼。何为联络图?众所周知,中共派出的卧底特务通常都是单线联络,这就同那些警匪电影一样,那些卧底通常都是只同一个警察联络。如果背后联络的警察太多,这个卧底暴露的机会就大,被灭掉的可能性就大。中共派出的特务也是一样,象许志永、赵岩这些中共特务通常都只是同一个中共警察联络,这些警察所联络的卧底特务都汇总到周永康那里,周永康手里掌握着这些特务的联络方式和联络人。这就是中共政法委新主子势在必得的联络图。关于联络图争夺战,请见我的另一篇文章:

中南海闹剧:周永康单挑胡温,王岐山斡旋调和
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_10.html

自从中共十八大开始,孟建柱就周永康手中接过政法委书记一职,目前已经是长达十个月。可是,周永康就是拒绝交出联络图,那些由周永康安插的大批特务就成为周永康的私家军队和看门狗,周永康让他们咬谁,他们就咬谁,让他们咬几口,他们就咬几口。这就是为何在周永康下台后,赵岩依旧在海外放料,乱咬周永康的死对头,包括揭露温家宝贪腐27亿美元,揭露胡锦涛、令计划、王兆国贪腐万亿美元。

赵岩、许志永这些特务是周永康一手培养,是周永康给他们提供活动经费。一旦周永康被清算,许志永、赵岩这些人将被弃用,他们为中共所作出的常年默默奉献,将不被承认。他们将失去经费,甚至会被中共政法委卸磨杀驴,彻底清算。

许志永们如何会接受被清算的悲惨命运?

于是,许志永、赵岩,以及那些将给周永康作殉葬品的狗特务们,都惶惶如丧家之犬,急急如热锅上的蚂蚁。

于是,他们作最后的垂死挣扎。他们要死保周永康。

于是,许志永、赵岩这些维稳大将,目前都成为制造不稳定的最大力量。他们在向新的政法委主子孟建柱叫板示威:谁胆敢清算周永康安置的中共特务,将天下大乱,江山不稳。他们不惜要同这个政权同归于尽!

于是,我们不难看到,那些为许志永站台张目呐喊助威的人,大多都是周永康安插的卧底特务,这包括胡佳,曾金燕,郭玉闪,刘沙沙,北风温云超,曹雅学,王雪臻,刘艳萍,刘晓原,等等,等等。他们在用他们的生命去捍卫他们的卧底饭碗,去保他们的老主子周永康,去向他们的新主子证明他们的实力,去逼迫孟建柱接纳他们,让他们继续卧底潜伏,为党效尽犬马之劳。

这次的许志永被拘留事件,是中共政法委新旧主子之间的狗咬狗之争。通过这次事件,让我们看清一大群中共的潜伏特务的真实面目。


3. 是什么人逮捕了许志永?

请大家注意,许志永及其团伙们都声称是北京市公安局和北京政法委逮捕拘留了许志永。许志永还在其文章中不点名的指出是北京市公安局局长在对他进行威胁并采取强制措施。许志永处处在暗示是北京市公安局局长傅政华在恐吓他,许志永团伙将矛头指向傅政华。我在另一篇文章中指出,周永康同傅政华结怨,周永康发狠要除掉傅政华。这许志永被逮捕,也要拖住傅政华,大有同傅政华同归于尽之势。可见这许志永是对周永康多么地效忠,他死也要抱住周永康的死敌同归于尽!

4. 为何要拘留许志永?

毫无疑问,这是孟建柱在搂草打兔子,是以此逼迫周永康交出联络图,逼迫周永康的那些死党们就范,逼迫许志永这些人尽早背叛周永康,归顺孟建柱。

5. 如何收场?

通常,中共内部这类狗咬狗之争都会经过一番殊死搏斗后,最后双方各让一步,悄悄收场。他们双方都不希望中共这个大船沉掉,他们也不希望中国百姓了解他们矛盾和内斗。比如,就在十八大前,周永康谋杀令计划儿子令谷,令计划在体制内做了最大可能的反击和报复,最后双方偃旗息鼓,各自鸣锣收兵。见我的另一篇文章:

薄熙来军事政变、周永康毒杀令计划公子的来龙去脉
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post_6053.html

许志永事件,很可能成为另外的一起陈光诚事件。中共最后可能是礼送许志永前往美国,在美国继续卧底,联手傅希秋、陈光诚、刘天龙、温云超等中共潜伏人员,为中共政权游说美国国会,继续为中共效尽犬马之劳。

如果孟建柱不肯接纳许志永这些前朝特务,那么,许志永这些人就有可能成为恐怖分子,在中国各处制造恐怖事件,甚至是进行自杀性袭击。

我愿意看到周永康和孟建柱斗得更猛烈,更血腥,更火爆,斗得天翻地覆,斗得人仰马翻,直到斗翻共产王朝,改朝换代,换了人间!

刘刚
2013年7月20日

附录:相关链接:

附录1:疑似许志永被捕前与国保警察的对话曝光
http://msguancha.com/a/lanmu4/2013/0719/7972.html

作者:民生编辑1 文章来源:本站原创 更新时间:2013-07-19 20:15

民生观察工作室2013-7-19消息:今天国内各大QQ群都在风传一篇据说是许志永被捕前及被软禁期间,北京国保警察找他约谈的对话记录。全文如下:

《为了爱——一次关于新公民运动的对话》
许志永
6月25日、26日、28日三个下午,在北京昌平一个度假村会议室,我应约和北京市公安局负责人之一“谈话”。就民主、法治、宪政、党的领导、社会主义、公民理念、财产公示、信访、教育平权等众多问题在争论中各自阐述自己的理念。对方说我已经构成犯罪,即将采取强制措施,要求拥护党的领导,停止犯罪。我说会坚守新公民精神,具体方式方法愿意听取意见,但如果追求做公民就是犯罪,我愿为这罪承受一切代价。

一.6月25日

这次见面提前一天约好的。我家门口的看守组长说市局几个主要负责人之一想和我谈谈,保证当天晚上就回来,我没想什么就答应了。

自从4月12日被非法限制人身自由以来这是我第一次下楼。在三个便衣监控下乘车到昌平北面中卡庄园东面一个不知名的小度假旅馆。下车,被搜身,来到一个会议室,对面坐着两个大约五十多岁的男子,其中一个主谈,看得出地位较高,称之为c吧,另一位称之为d吧。一个年轻人摆弄着摄像机,一把椅子留在对面。

我坐下来,说我是许志永,请问对方是哪位?c说;“我是北京市公安局负责人,今天采用这种方式和你谈话”。我问什么事?

C:自从4月初我们对公民非法组织采取强制措施以来,已经快三个月了。你作为组织的负责人,已触犯刑法多个罪名,我们即将对你采取强制措施,想听听你的看法。
我:公民远不是一个组织,而是追求民主、法治、自由、公义、爱的自发群体,一贯温和理性建设性推动国家进步。我们的行为无论聚餐、呼吁官员财产公示都是行使公民正当权利,当然不是犯罪。我追求做公民的理念不会改变,至于方式方法,可以探讨,我们从来都是理性的,愿听取建议。当然,如果连我这样温和理性的人都被捕入狱,那是天意,是这个民族的不幸,我听天由命。

C:你们理性吗?街头打横幅,全国各地几个月间上百次之多,如果我们不及时制止,就会引发社会动乱。
我:难道官员财产不该公开吗?公开了,没那么腐败了,我们也就不会打条幅呼吁了。你们担心大家聚集,说明财产公示是人民的愿望,呼吁财产公示只是言论表达,不会引发动荡,如果将来有动荡的话,一定是特权腐败和变态维稳激化矛盾导致的。

C:我们党不是在积极反腐败吗?
我:那不挺好吗,我们也积极帮助反腐败。

C:你们真心反腐败吗,党反腐败取得那么多进步,你们怎么看不见?
我:我们当然真心反腐败,从来不说一套做一套,就在“十君子”被捕前不久,我们还讨论起草阳光法案。我不否认共产党也在反腐败,但制度有问题,越反越腐败,请你理性想一想,过去十年,中国腐败减轻了还是加重了?

C:哪个国家没有腐败?按照你们的模式治理国家就不腐败了?
我:确实哪个国家都有腐败,但程度差别大了。美国也有腐败,但一个部长级官员受贿200万美元绝对是天大的新闻,在中国算什么?腐败需要权力监督才能治理,必须有独立的司法,有权力制衡,有自由的媒体,这是全世界都有效的办法,财产公示也是制度之一,为什么就不敢公开呢?

C:你们打着教育平权的旗号,每月围攻教育部,给我们带来了多大麻烦,你也当过人大代表,为什么不通过合法渠道反映诉求?
我:我们一直在通过各种途径努力,给上千个人大代表发信,找很多专家研讨。但最有效的方式是去教育部请愿,你们这个体制就有这个毛病,维稳至上,所以群体聚集能给你们最有效的压力,所以才能推动教育部改变政策。

C:北京已经很拥挤了,如果北京放开高考,全国学生都跑到北京来上学怎么办?
我:怎么会呢?高考移民是因为录取不公平,北京的录取优势是因为剥夺了800万非户籍纳税人子女的高考权利,如果这800万新移民的孩子都在北京高考,北京的录取优势就没了,谁还会来这里高考移民?我们争取教育平权,不是争取特权,而是争取同一个城市内部居民同税同权,是争取数千万留守儿童和父母团聚的权利。你们以为今天压制了教育平权的呼声就是维稳了,可你们是否知道,北京800万新移民的孩子遭受歧视伤害耽误了前程之后,他们会去哪里?他们还会回到北京来,因为父母在这里,北京才是他们的家。我在法院做陪审员的时候深知“外二代”犯罪在迅速增加,很大程度上就是不平等歧视伤害的结果。(略去部分争论)

C:这些你可以提合理化建议。
我:我们一直在提,多年来我们一直在建设性推动社会进步。

C:你的一系列文章,比如《人民的国家》,整个照搬西方体制,反党反社会主义,你们的组织活动,几个月发展到几千人,你的行为已经构成犯罪,而且不止一个罪名。
我:共产党、社会主义难道不是西方的吗?请问什么是社会主义?市场经济如果是社会主义,我们追求的民主法治为什么就不是社会主义?社会主义必然和民主法治对立吗?关于反党,这个概念太极端,方针政策对的就支持,错误的就反对,而且,我对任何人都心怀善意,如果共产党经过大选继续执政,我支持。如果说公民一起吃饭,讨论时政服务社会,呼吁财产公示就是犯罪,你们想怎么说就怎么说,想怎么判就怎么判,我无所谓。

D插话,说了很多西方国家尤其是美国多么坏,说你许志永将来很可能就是一个汉奸,网上也有人这么说你。
我很认真地说:我可能比你更爱中国!你有空可以看看我写的《回到中国去》,看一个中国人在美国的经历和感想。而你们,多少贪官污吏把财产转移到了国外?

C:爱党,爱国,爱人民,三位一体,你不爱党,怎么爱国爱人民?
我:我的祖国五千年了,来自西方的党还不到百年,将来共产党不会千秋万世永远统治,怎么可能三位一体?我爱中国,我爱13亿同胞,但我不爱党。一个原因是历史上它给我的祖国带来的太残酷的伤害,数千万人饿死,文化大革命彻底摧残了中华民族的精神文化,还有就是今天这个党太肮脏,大量贪官污吏,从申请书到入党宣誓都是在公然撒谎——有几个真的要为共产主义奋斗终身?我厌恶谎言,我厌恶为了私欲不择手段,我厌恶一个人在宣誓的时刻也撒谎。

C:敢说不爱党,算你是好汉。考虑到你的主张自由、公义、爱还不错,目的是好的,本着教育的方针,还是希望爱党,放弃公民活动,多和社会各界接触,看问题更客观些。
我:谢谢提醒,我会努力更加客观理性,既看社会问题,也看新闻联播。具体活动如果有不当之处,我可以听取建议,有些行为如果超前了,可以停下来,都可以协商,但是别说什么犯罪。

C:我知道一时半会改变不了你的观点。看过你的档案,你这个人多年来就像一根针一样那么恒定,立场就在那里一动不动。下次接着谈吧。明天后天下午什么时候你觉得合适?
我:明天吧。

大约七点,我被带回家,依然被严格看守。


二. 6月26日

我不得不重视对方说的即将采取强制措施。离开家之前,给朋友写了一封信:

我依然怀着乐观的期望,努力告诉他们,公民群体是理性温和的理想主义者,为了中国的自由、公义和爱,共产党应该容忍健康力量的存在,容忍政治多元的存在。

同时,我已准备好最坏的可能性,比如下午我一出门就被带去看守所了,我会坦然面对十年的牢狱生活,昨天谈话时也说了,如果发生了这样的悲剧,这是我的天命,这也是中华民族的不幸。今天如果形势恶化,我会告诉他们,审判一个民族的良心,那你们注定把自己永远钉在历史的耻辱柱上。为追求做一个公民而入狱,是我的荣耀。但无论怎样,我相信这个时代的进步,新公民运动的道路是正确的,在一个极权专制社会,倡导大家做公民,谁也挡不住,公民运动既有批判也有建设,新公民运动会推动这个国家改变,不仅会结束专制,而且建成一个自由、公义、爱的美好中国。

下午两点多,还是老地方。

C:昨天给你提了几点需要你思考,其实主要是两点:拥护党的方针政策,说爱党你不爱听;停止违法犯罪活动。想的怎么样了?
我:没什么想法,公民立场没变化。党的政策对的就拥护,错的就批评。关于停止活动,我们一定要做公民,你我都应该是公民,当然如果行为有不恰当的地方,可以停下来,我们愿听建议。

C:你必须明白你即将被采取强制措施。
我:为了人类进步事业,我愿付出一切代价!如果谈法律丁家喜他们根本无罪,如果你们不谈法律,随时可以给我定罪,但审判一个民族的良心,你们注定把自己永远钉在历史的耻辱柱上!

C:我相信你的牺牲精神,但希望朝好的方向发展。
我:我也希望朝好的方向发展,我也希望自由,为社会做更多事,但为了信仰,必须担当。

C:你的理想很好,但要考虑现实可行性啊,你人生可能很纠结,这些年做事面临越来越大阻力吧。
我:阻力确实很大,但我一点都不纠结,心态坦然,自由的时候努力服务社会,被非法限制在家可以读书写文章,即使完全被非法限制在宾馆,也可以感悟宗教灵感。这些年看起来我和体制越来越对立了,其实真正的原因是体制和人民之间的距离越来越远了。

C:你看问题太偏,把国家看成一团黑暗。看看伊拉克、利比亚,被西方利用,下场多么可悲,我们国家经济发展多快啊,都是党领导的好(略)。
我:我从来没把国家看成一团黑暗,我清楚看到了这三十年的经济进步,人性的复苏,社会多元思潮的出现。某种程度上,每个人看到的这个世界都是自己的偏见,都是有一定道理的,但是不全面的,所以不要轻易说对方错了,更不要轻易说自己是唯一正确的。我看到的有偏见,但我尽量客观,比如经常看新闻联播,你们可能比我更偏,你们的信息太多来自体制内的官方话语,以至于价值观都和社会大众距离越来越远。举个例子,有一年海淀人大会上,大家说起不久前本区一个拆迁自焚者,官员们几乎都认为他是刁民,而社会公众普遍站在自焚者一边,官民之间价值观对立,这个问题已经非常严重,比如京温事件,一个女孩跳楼,就会引发巨大的群体事件。

D :京温事件中煽动群众上街的是少数坏人,我们有证据。
我:看,你们就这思路,多么可悲,出了什么事情,就说有坏人,几个坏人就能煽动起来那么大的事情?你们反省过没有,为什么那么多人不相信你们官方的结论?你们平时撒谎太多了,太腐败了,太不公正了,积怨太深了。就你们这维稳思路,越维越不稳。记得前几年去新疆,大巴扎夜市居然有武警荷枪实弹密集巡逻,这是一个正常的社会吗?你们说有个别坏人,坏人怎么越抓越多呢?

D:你看问题太片面,比如拆迁,你只看到个别人嫌补偿低,没看到有人盼着拆迁呢。我知道很多群众还是很满意的(部分略)。
我:确实有比较满意的,比如前门大街有的人家,但更多的人,虽然没有自焚抗争,心中却有积怨。北京拆迁最大的问题是太不公平。定一个荒谬的补偿标准,比如中关村每平米8000元,而当地市场房价四五万元,有权有势的,或者敢拼命的,可以做钉子户漫天要价,无权无势者任人宰割。最可怕的是郊区农村,一平米的土地,给你的补偿是几公里外的一平米楼房,你会满意吗?我们不是简单代表一方,我们参照容积率,以开发商、原住民和政府公正分享土地增值利益的原则提出客观理性的标准,比如一平米的平房,补偿应该是就地获得1.7平米左右的楼房。可我们的主张官员听不进去,过去十多年间,北京郊区数以百万计的人受到强权拆迁的伤害,遗憾的是,这种伤害还在继续。

C:我们国家人口众多,资源有限,发展需要一个过程。你很聪明,应该把精力放在给政府出谋划策而不是制造麻烦。
我:我们不是麻烦制造者,是麻烦已经出现,我们帮助解决。我也一直提出合理化建议,比如人口问题,北京和东京同样6000多平方公里的平原面积,东京3500万人秩序井然,北京2200万人口拥堵不堪,关键是计划经济头脑过于狭隘,总想控制北京人口,导致规划短视,垃圾处理、教育设施等都跟不上。北京早该照着3500万人口规划。再比如垃圾消纳问题(略)。

C:你们利用访民打横幅,人家是要解决具体问题,你能帮助人家解决吗?财产公示是人家的要求吗?
我:我们尽力帮助弱者,但我们能做的确实有限,一个承德冤案申诉了九年还没有结果,我们能做的主要是提供一些咨询意见,冬天送一些棉衣棉被紧急救助。呼吁财产公示当然是大家自愿的,他们深受特权腐败之苦,很希望财产公示,很愿意为社会进步做点事情。

C:你们罗列黑监狱,抹黑政府。上访问题这么复杂,解决起来需要一个过程,不像你们想象的那么简单。(部分略)
我:非法限制公民人身自由是严重的违法犯罪,是黑监狱抹黑国家形象。上访问题在这个体制下无解。每个国家都有上访现象,但只有在中国成为一个严重的社会问题,成为维稳的麻烦,根源在于不合理的权力体制。当下体制权力自上而下,官员只对上负责不对下负责,普通民众的诉求他们不在乎,只有当诉求到了他的上级的上级,批示要求解决的时候,他才会重视。全国都这样,所以聚集到北京每年信访量上千万。如果各地都解决了自己的问题,来到北京的全国每年只有几百起,国家信访局可以对每个问题成立一个专案组解决,可是现在每年一千万起,再大的机构也解决不了。问题是,什么体制才能减少如此大的信访量,如果各级政府都是选民直接选举,官员的地位由选票决定,不用上级要求,他一定会尽力讨论他的选民,有问题赶紧解决。我们追求民主制度,不是要学习西方还是东方,而是因为这样的制度能够解决我们自身的问题。

C:难道你没看到全国90%以上的群众都是拥护党的领导的?难道这三十年不是在进步吗?
我:不知道90%的数字怎么来的。我从不否认这三十年的进步,但我也清楚看到了存在的巨大问题,社会不公,官民对立,国家只有继续改革,政治改革,才能真正成为一个伟大的国家。今天中国GDP世界第二,要知道100多年前也是世界第二,再说,今天世界上大部分发展中国家经济都在快速发展。问题绝不是细枝末节,腐败绝不是极少数,我们要看到国家进步,但你们也要看到问题的严重性。希望我们有这样的共识:我们都是中国公民,都不希望国家动荡,都追求民主法治公平正义的美好中国。

我:他们九个人什么时候释放?
C:这和你的认识有关。
我:我开始就说过,在具体行为方面,我们可以让步,有些行为如果超前了,可以停下来,我们需要考虑到你们的承受程度和社会的接受程度。
C:那也要走法律程序。你现在不是在和我们谈判,你已经构成犯罪,即将被采取强制措施。

C:又四个小时过去了。谈了两次了,关于爱党,停止活动,你有什么看法?写个认识吧。
我:都说过了啊,不必写了。
C:还是写一下吧。写好了给我看看。
我:好吧。

大约七点,被送回家。


三.6月28日

写了关于公民理念和行动的思考,给几位朋友看了,最后修改为《我的公民理想》(附后)。想到离开家有可能多年不能回来,心中有些难过,我祈祷中出现一句话:“感恩上主赐予我四十年的生命、体验和幸福,我爱人类,为了爱,我愿面对死亡。”心完全平静了。

下午近三点到达老地方。C还没有来到,D问,让你写的东西大概什么内容?
我:我的公民理想,坚持理性建设性,追求自由、公义、爱,方式方法可以协商,尽可能在宪法法律框架下行动。

D:什么叫尽可能?你必须在法律框架下行动(略)。
我:尽可能就是努力做到啊,良心高于法律。

D:你做那些事,扰乱社会秩序,为了你个人目的...
我打断他,缓慢而大声说:我人生的目的就是自由——公义——爱!

C:看了你写的公民理想,根本没有认罪伏法,还是你的那一套想法。至少应该有三条:第一,拥护党的方针政策;第二,认罪伏法,停止违法犯罪活动;第三,保证不反悔。写好了我们可以找媒体宣传宣传。
我:对不起,你提的几条不现实,请你理解,许志永永远不会出卖良心和信仰。任何时候你一点点都不要奢望我放弃自己的人格。我并不是一个激进的人,可以协商,但有底线,愿为自己的信仰付出一切代价。

C:你这些文章,你不拥护党的领导,就是反党。
我:对的就拥护,错的就反对,这是我的一贯立场。你们反对文革路线是不是也是反党?我不反对任何政党经过人民选举执政,我反对的是专制。

C:你反对社会主义。
我:请问什么是社会主义?科学社会主义的根本特征是计划经济和公有制,你们早就反对了。社会主义离不开民主,一党专制和社会主义截然对立,你们也反对社会主义。我们追求民主法治公平正义,和社会主义原初理想不矛盾,我可能比你更是一个社会主义者。

C:你反对社会主义制度,比如你公开信里否定人民代表大会制度。
我:全国人大是国家最高权力机关,你信吗?最高权力机关还要受党领导?你不觉得这公然的谎言很恶心吗,很龌龊吗?一个国家的根本政治制度都如此虚伪,还怎么指望建设诚信社会?从根本上说,我们追求的美好政治是真实,告别虚伪,过一种坦荡真实的生活。

C:说的好听,你就是政治骗子。
对不起,我怒了:如果你没见过我,也许会听说许志永多么狡猾之类的,可是我们已经谈过两个半天了,你看着我的眼睛,面对自己的良心说,许志永是个骗子吗?!我最厌恶政治流氓和政治骗子,我可不像你们,从来谎言不打草稿。

C:我的意思是,你有你的政治目的,却让非京籍家长争取教育公平,你给人家说你的政治目的了吗?
我:我的政治目的很清楚,自由、公义、爱的美好中国,从不隐瞒。争取教育平权就是公义,就是爱,是公民理想的一部分,争取教育平权就是为孩子,争取完了也就完了,服务社会是公民的职责,没必要天天告诉大家远大的政治理想,但我也从不隐瞒政治理想。

C:你其实反党但你不敢承认不敢担当。
我:你们的心态真有病!我有什么不敢担当?为了信仰,你现在就可以把我抓走,你们不是说我构成好几个罪吗?作为一个理性的公民,我绝不为反对而反对,我们的目的是真民主,而不是推翻打倒,自由、公义、爱,这就是我的信仰!我是一个简单的人,从不在理想主义旗帜背后埋藏阴谋。如果说人生理想是为谋求权力地位,那是对我的羞辱,我没有自己的追求,活着只为使命。

C:李一平的《变局策》把你们所做的总结的很清楚,就是要颠覆社会主义制度,你不敢承认。
我:他们和我们的理念有根本差异,我早已写文章澄清过,我们倡导大家做公民,追求自由、公义、爱,是要追求真正的民主法治,任何一个政党只要经过人民选举执政我们都欢迎,这个观点我已经重复多次。自己的信仰有什么不敢承认的?不要以为每个人都和你们一样内心阴暗。

长时间沉默。

C:怎么不说话了?看出来你内心很复杂。
我:不,一点都不复杂。我在想,你为什么内心如此阴暗居然把许志永都能想象成骗子?你们把每个人都想象成表面一套背后一套的阴谋家,这就是你们所谓的政治?这样的社会多可怕啊,我为人类感到深深的悲哀。我极其厌恶没有底线不择手段的政治骗子和流氓,我一生的使命就是要改变这些。

C:你要知道你已经构成犯罪了,即将被采取强制措施。
我:愿为信念付出任何代价,十几年牢狱是我的荣耀。

C:当然采取强制措施也是为了教育。
我:不,一点都不可能,如果我被捕,除了法庭陈辞,我会彻底沉默,我愿沉默十年。

C:你09年就不认罪,只说自己有错,那次我们放过你了,你还不悔改。
我:09年我还没有完全准备好,你们说出来还有做事的空间,我认错是给你们一点台阶。我现在还可以跟你们谈,但如果我再次被捕,一点妥协的可能性都没有了。

C:不要把话说的那么绝对嘛。
我:非常绝对,没有任何余地。你知道我昨晚祈祷什么吗?我爱人类,为了爱,我愿面对死亡。

C:你太固执,这样继续下去会给国家带来灾难,比抢劫杀人危害大得多。
我:不,我绝不是为权力私欲不择手段的人,我们是理性的建设者,前进的每一步都不会给国家带来灾难,而只会带来光明和希望。灾难正在酝酿,是你们制造的,我们所有的努力都是为减少不公、愤怒和灾难,减轻人民在必然到来的社会变革中的代价。

C:你真是个难啃的骨头。
我:对不起,请不要这么想,不要觉得自己的说服工作没做好,你应该理解人世间有一种信仰者,可以付出一切代价。我也许无法说服你相信中国会有这么纯粹的理想主义者,但我会用自己的一生来证明,政治不是那么为私欲不择手段,不是那么阴暗,不是那么江湖那么丛林,政治是美好的。

C:又到6点了,改日再谈吧。
我:不用了,除非你个人找我谈生活、宗教等私人问题。

和气道别,C送我几本18大学习材料。


我不知道非法限制自由还会持续多长时间。为了自由、公义、爱,一切都无所谓了,我在家里望着窗外亦真亦幻的世界,生命是一场无怨无悔的体验,唯有爱是真实的。


公民 许志永 2013年6月30日


附:

我的公民理想


倡导大家做公民,是要追求真正的民主法治公平正义,追求自由、公义、爱的美好社会。公民群体远不是一个“组织”,而是追求公民梦想的中国人自发的联合,每个人都可以把自己当公民,和大家一起推动社会进步。

新公民精神包括自由、公义、爱。公民理念和话语体系里没有推翻、打倒、敌人等概念,反对敌意仇恨,努力化解敌意仇恨,希望中国和平完成民主宪政转型,以最小代价实现中华民族无数仁人志士一个多世纪以来的民主自由之梦,这是信仰。

我不是共产党员,但作为一个温和理性的公民,尊重历史形成的中国共产党的执政地位,毕竟社会变革需要稳定的秩序,但共产党有责任兑现“人民共和国”的诺言,人民当家做主意味着人民必须有真正的选择权利,我乐意看到包括共产党在内的任何一个政党经过人民直接、自由、公正的选举成为执政党。我真切希望,共产党学习国民党,放弃把一切不同的声音视为敌人的专制理念,真切尊重人民的意愿,还权于民。共产党人要顺应世界大势,更要对得起我们民族过去一个多世纪为追求自由民主而牺牲的烈士先贤。

我的理想其实和“社会主义”原初的理想并不相悖,社会主义追求公平正义,必然离不开民主法治,社会主义需要发展生产力,必然离不开市场经济,社会主义绝不等同于一党专制、计划经济、公有制。社会主义有多种,1949年后中国实行的是计划经济、公有制的“科学社会主义”,1978年以后推行产权私有化和市场经济,正是这些文革中被大力批判的“资本主义”制度带来了中国三十年的经济发展。其实什么主义都是次要的,解决国家的问题给国家带来自由民主进步才是重要的。

努力追求做一个真正的公民,享有宪法列举的那些普世的权利,我们以理性建设性方式推动社会进步。如果追求做一个真正的公民,追求自由、公义、爱的美好中国就是犯罪,我愿为这样的“罪”承担一切代价——这是我恒久的荣耀。

当然,在追求做公民的行动中,方式方法可能会有不当之处,我愿听取各方建议,希望能更好实现理想。我会努力倡导自由、公义、爱的理念,希望大家遵循温和理性的立场,并尽可能考虑做事情的可行性,在宪法法律框架下行动。

公民群体是民主宪政的推动者和建设者,而不是社会动荡的制造者。社会动荡源于特权腐败积累的愤怒,导火线通常是谁也无法预料的突发事件。我们是一群负责任的公民,爱中国,努力让她更美好,如果这样温和理性的群体无法存在,绝望的暴力将带来整个中华民族的悲剧。希望执政党切实顺应人类文明潮流,主动推动中国完成宪政文明转型,这将是中华民族之幸运。


公民 许志永 2013年6月28日

Monday, July 15, 2013

敦促美国国会调查中共特嫌

原文网址:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_6696.html

2013年6月28日,我向美国国会和FBI举报美国国会和行政机构中国执行委员会(CECC)办公室主任刘天龙(Lawrence T. Liu)伙同傅希秋、陈光诚等中共特嫌,欺骗美国国会,欺骗美国议员为中共政权小骂大帮忙, 见下面的链接:


傅希秋、刘天龙操纵美国听证会,欺骗国会误导舆论
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html

陈光诚、傅希秋秉承中共旨意,挑起美国两党纷争
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_12.html

傅希秋编造计划生育故事欺骗美国国会
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post_31.html

我因此要求美国国会和FBI对刘天龙进行背景调查。我在我的文章中特意截屏了刘天龙在CECC官方网站上的个人简历。见下面的图片。



有迹象表明,刘天龙正在接受调查。

同时,美国有关机构也在就傅希秋到国会作伪证一事进行调查。相信傅希秋经营多年的这个为中共拉拢腐蚀美国国会议员的这个间谍团伙即将被彻底捣毁。

刘刚
2013年7月15日

谁在幕后操纵陈光诚?

原文网址: http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_4786.html


1. 傅希秋,2. 科恩

    
3. 赵岩


4. 袁伟静

胡佳与逃出监禁的陈光诚在北京秘密见面
5. 胡佳

6. 曾金燕


7. 温云超
紐大被指要求陳光誠離開- 港聞- 新聞頻道- 新浪網
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130614/-2-2992799/1.html
Jun 14, 2013 - 溫雲超稱,早前曾與陳光誠吃飯,陳當時提到要寫自傳,他當時理解陳光誠打算在紐大期間完成寫作,所以離校肯定不是既有的安排。 溫雲超指出,紐 ...


下面是我揭露傅希秋、陈光诚、刘天龙的几篇文章,以及向美国国会和FBI的举报材料。

傅希秋、刘天龙操纵美国听证会,欺骗国会误导舆论

陈光诚、傅希秋秉承中共旨意,挑起美国两党纷争

深揭狠批傅希秋-陈光诚-刘天龙共谍团伙

原文网址:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_15.html

我曾经揭露中共最大特务头子唐宇华,唐宇华因此被FBI逮捕归案。

我后来集中揭露中共战略特务赵岩,赵岩目前已经销声匿迹,被中美两国情报机构追捕。

我现在集中揭露傅希秋-陈光诚-刘天龙这个共谍团伙,一旦这个团伙被曝光,支持他们的那些政客、议员将无地自容,也将促使美国全面清洗中共间谍。

让我们拭目以待,静观 傅希秋-陈光诚-刘天龙这个共特团伙何时落网。


谁在幕后操纵陈光诚?


1. 傅希秋,2. 科恩

    
3. 赵岩


4. 袁伟静

胡佳与逃出监禁的陈光诚在北京秘密见面
5. 胡佳

6. 曾金燕


7. 温云超
紐大被指要求陳光誠離開- 港聞- 新聞頻道- 新浪網
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130614/-2-2992799/1.html
Jun 14, 2013 - 溫雲超稱,早前曾與陳光誠吃飯,陳當時提到要寫自傳,他當時理解陳光誠打算在紐大期間完成寫作,所以離校肯定不是既有的安排。 溫雲超指出,紐 ...


下面是我揭露傅希秋、陈光诚、刘天龙的几篇文章,以及向美国国会和FBI的举报材料。

傅希秋、刘天龙操纵美国听证会,欺骗国会误导舆论

陈光诚、傅希秋秉承中共旨意,挑起美国两党纷争

How the Times Mischaracterized Me and Chen Guangcheng
By Bob Fu
July 12, 2013 4:36 PM

下面是我加在傅希秋文章后的评论:

Chen Guangcheng, along with Mr. Lawrence T. Liu, and Mr. Bob Fu, are all Chinese spies who were sent by the Chinese government to the United States to do lobby for the Chinese government. Their major tasks are:

1. To manipulate the partisanship in the United States. Let the two parties to fight for Trivialities and pay less attention to other Chinese related sensitive issues, such as Human rights issues.

2. By involving partisanship, Chinese government could create chances to bribe or help some of the lawmakers, and to control some of the Chinese related offices. For example, the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) has been controlled by Mr. Lawrence T. Liu.

3. Influence/control the Congress and the White House to make decisions or issue laws to favor the Chinese Communist government.

4. Manipulate the presidential elections and the Parliamentary elections.


Mr. Lawrence T. Liu worked with Mr. Bob Fu closely to arranged many Chinese to do testimony at the Congress hearings. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has worked as the Staff Director of the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) for several years. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has been assistants to some of the Senators and Representatives.

please check the following link:
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html

Friday, July 12, 2013

陈光诚、傅希秋秉承中共旨意,挑起美国两党纷争

原文链接:http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_12.html

纽约时报发表文章,指责陈光诚卷入美国党派政治漩涡。实际上,陈光诚是中共潜心培养打造的战略间谍,中共通过苦肉计,将陈光诚送到美国,并成为美国普遍关注的政治明星和人权斗士。随后,中共指使陈光诚挑起美国两党纷争,以便中共坐山观虎斗,坐收渔翁之利。中共还派其他几位著名的中共特务配合陈光诚的工作,包括对华援助协会主席傅希秋,中国知名人士胡佳,美国国会及行政当局中国委员会主任刘天龙,等人。

傅希秋给陈光诚安装间谍软件,很多人认为这是傅希秋为了便于监视陈光诚。实际上,没有人会有兴趣去监视一个瞎子。这些间谍软件是为了帮助陈光诚同中共间谍部门进行联络和接受指令。

刘天龙在进入美国国会之前,曾经常年在中国北京工作。刘天龙曾经是美国共和党议员克里斯托夫·斯密斯的助理,以及民主党参议员谢罗德坎贝尔·布朗(Sherrod Campbell Brown)的助手。就是在刘天龙的策划下,使得这两位资深议员对中共政权是小骂大帮忙,使得美国国会只是关注一些诸如计划生育和堕胎这类问题,而很少关注中国的人权及敏感的政治经济问题。这正是中共政权派遣这些高级特务游说美国国会的目的所在。

陈光诚、傅希秋、刘天龙花大力气游说美国国会的目的不外乎是:

1. 挑起美国两党纷争,挑动美国斗美国,挑动共和党和民主党为鸡毛蒜皮一类的琐事而大动干戈,从而使两党都无暇关注中国人权,都不再谴责中共政权。必要的时候,中共政权出面调节,进而拉拢腐蚀某些美国议员。

2. 游说美国国会,甚至是控制美国国会的有关部门,比如美国国会的“美国国会及行政当局中国委员会”就被刘天龙控制。

3. 拉拢腐蚀美国议员,影响美国国会决策。刘天龙就对美国参议员谢罗德坎贝尔·布朗和美国共和党议员克里斯托夫·斯密斯有着十分重要的影响。美国国会的有关中国的听证会以及相关议案,很多都受到刘天龙的影响。

这就如同当年潜伏在蒋介石身边中共间谍郭汝瑰,郭汝槐是蒋介石的国防次长,蒋介石的许多作战计划就是由郭汝瑰按照中共的旨意来制订的。这些计划是首先送达到毛泽东的桌面,这种计划当然使得中共“知己知彼,百战不殆”。

4. 渗透美国议会选举和美国总统选举,帮助那些中共政权欣赏的候选人能够当选。



刘天龙的简历。

Chen Guangcheng, along with Mr. Lawrence T. Liu, and Mr. Bob Fu, are all Chinese spies who were sent by the Chinese government to the United States to do lobby for the Chinese government. Their major tasks are:

1. To manipulate the partisanship in the United States. Let the two parties to fight for Trivialities and pay less attention to other Chinese related sensitive issues, such as Human rights issues.

2. By involving partisanship, Chinese government could create chances to bribe or help some of the lawmakers, and to control some of the Chinese related offices. For example, the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) has been controlled by Mr. Lawrence T. Liu.

3. Influence/control the Congress and the White House to make decisions or issue laws to favor the Chinese Communist government.

4. Manipulate the presidential elections and the Parliamentary elections.

Mr. Lawrence T. Liu worked with Mr. Bob Fu closely to arranged many Chinese to do testimony at the Congress hearings. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has worked as the Staff Director of the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) for several years. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has been assistants to some of the Senators and Representatives.
 
Please check the following link:
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html

Gang Liu
July 12, 2013

相关文章

1. 陈光诚卷入美国党派政治漩涡

失明的法律倡导者陈光诚挑战了中国政府严酷的计划生育政策,他无疑是具有政治智慧且善于生存的。他智斗软禁他的看守,然后想方设法逃到了美国大使馆,由此引发一场外交危机。只有在国务卿希拉里·罗德姆·克林顿(Hillary Rodham Clinton)插手干预,就陈光诚的自由问题进行交涉后,这场危机才得以化解。
 
然而,在美国这片复杂而党派斗争激烈的政治版图上,他的政治智慧却未能得以发挥。2012年5月,甚至在这位勇于挑战中国共产党的维权人士调整好时差之前,他就被人权活动人士、反堕胎人士,以及两党中一大批渴望利用他知名度的政治人物所包围。
 中国异见人士陈光诚上月参访匹兹堡。
Mark Makela for The New York Times
中国异见人士陈光诚上月参访匹兹堡。
 陈光诚和他的妻子袁伟静以及孩子们,上个月参访匹兹堡。
Mark Makela for The New York Times
陈光诚和他的妻子袁伟静以及孩子们,上个月参访匹兹堡。
陈光诚(左)和傅希秋,傅希秋领导的福音派基督教组织在宗教问题上向中国施压。 
Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency
陈光诚(左)和傅希秋,傅希秋领导的福音派基督教组织在宗教问题上向中国施压。
    陈光诚在纽约大学(New York University)的赞助人奉劝他,远离他所不了解的、危机四伏的党派纷争。陈光诚的密友、法学教授孔杰荣(Jerome A. Cohen)表示,“我告诉陈光诚,美国就要举行总统选举了,在介入政治之前,他应该先花一年时间研究美国的政治格局。”
     
    朋友们表示,陈光诚从未真正听取这个建议,而如今他已卷入争议之中。在一群保守派人士的支持下,陈光诚已公开指责纽约大学屈服于中国政府的压力,在今夏提早中止为他提供奖学金。而校方表示,奖学金原本就只有一年。陈光诚身边的一些人也纷纷谴责纽约大学试图阻止他与保守派活动人士进行接触。
     
    陈光诚对纽约大学的指责引发了争议,这令他的一些支持者感到失望,以至于一名富有的捐助人最近收回了资助承诺。这名捐助人曾表示,将资助陈光诚在福特汉姆大学(Fordham University)为期三年的访问学者计划。这意味着,陈光诚周四结束对台湾的访问回到纽约后,就需要谋划其他的经济来源。如果不能成功,他就只剩下一个机会——威瑟斯庞研究所(Witherspoon Institute),这是一家位于新泽西的保守派研究组织,它最为人知的或许是其反对同性婚姻及干细胞研究的立场。
     
    相关的批评之声分散了陈光诚的注意力,扰乱了他向北京施压的努力,但对于中国活动人士来说,抵达美国后却变得碌碌无为,并不稀奇。
     
    自20世纪80年代末以来,有很多备受瞩目的、获得美国庇护的中国流亡人士,都发现自己赴美后作用减弱,或者名声受损。比如天安门抗议事件中的学生组织者柴玲,她后来信奉了福音派基督教。她曾多次起诉一部纪录片的制作人,称该纪录片损害了她的名誉。很多支持者因此疏远了她。因为进行民主活动,魏京生在中国监狱度过了18年,他在1997年抵达美国后,受到国会及人权组织的热情款待,但后来他与其他活动人士产生了不和,地位便大不如前。
     
    加利福尼亚大学河滨分校(University of California, Riverside)的林培瑞(Perry Link)教授表示, “异见人士必须得是硬骨头,但离开中国后,同样的这些特点未必总能对他们有所助益。”林培瑞曾帮助很多中国流亡人士适应美国的生活。
     
    陈光诚的朋友表示,他一直努力听取他人的建议,但他经常会被最后一个谈话者的意见左右。虽然他们称陈光诚是一个非常有原则的人,但他们也说陈光诚可能高估了自己,以为他能避开美国国内政治中的党派陷阱。中国异见人士胡佳经常通过Skype与陈光诚交流。“光诚常常告诉我,他对支持民主党还是共和党并不感兴趣,他是站在民主与自由的一边,”胡佳说。“我认为这一切可能超出了他的理解范畴。”
     
    去年,甚至在他抵达纽瓦克自由机场(Newark Liberty Airport)前,一些经验丰富的人权倡导者就预言,民选官员及各种中国流亡组织将会激烈争夺陈光诚以及他的超级英雄光环。这些流亡人士组织通常都会争相吸引各界的注意,并争夺稀缺的资金。
     
    对话基金会(Dui Hua Foundation)主席康原(John Kamm)表示,那时候,想到有陈光诚那样知名度的人正在来美国的路上,就感到异常振奋。这家总部位于旧金山的组织倡导维护中国政治犯的权益。“在异见人士圈子里,不是每天都会有像他那样有名望的人出现,”康原在陈光诚抵达美国前不久这样说。“他戴着墨镜的脸,就仿佛是切·格瓦拉(Che Guevara)的形象,你可以将之印在T恤上。”
     
    那些急于利用陈光诚名声的人中就有傅希秋(Bob Fu),他的组织对华援助(China Aid)在宣传陈光诚长期遭受迫害的境遇时发挥了积极作用。在山东省地方官员的手中,陈光诚曾遭受六年的监禁和软禁。
    最为戏剧化的是,在一场由新泽西州共和党众议员克里斯托弗·H·史密斯(Christopher H. Smith)召集的国会听证会上,傅希秋举着手机,让当时正在一所北京医院养伤的陈光诚通过电话请求庇护。此前,陈光诚在出逃时受了伤。
     
    批评人士表示,傅希秋夸大了他在陈光诚冒险出逃时发挥的作用,然后又在呼吁他的福音派基督徒支持者捐款时利用了陈光诚的故事。傅希秋有时在请求捐款时会将陈光诚塑造成反堕胎人士。然而,尽管陈光诚反对强制结扎和流产,他已表示,自己在这一分歧性话题上没有立场。
     
    傅希秋也曾是一位中国异见人士,1997年,他获准在美国避难。对于指责他操纵了陈光诚,令陈光诚与纽约大学的赞助人反目,傅希秋在一次采访中进行了驳斥。“说我用宗教极端主义来给他洗脑,这完全低估了陈光诚的智商,”他说。“说实话,我认为,纽约大学那帮人一直努力向他灌输宗教人士多么危险的想法,而这种行为却适得其反,最终,他忍受不下去了。他认识到,我们不是恶魔。”
     
    几位曾在过去一年与陈光诚密切合作的人则描述了一场为赢取陈光诚欢心而展开的令人尴尬的拉锯战,一方是他在纽约大学的顾问,另一方则是傅希秋和史密斯。在陈光诚抵美后不久,史密斯就开始努力劝说他,要求他在国会听证会上作证,来调查在帮助陈光诚离开中国赴美的行动中,奥巴马政府是不是差点儿搞砸。陈光诚最终拒绝参加,这场听证会也就此胎死腹中。
     
    朋友们说,在最初的几个月里,陈光诚接受了孔杰荣教授和其他一些人的意见,数次拒绝了要他出席华盛顿活动的请求,因为这些活动可能会为他加上党派的标签,这包括兰托斯人权与正义基金会(Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice)赞助的一场活动。该基金会以2008年去世的加利福尼亚州众议员、民主党人汤姆·兰托斯(Tom Lantos)命名。
     
    史密斯没有回应采访请求,他曾试图指出纽约大学对陈光诚行动的干预相当严重。史密斯告诉路透社(Reuters)记者,在今年1月,他曾试着在他的华盛顿办公室与陈光诚单独见面,却被一位翻译打断,此人闯进他的办公室,带走了陈光诚。他认为这位翻译是纽约大学雇的。
     
    马克·科拉洛(Mark Corallo)一直担任陈光诚的顾问,他是共和党的公共关系顾问,也曾任司法部长约翰·阿什克罗夫特(John Ashcroft)的发言人。有人指责他在令陈光诚与纽约大学反目一事上发挥了作用,而这可能会有损这位维权人士的无党派形象,科拉洛对此予以否认。
     
    “他是一位勇者,是被压迫的受害者,坦率地说,帮助像他这样的人是每一位美国人的责任,”他说。
     
    纽约大学顾问裴金(Mattie J. Bekink)曾在数月时间里担任陈光诚的翻译和顾问,她否认纽约大学在压力之下放弃了陈光诚。并且,对于人们所说的,纽约大学试图控制陈光诚,或者限制他的维权工作,她也予以了驳斥。
    “陈光诚可以自由地和任何他选择的人进行沟通和来往,”她说。
     
    最近几周,当陈光诚走访台湾各地时,记者们一再要求他详细描述他对纽约大学的指责,还问他是否担心,这样的争议可能会削弱他作为中国维权人士的影响力,但他都巧妙地避开了。但傅希秋表示,陈光诚会在未来数周内搬离纽约大学的寓所,他目前正在积极规划那之后的安排。傅希秋说,他还是几乎每天都会与陈光诚进行交流。
    在一次采访中,傅希秋描述了他与陈光诚的一次谈话,那是在陈光诚会见威瑟斯庞研究所的一位创始人、极有影响力的保守派基督教思想家罗伯特·P·乔治(Robert P. George)之后。据傅希秋回忆,陈光诚表示,他并不介意该组织对堕胎和同性家长的攻击。“他告诉我,‘不要说他们保守,他们是有原则的。如果他们愿意支持获取自由的斗争,那对我来说就足够了。’”
     
    杰安迪(Andrew Jacobs)是《纽约时报》驻京记者。
    翻译:曹莉、许欣

    Gang Liu's comments following the following two files:

    CCP spies manipulate Congress hearings to cheat/mislead US Lawmakers. Mr. Cheng Guangcheng, Mr. Bob Fu, and Mr. Lawrance T. Liu, are all working for the Chinese government to do lobby in the United States. They helped the Chinese government to control/influence the Congress, the White House, especially to influence the Chinese related issues.

    http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html

    http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-and-how-morgan-stanley-and.html
    http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/02/judge-thomas-miller-helps-ccp-to.html


    相关文章2.
    After a Tense Year, NYU and Chen Guangcheng Part Ways
    Jul 9, 2013 4:45 AM EDT


    Since Chen’s dramatic escape from China and arrival at NYU, the activist found himself at odds with the university that took him in, his supporters tell Josh Rogin.


    Just a year after escaping China to start a new life in the United States, Chinese human-rights activist Chen Guangcheng’s future is in limbo again as university officials feud with right-wing lawmakers and members of the Christian human rights community over who is responsible for the fallout between Chen and NYU, the university that took him in.
    130702-rogin-guangcheng-tease

    130702-rogin-guangcheng-tease
    Chen Guangcheng at New York University in New York, June 18, 2012. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times, via Redux)


    The blind lawyer’s dramatic path to New York gripped the world’s attention during Hillary Clinton’s April 2012 visit to China for a major bilateral dialogue. After escaping house arrest in his hometown and making it all the way to the U.S. embassy in Beijing, Chen’s plea for refuge overshadowed the summit and top State Department officials spent a week negotiating Chen’s permission to travel to the U.S. with his immediate family.


    Chen’s travel was not billed as asylum. China allowed Chen to go to America to pursue his legal studies and the deal hinged on a major U.S. law school taking responsibility for Chen. NYU stepped up fill that role. Now, Chen is publicly accusing the school of forcing him out in response to what he called “great, unrelenting pressure” from Beijing, a claim NYU adamantly denies. But Chen’s public break last month was just the latest in a long string of incidents between NYU and the various interests that have been working on Chen’s behalf.


    Some lawmakers and members of the Christian Chinese human rights community, who have made it their mission to advocate for Chen, allege that NYU has been controlling Chen’s every movement and keeping him from speaking out in a way that might raise tensions with Beijing.


    “The mistreatment of Chen was NYU with the full acquiescence of the State Department,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the head of the House Foreign Affairs human rights subcommittee, told The Daily Beast.


    Smith played a key role during Chen’s time holed up in the U.S. embassy, arranging for Chen to call live into a congressional hearing and publicly ask for the ability to leave China, which had the potential to upset the State Department’s delicate negotiations with the Chinese government. Smith has been holding hearings on Chen’s situation and Chen’s cause—ending the one-child policy and forced abortions—for years.


    As soon as Chen arrived in the U.S., NYU tried to prevent Chen from testifying on Capitol Hill and then pressured him to avoid controversy after he finally testified, according to Smith. The pressure on Chen ramped up after he went to Capitol Hill to give a press conference in August 2012, according to Smith, and NYU told Chen he had to leave the school just after Chen testified before Smith’s committee April 9.


    “April 11, that week, he was summoned and told you are out of here,” said Smith. “That’s not how to treat a world-class human-rights defender whose nephew is being tortured as we speak.”


    “One day before he testified, NYU had a meeting and instructed him not to accept this award and said it will anger the Chinese government.”


    Smith also alleges that Chen was constantly surrounded by minders who controlled his schedule and refused to leave his side. Smith believes those minders played a role in censoring Chen and stopping him from meeting with politicians and activists who are critical of Beijing, such as Smith.


    “When I would talk to him at NYU there was always someone there. I would say, ‘Can we have a moment of alone time?’ and they would say ‘No’ in a loud voice,” he said.


    Smith says that NYU is caving to Chinese pressure and abandoning Chen because they don’t want any problems opening up their new campus in Shanghai. “It’s the price of admission, but it doesn’t have to be,” he said.


    Jerome Cohen, the 83-year-old NYU law professor who helped orchestrate the school’s hosting of Chen, called Smith’s claims outrageous and erroneous. Smith, said Cohen, is part of a group that’s trying to exploit Chen to attack China and the Obama administration, and promote pro-life policies.


    “The impression that [Smith] tries to give, that we’ve been restraining Chen from talking, is preposterous,” he told The Daily Beast. “The last thing that I wanted to see was to see him embroiled in American politics. They are trying to make him the poster boy for their anti-abortion, anti-same sex [marriage] agenda. They are harming Chen and he has lost an enormous amount of support.”


    The resentment between the school and the right-wing human-rights community over Chen’s case runs deep. There were problems as early as Chen’s arrival, when officials like Smith were not allowed to attend the welcome ceremony and not given early access to Chen.


    Cohen believes that Chen is being led astray by Smith and figures like Pastor Bob Fu, the head of a Texas organization called China Aid, and a close personal friend of Chen. Chen would not have publicly accused NYU of caving to Chinese pressure if not for his friends like Fu, who have been waging a public campaign against Beijing for decades, said Cohen.


    “I’ve been at NYU 25 years I’ve been a consistent critic of China. Nobody ever told me not to say this or that,” said Cohen. “Allegations should be supported by facts. If I saw any facts that NYU was forcing Chen out despite doing a huge service to him, I would speak up.”


    NYU hosted Chen despite their pending business in Shanghai, taking a significant and brave risk, as Cohen tells it. Chen always knew it was to be a one-year deal, he said. NYU has supplied Chen with a residence in their staff dormitories, a weekly stipend for living expenses, and helped him get involved in various legal and academic projects, he said.


    “Any university would try to minimize the consequences,” he said. “People assume that all universities must be cozying up to China for financial reasons, but NYU had different motives.”


    In a statement, NYU Spokesman John Beckman called Chen’s accusations of Chinese influence at NYU “false and contradicted by the well-established facts.”


    “Mr. Chen’s fellowship at NYU and its conclusion have had nothing to do with the Chinese government. All fellowships come to an end,” the statement said. “NYU believes it has been generous in supporting this family, and we are puzzled and saddened to see these false claims directed at us.”


    Cohen is disappointed by Chen’s accusations but said that Chen was his own man and capable of making his own decisions.


    “The State Department used to joke they freed him and he’s been biting the hand that was feeding him,” he said, adding that while attacking State may be in the interests of partisan Republicans in Congress it’s not in Chen’s best interests. Smith and Fu, Cohen argued, are making it still less likely that Beijing might negotiate for the release of Chen’s family still imprisoned in China, such as Chen’s nephew, who was arrested for attempted murder after fighting off intruders in his own house.


    “People who are impartial should praise their support of Chen rather than turning it into an anti-Obama, anti–Hillary Clinton attack,” he said.


    Chen’s “minders” were simply the aides that NYU provided for Chen to help him get around, especially when travelling, Cohen said. Smith and Fu are interested in provoking Beijing, but not all China critics agree that is a productive strategy.


    “It annoys me that people don’t see that there could be many good reasons to cooperate with China on education,” he said. “We’ve got to deal with the real world and that involves bringing Chinese people along.”


    The feud between Cohen and Smith and Fu reached a pinnacle last month when Cohen said that an iPad given to Chen by Fu contained Spyware. Fu told The Daily Beast he simply bought the iPad at the store and has no idea what Cohen is talking about.


    Fu, who speaks to Chen on a regular basis, said that the allegations against NYU come from Chen directly.


    “What I have heard from Mr. Chen over the past 12 to 13 months was that he had felt increasingly that NYU had been under relenting pressure from the Chinese government and every time when he speaks up for Chinese human rights and is critical of the Chinese government or when he tries to go to Congress to testify, NYU has taken increasing measures to pressure him,” Fu said.


    NYU’s tactics ranged from subtle to aggressive, Fu said. For example, when Chen was in Washington to testify for a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last July, he went completely missing along with his NYU handlers, said Fu.


    “On that day I was not able to locate Chen at all. He was basically missing. Later that day, committee staff told me Chen was driven to an undisclosed location so nobody was able to communicate with him. So the hearing did happen but without Chen,” he said. “Up until today I don’t know where he was taken, who threatened him. What happened to him that day? I was really alarmed.”


    When Chen raised his concerns about NYU and alleged Chinese pressure with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), it only made NYU more uncomfortable, according to Fu. He also alleges NYU discouraged him from accepting a Congressional Gold Medal that was being planned preliminarily in April.


    “One day before he testified, NYU had a meeting and instructed him not to accept this award and said it will anger the Chinese government,” Fu said.


    Fu, though, rejected the claim that his priority is to attack the Obama administration or promote his pro-life agenda.


    “We are a nonpartisan human rights organization and of course I am a Christian pastor, but that doesn’t mean we are involved in U.S. politics. We are forbidden to do that,” he said. “Show me the evidence, Mr. Cohen.”


    Cohen’s claims that Chen is being manipulated by the Christian right don’t match with what everyone knows about Chen, that he is strong willed and independent minded above all else, said Fu.


    “That’s an insult to Mr. Chen’s intelligence,” said Fu. “What’s the point of making this a fight about pro-life or pro-choice. There’s nothing there for Mr. Chen.”


    Chen must vacate his NYU apartment by July 15. NYU stopped paying his expenses some time ago, but Chen has gotten an advance from a book deal and is also supported by a “wealthy democratic donor,” said Fu. He is considering offers from other top universities, including Princeton and Fordham.


    But Chen’s original plan, to go back to China to continue his work there and fight for the freedom of his family members, is farther from reach than ever. Rather than negotiating with Chen, over the past year the Chinese government has increased its efforts to round up his supporters and prosecute his relatives.


    “This is going to make other universities hesitant to take the next guy,” Cohen said.

    相关文章3.
    Chen Guangcheng Criticizes NYU on Principle, the Times Sees Partisanship
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353210/chen-guangcheng-criticizes-nyu-principle-times-sees-partisanship-patrick-brennan

    By Patrick Brennan

    July 11, 2013 5:28 PM


    On the front page below the fold today, the New York Times has a piece on the plight of Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident who escaped his country last year. What’s befallen the man now?

    Mr. Chen’s political savvy has not translated well in the complex and fiercely partisan terrain he has encountered in the United States. Even before he could recover from jet lag in May 2012, Mr. Chen was besieged by human rights activists, opponents of abortion and an array of politicians from both parties eager to harness the celebrity wattage of the man who stood up to the Chinese Communist Party.

    His sponsors at New York University cautioned Mr. Chen to stay clear of a partisan minefield he did not understand. “I told Chen there was a presidential election coming up and he should spend a year studying the American political landscape before wading in,” said Jerome A. Cohen, a law professor and close confidant.

    That advice, friends say, never really sank in, and Mr. Chen, 41, has found himself enmeshed in controversy. Backed by a coterie of conservative figures, Mr. Chen has publicly accused N.Y.U. of bowing to Chinese government pressure and prematurely ending his fellowship this summer. The university says the fellowship was intended to be for only one year. Some of those around Mr. Chen also accuse the university of trying to shield him from conservative activists.

    The sparring has grown fierce, with N.Y.U. officials accusing one of those conservative activists, Bob Fu, the president of a Texas-based Christian group that seeks to pressure China over its religious restrictions, of trying to track Mr. Chen surreptitiously through a cellphone and a tablet computer that Mr. Fu’s organization donated to him.

    It seems what the Times is really concerned about is that Chen’s criticized NYU’s treatment of and is now working with activists who also happen to be politically conservative. He’s not actually “mired in [the] partisan U.S.,” as the headline frets — instead, he just now happens to be leaning toward one side rather than the other.

    As they explain, Chen is currently “left with a single job offer: from the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative research organization in New Jersey that is perhaps best known for its opposition to same-sex marriage and stem cell research.” In addition to the Witherspoon Institute (which, by the way, is a leading voice for religious freedom around the world, a rather more important issue with regard to China than same-sex marriage) and its insidious offer, the Times discusses Bob Fu, an exiled Chinese dissident himself who played a key role in Chen’s escape from China but has also made the mistake of associating with Evangelicals in America who want to support religious freedom in China; New Jersey Republican congressman Christopher Smith, who called an important hearing that helped secure Chen’s release from China; and Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for John Ashcroft who’s now providing public-relations work for Chen.

    There are some vaguely partisan controversies here, of conservatives apparently trying to use Chen – the story about the tracking devices is bizarre but entirely unclear; obviously it would be unfair of Fu’s organization to cast Chen as an opponent of abortion when he only opposes forced abortions, but it’s only the Times’s assertion that Fu’s fundraising off of that, and Fu has clarified on a number of occasions Chen is not against voluntary abortion.

    You’ll notice that the Times doesn’t mention liberal partisanship presenting a problem for Chen. But the problem here actually appears to be coming from the left, or not be much of a problem at all: There’s no evidence in the story that Chen’s engagement with conservatives has actually harmed his reputation in any way; the only problems he’s had are with liberal institutions trying to prevent him from engaging with Republicans and religious types — which actually has interfered with his work, if Fu and Smith are to be believed.

    The Times suggests that the acrimony surrounding his departure from NYU — the objections and complaints Chen has raised about the place – has been instigated by conservatives and has harmed him, but they have a legitimate, principled point to make there about American educational institutions and China (see what NR’s editors had to say). And it’s just quite possible that Chen agrees with them, and that he doesn’t want to be involved in partisan fights, but happens to agree with conservatives on this, and wants to make himself known. The idea that he might side with conservatives on principle, of course, doesn’t sit well with NYU or the Times.

    The Times’ other explanations of conservative manipulation, and the wages of “partisanship,” don’t really hold up: Representative Smith, for instance, had the temerity to “pressing him to testify at a Congressional hearing that would have explored whether the Obama administration had nearly bungled Mr. Chen’s bid to leave China for the United States,” which could well be a partisan exercise, but also kind of sounds like one worth holding, and to which Chen would be an important contributor. NYU, meanwhile, was the real driver of “partisanship” here, pressuring Chen to decline to cooperate (he did turn Smith down, though the hearing was never held). Corallo, the former Ashcroft spokesman, has “waved off accusations that his role in helping Mr. Chen risked tainting the rights advocate’s nonpartisan bona fides” — whether it has or it hasn’t, Chen is the one who hired Corallo, and the Times is the one basically leveling the accusation here.