01-07-2018 Chinese government inveighs me "fake" to rob my intellectual making and harm me biologically to rob my inheritances? (中国政府痛骂我 “假冒伪造” 是想掠夺我的智慧产权, 伤害我的身体健康是为了抢劫我所继承的财产？）
Heard this morning's broadcasting of why don't you explain to the Chinese government in Chinese? (中文附后)
My response:
When the Chinese government has been fighting for "the lawful rights" to teach English native American some English on a U.S. public radio channel just because they are all English major graduated from Chinese colleges?
When Chinese Premier Li is a Chinese college English major graduated as well and was in all three of 2004's meetings as himself stated in "no inheriting meeting" testimony,
When Chinese government insist on to broadcast confusion as if they don't know if I never have a biological child born in China, in college or in Nanjing Institute of Drug Control,
Why anyone would think in Chinese or in English makes any difference at all while knowing all they want to say is: "It is impossible that Min Fang can have any achievements" to help Albert Gore to rob every penny of my intellectual income to make their own share of "service charge".
I heard, since 2007, Albert Gore has used big accounting firms' good reputations to deposit checks' titled pay-to in my name to his own desired banking accounts the same day he announced "his desired ownership of the money" on the radio without any authorization from the lawful owner of the money (me on the pay-to title of the checks or the company that signed-out the checks), and I heard accountants' share of helping fee made the tricks of all my complained public robbery, is it possible that this is how some Chinese government officials intend to make their own private wealth? Or is it possible those fees have already been very handsome that I have been inveighed by the Chinese government as such, as so many people have heard from the radio? According to People's Republic of China's bribery rules developed since 1980, 20% of total transacted amount is considered appropriate share.
----January 7th, 2018
Heard this morning's broadcasting of me accusing Chinese military's participation of harming my health.
My response: From rumors I heard, the Chinese government has sent out its military staff to the U.S. to help make me full body infected of some virus, etc. since the same day Albert Gore announced his murderous intentions on the radio as "Let the little creature to take it over" in 2017.
I heard recent attempt of implanting some cancers on me according to published known cancer mechanisms was announced on the radio as "plan of letting me have this dynamic infection" by Albert Gore or his associated. I accused Albert Gore attempted murder for money.
I am protected by the United States government and the United States laws on my lawful intellectual making and my lawful inheritances.
----January 7th, 2018
Heard this morning's talk about 1989 Student movements and 1950 times government taking over private wealth in the People's Republic of China.
My response: I add some related that I heard of when I was in China:
1978, Chinese chairman Deng, Xiaoping announced Chinese government policy of "Allow some people to self-improve their lives through generating their lawful private wealth".
1980 times Chinese government announced policies of "Let Chinese citizens buy those for-sell factories or companies". Those for-sell businesses were selected because of their financial situations were all on-the-verge of bankruptcy.
I heard such selections were made from the consideration to keep the main economic system healthy to benefit the majority of the Chinese People.
The troubles it generated are:
Not many Chinese citizens could afford to buy in full if fair priced which caused a lot of controversy of how those businesses were sold.
Majority of those spin out business need to find their own way to survive, those employed and retired would lose their pension or salaries together with medical coverage permanently if fail. There was no major job market opened for them at all (only some affiliated companies by in-system business to benefit their own employees' families), and there was no social security provided for them by the government or China's then main economic system. Some of them were driven to the financial desperation that generated a lot of legal issues I named as PRC80 style scheme.
Those businesses were all on the verge of bankruptcy and how some of those businesses being fueled to thrive caused a lot of controversies that intellectual properties owned by "the Chinese People" who worked as scientists or engineers may have been robbed of their hard-making intellectual income.
In 1980-time, People's Republic of China start to have Patent Laws, but because of this "Owned by Chinese People" communist economic system, what should be the lawful share between the concept owner of "All Chinese People", the Institutes, or the scientists (engineers) were not clearly defined yet. This may have resulted that intellectual properties created by Chinese people who were scientists (engineers) of a research institute, were taken by another group of Chinese people who need these inventions free of any patent fees, all because both groups were part of the concept owner "The Chinese People" of those inventions.
My own experiences are what I have been complained about this "One-Eyed-Joy Bilking Scheme" through a public channeled radio program. The human's reproduction organ "One-Eyed-Joy" is like an umbrella concept that covers everybody's deservedness of my money on the radio, either being the authentic one truly enjoyed by a One-Eyed-Joy or owns a One-Eyed-Joy that associated with a person who owns a One-Eyed-Joy and participated some teleconferences in 2004.
Based on my own experiences of what happened to me through this radio program's producing, I assume the concept owner "the Chinese People" is like an umbrella that makes the lawful ownership transacted illegally through some organized purposeful explanation of Chinese government Policies of "Let Chinese citizens buy those for-sell factories or companies" is to "Allow some people to self-improve their lives through generating their lawful private wealth".
----January 7th, 2018
About 1989 Students movements and this administration of People's Republic of China's government.
My response:
First, this administration of People's Republic of China's government is grouped by those who were in their 30s in 1989. Those students, undergraduate and graduated, who marched on the streets were aged from 20-30s in 1989.
Second, 1989 Students movement was organized by whom? It started off by demanding memorial services to Chinese Youth Parties former leader: Hu, Yaobang (胡耀邦), how it turned violent that Tiananmen square was occupied by marching students?
The appeals students demanding were "Anti-Corruption (sexually and financially) and Democracy in China's Politics (National Election)". I was the person reported to China's Communist government that students’ movements on the streets were abnormal because these appeals were ridiculous.
For one, there had no single case of any media coverage of any government officials involved major corruption case that could cause this massive violent anger expression among college students.
If Chinese government policies in 1980 had sparked a lot of issues in China's then economy that hugely impact a lot of colleges' students' families and colleges' faculties and staffs, those appeals made by marching students had completely missed the points. All these issues were caused by China's government did not open the major job market for those laid-off or provide some level of social securities, or patent laws related issues, all may have some level of government officials’ involvements, but not really corruption issues.
For two, appeal to National Election a the major symbol of democracy, how a National Election could possibly achieve overnight? How to vote according to the understanding voting is to choose a person who could lead the nation without knowing the person-in-voting at all? Without this national election mechanism that could introduce the person-in-voting in place, national voting is just to vote a person to lead the nation by choosing this person's name blindly. My own personal opinion, a former administration's selection of the new administration, at least, wouldn't be so blindly as public of the People's Republic of China's citizens. How this "Introducing the person-in-voting" mechanism could possibly be developed overnight by answering college students marching on the streets?
And I also reported big amount donation collected on the streets were suspicious. Now, looking back, those suspicious activities may have something to do with those financially desperate laid-off workers. I do not know exactly what happened to those donations collected from streets in 1989.
After May of 1989's colleges' meeting, it was Chinese government organized to let students release our passion to express our love to China but not block traffic to negatively impact nation's economic activities or nation's economy.
----January 7th, 2018
About rumors that this administration of People's Republic of China's government is revenging for what happened on June 4th of 1989.
My response:
I repeat, this administration of People's Republic of China's government is grouped by those who were in their 30s in 1989. Almost everyone in this administration was in 1989's Chinese colleges' meeting organized by then Chinese government administration.
The huge problem I have with the People's Republic of China's government is why records of the 1989 Chinese Colleges' meeting cannot go public? All these confusion and anger about if 1989 Tiananmen square was a massacre was because these records did not open to the public. What is the reason Chinese government not willing to let Chinese citizens know Chinese government never order to kill those 1989 students. The order was to evacuate Tiananmen square with force.
"June 4th of 1989" was the People's Republic of China's then administration's decision. It was never a massacre. I suggested to use Chinese Military was because China had no anti-violence Police mechanism. Chinese then police officers were known for catching violent criminals by sacrificing their own lives since all the policing tools police officers could use were handcuffs. The problem was how to handcuff a violent criminal was not addressed by then Chinese justice system.
I suggested using tanks was because I knew Chinese Military's uniforms are made of fabric to keep enlisted dry and warm but not bulletproof, nor stoneproof or glass-proof. I expressed this same understanding of History of Wars in Europe to the U.S. Military in January of 2004.
In 1989's colleges' meeting, I suggested open fire to those refuse to vacant Tiananmen Square was because of my consideration of the cost to evacuate the Tiananmen Square. I also suggest police officers and local Beijing city government to ensure anyone who was willing to evacuate from Tiananmen square could leave safely on forceful evacuating day: with police officers using speakers loudly asking everyone to leave and to awake anyone that possible in sleep, with the street lights on to point the safe road, etc. How about the safety of those Chinese Military's enlisted that being deployed to this mission? Stones and glasses could be deadly weapons that could cause some casualties. The Chinese Military open fire in Tiananmen square in 1989 was never meant to kill but to evacuate the Tiananmen square with force. Those bullets never after those who were leaving.
To protect deployed through advanced technology and medical technology as much as possible was also a major part of those orders I gave to U.S. Military Supply Corp as an active-enlisted U.S. Military 3-Stars General Strategist on July 1st of 2004.
**I am truly happy that I heard on January 8th of 2018: From satellite image records, there were protesters walked out of Tiananmen square alive after Chinese military's shooting out on June 4th of 1989. Please verify this information. (----January 8th, 2018)
**Some said, the Chinese government couldn't public the records of the 1989's College's teleconference is because there were some scary conversations that some anonymous people insisted on Chinese government needs to pay big money to govern protesting students. I say if you have heard radio program's 2017 Christmas times two weeks broadcasting, you know this is not scary but
Do you hear what I hear? Is that an Alzheimer or a psycho?( Third Item)
(----January 8th, 2018)
Do you hear what I hear? Is that an Alzheimer or a psycho?( Third Item)
(----January 8th, 2018)
----January 7th, 2018
我的回应：我再加一些我在中国时听说的：
1978年，中国的国家主席邓小平号召“让一部分人先富裕起来”。
1980年代，中国政府公布了一系列政策“让一些人可以购买效益不好的企业（公司工厂）。” 那些可以让私人购买的公司工厂很多都是效益不好面临倒闭的公司工厂。
我听说了做这样的选择是出于保障主要的经济体制可以健康来稳定绝大多数中国人民的利益。
所造成的一些麻烦事：
所有这些企业都是在面临倒闭的边缘，其中的一些企业是如何绝处逢生的，也引发了很多争议，即是否中国人民中的一部分，也就是在大学或研究所工作的科学家工程师所创造的智慧产权被无偿掠夺了。
我自己的亲生经历，也就是我一直在抱怨的这个通过公共频道的广播剧播出所进行“以阳具招摇撞骗"活动。人类的生殖器官”阳具“就像是一个雨伞型的概念名词，覆盖了所要够资格向我要钱的理由，要么是被一条阳具在床上真正爱抚着的女人，要么就是拥有一条阳具并和一个在2004年参加过电讯会议的某一条阳具有点什么样的关系。
根据我自己的这个由广播剧播出所产生的亲身经历，我估计这”中国人民”就像是一个雨伞型的概念名词，让法律上的产权拥有者被非法置换，通过的手段可能就是某种有组织进行的对中国政府政策“让一些人可以购买一些效益不好企业”就是”让一部分人先富裕起来”的解释。
----2018年1月7日。
游行学生的诉求是：“反贪污，反腐败，要民主！” 听说了民主诉求主要是想要通过公开选取来产生政府。是我向中国政府汇报学生在街上的游行示威某名奇妙且很不正常。
当时能够买得起这些面临倒闭企业的中国人民很少很少，所以就造成很多疑问“这些企业是如何标价出售的？”
绝大多数被主要的经济体制边缘化的企业都需要自负盈亏，如果这些工厂公司难以实现自负盈亏，企业的员工就面临永远没有了工资，永远没有了退休金，也永远没有了医疗报销的处境。当时既没有主要的再就业市场（就只有一些效益好的企事业单位办的"三产"照顾他们自己的职工家属）， 也没有由政府或由当时的主流经济体制可以向他们提供的所需的社保医保。他们中的一些人就此面临家庭收入绝境而产生了很多的被我称为PRC80模式伎俩的社会和法律问题。
所有这些企业都是在面临倒闭的边缘，其中的一些企业是如何绝处逢生的，也引发了很多争议，即是否中国人民中的一部分，也就是在大学或研究所工作的科学家工程师所创造的智慧产权被无偿掠夺了。
八十年代，中华人民共和国已经开始有了专利相关的法规，但是因为这个“全民所有制“的经济体制，在国家，研究院集体和科学家工程师个人之间应该如何分配所创造的智慧产权还没有法律上的清晰界定。这些有可能造成了中国人民中的一部分所创造的智慧产权被中国人民中的另一部分无偿获取，就只因为这些发明专利是属于这么一个概念上的抽象的“中国人民所拥有的”。
我自己的亲生经历，也就是我一直在抱怨的这个通过公共频道的广播剧播出所进行“以阳具招摇撞骗"活动。人类的生殖器官”阳具“就像是一个雨伞型的概念名词，覆盖了所要够资格向我要钱的理由，要么是被一条阳具在床上真正爱抚着的女人，要么就是拥有一条阳具并和一个在2004年参加过电讯会议的某一条阳具有点什么样的关系。
根据我自己的这个由广播剧播出所产生的亲身经历，我估计这”中国人民”就像是一个雨伞型的概念名词，让法律上的产权拥有者被非法置换，通过的手段可能就是某种有组织进行的对中国政府政策“让一些人可以购买一些效益不好企业”就是”让一部分人先富裕起来”的解释。
----2018年1月7日。
有关1989年的学运和中华人民共和国的这一届政府。
我的回应：
首先，这一届中国人民共和国的政府是由1989年时30多岁的一批人所组建的。1989年时的上街游行学生包括本科和研究生，也就是20，30多岁的那些。
其次，1989年的学生运动当时谁组织的？最早是1989年的清明节4月5日前后，开始是纪念中国共青团的前任书记胡耀邦，怎么就变成了学生们占据了天安门广场向中国政府示威了？
游行学生的诉求是：“反贪污，反腐败，要民主！” 听说了民主诉求主要是想要通过公开选取来产生政府。是我向中国政府汇报学生在街上的游行示威某名奇妙且很不正常。
第一：当时就没有任何媒体公开报道的贪污腐败分子能引发如此社会公愤造成大学的学生们上街游行表达愤怒不满
如果当时中国政府的经济政策所造成的很多问题影响到了很多在校大学生的家庭及一些大学的老师们，这些上街游行的诉求根本是偏题很远。当时的社会问题是政府没有向这些下岗人员提供再就业所需的劳务市场，也没有社保医保等社会保障系统提供维持生活所需的经济支持，或者专利法相关的一些矛盾，这些问题可能都牵涉到一些中国当时的政府官员，但不是什么贪污腐败问题而是需要加快法制建设的问题。
第二：诉求公开选举作为实现中国民主化的标志，公开选举那有可能可以按照游行学生的要求一夜之间就实现？选举是为了通过投票选出投票人心目中可以领到中国这个国家的领袖人物，没有对参选人的了解，中国人民如何按照对选举的这份理解来进行全民公开投票？没有一份可以让中国人民了解参选人的机制的情况下，全民公开选举也就是让老百姓对着一个个陌生的名字而胡选乱选。我个人的意见，在这种情况下，由上一届政府推荐产生的新一届政府至少比老百姓对着陌生的名字选要好很多。这个“让人民了解参选人”的选举机制哪有可能在1989年的一夜之间就可以按照游行学生的诉求而产生啊？
我当时也汇报了街上收集的群众捐款下落可疑。现在回头看，可能那些正经历着家庭经济绝境的下岗人员是捐款下落不明的一部分原因。我完全不清楚1989年学生游行期间所收集捐款的下落。
1989年五月的全国高校会议之后，是中国政府组织各地在不妨碍交通及国家的经济建设活动的前提下，让学生们通过游行表达爱国热情。
----2018年1月7日。
我对中国政府很大的一个投诉就是为什么不公开1989年全国高校会议的记录? 所有这些因为1989年是否是中国政府在屠杀学生都是因为当时的全国高校会议记录没有公开。是什么原因中国政府就是不愿意让中国人民了解中国政府从来就没有下令屠杀天安门广场的游行学生。当时的军令是武装清理天安门广场。
有关这一届中国政府是在为1989年的6月4日复仇的传言。
我的回应：这一届中国人民共和国的政府是由1989年时30多岁的一批人所组建的。这一届政府的每一个组要成员都参加了1989年的全国高校会议。
我对中国政府很大的一个投诉就是为什么不公开1989年全国高校会议的记录? 所有这些因为1989年是否是中国政府在屠杀学生都是因为当时的全国高校会议记录没有公开。是什么原因中国政府就是不愿意让中国人民了解中国政府从来就没有下令屠杀天安门广场的游行学生。当时的军令是武装清理天安门广场。
1989年的“武力六·四清理天安门广场”是中华人民共和国当时那一届政府的决定，从来不是什么屠杀。是我建议了中国政府使用中国军队进行武力清理， 原因就是当时的中华人民共和国没有防止及处理暴力事件的防暴警察机制。中国当时的警察只有不惧牺牲自己才能制服穷凶极恶的犯罪分子是很有名的，当时的警察所能使用执法工具就只有手铐，但是当时的中国司法部门可能没有考虑到如何才能把手铐拷上犯罪分子的手上其实是很有挑战性的。
是我建议了使用坦克，因为我知道中国军人的军装是用纤维制作，只有保暖及抵挡风雨的功能，不防子弹不防石块也不放玻璃碴子。这和我在2004年一月的时候向美军谈我对欧洲战争史火枪手方阵作战的理解是同样的。
在1989年的全国高校会议上，我是有建议对拒绝离开天安门广场的作开枪处理，这是出于我对武力清理天安门广场可能付出代价的考虑。我也同时建议了由当时没有任何武器装备的北京地方政府及当地警察确保愿意离开广场的人员在任何时候都可以安全离开：用手提高音喇叭高音量劝说滞留广场人员服从政府指示离开广场，用路灯提供广场人员安全撤离通道的照明，等等。那些执行此项武力清理天安门的中国军人，他们的安全如何保障？石头和玻璃瓶子是可以致命的武器有可能会造成中国军方清理广场人员伤亡的。中国军方1989年在天安门广场开枪从来不是为了屠杀学生，就只是武力清理广场，我听说的是那些中国人民解放军的子弹完全没有追着射向那些已经开始撤离的广场人员。
用先进的科技及医学技术保护执行军务人员的安全是我在2004年7月1日以在役美国三星将军参谋长身份向美国军队的后勤部门下达的命令中的很大一部分。
**2018年1月8日，我听到了非常开心的消息，卫星图像记录显示，在1989年6月4日那天，北京天安门广场有不止一个示威人员在中国人民解放军结束武力清理天安门广场的军事行动后还活着并且自己走出了天安门广场。请89年学运人士核实。（----2018年1月8日）
**I am truly happy that I heard on January 8th of 2018: From satellite image records, there were protesters walked out of Tiananmen square alive after Chinese military's shooting out on June 4th of 1989. Please verify this information. (----January 8th, 2018)
**Some said, the Chinese government couldn't public the records of the 1989's College's teleconference is because there were some scary conversations that some anonymous people insisted on Chinese government needs to pay big money to govern protesting students. I say if you have heard radio program's 2017 Christmas times two weeks broadcasting, you know this is not scary but
Do you hear what I hear? Is that an Alzheimer or a psycho?( Third Item)
(----January 8th, 2018)
**2018年1月8日，我听到了非常开心的消息，卫星图像记录显示，在1989年6月4日那天，北京天安门广场有不止一个示威人员在中国人民解放军结束武力清理天安门广场的军事行动后还活着并且自己走出了天安门广场。请89年学运人士核实。（----2018年1月8日）
**I am truly happy that I heard on January 8th of 2018: From satellite image records, there were protesters walked out of Tiananmen square alive after Chinese military's shooting out on June 4th of 1989. Please verify this information. (----January 8th, 2018)
**Some said, the Chinese government couldn't public the records of the 1989's College's teleconference is because there were some scary conversations that some anonymous people insisted on Chinese government needs to pay big money to govern protesting students. I say if you have heard radio program's 2017 Christmas times two weeks broadcasting, you know this is not scary but
Do you hear what I hear? Is that an Alzheimer or a psycho?( Third Item)
(----January 8th, 2018)
**有人说，中国政府不公开1989年全国高校会议记录是因为其中有一段对话非常吓人，当时有几个无名人士坚持要让中国付钱才可以管理街上游行的学生，我说啊，在听了2017年圣诞节时那两个星期的广播剧播出，你就知道一点都不可怕，根本就是：
我有没有听错啊, 那是一群老年痴呆，还是一群精神病人啊？（第三段）
（---2018年1月8日）
我有没有听错啊, 那是一群老年痴呆，还是一群精神病人啊？（第三段）
（---2018年1月8日）
----2018年1月7日。