The Rule of Law by MG Paul Vallely U.S.A. (ret.)and BG Charles Jones U.S.A.F. (ret.)

The Rule of Law

By: MG Paul E. Vallely (US Army Ret) and BG Charles Jones (USAF Ret)

September 12, 2019

Published and Distributed by the Stand Up America US Foundation

Why is the Rule of Law important to the law and order of a country? Our answers!

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The rule of law must be applied evenly across the United States Judicial System. This application of law must apply to senior officials of our government and to the individual citizen.

The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: “The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes.

What is the absence of the rule of law?  Similarly, the absence of the rule of law is often implicated as a source of conflict, at the very least serving to perpetuate instability. Broadly speaking, the term ‘rule of law’ refers to the presence of transparent, evenly applied rules and statutes. Obligations, penalties, and procedures are clear to everyone.

What is society without the rules of law?  A prosperous and free society is possible only when everyone is, by rule of law, protected from force imposed by others, especially those in his own government. The Founders created a nation based on the fundamental principle that the state is subservient to the people.

How is the government limited by the rule of law? The U.S. Constitution establishes rule by law, limiting the government’s power over its citizens. In its simplest form, the rule of law means that “no one is above the law.” It is the foundation for the development of peaceful, equitable and prosperous societies.

The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. A distinction is sometimes drawn between power, will, and force, on the one hand, and law, on the other. When a government official acts pursuant to an express provision of a written law, he acts within the rule of law. But when a government official acts without the imprimatur of any law, he or she does so by the sheer force of person…

The preservation of The Republic is critical for the future of America. The Constitution of the United States and the Well Being of American Citizens all depend on the Judicial outcome of the evil and seditious attempt to take down a Duly Elected President. We are waiting to witness and hear the results of Attorney General Barr’s findings. Will the rule of law apply to those senior government officials involved in the Silent Coup?

Your feedback will be appreciated.

Contact: standupamericausa1@gmail.com

Trump is clear on RED China Fraud in More Ways than One.

Editors Note: There must be a Clear and Present Danger in more ways than one. Fentanyl was reportedly used in one in four overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2018, killing just over 18,000 people in one year. And then there are those other Clear and Present Dangers from RED China that are clear but not to the DAZIs, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the main stream media fore a reason.

Trump orders U.S. companies to “start looking for alternatives” to China

 

President Donald Trump is demanding that U.S. businesses “immediately start looking for an alternative to China,” including bringing their manufacturing back to the U.S. The president issued the directive in a series of tweets on Friday morning after China hiked tariffs on $75 billion of U.S. products.

Mr. Trump’s tweets heighten trade tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, with China’s latest countermeasures coming in retaliation for the U.S. planning to impose a 10% tariff on roughly $300 billion in Chinese imports starting next month and in December.

“Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “I will be responding to China’s Tariffs this afternoon.”

Mr. Trump did not say what steps his administration might take to deter companies from operating in China, and it is unclear what legal authority he has to do so. In theory, however, he could impose import and export restrictions that make commerce more difficult.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Our Country has lost, stupidly, Trillions of Dollars with China over many years. They have stolen our Intellectual Property at a rate of Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year, & they want to continue. I won’t let that happen! We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….better off without them. The vast amounts of money made and stolen by China from the United States, year after year, for decades, will and must STOP. Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing..

33.8K people are talking about this

Mr. Trump added he is “ordering all carriers, including Fed Ex, Amazon, UPS and the Post Office, to SEARCH FOR & REFUSE,….all deliveries of Fentanyl from China (or anywhere else!). Fentanyl kills 100,000 Americans a year. President Xi said this would stop – it didn’t.”

Stocks dive as trade feud worsen

Investors, jittery over the trade war’s impact on the global economy, sent U.S. markets sharply lower after Mr. Trump’s tweets. The Dow dropped more than 500 points, or 1.9%, to 25,742, while the broader S&P 500 and tech-heavy Nasdaq each fell more than 2%.

With Mr. Trump threatening a further response to China’s trade measures on Friday, investors are worried that the U.S. could decide to impose even steeper tariffs.

China’s latest tariffs on U.S. imports represent “another tit-for-tat move and could increase the risk that President Trump will decide to raise the recent tariffs from 10% up to 25%,” said Brian Rose, senior Americas economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, in a research note. “In our view, 25% tariffs would cause considerable economic damage and greatly increase the probability of a US recession in 2020.”

Chamber of Commerce fears escalation

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business organization, said it is urging “constructive engagement” between the two countries.

“While we share the President’s frustration, we believe that continued, constructive engagement is the right way forward,” Myron Brilliant, head of international affairs, said in a statement. “Time is of the essence. We do not want to see a further deterioration of U.S.-China relations.”

U.S. Chamber

@USChamber

Our EVP and Head of International Affairs @MyronBrilliant‘s response to the escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and China: https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-statement-escalating-tensions-us-china-trade 

View image on Twitter

The Trump administration’s use of tariffs on Chinese imports, which are paid by U.S. businesses, importers and American imports, are already causing some companies to shift manufacturing away from China and into other locations, such as countries in Southeast Asia.

The retail industry pushed back against Mr. Trump’s tweet, calling it “unrealistic.”

For years, retailers have been diversifying their supply chains, but finding alternative sources is a costly and lengthy process that can take years,” said National Retail Federation senior vice president for government relations David French in a statement. “It is unrealistic for American retailers to move out of the world’s second largest economy, as 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside our borders.”

Article

 

Jimmy Carter’s 1977 law gives Trump sweeping powers to block China trade

Article

“For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977,” Trump tweeted. “Case closed!”

Legal Authority

1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)

Supporting Document

Supporting Document

Supporting Document

Any word from the Democratic Socialists of America … (you know…the DAZIs…)

 

US Takes Aim at Deadly Chinese Fentanyl Networks

WASHINGTON – The US Treasury took action Wednesday to crack down on Chinese traffickers of deadly fentanyl, sanctioning producer-exporters and warning banks on financial schemes used to distribute the synthetic opioid behind thousands of US overdose deaths.

The Treasury identified Zheng Fujing, 36, and a company he controls, Qinsheng Pharmaceutical Technology, and a partner, Zheng Guanghua, as a major, Shanghai-based production fentanyl production and trafficking organization.

The Zheng drug trafficking organization, the Treasury said, produced and shipped hundreds of controlled substances, including fentanyl analogues such as carfentanil, which is 100 times more potent than fentanyl.

“Zheng created and maintained numerous websites to advertise and sell illegal drugs in more than 35 languages,” it said.

Moreover, it said, Zheng was producing counterfeit cancer pills that replace the active cancer-fighting ingredient with “dangerous synthetic drugs.”

Yan, meanwhile, produces and trafficks in synthetic opioids, cannabinoids, and cathinones, and amphetamine-like drug, the Treasury charged.

“Yan has tried to evade prosecution by modifying the chemical structure of his synthetic analogues based on his monitoring of legislation and law enforcement activities in the United States and China,” the Treasury said.

All three men have already been indicted in separate trafficking cases in the United States.

The Treasury’s designation of the three as “significant foreign narcotics traffickers” under the US Kingpin Act allows the Treasury to use more sanctions and controls to attack their networks.

The Treasury said it had also issued an advisory to banks and other financial institutions describing how synthetic opioid producers and traffickers operate in financial networks, with the aim of closing off their ability to produce and sell their drugs.

“We are making the financial sector aware of tactics and typologies behind illicit schemes to launder the proceeds of these fatal drug sales, including transactions using digital currency and foreign bank accounts,” said Kenneth Blanco, the head of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

The Treasury said both the Zheng and Yan groups used digital currencies like bitcoin for production operations and sales.


Article

I guess the media experts can’t say what it really is…WMD…

Men caught with enough fentanyl to kill 26 million people


Article

“Those Who Resist Will Perish”

Article

 

GO RED CHINA! GO RED CHINA!…GO DAZIs! GO DAZIs!…

 

Hong Kong Protesters Expose RED China’s Fraud. Where are the Royals?

 

Anywhere but Victoria Harbor.

And now to 10 Downing Street NYC and the Chess Club.

 

I wonder if everyone missed the 1984 part.

UK says 1984 Hong Kong rights treaty with China is as valid as ever

By Amanda Ferguson

Reuters.
July 2, 2019

 

* Hunt: We stand behind Hong Kong people

* Britain says China must abide by 1984 accord

BELFAST, July 2 (Reuters) – Britain expects China to abide by a 1984 treaty which guarantees basic freedoms to the former British colony of Hong Kong for 50 years, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told Reuters on Tuesday.

China has condemned violent protests in Hong Kong this week as a challenge to its rule after protesters stormed and trashed the territory’s legislature.

Millions have rallied against a bill which would have allowed people in Hong Kong to be extradited to the mainland to face trial in courts controlled by the Communist Party.

China and Britain signed a Joint Declaration in 1984 on the terms of the return of Hong Kong but Beijing has said the accord is a historical document with no practical significance.

Hunt told Reuters during a visit to Northern Ireland: “It is a legally binding document which has force for 50 years. Just as China expects other countries to follow their international legal obligations, the United Kingdom does the same.”

Hong Kong was returned by Britain to China in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” formula that allows freedoms not enjoyed in mainland China, including the right to protest and an independent judiciary.

China said on Monday Britain no longer has any responsibility for Hong Kong and should stop “gesticulating” about it.

When asked if China could be sanctioned for events in Hong Kong, Hunt said:

“I hope it won’t come up anything like that at all because there is a way through this which is for the government of Hong Kong to listen to the legitimate concerns of the people of Hong Kong about their freedoms.”

”… the U.K. stands by internationally binding treaties that we have signed with other countries and have continued to do so,” Hunt said. (Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Stephen Addison)

Article

 

After Hong Kong Protests, everyone is talking about a 1984 Treaty

By: Gary Cheung

Clashes in Hong Kong over a contentious extradition bill have spilled to the diplomatic front.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Tuesday warned that Beijing, which runs Hong Kong as a semi-autonomous region, would face serious consequences if it failed to honor a decades-old treaty.

The 1984 treaty, called the Sino-British Joint Declaration, paved the way for the former British colony’s return to Chinese control in 1997 in an arrangement under the framework of “one country, two systems.”

But demonstrations in recent weeks over the bill have exposed concerns that the firewall between the two systems is being eroded.

Here is what you need to know about the treaty that has come into renewed focus.

What is the Sino-British Joint Declaration?

It is an agreement signed by Britain and China in 1984 to settle the future of Hong Kong. The two governments agreed China would reassume control of Hong Kong, which was occupied by Britain after the Opium War in 1840, from July 1, 1997.

What are the main points of the joint declaration?

The treaty states that China’s basic policies regarding Hong Kong “will remain unchanged for 50 years,” including the promise that the city would retain a high degree of autonomy.

The basic policies are detailed in an annex and stipulated in the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution that was put into effect by the National People’s Congress in 1990.

The declaration also states that Hong Kong’s legal and judicial system would also be unchanged for 50 years after 1997.

t held that Britain would be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997 and the Chinese government would give its cooperation. The declaration was later deposited with the United Nations.

Who signed the agreement – and what promises were made?

Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister, traveled to China in September 1982 to begin negotiations on Hong Kong’s future. The declaration was signed after two years of talks between the two nations.

 

China’s vice-minister of foreign affairs at the time, Zhou Nan, and the former British ambassador to China, Sir Richard Evans, signed the draft of the declaration in Beijing on September 26, 1984.

Thatcher and Premier Zhao Ziyang signed the official Sino-British Joint Declaration at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on December 19, 1984.

In a visit to Hong Kong the same month, Thatcher assured the city’s political elite that Britain would take issue with any breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Her pledge was prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and relayed through informal conversations with Hong Kong officials and lawmakers on December 20, 1984.

“Britain has the right to raise any breaches with China after 1997. We would not hesitate to do so,” the notes said.

 

Is there any link between the joint declaration and the Basic Law?

The joint declaration states that Beijing will appoint the chief executive based on the results of “elections or consultations to be held locally.”

The declaration promised that local people would administer Hong Kong. In the Basic Law, universal suffrage is said to be the “ultimate aim” in elections for Hong Kong’s chief executive.

Some scholars in the mainland have argued that this commitment shows it was Beijing that initiated the wave of democratization in Hong Kong in the mid-1980s.

Is the joint declaration still valid now that Beijing governs Hong Kong?

The high degree of autonomy that Beijing pledged to grant Hong Kong has been a thorny subject since the 1997 handover.

The issue was exacerbated in June 2014 when the State Council, China’s cabinet, released a white paper stating that Beijing had “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong.

In November 2014, Ni Jian, China’s deputy ambassador to Britain, told Richard Ottaway, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons, that the declaration was “now void and covered only the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997.”

A month later, Raymond Tam, Hong Kong’s secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs at the time, said Britain had no right to monitor the implementation of the agreement after 1997.

Tam said “the provisions of the joint declaration have been fully implemented and its purpose and objectives have also been fully fulfilled.”

But Hunt, the British foreign secretary, said the agreement remained in effect and was a legally binding agreement that must be honored.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing had made “stern representations” over the comments and said Hunt still harbored “colonial illusions.”

“We called on the British side, especially Hunt, to stop being overconfident and grossly interfering in Hong Kong affairs. This is doomed to fail,” Geng said.

Article

UK should give British nationality to Hong Kong citizens, Tugendhat says

Article

 

 

Warsaw, RED China: For 12 Weeks Hong Kong Protesters Refuse to Toe the Line

 

Pleading Hong Kong protester draws comparisons to Tiananmen Square’s ‘Tank Man’

Photos and video of an unarmed Hong Kong protester pleading with a cop who has her pistol drawn have gone viral on social media — with users drawing comparisons to the iconic “Tank Man” from the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

“Different Places. Same Tactics. Two Heros [sic],” wrote one person on Twitter, who dubbed the Hong Kong protester “Pistol Man.”

Carrying nothing but an umbrella, the demonstrator can be seen in video and photos — one captured by Lam Yik Fei of the New York Times — facing off with a female officer. She appears to point her gun in his direction as he yells something at her.

Lam, a photographer for the Times, said he saw the clash unfold on Sunday night following a peaceful protest in the Tsuen Wan area of Hong Kong. Demonstrators were clutching umbrellas — a symbol of the ongoing resistance movement — and being ordered back by the police. It was reportedly the first time cops used weapons with live ammunition to deter the crowds.

At one point, an officer fired off a warning shot into the air — sparking the protesters to retreat and beg for their lives. “Pistol Man” was one of them.

“He said, ‘Don’t shoot,’” Lam recalled, noting how the middle-aged man dropped to his knees. Video shows him being kicked by the female officer moments later.

Police officials later claimed at a press conference that the cop’s response was out of “natural instinct.” They said that officers had pulled their guns after being attacked by the demonstrators.

“Six officers drew their service weapons because their lives were under threat,” Senior Superintendent Yolanda Yu told reporters.

Social media users, however, were bashing Chinese authorities for the show of force — and praising the protester for his “bravery.”

“He was standing between protesters, reporters and police officers (who pulled out their guns), shouting ‘Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot them!’” tweeted Cantopop singer and actress Denise Ho. “Greatest respect towards this fellow Hongkonger. Salute!”

The unidentified demonstrator drew countless comparisons to the “Tank Man” from the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, who was also never identified. The images of his confrontation with a group of tanks leaving Tiananmen Square were widely shared and published in both Time and Life magazines.

The “Pistol Man” incident wrapped up a wild weekend of protests — which resulted in 86 people, including one as young as 12, being thrown behind bars.

The pro-democracy demonstrations first erupted over opposition to a since-suspended extradition bill that would have enabled the country’s criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China for trial. They are now entering their 12th week.

 

Red China Warns Global CEOs: Toe the Party Line on Hong Kong

China Warns Global CEOs: Toe the Party Line on Hong Kong

Editor’s Note: Letting them off again…fore a reason… Welcome to “The International” Toe the line with fascism and the New World Order or re-education for you! Got a kidney? One World, One Dream.

 
 
As anti-government protests in Hong Kong intensified this month, KPMG issued a directive to its employees in the city: Don’t speak on behalf of the company in public. It went on to say that the firm supports China’s policy for governing Hong Kong.

PwC, another Big Four accounting giant, sent a similar message to staff telling them to avoid disclosing anything about the company on social media platforms, according to emails seen by Bloomberg.

This is the new reality for multinational businesses that have long grappled with a thorny question on China: What’s the price of access to Asia’s biggest economy? Beijing’s response to the protests, most notably its clampdown on Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. this month, has provided one answer: compliance with the Communist Party’s worldview, from senior management on down.

“The Chinese government doesn’t see business as being separate from the state and it has made it clear that if you want to do business in China, you’d better toe the line,” said Steve Vickers, chief executive officer of political and corporate risk consultancy Steve Vickers & Associates, and the former head of the Royal Hong Kong Police Criminal Intelligence Bureau.
PwC said in an Aug. 5 statement that it fully respects people’s right to freedom of speech, but regrets the escalation of violence related to the protests. The firm also condemned “the use of social media to spread false messages using the firm’s corporate identity” that it said were designed to mislead the public.

KPMG emailed its Hong Kong staff on Thursday reminding them not to engage in unlawful acts whether they’re at work or not and to refrain from speaking to the media without prior approval, according to a copy of the message seen by Bloomberg. KPMG didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Article

Any word from the DAZIs?

China’s Military: U.S. Must Get With the Times, ‘Those Who Resist Will Perish’

Article

Blood Money

The grim story of a chemical combine’s fatal compromise with the Nazis, and its murderous consequences

Article