Entrust Has the Keys to the Kingdom, and it Needs to be Sold to the DOJ

Important U.S. partisan vested interests can and do find out anything that they want through the internet about any person or entity on this planet.  No person or entity is safe, as it does not matter who or what they are.  What do you think those same partisan vested interests use that information for?

You do not believe me you say?

Would it surprise you that Entrust, a private U.S. company that has worldwide operations, controls encryption keys for the entire internet?  With encryption keys, Entrust and those associated with it can find out anything communicated on the internet by a person, government official or anyone else, anywhere on this planet.

Jerry C. Jones, a Democrat Party operative, and former law firm partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm, runs Entrust, and it is owned by another Democrat Party operative, Thomas Bravo (Bruce, A. 2018).

It might be to our mutual advantage for you to read Alexandra Bruce's article here:  forbiddenknowledgetv.net/this-is-how-they-can-turn-off-your-chip/

There is not a person, corporation, or government in this world that uses the internet that does not need the encryption capabilities of Entrust.  That kind of power should be based on need-to-know, not personal contacts at the U.S. Democrat Party Headquarters.

In a fair world, it is in the interests of the entire planet that Entrust be sold at a considerable profit to the U.S. government, and then controlled and directed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Why should it be in the hands of the DOJ?  The U.S. Attorney General on the advice of his staff and other departmental attorneys can legally decide when to share that information with law enforcement, government agencies and sovereign countries.

Why would we want to do that?  Simply put, we want criminal and terrorist activities to be preempted and/or caught and the guilty parties tried in a court of law, domestically and/or internationally.

If there is someone who does not want that to be the case, then they are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. 

Reference:

Bruce, A. (2018, September 19). Forbidden Knowledge TV. This Is How They Can ‘Turn Off Your Chip’ – Forbidden Knowledge TV. Retrieved September 23, 2018, from forbiddenknowledgetv.net/this-is-how-they-can-turn-off-your-chip/

Stifling Opinions in a Democracy by Large Techology, Internet, and Large Media

Again, someone is preventing me from properly formatting and publishing an article that I have written because they do not like the contents of the article.

It is a good thing that this is precisely what the U.S. White House is currently investigating about big technology and big internet companies and their interference in publishing of what they do not want in the public domain.

The Legal Office at Google and other companies should listen up, or, shall I say, read up?  

U.S. and China Trade Negotiations

The United States should stop trading with China completely and permanently.

China agreed to fairness in trade and economics when joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 (BBC staff writers, 2001), but that fairness has never happened, and it never will.  Its government had promised to abide by all international standards to join the WTO, but it does not abide by adverse rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration or the WTO, as all members of the UN are required to do.

The government of China is using the technicality that it did not agree to the arbitration of the PCA in its spat with the Philippines.  However, Article 288 of the LOSC (a.k.a. Law of the Sea Treaty) and Article 9 of LOSC’s Annex VII gives the PCA jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the absence of one party from the proceeding cannot stop the matter from going forward even if it was brought unilaterally by the Philippines.

China's leadership claims it has no obligation to abide by a decision of the PCA in the matter of The Philippine's case against China building military bases on territory claimed by other nations with senior claims to China's.  In fact, China's government claims the entire South China Seas, with no historical basis whatsoever for that claim, except for a reference to an ancient map of a Chinese emperor's dynasty from long ago in antiquity, which proves little or next to nothing.  The PCA ruled that there is no basis for China's claim to the entire South China Seas.

China's leaders say that the Philippines should have brought the claim in the International Court of Justice, not at the PCA (Puspitawati*, D., 2018).  What do you want to bet that the Philippines would win that legal battle also, and China and its leaders will not submit to that future ruling, either  -- even if it is submitted to the ICJ and won by the Philippines?

Selective logic from China's leaders means we are better off without China, totally, as it and its leaders are not reliable partners in anything.

When China and its government finally does come to the negotiating table, whatever they agree to will not be lived up to just as China agreed to abide by WTO rules and has not.  Just like China agreed not to manipulate its currency and not to manipulate trade against other countries, and it has in both cases while maintaining that China is for global free trade.  Not!

It is true that China allows joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, but the outsiders' companies must reveal all technical and trade secrets to their Chinese joint venture partners, the ones Chinese operatives have not stolen.

The government of China and its domestic industry leaders have no intention of changing its unfair trade tactics (President Trump, 2018).  Indeed, Chinese producers are already beating President Trump's growing tariffs on Chinese goods by rerouting them through other countries, where they are repackaged in the second country and represented as non-Chinese goods, before they are sent to the U.S. to avoid tariffs (Nikkei Asian Review staff writers, 2018).

The truth is, China and its leaders are for global free trade only if China unfairly gets the best of its trading partners the majority of the time.

China is not worth the trouble that it causes, and we need to stop doing any business with them at all.  It is a complete waste of our time and resources, which could be spent better elsewhere.

China has no intention of completely opening its markets, as required by the WTO, and China never had any such intention.  The actions of China's leaders speak much louder than their words, which are meaningless.

The government of The United States, including its Executive Branch and all of Congress, needs to stop wishful thinking that China will open its markets to free trade, which is something China's leaders are not committed to and never will be fully committed to, no matter what China's leaders say to the contrary.

References list:

BBC News | BUSINESS | China joins the WTO - at last. (2001). News.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1702241

Puspitawati*, D. (2018). China And The SEA In Asia’s Troubled Waters – Analysis. Eurasia Review. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.eurasiareview.com/17092018-china-and-the-sea-in-asias-troubled-waters-analysis/

Chinese producers expected to beat US tariffs by rerouting goods. (2018). Nikkei Asian Review. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/Chinese-producers-expected-to-beat-US-tariffs-by-rerouting-goods

Statement from the President Regarding Trade with China | The White House. (2018). The White House. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-regarding-trade-china-2/