- Maduro "Promotes" 16,900 Venezuelan Soldiers As Reward For "Loyalty"
Venezuelan President Murderous Dictator Nicolas Maduro has managed to hang on to power in large part because he’s kept Venezuela’s military firmly in the pro-Socialist camp. So, as the country’s political and economic crisis worsens, Maduro is doing his best to keep the military on his side. Case in point: He just promoted 16,900 soldiers, calling it a reward for their “loyalty,” the BBC reports.
The promotions come as opposition politicians, who were notoriously shut out of Venezeula’s elections this spring, have called on the military to side “with the people” against their socialist oppressors. The promotions also come just a week and a half after the UN Human Rights body released a report accusing the country’s security forces of hundreds of unnecessary and arbitrary killings, alleging that there has been “a pattern of disproportionate and unnecessary use of force by security forces.”
Yet the country’s defense ministry congratulated the soldiers and thanked them for their service.
Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said those promoted had been “loyal to the constitutionally elected president,” and he also praised them “for respecting human rights.”
[…]
Speaking at a ceremony in the capital, Caracas, Gen Padrino said those members of the armed forces who had been promoted had played a key role in securing “the institutional stability in the country and the safeguarding of Venezuelan democracy and peace”.
A little over a month ago, President Maduro demanded that members of the armed forces sign a document declaring their loyalty.
Meanwhile, dozens of high-ranking officers have been imprisoned over allegations they helped further a Western US-backed plot to undermine the Maduro regime. Just two weeks ago, the government sent soldiers to 100 food markets to make sure that mandatory price controls for food were being enforced. Violators were accused of furthering the alleged Western-backed plot that has served as the centerpiece of Maduro’s propaganda.
And in case you were wondering where Maduro is getting the funds to prevent a military coup (like the one that reportedly nearly took place earlier this year), Venezuela just revealed that China has agreed to lend the country another $5 billion to increase in oil output.
This is hardly unusual. According to Foreign Policy, between 2007 and 2014, China lent Venezuela $63 billion after finding an ideological ally in former President Hugo Chavez, who launched the socialist “Bolivarian revolution” that continues to this day. To put this in context, that amount equals more than half of China’s lending to Latin America. According to Business Insider, China remains Venezuela’s largest lender, with $23 billion in outstanding debt.
However, to guarantee repayment, Beijing has typically insisted on being repaid in oil. That has become an increasingly burdensome request following the 2014 collapse in oil prices (though that might soon change as prices move back toward the $100 a barrel mark). Still, despite the troubles in Venezuela, the country remains an important component of President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which seeks to spread China’s economic influence around the world. Russia has also made its share of loans to the country. Which raises the question of whether China and Russia can save the Maduro regime from a mass uprising that threatens to unseat the president – particularly as crude production continues to fall, meaning that Venezuela is missing out on many of the benefits of the recovery in crude prices.
- Moldova's "Deep State" Is Exploiting The UN To Undermine Peace In Transnistria
Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,
The UN General Assembly recently demanded the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria.
The non-legally binding decree was passed with a simple majority and intended to send a political message to both Russia and Moldovan President Dodon.
The first-mentioned has had its troops deployed in the contested region for more than two decades per an international agreement with the official host state of Moldova, with this occurring in the chaos of the post-Soviet collapse and intended to prevent a resumption of the separatist conflict.
As for the second one, President Dodon is embroiled in a ‘deep state’ civil war in which the Atlanticist elements of his permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies are trying to sabotage his pro-Eurasian “balancing” act with Russia in order to streamline the country’s admission to the EU and NATO, both of which would imply a militant “solution” to the Transnistrian issue first.
The UN General Assembly Resolution was therefore accurately interpreted by the Russian Foreign Ministry as “propaganda for certain political forces in Moldova”, with First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyansky lamenting that:
“The outcome of the voting is regretful for us… (because) excessive politicization of the problem occurred at the very moment when we see certain progress in talks between Chisinau and Tiraspol.”
That’s indeed the case, as President Dodon’s Atlanticist “deep state” enemies want to rekindle this frozen conflict to the extent that it provokes the renewal of low-intensity hostilities that could then be misleadingly framed as so-called “Russian aggression” in order to continue piling pressure on the country’s interests in Moldova.
Analyzed from this perspective, the West is “reverse-engineering” the scenario needed for making this as “convincing” to the international public as possible, hence the need to construct the perception of UN approval for its anti-Russian demands that – if ever implemented – would surely lead to an outbreak of hostilities against the breakaway region much worse than what happened during Saakashvili’s 2008 attack against South Ossetia.
It’s precisely for this reason why Russia won’t ever unilaterally abandon its partners in Transnistria like the Resolution demands that it do and why Moscow interprets this as a political signal more than anything else.
All told, the increasingly renewed attention being given by the West to the Transnistrian conflict portends its possible thawing, all with the intent of opening up another Hybrid War battlefront for “containing” Russia.
- Paul Craig Roberts: "July 4th Is Matrix-Reinforcement Day"
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
July 4, 2018, is the 242 anniversary of the date chosen to stand as the date the 13 British colonies declared independence. According to historians, the actual date independence was declared was July 2, 1776, with the vote of the Second Continental Congress. Other historians have concluded that the Declaration of Independence was not actually signed until August 2.
For many living in the colonies the event was not the glorious one that is presented in history books. There was much opposition to the separation, and the “loyalists” were killed, confiscated, and forced to flee to Canada. Some historians explain the event not as a great and noble enterprise of freedom and self-government, but as the manipulations of ambitious men who saw opportunity for profit and power.
For most Americans today the Fourth of July is a time for fireworks, picnics, and a patriotic speech extolling those who “fought for our freedom” and for those who defended it in wars ever since. These are feel good speeches, but most of them make very little sense. Many of our wars have been wars of empire, seizing lands from the Spanish, Mexicans, and indigenous tribes. The US had no national interest in WW 1 and and very little in WW 2. There was no prospect of Germany and Japan invading the US. Once Hitler made the mistake of invading the Soviet Union, the European part of World War 2 was settled by the Red Army. The Japanese had no chance of standing up to Mao and Stalin. American participation was not very important to either outcome.
No Fourth of July orator will say this, and it is unlikely any will make reference to the seven or eight countries that Washington has destroyed in whole or part during the 21st century or to the US overthrow of the various reform governments that have been elected in Latin America. The Fourth of July is a performance to reinforce The Matrix in which Americans live.
When the Fourth of July comes around, I re-read the words of US Marine General Smedley Butler.
General Butler is the most highly decorated US officer in history. By the end of his career, he had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of only three men to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
Butler served in all officer ranks that existed in the US Marines of his time, from Second Lieutenant to Major General.
He said that “during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
Butler says he was a long time escaping from The Matrix and that he wishes “more of today’s military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad.”
Butler wrote:
“WAR is a racket. It always has been.
“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
“A few profit — and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
“The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nation’s manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation — it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.”
In November, 1935, Butler wrote in Common Sense magazine:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period…
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.
I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 57 years ago, adroitly uses the Fourth of July to portray America’s conflicts in a positive light in order to protect its power and profit institutionalized in the US government.
In stark contrast, by the end of his career General Butler saw it differently.
Washington has never fought for “freedom and democracy,” only for power and profit. Butler said that “there are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”
Today the anti-gun lobby and militarized police have made it very difficult to fight for the defense of our homes, and the War on Terror has destroyed the Bill of Rights. If there could be a second American revolution, maybe we could try again.
- Japan Limits Overtime To 99 Hours A Month To Curb "Death By Overwork"
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s struggle to combat incidences of Karoshi – a Japanese term for “death by overwork” – reached an key milestone on Friday, when Japan’s parliament approved a bill that limits overtime work to less than 100 hours a month per worker, and less than 720 hours per year, while setting penalties for companies that violate the new labor rules, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Before the law, there was no limit to the number of hours companies could ask their employees to work, as long as labor unions didn’t make a fuss.
Recently released government data revealed that Japan’s jobless rate touched 2.2% in May, the lowest level in 26 years. And as Japan’s working-age population dwindles, job openings have outpaced the number of workers available to fill them: As a reference, two months ago, there were 160 job offers available for every 100 workers seeking a job.
The law should also improve working conditions for “nonregular” workers – what we would call “temps” in the US – who lack the job security of their salaried peers.
“Work-style reforms are the best means to improve labor productivity,” Mr. Abe said in Parliament June 4. “We will correct long working hours and improve people’s balance between work and life.”
The new law also seeks to improve the lot of Japan’s growing pool of “nonregular” workers in temporary or part-time jobs who don’t have the job security of full-time regular employees. It says employers must pay equally for the same work, regardless of workers’ status. In a 2016 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Abe said he wanted to “eliminate the word ‘nonregular’ from the lexicon.”
The suicide of a 24-year-old female employee of Japanese advertising firm Dentsu helped inspire the law, as the government and the young woman’s family condemned Japan’s culture of long working hours.
In addition to the curbing suicides, Abe hopes that limiting workers’ hours will help reverse or at least arrest the country’s declining productivity (although it wasn’t exactly clear how). Declining productivity has been the scourge of the developed world, including the US, where the issue has mystified the Federal Reserve and economists, who fail to explain the lack of a rebound in US economic output.
That said, Japan isn’t the only Asian country where work-life balance is hopelessly out out of whack. In South Korea, a law that lowered the country’s maximum workweek to 52 hours, down from 68, also took effect this week. Altogether, workers in South Korea will be allowed to work the standard 40 hours, with an additional 12 hours of overtime thrown in.
One Seoul resident interviewed by the Straits Times said she was “delighted” by the news. A small business owner, she said she left her large office to start her own company because the owners chose to keep the office perpetually understaffed, guaranteeing that workers would need to stay late to finish their work.
Under the law, which slashed the maximum weekly work hours to 52 from 68, workers in South Korea will be allowed to work 40 hours and an additional 12 hours of overtime.
Those who make their employees work more than 52 hours weekly now face up to two years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won (S$24,484).
“I’m delighted by the news,” said Shin Na-eun, 29, a Seoul resident who runs her own business after quitting her job at a large-size firm two years ago.
“There were many reasons why I quit my job, which was seen as stable by many. One of the reasons was definitely the heavy workload.”
Shin said in her experience, no one really forced her to stay late in the office. Rather, it was her workload that made it impossible for her to leave work on time. She said the office was understaffed, and that she had to bring her work home on many occasions.
“I’m not naive enough to believe that this law will change everything overnight, but I feel like we are certainly going in the right direction,” she said.
Before the new law, studies showed that the average South Korean worked 40 hours a week, combined with an additional 16 hours of overtime. However, not all South Korean workers are so enthusiastic. Indeed, many fear that companies will continue to pressure workers to put in long hours at the office – but because of the law, workers won’t receive any compensation for this overtime since reporting it would be illegal.
Yet others are angry about the overtime they stand to lose, arguing that they preferred the status quo.
“What if you prefer money or work over life?” one anonymous office worker told the Straits Times. “I think those who want to work more and thereby make more money should have the right to do so.”
- Meet Hadrian, The Brick Laying Robot That Will Make Construction Workers Obsolete
Across the US, cities are independently passing measures to implement a $15 minimum wage – or mandating higher wages with an eye toward one day achieving that goal. But low-wage workers who are celebrating their fatter paychecks should enjoy the feeling while it lasts…because the more expensive workers become, the faster employers will work to replace those human workers with robots who can do the same job for a fraction of the cost.
Already, the first burger restaurant run entirely by a robot has opened in San Francisco. But progress in robotics hasn’t been confined to the food service industry. Last year, we introduced SAM (Semi-Automated Mason), a bricklaying robot that can do the work of 6 unionized masons every single day, without a break, benefits or a paycheck. And as it turns out, SAM already has some competition. Enter Fastbrick Robotics’ Hadrian X, a brick-laying robot that will soon be capable of constructing whole homes by itself. According to the company’s website, Hadrian is capable of constructing the walls of a home in a single day.
To be sure, the Hadrian is still being tested. FBR anticipates that the bricklaying robot will have constructed its first home, completely from scratch, by the end of 2018. But Hadrian’s home-building prowess is already on display in a video released by the company.
Unlike human workers, Hadrian can be mounted to a truck, crane or boat to make transportation easier. It also relies on stabilization technology that allows it to work through wind and other environmental factors that might stymie human workers. But perhaps most impressively, Hadrian can take a design from an engineer’s CAD software and build it – all without the help of human workers.
Indeed, Hadrian could start building homes quickly and cheaply in the very near future, replacing whole teams of human workers, since it’s designed to work alone. And unfortunately for the bricklayers that Hadrian could displace, there are no shoppers looking for assistance on a construction site, or other “customer-facing” construction site roles to which they can seamlessly transition.
- US Vows To Keep Gulf Waterway Open After Iran Threatens Blockade
As Americans are busy with July 4th celebrations, the temperature is heating up in the Persian Gulf a day after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani suggested Iran could stop all regional gulf oil exports in retaliation for the US seeking to collapse the nuclear deal, and in response to aggressive new US sanctions.
Image source: Vestnik Kavkaza “The Americans have claimed they want to completely stop Iran’s oil exports. They don’t understand the meaning of this statement, because it has no meaning for Iranian oil not to be exported, while the region’s oil is exported,” the state-run website, president.ir, quoted Rouhani as saying. “The Americans say they want to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero… It shows they have not thought about its consequences,” Rouhani said.
After the provocative Iranian statements, widely understood as a threat to impose military blockade on the world’s most crucial oil choke point, spokesman for the US military’s Central Command, Captain Bill Urban, told the Associated Press on Wednesday that US sailors and its regional allies “stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows”.
Washington has issued an ultimatum to countries dealing with Iran: halt all imports of Iranian oil from Nov. 4 or face punitive US economic measures with no exemptions. Rouhani called these threats “crime and aggression” and an act of “self-harm” as the unwavering stance is “against U.S. national interests and the interests of other countries.” He said this while in Vienna attempting to rally European governments to stand against Trump’s policies targeting Tehran.
Previous threats by Iranian officials to possibly take the drastic action of blocking the the Strait of Hormuz — though once easily shrugged off as empty talk — are now coming to a head as the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has thrown its full weight behind Rouhani’s words, to which the Pentagon responded, issuing its firm response promising to keep the waterway open through military action if need be.
Though Rouhani’s initial words could be somewhat open to interpretation, IRGC commander Major-General Qassem Soleimani followed up on Wednesday in a published letter addressed to the Iranian president: “Your comments, carried by the media, that if the Islamic Republic’s oil isn’t exported there would be no guarantees for the whole region’s oil to be exported, is a very valuable comment,” Soleimani wrote, “I kiss your (Rouhani’s) hand for expressing such wise and timely comments, and I am at your service to implement any policy that serves the Islamic Republic,” he said.
As Quds force leader (the special forces IRGC unit engaged in of foreign operations), Soleimani is precisely the one who would oversee such an operation as blocking Gulf exports. The Straight of Hormuz at its narrowest is about 31 miles wide and approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil passes through it, annd the IRGC has in the past threatened the passageway by conducting war games, such as during a period of heightened tensions with the West over the straight in 2011 and 2012.
via AFP To put things in perspective considering potential disruption, the last major crisis of global economic consequence took place nearly three decades ago:
The largest oil market disruption ever occurred in August 1990, when Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait took 4.3 million barrels per day of oil off the market—about 6.5 percent of world supply. That stoppage caused world oil prices to double (from about $20 to $40 per barrel). But a blockade of Hormuz would cut off nearly four times as much oil as the Kuwait crisis did, disrupting a share of the oil market three times greater.
Meanwhile, Iran OPEC governor, Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, weighed in with dire warnings in statements carried by Iran’s oil ministry news agency SHANA.
“Trump’s demand that Iranian oil should not be bought, and (his) pressures on European firms at a time when Nigeria and Libya are in crisis, when Venezuela’s oil exports have fallen due to U.S. sanctions, when Saudi’s domestic consumption has increased in summer, is nothing but self harm,” Ardebili said.
“It will increase the prices of oil in the global markets,” he said, and echoing Rouhani’s theme of US “self-harm” he added, “At the end it is the American consumer who will pay the price for Mr. Trump’s policy.”
So far the EU is standing by Iran as a major longtime oil importer, but some European officials have acknowledged US sanctions will create an unpredictable environment, potentially making guarantees to Tehran impossible to fulfill.
Iran has reportedly taken measures to gear up for survival amidst the coming economic war, according to Bloomberg, offering to barter oil for goods. “We have informed our oil customers that we will only buy their commodities if they buy our crude,” stated the spokesman for Parliament’s energy commission.
This reportedly the result of OPEC’s third-largest producer being unable to bring dollars or euros in exchange for crude because of “banking problems,” which, according to the spokesman, means Iran is open to alternative means of payment, including medical equipment and agricultural products.
Concerning this week’s heightened rhetoric over the Straight of Hormuz, should the IRGC attempt to block it, such a drastic retaliatory measure would most certainly spark war in the Persian Gulf.
- Europe Turns Down Chinese Offer For Grand Alliance Against The US
Publicizing its growing exasperation in dealing with president Donald Trump who refuses to halt the tit-for-tat retaliation in the growing trade war with China – which is set to officially begin on Friday when the US slaps $34 billion in Chinese exports with 25% tariffs – but has a habit of doubling down the threatened US reaction to every Chinese trade counteroffer (after all the US imports far more Chinese goods than vice versa)…
… China has proposed a novel idea: to form an alliance with the EU – the world’s largest trading block – against the US, while promising to open up more of China’s economy to European corporations.
The idea was reportedly floated in meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, between senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He and the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, according to Reuters. Willing to use either a carrot or a stick to achieve its goals, in these meetings China has been putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against President Donald Trump’s trade policies at a summit later this month.
However, perhaps because China’s veneer of the leader of the free trade world is so laughably shallow – China was and remains a pure mercantilist power, whose grand total of protectionist policies put both the US and Europe to shame – the European Union has outright rejected any idea of allying with Beijing against Washington ahead of a Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.
Instead, in the tradition of every grand, if ultimately worthless meeting of the G-X nations, the summit is expected to produce a “modest communique”, which affirms the commitment of both sides to the multilateral trading system and promises to set up a working group on modernizing the WTO. Incidentally, the past two summits, in 2016 and 2017, ended without a statement due to disagreements over the South China Sea and trade.
Then there is China’s “free-trade” reputation: a recent Rhodium Group report showed that Chinese restrictions on foreign investment are higher in every single sector save real estate, compared to the European Union, while many of the big Chinese takeovers in the bloc would not have been possible for EU companies in China. And while China has promised to open up, EU officials expect any moves to be more symbolic than substantive.
Almost as if behind the facade of smiles and agreement, Europe has absolutely no belief that Beijing will ever follow through with its promises.
In other words, not even when faced with the specter of a full-blown trade war, is Europe willing to terminally alienate the world’s biggest buying power: the US consumer, in exchange for some vague promises for “open trade” from Beijing.
That doesn’t mean that China won’t try however.
Vice Premier Liu He has said privately that China is ready to set out for the first time what sectors it can open to European investment at the annual summit, expected to be attended by President Xi Jinping, China’s Premier Li Keqiang and top EU officials.
Meanwhile, as the US-China trade war has drifted into the front pages of domestic propaganda, Chinese state media has been promoting the message that the European Union is on China’s side, putting the bloc in a delicate position according to Reuters.
In a commentary on Wednesday, China’s official Xinhua news agency said China and Europe “should resist trade protectionism hand in hand”.
“China and European countries are natural partners,” it said. “They firmly believe that free trade is a powerful engine for global economic growth.”
Or maybe Europe’s position is not all that delicate, because when push comes to shove, Europe is nowhere near ready to abandon its trans-Atlantic trade routes:
“China wants the European Union to stand with Beijing against Washington, to take sides,” one European diplomat told Reuters. “We won’t do it and we have told them that.”
But why does Europe – which has so staunchly publicized its disagreement with Trump’s policies – refuse to align with China? Simple: behind closed doors it admits that Trump’s complaints about Beijing are, drumroll, spot on.
Despite Trump’s tariffs on European metals exports and threats to hit the EU’s automobile industry, Brussels shares Washington’s concern about China’s closed markets and what Western governments say is Beijing’s manipulation of trade to dominate global markets.
“We agree with almost all the complaints the U.S. has against China, it’s just we don’t agree with how the United States is handling it,” another diplomat told Reuters.
And while Europe’s position is understandable, if hypocritical – after all if it believes that Trump’s approach to dealing with an ascendant China is the right one, why not just say it – the attention will shift to China, and the admission that Beijing is terrified about the consequences of a full blown trade war.
As Reuters notes, China’s stance is striking given Washington’s deep economic and security ties with European nations. It shows the depth of Chinese concern about a trade war with Washington, as Trump is set to impose tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese imports on July 6.
It also underscores China’s new boldness in trying to seize leadership amid divisions between the United States and its European, Canadian and Japanese allies over issues including free trade, climate change and foreign policy.
“Trump has split the West, and China is seeking to capitalize on that. It was never comfortable with the West being one bloc,” said a European official involved in EU-China diplomacy.
Wait, that’s the exact same thing the media claims about Putin is doing, although usually in the context of some grand “Kremlin mastermind” when the establishment does not get the desired outcome. The irony is that whereas Putin is merely sitting back and enjoying the show, it is China that is actively engaging in secretive negotiations trying to shift the global balance of power.
“China now feels it can try to split off the European Union in so many areas, on trade, on human rights,” the official said.
So, when “they” say Putin, they really mean Xi? Confusing…
* * *
Never one to act without a long-term strategic plan, Beijing’s approach to cozy up with Europe may have an entirely different motive than isolating Trump: China’s offer at the upcoming summit to open up reflects Beijing’s concern that it is set to face tighter EU controls. Just like in the US, the European Union is seeking to pass legislation to allow greater scrutiny of foreign investments.
Said otherwise, China is suddenly scrambling because it realizes that unless it locks up Europe, it may well be Trump who succeeds in convincing Brussels to sign a bilateral deal with the US, at the expense of cracking down even more on China, a move which would send China’s annual GDP growth well below 6% as Beijing loses full access to its biggest trading partner.
Summarizing Europe’s position, a third diplomat told Reuters quite simply that “we don’t know if this offer to open up is genuine yet,” adding that “it’s unlikely to mark a systemic change.”
To be sure, European envoys say they already sensed a greater urgency from China in 2017 to find like-minded countries willing to stand up against Trump’s “America First” policies. And yet, according to the Reuters report, Europe is not one of those “like-minded countries.”
Almost as if everything that is publicly taking place on the international stage is nothing but a spectacle, one in which everyone’s true motivations are 180 degrees the opposite of what is stated.
- Trump Reportedly Asked Aides About Invading Venezuela
Apparently, President Trump’s offhanded remarks about sending tanks to Venezuela were more than just a scare tactic. Trump reportedly asked a group of senior administration officials why the US couldn’t simply invade Venezuela during a meeting in the Oval Office, according to the New York Post. The meeting was called to discuss sanctions against members of the Venezuelan regime.
Trump’s suggestion shocked members of his administration who were in the room, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former national security adviser HR McMaster. Months later, Trump was told by his aides not to mention his invasion suggestion during private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. But he did it anyway, surprising members of his staff. Trump also raised the idea with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.
McMaster was reportedly among the advisors who explained to the president that a strike against Venezuela could jeopardize US support with other Latin American governments that have also condemned Maduro’s treatment of his political opposition. Still, Trump persisted, bringing up the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
President Nicolas Maduro The day after the meeting, Trump publicly raised the possibility of a “military option” for ending the unrest in Venezuela.
“We are all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away,” the president said. “Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering, and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option if necessary.”
Within days, Maduro organized a rally that filled the street’s of Caracas with government loyalists, who condemned “Emperor Trump’s” aggressive rhetoric.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the US, Canada and Europe have levied sanctions on dozens of senior government officials, including Maduro, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses.
- Whitehead: The Danger Is Real – We Need a New Declaration Of Independence For Modern Times
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”—Thomas Paine, December 1776
Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials.
Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal.
Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.
If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.
However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.
No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence.
A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.
Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations. The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 242 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.
Indeed, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.
The danger is real.
We could certainly use some of that revolutionary outrage today.
Certainly, we would do well to reclaim the revolutionary spirit of our ancestors and remember what drove them to such drastic measures in the first place.
Then again, perhaps what we need is a new Declaration of Independence.
Re-read the Declaration of Independence for yourself and ask yourself if the abuses suffered by early Americans at the hands of the British police state don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.
If you find the purple prose used by the Founders hard to decipher, here’s my translation of what the Declaration of Independence would look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:
There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power.
Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:
All men and women are created equal.
All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.
Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people.
It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed.
However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical Government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.
This is exactly the state of affairs we are under suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government.
The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute Tyranny over the country.
To prove this, consider the following:
The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people.
The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.
In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives.
The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.
The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint new judges and has demanded that the Court comply with the government’s dictates.
The government has allowed its agents to harass the people and steal from them.
The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime.
The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.
The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the constitution in order to expand its own powers.
The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes.
The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder.
The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.
The government has taxed us without our permission.
The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial.
The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.
The government has continued to expand its military empire and occupy foreign nations.
The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government.
The government has declared its federal powers superior to those of the states.
The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged war against the people.
The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of the people.
The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny, totally unworthy of a civilized nation.
The government has pitted its citizens against each other.
The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.
Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.
An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.
We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds.
They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. They are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.
Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on God’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.
That was 242 years ago.
In the years since early Americans first declared and eventually won their independence from Great Britain, we—the descendants of those revolutionary patriots—have somehow managed to work ourselves right back under the tyrant’s thumb.
Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making: the U.S. government.
The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.
“We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves.
We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and cowards.
We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers.
We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms.
We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers.
We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and professional pirates.
And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army.
Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.
Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.
It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.
The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of – police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc. – were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests and by American citizens who failed to heed James Madison’s warning to “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”
In so doing, we compromised our principles, negotiated away our rights, and allowed the rule of law to be rendered irrelevant.
There is no knowing how long it will take to undo the damage wrought by government corruption, corporate greed, militarization, and a nation of apathetic, gullible sheep.
The problems we are facing will not be fixed overnight: that is the grim reality with which we must contend.
Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we may see no relief from the police state in my lifetime or for several generations to come. That does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out.
Remember, there is always a price to be paid for remaining silent in the face of injustice.
That price is tyranny.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...