CFR Says China Must Be Defeated, & TPP Is Essential to That!

With the Rothschilds now with beacheads on every shore, there's nary a safe climate for individual liberty.
Rothschild Link Source Library (multi-lingual)
Wikipedia is consistently cleansed of Rothschild Zionist links to modern companies, people, events and concepts. NFU

Eric Zuesse
 

Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

This report, which is titled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.” He says that the report he is publishing argues that “strategic rivalry is highly likely if not inevitable between the existing major power of the day and the principal rising power.” Haass says that the authors “also argue that China has not evolved into the ‘responsible stakeholder’ that many in the United States hoped it would.” In other words: “cooperation” with China will probably need to become replaced by, as the report’s authors put it, “intense U.S.-China strategic competition.” 

Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance: “The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’—thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.” 

The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context: “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” 

The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

“China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

This report urges:

“The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

“Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ‘strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

Furthermore, here is what President Obama himself told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014:

“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.” He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

His speech also asserted: “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” (That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

However, there is a difference between Obama and the CFR on one important thing: Obama sees Russia as the chief country over which the U.S. must dominate militarily, and China as the chief country to dominate economically. But in that regard, he is actually old-line Republican, just like his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney is. 

The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

source

UPDATE: Can American Banks Raiding Safety Deposit Boxes Be Legal Next After they Loot their Customers Personal Accounts?

CV 1st posted 08.29.2012

"Yes, We Can! We don't need no phreakin' Constitution!"
                    ...and the people's response is:

the People say "You phreakin' DO need to obey the Federal and state constitutions!" Any actions to seize our private property by any federal agency or their law officers will be nullified by the individual states. Violators or trespassers of these personal rights can and will be arrested and judged in a state court. No federal magistrate has the granted authority to interpret or end-around our Rule of Constitutional Law.

Our own state law enforcement entities will no longer be a "team player" with tyrants, but will as they should be, do the right thing and become team players with the people, not accessories to oppression. 

Any bank likewise delegating these confiscations to third parties jeopardize their being prohibited for having any business authority or surrogates within those states.  

Questions? Watch:  ▶ Nullification a Tool We All Have by Thomas Woods - YouTube

---

August 29, 2012 by The Watchdog

It appears now that the government is aiding abetting the big banks now in every criminal act. 

The Politicians have adopted the strategy of saving the banks at all cost. Even if they have stolen homes they never owed legally in illegal foreclosures to taking money out of personal bank accounts to invest in risky ventures or move offshore out of reach of Federal Jurisdiction.

A Federal Judge has ruled banks can take segregated accounts and use the funds for anything without accountability.  Former New Jersey Governor and Former Goldman Sachs CEO John Corzine. As the head of MF Global, he stole over one billion dollars from private segregated accounts that were in the past hands off. He was not charged criminally for stealing other people’s money. Their Clients were left to take the loss.


Back in 1933 when FDR made it illegal for the American people to hold gold. Federal agents raided everyone’s’ safety deposit boxes. 

The state of California raided the people’s safety deposit boxes to fund the government to make up for their fiscal shortfall.

Recently Bank of America drilled holes in a persons safety deposit box without a court order and seized all the property and contents in the box.

The President Obama Signed the Executive Order named the National Defense Resource Preparedness. This document can be used to seize all the gold, stocks, bonds and anything valuable out of safety deposit boxes to fund the government if congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling or for some other financial crisis in the name of National security.


Regardless what reason the government or the banks use. Theft is Theft. It is stealing if it is taken without the consent of the people regardless what excuse the government comes up with. It is looting. 

Now since a Federal Judge said the Banks can take money out of segregated private accounts for any reason, the courts gave the money junkies an inch. I believe they will take a mile using this court ruling as a legal precedent. I believe this empowers the banks now to take contents out of people’s safety deposit boxes if they feel the need to do it; not just to take gold and silver coins. 

There can be jewelry and family heirlooms stolen forever to save a failing bank. They can take stock and bonds without any consequences if the government has their back using a police state to protect the thieves from the people.

Our Government is now conquered by the mega banks. The US Government at all cost will save the zombie banks because they are too big to fail at our expense if necessary. These banks are capable of anything. Do not underestimate these bankster gangsters to rob us all completely blind. Those laws that are supposed to protect our property is now disregarded for the benefit of the money junkies.

The People should take all their valuables, gold and silver coins. Family heirlooms, stocks, bonds and anything sentimental that is valuable and priceless out of these safety deposit boxes. If we keep them at the mercy of these bankers and the government, we can lose it all that is near and dear to us. 

We have no more protections from the abuses in government or the criminal banks with the blessing of the politicians to loot America. We have to protect what is ours. No one else will, not even those we are supposed to trust.

Our wealth and our property is up for grabs now. Who will steal first? Will it be the Government or the banks? Either way, we have to keep all we have out of their reach as much as possible. That means completely emptying our safety deposit boxes.  

We the people are the last line of defense from the thieving hands of the bankers and the government. Do not give corruption anymore opportunity to steal what little we have left. Let us take a bite out of crime by keeping all our property as far away from the government and the bankers as possible. It is our wealth and not theirs to steal. Do not feed the beast and keep our wealth to rebuild our nation.

Source:   Lone Star Watchdog  

Broward Cty Sheriff Deputies "assist" US Fed Troops in Training for Incarcerating US Citizens

Other states and their local police sure to follow...

Troops Training To Intern Citizens In Fort Lauderdale

Posted by Edmondo Burr

Video: Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Shot last week, shows military and law enforcement practicing  internment during martial-law style training.

Eu Times reports: The clip shows armed troops arresting role players on the street before a column of prisoners are marched towards a mock internment facility. Black Hawk choppers are also seen whizzing between buildings.

The exercise was accompanied by very little media coverage.
A Sun-Sentinel report said that Broward County police would be “assisting members of the U.S. Special Operations Forces who are undergoing urban warfare training.”

The drill, which was held in locations the military refused to disclose beforehand, began on March 17 and ended on Friday. 200 military personnel from all four branches, Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy, took part in the exercise.

“The goal is to prepare participants in realistic, unfamiliar training conditions before they deploy for combat overseas,” states the report. Residents were advised “not to be alarmed by the Black Hawk helicopters in the sky.”

Broward County also saw similar drills back in March 2014, when Navy SEALS practicing storming a university building from a helicopter.

Concerns continue to circulate that such drills are designed for dual purpose and are part of a plan to acclimate Americans to accept martial law in a time of national emergency.

As we have exhaustively documented, the fact that preparations are being made to use the military during domestic unrest is manifestly provable.

Jade Helm, an upcoming military drill that will involve nine states, caused controversy after Texas and Utah were labeled “hostile” territory in documents related to the exercise.

Choices - R. J. Rushdoony

The nation had been led to believe that Baal was in charge of fertility and the rainfall in particular. Elijah would show that "the Lord is God".

The Lastest News & Information August 4, 2014  Choices by R. J. Rushdoony  There is an old proverb which says, "We would all be rich, if we didn't have to eat." This is simply another way of saying that we all have priorities, and we make our choices in terms of them. Some men choose to be miserly on food, clothing, and shelter, because they value money so highly. They may like their family, but they love money more, and so they sacrifice everything to accumulate money. Others sacrifice for their children, and everything else takes second place in their lives. Many other examples could be cited, but we can summarize it thus: we are always making choices, consciously or unconsciously, in terms of what we prize or love the most. Our choices reveal our faith. Joshua summoned Israel and us to decision, declaring, "[C]hoose you this day whom ye will serve," the Lord or false gods (Josh. 24:15). Later, Elijah summoned the people to decide between God and Baal (1 Kings 18:21). Over and over again, the Bible demands that we choose, and warns us that all our actions represent a choice. "Our lives continually witness for us or against us as to what we believe in, what we sacrifice for, and what we have chosen." Everything you and I did last year and yesterday, and are doing today, represents a choice, and a decision about priorities. Our lives continually witness for us or against us as to what we believe in, what we sacrifice for, and what we have chosen. But here a strange and remarkable fact enters in. The godly man recognizes that he has been called and chosen by God. He is therefore under authority. His choices have been made by God and set forth in Scripture. The Ten Commandments spell out God's choice and law. Man has no free option. One way is sin, and the other faith, obedience, and blessing. The godly man rejoices in God's Word and choice, and it is his joy that God "shall choose our inheritance for us" (Ps. 47:4). Our choices thus reveal whether or not we are chosen by God or self-chosen. The self-chosen say, "My will be done," whereas the chosen of God, as C. S. Lewis saw, will say to God, "Thy will be done." Your life reveals your choices. What are they? Taken from the soon-coming A Word in Season: Daily Messages on the Faith for All of Life, Volume 5 by R. J. Rushdoony. You can get the first four volumes here.  Chalcedon Website  More About Us

What is junk silver?

The idea is to first get started. Save four silver quarters a month dated before 1964.

Feb202015

Do you have a coin jug at home? Perhaps it isn’t a jug, per se, but a coffee can, glass jar, or maybe even an old fashioned piggy bank? It might be holding far more money than you realize!

If you spend much time surfing various survival/prepper message boards and other forums, you’ll no doubt run across the term “junk silver.” People want to know, “What is junk silver? And, should I buy it?”

The term refers to coins containing a high amount of actual silver, unlike most common coins minted today.

Here’s the cool part. If you have a coin jug at home, odds are you probably have at least a few junk silver coins in there. While you won’t see them every day, they do still crop up regularly.

What is junk silver?

Here in the United States, junk silver coins are basically any coin (except pennies and nickels) minted in 1964 or earlier. 

Given that half-dollars and other larger coins are somewhat rare in most of our daily lives, we’re basically talking about dimes and quarters. If a coin is categorized as junk silver, it does not have any numismatic value to collectors.

The value in junk silver is the silver itself, not the coin’s appearance.

The only silver nickels in recent history are the “wartime” ones produced in 1942-1945. Even then, they only contain about 30% silver, whereas most junk silver coins contain 90% silver.

If after looking at the mint date you still aren’t sure if the coin is silver, a silver coin sounds very different from a non-silver one when dropped on a table. The sound is hard to describe but once you’ve heard it, you’ll recognize it pretty quickly going forward.

Why do preppers focus on junk silver?

Why is it important to know about junk silver? Well, for starters, junk silver is a very easy way to get started with collecting precious metals for possible use as alternative currency, should there come some sort of economic collapse. It takes just a few seconds at the end of the day to examine the coins in your pocket before you dump them into your coin jug.

On top of that, junk silver coins are worth far more than their face value. Generally speaking, if you have $1.40 in face value of junk silver coins, you have one troy ounce of actual silver. As of this writing, an ounce of silver is going for about $18.00 or so. I use Kitco to check prices when I’m getting ready to buy.

Now, honestly, that’s not a completely true comparison as junk silver coins aren’t actually worth the full silver spot price. But, those dimes and quarters are worth a ton more than what you’d get from a candy vending machine.

At my house, we have two separate jars, one for pennies and one for all other coins. I’ll usually glance through my spare change, checking mint dates, before tossing the coins into the appropriate jar. But, because I’m human and might miss seeing a junk silver coin, we’ll have one of our children dump out the jar and check each coin before we cash in the change. Often, they’ll find one or two coins we missed. The junk silver coins are stored away under lock and key, just in case we need them someday. If nothing else, they’ll be nice for the kids to have someday.

Resources for junk silver

A Guidebook of United States Coins 2015

The Beginner’s Guide to Gold and Silver Scrap

How to Buy Gold and Silver Bullion Without Getting Scammed

Survival Mom: How to Prepare Your Family for Everyday Disasters and Worst Case Scenarios  (I include an interview with a precious metals dealer and information about buying junk silver.)

Wartime silver nickels

via survivalmom

The Morality of Capitalism: Liberty, Honesty and Humility

By Richard Ebeling - February 10, 2015

In American culture there is one persistent villain portrayed as the enemy of humanity, the perpetrator of deception, and the agent for social corruption and human harm: the businessman.

Whether in news commentaries or on the movie screen, the businessman is presented as a heartless, greedy manipulator so concerned with squeezing the last possible dollar out of anything he does, that he is willing to destroy the planet, kill his competitors, poison little children, and sell his own mother "down the river" if it will serve his material and financial purposes.

The only thing that saves us from the end of the world at the hands of these criminal private enterprisers is either some righteous individual who refuses to "take it any more" or the virtuous hand of a government agent dedicated to protecting mankind from those who, clearly, care nothing for the common good of humanity.

Critics of Capitalism Want to Abolish or Regulate It

This imagery of the businessman's way of gaining profits has been extended by many intellectuals, academics, and public policy pundits into a general criticism and, indeed, condemnation of capitalism.

What can be praiseworthy, ethical or just in a social and economic system that fosters people to focus only on their self-centered personal interest in the pursuit of material gain with little or no thought to the betterment and improvement of mankind?

The conclusion that many of these critics have reached over the years and decades is that the entire capitalist system must be done away with and replaced with an alternative social and economic system such as socialism; or, at a minimum, business enterprise has to be placed under the detailed supervision and regulatory hand of government bureaucrats presumed to be concerned with and devoted to the general welfare of the country as a whole instead of individual private interest.

I beg to differ from this interpretation of businessmen and the free enterprise system in general. Instead, I would argue that a truly free enterprise, competitive capitalism is the most moral and humanely beneficial way for people to live together that has ever been stumbled upon by mankind.

Capitalism's Premise: Individual Rights and Liberty

There are basically two way human beings can interact and associate with each other: through the threat or use of force or by mutual agreement and voluntary consent.

When have you ever walked into a shoe store looked around and, maybe, tried on a pair of shoes, but when you decided to leave without buying anything a gruff and intimidating character with a club or a gun said, "The boss says you ain't leaving without buying something"? I doubt it any of us have had any such experience.

Why? Because the philosophical and moral premise underlying transactions in the marketplace is that each participant has the right to say, "Yes" or "No" to an offer and an exchange.

Why does every person have this implied right to "Yes" or "No" without attempted physical intimidation or use of force to make him act against his will? This is due to the fact that the foundational American principle is that every one of us has an inviolable individual right to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property.

Virtually every other philosophical and political system throughout human history has been based on some version of the opposite. That is, that you do not own yourself; your life and property are at the disposal of the primitive tribe or the medieval king, or the social, national, or racial group or "democratic" community to which you've been designated as belonging.

That is the premise of all forms of political and economic collectivism. You work for the group, you obey the group, and you live and die for the group. The political authority claiming to speak and act for the group presumes to have the right to compel your acquiescence and obedience to the asserted needs and desires of that collective group.

Only liberal, free market capitalism as it developed in parts of the Western world, and especially in the United States, broke free of this age-old collectivist conception of the relationship between the individual and others in society.

The modern ideas of individual liberty and free enterprise that began to develop and be argued for about 350 years ago transformed the way men lived and earned a living, and the ethical premises underlying human association in society.

A new morality emerged under which human relationships became based on mutual consent and voluntary agreement. Men could attempt to persuade each other to associate and trade, but they could not be compelled and plundered so one person could get what he wanted from another without their consent.

For Americans, it is heralded as the fundamental principle under which our country was based: It is held to be a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights among which are their individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism Fosters Honesty and Good Manners

As a consequence of this principle of liberty, in the marketplace of the free society individuals learn and practice the etiquette and manners of respect, politeness, honesty and tolerance. This naturally follows from the fact that if violence is ethically and legally abolished, or at least minimized, in all human relationships, then the only way any of us can get others to do things we would like them to do for us is through reason, argument, and persuasion.

The reason why the shoe salesman is motivated to act with courtesy and deference toward us when we are in his store is precisely because he cannot force on us to buy a pair of the shoes he wants to sell. We can walk down the mall corridor and buy those shoes from another seller interested in winning our business, or we can just go home without buying anything that day.

The clichés of "serve with a smile," or "the customer is always right," in fact are inescapable resulting manifestations of the voluntarist principle at the basis of all market transactions.

No businessman is likely to keep his market share or even stay in business in the long run if he earns a reputation for rudeness, deception and dishonesty in his dealings with either other businesses or his consumer customers.

The famous Scottish economist of the 18th century, Adam Smith, long ago explained that the motivation for respectful, polite, honest and deferential behavior on the part of any businessman is his own self-interest. If he doe not, he may not long remain in business, as every private enterpriser knows who had learned to appreciate the importance of gaining and maintaining his brand-name and personal reputation in the eyes of all those with whom he has dealings.

Such polite, courteous, honest and deferential behavior may start out as the self-interested conscious and intentional attempt to merely succeed in the market pursuit of profits, when voluntary and free market dealings and transactions become the common and everyday way in which people associate.

But, over time, such rules of "good behavior" become habituated, a part of the routine of regular day-in and day-out interactions, until, finally, they are transformed into the customs and traditions expected in any and all human encounters, whether in the marketplace or not.

Thus, the practice of self-interested good manners and respectful tolerance fostered first in commercial buying and selling become embedded and reinforced as the general societal rules and ways of civilized and "polite society." And, thus, capitalist conduct makes its contribution to a more cultured and humane civilization.

Capitalism Creates a Spirit of Humility, Not Political Arrogance

Finish reading

US Government & Congress Awarding Tax Monies to Private Businesses for Waging War

It's worse. Businesses are 'awarded' the war contracts and then kick back to the politically compliant Washington politicians. Not only does congress end-around the Constitutional mandate that congress must declare war, but a 5th column of soldiers is being recruited to replace our own military - - a war force, including foreigners, that with salaried compensation can be trusted to kill Americans if ordered by the corporations. Indeed, the UN forces are but a 8-hour flight from putting boots on our home soil.

You can begin to see how our impending bankruptcy is not a debt that will be paid by them, but you and me.  Past wars have always been a corporate 'thang'... check 'em out.

Even if you do pay your taxes like a patriotic sucker, it's national suicide, as either way you still get a bullet in the head.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Murky Special Ops Have Become Corporate Bonanza

 By Ryan Gallagher, 09.08.2014

The U.S. government is paying private contractors billions of dollars to support secretive military units with drones, surveillance technology, and “psychological operations,” according to new research.

A detailed report, published last week by the London-based Remote Control Project, shines a light on the murky activities of the U.S. Special Operations Command by analyzing publicly available procurement contracts dated between 2009 and 2013.

USSOCOM encompasses four commands – from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps – and plays a key role in orchestrating clandestine U.S. military missions overseas.

Researcher Crofton Black, who also works as an investigator for human rights group Reprieve, was able to dig through the troves of data and identify the beneficiaries of almost $13 billion worth of spending by USSOCOM over the five-year period. He found that more than 3,000 companies had provided services that included aiding remotely piloted drone operations in Afghanistan and the Philippines, helping to conduct surveillance of targets, interrogating prisoners, and launching apparent propaganda campaigns.

“This report is distinctive in that it mines data from the generally classified world of U.S. special operations,” says Caroline Donnellan, manager of the Remote Control Project, a progressive thinktank focused on developments in military technology. “It reveals the extent to which remote control activity is expanding in all its facets, with corporations becoming more and more integrated into very sensitive elements of warfare. The report’s findings are of concern given the challenges remote warfare poses for effective investigation, transparency, accountability and oversight.”

According to the report, USSOCOM tendered a $1.5 billion contract that required support with “Psychological Operations related to intelligence and information operations.” Prospective contractors were told they would have to provide “military and civilian persuasive communications planning, produce commercial quality products for unlimited foreign public broadcast, and develop lines of persuasion, themes, and designs for multi-media products.” The contract suggested that aim of these “persuasion” operations was to “engage local populations and counter nefarious influences” in parts of Europe and Africa.

A separate document related to the same contract noted that one purpose of the effort was to conduct “market research” of al-Qaida and its affiliates in Libya, Tunisia, Mali, Northern 

Nigeria, and Somalia. Four American companies eventually won the $1.5 billion contract: Tennessee-based Jacobs Technology and Virginia-based Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI-WGI, and SRA International.

Notably, while some 3,000 contractors provided service in some capacity to USSOCOM, just eight of the contractors earned more than 50 percent of the $13 billion total identified in Black’s report. Those were: Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications, Boeing, Harris Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group, MA Federal, Raytheon, and ITT Corporation.

One of the largest single transactions ($77 million) was paid to a subsidiary of Alaska’s Shee Atika – a company that the report says provided “interrogation services” as well as translation assistance.

Last year, the then-commander of USSOCOM, Adm. William McRaven, told the House Armed Services Committee that U.S. special operations forces were engaged in “annual deployments to more than 100 countries.” But very little is known about the scope and purpose of those operations, given the extreme secrecy that often shrouds them. The report from the Remote Control Project, however, is a reminder of how public data can sometimes be used to obtain information about even the most shadowy government activities – in this case, offering a valuable glimpse into the burgeoning nature of the U.S. military’s special operations and, in particular, the supporting role played by private contractors.

“The Special Operations Command is outsourcing many of its most sensitive information activities,” says Black. “Remote warfare is increasingly being shaped by the private sector.”

USSOCOM had not responded to a request for comment at time of publication.

Photo: Rob Jensen/USAF/Getty Images

Email the author: ryan.gallagher@theintercept.com

via theintercept

National ID Card Nears Full Implementation

Written by: Daniel Jennings  February 6, 2015 



The days when your state-issued driver’s license will be a federally mandated national ID card are closer than you think – and in fact it’s already taking hold in some locations.

About 20 states are now fully in compliance with the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires that state driver’s licenses meet rigid standards set by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Persons without Real ID compliant driver’s licenses will not be able to fly on airplanes in 2016 and already are prohibited from entering some federal facilities. Instead, such people will have to bring another form of ID, such as a passport.

“Having a Real ID-compliant card is optional,” Kevin Malone of the Nevada Motor Vehicles Department told The Las Vegas Review Journal. “But eventually, you’re going to need one if you use your driver’s license as an ID when you fly.”

Nevada residents will need such a card because their state’s current driver’s license is not in compliance with Real ID. Residents of Idaho using a license as an ID are already barred from the Idaho National Laboratory, a nuclear research facility, TV station KTVB 7 reported.

Critics have warned that law that mandated the ID is open to abuse. That’s because in its list of locations where an acceptable driver’s license is required, the law’s text says it “includes but is not limited to” federal buildings, aircraft and nuclear plants “and any other purposes” that the Department of Homeland Security secretary requires. In essence, DHS could require the use of the ID just about anywhere.

Learn How To Become Invisible In Today’s Surveillance State!
Additionally, as more and more states place RFID chips in their licenses – such chips are not required under the law but four states already have them – the tracking of citizens becomes even easier.

“A national ID can be used in times of crisis for really, really horrible things,” Jim Harper of The Cato Institute told Off The Grid Radio.

(Listen to Off The Grid Radio’s in-depth interview with Harper about the Real ID Act here.)

Story continues below the video:

What is Real ID?

Real ID was a federal law passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2005. The ID behind it was to make it harder for terrorists and criminals to get driver’s licenses in the United States. It:

• Sets standards for driver’s licenses and other ID cards issued by state governments.
• Requires states to ask driver’s license applicants and persons renewing their licenses for proof of citizenship or legal residence in the USA.
• Makes driver’s licenses more difficult to forge.
• Requires states to share all driver’s license data with other states.
• Mandates digital photos for use with facial recognition software.

The Associated Press reported that only 460,000 of the 5.4 million driver’s licenses issued by the state of Washington meet Real ID’s standards.


“Nobody has ever done this before … so enforcing this law is going to be a major challenge,” Brian Zimmer, the president of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License, told USA Today.

Zimmer helped write the Real ID Act as a congressional staffer, but since then the law has been a tough sell to states. Around 17 state legislatures passed laws trying to ban compliance with real ID.

“Years of study have shown that this does not do much for security,” Harper told Off The Grid Radio. “Should we spend as a society millions of dollars, should we threaten our own liberties … just so we can cause a minor inconvenience to a future terrorist? I don’t think we should.”

The ACLU opposes it.

“It is impossible to imagine DHS keeping the citizens of any of those states off of airplanes,” ACLU attorney Chris Calabrese told USA Today. “I don’t see that most of these states are going to have a whole lot more incentive than they have ever had to do this, which is to say, none.”

 via offthegrid

Did You Know the CFR Spawned a European Satan Child - the ECFR in 2007?

Editor, Charleston Voice, 01.29.15

Bet only a few have paid any more attention to this Child of Satan than we have.

But, here it is Europe getting its learning lessons and instructions from its big daddy in NY at 58 Pratt Street. Ordinarily, Rothschild money manager George Soros can be counted on to abort the young, but when it comes to the devil's infant, he gives it life! Brian Swint of Bloomberg News, May 7, 2007: Billionaire Plans Europe Version of Council on Foreign Relations Billionaire investor George Soros plans to start a foreign-affairs research institute in Europe similar to the Council on Foreign Relations:

"Europe has to be interested in recreating what used to be called the West, based on the principles of international cooperation," Mr. Soros said yesterday at a conference in Oxford, England. "Out of this idea came the idea of founding a European Council on Foreign Relations." Mr. Soros, who spent $27.5 million trying to defeat President Bush in the 2004 election, said America can't deal with global affairs on its own. If a leading Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Obama, wins the post in 2008, the U.S. may regain some of "the high ground," he said. Mr. Soros declined to say how much money he is spending on the project. It may start by the end of this year, he said. "Our resources are similar to the United States, but we punch pathetically below our weight," Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European Studies at Oxford University who is helping Mr. Soros with the plans, said in an interview. "The idea is to contribute a European voice. It's still in the making."

Okay then Europe here you go. Start boning up on your own country's subversive representatives to the ECFR. Be alert to elements that weaken your sovereignties taking shape on your doorsteps. Of course, all reps, board members and staff are exclusively pro-Eurozone and its monetary unit. As in North America,  personal welfare, political careers and prestige come first. An open free market competitive culture certainly can't match what these immoral souls can steal from the people. These are the chief worshipers of the root of all evil, of all time.

With North America eventually coming under control, the Amero/NAU will amalgamate with Euro/EU becoming nearly the final step in the establishment of a one-world government under their control.   

• About the European Council on Foreign Relations
• Your members listed here by country: COUNCIL

Why the NY State Police (and DC) Fear the Oathkeepers - *vid*

John Wallace, vice president of the New York Oath Keepers. (From Wallace’s Facebook)

Hatred and contempt for our Constitution from above is being frustrated from below. Ordinary rank 'n file Americans who love their country and their own individual liberties are flocking to the sanctuaries of lawful order. Oathkeepers is the leading non-violent sanctuary to restore and preserve those ends, and challenges those who seek to end it. NYC mayors of treason, DeBlasio and Bloomberg you're not wanted here.

---

 ▶ Oath Keepers Orders We Will NOT Obey - Full Length Video - YouTube

Uploaded on Apr 8, 2009

http://OathKeepers.org
Meet David Berry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyaxEw...
Meet Eddie & Ada Gilbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49GPAK...
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/
"This is my old, private blog that is now sadly neglected since I have launched Oath Keepers, which has truly taken off like a rocket, leaving me no time for personal blogging - not that I'm complaining. the Oath Keepers mission is very important, and worth the time and effort.

Go here: www.oathkeepers.org

However, if you want to see what prompted me to finally launch Oath Keepers, there are several posts on this blog that show my thinking.

Back in 2006 I wrote several scathing criticisms of the Bush Administration's absurd and dangerous claims of nearly unlimited executive "war" powers. Those articles built on my research at Yale Law School (where I won the Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights).

One of the most common refrains I get from Obama supporters is "where were you when Bush was violating the Constitution." Well, I was right here. Read this:"
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/

OATH KEEPERS is a non-partisan association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

"Not on Our Watch!"

SUMMARY LIST OF ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read the full declaration at http://oathkeepers.org