They are driving the U.S. economy into a black hole, by their obsessive insistence that America must continue to have the world’s biggest or ‘leading’ economy, which is an obsession that’s instead destroying the U.S. economy. So: they lie to say that the only alternative to America’s leading the world will be some ‘autocracy’ that’s far less democratic, and far more of a police-state, than is America’s Government.
On the one hand, they talk about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, but on the other hand, they are themselves the world’s biggest enemies of both, because they stand astride the world’s most rampant violator of international laws, a Government that not only pens up in prisons a higher percentage of its population than does any other of the world’s 200+ countries (which fact, in itself, is sufficient to prove the fraudulence of all neocons — including all U.S. Presidents in this Century) and is also in other ways a police-state, whose many coups or “regime-change” operations have produced since the end of World War II in 1945, almost all of the world’s military invasions. The U.S. Congressional Research Service’s list of U.S. invasions (including increases in existing invasions) lists and briefly describes 297 such invasions after WW II (i.e., during 1945-2022, a 77-year period), and is titled “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2022”. That 297 U.S. invasions in the past 77 years is more than all of the instances put together during 1798-1945 — which was twice as long a period, 147-years. And none of those 297 invasions after 1944 was defensive. 244 of the 297 occurred after the Soviet Union ended in 1991 and prior to Russia’s invading Ukraine in 2022. During that entire time (and even going all the way back to the end of WW II in 1945) there was no U.S. declaration of war and therefore no Constitutional legality for the invasion — not for any of America’s post-WW-II invasions). All of the 297 were unConstitutional (without an official congressional declaration of war). Most of them were purely aggressions (some in order to help a foreign tyrant suppress his own population). After the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the U.S. regime just went wild, internationally, and stepped-up the frequency of its invasions. America’s Founders had insisted that there be no “standing army” in this nation. Until Truman established the ‘Defense’ Department and CIA in 1947, there wasn’t any. That change, by him, created America’s military-industrial complex, which now controls the country, on behalf of U.S. billionaires. But, really all U.S. Presidents since 25 July 1945 have been neocons, though some worse than others. The worst of all (the worst of a bad string) are Truman, Eisenhower, both Bushes, Obama, and Biden. To call this country a democracy is a bad joke.
The U.S. now has 900 military bases in foreign countries around the world, in addition to the 749 U.S. domestic military bases. The U.S. now is spending approximately half of the entire world’s military costs.
Even the United Nations Secretary General has said that “The world needs U.S. leadership – at the UN and elsewhere.” (America is the main country that selects U.N. Secretaries General. Ban Ki-moon was that one.) He was saying that the U.N., which was originally intended by its inventor FDR to be the democratic federal world Government of, by, and for, all nations (but which FDR’s enemy Truman actually designed it so as for it to fail at being any such thing), was openly advocating, by its own chief spokesperson, to be, itself, subordinate to the U.S. Government, instead of superior to the U.S. Government, in its field of authority, which is international law. This was the virtual U.N. surrender, to the first-ever all-encompassing global empire, the hegemon, which is replacing the U.N.’s international laws, by America’s international rules, and thereby transitioning to this global dictatorship’s, the U.S. Government’s, “international rules-based order,” which will replace all international laws. Even the United Nations has surrendered to it — never resisted it. That is shocking, because no one has even called attention to it (until now, here, 12 years after Ban Ki-moon did this).
He said that, even after the U.S. Government had, knowingly on the basis only of blatantly demonstrable lies even at the time, invaded and destroyed Iraq, and then in 2011 was bragging to the world that it had just destroyed the best-functional national economy in Africa, Libya — neither of which victim-nations had posed any authentic national-security threat to the American people; so, both of these invasions were international-war crimes. Yet, this was done by the country that the U.N. was urging to be its “leader.”
However, the U.S. economy is, itself, being gutted, in order to impose its global dictatorship over other nations. Over half of all the expenditures that the U.S. Congress and President authorize each year are going to pay military costs.
On 20 April 2023, the U.S. Treasury Department headlined “Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on the U.S. – China Economic Relationship at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies”, and Janet Yellen said, regarding especially the U.S. Government’s emerging war to conquer China — another country that never threatened the United States but that now is gearing up to protect itself against the U.S. regime’s threats against China:
The Treasury Department has sanctions authorities to address threats related to cybersecurity and China’s military-civil fusion. We also carefully review foreign investments in the United States for national security risks and take necessary actions to address any such risks. And we are considering a program to restrict certain U.S. outbound investments in specific sensitive technologies with significant national security implications.
As we take these actions, let me be clear: these national security actions are not designed for us to gain a competitive economic advantage, or stifle China’s economic and technological modernization. Even though these policies may have economic impacts, they are driven by straightforward national security considerations. We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force trade-offs with our economic interests.
There are key principles that guide our national security actions in the economic sphere.
First, these actions will be narrowly scoped and targeted to clear objectives. They will be calibrated to mitigate spillovers into other areas. Second, it is vital that these tools are easily understood and enforceable. And they must be readily adaptable when circumstances change. Third, when possible, we will engage and coordinate with our allies and partners in the design and execution of our policies.
In addition, communication is essential to mitigating the risk of misunderstanding and unintended escalation. When we take national security actions, we will continue to outline our policy reasoning to other countries. We will listen and address concerns about unintended consequences.
Among our most pressing national security concerns is Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine. In my visit to Kyiv, I saw firsthand the brutality of Russia’s invasion. The Kremlin has bombed hospitals; destroyed cultural sites; attacked energy grids to cause widespread pain and suffering among civilians. Ending Russia’s war is a moral imperative. It will save many innocent lives. As I’ve said, it is also the single best thing we can do for the global economy. To help end Russia’s war, we have mounted the swiftest, most unified, and most ambitious multilateral sanctions regime in modern history. Our broad coalition of partners has also provided assistance to Ukraine so it can defend itself. …
As we protect our security interests and human rights values, we will also pursue our second objective: healthy economic engagement that benefits both countries.
Let’s start with the obvious. The U.S. and China are the two largest economies in the world. And we are deeply integrated with one another. Overall trade between our countries reached over $700 billion in 2021. We trade more with China than with any countries other than Canada and Mexico. American firms have extensive operations in China. Hundreds of Chinese firms are listed on our stock exchanges, which are part of the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world. According to the Nature Index, the United States and China are each other’s most significant scientific collaborators. And China remains among the top sources for international students in the United States.
As I’ve said, the United States will assert ourselves when our vital interests are at stake. But we do not seek to “decouple” our economy from China’s. A full separation of our economies would be disastrous for both countries. It would be destabilizing for the rest of the world. Rather, we know that the health of the Chinese and U.S. economies is closely linked. A growing China that plays by the rules can be beneficial for the United States. For instance, it can mean rising demand for U.S. products and services and more dynamic U.S. industries.
China’s “no limits” partnership and support for Russia is a worrisome indication that it is not serious about ending the war. It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe.
Like national security, we will not compromise on the protection of human rights. This principle is foundational to how we engage with the world.
With our own eyes, the world has seen the PRC government escalate its repression at home. It has deployed technology to surveil and control the Chinese people – technology that it is now exporting to dozens of countries.
Human rights abuses violate the world’s moral conscience. They also violate the foundational principles of the United Nations – which virtually every country, including China, has signed onto. The United States will continue to use our tools to disrupt and deter human rights abuses wherever they occur around the globe.
In public and in private with Beijing, the United States has raised serious concerns about the PRC government’s abuses in Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong, Tibet, and other parts of China.
Yellen admitted earlier this week that Washington’s use of its leverage over the global financial system to sanction other countries could diminish the role of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Asked about “weaponization” of the US currency, she told CNN, on 16 April 2023, “Fareed Zakaria GPS”, that such tactics “could undermine the hegemony of the dollar.” (SEE THAT HERE. HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT.) So: the Biden Administration places its fake ‘national security’ considerations, and ‘spreading democracy and human rights’ (while actually threatening the entire world, and violating democracy and human rights in its own land) ABOVE the nation’s own economy. What will stop this? Will it be nuclear war? For what?
Ever since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the principle has been established in international law, that no nation possesses any authentic authority or right to interfere in the purely domestic affairs of any other nation. The U.S. Government, ever since 25 July 1945, has trashed that. And, so, now, finally, even a U.S. Treasury Secretary is admitting that, if and to the extent that it will continue doing so, this will greatly harm and reduce America’s OWN economy — but she nonetheless insists that it MUST BE DONE, because China and Russia are ‘autocracies’ whereas America is a ‘democracy’ that must enforce ‘human rights’, including the ‘right’ to break away from China, of its provinces, Taiwan, “Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong, Tibet, and other parts of China.” This demand is a blatant violation of what has been international law even as far back as 1648, long before the U.N. even existed. Hitler routinely violated it in the 1930s, and America does it routinely since 25 July 1945. America took up Hitler’s banner of trying to achieve global hegemony.