America’s global empire remains intact despite calls from locals to close base on Okinawa

America is no longer a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, but an empire built along the same foundations of past civilizations where authority and rule flowed out from the center to nearly every inch of the globe.  And like Rome’s once great dominion over Europe, the Near East, and even parts of Africa, to the British extending their hand over enough locations where literally the ‘sun never set’ within their domain, the United States has followed this playbook and controls global policy by having a military presence in at least 63 countries around the world.

And while some of these bases are necessary to carry out their requirements for treaties such as NATO, a large portion of America’s military resides abroad simply to protect and support economic and corporate needs rather than those of military and defense.  And in one such location, both the people and the local government is tired of its U.S. presence and are calling for a closure of bases.

That place is the island of Okinawa, and despite the growing clamor for the removal of bases and military personnel, the U.S. has no intention of divesting itself from the Japanese protectorate.

US officials have told Okinawa’s governor that American troops will remain on the Japanese island despite mass protest rallies. The governor, in his turn, had pledged to continue his anti-base campaign.

“The United States’ troop presence in Okinawa is fundamental to our treaty commitment to the defense of Japan,” said a statement from US State Department, following the meeting of US officials with Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga on Wednesday.

On Monday, Nago’s mayor, Susumu Inamine, said that Japan was treating Okinawa as a “colony,”showing the photos of demonstrators clashing with police in front of US base.

“Having the locals at each other’s throats and divided among themselves is a strategy typical of colonial policies,” he added.

Tim Beal, a New Zealand-based researcher and author of “North Korea: The Struggle Against American Power,” questions the true purpose of US actions in Japan.

“The US says it wants to defend Japan, but it’s not the real story,” he told RT. “It’s really not plausible to suggest any country wants to attack Japan. The US primarily is worrying about the rise of China and the military aspect. And it needs its bases in Japan.” – Russia Today

Like the former British empire, the United States uses its embassies and military bases as a form of shadow government in most regions of the world, implementing their foreign policies from the background onto governments and people’s for whom their seek to control.  The recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and their strong presence in Ukraine show that as the world seeks to end U.S. hegemony around the world, Washington is looking to increase their dominions and force all nations to follow their path of global governance.


One of the primary reasons that two former adversaries, Russia and China, put aside their enmity for one another is because they determined that the threat of American expansion was much greater than their own internal fears for each other.  And as each of these countries seek greater roles in the future of global policy making, the U.S. is entrenching itself by building bigger and greater bases on the doorsteps of both Eurasian powers.

It is said that America rules the world because the dollar is the reserve currency, and that currency is backed not by gold or good monetary policies, but by a strong military and by force.  And with both Russia, China, and nearly 65 other countries beginning to reject the dollar as the basis for U.S. dominion, Washington is falling back to the only thing left for a crumbling empire which is coercion through force, and extension through military power.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for,, and To the Death Media, and hosts the popular web blog, The Daily Economist. Ken can also be heard Wednesday afternoons giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’