The Outlook for the New Year

In March 2010 when I resigned from my column with Creator’s Syndicate and put down my pen, I received so many protests from readers that two months later I began writing again. This renewed activity has resulted in this new year in a website of my own.

My columns will first appear on my site. Sites on which readers are accustomed to find my columns are permitted to continue to post my columns as long as they link to my site and indicate my copyright. The site will stay up if reader support justifies it. Otherwise, I will conclude that the cost of the site exceeds the value of what I have to say.

This past year has not been a good one for the 99%, and the new year is likely to be even worse. This column deals with the outlook for liberty. The next will deal with the economic outlook.

The outlook for liberty is dismal. Those writers who are critical of Washington’s illegal wars and overthrow of the US Constitution could find themselves in indefinite detainment, because criticism of Washington’s policies can be alleged to be aiding Washington’s enemies, which might include charities that provide aid to bombed Palestinian children and flotillas that attempt to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-israel-usa-flotilla-idUSTRE75N4A620110624

The Bush/Obama regimes have put the foundation in place for imprisoning critics of the government without due process of law. The First Amendment is being all but restricted to rah-rah Americans who chant USA! USA! USA! Washington has set itself up as world prosecutor, forever berating other countries for human rights violations, while Washington alone bombs half a dozen countries into the stone age and threatens several more with the same treatment, all the while violating US statutory law and the Geneva Conventions by torturing detainees.  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/18/41514/general-who-probed-abu-ghraib.html

Washington rounds up assorted foreign politicians, whose countries were afflicted with civil wars, and sends them off to be tried as war criminals, while its own war crimes continue to mount. However, if a person exposes Washington’s war crimes, that person is held without charges in conditions that approximate torture.

Bradley Manning is the case in point. Manning, a US soldier, is alleged to be the person who released to WikiLeaks the “Collateral Murder” video, which, in the words of Marjorie Cohn, “depicts U.S. forces in an Apache helicopter killing 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists. People trying to rescue the wounded were also fired upon and killed.”

One of the Good Samaritans was a father with two small children. The video reveals the delight that US military personnel experienced in blowing them away from the distant skies. When it became clear that the Warriors Bringing The People Democracy had blown away two small children, instead of remorse we hear an executioner’s voice saying: “that’s what he gets for bringing children into a war zone.”

The quote is from memory, but it is accurate enough. When I first saw this video, I was astonished at the brazen war crime. It is completely obvious that the dozen or so murdered people were simply people walking along a street, threatening no one, unarmed, doing nothing out of the ordinary. It was not a war zone. The horror is that the US soldiers were playing video games with live people. You can tell from their commentary that they were having fun by killing these unsuspecting people walking along the street. They enjoyed killing the father who stopped to help and shooting up his vehicle with the two small children inside.

This was not an accident of a drone, fed with bad information, blowing up a school full of children, or a hospital, or a farmer’s family. This was American soldiers having fun with high tech toys killing anyone that they could pretend might be an enemy.

When I saw this, I realized that America was lost. Evil had prevailed.

I was about to write that nothing has been done about the crime. But something was done about it. An American soldier who recognized the horrific war crime knew that the US military knew about it and had done nothing about it. He also knew that as a US soldier he was required to report war crimes. But to whom? War crimes dismissed as “collateral damage” are the greatest part of Washington’s 21st century wars.

A soldier with a moral conscience gave the video to WikiLeaks. We don’t know who the soldier is. Washington alleges that the soldier is Bradley Manning, but Washington lies every time it opens its mouth. So we will never know.

All we know is that retribution did not fall on the perpetrators of the war crime. It fell upon the two accused of revealing it–Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

Manning was held almost two years without charges being presented to a court.
In December’s pre-trial hearings all Washington could come up with was concocted accusations. No evidence whatsoever. The prosecutor, a Captain Fein, told the court, if that is what it is, that Manning had been “trained and trusted to use multiple intelligence systems, and he used that training to defy that trust. He abused our trust.”

In other words, Manning gave the world the truth of a war crime that was being covered up, and Washington and the Pentagon regard a truth teller doing his duty under the US military code as an “abuser of trust.”

In the 1970 My Lai Courts-Martial of Captain Ernest L. Medina, the Prosecution Brief states:

“ A combat commander has a duty, both as an individual and as a commander, to insure that humane treatment is accorded to noncombatants and surrendering combatants. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War specifically prohibits violence to life and person, particularly murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture. Also prohibited are the taking of hostages, outrages against personal dignity and summary judgment and sentence. It demands that the wounded and sick be cared for. These same provisions are found in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. While these requirements for humanitarian treatment are placed upon each individual involved with the protected persons, it is especially incumbent upon the commanding officer to insure that proper treatment is given.

“ Additionally, all military personnel, regardless of rank or position, have the responsibility of reporting any incident or act thought to be a war crime to his commanding officer as soon as practicable after gaining such knowledge. Commanders receiving such reports must also make such facts known to the Staff Judge Advocate. It is quite clear that war crimes are not condoned and that every individual has the responsibility to refrain from, prevent and report such unwarranted conduct. While this individual responsibility is likewise placed upon the commander, he has the additional duty to insure that war crimes committed by his troops are promptly and adequately punished.” http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_law3.htm

At the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.” General Pace said that the military is prohibited from committing crimes against humanity and that such orders and events must be made known.

However, when Manning followed the military code, his compliance with law was turned into a crime. Captain Fein goes on to tell the “court” [a real court would throw out the bogus charges, but Amerika no longer has real courts] that “ultimately, he aided the enemies of the United States by indirectly giving them intelligence through WikiLeaks.”

In other words, the “crime” is an unintended consequence of doing one’s duty–like the “collateral damage” of civilian casualties when drones, bombs, helicopter gunships, and trigger-happy troops kill women, children, aid workers, and village elders. Why is Washington only punishing Manning for the collateral damage attributed to him?

Captain Fein could not have put it any clearer. If you tell the truth and reveal Washington’s war crimes, you have aided the enemy. Captain Fein’s simple sentence has at one stroke abolished all whistleblower protections written into US statutory law and the First Amendment, and confined anyone with a moral conscience and sense of decency to indefinite detention and torture.

The illegal detention and treatment of Manning had a purpose, according to a number of informed people. Naomi Spencer, for example, writes that Manning’s long detention and delayed prosecution is designed to coerce Manning into implicating WikiLeaks in order that the US can extradite Julian Assange and either prosecute him as a terrorist or lock him away indefinitely in a military prison without any recourse to the courts, due process or the law. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30075.htm

Assange’s case is mysterious. Assange sought refuge in Sweden, where he was seduced by two women. Both admit that they had sexual intercourse with him voluntarily, but afterwards they have come forth with claims that as they were sleeping with him in the bed, he again had sexual intercourse with them, and that they had not
approved this second helping and that he was asked to use a condom but did not.

The Swedish prosecutorial office, after investigating the charges, dismissed them. But, strangely, another Swedish prosecutor, a woman suspected of connections to Washington, resurrected the charges and is seeking to extradite Assange to Sweden from the UK for questioning.

The legal question is whether a prosecutor can seek extradition for investigative purposes. The UK Supreme Court thinks that this is a valid question, and has agreed to hear the case. Normally, extradition requests come from courts and are issued for persons formally charged with a crime. Sweden has not charged Assange with a crime.

The real question is whether the Swedish prosecutor is acting on behalf of Washington.
Many who follow the case believe that Washington is behind the prosecutor’s re-opening of the case, and if Sweden gets hold of Assange Sweden will send him to Washington to be put in indefinite detention and tortured until he says what Washington wants him to say–that he is an Al Qaeda operative.

This is the way that Washington intends to absolve itself of its war crimes revealed, allegedly, by Manning and Assange.

Meanwhile, Washington in a brazen display of hypocrisy accuses other countries of human rights abuses, while Congress has passed and President Obama has signed an indefinite detention and torture bill that US Representative Ron Paul says will accelerate America’s “slip into tyranny” and “descent into totalitarianism.”

In signing the Bill of Tyranny, President Obama indicated that he thought that the tyranny established by the bill did not go far enough. He announced that he was signing the bill with signing statements that reserved his right, regardless of any law, to send American citizens, deprived of due process and constitutional protection, abroad to be tortured.

This is the US government that claims to be a government of “freedom and democracy” and to be bringing “freedom and democracy” to others with bombs and invasions.

The past year gave us other ominous tyrannical developments. President Obama announced that he had a list of Americans whom he intended to assassinate without due process of law, and Homeland Security, itself an Orwellian name, announced that it had shifted its attention from terrorists to “domestic extremists.” The latter are undefined and consist of whomever Homeland Security so designates.

None of this was done behind closed doors. The murder of the US Constitution was a public crime witnessed by all. But like Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death in New York in 1964 in front of onlookers who failed to come to her aid, the media, Congress, bar associations, law schools, and the American public failed to come to the defense of the Constitution.

In my lifetime the collapse in respect for, and authority of, the Constitution has been an horrific event. Compare the ho-hum response to the Obama regime’s police state announcements with the public anger at President Richard Nixon over his enemies list.  Try to imagine President Ronald Reagan announcing that he had a list of Americans marked for assassination without impeachment proceedings beginning forthwith.

Local and state police forces have been militarized not only in their equipment and armament but also in their attitude toward the public. Despite the absence of domestic terror attacks, Homeland Security conducts warrantless searches of cars and trucks on highways and of passengers using public transportation. A uniformed federal service is being trained to systematically violate the constitutional rights of citizens, and citizens are being trained to accept these violations as normal. The young have no memory of being able to board public transportation or use public roadways without intrusive searches or to gather in protest without being brutalized by the police. Liberty is being moved into the realm of myth and legend.

In such a system as is being constructed in public in front of our eyes, there is no freedom, no democracy, and no liberty. What stands before us is naked tyranny.

While America degenerates into a total police state, politicians constantly invoke “our values.” What are these values? Indefinite imprisonment without conviction in a court. Torture. Warrantless searches and home invasions. An epidemic of police brutality. Curtailment of free speech and peaceful assembly rights. Unprovoked aggression called “preemptive war.” Interference in the elections and internal affairs of other countries. Economic sanctions imposed on foreign populations whose leaders are not in Washington’s pocket.

If the American police state were merely an unintended consequence of a real war against terror, it could be dismantled when the war was over. However, the evidence is that the police state is an intended consequence. The PATRIOT Act is a voluminous and clever attack on the Constitution. It is not possible that it could have been written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress. It was waiting on the shelf.

The dismantling of constitutionally protected civil liberties is purposeful, as is the accumulation of arbitrary and unaccountable powers in the executive branch of government. As there have been no terrorist events within the US in over a decade except for those known to have been organized by the FBI, there is no terrorist threat that justifies the establishment of a political regime of unaccountable power. It is being done on purpose under false pretenses, which means that there is an undeclared agenda. The threat that Americans face resides in Washington, D.C.

Of the presidential candidates, only Ron Paul addresses the Constitution’s demise.Yet, the electorate is concerned with matters unimportant by comparison. Propagandized 24/7 by the Ministry of Truth, Americans are not sufficiently aware of their plight to elect Ron Paul president.

It might be too late for even a President Ron Paul to turn things around. A president has no power unless his government supports him. What prospect would President Ron Paul have of getting his appointees confirmed by the Senate? The military/security complex is not going to vacate power. Powerful monied interests would block his appointments. If he persisted in being a problem for the Establishment, he would be victimized by a scandal and fail to be reelected if not forced to resign.

Remember what the Washington Establishment did to President Carter. His budget director and chief of staff were framed, thus depriving Carter of the powers of his office.  Even Ronald Reagan had to give away more than half of his government, including the White House chief-of-staff and vice presidency, to the Establishment. President Reagan told me that he wanted to end stagflation in order that he could end the cold war, but that he could not sign a tax bill if I could not get one out of his administration that he could send to Congress.

I do not know, but I suspect that turning things around internally through the political system is not in the cards. Our chance to resurrect liberty might come from Washington’s hubris. Imperial ambitions and drive for power can produce unmanageable upheavals and a loss of allies. Overreach abroad with a demoralized, unemployed and downtrodden population at home are not the ingredients of success.

How much longer will the Russian government permit NGOs funded by the US Endowment for Democracy to interfere in its elections and to organize political protests?  How much longer will China confuse its strategic interests with the American consumer market? How much longer will Japan, Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, and the Middle East oil states remain US puppets? How much longer can the dollar retain the reserve currency role when the Federal Reserve is monetizing vast quantities of debt?

How much longer can a “superpower” survive when it is incapable of producing political leadership?

America’s salvation will come when Washington suffers defeat of its hegemonic ambitions.

Many readers, especially those who watch Fox “News” and CNN and read the New York Times, might see hyperbole in my outlook for 2012. Surely, many believe, the draconian measures put in place will only be applied to terrorists. But how would we know? Indefinite detention and torture require no evidence to be presented. The American public has no way of knowing whether tortured detainees are terrorists or political opponents. The decision to detain and torture is an unaccountable decision. It relies on nothing but the subjective arbitrary decision of someone in the executive branch. Why are Americans prepared to take the word of a government that told them intentionally the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to America?

Like cancer, tyranny metastasizes. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet Union’s most famous writer, was a twice-decorated World War II Red Army commander. He made mild critical comments about Stalin’s conduct of the war in a private letter to a friend, and for this he was sentenced, not by a court, but in absentia by the NKVD, the secret police, to eight years in the Gulag Archipelago for “anti-Soviet propaganda.” Not even Stalin had indefinite detention. The closest the Soviets came to this medieval practice resurrected by the Bush and Obama regimes was internal exile in distant parts of the Soviet Union.

During much of the Soviet era, even art, literature and music were scrutinized for signs of “anit-Soviet propaganda.” America’s Dixie Chicks suffered a similar, but more frightening, fate. Bush did not need the NKVD. The American public did the job for the secret police. Wikipedia reports:

“During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said ‘we don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas.’ The statement offended many Americans, who thought it rude and unpatriotic, and the ensuing controversy cost the band half of their concert audience attendance in the United States. The incident negatively affected their career and led to accusations of the three women being “un-American”, as well as hate mail, death threats, and the public destruction of their albums in protest.”

In Nazi Germany, the mildest criticism could bring a midnight knock at the door.

People with power use it. And power attracts the worst kind of persons. As Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prove, democracies are not immune to the evil use of power. Indeed, identical inhumane treatment of prisoners goes on inside the US prison system for ordinary criminals. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm A December 30, 2011, search on Yahoo for police brutality produced 20 million results.
Over-fed goon cop thugs taser little children and people in wheel chairs. They body slam elderly grandmothers. The police are a horror. They represent a greater threat to citizens than do criminals.

Preventative war, indefinite imprisonment, rendition, torture of people alleged to be “suspects” (an undefined category), and assassination are all draconian punishments that require no evidence. Preventative war is an Orwellian concept. How do you prevent a war by initiating a war? How do we know that a country that did not attack us was going to attack us in the future? Preventative war is like Jeremy Bentham’s concept of preventing crime by locking up those thought by the upper crust to be predisposed to criminal activity before they commit a crime. Punishment without crime is now the American Way.

The concepts that the Bush/Obama regimes have institutionalized are totally foreign to the Anglo-American concepts of law and liberty. In one decade the US has been transformed from a free society into a police state. The American population, to the extent it is aware of what has occurred, has simply accepted the revolution from the top.

Ron Paul is the only American seeking the presidency who opposes the tyranny that has been institutionalized, and he is not leading in the polls.

This tells us all we need to know about the value Americans place on liberty. Americans seem to welcome the era of tyranny into which they are now entering.

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

More from Articles & Columns ↓

203 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. avatar

    Good news. Now, all the states need to do this. Then what will the supremes do?

    MONTANA REBUKES THE SUPREME COURT
    In a rebuke to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Montana has held that Citizens United does not apply to Montana campaign finance law.

    Last Friday, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a 1912 voter initiative – the Corrupt Practices Act – that prohibits corporations from making contributions to or expenditures on behalf of state political candidates and political parties. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar federal prohibition was unconstitutional, prompting a wave of bills and court rulings that erased prohibitions on corporate and union political expenditures around the country.

    “For over 100 years, Montana has had an electoral system that preserves the integrity of the political process, encourages full participation and safeguards against corruption,” state Attorney General Steve Bullock said in a statement after the ruling, adding, “the [Montana] Supreme Court’s decision upholds that system and is truly a victory for all Montanans.”

    ALSO SEE: David Cobb – ‘Citizens United’ Doesn’t Fly in Big Sky State (Video)

    The Montana Court cited the state’s “unique” history, culture and economy in justifying the decision not to follow Citizens United.

    “With the infusion of unlimited corporate money in support of or opposition to a targeted candidate,” wrote Chief Justice Mike McGrath, in a 5-2 decision, “the average citizen candidate would be unable to compete against the corporate-sponsored candidate, and Montana citizens, who for over 100 years have made their modest election contributions meaningfully count would be effectively shut out of the process.”

    Under the First Amendment, limits on speech are justified only if the government can demonstrate a “compelling” interest for the limitation. The Montana high court ruled that the state had several compelling interests: preventing the corrupting influence of large political expenditures; guarding against Montana’s susceptibility to corruption because of its low-cost, grass roots political culture; and stemming the threat posed by out-of-state economic interests that have a financial stake in Montana’s agriculture and resource-extraction based economy.

    But in Citizens United, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the government may “not deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration.” In other words, the government may not quiet the voice of some speakers in an effort to boost the voice of others. The Supreme Court also held that there is no compelling interest in limiting so-called “independent expenditures,” because such limitations do not prevent corruption.

    UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh wrote on his influential legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that “the disagreement with Citizens United is so striking that it is likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case and will reverse the Montana Supreme Court’s decision.”

    Previously, a lower court in Montana ruled the state’s law limiting campaign spending unconstitutional, saying, “Citizens United is unequivocal: the government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech.”

    Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act

    Montana’s 1912 initiative was adopted in response to considerable corruption in the state government, according to the opinion. Around the turn of the century, the so-called “Copper Kings,” powerful mining barons, ruled Montana through campaign spending and bribery. One such baron, William A. Clark, was elected to the United States Senate in 1899 after buying votes in the Montana Legislature. He was unseated and the scandal helped lead to the passage of the 17th Amendment, which requires the direct election of senators.

    Before the adoption of the Corrupt Practices Act, “the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority,” said the court in Friday’s majority opinion, “and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful corporate managers to further their own business interests.”

    The court reasoned that the interest in protecting against the corrupting influence of money on the political system remains meaningful 100 years after Montana voters adopted the Corrupt Practices Act. “Does a State have to repeal or invalidate its murder prohibition if the homicide rate declines? We think not. Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.”

    Justice James Nelson wrote in dissent that “[t]he language of Citizens United … is remarkably sweeping and leaves virtually no conceivable basis for muzzling or otherwise restricting corporate political speech in the form of independent expenditures…. As much as I would like to rule in favor of the State, I cannot in good faith do so.”

    Montana First Court to Challenge Supreme Court on Citizens United Ruling

    The Montana Supreme Court is the only state court so far to uphold a ban on corporate political expenditures in the wake of Citizens United. The Colorado Supreme Court held its own corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional in March 2010. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states have also repealed bans on corporate expenditures, and administrative agencies in five states have declared corporate political expenditure bans unconstitutional.

    States may still ban direct corporate contributions to candidates or expenditures coordinated with candidates.

    The three plaintiffs who sued to roll back Montana’s election law limiting campaign contributions are a sole-proprietor painting business, an influential Montana gun-rights organization and an out-of-state advocacy group. The advocacy group, Western Tradition Partnership, has renamed itself American Tradition Partnership (ATP). According to its web site, ATP is “dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting responsible development and management of land, water and natural resources.”

    “The Montana Supreme Court, through this decision, has shown contempt for the overriding law of the land and has thumbed its nose at the United States Supreme Court, which has specifically held that the State of Montana has no interest in prohibiting people who associate together from speaking,” said ATP Executive Director Donald Ferguson.

    John Bonifaz, director of Free Speech for People, a group dedicated to overturning Citizens United, said in a statement that the ruling sets up “the first test case for the US Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United Decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy.”

    The plaintiffs have until March 29 to seek review by the United States Supreme Court.

    By: e . January 5, 2012 . 9:40 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  2. avatar

    As a regular reader of your writings , I always admire your INTEGRITY and COURAGE, although I also have certain reservation about your suggestions. That’s normal for all true free thinkers.
    While a high school student in Vietnam in the late 60s, I was amazed with full admiration by the early history of the USA as a new nation, particularly the Declaration of Independence, which even a dictator like Ho Chi Minh had to quote adding to his own “communist-nationalism”. As far as I am concerned there is no document in the world, but the Declaration of Independence of the People of the USA that states and asserts unequivocally the personal liberty and the sovereignty of the people over the nation state and its governments, which are stated clearly in the Declaration as instruments and tools of the People, NOT something revered , sacred above the People and their Liberty .
    These Values have been eroded and destroyed overtime, particularly in the past ten years or so.
    Without people like you, like Ron Paul, people not only with knowledge but courage and intergrity I don’t know how these Values will be brought back.
    Everyone knows that the tasks are hard and the stake is high. The Evil Machine is growing bigger and bigger everyday while the people have been indoctrinated to obey in fear like slaves.
    But someone has to step out of the normal comfort zone to set an example. Mr Paul Craig Roberts, you’ve done that among others.
    Please stay and write no matter what happens.
    “”"” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”"”"
    NguyenkhaPhamthanhChuong
    Australia

    By: NguyenKhaPhamThanhChuong . January 5, 2012 . 10:42 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      “..deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..”
      Those words are the key.
      We have surrendered our consent, tacitly.

      By: e . January 5, 2012 . 11:20 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
    • avatar

      Doesn’t the 1787 Constitution articulate Americans have, and have had, the Right and Power to peacefully and with impunity alter their government by removing Lawmakers (Congressmen) every two years? Which, or course, makes a bloody armed revolution totally unnecessary, doesn’t it?

      By: Allan Hampton . January 5, 2012 . 11:39 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        Yes it does. And we already have “TERM LIMITS”……too. All we really have to do is organize a little bit and VOTE ALL OF THESE BASTARDS OUT OF OFFICE all across the country. Every 2 years if necessary.

        Please note: THIS MEANS YOU. THIS MEANS ‘YOUR” CONGRESSCRITTER, who must be a very slick liar, since [s]he has apparently convinced you that [s]he is is one of the ‘few good guys fighting all those other bad guys’…..so YOU don’t have to do anything…….right? It’s just OTHER PEOPLE and their Congressmen who are to blame, and have to act……

        OR……possibly you have been played for a fool, or you are one.

        By this I DON’T mean you, Allan.

        By: Dennis Morrisseau . January 6, 2012 . 7:21 am | Flag this comment

        Reply
  3. avatar

    Mr. Paul Craig Roberts,

    You are a very eloquent writer. Thank you for performing this work. The message is worthy and solid. I would like to be friends. If you come across this comment please feel free to write me. If it so happens that your cost of writing exceeds your value of getting the message out, I would encourage you to know such a thing is impossible. There comes a time in a mans life when he must sacrifice.

    Respectfully,

    Brandon

    By: Brandon . January 6, 2012 . 1:44 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
  4. avatar

    Count me as another longtime fan excited about Dr. Roberts having his own site from which to ruminate.

    The New York City Council put forth a resolution calling for legislation to overturn the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling, joining Montana and the Occupy movement in the effort to rid the US of the false designation of corporate personhood, that wretched clerical error that derailed the Republic.

    By: Apefist . January 6, 2012 . 4:29 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
  6. avatar

    OK, this is a test – you took a swipe at the Nazis in your article, and for all I know it was perfectly appropriate to do so, but, can we look at the other side of the coin, i.e., can we say something about the Nazis that is applicable to the current predicament in the US and that does not condemn the Nazis – I repeat, this is a test …..

    Here is a quote from Mein Kampf that might resonate with PCR and his readers …..

    “As I listened to Gottfried Feder’s first lecture about the ‘breaking of interest slavery,’ I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder’s lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.

    And here again later developments proved how correct our sentiment of those days was. Today the know-it-alls among our bourgeois politicians no longer laugh at us: today even they, in so far as they are not conscious liars, see that international stock exchange capital was not only the greatest agitator for the War, but that especially, now that the fight is over, it spares no effort to turn the peace into a hell.

    The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation’s struggle for its economic independence and freedom.”

    Well? Is the last line, applied to the US, true today?

    By: Rudolfo . January 6, 2012 . 12:00 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      “Is the last line, applied to the US, true today?”
      Absolutely true – and thank you for the test.

      By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 12:12 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
  7. avatar

    “First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
    Martin Niemöller

    By: safariman . January 6, 2012 . 1:17 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  8. avatar

    Judea Declares War on Germany 1933

    By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 1:36 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  9. avatar

    Thank you!
    Americans, the citizenry, still have exclusive use of the ballot and jury boxes to exert a peaceful change in the direction of the federal government. It cost nothing to vote to not reelect an Incumbent Congressman.

    By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 1:49 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      Except for ballot tampering as was seen in IA this week. Ballot tampering is BIG business.

      Truth is:
      We are not free.
      We don’t have any say as to who becomes president
      The drug war is actually a war to keep the government in the underground drug business.
      The US is no longer a sovereign country.
      Bankers own and run this planets governments.

      By: tonebone . January 6, 2012 . 2:47 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        The President is not a King, he can’t legislate (make law), and can’t do much of anything without the consent of Congress. Besides the People’s votes does not directly elect a President and never has. The President is the least important person in WDC, as far as the People are concerned, or should be concerned.

        As far as I can see a voter is free to choose any constitutionally qualified person of the voter’s district for Congressman of that district. What prevents a voter from doing that?

        By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 4:30 pm | Flag this comment

        Reply
        • avatar

          Most likely the replacement we are limited to choosing for the incumbent was indoctrinated by the same school as the incumbent. Democrats and Republicans are just slightly different shades of the same color and both serve the same special interests. Most voters are locked into the “lesser of two evils” voting philosophy, which is cowardly in every respect.

          By: Apefist . January 7, 2012 . 3:18 pm | Flag this comment

          Reply
          • avatar

            Apefist? You are being a knuckle dragger here. Serially mouthing your mantra that excuses you
            from any responsibility for our situation or our future.

            Any Congressman who wants to keep his or her job after we sweep them all out of office one time
            WILL OBEY THE PEOPLE…….or their job and all of the New Congress will again disappear –once we do our little bit to organize ourselves to vote like this….

            By: Dennis Morrisseau . January 28, 2012 . 8:06 am | Flag this comment

      • avatar

        Ahhhhh, Tonebone? and others?

        You make your statements of hopelessness over and over I guess as a kind of mantra,
        or incantation…….to absolve you yourself of responsibility to grow up?

        Take a good hard look at what Allan Hampton is telling you above……I suggest that you go further
        a little and actually READ ARTICLE 1 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION….and then consider what can be done by us…….at no cost and at no further effort than just voting all Congressional incumbents OUT.

        Imagine the field swept clean of all of them. And entirely or largely NEW Congress then in place—-
        AS THE DIRECT RESULT OF OUR SMART AND SIMPLE ACTIONS. –Which the New Congress will have seen.
        THE WHOLE WORLD WILL NOTICE AND APPLAUD!
        And as our new employees you can bet the New Congress will start paying very close attention to what we say thereafter,yes? Money and Lobbyists beDamned.

        Or, instead, you can continue on your knees, mouthing these mantras…..

        I urge you and all to got to FireCongress.org and also to READ Article 1 of the US Constitution.
        [It has NOTHING to do with the Presidency. It is all about who makes our laws and whom they MUST report to.]

        d morrisseau pob177 w pawlet, vt dmorso1@netzero.net 802 645 9727

        By: Dennis Morrisseau . January 28, 2012 . 7:57 am | Flag this comment

        Reply
    • avatar

      I hate to throw cold water on your campfire Allan, but if WE really had a voice in our elections, why would our president be chosen by the Electoral College?
      Why would our Diebold voting machines have wireless modems in them?
      Whhy would the paper ballots in a few states that still use them, be ushered-away to concealed/restricted access places, never to be seen again?
      Why did the C.I.A. interview the then-new governor Ventura of Minnesota and grill him on how he got elected?
      Shouldn’t it be obvious how an official who was elected by the people got into office?
      Or are they telling us that this was one election that they lost control of ?
      The pieces of the puzzle are all there.
      One only needs to look at them in their entirety.

      By: David S. . January 13, 2012 . 9:37 am | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        We, the citizenry, have the same voice today as we did in 1787 and it is written in the 1787 Constitution or the 1791 Bill of Rights. However, what is virtually overlooked, or ignored, is the voice of “force”.

        Our voice “constitutionally” cannot dictate (force) to government Officials what to do in their official duty; reference Article V.

        Our voice of force applies only elected Officials and dictates only whether elected Officials stay in elected office or not.

        Since 1787 the only federal Officials the citizenry’s vote directly elect are Congressmen (in that statement I am excluding the unconstitutional election of Senators) reference Article I, Section 2.
        Electing Congressmen is not a federal election but is a local election and in my opinion it is totally the obligation of local Voters to insure the honesty and accuracy of local elections.

        Electing Officials, or not reelecting Incumbents, is the only constitutional force the citizenry has against government Officials. The citizenry does have one other force but it is against legislation, and it is not against Officials. Citizen Jurors can with impunity forbid the courts enforcing government legislation.
        The cause of a forever ongoing unconstitutional government is the citizenry not exercising its “constitutional” force against government.

        By: Allan Hampton . January 13, 2012 . 11:04 am | Flag this comment

        Reply
  10. avatar

    You are saying that there is no hope to return to liberty . I have also concluded this and that only leaves one course of action; fleeing the country. I am taking Gerald Célente,s advice and looking to the three G’s; Guns, Gold.snd a Get-away plan.

    By: James Randall . January 6, 2012 . 3:52 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      The only hope for America to return to Liberty is for the citizenry to do it’s Duty in Citizenship.

      By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 4:54 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
    • avatar

      Umm. Excuse me. What country? The corporatism is permeated through the Uniform Commercial Code into almost every country.
      There is geographical that will work. It must begin at home.
      If Americans are the people they believe themselves to be, they must do this for the rest of the world.
      Because basically, they implemented the spread of terror through the Bush family.

      By: e . January 6, 2012 . 9:02 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        And the Kennedy family. Democrats and Republicans are all bought and sold by the same purse. Otherwise, I agree with your post, e.

        By: Apefist . January 7, 2012 . 3:22 pm | Flag this comment

        Reply
        • avatar

          Any suggestions what Americans can constitutionally and forcefully do about their bought and paid for politicians?

          By: Allan Hampton . January 7, 2012 . 4:06 pm | Flag this comment

          Reply
          • avatar

            A unified front that refuses to pay anymore into their lifeblood: taxes.
            Donʻt file on April 15th, donʻt request forms, DO NOT consult with tax CPAs (they WILL rat you out), replace all your documents; birth certificates, etc. with your proper name: Citizen America Joe – not: JOE, CITIZEN AMERICA.
            Mr. Joe will then become a real natural person as opposed to a CORPORATE FICTITIOUS STRAWMAN designated as a piece of chattel surety for collateral to Chinaʻs debt.

            By: e . January 7, 2012 . 5:54 pm | Flag this comment

  11. avatar

    Christians condoning Talmudics to take over this county (like 1917 Germany) is what the problem is. Isn’t there something wrong with Congress arming and funding Israel for over sixty years?

    Well the federal government is by Law forbidden any jurisdiction in any religion (Article VI, clause 3, last sentence & Amendment I of the Bill of Rights). Therefore, the citizenry condoning the use of government power for religious purposes amounts to treason, aiding and abetting an enemy. I hear Congress enacted, endorsed, of something of the sort, Jewish Noahide laws in 1991.

    By: Allan Hampton . January 6, 2012 . 4:47 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  12. avatar

    This is interesting but I have a hard time envisioning the naivety aspect regarding Christians and a submissive posture.
    Doesnʻt at all jive with what I know about them and their conniving assault to con the Hawaiians and continue to and now the Jews are positioning with Israel/Hawaii relationship through the former governor Lingle in the same way you describe. Hawaii taxpayers have shelled out for several ʻtree planting excursionsʻ to Israel.
    But back to the Christians; the ungodly, unspiritual, hypocritical, church condoned ʻsupport the troopsʻ, support the killing of another brown man left me speechless and frankly sick to my stomach…how do you reason with someone like that who has the backing of their minister to foam at the mouth at the prospect of illegally invading another country. You donʻt, they are the living dead. Oh but no thatʻs not how they felt, now they say. The only mainstream objection Iʻve seen from american society against the invasions and supporting that embarrassingly mentally crippled criminal idiot for president, is that the war has come home = to their pockets.

    By: e . January 6, 2012 . 8:51 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  13. avatar

    I don’t see a rational thread anywhere in this argument, I confess.
    Have Kenyans taken us over?

    By: Dennis Morrisseau . January 6, 2012 . 11:41 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      I feel sorry for the 4 legged critters where you come from. And females.

      By: e . January 7, 2012 . 5:59 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
    • avatar

      Jefferson was correct, if not taken out of context. America ceased to be an all white nation at least in 1948 by admitting Texas into the Union. Because there were more Mexican Texas citizens than there were White Texas citizens in 1948.

      Racists use race like religionist use religion, to divide and conquer. The supreme racist pushing racism down everyone else’s throat are not racists at all but are the most clannish. Read David Duke’s book “My Awakening”.

      Americans best be Americans and quit hiding under the bed or cowering in a corner for fear of being called a racist. Or for that matter an anti-semite – whatever that means.

      What defines an American?

      By: Allan Hampton . January 7, 2012 . 6:41 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
    • avatar

      A certain race of people are well known to not assimilate and that is the problem. It was the problem in ancient Egypt, England, and most every country of old. And more recently, 1917, in Russia and Germany, and today in the USA.

      In my book it is ok to come to America but to stay they must assimilate and become an American.

      What is an American?

      By: Allan Hampton . January 7, 2012 . 9:51 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        OK, Allan.

        You’ve posed the question now several times and so you
        must have an answer you like a lot at the ready.

        What is an American?

        2LT USArmy Dennis Morrisseau, retired

        By: Dennis Morrisseau . January 8, 2012 . 7:36 am | Flag this comment

        Reply
      • avatar

        (natural born American)
        “We the People of the United States, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        (immigrant American)
        “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

        Seems to me American’s common ground is the 1787 Constitution; which creates a government obligated to protect “Americans” playground, USA, of freedom.

        By: Allan Hampton . January 8, 2012 . 8:35 am | Flag this comment

        Reply
  14. avatar

    Mr. Roberts. You are, as usual, on top of your game! Your insightful words remind of a what happens when we allow the wolves to care for the sheep. The Obamarxist takeover of the US economy (with its inevitable stagflation catastrophe) has become the major stimulus for the exodus of free thinking entrepreneurs from the USA. Only the docile sheep will remain content under military rules.

    By: Tom Rosenberger . January 7, 2012 . 6:52 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
  15. avatar

    Visit the Paul Craig Roberts section on BREAKING ALL THE RULES Forum http://forum.batr.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=263

    By: SARTRE . January 8, 2012 . 8:07 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
  16. avatar

    Allen, I like your steadfastness but a natural-born american as you say would have a birth certificate name that is in upper and lower case, and would not have tacitly forfeited all his/her rights to the constitution through a fictitious identity evidenced by his/her name being in all caps.
    Sounds insignificant doesnʻt it? Some have contracted to become U.S. Citizens by way of the 14th amendment instead of remaining sovereign Americans.

    By: e . January 8, 2012 . 1:33 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      There are many government obstacles, or hurdles, barricading Americans from being Americans, but none that can’t be overcome peacefully and with impunity.

      Throwing sovereignty and all caps around is asking for trouble, putting one’s head a noose.

      The Oath of Office is written in the 1787 Constitution in Article VI, clause 3, and uses the term “to support this Constitution”; which can only be the 1787 Constitution. That Oath is binding on all elected Officials, and all Judges. Are Judges and Officials obligated to enforce that Oath on themselves? If so where is that stated, written, in the 1787 Constitution?

      On the 14th – does it bind, or dictate obedience, from an American? If so then that makes it unconstitutional, doesn’t it?

      By: Allan Hampton . January 8, 2012 . 2:44 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
      • avatar

        I think we are at a disconnect; Iʻm not sure what you mean by: “Throwing sovereignty and all caps around is asking for trouble, putting one’s head a noose.”
        The 14th is the corporate personhood issue and tax/fed reserve.
        But if they are now saying that corporations are people and full rights as people maybe it is possible to use that in the same way corporations are demanding rights…but not so sure if thatʻs a safe road to go down.
        Do you agree that each of us are a surety/collateral (our life work as assets)?

        By: e . January 8, 2012 . 2:52 pm | Flag this comment

        Reply
        • avatar

          There is more than enough disconnect to go around, most U.S. citizens are on a merry- go-around going nowhere but maybe to the gallows or to jail.

          The merry-go-around is made up of political and religious issues of which the citizenry has no force to resolve, except for one rather off the beat political issue, which is the Oath of Office. And that force is limited to two choices, choose a seated (in Congress) Congressmen or choose a new (unseated in Congress) Congressmen.

          The U.S. citizenry is economically enslaved by “Congress”, the very Congressmen the citizenry elects every two years (Article I, Section 2, & Article I, Section 7).

          Sovereignty and all caps names are seats on the merry-go-around.

          By: Allan Hampton . January 8, 2012 . 3:51 pm | Flag this comment

          Reply
          • avatar

            Some would now say that with congress having been rendered impotent, the real power lies in the executive office of the tyrant president.

            By: Apefist . January 10, 2012 . 8:52 am | Flag this comment

          • avatar

            Article I, Section 1, Clause 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

            By: Allan Hampton . January 10, 2012 . 9:50 am | Flag this comment

  17. avatar

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, …

    Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; …

    By: Allan Hampton . January 10, 2012 . 10:25 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
  18. avatar

    My initial thought on hearing about this NDAA indefinite detention:
    just off the top of my head I thought of these points. PLEASE add your thoughts.
    (1) Police Officers will be shot because they pull over a car for a traffic offense, and the occupant, fearing INDEFINITE DETENTION, comes out shooting. Same with any other form of police contact with Citizens.
    (2) Police Officers will respond by having to turn every traffic stop into a multi-car armored STAGE SHOW.
    (3) Police Officers will over react and shoot innocent Citizens.
    (4) Police Officers will be shunned and ostracized. Ambushes of police will occur.
    (5) Turnabout — People will “spot” where Federal Families live. When some Citizen “disappears”,
    a Federal Family member may well “disappear” in retaliation.
    (6) Someone’s Family member disappears, they go lay along the road with a deer rifle until the first COP drives by ………..
    (7) People stage “accidents” and when the government workers show up …. They become HOSTAGES.
    (8) Government work areas will become ‘free fire zones”. How will anyone work with bullets flying around?
    (9) America will devolve into chaos and collapse. Police will not be able to maintain order.
    (10) CALTROPS dropped through holes in car floors, or tossed off bridges, turn “rush hour” into nightmares.

    By: Jody . January 13, 2012 . 8:51 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      1000% correct Jody!
      I had a blog where I addressed the insane level of police corruption and abuses against the public by speculating the exact responses you outlined in your post.
      I concluded that it was the only possible outcome once life here became unlivable.

      By: David S. . January 13, 2012 . 9:31 am | Flag this comment

      Reply
  19. avatar

    Central Banking families own and rule the world. Their power derives from their sole ‘right’ to create money from nothing. Our entire world is a banker construct : education, media, medicine, industry, agriculture, government etc. are all controlled and owned by these families. All wars are a result of banker profiteering. Their sole cause is banker greed. It’s counter productive to blame the media, or politicians, or corporations or wall street for our nations ills. Positions of power everywhere are given only to those who further and perpetuate the central bankers rule over the people.

    Yes this appears totally hopeless. Its not. We can win and overcome this tyranny. Its simple really – just opt out. Purchase no corporate products but support local businesses, eat no fast food, processed food or meat. Choose organic and non GMO. Grow as much food as you can. Watch no television or Hollywood films, find alternate news sites on the internet and use the local newspaper only to keep aware of the current propaganda. Trade all currency for precious metals. Understand that everything from our media and government are lies and propaganda. Vote only for those opposed to banker occupation like Ron Paul and when no such candidate is presented, write in ‘mickey mouse’. Get out of debt. Never take money from government or work for government – consider it ‘blood money’ even if the job is doctor or preacher. In short, starve the beast and nurture your family, neighbors, and community. Civil disobedience a la Ghandi and starving the beast will work. Millions and millions of tiny cuts made by you and me and our friends and neighbors will slay the beast.

    Resist. Their tactics are age old : dumb down, divide, distract, and make dependent. Resist. Get knowledgeable, unite as Americans, get rid of your distractions and addictions, and be as self sustaining and independent as you can. The truth will win!

    By: Alohajim . January 13, 2012 . 12:27 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
    • avatar

      Unless there is a suggestion to a solution to Central Banking families rule of the world the statement is also a distraction, isn’t it?

      Need we, Americans, be reminded banks and or their families cannot legislate; reference Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, …

      Also, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; …

      Least of all don’t forget; Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, …

      By: Allan Hampton . January 13, 2012 . 11:03 pm | Flag this comment

      Reply
  20. avatar

    I want to voice my passion for your kindness giving support to people who need assistance with your theme. Your real commitment to getting the solution all over appears to be exceptionally important and have in most cases encouraged folks just like me to arrive at their objectives. Your entire important tips and hints means so much to me and even more to my mates. Many thanks; from everyone of us.

    By: tutaj . January 27, 2012 . 4:04 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  21. avatar

    I want to express my appreciation for your kind-heartedness giving support to persons that need help with this field. Your very own dedication to getting the message across appears to be astonishingly significant and has usually made many people like me to achieve their goals. Your amazing informative publication implies much a person like me and much more to my office workers. Regards; from everyone of us.

    By: www . January 31, 2012 . 8:02 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
  22. avatar

    Thank you for another informative website. Where else could I get that type of info written in such a perfect way? I have a project that I am just now working on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

    By: zobacz . February 4, 2012 . 12:59 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply

Leave a comment

The comment section is for comments on the content of the articles. Monitors using their discretion will remove extraneous and unrelated comments. Blanket condemnations of entire races, ethnicities, and religions will be removed. Comments must be polite and free of foul language. Repeated misuse of the comment section will result in your IP being banned.



Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>