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.

22 Comments

1. 

   Yes. Though Friedman hardly needs the cushy speaKing fees, given whom he married. Also, there is no gainsaying
   that his book From Beirut to Jereusalem was both epic and ground-breaking.

   I barely read the Times at all these days, except to observe the changing pattern of its lies–as an harbinger of other coming changes?– and thus I barely ever read Friedman. –Happened to do so just the other day, and I’ll be damned if he didn’t seem to be coming around on the culpability of Israel. There must be fights at home. Or he had his pattern analyzed, and the result was that he was achieving general UNBELIEVABILITY for his last several years of todying. What will be the effect on those speaking fees, I wonder?

   I did enjoy your North/South summary of values, Doc ! And as a Yankee all my life, but one that does love the South,
   I agree.

   Dennis Morrisseau W. Pawlet, VT dmorso1@netzero.net

   By: Dennius Morrisseau . January 12, 2012 . 4:32 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
2. 

   Usually I agree with your comments, which I find on Counterpunch pretty frequently/ I’m glad that Conterpunch opens its website to you.

   I like this article, but i am surprised to see you echoing Confederate propaganda when you write of the War of Northern Aggression, following, apparently, Morris Berman’s latest analysis. The question of which side was really responsible for the outbreak of the Civil War is vexed one, overlaid by the war propaganda of both sides. As far as I’m concerned, the United States government, under its new and duly elected president, was duty bound to suppress a rebellion launched by the Slave States in order prevent the United States government from interfering with their Peculiar Institution.

   Be that as it may, the idea that the South was relaxed and unmaterialistic, while the North was a “hustler culture’ ignores the fact that, though largely agrarian, Southerners were just as interested in economic betterment as Northerners. The South’s economy was dependent on the subsidy exacted from enslaved people. Its slave economy involved plenty of hustling, as slaves were marketed, and as Southern products were sold to the North and to Europe. The biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a hustling slave dealer who later became a Confederate cavalry general and later still a leading light in the Ku Klux Klan, shows no lack of entrepreneurial drive and hustle. There were many like him, perhaps even more than the laid back, take it easy inhabitants of slave-subsidized plantation housing who pretended they were the American version of the European landed aristocracy.

   I also reject the idea that voting for Ron Paul is a good option to express disaffection with the current state of affairs. But then, I’m a socialist, and I know you are not, so I won’t get into that.

   By: Lee Zaslofsky . January 12, 2012 . 4:34 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
   • 

     Your view of Forrest is rooted in ignorance. My grandfather once wrote of Forrest:

     Reviving A Spirit

     Quetzalcoatl was the feathered serpent god of the Aztecs, author of their culture. In his human form he was said to have ruled over a golden age and departed across the eastern sea, promising to return.
     On his deathbed in late 1877 Nathan Bedford Forrest was visited by an old comrade Minor Merriwether and his son whom Forrest had instructed in horsemanship a few months past. When Forrest reached out his hand the boy drew back frightened by his ghostly appearance. Merriwether told him “Lee, the man you saw dying there will always live in the memory of men who love patriotism, and admire genius and daring”. The final words, “patriotism, genius and admire daring” sum up the qualities of Nathan Bedford Forrest which must infuse our present efforts to restore Southern credibility and authority in American life. Regrettably for the Aztecs Quetzalcoatl never returned and they got Cortes and the conquistadors instead. The daring, uncompromising spirit of Forrest must return and inspire our efforts to restore constitutional self-government to states and localities. We must love patriotism and admire genius and daring to deserve to win.

     Forrest was the greatest American cavalryman of all time. His tactics presaged the German blitzkrieg of 1940 and subsequent allied airborne assaults. His genius for tactics was unconventional, unpredictable, as when he ordered the artillery to charge at Brice’s Crossroads without either infantry or cavalry support. He was never content to hold ground. His restless activity, untiring energy and ability to perceive and exploit favorable features of the terrain and improvise tactics on the spot baffled the enemy, often paralyzing his movements. His contempt for personal danger was matched by his continued good fortune in escaping death at the head of his charging troops. He and others broke out of surrounded Fort Donelson prior to its surrender and in the process his overcoat was pierced by fifteen bullet holes but he escaped serious injury.

     Forrest carried the art of deceiving the enemy about the size of his forces to new heights. His confident division of his limited forces into groups to charge from different directions at the same time often confused and demoralized his opponents. Parading dismounted cavalry as infantry, or parading the same troops in view of an observer more than once, building many more camp fires than necessary, using enemy prisoners as shields, the beating of kettle drums and other ostentatious displays are tricks as old as warfare. But the cool audacity with which he delivered his typical “surrender or die” ultimatum to enemy commanders in person brought unprecedented results, the surrender of forces three times his own on occasions. He understood well that war is a contest of wills as well as of forces. On a recruiting drive behind enemy lines in Tennessee his 60–man escort attacked and drove off a force of 600 by deploying in very wide, loose formation and crashing noisily into the Union formation through a field of dried corn stalks, shouting commands over their shoulders to non-existent brigades.

     Enlisting as a private at the age of 40, together with his son and brother, he rose to the rank of Lieutenant General on the strength of tactical genius and charismatic ability to rally support, recruit troops and gather supplies in Union-occupied areas of Tennessee and Kentucky. His combative nature led to conflicts with superiors and subordinates, and in one case he was shot in a dispute with a fellow Confederate. Unlettered but blessed with superior natural intelligence, his mind was not narrowed by military apothegms learned by rote. Unfortunately for the Confederacy his independent commands were located outside the vital theaters of war and his role in the major battles was to pick up the pieces after disastrous blunders by his superiors, after spurning sound advice from Forrest in the first place. His troops were so effective in protecting retreating columns and laying ambushes for pursuers that the fact that his forces were so engaged discouraged pursuit, even in Forrest’s absence.
     In one of the major miscalculations of the war Jefferson Davis refused to assign Forrest to harass Sherman’s supply line in the crucial Atlanta campaign, the success of which sealed the Confederacy’s fate by assuring Lincoln’s reelection in 1864 and the continuation of the war. Davis disliked Forrest’s vanity and penchant for self-promotion and occasional pettiness in dealing with subordinates. Of course Forrest’s notable lack of false modesty and his reputation for never having lost a battle were prime assets in enlisting recruits from sympathizers behind enemy lines. Sherman, on the other hand, sensed that Forrest’s savage cunning was the only real threat to his plans to split the southeastern Confederacy, and arranged a series of thrusts from Memphis to keep Forrest occupied guarding the grain-rich prairie sections of Mississippi and Alabama.

     Following humiliating failures by Samuel Sturgis and Abel Streight, A.J. Smith moved from Memphis into Mississippi in August 1864 with an overwhelming force to distract Forrest from Sherman’s supply line. Lacking a reasonably adequate force to oppose him Forrest decided upon a raid into Memphis with a small party. Bill Forrest, the general’s brother rode into the lobby of the Gayoso Hotel where the Federal commander was living and captured his clothes but missed the general who was elsewhere at the time. The brief raid had little military significance except for the morale factor, but A.J. Smith retreated to Memphis soon thereafter.

     The war ended as all things must and in the way dictated by mathematics. It turned out that one Southerner could not whip five Yankees as originally assumed. The mighty Forrest was brought to heel in the fortified town of Selma, Alabama and cut his way out but suffered the humiliation of leaving most of his force behind as prisoners. He soon surrendered and issued a conciliatory speech to the troops urging all to obey the laws. But returning to Tennessee hoping to rebuild the fortune dissipated by war, he found the law to be whatever the Union League, armed groups of blacks and radical Republican whites who had dissented from the Confederacy during the war, said it was. Being excluded from politics he resorted as independent spirits have from time immemorial, to underground resistance. He became a leader of the Ku Klux Klan to meet violence with violence, soon to be out of control on both sides. But in 1868 the radical Republican governor William G. Brownlow was elevated to the U.S. Senate and replaced by moderate Republican Speaker of the House DeWitt Clinton Senter who faced an early reelection challenge. Anticipating the reelection of Senter would cause an early restoration of the ballot to ex-Confederates the Klan supported him and upon his election the need for the Klan, in Tennessee, at least, was over. Of course the idea can never be eradicated completely and Klan violence persists as a stain on American civilization today, but Forrest called for disbandment of the Klans in 1869. He had become the president of a proposed railroad from Memphis to Selma and involved in bond issue elections in various cities and counties along the way and in efforts to raise money on Wall Street by selling bonds. Of course Klan associations were a huge handicap and his politics became moderate. He even advocated allowing blacks to vote once control of Tennessee politics was back in Democratic hands.

     A second blot which critics allege on Forrest’s character is the “Fort Pillow Massacre” in which most of the Federal defenders, black and white, were killed by his forces in capturing the fort. Forrest contended the action continued because the flag had not been lowered while numerous witnesses at a congressional investigation contended the victims were shot while attempting to surrender. The investigation itself was staged as a part of the Republican reelection campaign of 1864, and there were no non-partisan participants, either as witnesses or interrogators. Logically, therefore one’s view of the truth must depend upon either one’s prejudices or the toss of a coin. Tragically, there were atrocities on both sides but only Ft. Pillow was investigated by Congress. The outcome was that Forrest was portrayed world-wide as the Fort Pillow Butcher. Forrest himself had said at a ceremonial decoration of the graves of Federal dead in Memphis that wartime animosity should not be carried beyond the grave, but the New York Times felt no such restraint, stating in Forrest’s obituary “While Lee had been an example of the gallant soldier and dignified gentleman of refined Virginia, Forrest typified the reckless ruffianism and cutthroat daring of the southwest’s rude border country”. While Forrest was of the yeoman South, wholly apart from the chivalric ideal, the product of an unending struggle for existence on a rude frontier, the Times could have found examples of lack of refinement among its own partisans. The Cincinnati Commercial, in a contemporary report of the mutilation of the body of Confederate General Zollicoffer stated in part “even the hair of their head cut off and pulled out by an unsympathetic soldiery of a conquering army, battling for the right”.

     Forrest was and is a towering figure fit for an epic. He dominated the limited theater of war he was allowed to operate in, and his love of patriotism, genius and daring overflowed it.

     By: Jim . January 12, 2012 . 6:05 pm | Flag this comment

     Reply
     • 

       Jim,
       Thanks for the excellent summation of Forest’ achievements as a brave soldier and brilliant cavalry leader. I hope you will not mind me copying it for later reference. Mr. Roberts briefly suggested an opinion that I have often expressed, which is that most of our present troubles as a country can be traced directly to the War of Northern Aggression and Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House. Clyde Wilson (History Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina) once stated “When the US government abandoned the Constitution to become an empire, the South was its first victim.”

       By: carroll price . January 12, 2012 . 7:02 pm | Flag this comment

       Reply
       • 

         Carroll, you are welcome to use it as you please.

         I am a Rebel to the core but resent the planter aristocracy’s insistence upon slave labor then and now. And I would be curious to know whether Dr. Roberts believes the South was the first to offshore jobs?

         Otherwise, invading Yankee armies stabled horses in Southern churches and forced Southerners to eat rats to keep from starving. What were we to do?

         Another piece by my grandfather:

         Abraham Lincoln: The Man and His Hour

         In Mexico City there is a mural by Diego Rivera which depicts Hernando Cortez as a one-eyed syphilitic hunchback. What this lacks in historical accuracy it makes up for by faithfully reflecting the artist’s attitude toward the conquistadors. We are repeatedly told on public television that Lincoln was a clearly heroic figure. If heroism is measured by the size of the pile of corpses a man leaves behind, this is correct. We must not let our emotions deprive us of objectivity. Lincoln was neither one-eyed, hunchbacked nor syphilitic but on the other hand, he never deserved the name of “Honest Abe.” Like some other politicians, maybe all politicians, he spoke with a forked tongue.

         Lincoln came to power at a unique time, with a unique opportunity to decide the fate of the nation and of a million of his fellow citizens, who wound up as casualties of the Civil War. There was no lack of counsel. Editor Horace Greeley and a host of others advised letting the seceding states go in peace. More ardent abolitionists were outraged by this suggestion. Ralph Waldo Emerson and James Russell Lowell welcomed a civil war as an antidote to the greed of Northern merchants and the cruelty of Southern slave owners. Outgoing President Buchanan thought secession was illegal, but so would be the use of force to prevent it. But Lincoln needed no advice. He reversed Buchanan’s policy of giving up Southern military posts on demand, and the war was on. How and why was this a rational decision?

         Of course Lincoln stoutly denied it was to abolish slavery. The four slave states which did not secede had a greater population greater than half that of the eleven states which did. To proclaim an anti-slavery crusade would substantially increase his problem. As a minority president (from a field of four candidates) his mandate was thin; his party platform did not call for abolition, but merely containing slavery within its present borders. His real motive was Manifest Destiny, the control of the West and the wealth of the orient beyond. As a lawyer and politician he had worked to authorize railroad bridges across the Mississippi River both to cut off navigation to the South where Midwest farmers depended upon the port of New Orleans as an outlet for their produce, and to provide access to markets in the East. The big issue confronting Lincoln and the Midwestern business culture with which he associated was whether the proposed transcontinental railroad would run from Chicago to San Francisco or from New Orleans to some point in Southern California and this concern was bound up with control of the expansion of what he called the Slave Power. Since preservation of the union was essential to such control he gladly embraced the opportunity to make himself a dictator, to usurp the power of Congress to raise and equip armies, spend unappropriated funds in the treasury, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, arbitrarily arresting citizens accused of preaching defeatism or advocating peace at any price and denying mail distribution to opposition newspapers he continued as de facto monarch for 77 days. He finally called Congress into extraordinary session after the war had begun.

         But the war proceeded slowly and there was always the threat of foreign intervention to maintain the flow of Southern cotton to English mills. After all, the British had burned the White House less than half a century before. Something else was needed to counter the claim of the Southerner’s that they were only fighting for their independence, as the thirteen original colonies had the previous century, just one slave power fighting to free itself from another. Lincoln told Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, that freeing the slaves was an absolute military necessity and the only way the war could be won. This was followed shortly by the Emancipation Proclamation and then the Gettysburg Address, harking back to the Declaration of Independence and its affirmation that all men are created equal. Thus the resourceful (some would say two-faced) president who would not risk the union to free the slaves turned to freeing the slaves to save the union.

         Ironically, Lincoln had previously opposed presidential war making. This was when President Polk was maneuvering the country into the war with Mexico, which Lincoln disapproved of because it was steering Manifest Destiny toward the South. He then wrote W.H. Herndon, his law partner back in Springfield, “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he thinks it necessary to repel invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at his pleasure . . . Because the King had always been involving and impoverishing the people in wars the Constitution had given that power to Congress . . . No one man should have that power.”

         At the time most of the people in both North and South were small, independent farmers, though there was the beginning of urban, industrial civilization in the North. These small farmers had little interest in the slavery question, apart from some apprehension in the South about the effects of precipitately turning loose a mass of freed slaves as landless vagrants. But they left political matters mostly to the elites. These in the South were the planter aristocracy and a small professional class, and in the North the bankers, lawyers, industrialists and preachers, with a small sprinkling of artists and writers located mostly in the New England states. The common people were poorly educated, chauvinistic and expansionist. Lemming-like they followed the leadership into a disastrous war, the most costly of our national experience.

         What does a recital of Lincoln’s lack of principles have to do with today? By showing the hypocrisy of the idolatrous praise heaped upon the incidental emancipator, perhaps it may dispel some of the myths that bedevil race relations today. Slavery came and went in all societies, but only in the United States at the cost of a war that exacted a million casualties and devastated a section of the country. Mr. Lincoln’s war hastened the process, but left a terrible aftermath for the descendants of slaves, masters and everyone else. A legacy of hunger, disease, ignorance, bigotry and hate stems from the war and the Reconstruction period which followed it. With mutual respect for the justified aspirations of all, perhaps we can come together as common victims of the mistakes and horrors of the past for mutual benefit, respecting the heritage and symbols of all who are willing to respect our own.

         By: Jim . January 12, 2012 . 7:21 pm | Flag this comment

         Reply
         • 

           The nation expected the war. The south was the first to prepare in earnest for such an occurrence, as if to welcome war. U.S. Grant had the mood of the north correct when after Ft. Sumter he said, “Slavery fired on the flag.”

           “His real motive was Manifest Destiny, the control of the West and the wealth of the orient beyond.” You give him way too much credit. His actions during a fratricidal war are easily explained otherwise. It takes too far a leap to reach that one.

           “…(some would say two-faced…) mostly not. Perhaps someone who still harbors bitterness or an alternate view of history might say that.

           History is full of ironies. Wilmer McLean, for example. Many ironies consist of a prudent person doing what an unprecedented situation calls for. Irony is as allied with heroism as with defeat.

           “The common people were poorly educated, chauvinistic and expansionist. Lemming-like they followed the leadership into a disastrous war…” Not. Perhaps you don’t know stories like that of Company C, Seventh Ohio Volunteers, made up entirely of well educated Christian seminary students and their teachers from Oberlin.

           He was more of an accidental than an “incidental emancipator”

           “A legacy of hunger, disease, ignorance, bigotry and hate stems from the war and the Reconstruction period which followed it.” I refer you to a line in Ambrose Bierce’s account “What I Saw Of Shiloh”, he was describing Union wounded, “They got what they enlisted for.” A little cynical, but war changes one.

           By: Mark . January 13, 2012 . 10:42 am | Flag this comment

   • 

     Le Kaslosfsky, forget the civil war, what about now? The north (New York) has completely hijacked this country. Tell us what to think via their corrupt propaganda outlets (the media), they tell us what to buy via their corrupt madison avenue propaganda, and then if that isn’t enough they loot our savings through any means of lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Then, to add insult to injury, they use “our” money to buy off and control Washington.

     Sir, there were definitely issues between the North and South during the civil war, but today’s corrupt Northern climate makes those days look like a playground scuffle—–the “north” controls this country and has run it into the ground. New York is the most corrupt place on the face of the earth and if the “south” doesn’t soon wake up and declare its independence from the crime, corruption, and thuggery that is New York we might as well change our name to the Disunited Socialist States of New York!

     By: ws . January 13, 2012 . 4:41 am | Flag this comment

     Reply
3. 

   Obviously Lee Zaslofsky, in all due respect, is not familiar with Thomas DiLorenzo, who does a superb job destroying the 4th-grade, public school Lincoln myth. You could claim that the US Federal Monster of today began with that administration. It was business as usual with the puppet abiding by the demands of the industrial, Anglo-rich, North. And the un-civil war was about as much about slavery as today’s military events are about terrorism. Was there ever an exception?

   Lincoln is of course not alone. Thanks to the surge of revisionist history, a whole new perspective on politicians is rapidly emerging.

   P C Roberts is correct, though, as a generalization, notwithstanding specific exceptions, in assenting that the South a least has been a more gentle society.

   Dr. Roberts, in my view tends to lay too much of the culpability on the the Power, letting the citizens off the hook. True, the elections are rigged and meaningless, but at least symbolically, they could vote out all incumbents, and might catch a few good ones in the process. Plus, there are a bunch of Anglos (North?) who really back the US militarism. Evidently they accrue vicarious ego strokes in a collective sense.

   But what if the citizens had wholesale rejected the poorly-staged, hokey, 9/11 scam. But they would not, of course. Many reasons, number one being that they want the status-quo fantasy version of a protecting government. Add to that, that about half of them are beholden up to that government.

   By: Ken Ashley . January 12, 2012 . 6:25 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
4. 

   N.B. Forrest was responsible for the massacre at Fort Pillow. He ordered his men to shot unarmed black soldiers who were surrendering. This is attested to by the historic letters his solders wrote of the event. He was a slave dealer and among the founders of the KKK. The constitution of the confederacy was based on the U.S. Constitution; it left out a statement of general welfare for the people and it had no bill of rights for the people. No thinking and patriotic U.S. citizen could support slavery and the limitations on the civil rights of all citizens except those the very rich. Forrest was a monster not a patriot.

   By: stevador39 . January 12, 2012 . 7:44 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
5. 

   If you guys can’t stay on the subject, please don’t send in comments. Nothing whatsoever in the article is about slavery or N.B. Forrest or “Southern propaganda.” Really, it is like you cannot wait to show how brainwashed and uninformed you are. If you want to comment on the three books, go read them first. The purpose of the content section is not for rants on unrelated material.
   Go somewhere else to do that. Berman is not for slavery. Moreover, the North had, according to itself, wage slavery. Apparently,
   some Northerners had less economic security than slaves on plantations. Indeed, apparently many in the USA today have less
   economic security than19th century plantation slaves. None of this justifies slavery, any more than “terrorism” today justifies our lack of constitutional protections.
   It is very depressing how far off the track readers get. It makes one question the worthwhileness of writing.

   By: pcr3 . January 12, 2012 . 8:36 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
   • 

     Dr. Roberts,
     Your writing is worthwhile and very much appreciated by this reader.

     By: carroll price . January 12, 2012 . 9:03 pm | Flag this comment

     Reply
   • 

     Patience Dr Roberts, this actually betrays the heart of the matter. Most people, even if very well informed, intentioned or opinioned find it extremely difficult to crack the realpolitik, policy frames and governance & control controlling them. This is the reason that, from the outside looking in, the artiface still beguiles even if having seen the inside it is obviously gangrene.

     I note the US denied IT was involved in the death of the Iranian nuclear scientist. Nevertheless the international community seems to be perfectly ok with an entity infiltrating a foreign sovereign State, killing off a foreign national for his crime of being a keymen in verboten industry, in full view of the world. What’s that next to kidnapping your own citizens and torturing them in dungeons in unknown locations without any rights.

     I see B. Manning will get the full treatment even after his defense team threw him on the mercy of the “court” (confused about his sexuality, depressed etc). I wish they hadn’t argued there is something wrong with HIM but rather pointed out that he did his duty as a US solider in exposing a war crime in which his government was complicit (I’m paraphasing you of course).

     By: Lisel . January 13, 2012 . 2:49 am | Flag this comment

     Reply
   • 

     PC (being much his senior and veteran academic, I take the liberty of first name). Thanks to your fine reputation, including rare forthrightness, you bring together intelligent ranters, similarly forthright. Along with your articles, these rants are not so bad, right? Most comment sections from other writers are attack sessions. Yours are refreshing, in today’s world. And you paraphrasing of the books is just right.

     I prefer to read Historische Romane. In a way, just as informative. Where it all came from. No different, actually. Only so much time, even without TV and creating electronic tutorials for a different kind of Blog.

     By: Ken Ashley . January 13, 2012 . 10:47 am | Flag this comment

     Reply
6. 

   This is my first read at Dr. Roberts site, and what an engaging time it has been!
   Thank you all for the historical romp!

   By: John T . January 13, 2012 . 9:08 am | Flag this comment

   Reply
7. 

   Every time I hear Friedman speak, I know it’s another lie either by commission or omission. He is a (fool) tool.

   By: lucky 13 . January 13, 2012 . 9:32 am | Flag this comment

   Reply
8. 

   Mark,

   Why were Southern States who chose to enter the Union not to be allowed to leave that Union?

   If you have the opportunity, read the portion of Shelby Foote’s narrative about the weeks leading up to the firing on Sumter. Lincoln, through emissaries, gave Davis the impression that he would not re-supply Ft. Sumter, and that the Union Army’s abandonment of it was imminent. He essentially stalled and obfuscated — biding his time. He knew that if he could cast the South as the aggressor, northern support for his call for volunteers would skyrocket. Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Rather than starve the Fort out, Davis played right into Lincoln’s hand. (Davis was competent, but way out of his political league with Abe Lincoln.

   “You give him way too much credit. His actions during a fratricidal war are easily explained otherwise. It takes too far a leap to reach that one.”

   What is your easy explanation as to why Lincoln killed so many people? Why not just let the South go free and let those people live on? You don’t sound like you grew up in the South. If you had you would have a more local view of the matter and a less sympathetic view of the Great Emancipator. Question: Was Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation a war measure? If so, he was clearly two-faced. If not, please enlighten me about his progressive racial views for that period.

   “‘They got what they enlisted for.’ A little cynical, but war changes one.”

   The same could be said of anyone ever killed or wounded on a battlefield. Is that what you are saying?

   I would say that I am opposed to aggression and aggressors be they Yankee armies of yesterday or Z I O N I S T armies of today.

   By: Jim . January 13, 2012 . 11:58 am | Flag this comment

   Reply
9. 

   excellent…I will have to try to get my hands on these books. Gardens of Democracy by Nick Hanauer is one I would offer up as a primer of how to possibly reverse the downward economic spin of this country

   By: tom . January 13, 2012 . 2:19 pm | Flag this comment

   Reply
10. 

    Mr Roberts,
    I felt a real loss when you said that you were going to quit writing. I was so glad to see it when you started again. Keep up the good work! It is not in vain that you write. I am sure you have given many hope and opened many eyes– like you have mine. You were, and will be again sorely missed when your pen stops flowing.

    By: Sean . January 13, 2012 . 7:55 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
11. 

    Thanks for recommending the Loo book, PCR: I was hitherto unaware of its existence but it seems interesting enough to warrant its purchase. The Berman book I have read already and it was a right riveting read. Not so sure about the book on Friedman — I feel that a bozo like him scarcely needs a book to rip him to shreds. Though of course I agree with the author’s sentiments. Incidentally, it’s always a pleasure to read your thought-provoking essays

    By: Arshad Ali . January 13, 2012 . 8:36 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
12. 

    I together with my buddies were found to be analyzing the wonderful key points from your website whilst suddenly got a horrible suspicion I had not thanked the weblog owner for those secrets. These boys were certainly consequently happy to read via all of them and have in effect extremely been employing these points. Appreciate your actually being well accommodating and then for obtaining such terrific useful guides a lot of people are really wanting to learn about. Our own sincere regret for not saying thanks to you sooner.

    By: Theron Olmo . January 17, 2012 . 12:42 pm | Flag this comment

    Reply
13. 

    I am totally delighted with strong your blog greatly that saved me! Thank you “There never was a good war or a bad peace.” – Benjamin Franklin

    By: package tour russia . January 27, 2012 . 8:22 am | Flag this comment

    Reply
14. 

    I am totally delighted with incredibly blog greatly that saved me. Thank you “If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.” – John Lennon

    By: Berrymall . March 7, 2012 . 1:47 am | Flag this comment

    Reply