In America, the Gestapo Has Replaced the Rule of Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Paul Craig Roberts
February 14, 2014

RT is the best English language news source available to Americans. On January 29, RT published a photo of 5 presidential appointees lying through their teeth to Congress.

Image: Signing of U.S. Constitution (Wikimedia Commons).

Image: Signing of U.S. Constitution (Wikimedia Commons).

All five of these Gestapo wannabes are in violation of their oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States. They have relentlessly violated the Constitution, which makes these five, who are in charge of US intelligence and black operations, traitors to the United States. Yet, they have not been arrested and put on trial. Congress is content to sit there and listen to their ongoing lies time after time after time, despite the fact that these 5 have committed more and worse crimes against our country than the “terrorists” that serve as an excuse for the crimes committed by the intelligence agencies.

Remember, dear readers, it is a crime for you to lie to any federal agent even if you are not under oath or before Congress. How much more evidence do you need that you are not a citizen of the United States but a mere serf of the federal government? Will you ever wake up?

James Clapper, who has the grand title of Director Of National Intelligence, is an admitted liar to the US Congress but nevertheless remains in office. That Clapper is still in office is a good measure of the decline both in the integrity of the US government and in the integrity that Congress, media, and the public expect from the government. President Nixon was driven from office for a very small thing: Nixon lied about when he learned about a burglary with which he had nothing to do. Clapper brazenly lied to the US Congress, denying that he was spying on members of the US Congress.

Clapper is not only in violation of the Constitution, he has committed a felony, especially under the stretched interpretation of laws that is the norm for Department of Justice prosecutions. Huge numbers of Americans are in prison for offenses that are molehills compared to Clapper’s, or for that matter, any of the other five sitting there lying to Congress.

The Five Criminals told Congress that Edward Snowden, who is under the protection of the Russian government, must be made to give back the evidence of NSA spying on the entire world before some US troops or diplomats are killed by terrorists in some future war started by Washington, which routinely dismisses the victims of its war crimes as “collateral damage.”

None of the Five Criminals were able to specify how Congress could make the Russian government hand over Snowden. Rabid Republican warmongers have falsely and propagandistically accused Snowden of being “a Russian spy.” What utter dishonesty! The only reason Snowden is in Russia is that the US, in violation of international law, refuses to allow an airplane to fly from Russia with Snowden to any of the South American countries that have granted Snowden asylum. The fact that Snowden is in Russia is entirely the fault of Washington.

As I have written and said on many occasions, facts mean nothing to Washington, to the presstitute media, and to most of the American population, who prefer comforting lies to reality.

No one in the American media or most Internet sites will dare tell you that the reason the Five Criminals are again lying to Congress is to deflect Congress and an insouciant public and media from the fact that they have violated the law and their oath of office, and that the only purpose of invoking “national security” is to protect the criminal actions of the security agencies from being discovered. “National Security” is the blanket under which the crimes of government are hidden.

All that “national security” means is that “we are not going to let anyone find out that we are nothing but a gang of criminal thugs, and we are going to use the cover of national security to demonize Snowden who told on us.”

The so-called “security agencies” and their media whores have created a wartime atmosphere of fear as if the “world’s only superpower” was about to be destroyed by a handful of lightly armed fighters thousands of miles away who resist Washington’s invasions of their countries in corners of the earth that most Americans cannot find on a map. What kind of superpower is so terrified by peoples that the superpower choses to invade and murder? If the wronged people are so threatening, the superpower should stay at home and leave them alone.

Listen to this bullshit from Clapper: As a consequence of Snowden, “the nation is less safe and its people less secure.” The truth is the opposite of what Clapper states. Snowden alerted us to the fact that Clapper was shredding the US Constitution that is our greatest protection. Clapper, who should be in the dock for treason, has stolen our rights and our shield against harm and abuse from arbitrary government power. Clapper is an enemy of every American.

Listen to this bullshit from Lt. Gen, Michael Flynn, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, who stupidly asserts that Snowden’s revelations of illegal mass spying on the US citizens and the world caused “grave damage” to “national security.”

What the general means is that it caused damage to his reputation and brought him some cause for anxiety by revealing that he was engaged in criminal activity. But the general knew how to invoke the sympathy and support of the right-wing superpatriots. He declared that the greatest cost of Snowden’s revelations is “the cost of human lives on tomorrow’s battlefield or in some place where we will put our military forces when we ask them to go into harm’s way.” He is, of course, talking about the next time that Washington criminally attacks another country in total violation of the Nuremberg standard.

Senator Barbara Mikulski listening to this bullshit said that what was needed was a Supreme Court ruling “to determine the constitutionality of these programs.” Was this sincere or a cop-out? Why is Mikulski passing the buck? The current Republican Supreme Court is corrupt and will not defend the Constitution. One of the leading Republican lights, as dimly lit as he is, Justice Antonin Scalia, truthfully said that concentration camps are a likely future reality for Americans and that the Supreme Court would not do anything about the tyranny should the executive branch think it necessary.

Senator Ron Wyden told the Five Criminals, “I don’t think this culture of misinformation [that the Five Criminals represent] is going to be easily fixed.”

Nothing will be fixed until the Five Criminals are arrested and put on trial for treason and until Congress defunds the illegal wars and states firmly, backed up with the threat of impeachment, that there is no such thing as “the unitary executive” who is above law, Constitution, Congress, and the federal courts. The Supreme Court will not protect us. Congress must put the executive branch on notice that it is not above the law and the Constitution.

Americans have lost the rule of law. Unless Congress quickly restores it, the country is lost.

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. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Share Button


    • He hit on an axiom of runing a jail or prison: it is only possibe because the vastly numbered by comparison inmates let them.

      I like that one. 🙂

    • Dear Helot,

      This was the passage I liked:

      ” They wouldn’t pass these laws if they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny. You are not the enemy. Don’t act like one.”

      When people actually start to think this way, the jig is up, and the game is over.

    • I love Mike, but he’s too long winded most of the time. His earlier version was much better: “If you try to take our guns, we will kill you.”

      • Ditto – and he’s still got some road to travel as far as being ethically/philosophically consistent. In this article, for example, he advocates “de-criminalizing” pot – but defends criminalizing mere use/possession of other substances he personally regards as anathema. I cannot imagine a more statist – a more Cloveritic – embrace of arbitrary authoritarianism.

        • Indeed, Eric. I’ve known Mike for many years, and we used to have some interesting conversations, but he’s far too hung up on the “constitution” and far too worshipful of the military and themythical “rule of law,” which is truly the rule of men and always has been. We don’t have much to say to each other anymore. I quit trying to get him to see reason when he announced he had cancer. Figured he had enough to worry about and did not actually expect him to hold out so long as he has.

          It’s a shame on so many levels. If he put his talents and strength of will into the fight for self ownership and non-aggression instead of continued slavery to the “constitution,” he would have been a valuable asset to liberty.

          • It amazes me that a guy as smart as he clearly is can’t see what to me (and you) are the obvious contradictions of his positions.

            If it’s wrong – ethically wrong – to throw a person in a cage merely because he has a bag of pot, or sold a bag of pot (and so on) then how can it be right to do the same to a person who merely has a baggie of coke (or whatever)?

            His arguments are utterly specious.

            I speak from direct experience, as well as philosophically.

            I tried all kinds of substances while in college – everything from pot to cocaine. Tried LSD, enjoyed the hell out of “magic mushrooms.” So did almost all of my friends.

            None of us went on a crime spree. None of us failed to graduate and go on to productive, peaceful lives.

            The idea of pointing guns at – and caging – people who’ve caused no harm at all to anyone on the basis of “well, they might… because some people have” is so noxious, so offensive, it makes the blood literally boil in my veins.

          • Dear ML,

            I like what you wrote in an earlier comment about the rule of law.

            I agree. It just doesn’t work. If you really think about it, you eventually realize it can never work. Implementing the rule of law always amounts to entrusting the fox to guard the hen house.

            It took me a couple of decades after first learning about free market anarchism to finally give up on minarchism and the rule of law. I couldn’t quite bring myself to believe that there could really be order without law.

            But eventually I came to realize that “There is no such thing as law and order. Law is the enemy of order.” if one really wants order, one has to get rid of law — as conventionally defined.

          • Eric said: “None of us went on a crime spree. None of us failed to graduate and go on to productive, peaceful lives.”

            Think about that for a moment. You are falling into the same trap so many do regarding guns. The substance or tool involved has nothing to do with the intent to do harm.

            Those who choose to go on a crime spree, harm other people, are responsible for that choice: the aggression. The “pot” or cocaine didn’t “make them do it” any more than the gun causes the murder or assault.

            When people commit aggression, they must be stopped from committing aggression by others, ideally the intended victim. It is impossible to prevent the aggression by prohibiting things aggressors use, whatever the affect it has on them. Their character and intent has nothing to do with what they possess or consume, however much the “puritans” among us would like it to be.

            When people try to argue about this I point out that the most deadly weapon on earth is the human hand, the human brain. NO other weapon will function without that human interface at some point.

            Now, don’t get me wrong! Yes, the alcohol, cannabis, etc. ARE drugs, and have a direct chemical affect on the human body and brain… there is no doubt of that. The whole thing is that they cannot, and do not change the basic nature, character or even the will of the person who consumes them. An honest person does not become a thief after drinking too much. If a person previously considered honest does go out and rob a bank at that point, we can rationally conclude that he was never honest at all, just inhibited. The alcohol ALLOWED him to lower his inhibitions. He chose to drink. He remains responsible for his choices, actions and behavior.

        • Dear Eric,

          Yeah. He basically parroted the “Reefer Madness” BS, only with meth.

          Basically he was hysterical about “Methamphetamine Madness,” as if that was any more enlightened that “Reefer Madness.”

          He obviously does not understand the real basis of human rights. Possession of anything is never wrong per se. Right and wrong is determined not by what one possesses, but by what one does with what one possesses. It is not wrong to own even a Stinger missile. It is only wrong to misuse it to shoot down an airliner.

          This is where many “law and order” conservatives fall down. They have never fully understood the distinction between rights and privileges. They do this with drugs. They do this with guns.

          They foolishly concede that certain strangers whom we don’t know from Adam, somehow have the right to decide that you may own a break action shotgun for hunting, but not a machine gun for self defense — merely because they wear costumes, flash badges, and call themselves “The Government.”

          • Dear Bevin and Friends,
            – I recommend to you this brief allegory of anarchy.

            A Conversation With Genghis Khan –

            Genghis: This is natural.

            LibertarianVillager: On second thought, what you propose is close enough. You have a deal. As these rights which your cavalry will begin enforcing are much closer to universal rights. They are natural extensions of our biology, and vastly superior to the arbitrary thing you call “the right of the strong.”

            Genghis: You’re so cute.

            (This allegory intends to question the universalism of libertarianism, highlight the source of de facto property rights, illustrate the incompleteness of the non-aggression principle and suggest that it’s more productive to consider property rights as social norms, one of many.)

      • Dear ML,

        I know what you mean. The longer passage was far from memorable. Far from pithy. It was not anything one would ever bother to memorize and quote. From that perspective, I heartily agree with you.

        It was for example, a far cry from:

        “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
        H. L. Mencken

        I was thinking more along the lines of what he was struggling to get at — shifting the LEO mindset. Trying to get them to wake up to the fact that they were dupes, pawns, ordered to do the dirty work that the pols would never get their own hands soiled doing.

        As an interim measure, the “Oathkeepers” concept is not a bad thing. As long as it doesn’t stop there, at minarchism.

        • “shifting the LEO mindset…” Puts me in mind of the old joke: Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

          And merely annoying pigs these days can be mighty dangerous, so doing so and accomplishing nothing… what can I tell you? Does he truly think they’ll change their minds? At the very best, perhaps they’ll be distracted from the rest of us. sigh

      • Dear ML,

        I should have cited this Mencken quote.

        Even more relevant to the point you were making.

        “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
        H. L. Mencken

  1. I think Mama has a point about superstition being the underlying cause of our societal ills. I consider all actions of abolition and prohibition to also be cancerous superstitions.

    These mere superstitions are carried out with group force, in point of fact they may be unacceptable violations of NAP and Laissez Faire. The question of what is good for the goose, should best remain unanswered. That way, no group aggressions will be taken against any individual gander.
    – – – –

    A good illustration is the history of smoking bans. I don’t believe it should be restricted or prohibited for people of any age. Even toddlers.

    Historical Tobacco Abolitionists and Prohibitionists

    1. Pope Urban VII in 1590 banned all tobacco in church, in all forms. The penalty for breaking his edict? Excommunication. This is considered to be history’s first public smoking ban.

    2. King James of England raised tobacco tariffs 4000%. He was incensed that Queen Elizabeth I took up smoking in 1600.

    3. Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire in 1623, banned all tobacco, alcohol, and coffee from his empire. The punishment for breaking his ban was death. The Muslims have far more prohibitions to deal with because of this man, not because of their Koran. He walked the streets of Istanbul in disguise and murdered anyone he caught using tobacco on the spot. As many as 18 people a day died for disobeying his superstitious decree.

    Russia imitated this with a similar ban. First-time offenders got a slit nose, took a beating, or were exiled to Siberia. Repeat offenders earned themselves an execution.

    4. In 1635 French tobacco enthusiasts had to buy their tobacco from an apothecary. They needed a doctor’s prescription.

    5. Early American colonists turned on their biggest cash crop. In 1632, Massachusetts banned outdoor smoking. Connecticut followed in 1647 when it dictated that citizens could only smoke once a day only when they were alone. In the 1680s, Philadelphia placed a ban on smoking in the city’s streets.

    6. States butt out of the tobacco business. At the turn of the 20th century not all states were filled with smoke-filled rooms. You couldn’t even pick up a pack of cigarettes in many states. By 1900, Washington, Iowa, Tennessee, and North Dakota had all banned the sale of cigarettes, and by 1920 11 other states had also enacted similar bans.

    The Supreme Court upheld the bans in 1900, claiming concern over adulterated smokes, writing, “There are many whose tobacco has been mixed with opium or some other drug, and whose wrapper has been saturated in a solution of arsenic.”

    In 1901, four out of five American men smoked at least one cigar a day, and tobacconists sold 6 billion cigars a year. Like the prohibition of alcohol, these cigarette bans gradually fell out of favor, with Kansas being the last state to repeal its restrictions in 1927.

    7. Hitler was a rabid opponent of smoking. German scientists were among the first to study the links between tobacco use and lung disease, and the Nazi regime aggressively sought to suppress tobacco use.

    In addition to implementing high tobacco taxes, Hitler banned smoking in German universities, government buildings, and Nazi party offices. After 1942, restaurants weren’t allowed to sell smokes to female customers.

    When the Nazis fell, their bans fell with them. After the party’s 1945 collapse, cigarettes actually became an unofficial currency in Germany’s war-ravaged economy.
    – – – – –

    I would like to add some more superstitions to your list. Some superstitions that imply that others know what is right and proper for other people.

    I don’t mean to be pointlessly inflammatory or nihilistic. I hope my point can somehow shine through my dull presentation skills.

    Perhaps the case is we should admit that to some degree that NAP and Laissez Faire are based not only natural facts, but also on historically agreed upon superstitions.

    I consider it superstition not fact to state:

    Manners and decorum are good. That you shouldn’t advantage of others.
    That people need to be held accountable to others
    That reputations are a public good. We should worry about our histories.
    That honesty is the best policy. Liars are bad people.
    That faith and fidelity are a virtue. Never go behind other people’s backs.
    That we have a duty to be civil. That social norms are good things.
    That being consistent is a virtue. That faking conformity to various phyles in your life is wrong and dishonest. That flattery and bluffing is bad.
    That we need to respect each other and do unto others as we want them to do unto us.
    That the seven deadly sins are facts, not mere superstitions.
    That slavery and arranged marital or recreational sexual placements of children is always wrong and has no place anywhere in the world.
    That you should love others and love yourself
    That people deserve the benefit of the doubt. Wait until actual harm occurs before taking action. Treat everyone the same.
    That universality is a virtue. That reason is better than faith.

    • Tor, did you read the link? The most dangerous superstition is that anyone, or any group of people such as government, has legitimate authority over another person without their consent. Nobody has any legitimate authority to “ban” anything except on their own property. Nobody has any authority to decide for another what a “sin” might be. And the only valid response to aggression is self defense, not attempts to control others by emotional or social blackmail. Witch hunts and religious persecution were accepted “social norms” at one point.

      Many of the things in your last list are contradictory, unfortunately.

      It all boils down to self ownership/responsibility and non-aggression/self defense.

      • Yes I did, but did I fully grasp the implications? I am greatly encourage by your response. Thanks Mama! I will endeavor to remove the contradictions, or at least explicitly state my justifications for why I advocate taking contradictory positions.
        – – – – –

        Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
        A: He didn’t. The road is merely a human superstition. It is not real.

        The road is only a denuded segment of land that in human sheeple minds exist as a mass delusional construct.

        Roads may well be beneficial artifices for some, being that they allow men who submit to them to travel great distances in an organized and efficient manner. But they are also a detrimental delusion to many other men and creatures. Ones who fail to give consent to roads.

        Make no mistake. Chickens exist. Their feathers and proteins can sustain apex predators. At one time they were all also eggs. Neither came first, since the anthropomorphic concept of first is moot. Time is another pseudo-scientific delusion just like the roads.

        Time generally applies to only to the myriad superstitions and oppressions invented by man to unfairly aggress and usurp the labor and productive capacity of their fellow men, creatures, and world.

        Does this writing count for anything. Or am I wasting my time, positing spherical chickens in vacuums that no one acknowledges exists. Uncounted. Nonexistent chickens.

        Libertarian Chicken Crossing the Road–GDE

        Leonard Hofstadter’s Chicken Joke

  2. It’s pretty much all been said… the task remaining is to help others understand and accept it.

    The Most Dangerous Superstition

    The root cause of most of society’s ills–the main source of man’s inhumanity to man–is neither malice nor negligence, but a mere superstition–an unquestioned assumption which has been accepted on faith by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is–an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly destructive myth–most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease. But that will happen only when people dare to honestly and objectively re-examine their belief systems.

    The Myth of “The Rule of Law”

    But a basic understanding of how human beings work and a rational analysis of how the state functions as an institution, including so-called republics, renders this theory of government as a rather blatant absurdity. How can a law be self-enforcing? By definition, a governmental law is drafted by men and must be enforced by men. No political system can escape the rule of men, for all political systems are created and run by men. At the same time, no political system is the result of the decisions of everyone within a society, for at a fundamental level all political systems are oligarchies in which a small percentage of the overall population are those with direct control over the state apparatus, those who actually make and enforce the laws.

    And yet, there might be a place for one or more “constitutions” if not for the small problem of it being non-voluntary and presumed to have “authority” to confiscate wealth – both by taxation and regulation.

    How The Power To Tax Destroys

    Where the state is, there also is the growth of the state. Why does a state’s scope enlarge? One theory is that interest groups seek to use the state’s taxing power for their own benefit. As Richard Ebeling writes: “As long as many people want government to use its power to tax and regulate to benefit them at the expense of others, it will retain its power and continue to grow.”[3]

  3. “You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does not harm someone else. […] But meth users are in a different category. […]

    So even in a “free” society that respects individual liberty, it is still ethically consistent to criminalize certain substances which exhibit a near-complete takeover of the human mind and result in a pattern of violent behavior that threatens the safety and livelihoods of others. That’s why the DEA isn’t going away anytime soon.” …

    And he calls himself a libertarian?
    Does anyone else see the huge inconsistency in this position?

    Is he one of those deeply embedded dis-info agents, or is he really that clueless?

    • Mike has the 1,800th most popular internet site in the world. He’s ranked as the number one anti-scientist and health disinfo-conspirator on the internet. I consider him an irreplaceable free-thinker, but not necessarily a libertarian or NAP and Laissez Faire adherent.

      He wants GMOs abolished. I would argue that abolition is tied with political murder as the thing most inimical to freedom. He seems to be an eco-fascist who considers government intervention to be the most expedient solution. As a self-styled “health ranger” he seeks the throne as one of our gracious new and improved PTB.

      He often argues ad hominem. And asserts that a self-righteous hive-mind coalition could somehow take back power from the state.

      If he had power, I fear he would prohibit the mercury amalgam fillings in my teeth and demand I take them out and replace them with compounds he finds acceptable.

      He would also restrict or eliminate my liberty to use fluoride, vaccine, casinos, meth, crack, heroin, tobacco, chemtrails, msg, gmos, ct scans, mammagrams, chemotherapy, and expensive big pharma boutique drugs.

      Top 5 Worst Internet Health Info Sites

      Obama agency rules Pepsi’s use of aborted fetal cells in soft drinks constitutes ‘ordinary business operations (actual NN headline)

    • Panarchist, I read that article a few days ago, found it totally filled with bullshit. He buys into some perpetuated myth that he helps perpetuate that smoking pot results in stupidity and laziness. His view on other drugs is even further out there, as if a narc is feeding him his lines. He’s as far from a Libertarian as you can be.

  4. On Earth, the American/English/Other United Gestapo has replaced the rule of nature.

    Trophic Cascade – Yellowstone Wolves Heal Rivers

    Trophic Cascade – Purple Marsh Crab

    The world we grew up in is gone because the cornucopia of apex predators of humanity have been eliminated or else counterfeited by a standardized one world apex predator committee.

    No more rogue traders, pirates, robber barons, wild west, pioneers, nomadic hunters, itinerant planters, commodity magnates, company towns, gypsies, carnies, circuses, incans, marauders, huns, sweat shops, mongrel hordes, vikings, zulus, native americans, aztecs, colonists, slave traders, or anything else that is dangerous, unpredictable, and inspirational.

    Just soldiers, alliances, committees, studies, causes, missionaries, committees, newscasts, representatives, thinktanks, activists, conservationists, universities, and non-profits. Boring, stagnant, predictable, and soul-crushing.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here