America has one last chance, and it is a very slim
one. Americans can elect Ron Paul President, or they can descend into
Why is Ron Paul America's last chance?
Because he is the only candidate who is not owned
lock, stock, and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street, and the
All of the others, including President Obama, are
owned by exactly the same interest groups. There are no differences between
them. Every candidate except Ron Paul stands for war and a police state, and
all have demonstrated their complete and total subservience to Israel. The fact
that there is no difference between them is made perfectly clear by the absence
of substantive issues in the campaigns of the Republican
Only Ron Paul deals with real issues, so he is
excluded from "debates" in which the other Republican candidates throw mud at
one another: "Gingrich voted $60 million to a UN program supporting abortion in
China." "Romney loves to fire people."
The mindlessness repels.
More importantly, only Ron Paul respects the US
Constitution and its protection of civil liberty. Only Ron Paul understands that
if the Constitution cannot be resurrected from its public murder by Congress and
the executive branch, then Americans are lost to tyranny.
There isn't much time in which to revive the
Constitution. One more presidential term with no habeas corpus and no due
process for US citizens and with torture and assassination of US citizens by
their own government, and it will be too late. Tyranny will have been firmly
institutionalized, and too many Americans from the lowly to the high and mighty
will have been implicated in the crimes of the state. Extensive guilt and
complicity will make it impossible to restore the accountability of government
If Ron Paul is not elected president in this year's
election, by 2016 American liberty will be in a forgotten grave in a forgotten
It is amazing to me that there actually are Americans who do not comprehend that if the US loses its social safety net it will be because of massive debts run up by endless wars and bailouts of an unregulated financial sector, or because both political parties do Wall Street's bidding and privatize Social Security and Medicare, or both, and will have nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul or libertarian ideology. The ruling ideology in the US is neoconservative--the ideology of hegemony, war, empire, police state. Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands against this ideology. The only way other than armed uprising that Americans can show their support for the Constitution is by voting for Ron Paul. There is no more important issue than the Constitution. Even a Constitution that has been weakened over the decades is better than no Constitution.
Having said this, there is no way Ron Paul can be
elected, for these reasons:
Not enough Americans understand that the "war on
terror" has been used to create a police state. The brainwashed citizenry
believe that the police state is making them safe from terrorists.
Liberals, progressives, and the left-wing oppose Ron
Paul, claiming that "he would abolish the social safety net, privatize Social
Security and Medicare, throw the widows and orphans into the street, abolish the
Federal Reserve," etc.
Apparently, liberals, progressives, and the
left-wing do not understand that privatizing Social Security and Medicare and
destroying the social safety net are policies that many conservative Republicans
favor and are policies that Wall Street is forcing on both political parties. In
contrast, a President Ron Paul would be isolated in the White House and would
never be able to muster the support of Congress and the powerful interest groups
to achieve such radical changes. Moreover, Ron Paul has made it clear that a
welfare-free state cannot be achieved by decree but only by creating an economy
in which opportunity exists for people to stand on their own feet. Ron Paul has
said that he does not support ending welfare before an economy is created that
makes a welfare state unnecessary.
Candidate Paul cannot take any steps to reassure
Americans that he would not throw them to the mercy of the free market, because
his libertarian base would turn on him as another unprincipled politician
willing to sacrifice his principles for political expediency. If libertarians were not inflexible, candidate Paul
could endorse Ron Unz's proposal to solve the illegal immigration problem by
raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour, so that Americans could afford to work
the jobs that are taken by illegals.
Economist James K. Galbraith is probably correct
that Unz's proposal would boost the economy by injecting purchasing power and
that the unemployment would be largely confined to illegals who would return to
their home country. However, if Ron Paul were to treat Unz's proposal as one
worthy of study and consideration, libertarian ideologues would write him off.
Whatever liberal/progressive support he gained would be offset by the loss of
his libertarian base.
Why can't libertarians be as intelligent as Ron Unz
and see that if the Constitution is lost, all that remains is
In short, Americans cannot see beyond their
ideologies to the real issue, which is the choice between the Constitution and
So we hear absurd accusations that Ron Paul, a
libertarian "is a racist." "Ron Paul is an anti-semite." "Ron Paul would favor
the rich and hurt the poor."
We don't hear "Ron Paul would restore and protect
the US Constitution."
What do Americans think life will be like in the
absence of the Constitution? I will tell you what it will be like, but first
let's consider the obstacles Ron Paul would face if he were to win the
Republican nomination and if he were to be elected president.
In my opinion, if Ron Paul were to win the
Republican nomination, the Republican Party would conspire to refuse it to him.
The party would simply nominate a different candidate.
If despite everything, Ron Paul were to end up in
the White House, he would not be able to form a government that would support
his policies. Appointments to cabinet secretaries and assistant secretaries that
would support his policies could not be confirmed by the US Senate. President
Paul would have to appoint whomever the Senate would confirm in order to form a
government. The Senate's appointees would undermine his policies.
What a President Ron Paul could do, assuming
Congress, controlled by powerful private interest groups, did not impeach him on
trumped up charges, would be to use whatever forums that might be permitted him
to explain to the public, judges, and law schools that the danger from
terrorists is miniscule compared to the danger from a government unaccountable
to law and the Constitution.
The reason we should vote for Ron Paul is to signal
to the powers that be that we understand what they are doing to us. If Paul were
to receive a large vote, it could have two good effects. One could be to
introduce some caution into the establishment that would slow the march into
more war and tyranny. The other is it would signal to Washington's European and
Japanese puppets that not all Americans are stupid sheep. Such an indication
could make Washington's puppet states more cautious and less cooperative with
Washington's drive for world hegemony.
What America Without the Constitution Will Be
In the January 4 Huff Post, attorney and author John
Whitehead reported on the militarization of local police. Some police forces are
now equipped with spy drones. Whitehead reports that a drone manufacturer,
AeroVironment Inc., plans to sell 18,000 drones to police departments throughout
the country. The company is also advertising a small drone, the "Switchblade,"
which can track a person, land on the person and explode.
How long before Americans will be spied upon or
murdered as extremists at the discretion of local police?
Recognizing the privacy danger, if not the murder danger, the American Civil Liberties Union has issued a report
, "Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance." The ACLU believes, correctly, that liberty is threatened by "a surveillance
society in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized
The ACLU calls on Congress to legislate privacy
protections against the police use of drones. I support the ACLU because it is
the most important defender of civil liberty despite other misguided activities,
but I wonder what the ACLU is thinking. Congress and the federal courts have
already acquiesced in the federal government's warrantless spying on Americans
by the National Security Agency. The Bush regime violated the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act many times, and all involved, including President
Bush, should have been sent to prison for many lifetimes, as each violation
carries a five-year prison term. But the executive branch emerged scot free. No
one was held accountable for clear violations of US statutory law.
The ACLU might think that, although the federal
executive branch has successfully elevated itself above the law, state and local
police forces are still accountable. We must hope that they are, but I doubt
The militarization of local police has received some
attention. What has not received attention is that state and local police are
also being federalized. It is not only military armaments and spy technology
that local police are receiving from Washington, but also an attitude toward the
public along with federal oversight and the collaboration that goes with it.
When Homeland Security, a federal police force, comes into states, as I know has
occurred in Georgia and Tennessee, and doubtless other states, and together with
the state police stop cars and trucks on Interstate highways and subject them to
warrantless searches, what is happening is the de facto deputizing of the state
police by Homeland Security. This is the way that Goering and Himmler
federalized into the Gestapo the independent police forces of German provinces
such as Prussia and Bavaria.
Homeland Security has expanded its warrantless
searches far beyond "airline security." The budding gestapo agency now conducts warrantless
searches on the nation's highways, on bus and train passengers, and at Social
Security offices. On Tuesday January 3, 2012, the Social Security office in
Leesburg, Florida, apparently a terrorist hotspot, became a Homeland Security checkpoint. The DHS Gestapo armed with automatic weapons and sniffer dogs
demanded IDs from local residents visiting their local Social Security office.
Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social
Security Administration office, said staff were not informed their offices were
about to be stormed by armed federal police officers. DHS officials refused to
answer questions asked by local media and left with no explanation at noon,
The DHS gestapo justified its takeover of a Leesburg
Florida Social Security office as being an integral part of "Operational
Shield," conducted by the Federal Protective Service to detect "the presence of
unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous
One wonders if even brainwashed flag-waving
"superpatriots" can miss the message. The Social Security office of Leesburg,
Florida, population 19,086 in central Florida is not a place where terrorists
devoid of proper ID might be visiting. To protect America from the scant
possibility that terrorists might be congregating at the Leesburg Social
Security office, the tyrants in Washington sent the Federal Protective Service
at who knows what cost to demand ID from locals visiting their Social Security
What is this all about except to establish the
precedent that federal police, a new entity in American life, the Federal
Protective Service, has authority over state and local police offices and can
appear out of the blue to interrogate local citizens.
Why the ACLU thinks it is going to get any action
out of a Congress that has accommodated the executive branch's destruction of
habeas corpus, due process, and the constitutional and legal prohibitions
against torture is beyond me. But at least the issue is raised. But don't expect
to hear about it from the "mainstream media."
Americans in 2012, although only a few are aware,
live in a concentration camp that is far better controlled than the one
portrayed by George Orwell in 1984. Orwell, writing in the late
1940s could not imagine the technology that makes control of populations so
thorough as it is today. Orwell's protagonist could at least have hope. In 2012
with the erasure of privacy by the US government, protagonists can be eliminated
by hummingbird-sized drones before they can initiate a protest, much less a
Never in human history has a people been so easily
and willingly controlled by a hostile government as Americans, who are the least
free people on earth. And a large percentage of Americans still wave the flag
and chant USA! USA! USA!
The Bush regime operated as if the Constitution did
not exist. Any semblance of constitutional government that remained after the
Bush years was terminated when Congress passed and President Obama signed the
National Defense Authorization Act. One wonders how the National Rifle
Association, the defender of the Second Amendment, will now fare. If there is
no Constitution, how can there be a Second Amendment? If the President, at his
discretion, can set aside habeas corpus and due process and murder citizens
based on unproven suspicions, why can't he set aside the Second
Indeed, it is folly to expect a police state to
tolerate an armed population.
The NRA is very supportive of the police and
military. Now that these armed organizations are being turned against the
public, how will the NRA adjust its posture?
Many NRA members, pointing to the "Oath Keepers,"
former members of the military who pledge to defend the Constitution, and to
police chiefs who support the Second Amendment, believe that the police and
military will disobey orders to attack citizens. But we already witness constantly the gratuitous
brutality of "our" police against peaceful protesters. We witness military
troops all over the world murder citizens who protest government abuses. Why
can't it happen here?
If you don't want it to happen here, you had better
figure out some way to get Ron Paul into the Presidency and to get him a cabinet
and subcabinet that will support him.
Meanwhile, the police state grows. On January 4,
2012, the Obama regime announced by decree, not by legislation, the creation of
the Bureau of Counterterrorism
, which will among other tasks "seek to strengthen
homeland security, countering violent extremism."
Take a moment to think. Do you know of any "violent
extremism" happening in the US? The regime is telling you that it needs a new police
bureau with unaccountable powers to "strengthen homeland security" against a
So who will be the violent extremists who require
countering by the Bureau of Counterterrorism? It will be peace activists, the
Occupy Wall Street protesters, the unemployed and foreclosed homeless. It will
be whoever the police state says. And there is no due process or recourse to law.
Given the facts before you, you are out of your mind
if you think Ron Paul's rhetoric against the welfare state is more important than his defense of liberty.
Cross-posted from Paul Craig Roberts website