America has one last chance, and it is a very slim one. Americans
can elect Ron Paul President, or they can descend into tyranny.
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 Israel
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 candidates.
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
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 to law.
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
Having said this, there is no way Ron Paul can be elected, for these
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 tyranny?
In short, Americans cannot see beyond their ideologies to the real
issue, which is the choice between the Constitution and tyranny.
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
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 Like
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 by authorities.”
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
5-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
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
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, reports infowars.com.
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 office.
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
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 rebellion.
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 Amendment?
Indeed, it is folly to expect a police state to tolerate an armed
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
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 nonexistent bogyman.
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.
Dr. 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.