4-minute comedy routine: War on Terror causes terror so you have more war. Is America ‘too far gone?’ ‘It’s not normal. What have you done? You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should stop it!’

Steve Hughes4-minutes:

Real-world Earth is a tragic-comedy that includes lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression, including “War on Terror” and OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation).

Steve makes obvious points:

  1. War is terror, which causes more of what the US claims to be warring against.
  2. Terror is not an enemy. Will terror surrender to end the war?
  3. Corporate media report distractions, not news.
  4. Such a condition: “It’s not normal. What have you done (about it)? You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should stop it!”

Steve also concludes, “America is too far gone.” Facts of a US rogue state that an objective observer would demand to be stopped to not be “too far gone”:

  • Violating international law, with focus on destruction of human life: the two most important international laws to follow for any nation are to not engage in Wars of Aggression, and not to engage in Crimes Against Humanity. The US ongoingly commits these crimes with:
  1. Unlawful and lie-began wars that have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. The sum of 30 million means the US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.
  2. Intentional policy to continue deaths from poverty that total ~400 million just since 1996; most in gruesomely-slow agony, and a death total more than all wars in human history. Policy choices for illegal and lie-started wars rather than repeatedly promised policies to end poverty with less than 1% of national income make the US the most viciously psychopathic and deadly nation in Earth’s recorded history.
  3. Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them (81%).
  • Threatening other nations’ security: the US is recognized as Earth’s greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. Educated people outside the US more easily recognize US ongoing unlawful wars and threats for more war. Current threats to other nations’ security:
  1. Ongoing political, financial, military, and propaganda support for Israel’s sadistic military siege and War of Aggression on Gaza.
  2. Ongoing threats of nuclear attack on Iran based on easily-proven lies (and here).
  3. Ongoing threats and attacks on Syria.
  • Proliferate weapons of mass destruction: the US violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (and here) by doing the Orwellian opposite of nuclear disarmament while denying Iran’s NPT right for assistance of nuclear energy and medicine. The US support of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, unlawful war on Iraq when they accepted currencies other than US dollars for oil beginning in 2000, and rhetoric for “regime change” in Iran when they accepted other currencies than US dollars for oil in 2003 are best explained as gangster business for petrodollar control under the threat of nuclear attack from the US and/or Israel. In addition, when Libya began discussing a rival African currency in 2009, Gaddafi was targeted for “regime change.”
  • Lie to their own people through controlled media: the above documented crimes, destruction of elections and rights, terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (as well as the US as the global leader of weapons exports), are only possible by “covering the crimes” with lies by corporate media.
  • Behave irrationally and not in its own best interests: perhaps “irrational” is better understood as “psychopathic”: a veneer of socially-acceptable behavior covering viciously destructive acts. The best case study to prove this point is the King Family civil trial with overwhelming evidence the jury found conclusive to convict the US government as guilty for assassinating Martin. The family’s conclusion for motive was to prevent Martin’s “occupation” of Washington, D.C. until the illegal Vietnam War was ended, and with those funds used to end poverty. In addition, the evidence that the US government assassinated President Kennedy is also overwhelming. Assassinations of public leaders, illegal wars on lies, accelerating debt, Orwellian corporate media, and destruction of its citizens’ rights are only rational for psychopaths.

Demanding arrests as the required and obvious public response

The categories of crime include:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).
  2. Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
  3. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

  • Demand arrests, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests.
  • Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. Argue that somehow law enforcement and US military should allow Orwellian crimes they’re Oath-sworn and tax-paid to stop.

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):


Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.


Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • BHill

    Good article but Hitler’s war was defensive
    His sin was resisting Judaism.
    Our own General Patton later wished to rearm Germany and invade ussr.
    Good piece otherwise

    • Carl_Herman

      Thanks, but what in this evokes your comment other than giving magnitude to US illegal wars since WW2 as having killed more than Nazi Germany?

      Let’s test: do you agree in our world of the present that US .01% leaders should be prosecuted for current illegal wars?

      • Silverado

        I agree but would ask who’s going to do the prosecuting when the entire system’s corrupt?? Shortly after the coming dollar crisis or the coming bail-ins for the banks and I think the people will be in a much better mood for such prosecutions. Until then Carl life is good – at least that’s what the failed media would have one believe right after we vote for and elect the criminally prone, lying and warmongering neocon crooked Hillary and her wrecking crew of radical left wingers. Ya, life is good…

        • Carl_Herman

          In our “Emperor’s New Clothes” scenario, Silverado, nobody dares move until the right moment. When the criminality/lies become clear, as I think is escalating with the DNC and Hillary (her in several areas), then everyone will act.

          You’re right that perhaps we need a dollar crash or other “black swan” event to wake people up enough.

          We’ll see 🙂

    • Southernfink


    • Silverado

      Defensive?? Oh so that’s the reason he went into Russia?? You need to watch a bit more of the History channel because that isn’t quite right. That was an offensive move into Russia. And then when the Soviet’s and Old Man Winter kicked their asses where they had to retreat, that was a defensive move. Whatever one calls it they lost and they lost a lot of men probably in the millions for German military losses on their foray into Russia…

  • Southernfink

    Steve Hughes sums it up brilliantly ”The war on terror is nothing more than the having a war on the consequences of the actions that you’re involved in. ….EXACTLY !!!

  • Mar 4, 2015 Order Followers – The People Who Keep The System Of Slavery In Place

    Mark Passio explains how Following Orders means doing what you are told to do, without judging for yourself whether or not the action you are being ordered to carry out is Right or Wrong.


  • Brockland A.T.

    Demanding unlawful arrests of public or military officials will only make things worse.

    Remember – the violations Herman cites are non-justiceable offenses. They may be illegal – but enforcement is left to the very executive and legislative officials that allowed them to happen in the first place.

    Demanding fair laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws will be far more effective than unlawful arrests.

    • Carl_Herman

      Bro: you’re factually wrong with the law because it’s not “may be illegal” but are Orwellian illegal. Also, there are many related laws connected to these unlawful Wars of Aggression, with the most important being treason.

      I wrote this one for you: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/war-law-somehow-isnt-crystal-clear-letter-intent-oath-sworn-tax-paid-shouldnt-enforce-01-arrests-obvious-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-w.html

      • Brockland A.T.

        What is it with you not seeing enforcement mechanisms?

        Stop sign – clear definition of violation and penalty schedule defined in statute law and designated enforcers (the cops, if they want) plus body of law precedent covering many scnarios.

        Baseball rules – clear definition of violations and penalties including arbitration for negligent enforcement. Bad umpires can be fired and various parties can sue one-another.

        Son doing chores – clear definition of violations and penalties plus strong moral and coercive authority over formal and informal house contracts. (I’d have pulled the homework clause and hired Mom to litigate).

        Illegal wars – The UN Security Council and U.S.A.-Russia-China MAD-capable nuclear arsenals. Nuclear war is not the enforcement mechanism we’re looking for.

        Nowhere in the UN Charter do the parties agree to arrest their own politicians and public officials for miscreant behavior or a comprehensive mechanism for investigating and confirming violations clearly defined.

        The UN Security Council is essentially the wolves asking the foxes to guard the chicken coop for them. Its an enforcer mechanism, but not exactly law enforcement.

        • Carl_Herman

          Let’s accept your argument for at least this moment, Bro, and look at exactly what I’ve been writing about “the categories of crime include”: how about treason and/or other crimes regarding known lies to take public money and commit war-murders and damages (including to our own citizens)?

          • Brockland A.T.

            You’ve simply restated your argument without acknowledging inadequate enforcement mechanisms, which can be remedied through appropriate legislation.

            The answer is not arrests in a legal vacuum before such legislation exists because then those arrests are arbitrary and unlawful. Lawful arrests are part of a complete legal process, and at this level, part of a cultural process.

            I know exactly what you’re arguing; you want soldiers and cops to make unlawful arrests for you and gratify some personal interpretation of the law and due process that exists only in your head and the heads of a few likewise knowledge and maturity-challenged individuals.

            OK constitutional patriot – go out and make the arrests yourself. Watering the tree of liberty with someone else’s blood and treasure seems a little too easy and cowardly.

          • Carl_Herman

            Treason cannot be enforced? Lying to take public money for illegal war is not a crime?

            You argue that arrests are not possible because the law and enforcement is somehow not clear.

            You argue mind-reading powers of what I want, and insult that I’m “maturity-challenged” and “cowardly.”

            2nd warning: be civil or risk losing your commenting privileges.

          • Brockland A.T.

            The nonjusticeable offense loophole, the political question doctrine and dodge, renders your calls for arrests irresponsible however you huff and puff. Again, its far more effective to call for fair laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws, perhaps even an American Nuremberg as Rebecca Gordon has suggested.


            Every time you call for arrests, someone will have the knowledge to call your empty hubris for what it is, empty and ill-motivated and more likely to cause harm to the cause of justice than good.


            I’ve been very clear in my positions, and as they’ve developed they have remained consistently accurate and fact-based. My descriptions of your behavior are accurate, far from obscene, and far more polite than you deserve. Anyone can read that from my surviving posts and your reactions to them.

            Getting me banned is your last resort to try and wipe the record clean. People will remember and especially, hopefully remember to think clearly and critically and affirm the facts for themselves and not fall for charismatic leadership with emotionally appealing but intellectually and factually vacuous reasoning.

            The nonjudiciable offense loophole – the political question doctrine – clearly makes illegal wars difficult to remedy by arrests of guilty officials, because the courts will refuse the case. Any such arrest would fail as unlawful and lacking legal grounding. The highest officials may themselves set in motion the processes of indictments then arrests. Congress or the Senate may legislate for them. Soldiers and cops are out of the loop. Politicians can only choose to ignore the problem as far as their voters allow.

            The courts will not touch a political issue. This is very clear in the legal record anyone can check my links to confirm. The People have to demand just laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws. Its not up to soldiers and cops.

            The recent case of Ehren Watada’s refusal of an illegal order is a dark example. The nonjusticeable offence loophole allowed the military court system to avoid ruling on the legality of the Iraq war and totally ignore Nuremberg principles, such as they are. Watada was found guilty of disobeying orders and conduct unbecoming an officer, a mistrial was declared, and Watada’s military career ended with a less than honourable discharge. They let him off easy because they could. Imagine the damage to this man’s life had false arrest been included in the charges.



            Yet this is what you’re advocating, that soldiers and cops throw away their lives making false arrests you yourself will not attempt. Citizen’s arrests are unwise but now and then are prosecuted successfully. I don’t recommend it of anyone but in your case there is the exception demanded by your insistence of veracity in demanding arrests (by someone other than yourself, of course).

            You also rudely dismissed a brave and smart soldier’s attempt to clarify his orders, dissing Captain Nathan Smith’s important lawsuit because he’s still following illegal orders no-one can formally declare illegal. Your reasoning makes no sense except you seem to want a messy confrontation – endured by someone else.


            You demand respect for what, exactly? The ability to abuse your blogger power and silence intelligent and moral dissent? The problem is the legislative gap, the loopholes in the system that need to be fixed by legislation demanding clear accountability. Demands for unlawful arrests are neither legal or rational, a solution completely unsupported by factual evidence.

            There are few polite ways to describe your baiting of those who have taken the Uniformed Services Oath of Office and Law Enforcement Code of Honour, to undertake actions you yourself can’t be bothered with.

            As an American citizen whose job is not law enforcement, with a secure teaching position of some sort in California, you are uniquely advantaged over law officers, soldiers, and many citizens to make the arrests you are so sure of. You can’t easily lose your job and pension and could perhaps even crowdsource legal expenses your socio-economic position couldn’t cover.


            Of course you would also get hung by the nonjudiciable loophole in court, then hammered like a dangling pinata by the civil action to follow by anyone you falsely arrested for war crimes, however guilty they would be found if political officials did undertake the political question of guilt.

            Of course, I’m not a legal expert. By all means, make your arrests and show us how its done. Insist unlawful arrests are lawful while everyone with the most rudimentary googling skills can quickly recognize you are wrong.

            You can either back off spurious demands for arrests, or make the arrests yourself, or tarnish Washingtons Blog with censorship of legit dissent that must arise in opposition to your irresponsible calls for false arrest – by soldiers and cops yet – because somehow you don’t need to be held accountable.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you for being clear to the central question I asked you: “Treason cannot be enforced? Lying to take public money for illegal war is not a crime?”

            Your position is that they cannot be enforced; apparently you conclude that any related crime with illegal war is a dictatorial determination (what is said by “leadership”) rather than an American form of government limited under clear law.

            I contrast that view with what we do with actual law/rules in examples of traffic law, baseball rules, and a child doing a household chore: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/war-law-somehow-isnt-crystal-clear-letter-intent-oath-sworn-tax-paid-shouldnt-enforce-01-arrests-obvious-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-w.html

            I have never censored any of your comments, although the blog’s owner will do so for grossly inappropriate public language that distracts from factual consideration and analysis among interested commenters.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I’ve not gone beyond the well-known language used already, despite the obvious temptations.

            Two concepts key to understanding the situation, that are not rocket science and in fact well-known to genuine constitutional scholars, are first, the Political Question Doctrine, and attendant to that Justiciablity. While nonjusticiable offence is a far better descriptive term, its officially known as the Political Question Doctrine.



            You continually conflate two different problems as one thing.

            First, there is no question that U.S. neocon wars are illegal. Second, international war law is not judiciable in the United States, meaning, the courts will not formally recognize the legality or illegality of U.S. wars because this is a political question not judiciable by the courts.

            The first may seem to invite arrests, the second clearly establishes such arrests are not lawful, lacking as they do a legislated legal framework establishing such actions as lawful.

            You can demand the President make arrests, or Congress pass legislation demanding arrests, you can’t demand war law arrests be made by soldiers, cops or ordinary citizens. That you insist this is so, morally obligates you to back it up with personal example, not bait others to perform unlawful actions on your behalf that you surely must understand would not work out very well for anyone dumb enough to believe in you. Because you’re obviously too self-important to make such arrests on your own.

            There’s also a fair amount of history. Nuremberg never applied to the Allies. The U.S. may have spearheaded Nuremberg principles, but took care to insure Nuremberg ‘universality’ never had legal standing at home. The likes of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney may not want to travel to Kuala Lumpur any time soon, but they are perfectly safe in the U.S. and greater Anglosphere thanks to leveraging the Political Question Dodge…. er, doctrine.



            Rebecca Gordon has even gone so far as to suggest and American Nuremberg. Unlike your call for arrests, her call for an American Nuremberg is a call for lawful action, not unlawful action that would make international war crime laws more legally meaningful in the U.S. legal system.


            Making arrests would be unlawful under your interpretation of the law. A soldier trying to make such arrests at the wrong place and time would not only be open to arrest in turn, but execution for mutiny. The UCMJ is rather clear on this.


            You’ve never linked to any clear official or scholarly document detailing how U.S. soldiers are trained in making arrests the way you say they can. Nor can I find any. That no such arrests have ever been attempted suggests genuine oath-bound uniformed services personnel they know something you don’t and you, Herman, are very likely not a veteran of any uniformed service.

            That you dismiss the importance of Captain Nathan Smith’s lawsuit, only underscores your willful and arrogant ignorance.


            How many years of constitutional study and x-number of educational credentials do you claim? Yet you never noticed the 200 year-old Political Question Doctrine and Justiciability? It took me less than a week to put it all together, leaving out down time not focused on the subject.


            Either your scholarship was ineptly deficient or you have deliberately left out vital legal information that does not support your ‘arrests’ narrative. The Political Question Doctrine renders your calls for arrests at best dangerous fantasy.

            At worst, by pursuing your irresponsible arrests narrative you are baiting patriots into making the serious life-altering mistake of undertaking unlawful arrests of government officials and setting back the peace and constitutional rule movements with actions of high stupidity.

            Yet you don’t seem to care about those consequences or even recognize your persistence is interpretable as either brazen cluelessness or perfidious chickenhawking of others into harm’s way.

          • Carl_Herman

            This is my last response to you: Thank you for being clear to the central question I asked you: “Treason cannot be enforced? Lying to take public money for illegal war is not a crime?”

            Your position is that they cannot be enforced; apparently you conclude that any related crime with illegal war is a dictatorial determination (what is said by “leadership”) rather than an American form of government limited under clear law. You place “political questions” to include whatever “leadership” chooses to include in that category, meaning whatever areas of law they choose to exclude, they do so by dictatorial power (whatever they say when they say it). You refuse to address areas of law such as treason, lying to commit unlawful war, taking public monies for illegal war, looting such as $6.5 trillion by DoD, etc.

            I contrast your view with what we do with actual law/rules in examples of traffic law, baseball rules, and a child doing a household chore: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/war-law-somehow-isnt-crystal-clear-letter-intent-oath-sworn-tax-paid-shouldnt-enforce-01-arrests-obvious-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-w.html

            If you are uncertain that US military officers are trained to manage arrests to stop apparent crimes (violations of military justice in this case), then your misunderstanding of the term “arrest” extends also to military justice. Of course arrests occur within the military, and of course officers are trained in that protocol.

            There are no lawful orders to execute an unlawful war.

            Reply if you will, and I’m done with what I conclude useful for interested readers.

          • Brockland A.T.

            You then admit and concede you have no valid rebuttal to the Political Question Doctrine? You’ve done everything you can to avoid answering this point directly.


            Every attempt to make a legally standing claim of war illegality in court will be met with the answer of ‘nonjusticiable political question’ and dismissed. Without a legally standing finding of ‘illegal war’, arrests based on the charge of illegal war have no legal grounds and so are unlawful under U.S. law., the only binding force of law that applies on United States sovereign territory.

            The courts are not making a ‘dictatorial determination’; they are saying they have no body of valid U.S. law allowing them to validate the charge of ‘illegal war’. As the judicial authority, not the legislative authority, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the judiciary’s duty and right to rule by the powers accorded to them.

            The political question doctrine renders illegal war a charge without legal standing in the United States, a nonjusticiable offense with only a legislative remedy. Making arrests based upon ‘illegal war’ would be unlawful within the jurisdiction of the United States – including its military bases abroad which are treated as sovereign U.S. territory.

            Your call for arrests is a call to unlawful action; ineffectual and dishonest and amounts to baiting soldiers and police to make unlawful arrests.

            Furthermore, you are attempting to deceive others into echoing your call to unlawful action by claiming such unlawful arrests are legit – when they clearly are not. You are willfully deceiving readers into believing and backing your interpretation of the law as indisputably legal, when it is not, and cannot refute dissent, only bluff roughshod over it.

            You are also tying the valid work of better researchers and commentators through your article links (if not the entire blog) as if to give the impression your research and conclusions were on par with theirs. Which it clearly is not. Also, to give the impression that all these outside researchers would agree upon your remedy of (unlawful) arrests as appropriate. Which is very doubtful as most real scholars value academic as well as personal integrity.

            You said:

            “… Of course arrests occur within the military, and of course officers are trained in that protocol.”

            Yes, MPs are certainly trained in the identifying and making of LAWFUL arrests.

            What I asked for was concrete information of U.S. military arrest procedures that could be interpreted as you say, on the basis of illegal wars, despite ‘illegal war’ having no recognition in U.S. law because the Political Question Doctrine makes such a finding nonjudiciable and without arrest-worthy standing in any U.S. court.


            Far better and constructive and useful to take up Rebecca Gordon’s call for an American Nuremberg, which at least moves towards establishing a legal framework for making the charge of ‘illegal war’ matter in U.S. domestic law.