Bernies/Greens/Libertarians must assert that Reps/Dems don’t have mere ‘bad policy,’ but OBVIOUS lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression, criminal bankster fraud costing trillions, complicit lying corporate media. 3rd parties are doormats until they DEFEND victimized Americans/humanity, not just propose better policy

Bernie-supporters, Greens and Libertarians will remain as doormats to the Left and Right arms of the one US dictatorial rogue state until they defend victimized Americans, all humanity, and themselves by stating the Emperor’s New Clothes obvious:

.01% Republican and Democratic “leaderships” are psychopathic criminals engaged in OBVIOUS crimes centered in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggressionlooting by the trillions (including Dept. of “Defense”), and constant lying. Importantly, this includes election fraud by both parties and criminally-complicity corporate media that will never ever ever ever allow 3rd party power until those .01%ers are arrested and removed from power.

For example, Jill Stein frames her foreign policy as merely “better” rather than the leadership REQUIRED to defend the innocent from ongoing US/UK/Israel war-murders. 1-minute video:

Gary Johnson calls the wars “meddling” rather than state the “new normal of constant war” is the worst crime a nation can commit that demands immediate arrests. 1-minute:

Those “never Hillary” (including for a rogue State Department and looting Clinton Foundation) and “never Trump” should cooperate to state the important election facts:

Perhaps Martin King can be of service speaking with you for two minutes:

If you’re not demanding arrests, you don’t qualify to live in a constitutional republic

The United States would not be a nation if it wasn’t for leaders voicing the gap between what was guaranteed by law and what was delivered by their own government (artistic representation here). It is Americans’ 1st Amendment Right and responsibility to demand enforcement of the single most important law, war law, that was won by all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.

Could you face your own families, living and passed, and tell them you wouldn’t even speak against obvious lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression after all the lessons provided you?

It’s a slave-reflex for Americans blessed with limited government under a decent constitution and ideals from the Declaration of Independence if they won’t even speak for those Oath-sworn to uphold the law to do so given ongoing war-murders that since WW2 has 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. Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them (81%).

Americans who vote for Hillary or Trump are voting with relative ignorance to continue these policies, with 95%+ who would never agree if honestly briefed on the facts. Once informed, unless one wishes to bond with such evil and bullshit (an academic term), one cannot vote for it. If one wishes to stand as an American under our ideals and Constitution, one must demand arrests for such outrageous crimes.

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).
  4. Destruction of nearly all rights lawfully guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights within the US Constitution, and in Orwellian inversion of limited government.

Ordinary Americans, 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:

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):

3rd parties will forever remain powerless losers without ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ breakthrough to recognize and assert US dictatorial rogue state

I am among hundreds in alternative media, academia, and various professions able to easily explain, document, and prove that Rep and Dem “leaderships” are dictatorial rogue state criminals. Again, here is documentation: US dictatorial rogue state.

In this rogue state, the US does not have:

  • president
  • chosen by election
  • after independent debates.

What the US has is:

  • rogue state dictator
  • chosen by election fraud
  • after bullshit propaganda.

Until this breakthrough occurs, 3rd parties are powerless to oppose criminally-complicit corporate media, election fraud, and assassinations (such as Martin King) if they ever challenge the Left and Right arms of the one rogue US political body.

3rd parties want help? Contact me

If 3rd party candidates are willing to tell the Emperor’s New Clothes obvious truths as professionally documented in this essay, I’m willing to help:


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

Note: 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, 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.
  • Aug 13, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 Hacked DCCC

    It’s time for new revelations now. All of you may have heard about the DCCC hack. As you see I wasn’t wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach. As you see the U.S. presidential elections are becoming a farce, a big political performance where the voters are far from playing the leading role. Everything is being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.

    • Elizabethjbly1

      <<hp. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir334m:….,……

  • Bev

    Please donate if you can to to help the RICO case by Cliff Arnebeck against election theft.
    Open Letter from Cliff Arnebeck: Theft of the Primary Election
    Quicklink submitted By Josh Mitteldorf

    Dear President Obama,
    I have been litigating against Karl Rove’s corrupt election practices since the 2000 general election cycle. In this 2016 Democratic Presidential primary election cycle, our opposition research has determined that an advanced technology election hacking system invented by Rove’s technical genius, Mikey Cunnyngham, was successfully implemented.

    The ratio of votes between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was changed by some 25-33% in favor of Hillary Clinton compared to the ratio of votes as they were originally cast by voters. This was done by dropping many voters/votes for Bernie Sanders, i.e. reducing the number of votes recorded as cast, and also switching many votes cast for Sanders to Hillary Clinton.

    Cunnyngham’s innovation and Karl Rove’s application of it for the benefit of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Primary campaign is common knowledge among employees of SmarTech at which its CEO, Jeff Averbeck, continues to work exclusively on behalf of Republican candidates.

    EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Ohio Election Fraud Lawyer Cliff Arnebeck
    August 4, 2016
    by Zachary Paul for

    UPDATE: If you’re interested in helping Cliff Arnebeck’s lawsuit get to court, please consider donating to Justice Served at ….

    Breaking: Did Julian Assange Just Say What I Think He Did?

    The following, two minute segment of the Dutch television news program “Nieuwsuur” is embedded here with no rights or authority whatsoever – I’ve saved a copy in case it mysteriously vanishes down the YouTube hole but I’d much rather give Nieuwsuur the views because oh wow, is this the story of a century my friends:
    Julian Assange on Seth Rich

    Okay, there are a few absolutely goddamn mind-blowing things to unpack in this video so let’s dive right in:
    Yes, Julian Assange just brought up the still unsolved murder of former DNC Staffer Seth Rich; completely unsolicited and while trying to illustrate the potential risks Wikileaks sources face… on a public news program he undoubtedly knew the world would eventually see!

    Furthermore, when directly questioned by the excellent host of our show, the Wikileaks founder absolutely refused to back down on the strong implication that Rich was a source; offering only the most technical explanation possible for why he cannot definitively confirm it – namely that Wikileaks doesn’t comment on who their sources are.

    Finally, even when the host indignantly informs Assange “it’s quite something to suggest a murder; that’s basically what you are doing” the editor-in-chief offers only a tepid note that “we are investigating” and “there is not a conclusion yet” before adding “we wouldn’t be willing to say a conclusion, but we are concerned about it.”

    Just let all that roll around in your skull for a second because the importance of these facts simply cannot be overstated – and they are supported by examining the background evidence available to us:

    • Wikileaks is just announced a $20,000 reward “for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich” over it’s Twitter account on Tuesday, August 9th.

    • Brockland A.T.
    • Bev

      Evidence via: Richard Charnin

      Evidence via GEMS software to fictionalize votes:
      Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
      By Bev Harris May 12, 2016 1 – Summary –
      This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

      GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.

      • Carl_Herman

        Thank you for this, Bev. This is a HUGE deal. We’ll keep pointing to the facts.

        • Bev

          Thanks so much Carl. As you may or may not have known, I have not been able to post on Disqus here and elsewhere for months at a time. I am not sure what changed to allow me to do so now. I am grateful that I tried again in the face of a low probability of posting successfully, and grateful that the above information was allowed to post for your topic addressed to Bernie, Green, Independent, and Libertarian supporters. We need their help, and the help of honest Democrats and Republicans who want to support a real Democracy to regain control of a better future for all. Thank you Carl.

          • Carl_Herman

            Yeah, I read that from you. Sometimes I have to make multiple pathways to comment, as some will not post.

            And well stated, Bev: we need honest people to work together. Those honest and at least half-awake will see Left and Right “leaders” have been long-captured by oligarch interests.

            Any connections to Greens, Bernies, or Independents to personally pass along my invitation to help? I only want the invitation received (I e-mailed Jill and Gary); what they do is up to them.

  • jadan

    “Arrest” means “seize by legal authority”. Who’s going to do the
    seizing? Who will provide the legal authority? The parties to be
    arrested are the legal authority and they control the police/military
    that has the power to make the physical arrest. So, what you’re saying
    is you want to set up a new legal authority with a new police force to
    arrest the perpetrators of the status quo. In other words, you want a revolution, not of the Bernie Sanders “political revolution” type but a real Revolution of the 1789 type in France in which arrests were made, heads were removed from bodies, and a new legal framework was established for a new anti-feudalist system. You want arrests, which means you want a violent overthrow of the the US Government. Hmmmmm. Seems problematic to me….

    • Carl_Herman

      Hmmmm, except you miss the obvious, jadan: Americans pay taxes for law enforcement, with the most important laws in lives and money the most important to enforce.

      You make a straw man argument of what I write. Again: I assert that Americans do not deserve their republic if they cannot or will not demand arrests to stop OBVIOUS illegal and lie-started Wars of Aggression. Those will legal authority, paid by our taxes, and Oath-sworn to uphold the law will enact arrests for the categories of crimes listed (treason, lie-started Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, and likely many other categories).

      jadan: are the US wars lie-started and illegal?

      If not, explain how they are legal under war law. If they are illegal, explain if those with arrest authority for the categories of crime listed (treason, Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity) should or should not exercise it.

      Your turn.

      • Brockland A.T.

        You’re a preening weenie Herman.

        Although ‘arrestable offense’ no longer has legal meaning, you’re essentially characterizing illegal wars to be taken as an ‘arrestable offense’ – a felony – when the mechanism for treaty enforcement does not specify any such remedy. Violating treaty obligations is adjudicated in civil court, not criminal court. Or someone goes to war.

        Your link to definitions of arrest:

        “Both private citizens and law enforcement officers may be held liable for the tort
        of false arrest in civil court. An action for false arrest requires proof that the process used for the arrest was void on its face. In other words, one who confines another, while purporting to act by authority of law which does not in fact exist, makes a false arrest and may be required to pay money damages to the victim.”

        If valid charges cannot be laid within 48 hours, arrested persons (admittedly with decent legal counsel, which people like Hilary can well afford) may walk. Safe to say they will also hold the arresting person liable. So, Herman, you are a preening weenie poseur patriot looking martyrs to water the tree of liberty with.

        In the meantime, far more useful action is being taken by a real uniformed oath-sworn patriot. Captain Nathan Smith’s lawsuit could do more to hold legislators accountable than any pointless demands for arrests without legal discovery and other due process thingys Herman has no clue about.

        • Carl_Herman

          Right: you say “arrestable offense no longer has legal meaning” in your ongoing argument that “law is not law,” arrests for obvious multiple crimes are somehow not possible and certainly Americans shouldn’t demand them, and a lawsuit for a military Captain asking a federal judge appointed by the same war-murdering President is the way to go while the Captain continues following illegal war orders.

          So, just follow orders like Captain Smith until your government tells/dictates you otherwise?

          These are crimes as listed in the article, not just the one for illegal Wars of Aggression. Crimes include treason, DoD looting, lying to Congress and the public for all war “reasons,” murder of US military, Crimes Against Humanity with neocolonialism resource looting using humans as work animals thankful they don’t die from poverty like their neighbors, etc.

          Go ahead and wait for a federal judge to help you, Bro, and tell military officers what a treaty means when it says “no armed attacks are legal unless you’re under attack by that nation’s government.” Wait to be dictated to, and advocate that our military take that path with public support and ongoing funding.

          Some of us have other ideas and paths of action that are beyond your capacity to recognize or predict their contributions.

      • jadan

        What you advocate is a coup, or revolution by another name. Whether the invasion of Iraq was “lie-started” or illegal under whatever law you may cite is irrelevant. Outraged idealism doesn’t count. I don’t like the US war machine one little bit, nor do I have any respect for the politicians who advocate war or a Congress that condones it. You’re in no position to foment a coup. If you did have a constituency, let’s say you were head of a militia, or if you had a significant following, or any following at all that could be called politically influential, you’d be arrested yourself. Alternatively, you could douse yourself in gasoline and become a human torch for justice & the Constitution, like Buddhist monks do occasionally in the far east. Their self martyrdom is actually effective in the long haul. Nobody recognizes that, but who cares? Selflessness is hard to do. Listen to your critics.

        • Carl_Herman

          Please quote what I’ve written that equals “advocating a coup, or revolution.” Time to put-up or shut-up, jadan.

          You invert my argument to enforce our most important law, war law, and lawfully stop war-murders by the millions, harming of billions, and looting in the trillions.

          Nice closing, too, to suggest I kill myself after you lie to claim I advocate an illegal overthrow of the US government. But again, to be clear, quote my writing where you say I advocate a coup.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Do did Jaden put up or did you delete his response?

          • Carl_Herman

            No response from him. Please feel free to answer those questions, Bro.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Since you appear to be asserting that taxpayer provided cops and soldiers are obligated enforce your interpretation of the law, in the manner of making arbitrary arrests outside any standing practice of law, you are indeed advocating a coup by those personnel.

            As Jaden correctly points out, you pointedly ignore critics, have persisted in promoting an illegal solution to illegal wars, and appear to revel in the attention of playing the brave Great Leader demanding justice. While paradoxically claiming not to have time or money for court and dismissing efforts like Captain Nathan Smiths War Powers Resolution lawsuit for no other reason than its not an arrest. wtf.

            The observations and work of better activists and researchers are reduced to planks for your soapbox call for arrests and kindling for a witch-burning reinforcing general ignorance of the law and due process Americans desperately need.

            Apparently entirely on the conceit of pretending to make a legal discovery the entire history of the peace movement and wronged foreign nationals never figured out, that two treaties, the Kellog-Briand Pact and UN Charter which succeeded it, outlaw wars of aggression. Actually, you seem to think K-BP is not redundant, but whatever; is one of many critical misconceptions about the law you’ve made and presented as absolute truth.

            Jaden calls you out correctly.

          • Carl_Herman

            You continue to claim “your interpretation of the law,” so ok, please summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

            After that, then state if current US wars are, or are not legal by pointing to the law.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Preening weenie to the end, demanding dances to your off-tunes.

            We both know your two treaties (Kellog-Brand (redundant) and UN Charter (incorporating K-BP), unless you’ve come up with new ones) outlaw wars of aggression, and insofar as that goes, the US appears very much guilty of wars of aggression.

            However you seem to be the only one who also reads the non-existent legal provisions for determining violations and penalties and making demands for arrests of world officials.

            Therefore, while I can say it strongly appears U.S. wars are in violation of the treaties and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to making that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

            My personal conclusion that the Iraq, Syrian, and Libyan wars are illegal, falling as they do outside the clear spirit of the words of the treaties, is just that, a personal conclusion.

            Not being an international war crimes lawyer and Security Council member limits my ability to navigate this finding through a legal discovery process. The other veto-holding members like the U.S. would certainly veto any such finding even if I had such authority and capability.

            Like almost everyone else, my conclusion that the wars are illegal is a moral statement and empty legal conclusion based on reading laws with very clearly stated provisions and very obvious loopholes undermining their enforcement.

            I can also conclude you’re a preening weenie idiot who loves playing the demagogue and its likely you still don’t get that the law is about the law and only about the law and can’t be conflated with morality and the spirit of high-minded words backed by nothing but legal loopholes around their meaning.

            Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.

            Trump 2016.

          • Carl_Herman

            Please, and again: summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

            If a baseball pitch is 10 feet over everyone’s head, that’s not even close to a strike. Informed viewers can state the law, and would demonstrate they don’t know baseball rules if they spoke as you do about war law: “Therefore, while I can say it strongly appears the pitch is outside the strike zone and therefore likely a ball, there is no way for myself to making that an officially binding finding and attach demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.”

            As a “preening weenie” with peer-reviewed papers on this very topic presented to thousands of professionals in law and academics, I respectfully and factually assert that war law is as clear as when a baseball pitch is, or is not, within the strike zone. While in baseball there are close calls, in US wars their “pitch” is more like throwing the ball over the center field wall and claiming it a strike.

            Again, Bro: please summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Go arrest somebody then, preening weenie, and prove your academic veracity.

          • Carl_Herman

            I wrote this for you:

            For perhaps the 10th time: arrests are for those with authority unless you want a citizen’s arrest (I don’t recommend that). The list of crimes include treason as well as unlawful war.

            And watch your language if you want the privilege to comment on our blog.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Why don’t you mind your ignorance of the law, moral or material?

            Your positional authority divorced from moral authority the moment you presumed to delete my otherwise sound posts in order to win this debate. Those few early ones that got through, seemed to do so because you did not understand the ad hominem and assumed they gave you a ‘win’ by default. The opportunity was not to be passed up.

            I’m the one asking people to stop and think and get their facts straight, including the admonition against making citizen’s arrests.


            Oath-bound soldiers and law enforcement officers are severely limited on how they can legally act on a nonjudiciable offense. The law does not yet exist that allows them to make arrests for nonjudiciable offenses (in which case, they wouldn’t be nonjudiciable anymore).

            That’s the whole point of the nonjudiciable loophole, to make sure the law in these areas can’t be applied directly but through politics instead.

            The executive could probably make an arrest call, the legislative if with a majority consensus can probably make that call (and there would be severe consequences for losing such cases), but not individual men and women in uniform. They can at best refuse an illegal order, if they are willing to risk that order in fact being legal because the officials say its legal.

            Captain Nathan Smith is taking steps to ensure his orders are in fact legal. However, the lawsuit has got nothing to do with the morality of war, just the technicality of Congressional approval.


            U.S. Sheriffs can point to any number of Second Amendment precedents to refuse an order to confiscate guns.


            In contrast, there is no statute law strictly defining adherence to provisions of the UN Charter. There is little objectively defining any difference between discretion and negligence let alone civil or criminal liability.

            The nonjudiciable loophole is something you just don’t seem to understand, but a key point is, arrests cannot lawfully be made for nonjudiciable offenses.

          • Carl_Herman

            I have zero interest in debate, Bro; just to have the facts clear. You can have whatever interpretation and policy position you wish.

            You ongoingly fail to read exactly what I’ve written for years of “categories of crime include” and public demand should be for those with arrest authority to enact it. This has been, what, about a dozen times I’ve pointed this out?

            If professional lawyers seriously looked at the facts of lie-started and illegal wars that took public money that caused war-murders and war damages (including to US military), treason would be among the crimes, and exactly what I’ve written.

            Also what I’ve written is that US military are trained to refuse unlawful orders. There are no lawful orders for unlawful war. All officers are trained to arrest those who issue unlawful orders. The issue is NOT with the facts, but with the sheeple-like weakness of human beings, at least at this point of the game.

            Argue for zero possible response for illegal war except Captain Smith continuing the War Crimes while asking a federal judge to someday get to the case when he was appointed by the same criminal president. If that’s your citizen response, you’re welcome to it. I won’t debate you on your best finding of how to respond. I will continue to remind you of the above facts for public consideration of how THEY best consider their responses.

          • Brockland A.T.

            So that’s your answer? Appeal to a mob you hope to stir up with cherry-picked amateur legal conclusions? Not address the complete spectrum of facts because they are beyond your intelligence?

            Crimes prosecuted as what? Infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies? Or an ad hoc category? Civil case or criminal? Nonjusticieable offenses aren’t particularly well defined. Perfect for corrupt politicians and officials.


            Its hard enough to get officials responsible for laws they do have on the books. They can legislate negligence into the system. On the bright side, they can also legislate accountability back into the system if The People know to demand it.


            Kellog-Briand never established an clear, effective enforcement mechanism. Neither did its successor articles in the UN Charter. Whole books have been written about Kellog-Briand. Not one signatory ever abolished its standing army and certainly the colonial powers didn’t give up colonial wars against natives.


            Nuremberg was a politicized travesty that never resulted in the U.S. establishing fair, clear, enforceable war crime laws let alone a domestic war crimes commission for domestic offenders. Quite the contrary, it established some nations could be exceptional.


            While an American Nuremberg in the image of the popular myth (as in, being genuinely accountable) is perhaps not achievable, the idea is out there.


            You don’t seem to recognize how incoherent you are; first you claim to ” have zero interest in debate, Bro; just to have the facts clear.”

            Then you say, “The issue is NOT with the facts, but with the sheeple-like weakness of human beings, at least at this point of the game.”

            You’re the one playing the sheeple with demagogic pretenses at leadership.

            At least real men and women in uniform are capable of thinking and learning. Ehrin Watada narrowly escaped court marshal for opposing participation in the Iraq war, doing his legal duty to disobey illegal orders. Unfortunately Watada’s service record will not adequately reflect his valuable service to his country.


            Captain Nathan Smith is buildig upon that seeking legal clarification of his orders; a far smarter move in retrospect, however it finally turns out.


            They can’t win on their own. People need to to understand and ask for fair laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws. Not arbitrary actions masquerading as justice while not solving the root problems of fancy laws with no teeth.

            Enlist in the service branch of your own choice and make your own arrests. If you’ve served before, your oath is still binding. Surely your extensive knowledge of the Uniformed Services Oath and the ‘arrest’ provisions no-one else can find is grounded in personal experience.

            But hey, unlike yourself I don’t pretend to know everything. Most everything I’ve presented is the work of better wiser minds. Go ahead Herman, make your arrests; maybe we’all missed something. Lead from the front for once and prove the pragmatic realists wrong.

            Otherwise, preying on popular legal ignorance and baiting uniformed servicepeople into unwise actions such as making unlawful arrests isn’t cool.

          • Carl_Herman

            Thank you for your advice on how to live my life.

            I’ll let people decide for themselves with the facts that US wars aren’t close to lawful, are connected with several other crimes such as treason, and that the public should demand lawful stop to these crimes. In addition, because there are no lawful orders for unlawful war, US military is Oath-bound to refuse all such orders, with officers specifically trained to arrest those who issue them.

            Argue more if you wish. I’ve made my points clear.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I thought I answered this…. You appear to be resorting to censoring my responses again, depriving people of the facts.

            To summarize, political questions are determined nonjudiciable by the courts.


            There is no way for solders and cops to make any arrests. There may be a way for soldiers to determine some wars are illegal if Captain Nathan Smiths lawsuit is successful.


            You are not an honest or fair person Mr. Herman, demanding of others sacrifices beyond what you would demand of yourself and censoring dissent.

          • Carl_Herman

            You present zero evidence of censored comments, while all available evidence shows tremendous allowance for your comments that include ad hominem and ongoing distortion of what I write, Bro. I do not censor comments, but will provide multiple warnings for outrageous ad hominem before blocking a commenter.

            You state that those who are Oath-sworn and tax-paid WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT to not uphold war law, torture law, treason, looting trillions, and likely a long list of other connected crimes.

            You state that I, a public school teacher, would only be honest or fair if I attempted citizen arrests.

            You close with unsubstantiated accusation that I censor dissent.

            All I ever do is good-faith professional work to make facts clear, then various interpretations clear, and finally policy positions clear. People can, and should, use such discourse to empower their own best holding of data and analysis.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I’ve seen posts disappear before, so if I check on a reply and it seems to have gone missing, past experience suggests less that I missed a reply (although not impossible) and more that it was moderated out of existence (sadly plausible).

            As for your points, again:

            “You state that those who are Oath-sworn and tax-paid WITHIN LAW
            ENFORCEMENT to not uphold war law, torture law, treason, looting
            trillions, and likely a long list of other connected crimes.”

            Answerable with: Soldiers and cops have no duty to make unlawful arrests and the suggestion that they do is oxymoronic literally and legally.



            Its not the fault of cops and soldiers that the courts consider some crimes nonjusticiable political questions.

            It is the fault of citizens that they do not demand fair laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws from the politicians – and the politicians and officials themselves for not making them voluntarily – so cops can better investigate and arrest wrongdoers and soldiers better fight enemies foreign and domestic.

            You said:

            “You state that I, a public school teacher, would only be honest or fair if I attempted citizen arrests.”

            Well, in terms of informal courtesy, it seems the natural fair reaction to someone advocating someone else do something incredibly stupid and unlawful is, “Do it yourself”. Cops and soldiers may be limited in what they can say publicly to your irrational demands but I’m not so limited.

            You said:

            “You close with unsubstantiated accusation that I censor dissent.”

            All I know is my posts have disappeared before so when I check on a reply at the top of the list and find it blank, the default assumption is the censor struck again. I did not follow usual protocol and fire off two repeat posts without accusation of censorship, but WB itself will know for sure if I erred.

            You said:

            “All I ever do is good-faith professional work to make facts clear, then
            various interpretations clear, and finally policy positions clear.
            People can, and should, use such discourse to empower their own best
            holding of data and analysis.”

            It took me only a very short time to discern the nonjusticiable offense, more properly called the Political Question Doctrine and its effect on formal determinations of what is or isn’t legal in the United States. Its in legal treatises and articles and on public information sites such as the Wiki and Federation of American Scientists.



            You don’t seem to recognize this vital, important, not-at-all secret or esotoric legal technicality recognized and subject to lively debate by serious accredited constitutional scholars. Its like you’ve never heard of it, or worse, don’t want to hear of it.

            The Political Question Doctrine has very serious legal implications for anyone taking you up your call for arrests – they would be unlawful arrests. You’ve made clear you would never attempt your own medicine on yourself.

            So if I seem a little outraged and offended, its only because I am. Very much. And so would and should anyone else who ever believed in what you and people like yourself had to say on the subject of illegal wars and constitutional law.

            People like you either don’t know what you are talking about, or are dishonesty hoping to bait someone into setting off a coup or revolt (that U.S. patriots would almost certainly lose) well before peaceful legal options are exhausted.

          • Carl_Herman

            Do we understand you correctly that you assert that zero, zip, zilch crimes associated with lie-started and unlawful Wars of Aggression, that include treason, taking public money with lying official testimony for unlawful acts, war-murders, DoD “losing” $6.5 trillion, and likely a few dozen other crimes can be prosecuted because all these related crimes are subject to political dictatorial decree of what does and does not fall under those laws?

            A shorter version: all arrests are impossible in any area of law dictatorially declared by .01% “leadership” when they say so, but are possible under their dictatorship in areas of their approval. Moreover, your solution is to go within that same system to work for “better laws.” True?

          • Brockland A.T.

            You again outright lie about my position and again conflate two separate problems as the same thing even after this has been pointed out to you at least twice now that this is fallacious reasoning and willfully misleading and deceptive.

            I have said repeatedly that U.S. illegal wars are illegal, a finding in agreement with many observers and blatantly obvious.

            However, such finding of illegality by myself and others is not found legally valid under U.S. courts of law because of the political question doctrine.


            A finding of illegal warring that lacks legal standing in U.S. law because its nonjusticiable means it can’t be used as grounds for an arrest.

            Therefore you are willfully wrong in calling for arrests because such arrests would be found unlawful and the arresting person(s) subject to serious legal consequences as a result of making a false arrest. Especially soldiers and cops, since this would be career-ending.

            If you think you are nonetheless correct, you and your true believers should go ahead and make such arrests yourselves and suffer the consequences you callously chickenhawk upon others. Who knows, there’s zero chance but you might get lucky.

          • Carl_Herman

            I refute your claim that I misrepresent your position: you state the question of illegal war cannot be prosecuted within the US legal system because those two treaties do not have enforcement within the US legal system. This said, you refuse to address what I’ve always written: there are multiple crimes associated with lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression that are fully within the US legal system.

            I so want to wrap this up: interested readers have abundant argument from both of us to consider our statements, Bro.

            Me: there are many crimes to demand arrests for, as explained and documented in this essay.

            You: these are all political questions. All such arrests are unlawful. We need clearer laws.

            My counterargument: You argue law is not law. You argue that whenever our .01% “leadership” dictatorially decree, law becomes a “political question” that allows them to do whatever they want while prosecuting We the People whenever they choose under law they claim is clear.

            Your counterargument: My asking Oath-sworn and tax-paid law enforcement to enact arrests is asking them to take illegal acts because all such associated crimes are political questions. I should try citizen arrest.

  • Homer

    “If you’re not demanding arrests, you don’t qualify to live in a constitutional republic”

    Go ahead Mr. Herman, practice what you preach and arrest Hillary Clinton on your own, you know where she is campaigning right now, so everybody in this blog will see that you are a “true patriot”…what are you waiting for? Perhaps afraid of acting alone? Short on cash to cover the expenses of arresting Hillary?

    Actions and no words please…you’ve been preaching for so long this bullshit…go ahead and face her, what do you have to lose?

    If not, you are just another coward who does nothing but posting bullshit.

    • Carl_Herman

      You offer a straw man argument, Homer. Here’s a quote from the essay you missed: “Ordinary Americans, 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 having the most important need for arrests.”

      What I assert is that Americans don’t qualify for freedom if they don’t demand arrests for OBVIOUS crimes. I’m not asking you to arrest anyone (unless that’s your TAX-SUPPORTED and OATH-SWORN job to uphold the law), but to be responsible enough to stop supporting lie-started Wars of Aggression and at least leverage your self-expression.

      Now that we’ve corrected your misrepresentation of my position, Homer: explain why Americans SHOULD NOT demand those with lawful authority to arrest those orchestrating unlawful Wars of Aggression.

      Your turn, patriot.

      • Brockland A.T.

        Coward. Arrest someone yourself ‘patriot’.

        You’re playing with words; in reality you expect some soldier or cop to throw away their career on a useless action not substantiated by standing practice of law.

        • Carl_Herman

          Thank you for arguing that military and law enforcement should NOT defend obvious crimes of treason, war-murders on US military and millions of civilians, DoD looting of trillions, lie-started illegal wars, lying to Congress and the public, etc.

          You won’t even speak that these are crimes requiring arrests.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Obvious to who? What if some of them think they are doing the right thing? Your call for arrests smack of arbitrary justice and revolt – but there is no point replacing one set of tyrants with flawed powers and understandings of law with another.

            A fair inquiry is needed, obviously, and findings placed before a grand jury. If those require more political will than is extant, then Captan Nathan Smith’s lawsuit looks like the best initiative going right now.




            America needs clear laws and enforceable laws, not the lawless arbitrary arrests you demand.

          • Carl_Herman

            Your argument is based on confusion if the wars are, or are not, legal. You ask for fair inquiry, and defense of ignorant actors in unlawful war (military are trained to refuse War Crime orders, but never on unlawful war), but all of this is from confusion in a case of current wars not even close to lawful.

            This contrasts with the crystal-clear letter and intent of war law: armed attacks are illegal unless under attack by another nation’s government.

            The law is already clear, violated over 200 times since WW2, and requires arrests to defend the millions killed and billions harmed.

            If you want more: summarize the two treaties that comprise war law, and explain how the current wars are lawful.

          • Brockland A.T.

            “No child left behind…” Sigh.

            Wiser heads have already pronounced on your Kellog-Briand Pact trump card; its still in force but it doesn’t matter because there is no enforcement mechanism. Still you insist I flog the dead horse of K-BP and the dying horse of the UN Charter.

            As I have been arguing, the law has a rather large loophole in that absent enforcement mechanism. There is no way to define a violation let alone determine a penalty.


            Since the Kellog-Briand prohibition of wars of aggression is enshrined in the UN Charter, Kellog-Briand is also redundant. K-BP is only still in effect because no-one has bothered to formally renounce the pretty words some might allege are freely violate anyway.

            The UN Charter is similarly toothless in Kellog-Briand’s fine traditon. Its left to the Security Council and particularly the permanent five with veto powers (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, to adjudicate as they see fit.

            Signatories to the UN Charter would also have to agree on a schedule of violations and remedies. For example, they might agree that agents of the ICC and/or national legal systems must act unilaterally to intervene upon such-and-such violation in such and such way. A treaty provision would then be made a legal issue, not a political issue, except its hard to see any nation truly surrendering national sovereignty even to doing wrong. Political issues are something officials optionally take seriously or turn a blind eye to.

            As a result, absurdities such as Tony Blair ducking a U.K. war crimes inqury for engineering the Iraq war, while British soldiers may be held liable for war crimes, can happen. The reason being, crimes committed by soldiers are clearly spelled out as prosecutable offenses. The difference is, Blair didn’t personally illegally kill, maim, or torture anyone even though he helped engineer the war. Indicting Blair for otherwise obvious war crimes may still be politically possible but absent that not legally save through civil court.



            The United States is also far behind Great Britain as far as war crimes accountability goes, legislatively and popularly.

            There needs to be clear laws and enforceable laws, not loopholes and lawless arrests and arrests pretending to be lawful.

          • Carl_Herman

            You continue to argue that law is not law, or not for everyone. That means it is not law. Your argument is one baseball team gets 3 outs, and a special one gets 4. That is not law, but its violation.

            Article 6 of the US Constitution makes treaties “supreme law,” the highest. The two treaties after two world wars is crystal-clear: no armed attacks unless under attack by another nation’s government.

            Want another law? How about treason: levying war upon the US (war-murdering US military by lying them into illegal Wars of Aggression qualifies).

            I’m not asking military and law enforcement to due what they’re Oath-sworn and tax-paid to do in obvious violations of our most important law.

          • Carl_Herman

            You continue to argue that law is not law, or not for everyone. That means it is not law. Your argument is one baseball team gets 3 outs, and a special one gets 4. That is not law, but its violation.

            Article 6 of the US Constitution makes treaties “supreme law,” the highest. The two treaties after two world wars is crystal-clear: no armed attacks unless under attack by another nation’s government.

            Want another law? How about treason: levying war upon the US (war-murdering US military by lying them into illegal Wars of Aggression qualifies).

            I’m not asking military and law enforcement to due what they’re Oath-sworn and tax-paid to do in obvious violations of our most important law.

          • Brockland A.T.

            No, I’m arguing the important fundamental laws we are contesting have serious adjudicative and enforcement loopholes and therefore cannot by themselves be held to mean what they should mean as legally binding laws.

            Where laws fail to be judiciable they become the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to resolve directly, or indirectly by plaintiffs with clever lawsuits. This is because the Judicial Branch may not formulate laws by ruling, even to plug gaps in the written code, because they are the Judicial Branch and not the Legislative Branch.

            American military and law enforcement personnel are not by individual or by group, judge, jury and executioner on American soil. They have not been given that power by the Constitution or by statute. Those oathed to the Constitution are bound to it in the abstract, and by legal statute in detail.

            No statute says they can make arrests of officials of their own volition and judgement outside existing statutes and standing jurisprudence covering interpretation of the Constitution or international treaty. They can risk disobeying a order they think is unlawful:


            “… However, here’s the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it’s not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it’s whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.”

            They can go to court Captain Nathan Smith has done over the War Powers Resolution:




            However they can’t make the arrests you believe they can because those arrests would be unlawful. Join the military and try it yourself, but you have no right to make irrational demands of others.

            Its primarily up to legistlators to plug loopholes in laws and give those laws teeth. Its the duty of The People to understand what needs to be done and demand it:

            Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.

            Trump 2016.

          • Carl_Herman

            Let’s start with this, as I’ve asked below: please summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

            After that, then state if current US wars are, or are not legal by pointing to the law.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I’ve already stated the laws as written indicate America’s present wars may be illegal. My own conclusion is that they are. There’s also no easy way to make such a conclusion legally binding the way the laws are written, and unlike yourself, I do not consider my word to be absolute faultless and binding law.

            There is the chance that Captain Nathan Smith’s War Powers Resolution lawsuit can have the U.S. war against IS war deemed illegal, validating presently non-standing assumptions and conclusions that it is.

            I’m not going do do all the work thinking for you Herman. If you haven’t got two cents to rub together that’s not my problem any more than it has to be, keeping you from willfully misleading others.

            Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.

            Trump 2016.

          • Carl_Herman

            You dodge the question, Bro, so again: please summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

            And please; you say “I’m not going to do all the work thinking for you, Herman”: I teach college-level courses on government and law, have done peer-reviewed work on war law, and am giving exactly what I present to international academic conferences. Colleagues and I working on this topic have never encountered any attempt to refute what I’m informing you about the law, and we’ve never found any written work that points to the law with argument as, “This is what war law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f).” That is, professionals and academics we’ve encountered agree that this law is well-written to be crystal-clear in letter and intent; stating what MUST be done to be lawful, and what can NEVER be done because it’s unlawful.

            This is the problem: “No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~ President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

            If you summarize war law, perhaps this will settle the issue. Please do so; it will take you one or two sentences. Need help? Try here:

            To conclude with my request to be absolutely clear: please summarize what the law states in the two treaties for lawful and unlawful war.

          • Brockland A.T.

            I’m not dodging the question. In fact I’ve answered it several times over. You seem to want something more specific; so you tell me what you want to hear.

            In the meantime, you’re advocating unlawful arrests to deal with a problem of non-judiciable offenses which while illegal, are not enforceable by law but by executive or legislative level action.

            The non-judiciable offense is in the pattern of a classic legal loophole; make a law and find ways not to enforce it.

          • Carl_Herman

            Then what is your answer? You say “Wars of Aggression” are illegal, but what does that mean in clarity of stop sign law, or when a baseball pitch is or is not a strike.

          • Brockland A.T.

            … I said, demand of legislators and the executive from The People themselves, fair laws, clear laws, and enforceable laws.

            The stop sign law is not the best example; California cops aren’t actually obligated to enforce that law. They can turn a blind eye if they want to (and their superiors agree, if found out).


            Nonetheless, this highlights the problem. There is far too much discretionary power built into the law enforcement system, where it exists at all.

            The cover-ass legislators build for themselves into the system has to be dismantled.

            The laws are enforceable at the discretion of officials. While its sure nice to have a cop buddy who will blind-eye a traffic indiscretion, its even nicer to be a warmonger and have an elected politician buddy who won’t enforce the Constitution and the various treaties that are the ‘fundamental law of the land’.

            The only answer is to require laws be enforced by statute, in reversal of the direction politicians have taken to make laws saying laws don’t have to be enforced or are nonjudiciable.

            For example, if you want to arrest people for illegal wars, you’re going to need laws saying when and how the requirement for arrest is met and how the arrest can be made. Until then, you’re wasting everyone’s time on empty rhetoric that will solve nothing but add to America’s growing sense of legal ignorance and anarchy.

          • Carl_Herman

            You miss the question, Bro: when is armed attack on another nation legal?

          • Brockland A.T.

            Actually, you’re the one dodging the questions frantically trying to move goalposts into areas you think I can’t cover or till I finally make a mistake. Its not considered particularly honest, btw.


            Again, no meaningful enforcement mechanism covering the Kellog-Briand/UN Charter renders your calls for arrests stupid, because arrests sans meaningful charges to follow are unlawful.

            Armed attack on another nation is legal in self defense. As it always has been. Its even possible to engage in pre-emptive war. Being able to game self defense is the basis of much of the propaganda in support of wars of aggression.

            The lack of clear and binding legal arbitration of self-defense claims and response is a problem only resolvable internally by individual nations who choose to police themselves to a high standard.


            “Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens (literally: “compelling law”, in practice: “higher international law”), and prohibits all UN members from exercising “the threat or use
            of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
            any state”. But in the modern framework of the UN Charter, it is the
            phrase “armed attack occurs” in Article 51[41] that draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force.[31]
            From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet
            occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive ‘self-defense’
            has yet been made ‘legal’ under the UN Charter. In order to be justified
            as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are
            widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these
            is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to
            (merely) perceived. The second condition is that the force used in
            self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is
            threatened. When it comes to a situation where an armed attack is
            considered as a self-defense, it usually narrows realistic options for
            avoidance by nonviolent means such as negotiation, retreat, or calling
            upon higher authorities (such as the police or the UN)”

            Any nation subject to armed attack or imminent armed attack has the right to self-defense. The UN Charter supercedes Kellog-Briand insofar as war is no longer renounced. They just don’t call war, war outright.


            CHAPTER VII

            4) Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the
            existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of
            aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall
            be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
            international peace and security.

            Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not
            involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to
            its decisions …..

            Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that
            measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved
            to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as
            may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
            security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other
            operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.

            It also had been argued, in the buildup to Iraq War II, that Saddam could have legally launched a pre-emptive strike against American staging areas in Saudi Arabia and at sea to try and stop an obvious imminent threat to invade. Of course, no conventionally armed nation is willing to strike at a nuclear-armed one in such a way that leaves only nukes on the table.

            The U.S. has been particularly abusive of the right to armed self defense.


            Again, your immature understanding of international law as it is actually practiced is grating to have to debate.

            Only the American People can stop the American war machine. If the Russians and Chinese do so, their only recourse is nuclear war because after American neocons expend conventional options in defeat, all that’s left is to also lose a nuclear war.

            Only the American People can put in place the presently absent legal framework to enforce international war law upon themselves.

            Calling for arbitrary unlawful arrests as you are doing, throws out rule of law.

          • Carl_Herman

            Ok, so the US current wars are not legal, yes? If not, please explain in clear language like, “War law is (a, b, c) so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).”

          • Brockland A.T.

            What is it you don’t understand about the nonjudiciable offense loophole?

            The formal and binding determination of whether U.S. laws are illegal is up to the officials. Its built into the legal system that some illegal acts are political questions, not judicial.


            You’re clearly dodging the problem of there being no enforcement mechanism for illegal wars save through the political process.

            If you want arrests for illegal wars, you need to have the legislators legislate that into being. Presently no-one outside the highest levels of the executive and judicial branches can make binding demands for war crimes determinations and subsequent arrests.

          • Carl_Herman

            We’re done here then: your position is that war law is not actual law, but an empty language meant to conform to whatever dictatorial position our leaders choose.

            While you’re welcome to that conclusion, this is my full response contrasting that position with what it would look like for traffic law, baseball rules, and your child taking out the trash:

    • DiveshopinGoa

      It is pretty simple Homer. This is a call to all those who have legal authority to arrest. Almost all of them have taken an oath to protect and preserve. So they are already in a bind when they see what is happening to our country and its people. Its about intelligence to know what is happening, being in a position to act and having the courage to do so. When they do find the courage I need to be prepared to gather all I can and back them up.

    • Jocanda
    • Brockland A.T.


    • Silverado

      Why are you here again?? You need to pack up and head over to your other hangout at The Hill where the posters would be more to your…idiotic left wing political liking.

  • War Is A Racket

    There’s only one party in the USA and that’s the Big Business Party. The USA is a Plutocracy. Western society is controlled by a global Plutocracy. The UN, despite including many countries that are Communist or Dictatorships, is still mostly a puppet organization that more often than not is easily manipulated by the Western Plutocracy.