“The War on Terror”


“Terrorism” Defined

The very first definition of “terrorism” in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary as well as The Oxford English Dictionary: namely, that “terrorism” is “government by *** intimidation”. Observe most carefully—not simply “intimidation” by just anyone at all and for whatever reason, but specifically “government by intimidation” that is a political phenomenon in which “the rulers” pit themselves against “the ruled”.

“The War on Terror”: Rationalization by Rogue Government Officials to Ignore the Constitution

The magic words in the recitative of this officially orchestrated opera buffa of mass paranoia are “wage war”, because interarmes silent leges (in the midst of armsi.e., in time of war—the laws are silent). On the excuse of “war”, almost any enormity can be rationalized any legal, political, or even moral scruples disregarded. ”The war on terrorism”—being waged apparently forever, on battlefields both foreign and domestic—provides the perfect example of an artificial “war” against a fictitious “fear”. As former President George W. Bush declared, “freedom and fear are at war in this country” (footnote 1)The ultimate purpose of “the war on terrorism” though, is not to wage a “war” against “fear” generated by foreigners, but instead to deploy “fear” of foreigners as a weapon of “war” against Americans. Rogue officials stir up the “fear” of “terrorism”. With “terrorism” as their excuse they arrogate new “war powers” to themselves. With these war powers, they then actually terrorize their own citizenry on the pretense of fighting “terrorism”. They go so far as to invent the new category called “domestic terrorists” or “home grown terrorists” in order to induce some Americans to fear others and clamor for the “homeland security” apparatus to clamp down on them. Thus the “fear” of “terrorism” never abates, and can never wain, because it is the product of rogue officialdom’s rule: namely, ‘a mode of government by *** intimidation of its own citizens”. (footnote 2) So, not surprisingly, the topsy-turvy world of contemporary political propaganda, the groups which rogue officials most vociferously calumniate as “domestiic terrorists” or “home grown terrorists” consist of the constitutionalists and other patriots who are trying to warn their own countrymen of precisely the dangers those very officials pose. These Americans are defamed as “terrorists” by actual “terrorists” because they speak out against those “terrorists”. Meanwhile, official “terrorism” continues to expand and intensify, aiming inexorably at full blown tyranny. Once it reaches that point, common Americans will really have something to monstrous to fear—namely the domestic police-state apparatus lowering over them; but they will be unable to wage their own “war on terrorism” (that is, a war of self-defense) against it. (footnote 3)

The purported power to mislabel some activity as ‘war’ by rogue government officials.

This power was concocted in order to rationalize application of the so-called “law of war” to American citizens, and thereby deny them a wide range of constitutional protections. Today, “the war on terrorism” is the primary semantic dodge which serves this devious purpose. At some point in the future, though, the authors of “the war on terrorism” may realize that they can exponentially expand the ambit of their deceit by linking that “war” with “the war on drugs” in particular and even “the war on crime” in general. For, as everyone knows, “terrorists” are often involved with the worldwide traffic in illicit drugs and with the syndicates of “organized crime” which control it. So, with the application of only a dollop of verbal grease, every domestic as well as international criminal enterprise, along with every individual allegedly connected therewith, could be shoe-horned into “the war on terrorism” as targets. In light of the breadth of the concept of “racketeering” under American law, (footnote 1) if anyone alleged to be engaged in crimes that fell within that statutory rubric could be denounced as some species of “terrorist”, and thereby automatically stripped of all constitutional protections, the possibilities for a para-military police state to run roughshod over this entire country could become truly breathtaking. This is far more than a far-fetched possibility. For all “racketeering” could just as easily be defined as a species of “terrorism” as “acts of terrorism” have already been defined as “racketeering”. (footnote 2) Indeed, inasmuch as common political parlance treats as legitimate discourse the terms “the war on poverty”, “the war on overpopulation”, “the war on illiteracy”, and even “the war on obesity”, the so-called “law of war” could invade the entire domain of economic, social, and other “welfare” legislation, rationalizing the erection of a para-military socialistic or communistic police state. (footnote 3)


1.) See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962.

2.) See An Act To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes (“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001”), Act of 26 October 2001, Pub. L. 107-56, TITLE VIII—STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM, § 813, 115 Stat. 272, 382, incorporating acts listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) (defining “Federal crime of terrorism”) into 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (defining “predicate acts” that constitute “racketeering”).

3.) The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, Front Royal, Virginia CD ROM Edition 2012, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 1571.

The process of executing the purported ‘war on terror’ has nothing to do with the ‘consent of the governed’.

Self-evidently, the process of executing “the war on terror” has nothing to do with the consent of the governed”. (footnote 1) Common Americans were never asked whether they needed or wanted to prosecute an interminable and unwinnable “war on terrorism” at home as well as overseas—at any cost, let alone the permanent cost of their own liberties. (footnote 2) Rogue officials simply announced “the war on terrorism”, and on the basis of the typical tyrant’s threat “[e]ither you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” demanded that common Americans acquiesce in it. (footnote 3) Professional panic-mongers then put forward hysterical demands for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given * * * if [the United States] were in fact invaded by a foreign foe”. (footnote 4) And common Americans were never asked whether they approved of such “broad Executive power”, either. But how could they have been asked inasmuch as essentially all of the novel powers cobbled together on account of “the war on terrorism” are patently “unjust powers” which no people may rightfully delegate to any government even with “the consent of the governed”? (footnote 5)


1.) Declaration of Independence.

2.) By analogy, the admonitions issued by Robert M, Hutchins concerning Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vulpine push for America’s entry into World War II still resonate today. See radio address of 21 January 1941, “America and the War”, reprinted in the Annals of America, Volume 16, 1940-1949, The Second World War and After (Chicago, Illinois; Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. 1976), at 66.

3.) The aspiring tyrant in this case being George W, Bush. See address 20 September2001, ante note 4. Bush would have been more accurate then, and prescient as well, had he said “if you are with us you are with the terrorists”. For his administration and the Obama régime which followed it have inflicted upon this country more true “terrorism”—in the sense of government by * * * intimidation”—than all of the “terrorists” throughout the rest of the world could ever have imagined, let alone accomplished.

4.) Iannugural Address (4 March 1933), reprinted in The Public Papers Address Of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two, The Year of Crisis, 1933 (New York, New York: Random House, 1935), at 11.

5.) Compare Declaration of Independence (“Governments * * * deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed”) with U.S. Const. preamble (“WE THE PEOPLE * * * in Order to * * * establish Justice * * * do ordain and establish this Constitution”).

The political value of “the war on terrorism” is precisely that, in the nature of things, it will never end. And as long as it drags on, a rationalization will subsist for rogue public officials to ignore the Constitution with respect to any and every American to whom they can attach some label which links him, howsoever tenuously, to “terrorism”. (footnote 4)

The “fear” of “terrorism” never abates, and can never wain, because it is the product of rogue officialdom’s rule: namely, ‘a mode of government by *** intimidation of its own citizens’. (footnote 5)


1.) Address of 2001.

2.) Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield Massachusetts: G & C Merriam Company, 1913. (emphasis supplied).

3.) By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of Martial Law, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Bookmasters Inc., Ashland, Ohio (2014), page 42.

4.) The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, Front Royal, Virginia CD ROM Edition 2012, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 1572.

5.) Id. at 3.