Martial Law Trumps The Constitution
by Bridget Geegan Blanton
Imagine a world where public endorsement for the Constitution was unlawful and resulted in the classification of the supporter as a rogue citizen. It sounds more like a premise for a movie script, than a possibility in real life. A scenario such as this is difficult to envision in present day America. Total suspension of the Constitution would be a necessary foundation for such a radical, new world order. Subversion of the Constitution could be achieved incrementally through broadening the power and scope of government or more swiftly through martial law. Plausible evidence of both tactics already exist within our republic.
Personal responsibility has been an integral element of the American character as long as this republic has existed. Americans took responsibility for their own economic, social and spiritual well being while espousing a belief in limiting the power of government. To this day, an essential component of defending our freedom has been the right to hold and bear arms.
In midst of the civic breakdown that occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, looting and criminal activity was rampant and unrestrained. Patrols organized by New Orleans residents with legal firearms served their fellow citizens by defending neighborhoods in midst of the civil unrest. The local government failed at protecting residents from widespread criminal activity and went on to obstruct residents from defending themselves.
Mayor Ray Nagin authorized the New Orleans Police Dept. and the National Guard to break into homes, if necessary, in order to confiscate legal firearms from residents while carrying out eviction orders. Nagin possessed a limited legal authority to mandate an evacuation order, but he transcended this authority when sanctioning law enforcement officials to confiscate legal firearms.
Consider the 'Veterans Disarmament Act' (HR 2640), a piece of legislation that would result in an expansion of the definition of persons prohibited from owning firearms. Proponents of the bill claim that it protects society by opening up channels of communication between state and federal agencies regarding an information exchange on mentally deficient persons.
Legislators are further induced to support this bill as it proposes to give Veterans a chance to remove their names from a prohibited persons list of 90,000 names in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). These names were unlawfully added during the Clinton administration, the most anti-gun administration in our nation's history.
The NRA has lent its support to HR 2640 while many of its members denounce the bill as an expansion of the 1993 Brady Law. Detractors point to a tyrannical aspect of the bill that concedes all power to a one-time labeling of a person as 'prohibited' by a single health representative. Proponents of the bill responded by stating that the determination of a person as 'prohibited' could only be issued by a court of law. This is no consolation when considering that an activist judiciary is more interested in legislating from the bench than dispensing justice.
Other voices have revealed an 'under the table' HR 2640 development, claiming that Remington, Winchester, and Federal cartridge will cease selling ammunition to the general public. At present, the major players have lent legitimacy to the controversy by failing to issue a public statement disclaiming this alleged policy.
HR 2640 is rife with contradictions and it is no surprise that the bill is currently languishing in the Senate. Whereas politicians armed with punitive legislation aimed at responsible gun owners pose a threat against Second Amendment rights; a government-organized firearm confiscation is far more troubling.
A disarmed and dependent citizen would be the ideal inhabitant in the new world order. Dependency, like disarmament can be achieved legislatively. Domestic economic policy hovers at the precipice of irrevocable federal entitlements that will exchange liberty for dependency. The number of Americans dependent on government services has outpaced the number of working Americans paying taxes to support the welfare state. The abandonment of personal responsibility on behalf of entitlement-demanding Americans has nothing to do with the needy among us. A safety net for the needy will always exist.
Today, Americans dependent on government benefits include middle class and upper middle class households. Politicians know that entitlements translate into votes and thus, they possess scant self-restraint when it comes to limiting governmental interference in our lives. In face of an ever-increasing rate of federal entitlements, the government continues to regulate and tax business to such an extent that corporations are forced to take their headquarters overseas along with jobs formerly held by Americans. The irresponsible economic policy sponsored by Congress threatens our viability and our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Political power and self-preservation are among the motivating factors behind the endless stream of stealth Amnesty Bills. The massive influx of an uneducated, government-dependent, illegal work force is like a puzzle piece that fits perfectly into the overall plan to expand the scope and power of government. Oppressive taxation on the few continues to rise, while more Americans abandon personal responsibility and the government shifts the cost of services for an illegal workforce onto the taxpayer.
Enemies of the Constitution within our own unprotected borders are working tirelessly to dismantle the protective measures that guarantee our freedom. In fact, circumventing the Constitution is the modus operandi of the secular progressive agenda fanatically endorsed by the ACLU and an activist judiciary. It is clear that our rights and our religious heritage are at risk. Judicial activists are in league with the ACLU and together, they work at super legislating from the bench by overturning Acts of Congress while arrogantly ignoring laws that block the institution of their radicalized agenda.
In October of 2006, changes to a legal principle dating back over 200 years were made by the Bush administration empowering the president to institute martial law under 'The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007'. The 'Posse Comitatus Act', a law passed in 1878, prohibited the use of regular military forces within U.S. borders to intervene in domestic affairs. It was a legal barrier that prevented an abrupt revocation of the Constitutional rights of a domestic U.S. citizenry, through the use of armed forces by the U.S. government. Changes made by the Bush administration effectively modify the primary exceptions to the 'Posse Comitatus Act'. These exceptions known as the 'Insurrection Act of 1807' permitted the president to call on the military only in cases of insurrection or "rebellion against the authority of the United States".
The unrestrained, executive power to declare martial law now exists without the former protection of legal barriers. In 2002, prior to the ominous changes made to the 'Posse Comitatus Act', the government gave the U.S. Military an operational command inside the United States known as U.S. Northern Command, (USNORTHCOM). USNORTHCOM has developed battle plans for martial law contained in a secret document, 'CONPLAN 2005' (source: Washington Post). It lays out 15 separate scenarios that would be ripe for the deployment of forces on a martial law mission.
USNORTHCOM recently announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise referred to as 'Vigilant Shield 08'. This exercise sponsored by the Dept. of Homeland Security, (DHS) will begin on October 15, 2007, and will run for 5 days, in Arizona, Oregon and the Territory of Guam. Whereas USNORTHCOM refers to the exercise as "terrorism preparedness", critics say that it's a practice run for the implementation of martial law.
High-ranking members of the military point to a possible terrorist attack on American soil as the crucial reasoning behind preparation for martial law, detention centers, and massive social restructuring plans. This extreme departure from the Constitution suggests more than "terrorism preparedness". The entire premise as put forth by the government is questionable when considering that no move has been made by the administration to seal the borders, our first line of defense.
Are we on deliberate course for a new world order? If so, can the trajectory be reversed? At the very least, there is no doubt that our country is at a crossroads. The Constitution is under attack from every direction. We dare not let this moment pass unanswered. We, as Americans must stand up to big government and redirect the power away from the unaccountable ruling class and back to the people.
Whispers on the Wind
by Bridget Geegan Blanton