In the name of protection and moral compassion, the government falsely asserted its authority to ensure information and public discourse were closely monitored and controlled. Recent history, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has revealed the alarming erosion of our constitutional rights. They are increasingly subject to the whims and discretion of an overreaching government. Mandates were unilaterally imposed without proper public oversight, setting a dangerous precedent that threatens our individual freedoms and undermines the principles of limited government.
COVID-19 set the stage for the final assault on our freedoms. The government demonstrated its ability to exert control over the entire United States based on unsubstantiated medical claims of a catastrophic extinction-level disease that supposedly threatened the very existence of humanity.
The COVID-19 pandemic powerfully highlighted the false narrative generated by the government, which portrayed a relatively low risk to our overall survival. However, this portrayal was far from the truth. It served as a wake-up call for those who recognized the imminent threat of authoritarian controls in America, despite being dismissed by others as mere conspiracy theories. Our sacred constitutional rights, once believed to be unassailable, were tragically compromised in the name of "public health and safety."
Recent international events, such as the Ukraine crisis, did not receive the strong conservative backing required for direct intervention. Yet, when it comes to Israel, it is crucial to prioritize the preservation of Western culture. The alarming issue at hand is the deliberate erasure of our cultural heritage, the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens, and the undeniable clash between Islamic ideology and the cherished values of the Western world.
America is witnessing the collapse of societies across the world. Now, martial law is being installed in many countries, and soon, it may happen here in America. For martial law to be effectively installed in America, a major catastrophe must occur – a kind of '9/11 on steroids.' It is then liberal socialists will rise and falsely claim the American people must be protected, and demand martial law, and now!
It is during such times when martial law is installed America will enter into a national slave state, giving up freedom for the illusion of safety. In reality, it will be nothing more than a power grab, leading to government-installed serfdom.
When a major catastrophe occurs in addition to the detrimental consequences of excessive government intervention in the economy, the alarming rise of inflation amid economic stagnation, escalating rates of violent crime, and lax border security, this combination creates a perfect storm for liberals to implement martial law.
Mark my words!
The implementation of martial law is a draconian and dangerous measure to maintain law and order in times of crisis. While liberal socialists may claim these measures are temporary and aimed at safeguarding our nation from external threats, this can often be a misleading promise.
Final Word: the lesson here is crystal clear: during times of crisis, safeguarding our constitutional rights becomes absolutely crucial. The preservation of our liberties hinges on our steadfast dedication to America's fundamental values. However, America is in for a very challenging period in history. Buckle up!
Replies
Hey Steve, you used the term: 'national slave state' thats what we got now! Those SOB's are even trying to take away our kitchen stoves, lawn mowers and water heaters! When are we going to take away their stuff?
When hell frezzes over!
No Constitutional Authority exists for any government entity to suspend civil rights, freedoms, and liberties, except the explicitly mentioned privilege of Habeas Corpus, and only under conditions of invasion or insurrection.
Like the Covid medical farce that was re-attempted a few weeks ago but failed, attempted martial law imposition must be met with mass rejection and even civil disobedience, if necessary.
So, you are against QUARANTEENS for epidemics, police curfews, and riot control measures... government restrictions on liberty or freedom to discourage and control incitement, riot, or violence... and on and on.
I might suggest you are simply ignorant and need to reconsider your position on martial law and other reasonable government restraints on liberty to promote security and restrain violence and other dangerous criminal conduct...
However, you could actually believe the government should not exercise reasonable limits on liberty and personal freedom... during war, insurrection, riot, fire, or epidemics, in the pursuit of the public's security, safety, health, and property concerns.
The government's limits on Liberty, freedom, and the public's safety, security, health, and property issues are not mutually exclusive of liberty and freedom. Some temporary limits or reasonable expectations demand government action to limit ABSOLUTE autonomy concerning liberty and freedom...
"So, you are against QUARANTEENS for epidemics, police curfews, and riot control measures... government restrictions on liberty or freedom to discourage and control incitement, riot, or violence... and on and on. "
My federal servant may advise me as to the conditional risks in my private life and property involved, surely. Publically, I am bound to observe and respect bonifide civil authority. A state civil interdiction (a form of arrest) in my undertaking of good old life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be grounded in a surety, and not half-baked speculations, as Covid was. For example, the surety of what happens if you step off a 100 foot cliff serves.
I might suggest you are simply ignorant and need to reconsider your position on martial law and other reasonable government restraints on liberty to promote security and restrain violence and other dangerous criminal conduct...
Alas, we are all prone to the thorns and stumbling stones in life, as we proceed from perfect ignorance towards perfect knowledge, an occupational hazard in the continuum of life resulting in death. You will perhaps bear with me?
However, you could actually believe the government should not exercise reasonable limits on liberty and personal freedom... during war, insurrection, riot, fire, or epidemics, in the pursuit of the public's security, safety, health, and property concerns.
And there is the rub. Just what constitutes (no pun intended) "reasonable" from "unreasonable" in context of our untrustworthy servants actions, is a topic fit for volumes (codified even!). But none of it may contradict the Nations Constitution, but rather to be grounded in it. The optimistic assumptions of John Locke about human nature are favored by me. I am begging you, please be tolerant. I am struck with a bout of libertarianism that just won't be shaken.
The government's limits on Liberty, freedom, and the public's safety, security, health, and property issues are not mutually exclusive of liberty and freedom. Some temporary limits or reasonable expectations demand government action to limit ABSOLUTE autonomy concerning liberty and freedom...
And there poses a pretty puzzle. By what effective regulation shall the state be restrained to take limits and with least injury to the People, a government whose whole purpose in the Peoples consented service is to promote their undertaking of life, liberty, and (you know the rest)? I assert that collective authorities' nature is: clumsy, stubborn, lazy to take the course of least resistance, and self-justified. It seems fine as a wrecking ball, but not with my life and my civil liberties. Perhaps my prudent self-interest in survival should be enough guidance for me?I am guided by the precept that the World owes no one a living. How do you value yours?
Agreed
Congress can call to END MARTIAL LAW at any time it likes... By using a Joint Resoluiton conveying the sense of the Congress regarding specific issues in law... such resolutions do not require the President's signature and may require Federal Court action to enforce... If the administration refuses to abide by it voluntarily.
For More on the use of Congressional Resolutions to govern see:
Bills & Resolutions | house.gov
"and may require Federal Court action to enforce... If the administration refuses to abide by it voluntarily. "
So the Judiciary, being limited to an evaluative function, must entice an Executive organ (probably U.S. Marshals) to enforce a rendering upon the Chief Executive?
Our governments machinations never cease to amaze me, when certain actors in it insist on behaving unconstitutionally.
Our Constitution was made for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS PEOPLE... and is wholy unfit to govern any other. Our forefathers were a people who were morally attuned to obey the law, their leadership was honorable; being administered by righteous men who honored the law.
Without moral and honorable leadership, unconstitutional acts run rampant in the Government... Our Constitution is failing to operate due to its IMMORAL interpretation and unjust administration. The People are the problem, not the Constitution.
You see my point (being somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Thank you!
The absurdities would cease manifesting if the actors in government, and even the whole of our society,
would be less self-absorbed in opportunism, and more diligent in conducting themselves in action to the greater good of all.
That is how this Nation first set foot on the Moon, a unique accomplishment and dream of past civilizations.
(OOPS! There I go flashing my awkward streak of ethics!)
By the bye, due to involved personal issues, I failed to notice the passing of Mark Goddard on the 15th of this month, a loss as a reminder of perhaps greater times for this Nation.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next