To further understand the implications, of why our armed forces are doing training exercises in populated areas which will eventually lead to martial
law / Civil War, some points to keep in mind.
1. The military holds these exercises to help prepare for current zones of conflict; true. but so does their training facilities specifically
designed for such activities.
2. As a strike against these training exercises, one must understand that they are illegal, as defined by the United States government Link one) what
is being done because of this (link two) and what the military's wording as as to their deployment (link three).
3. Congress, it seems, is already preparing / prepared, for a martial law, as can be seen in these two videos, taking one after another.
And this congressman went went on CNN to announce the fact (the video can be seen near the bottom of the article)
4. These articles address the stationing of active troops in populated areas, under the guise of training for the sole purpose of taking care of
"civil unrest and disobedience". Not of foreign citizens... but our own.
5. Hints of Hitler. Okay, that might be taking things a little bit too far, comparing this administration with the Nazi Party during the 1930s.
After all, nothing in our current situation even fits that scenario... unless you look at unemployment rates and economic levels. Oh yeah, let's not
forget the mentality the nation has against Muslims and Arabs, and how we have all these citizen spy measures AGAINST our own. Nope, no Nazi
Illegal Search and Siezures
Illegal phone and email taps
Concentration Camps (but not the ones on the news)
Ban on Guns
* * *
All the key's are there to initiate martial law; you have armed troops training to keep it's citizens under control, and we have a situation where
civil discontent is quite evident (look at the economy). If things continue to spiral as they are, things will only get worse; this is only common
sense. If things become worse, the government will have no other choice but to enact a state of martial law for the good of it's citizens; this has
been done throughout history... this isn't imagined, it actually happens.
Now, we have talk about states willing to become independent nations. Oops, sorry, that would be succeeding from the country... What I meant was
states are willing to become sovereign entities; now, before I begin, what does being sovereign mean?
As taken from wiki:
A sovereign power (whether an individual or an assembly such as a parliament) has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control
everything and every kind of activity in its territory. This means that it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by
custom, and no areas of law or behaviour are reserved as being outside its control; for example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some
matters in the upbringing of their children independently of the sovereign power, municipalities are not guaranteed freedom from its interference in
some local matters, etc. Theorists have diverged over the necessity or desirability of absoluteness. Historically, it is doubtful whether a sovereign
power has ever claimed complete absoluteness, let alone had the power to actually enforce it. This last point raises, in passing, the important
distinction between de jure and de facto sovereignty. De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over
one's subjects. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:
1. Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty
called coercive sovereignty exists.)
2. Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?
Another distinction is between external and internal sovereignty. External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and
political bodies outside itself, such as other nation states. The central question is, under what conditions do nation states recognizes a political
entity as having sovereignty over some territory? The following criteria, used by Britain in regarding other powers, are typical:
"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in
that country is a foreign sovereign state.
(The Arantzazu Mendi,  A.C. 256)
To put it in historical context, the Colonies demanded being sovereign against the British, Hong Kong is sovereign against China, and, of course,
Warsaw Pact nations proclaiming their sovereignty against Russia. Now then, here is a listing of some states declaring their intent to become
Possibly: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Illinois.
These states are also declaring that they will withdraw their own armed forces from US duty, and returning them to their own states. In essence,
creating their own independent standing army to reinforce / enforce their action of becoming sovereign. The last time this happened?
Lastly, the common citizen. Are we being led like sheep? As a nation, yes. We are being fed news from a common source, controlled or at least
censored by the government; how many times have you heard about ANY of the above information? And yet, they are all from recognized news sources; I
haven't even included information from outside the mainstream so that this line of discussion appears more "accepted". Individually? No, we
aren't being blindly led; everyone on this mailing, I hope, has enough brains and sense to see what is happening. Taken apart, if one were to just
take one bit of news, then everything looks fine and normal... but when you start putting those puzzle pieces together, then you can begin to see
what the overall picture looks like.
And I'm not alone. Go on any weapons manufacturer website, more specifically for those dealing with AR15s (the new militia weapon of choice), and
you will see a common occurrence... months and months of back log due to heavy demands.