posted on Feb, 8 2003 @ 09:36 PM
U-P, let me help you with the martial law idea. I think this will make sense to you.
OK, first off, let's understand that the government makes nothing. The government is good for only spending money, not making it. Our government is
also very inefficient, as most are, so you would not want them controlling industry, and the people that are behind the power, the "Agenda" as I
like to call them, know this as well. Were the government to take over the country, control everything from food production to basic necessities,
this nation would be naked and starving in no time.
Now, let's look at it from a different perspective. I've covered this a few times in the last couple years, but it is well worth doing again so
people will understand what is really happening and how it makes sense.
This nation was created to be a republic, not a democracy. There is a great difference between the two. The people, and the individual states were
to have much more autonomy than what we now enjoy. This was to the detriment of certain groups, however, such as the lawyers, "Esquires", that were
never meant to be a part of the nation, and bankers. Then acame the dreaded day when our government desolved. The best way to destroy a form of
government our forefathers made for us is for the government not to show up. That happened. When Lincoln was elected president, the southern members
of congress didn't show up (like morons), and the northern folk figured there was no use in hanging out if there weren't enopugh folks there, so we
had what is called Sine Die. Our legislative government adjorned without another day being chosen at which to meet, so the sun set on what the
Founding Fathers created. The southern legislators were taking a stand for state's rights, and in the process, destroyed all hope.
Lincoln basically became king. This is not what he wanted, but this is what was dropped in his lap. There was no Civil War, but a police action,
Lincoln was trying to quash a rebellion. Martial law was enacted.
Now, the interesting part. There are three ways, according to the Laws of Nations, to revoke martial law.
The implementing commander rescinds it, an invading sovereign nation conquers and rescinds it, or the people of the nation rise up take back the
nation and rescinds it. Neither three have happened. Lincoln intended to do that, but he was killed before he could do it.
As time passes, the troops aren't seen in the streets, but the constitution isn't really as important as one might think it should be, and
statutes are enforced upon those who should be above them. Hos is that possible?
There is a word, or two, actually, for the situation we now find ourselves in. That is martial rule. You don't see "Troops" in the street,
but you do see "police officers" where there should be "peace officers". You see a maritime flag in the courts where the flag of peace should be
displayed (a flag sets jurisdiction, and determines what laws or statutes apply), and the, what once was "sovereign men of the land", U.S. citizens
pay large amounts of taxes that they aren't supposed to pay in order to support programs and rip-offs that are not constitutional.
The government is in a position that I can't see a way of bettering; we work, feel the need to obey statutes and regulations that should not apply,
and pay large sums of our earned cash to the government so that they might throw it away as they see fit. On top of that, we rent paper money from
the "Federal Reserve", paying even more of our money to those in power.
To ratchet up from martial rule to martial law would not beprofitable for those in power.
Does this makes sense to you?