posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:10 PM
Here is how I see it.
The United Territories of Washington D.C. is at a point that only a drastic change could influence anything. We assume, from the evidence collected,
that they are planning Martial law. I believe this is inevitable due to the fact that it only takes ONE person to overthrow the current government. It
would be faster with more than one but it can be done by a single person. This knowledge, by the government, places everyone on the list.
The question regarding the declaration of Martial Law, as to who SHOULD enact it first, is really what is being debated. Unfortunately the people of
the Former united states are not united and for the most part will never be. Therefore it will most definitely be the government that declares it
first, making it almost impossible for the people to take the country back. Martial Law is most definitely needed to "Clean up" this country and
again it is the declarer that decides what the definition of "Clean up" is.
So, for the sake of argument, lets say, the whole of the people decide to declare Martial Law against the government as proscribed by the OP. Who is
in control of the Military? The President. The only way the people can effectively declare Martial Law is to take control of the Military. Who do you
trust enough, that all the people know, and trust, that is not connected to TPTB already, that can take command of the Military forces without at
least half of the personnel going against it? The power of controlling the military is essential to a successful removal of power. In example: Ron
Paul doesn't have the strength nor the years to be effective. Donald Trump would only push big business. etc.
As it stands the only way to take the government is through our constitutional right to insurrection. The problem with this is too many people fear
the government or death to be effective. This leaves it to small groups or the one person mentioned above. Then you have to realize that it is the
ideals of the small groups or the one person that details the new government. Will this satisfy the whole of the masses? NO, only the interests of the
few and again we are in the same place we started except the government declares Martial Law to bring the groups back under control.
Yes, the gangs, families, etc may be removed, but are they not against the government and thus on our side? Who decides what the changes are? With a
government declared Martial Law the people will be placed into a specific set of laws designed to force respect and bring the people into unity
through the deterrent of higher penalties than there are today. Thus bringing the people to a new level of respect and peace within our country. Do I
agree with the sorting out and depopulation that Martial Law is designed for? In some respects, yes, but as I would not like to be one of those people
(as I am sure I am) that is "Thinned", I am against it.
What is the answer? Do we take over or be taken over? Both of which eventually will lead to a better world when it is lifted. But that brings us to
how long and how to lift the action. It is not the Martial Law that the people want, it is the peace that comes out of it. If the people do it, it
will take a few years to regain control of the anarchy that is created. If the government does it, through fear it may never be lifted.
But hey it's all just my opinion.
Thank you for reading,