Can Obama use martial law to quell liberal violence, delay inauguration?
SAN ANTONIO, November 15, 2016— In 2015, during the early days of the race to the White House, Dr. Ben Carson stated that he believed there was a chance that the 2016 elections may not be held at all. That in light of the many emergencies and instabilities being experienced, martial law could be imposed.
We made it through the election, but now there is widespread unrest gripping the country. Politicians to pundits are calling for the National Guard to be sent to Chicago where Mayor Rahm Emanuel refuses to quell the mayhem and murder.
Could the violence in our cities be reason enough for the Obama administration to announce the implementation of martial law and the suspension of some, if not all, of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights?
On the surface this seems unbelievable, but upon further analysis, Carson’s ominous suggestion is plausible; this is an extremely unnerving scenario that all Americans should be aware of and ready for.
The Obama administration has very quietly and subtly done many inexplicable things that could very well be precursors to the suspension of some, if not all, of Americans’ rights.
At the time Carson went on the liberal Alan Colmes’ radio show, he said that there may not even be elections in 2016 due to what many considered administration created emergencies. Now that the election has passed leading to wide spread anti-Trump funded protests that are turning violent the question may arise again.
When pressed to explain further, Carson said,
If in fact we continue to have all these decrees being made the way they’re being made, if in fact we don’t fight the kind of war that needs to be fought in order to really put an end to the threat that is brought on by ISIS, if we continue along a pathway of financial irresponsibility, if we continue along a path of envy, greed, and hatred — what happened with Occupy Wall Street will be a cakewalk compared to what will begin to happen in this country.
Martial law is “a system of complete control by a country’s military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers.
In many foreign countries martial law has become a method to establish and maintain dictatorships either by military leaders or politicians backed by the military.”
In America, martial law must be called for by the president, who would then suspend most, if not all, of our constitutional rights, and only the president would be able to reinstitute our constitutional structure and declare an end to martial law.
If anyone believes this idea is far-fetched, please consider the numerous emergencies that some felt Obama failed to adequately control: the Ebola virus and its associated mandatory quarantine; the Zika virus, our $18 trillion and counting government debt and the massive associated riots that would occur due to welfare, EBT and Medicaid/Medicare cards ceasing to work; and the threat of Islamic terrorism, specifically ISIS, whose unmatched funding, training and brutality could fulfill their leaders’ promise to shed the blood of millions of Americans.
Additionally, Obama’s choice not to sufficiently secure the border must be taken into consideration , particularly with the fears that Trump will demand wide spread deportations despite declaring policies that mirror the actions of the Obama administration.
Open access to our country could only increase the likelihood of possible emergencies. And now, liberals, including Harry Reid, are fomenting violence in America’s cities – despite the fact that the election was democratically and lawfully held.
Never in the history of our country have we faced so many destructive threats at the same time. America has also never had leadership that has failed to competently handle every single threat facing our country. If Obama isn’t one of the most inept people to ever hold elected office, then his actions must be calculated to produce these results.
Obama knows he is unpopular with the military; therefore, he has had to find a different way to institute martial law — and that is through a “civilian national security force.” On July 2, 2008, at a campaign stop, Obama made the following unscripted statement: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
In 2013 the United States spent $663.8 billion on the military, with personnel include 2.2 million people on active duty or in the reserves. America has local police forces, which could call in the National Guard, which could then call in the Department of Defense to protect the country in times of civil unrest. For what purpose, then, would a civilian security force funded with hundreds of billions of dollars and made up of millions of Americans be necessary?
Another worrying issue is that Obama has militarized almost every federal agency. In September 2013, 70 federal agents in full body armor, carrying M-16s raided one person’s gold mining operation in a tiny Alaska town. They were from the Environmental Protection Agency looking for violations of the Clean Air Act.
After this incident it was found that Obama had created law enforcement branches in over 70 federal agencies. It is estimated that there are over 120,000 law enforcement agents in the federal government who are not part of traditional law enforcement branches — CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, DHS, DOJ, and Treasury Department.
These law enforcement branches Obama has created are not comprised of just one or two security guards. Obama has armed these agencies to the teeth. Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, a 40-year, decorated, military veteran, wrote an op-ed for the Daily Caller pointing out how, in addition to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s purchase of 46,000 hollow-point bullets, the Social Security Administration (SSA) bought 174,000 hollow-point bullets.
In reaction to these purchases, Curry said, “Hollow-point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battlefield in time of war. Hollow-point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows. Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?”
Curry goes on: “In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March (of 2012) DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen.”
Curry’s final point is something that every American should consider: “Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? … I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.”
Let’s pray that none of these matters fully materialize and Carson’s ominous suggestion becomes nothing but an afterthought. However, those who understand Obama know not to put anything beyond his desire to, in Obama’s own words, “fundamentally transform America.”
And Americans may be smart to worry, despite his cries for protestors to give Trump “a chance” that Obama would see the protests as being one way to stop the Trump presidency from going forward – for at least a bit of time.