Archive | FREE STATE PATRIOT RSS feed for this section

Perry Stone Ministries: Based on prophecy; Is Greece just the first?

7 Jul
ps
Perry Stone Ministries

ALERT: It has finally occurred. Debt, borrowing from the IMF is crashing some economies within the E.U. For those who believe the 10 kings in Revelation could be a 7th Empire of prophecy – then at least 5 E.U. nations must eventually exit – Greece may be the first (we’ll see). Some nations cannot pay back the debt. Circumstances with America’s DEBTS his has led to an “October Surprise” according to “inside economists.” The IMF is expecting to add China’s currency on the level of the dollar, as a global reserve currency.

China has fudged its numbers and their Stock Market could experience a 1929 correction. However, they have tons of gold they have purchased to back their currency – and the U.S. MAY BE in a serious bind (with the dollar as a reserve) in the next 6 months, as owe not just 18 trillion in debt (that’s the Federal number) but the states, cities, retirements plans etc. are in debt over 150 trillion!! Rumor has it there is a new currency planned called the North America Republic currency, for Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on the drawing board. This is why most politicians don’t care about the border as we will eventually not have dollars, but a new currency (I have seen pro-types-sent to me by an insider). Be WISE with Stock investments and diversify NOW buying silver and gold while the prices are lower if you are an investor. 

Most of all, know we are the generation seeing prophecy fulfilled, God is behind the scenes working His plan and for believers, the best is still awaiting us!! Never fear – be excited for OUR future as believers! Repost to others if you wish. More will follow in a few days.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended as financial or investment advice.

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Cautionary Tale from a Curmudgeon

2 Jul

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, Historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.

The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

Robert Heinlein

c1

Some of our idealists and are enthusiastically celebrating SCOTUS’ ruling on Obamacare. So, for them: a Cautionary Tale.

Our vaunted Brethren (and Sisterns? ) reversed their own positions and found, because they wanted it to be so, that the words of a law did not say what they said, but rather what the Brethren thought they ought to have said, if the Congress intended what the Brethren thought the Congress ought to have intended.

The court, in very nearly the same breath, has said Government may NOT control your decisions, yet Government May control your decisions, depending 9 people’s whim of the moment. The Court, has, then, gathered to itself the role of Grand Arbiter, final word on all decisions of law or politics regarding what Government may do TO you.

How’s that again?

Our Constitution was enacted to protect citizens from what Government could do to its citizens, by people who had been subjects of a Government which could, and did, exercise arbitrary power at the whim of King or Noble. People who live under a monarch thought to rule by divine Right, unquestionable, are the Subjects of his will, and the whim of his lesser nobles. Or 9 Robed Arbiters.

justices 1

Citizens are protected by laws and rights that may not be infringed under those laws. Altering those laws, under the Constitution is, by design, possible, but difficult. We ought not to alter our laws on the whims of a few or a passing fashion, but by a dawning and sustained consensus that a change ought to take place, and carries popular support. Because what is so easily gained, “just like that”, can just as easily be taken away.

As part of this cautionary tale, consider that we fought a war to get the 13th Amendment, and how enduring it is. Whereas the 18th Amendment, which, like Obamacare, involved a Progressive Government controlling businesses and personal financial choices, lasted barely 10 years.

Prohibition, like Obamacare, was touted as “the law of the land”. But it quickly became unpopular, and was repealed. Why? Because it didn’t work, and was a financial disaster. Obamacare has been, and remains, hugely unpopular. Why? Because it doesn’t work, and is a financial disaster.

Our cautionary tale, then, suggests the Idealists might want to temper their celebrations. Or, perhaps, elect politicians who will vote and work to make it workable. To make it survivable, it would be necessary to change it to earn support.

Idealists don’t want to do that. They prefer that you accept their will since acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.

But their neighbors are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. And we are comfortable with that.

c2

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Progressive victories are but short term

2 Jul

 mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jul. 02, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

As we look at the world around us, many of us are wondering if things could get much worse. In my lifetime, I can’t recall America ever being in such disarray. Indeed, the progressive movement is having its share of victories.

In such times of distress, it’s often valuable to step back and analyze exactly what’s happening and to what purpose it’s meant to serve. In doing so, those of us who are faith-based in our daily walk are able to see that progressives are desperately seeking to make Christianity irrelevant in their “new world order.”

Bringing God’s Word into question is prerequisite to redirect man’s thinking. Liberals would have you believe that having a steadfast faith in God is for “non-thinkers” and those unwilling to adapt to our changing times. After all, God couldn’t have possibly known how his children could evolve into such “intellectual” beings, able to think and surmise for themselves. He couldn’t possibly have known that we could develop such “god-like” characteristics and be able to live our lives free from the constraints and principles of His Word.

progressives

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” 2 Timothy 4:3.

None of this is a surprise to our Heavenly Father, who knew us “before the foundation of the world.” He sent His only Son to experience the passions and weaknesses of this earth and was in all points tempted as we are. But in His vast love for His children, he provided His Word that we might be able to “overcome the world” through the teachings of Jesus Christ. But even then, God knew few would be willing to accept life on His terms.

“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it,” Matthew 7:14.

Sadly, some of the valued spokespersons of the progressive movement are those professing Christianity while espousing any and all methods of circumventing God’s statutes. These are modern day “theologians” who essentially seek to redefine Christianity and are, in fact, enablers of a new “progressive” form of narcissistic salvation where man is God and without boundaries in his passions.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” Matthew 7:15.

Stone by stone, these individuals are tearing down America’s foundation. Stitch by stitch they’re destroying the very fabric of our society. Redefining the family unit, designed by God, is paramount to their endeavor. It includes removing barriers preventing men and women from pleasuring themselves with any earthly abomination and offering an entrancing, alternative lifestyle – all in the name of love.

These progressive successes are very temporary and offer gratification only for a season. At some point, every individual will reap from the choices they’ve made in life.

And poor choices always have consequences.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Supreme Court has become too political

25 Jun

Do these nine individuals deserve our trust for a lifetime?

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 25, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States has the responsibility of interpreting the law as it applies to all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Unfortunately, through the years, the court has succumbed to being government’s ultimate political apparatus.

Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states that “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, the court is charged with ensuring “equal justice under the law” for all Americans.

justices 1

A Supreme Court ruling is final and cannot be overturned by any single entity, including the president of the United States. Rulings may be nullified only if a decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, and Congress decides to change the law. Or if the decision is based on the Constitution, and the Constitution is amended. And of course, a later court may overturn a ruling if they deem it unconstitutional.

So what makes these nine Supreme Court justices so wise that we grant them vast power and control over our lives? In this writer’s opinion, not much.

While both the executive and the legislative branch have a say in the court’s composition, little consideration is given to the “constitutional caliber” of this ruling entity.

As a matter of fact, the entire process of vetting individuals nominated for court vacancies has become shallow and conspiring to the point of absurdity. The Constitution doesn’t specify qualifications for justices such as age, education, profession or native-born citizenship. A justice doesn’t even have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate! Sadly, it seems more consideration is given to the ideological balance of the court than to the justices’ qualifications.

Frankly, the polarization that’s enveloped the nomination and confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court has rendered it dangerously political. Remember, an appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime commission! The potential ramifications of an ineffective, perhaps partisan court could impact generations!

Currently, the Supreme Court is about as balanced as it’s ever been. It’s popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito (appointed by Republican presidents) comprise the court’s conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan (appointed by Democrat presidents) make up the court’s liberal wing, with Anthony Kennedy (appointed by a Republican president) as the court’s moderate and often “swing vote” justice.

Over the years, Supreme Court rulings have literally changed the way we live our lives. Controversial decisions have, at times, been rulings with life or death consequences. Should we really place so much trust in so few individuals?

I’m concerned the Supreme Court has surrendered its noble calling to becoming the pinnacle of political activism. With its escalating impact on Americans, it’s time we protect our nation’s interest by imposing term limits and clearly defined standards qualifying someone to be a justice on our nation’s highest court.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: US must ramp up campaign against ISIS

20 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

Jun. 18, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

The world has now sustained months of unrelenting atrocities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). We’ve witnessed barbaric beheadings, victims burned alive and a strategic cleansing of Christians refusing to embrace the Muslim religion. Yet, the president of the United States still lacks a strategy to defeat them.

Last week, in a news conference following the Group of 7 summit meeting in Germany, Obama admitted to the world that “we don’t have, yet, a complete strategy” for addressing the threat posed by ISIS. He claims that after nearly a year and a half of the United States and its allies grappling with this group of Islamic terrorists, “the details are not worked out.”

The president’s failure to recognize ISIS as a grave threat early on certainly hampered strategies to squelch their advances. Some may recall that in January 2014 Obama compared ISIS to a “junior varsity basketball team,” playing down the strengths of ISIS, compared with Al Qaeda.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a J.V. team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told David Remnick of The New Yorker. That same month, ISIS seized Fallujah, a city in Anbar Province, Iraq, and parts of Ramadi, the province’s capital.

isis 2

A few months later, as the military prowess of the group became known, the president was questioned about his strategy for addressing the threat that he dramatically understated. Yet he still lacked urgency.

The president has been clear as to what his strategy won’t be!

“I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” Obama told reporters. “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no military solution to the larger crisis there.”

So, the president claims he can defeat ISIS with coalition air power. But a recent Wall Street Journal article reveals the Obama coalition’s air campaign against ISIS pales in comparison to strategic air campaigns waged by presidents since the end of the Cold War, which were deemed successful.

During the 43-day Desert Storm air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1991, coalition planes flew 48,224 strike sorties, or roughly 1,100 a day. 12 years later, the 31-day Iraqi Freedom campaign averaged more than 800 sorties a day. But the Obama “campaign” against ISIS, now approaching nine months, has only averaged about seven sorties a day! With ISIS now in control of an area around 50,000 square miles, it’s easy to see why these efforts haven’t been effective.

If indeed, Obama plans to decimate ISIS with coalition air power, he should take the lead in increasing the number of strikes commensurate with prior successful air campaigns.

And despite how much we dislike the thought, we must have sufficient ground troops to facilitate coordinated surgical strikes against the enemy.

Protecting America must take precedent over protecting Obama’s legacy.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , , ,

DOUG SMITH: MINIMUM WAGE ZERO

11 Jun

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

June 11, 2015

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, a Progressive President and Congress acted to try and mandate the minimum wage a worker could be paid. Their target wage was 25c an hour.

They failed. As has every subsequent Congress which tried over the years. For the minimum wage is, and always has been, Zero.

If I hire you to cut my grass for $15, and you do a lousy job, your wage will move from 15 to zero, because I won’t hire you again.  I will make a cost benefit analysis. It is not worth $15 to me to have you cut my grass. So I seek another alternative. I might buy a goat.

And so it has been, in 1938, and every time Congress has tried. Some keep working, and get the new mandated wage. Many others get fired, and get the eternal minimum wage: zero. Many more do not get hired at all, and continue to get the universal minimum wage: zero. When Congress, or the city of Los Angeles, moves to artificially raise the minimum wage, they accomplish two things; neither of which are their original intent.

The first is to make some workers happy, and their employers unhappy, because they are getting more money for the same effort, without contributing more to the company’s bottom line. They also make other workers unhappy, because the mandated raise will not apply to those who started at the bottom, worked their way up to making more, only to see the guy who just started and doesn’t know which end is up get the raise he worked for at the stroke of a pen.

min wage

The second is to make potential workers unhappy. For with each increase in the minimum wage, the number of entry level workers is decreased. Now in plain English that means companies cut back on the number of employees. Care to flip a coin with the guy next to you? One of us gets a raise, one of us gets the boot. Good luck. There is a cost beyond just salary to keeping an employee. If I must pay each bottom rung employee more than they are worth to my bottom line, it becomes for cost effective to fire 2, and pay a little overtime to 3 others. More to the point, the teenager looking for part time work, the young person seeking that all important 1st job, looks less appealing. I will hire fewer people now than I would have. If an additional $100,000 in business might have been the break point to add one full time employee before the $15 minimum, now it may be $150,000. Sorry, kid, but Congress says you will have to wait.

So, in the midst of the Depression, with economic activity stalled and sputtering, how much longer did it take for a business to reach the point to hire one more man? The guy inside the gate was now getting a bit more, but the guy outside the gate was still broke, cold, hungry, and out of work. He would have been thrilled to get some work at 20c an hour, but

Congress and FDR say “No, we can’t have you work for that pittance! How can you support a family on 20c an hour? “

“But, but, I’m supporting them on zero cents an hour now. I’ve got nothing coming in. The 20 cents would be great.”

“Sorry, but we are from the government and we are here to help. Blame it on the evil, greedy capitalists inside the gate. “

Meanwhile, the EGC s inside the gate are going over the books. The 25% increase in labor costs, mandated by the government, has cut their margin from 2% to ½%. And an increase in the cost of goods sold has cut that even further. Shaking their heads, they reach for a stack of pink slips and start filling them out.

And that is what a boost in the government mandated minimum wage accomplishes. Not lifting people up, but pushing more people to the true minimum wage, dictated by natural law: Zero.

As if to underscore the point, the labor unions of Los Angeles are petitioning to be exempted from the city wide mandated $15 minimum wage because “it might make them uncompetitive in seeking contracts.”

The irony is rich. Welcome to basic economics, boys.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals mislead regarding First Amendment

11 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 11, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

I recall during a presidential debate in 1999 when the moderator asked the candidates to identify their favorite political philosopher. George W. Bush created a firestorm in the liberal media when he spontaneously and unflinchingly replied, “Jesus Christ, because he changed my life.” The media had a field day castigating Bush for bringing Christianity into politics.

For years, progressives have diligently sought the complete and absolute removal of Christianity from politics. And frankly, we’ve allowed them far too much success. The phrase “separation of church and state” has been bantered about so often by liberals, that many people believe it’s in the Constitution. But not only is the phrase not in the constitution, neither is the concept as propagated by progressives.

The text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, the First Amendment doesn’t contain the words “separation of church and state.” The words can, however, be traced back to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 in response to a concern voiced by the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut about religious freedom. In his letter, Jefferson used the phrase as a metaphor depicting the First Amendment as a “wall of separation” between the church and government interference in religion.

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that reference religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Today, much is said about the establishment clause, but very little is said about the free exercise clause.

While progressives often attempt to rewrite history to advance their agenda, our Founding Fathers had a keen perspective on the unique and important relationship between religion and the world they wanted to create for themselves and their heirs.

declaration signing

Leading up to the Revolution, these men witnessed their civil liberties trampled upon by the King of England and Parliament. The First Amendment was meant to protect these basic civil liberties and to ensure government was never able to force a particular religion upon the people or suppress their right to practice it openly. Their recognition of the importance of religious freedom to American democracy prompted the framers to enshrine it forever in the First Amendment.

But through the years, liberal courts and progressives have perverted the Framers’+ intent, essentially trampling upon the free exercise clause through misrepresentation of the establishment clause. Liberals would have you believe that any open display of worship, such as prayer in public schools or displaying the Ten Commandments, is somehow government “making a law respecting the establishment of religion” or “state sponsored religion,” which is absurd.

The strict separation of religion and government was not meant to prohibit openly practicing religion; it was meant to protect it!

It’s time we accept that religious freedom was never meant to be freedom from religion.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

Dow loses gains for the year; transports off 2%

8 Jun

It’s all been smoke and mirrors, folks!

|

3 Hours Ago

dow 1
U.S. stocks closed near session lows on Monday as investors weighed multi-month highs in bond yields amid greater expectations of tightening following Friday’s strong jobs report. (Tweet This)

The Dow Jones industrial average closed down about 80 points, posting losses of 0.32 percent year-to-date.

“I think everybody’s a little unsettled about the way U.S. and European bond markets sold off in the last week,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds.

Analysts noted relatively less volatility in bond and currency markets in Monday trade. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield held slightly lower at 2.39 percent. The U.S. dollar pared recent gains, down about one percent against major world currencies with the euro rising to $1.1287. The stronger greenback has weighed on corporate earnings.

On Friday, a surge in bond yields to multi-month highs on a strong jobs report pressured equities, with U.S. stocks closing narrowly mixed.

Nonfarm payrolls for May beat expectations with the addition of 280,000 jobs. Analysts also cheered a greater-than-forecast 8 cent increase in hourly wages and a 5.5 percent unemployment rate. Signs of continued strength in the labor market strengthened the case for the Federal Reserve to begin raising short-term interest rates in September.

“I think the market’s trying to figure out if (Friday’s employment report) is going to move the Federal Reserve to act in September,” said Robert Pavlik, chief market strategist at Boston Private Wealth. He also cited weakness in the Dow transports as weighing on stocks.

The Dow transports, led by a decline in airlines, closed down 2.06 percent for its worst day since January 6. The index posted its first positive week in four last Friday.

dow 2

JetBlue closed down 7.2 percent for its worst day since Sept. 15, 2014. United Continental, American, Southwest and Delta held below their 50 and 200-day moving averages.

Read MoreGoldman: Market going nowhere, so do this…

Apple closed 0.66 percent lower after falling more than 1 percent during its highly anticipated Worldwide Developers Conference at which the iPhone maker announced its new Apple Music service.

The major indices extended recent losses, with the S&P 500 ending at 2,079, below its 100-day moving average of 2,084. Art Cashin, director of floor operations for UBS, said that level was one of support for the S&P, which faced resistance at 2,101.

“The technicals are deteriorating, and monetary conditions are deteriorating,” said Bruce Bittles, chief investment strategist at RW Baird. He is watching to see whether or not the S&P 500 can hold above 2,070.

 dow 3

“The SPX is likely to reach oversold territory today for the first time since March, which we think will give way to improved short-term momentum during the latter half of the week,” BTIG Chief Technical Strategist Katie Stockton said in a morning note. “The financial sector appears positioned to exhibit upside leadership, which could be just what is needed to restore confidence in the market.”

Financials closed down 0.62 percent after failing to hold early gains. The S&P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) closed a touch higher. Morgan Stanley and KeyCorp briefly gained to levels not seen since September 2008. PNC Financial hit an all-time high.

Read MoreBond market volatility could rein in stocks

“Probably another listless session in the absence of any hard data,” said Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott. “Certainly the Greek saga continues.”

Luschini and other analysts are looking ahead to Thursday’s retail sales for insight on consumer spending, which has not picked up as much as many expected.

“We’re at a juncture where markets have to weigh whether good economic data is good for corporate earnings,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Wunderlich Securities.

Symbol
Name
Price
Change
%Change
DJIA Dow Jones Industrial Average 17766.55 -82.91 -0.46%
S&P 500 S&P 500 Index 2079.28 -13.55 -0.65%
NASDAQ Nasdaq Composite Index 5021.63 -46.83 -0.92%

In the absence of major U.S. news and data releases on Monday, traders also kept an eye on overseas developments.

Turkey’s ruling AK Party failed to win an outright majority in a parliamentary election for the first time since it came to power more than a decade ago.

Turkish stocks fell more than 5 percent on Monday, while the Turkish lira slid to a record low of 2.8 to the greenback.

Germany’s DAX entered correction territory as European stocks declined on continuation of Greek debt negotiations. Last week, Athens postponed a payment deadline to the IMF.

dow 4

Greece’s creditors proposed extending the bailout to March 2016 in return for pension cuts, tax increases and other policy measures, the Wall Street Journal reported.

On Monday, European Central Bank governing council member Christian Noyer said if Greece had to leave the euro zone, it would not cause a problem for the currency bloc but rather for Greece itself.

The G-7 leaders also wrapped up a two-day summit in Bavaria, Germany.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 82.91 points, or 0.46 percent, at 17,766.55, with Intel leading decliners and Exxon Mobil the greatest advancer.

The S&P 500 closed down 13.55 points, or 0.65 percent, at 2,079.28, with information technology leading nine sectors lower and telecommunications the only advancer.

The Nasdaq closed down 46.83 points, or 0.92 percent, at 5,021.63.

The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), widely considered the best gauge of fear in the market, traded near 15.

About two stocks declined for every advancer on the New York Stock Exchange, with an exchange volume of 698 million and a composite volume of nearly 2.9 billion in the close.

Crude oil futures for July delivery settled down 1.67 percent at $58.14 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gold futures for August delivery settled up $5.50 at $1,173.60 an ounce.

Deutsche Bank closed up 4.96 percent after briefly leaping more than 5.5 percent on news of the appointment of John Cryan as co-CEO, effective July 1. Cryan replaces long-time executive Anshu Jain. Co-CEO Juergen Fitschen will remain in his position until next May, after which Cryan will become sole CEO.

 

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Obama transforming US with martial law

4 Jun

Is it part of his plan?

me

Mark Caserta: Editor Free State Patriot

Jun. 04, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

When progressives begin to label conservatives as “neocons” and “conspiracy theorists,” we can generally be assured we’re on the right track. But liberal coddling of Barack Obama aside, we’d better become familiar with the facets of martial law and it’s reality in the U.S.

Martial law is an extreme measure whereby the government and military authorities exercise control over the civilian population of a designated territory. To a varying degree, and depending on the martial law order, certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association and freedom of movement. In some cases the writ of habeas corpus, which allows persons unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding, may also be suspended.

martial law

While martial law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 1, sections 8 and 9, declares that martial law, on a national level, must be declared by the president or Congress. If declared by a president, the “Posse Comitatus Act” of 1878, forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization.

It’s been argued that only Congress can declare martial law, since Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. But as commander-in-chief of the military, it’s also been argued the president can autonomously declare martial law. However, if Congress rejects the president’s declaration, it could set up a power struggle between the Legislative and Executive Branch that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Martial law has been instituted on a national level only one time in the United States. During the Civil War, Congress ratified most of the martial law measures declared by President Lincoln when he authorized Union military forces to arrest persons and conduct trials. Otherwise, the use of martial law has been limited to the states.

On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within their state as granted in the state constitution. Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.

Anyone believing the notion of martial law is far-fetched should consider the potential catastrophic scenarios this administration has already allowed to permeate U.S. borders. The Ebola virus, the threat of Islamic terrorism, and the potential financial collapse of our economy have all been heretofore avoided. And what if the welfare system crashed overnight and EBT and Medicaid/Medicare cards ceased to work? This financial impact on 35 percent of the population at the hands of government would not fare well.

Consider this: In September 2013, 70 federal agents in full body armor, carrying M-16s, raided the tiny Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska. They were from the Environmental Protection Agency looking for violations of the Clean Water Act!

Barack Obama hasn’t been very good at keeping his word, but he has successfully kept his focus on a singular objective – “fundamentally transform America.”

He now has only 19 months left to achieve it.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Should we be concerned about Jade Helm exercise?

28 May

Harbinger of Martial Law by the Obama administration?

(Features a link to martial law survival tips)

mark 2

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

May. 28, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Whether it’s a reprisal from the George Strait song “Don’t Mess with Texas” or an impassioned chorus of “Remember the Alamo,” many Texans are rising to contest the approaching military exercise known as “Jade Helm 15.”

According to the U.S. Army website, Jade Helm 15 (Joint Assistant for Development and Execution) is a multi-state training exercise taking place July 15 through Sept. 15 with members of U.S. Army Special Operations Command and service members from the military’s four branches. Special Operations forces will engage in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado.

But to some concerned citizens in these Southwestern states, Jade Helm could be a dress rehearsal for government imposing martial law.

And why not? Our nation has never been in such a state of unrest as we are under the Obama administration. While some decry it as a “conspiracy theory,” others firmly believe the exercise is preparation for conceivable tribulation resulting from a domestic catastrophe or financial meltdown.

Army’s Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., said that while a multistate training operation was not unique, “the size and scope of Jade Helm sets this one apart,” according to a recent article in The New York Times. Jade Helm 15, according to military officials, amounts to a giant war game with Army Green Berets and other elite personnel sharpening their skills in terrain they might find overseas, the Times reported.

Yet, many still claim it’s part of a widespread plan to take away people’s guns, arrest political dissidents, launch an Obama-led hostile takeover of “red-state” Texas, or some combination thereof, according to the Times report.

martial law

Intense unrest about Jade Helm caused Texas Gov. Greg Abbot to issue a directive in April to the Texas State Guard to “keep watch” over the military operation. In his directive, Abbot explained his actions.

“During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property right and civil liberties will not be infringed,” the governor wrote. “I am directing the Texas State Guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15.”

One has to understand the concerns about this operation. For the past six years the federal government has demonstrated it isn’t trustworthy and has consistently disrespected the liberty of its citizens.

Allow me to share a chilling summary line from a 2001 Final Technical Report reviewed and released by the Air Force Research Laboratory regarding the JADE project in its infancy:

“JADE can be used to support both deliberate and crisis action planning. JADE software and case bases enable a military planner to build a preliminary force deployment plan, including a TPFDD (Time-Phased Force Deployment Data) in less than one hour.”

jade 1

That was 15 years ago. Since then, our government has been collecting personal data from every U.S. citizen. Research reveals the JADE project involves using computer software and database information to formulate a deployment plan based upon the location of “the enemy.”

The potential military advantages of Jade Helm 15 are obvious. But in the hands of an administration which circumvents the Constitution, it could serve a different purpose.

So, I ask you. Which “enemy” is the government preparing to engage?

Click on link below for tips on “How to survive martial law” by a corrupt government.

 http://nstarzone.com/LAW.html

Mark Caserta is a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →