Now, I tend to be a little paranoid by nature, and I don't have any crystal ball, and I certainly am not political analyst or pundit. But this post explains why I think this.
There have been quite a few violent and crazy attacks lately, with many many threats in various places. Just today my train conductor asked everyone to take their garbage off the train - he does that every day - but today he added, "Because everything's a suspicious package these days, and we don't need that."
Martial law will be seen as the only way of protecting public safety.
Martial law will require giving up many rights.
I am not totally crazy. Here's the good ol' mayor of the Big Apple saying that we need to be willing to give up our liberties for security. It is better to giver up our Constitutional rights so we can go to a sporting event in safety. Or have the Constitution reinterpreted so as to allow for greater security but fewer rights.
Don't kid yourself. This is NOT about safety. It's about gun control.
I personally do not believe that safety and security need to infringe upon freedom. I do not believe the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to let the government provide for our safety. I believe the Constitution needs to be reapplied, which is to say, what it says needs to be applied according to what it says and not what it has been interpreted to mean over the last several decades.
Here's Melissa Perry saying that parents do not have the right to raise their own kids, it's the job of the government. (Oh sorry. That's Melissa Harris-Perry.)
Now, yes, the principle of solidarity means that I have to care about my neighbors and their kids pretty much "as if" they were mine. That is what "love your neighbor as yourself" means. On the other hand, the most personal of all aspects of the family is the children of the parents. NO ONE has a right to take my kids and raise (read: brainwash) them. No, not even the government. No, not my neighbors who fear than in homeschooling my kids "I" am brainwashing them against... against... what?
Against what they teach in public schools? Not really - what we teach them is math, science, history, literature, writing, logic, philosophy, religion, what used to be called civics - and nothing we do has any reference whatsoever to what they do in public schools. We do NOT monitor public school curricula and actively counter it. We teach our kids the way ALL AMERICAN KIDS USED TO BE TAUGHT, and the doctrines of the Catholic faith, and we do NOT give a FIG about what the public schools teach kids who go there. That's not entirely true. We do care, it's just that we're not choosing our curriculum in reference to theirs. Rather, it is the public school system that monitors US and is AFRAID of what we are teaching our kids and wants to CONTROL it.
Here's a host on NPR comparing the Constitution to Tinkerbell (...and that after talking to audiences of pot smokers and homosexuals...). Why? Because the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, as long as we take action and cram that meaning down other peoples' throats. "Let's keep clapping and keep it alive!! I DO believe in fairies!!" Ugh.
In all three cases, no one is recommending trying to understand the Constitution and apply it. No, they espouse an ideology that the plain meaning of the Constitution is getting in the way of certain agendas - all of them left-wing, by the way - and that meaning is unjust and wrong. If they can't get their way by changing the Constitution itself through Constitutional processes then they'll change what it means through the courts - and then work on preventing a change back to some other meaning.
And they have been doing this for a long time. DECADES. This is what Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush II in 2000 and 2004, and McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 called "judicial activism," and what their opponents denied was happening.
These are the first steps down a well-plotted route (and not a slippery slope). The very principle of "things mean what we want them to mean" is being floated, with the Constitution as the object of manipulation.
Martial law will come, in one form or another. Slowly or quickly, it will come.
Martial law will make blogs like mine acts of treason. It will make being a real Christian an act of treason. In particular, it will make being a Catholic, with allegiance to the Pope, an act of treason. If you have religion, you will have to belong to one of the state-approved religions that bow to the authority of the government to define their doctrines and determine their leadership.
Maybe "it can't happen here," but of course it can. It is happening in Belgium. Here's a story of a bishop who stands with the Church against the gay rights agenda there, who was at an event at a university, and who was attacked by topless female protesters - and he just sat there and took it. It took several minutes for security to remove the assailants. Why didn't they respond immediately? Who knows. Maybe they enjoyed watching the bishop get attacked or wanted to let the assailants make thier point. God bless him. What a courageous fellow. And for the last couple of decades, I thought I'd never say that about a Belgian - in fact, any European - Catholic bishop. This guy was charged with racism in 2008 because of his consistency with the Catholic faith. He was later acquitted, but it's only a matter of time before he and others get convicted.
And it IS happening here. In Columbus, OH. Anti-discrimination laws will trump religious freedom. Look, homosexuals may "be" they way they are and have not a choice, but their actions are choices, and actions can conform or not conform to the doctrines of a religion. All laws discriminate according to actions. ALL LAWS. Does the law discriminate against bigots for being bigots, or against what a bigot does? Exactly. The Catholic Church should be free to discriminate just like the law does according to people's actions, in accord with its doctrines. This is part of religious freedom.
I am afraid that the Land of the Free will become a thing of history.
But I am certain that it remain the Home of the Brave.
I made a comment on LifeSite News for the story of the Belgian bishop, noting that such tactics are the seeds of the failure of the movement. Just like the Brown Shirts were the seeds of the eventual overthrow of the Nazis. Sure, there might be great success for a while, but in the end people will get sick of kowtowing to a**holes.
Martial law will attempt to confiscate all the guns. Martial law will enforce the government monopoly on education and indoctrination. Martial law will regulate religions.
But it will not succeed, because it will result in civil war.
Make your choice now. If it comes to it, what will you do? Fight, go to jail, be tried for treason? Or go along with everyone, hoping it's only temporary? It was temporary in Russia, too. But it lasted 70 years. And it's still going strong in China and North Korea.