Martial Law Is Coming, But Not Yet! ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

Martial Law Is Coming, But Not Yet!

Published

on

A spokeswoman for the US Army recently informed American citizens to be prepared to comply with soldiers’ directives in a martial law scenario by stating: “Understand that if active-duty military actually get deployed within the United States, that weapon is not just pointed at other people, other countries. It is pointed at you. If you do not get in your house when I tell you to, you become the enemy.”

Comments such as these should be extremely alarming to freedom loving Americans. The idea of the US Military being deployed in American communities is something that hasn’t happened significantly since the US Civil War. And while visions of the US Military denying our Constitutional rights can be frightening, there are lessons from history indicating that the military may not have an easy walk in the park at suppressing the freedoms of a resistant population.

Take the US Civil War as a first example. The South had formed a weak and fledgling government with very few resources, no treasury, no navy, and no organized military in comparison to the North. In terms of railways, seaports, transportation and industrial might, the southern states, on paper, were no match for the north, yet, the war carried on for 4 long years. US Military Veterans of the Texas Revolution, The Bear Flag Revolt, and The Mexican – American War rallied to each other’s side to defend their homes and their families. Not only did these men have military experience and training, they knew the land, the backwoods, the swamps, the mountains, and the hill country better than the invaders from Washington and New York City. Yes they ultimately lost, but skirmishes and outpost hold outs lasted for years long after the war. The point is that people dedicated to defending their freedoms, their families, and their way of life are not easily defeated.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

History shows us that military and technological superiority is an unreliable guide to determining the outcome of a war. Relatively recent historical examples include Indochina (1946-1954), Indonesia (1947-1949), the failure of the US to defeat their rivals in Vietnam, the failed Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the US’s struggles dealing with insurgency for years in Iraq, and more recently, the US’s failure in Afghanistan. While weak submissive sheep seem to get all of the media attention and accolades, history is rife with stories of people in this world who would rather die than be subjugated.

An invading force, of any community in America will have to subdue and control the population for the long term. Most communities in America are already highly organized, many of the smaller towns in the country are very provincial, with deep family ties, and more importantly, they are heavily armed with plenty of patriotic veterans. They know the backroads, the geography, and the climate.

These factors do not mean patriots would not suffer heavy casualties. It does not mean victory, but it does demonstrate why, thus far, the globalist enemies of freedom loving Americans have chosen not to engage us in armed conflict, yet. They have instead spent decades influencing our media, Hollywood, our sources of entertainment, recently our military, and buying off our politicians, and corporations, slowly de-industrializing us, and gaining control of our schools and universities in a “long march through the institutions.”

The result is that today, 50% of the US population supports wearing a mask of submission, and taking or mandating an ineffective “vaccine.” Some 3 million Americans are demanding monthly “stimulus” checks of $2,000, and 60% of Americans want stricter gun laws. Nearly half the country is engaged in some type of moral or cultural rot and they are ripe to be told what to do in exchange for free money. The other half of the country will resist, and should the worst possible thing happen, violence; history shows that this young spokeswoman for the US Army, and her ilk, might be in for a rude awakening. This is why, while it captures headlines, it is highly unlikely that we will find ourselves in a martial law situation any time soon. This doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

My generation, Generation X (anyone between the ages of 41-56) are arguably the last generation of Americans to have known and tasted true freedom. And while Gen Xer’s have diverse political ideologies, we all remember a time when it was ok to be free. When you didn’t have to wear a helmet and knee pads to ride a bike or skateboard. We still did the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school, we watched Red Dawn on cable TV, we were kids when Rocky defeated the big bad Russian guy and was wrapped in red, white, and blue. While we enjoyed entertainment, we resented being raised by it as we were the generation of “latch key kids” so we never really let entertainment control us in the same way as subsequent generations have. This is why our defining generational lyric sarcastically mocked that very notion: “here we are now, entertain us”

Our generation is the last to remember a time when lifestyle choices were “to each is own.” We benefitted a little bit, but not as much as the boomers, from the largest relatively uninterrupted economic boom in American history, and relative peace until the Bush Wars. In our young single years we could drink and have fun at bars and nightclubs and backyard parties, and just have a good time. Everyone didn’t seem to have a political position on, well… everything. People weren’t always coiled and ready to strike. We share these memories of times of freedom, peace, love for humanity, and economic opportunity with the Baby Boomer generation. Unfortunately, we will all be gone in 50 years. The global communist revolutionaries have been waiting patiently since the Frankfurt School days of the 1920’s to make their move. Waiting 50 more years while continuing to press the culture and the institutions will continue to be their strategy. When they do decide to use military violence, all they will have to contend with will be the faded memory of stories of freedom that Generation X shares with their children tonight.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Education

Make Universities Accountable for Predatory Student Loan Abuse

Published

on

The Biden administration is still talking about delivering on the President’s promise to relieve student loan debt for many Americans. There is continuing discussion on how much debt should be forgiven, how to pay for it, and whether it is fair to all those who have diligently and painfully worked to already pay off their own student loans. After all, if you’re going to eliminate student debt to buy votes, why just limit it to student debt?

Unfortunately for Biden, according to numerous sources including National Review, the executive branch has no generalized power to forgive any amount of student debt. Even Nancy Pelosi confirmed simply that “the president can’t do it. That’s not even a discussion.” The Department of Education came to the same verdict, determining that the executive branch “does not have the statutory authority to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive, on a blanket or mass basis, principal balances of student loans, and/or to materially modify the repayment amounts or terms thereof.”

Of course, even if he had the authority, forgiving student debt doesn’t make the debt go away. Reality has a way of breaking into such “freeloading” dreams. It’s pay me now, or somebody else pay me later. But why should some future taxpayer pay off anyone else’s student debt?

Whatever happened to wise warnings of “student beware.” When you get an education and agree to pay the tuition, you ought to realize that you must at some point pay for that education. You signed on the bottom line. Face your real-world responsibilities. Hopefully, you picked a degree major that will ensure a career capable of paying off your loans. Students clearly have some responsibility, but what about the universities that took advantage of the money coming from those loans?

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

After all, there is ample evidence that student tuitions exploded far faster than inflation when government funds became readily available for student loans. Complaints of excessive tuition increases by students trapped in their programs tended to be met with a less than caring response—pound sand!

Since 2008, the tuition cost or a four-year college degree has increased nearly 25%. In that same period, student debt has doubled, increasing by 107%. 2015 study found that a dollar of subsidized student loans results in a published tuition increase of 58 cents at a typical university, An NBER paper suggests that changes to federal student loans are more than sufficient to explain tuition increases at private nonprofit colleges. And a 2014 study found that for-profit colleges eligible for federal student aid charged tuition 78% higher than that of similar but aid-ineligible institutions.

In short, there is no doubt that tuition was rising faster than the inflation level. Evidence has been clear for decades. In 1987, Secretary of Education William J. Bennett argued that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities to raise their tuition, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Bennett pointed out in 1987 that federal student aid had risen 57 percent since 1980, while inflation had been 26 percent. A 2020 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office brought the numbers up to date: “Between 1995 and 2017, the balance of outstanding federal student loan debt increased more than sevenfold, from $187 billion to $1.4 trillion (in 2017 dollars).” What is the lesson? The more federal aid to students is available colleges raise tuition more. Salaries rise and bureaucracies expand. There are more courses, more dorms, dining halls, lavish recreational centers, and more money for endowments.

Far too many students find that once they begin their education, their schools raise the tuition at such a high rate that their debt explodes. The university builds their endowment, and the “trapped” student is compelled to finish what they started at a cost they did not expect to have to pay. In such a situation, should not the university be responsible for any increased cost above the increase in cost of living during the same time? It’s time for universities to take responsibility for their share of student debt.

The universities that benefited from these loans should have a part in footing the bill. That means universities that raked in millions to inflate endowments should be holding the bag for those who can’t afford to pay their loans. With universities holding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-free endowments, any government program to relieve student debt should be completely dependent on taxing those university endowments.

It’s time to counter the Democrats’ vote-buying scheme by making lasting changes to the student loan process. That means putting universities on the hook for their predatory behavior. That will go much further than a temporary payoff that does nothing to solve what is causing the problem.

Continue Reading

News

Tucker: Why are they so angry?

There’s no Constitutional requirement to have respect for anybody in the US government. In fact, in a free country you are encouraged to disagree. You are a citizen, you have that inherent right. But, no more.

Published

on

Tucker gives an extended list of several people who were arrested or had their homes raided, without explanation, for no crime. Highlights include:

“Why have a political debate when you can just arrest people who disagree with you? And that has happened, far below the media radar since the day Joe Biden was elected, and tonight we want to show you … a litany, a list of Americans who have been arrested, detained by federal law enforcement on the orders of the Biden administration, not because they committed recognizable crimes but because they disagreed with the political aims of the Biden administration.”

“Ooh, Trumps a fascist, remember that? Did Trump’s DOJ raid the homes of a lot of journalists who embarrassed his children? No, you don’t remember that, because it didn’t happen. But Joe Biden’s justice department has done that, and then they kept going.”

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

“We don’t arrest people for ignoring congressional subpoenas, especially when they cite executive privilege, a principal that has a long history in American history, so no, we’ve never done that, but we can do it now because it was ‘an insurrection’, an insurrection that wasn’t armed, wasn’t planned, it didn’t actually insurrect anything, but it was still an insurrection. Now you’re beginning to see why it’s been so important from the very first day for the media to describe what happened on January 6 not as a riot, but as an insurrection, because if it’s an insurrection, they can violate your civil rights.”

“So, a decade ago the Obama administration was caught sending automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and Congress wanted to know more about this. Eric Holder, then the attorney general, had a key role in this, ‘operation fast and furious’, you may remember it. So, they subpoena’d him, and he ignored the subpoena, and the media applauded, he was taking a noble position. But when Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro tried to do something like that, they went to jail. Again, we had this exact same thing happen in public ten years ago. A federal judge ruled that Holder’s privilege claim was not legitimate, and he was still never arrested, but the rules have changed. Why is that?”

“There’s no Constitutional requirement to have respect for anybody in the US government. In fact, in a free country you are encouraged to disagree. You are a citizen, you have that inherent right. But, no more. The media think you should be sent to jail if you show disrespect, and so of course, with no media to push back against unconstitutional overreach, the justice department kept going.”

Watch the video below and feel free to exercise your right to free speech in the comments.

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending