Obama Admin Issues Martial Law Directive… “Bureaucrats and politicians will never use the term Martial Law. Instead, the phrase ‘continuity of government’ is substituted. In reality, they’re the same thing.” | Obama
(Before It\’s News)
December 11, 2013. Washington. Bureaucrats and politicians will never use the term Martial Law. Instead, the phrase ‘continuity of government’ is substituted. In reality, they’re the same thing.
Last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – the head of the entire US intelligence and security apparatus – released instructions for the implementation of Martial Law in America.
James Clapper, Director of the Office of National Intelligence. Image courtesy of Legend of Pine Ridge blog.
Subscribe to Whiteout Press. It’s FREE and you can unsubscribe at any time. Just 6 emails per month.
The federal government’s planning for Martial Law in America stopped being a conspiracy theory after the attacks on 9/11. Numerous Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other unilateral dictates by the Executive Branch have spelled out in great detail how Martial Law can and will be enforced in the event of a national emergency. But the timing of the latest Intelligence Directive – November 12, 2013 – makes many Americans wonder what exactly the Obama administration knows that the rest of us don’t.
Legitimate concerns vs. tyrannical dictators
History offers us two examples, both American, of why a ‘continuity of government’ program is needed. During the War of 1812, the British had burned Washington DC to the ground. The President of the United States, James Madison, was left fleeing through the woods, alone in the dark. While the first lady, Dolly Madison, was the last to leave and stood fearless against the enemy’s torches as she frantically and selflessly saved America’s most sacred national treasures.
Flash forward to the final days of the Civil War and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Two of his three commanding Generals, Lee and Johnston, had just surrendered their armies and the majority of his country was in enemy hands. But without the consent of the people, and against the wishes of his Army, Jefferson Davis assumed the rolls of a tyrannical dictator and refused to surrender. History recalls how Davis was never able to set up his covert, authoritarian government and was apprehended while disguised as a woman attempting to evade capture.
One big difference………………….