For the Coming Martial Law:::Treatise:Martial Law Is TREASON According To The Constitution

A Treatise:Martial Law Is TREASON According To The Constitution, And We Must Be Prepared To Punish The Perps Accordingly
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=302927

Posted By: Watchman
Date: Thursday, 20-Mar-2014 13:06:34
The defense of freedom belongs to those who love liberty and despise to the death those who would wrest it with force of arms from you and your posterity.

In the modern world we are face to face with an ultimate choice.
I would personally much rather die vigorously fighting in defense of freedom than to attempt to explain my cowardice to my enslaved children and grandchildren.

Now some may say that I was not a party to the Constitution, thus I have no recourse in it. In answer I would remind them that the Constitution does indeed not grant anything. It merely codifies those God-Given attributes of a free society. The words and thoughts it expresses were imbedded in my soul along with the breath of life from Almighty God.

As such, they were a powerful gift which man cannot take away, and I for one mean to return them, intact to the Giver.

Thus, when the inevitable XO comes down as a declaration from any .gov entity, we would do well to remember the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------

The essence of "martial law" in this third sense may be vague, but its constitutional effect is pellucid: Any attempt to impose "martial law" by force is nothing less than "Treason". The Constitution declares that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". And "if ['War'] be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled, for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors". In operation, "martial law" proceeds by arraying men under arms in order to set aside or suspend the Constitution of the United States, in whole or in part, and to employ those arms against anyone who resists--without any constitutional or other lawful authority for doing so. Therefore, inasmuch as "the United States" exists only perforce and through application of the Constitution, "martial law" amounts to "levying War against the [United States]". And inasmuch as WE THE PEOPLE are the authors and beneficiaries of the Constitution, "martial law" amounts as well to "levying War against" THE PEOPLE themselves. It would be immaterial that those who attempted to impose "martial law" wore uniforms (even with United States flags as shoulder patches), or held military commissions, or acted pursuant to orders from supposed superiors. Even someone who commits "Treason" under a claim of "good faith" is entitled to no immunity. This principle is part of the modern Law of Nations: "[T]hat the [officer] acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility". And it subsists in American law of a far longer heritage.

In sum, "martial law" in the third sense of that term cannot exist in this country. It is a legal impossibility. Participation in it would constitute the most serious of all crimes. And it would supply just grounds for mass resistance among the citizenry aimed at overthrowing whatever purported governmental apparatus attempted to impose it. For, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, under such circumstances "it is the [people's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". And the Declaration of Independence is still very good law in America.

(exerpt from 'A Primer on "Martial Law"' by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.)

Second Amendment Advocates Fear UN Could Ban Gun Websites

Internet domain system to be transferred to “global community”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
March 20, 2014
Could the United Nations ban gun websites? That’s the fear being expressed by some second amendment advocates after the announcement that control over key aspects of the Internet would be transferred over to the “global community”.

Last week it was announced that the Los Angeles-based nonprofit the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, would relinquish control over domain names and other aspects of Internet architecture in favor of a new “global” governing structure that would involve multiple “stakeholders.”
The United Nations subsequently welcomed this “transition” of key aspects of the web over to the “global community” as a “major step towards the multilateral Internet governance that the UN has been advocating for many years.”
But could such a transition herald a new era of Internet censorship?
“Things like the First Amendment aren’t going ton be applicable anymore, that’s going to be out the window, warns Urban Survival blogger Dave Acton.
Acton makes the point that the United Nations considers many firearms legally owned by U.S. citizens to be “weapons of mass destruction”. The UN has vigorously campaigned against civilian ownership of “small arms” such as hand guns and pistols, blaming them for 90% of civilian casualties worldwide.
Although not put into action, the Obama administration signed a United Nations treaty in 2012 which effectively banned civilian ownership of firearms, which the UN has previously characterized as a threat to the “power monopoly” of the state.
“So under that global governance program, websites that promote ‘weapons of mass destruction’ like firearms, ammo – those domain names aren’t going to be renewed,” warns Acton, adding that gun-related domain names will be restricted after the transition.
Concerns that the United States’ relinquishing control over the Internet to the United Nations could lead to censorship have been expressed by several prominent individuals over the past two years.
In May 2012, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philip Verveer warned lawmakers that proposals to give the UN more control over the Internet could, “potentially lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.”
In February 2013, Robert McDowell, a member of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, warned that the UN was slowly moving to seize control of the world wide web, characterizing adherents of such a move as “patient and persistent incrementalists who will never relent until their ends are achieved.”
Texas Republican Ted Poe went further, asserting, “The idea that the UN ought to be controlling the Internet to me is like putting the Taliban in charge of women’s rights.”
Others have warned that UN member states would abuse such powers to crush dissent and disrupt anti-government protests. Indian Parliament member Rajeev Chandrasekhar cautioned that putting the Internet into the hands of the global community, “promotes a dangerous idea which has the UN and control stamped all over it.”
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=302927