“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country.” No truer words could have been spoken by Thomas Paine of "The American Crisis" in 1776 which still echo and reverberate throughout history to this very day. With the democratic left in the United States launching an internationally backed coup d’éta designed to overthrow the United States government in route to ousting the Trump administration, the treasonous elements within the United States government have passed the point of no return in an all-out assault on our constitutional republic. With fake news permeating the mainstream media and Republicans in name only (RINOs) increasingly becoming harder to discern from their Marxist counterparts, the only acceptable outcome at the end of the constitutional voting crisis in the United States and the hand-in-fist tyrannical COVID-19 lockdown measures affecting millions of Americans across the country as the potential threat of martial law looms is a return to the original vision of Americas founding fathers in restoring the Constitution in its entirety back as the supreme law of the land.

A lot has been made of the “Great Reset” and “new normal.” Otherwise known as the “New World Order,” what most fail to understand is that politicians from both sides of the aisle are behind this new vision of a globalist-based society and future. This is a plan decade’s long in the making, and rather than this being a fight between various political parties in preventing or advancing this new vision of the future, they are instead vying for control of the stirring wheel in shaping what this communist vision of Utopia will ultimately shape up to look like. They’re fighting for control of the paint brush, not whether or not a picture is actually painted.

Perfectly summarizing up exactly what the Constitution means to the United States of America and the free men and women whom exist within its borders, according to a White House.gov report, “The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.”

The Bill of Rights, or the original first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, outlines these fundamental rights of U.S. citizens, granted to them not by the Constitution or our founding fathers, but by natural law. By God himself. And among the many examples of infinite wisdom outlined and contained within the Constitution by Americas founding fathers is the idea of separation of powers within the Federal Government itself. As explained by the United States House of Representatives, Congress, “The U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens’ rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.”

Not so coincidentally, according to Isaiah 33:22, “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King. It is He who will save us.” The separations of powers outlined within the United States Constitution deriving its foundation from the Bible and God himself as a Christian document. With Americas birth certificate specifically outlining rights endowed to them by their creator, including their right and duty to throw off tyrannical government overreach after a long train of abuses and usurpations; there is little question the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people for as long as they can manage to hold on to their natural law rights as granted to them by God.

There are many things that separate a free nation from that of a communist one, but among the most important differences of which is the writ of habeas corpus, or the right of the citizen to hear the charges against them as a protection against illegal imprisonment. In communist nations such as Soviet Russia, citizens routinely disappeared by the millions at the hands of Stalin’s secret police into the gulag prison system never to be seen or heard from again. These victims of communism never given the writ of habeas corpus, the right to hear the charges against them justifying their imprisonment. They had no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, only a death sentence handed down arbitrarily by an ideological system of governance and control that eats its own in the name of loyalty to the system.

According to the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University, habeas corpus is, “Latin for 'that you have the body.' In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.”

Continuing, the Cornell University overview report went on to state, “The sources of habeas corpus can be found in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law. The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Although the Constitution does not specifically create the right to habeas corpus relief, federal statutes provide federal courts with the authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners. Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ.”

Looking back through time to discover what we can learn about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, we find a July 6, 1864 New York Times article titled, “PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT; Martial Law Declared in Kentucky. THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENDED. A PROCLAMATION,” written by former President Abraham Lincoln concerning the War of Northern Aggression. Diving deeper into the subject, according to an analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution from Congress.gov on the imposition of martial law, “Two theories of martial law are reflected in decisions of the Supreme Court. The first, which stems from the Petition of Right, 1628, provides that the common law knows no such thing as martial law; that is to say, martial law is not established by official authority of any sort, but arises from the nature of things, being the law of paramount necessity, leaving the civil courts to be the final judges of necessity. By the second theory, martial law can be validly and constitutionally established by supreme political authority in wartime.”

Additionally, the document goes on to state:

“The Civil War being safely over, however, a divided Court, in the elaborately argued Milligan case, reverting to the older doctrine, pronounced President Lincoln’s action void, following his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in September, 1863, in ordering the trial by military commission of persons held in custody as spies and abettors of the enemy. The salient passage of the Court’s opinion bearing on this point is the following: If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

"Four Justices, speaking by Chief Justice Chase, while holding Milligan’s trial to have been void because it violated the Act of March 3, 1863, governing the custody and trial of persons who had been deprived of the habeas corpus privilege, declared their belief that Congress could have authorized Milligan’s trial. The Chief Justice wrote: Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature, and by the principles of our institutions. . .”

In other words, Lincolns proclamation of martial law and Milligan’s subsequent arrest and trial were ruled void and unconstitutional due to Milligan having been deprived of habeas corpus and his Constitutional rights denied, though the Court recognized the potential necessity of martial rule as determined by the nature of the principles of our institutions. One could even reasonably argue precedent was set for future proclamations of martial law where any attempt to institute military rule over constitutional law while the civilian court system is still open and functional is an illegal act, and essentially null and void. Subject to being identified and labeled an occupying force violating individual states' rights and their sovereignty.

Giving the reader additional food for thought, in an eerily similar fictitious scenario to today's real life COVID-19 pandemic outlined within a January 3, 2000 LSU.edu report titled, “The Imposition of Martial Law in the United States,” Major Kirk L. Davies writes about the release of a contagious biological agent inside the continental United States that ultimately leads to the President instituting martial law. According to the report, “Imagine the following frightening scenario: Members of an American militia group enter a major metropolitan airport and attach small aerosol-like devices in several restrooms throughout the concourse. These devices release deadly amounts of smallpox bacteria into the air, infecting hundreds of Americans travelling through the airport."

"Within days," writes Major Davies, "Citizens around the country begin to display the horrific symptoms of smallpox. Soon public health workers determine the nature of the epidemic and release the information to the press. Widespread panic results. Civilian public health agencies attempt to educate the public on how to control the spread of the disease. But despite police efforts to control the populace by establishing quarantine areas, the civilian infrastructure is quickly overwhelmed. Chaos results. Finally, the President declares martial law in an attempt to restore order in the nation. This unwelcome scenario is but one example of a crisis that could quickly rip apart America's social structure," explained Major Davies.

According to the report, "Even though civilian disaster relief and law enforcement agencies regularly prepare for emergencies, Americans as individuals and as a society are woefully unprepared to face this kind of serious disaster. Michael Osterholm, State Epidemiologist for the Minnesota Department of Health, and Chair of the Committee on Public Health and the Public and Scientific Affairs Board, has been an outspoken advocate of developing a national emergency preparedness program for biological attack.”

Bridging the gap between imagination and reality, with Michael Osterholm today making the rounds on various mainstream media platforms to include the globally syndicated Joe Rogan Experience podcast during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic to sow fear and paranoia among the general public, (and coincidentally tapped by the incoming Joe Biden Administration as a COVID-19 adviser), this eerily uncanny scenario from Louisiana State University on the imposition of martial law in the United States is playing out in real time right before our very eyes as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on in the United States.

The report goes on to state that, “The extent to which the President may constitutionally or lawfully employ military force to react to an internal, national crisis is not at all clear. The Constitution does not explicitly grant any emergency powers to the President.” With a number of critical pieces of information contained within the report worthy of further investigation, among the most poignant include, “Those facing the risks associated with declaring martial law would extend beyond the President and his close circle of advisors. Military commanders who swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and who are required to follow the President's orders, would find themselves in an equally challenging predicament. Under declared martial law, the President would expect military commanders to follow his orders and execute the day-to-day duties associated with martial law. But in a commander's mind, the President's orders may appear to stand in direct opposition to the commander's oath to uphold and defend the nation's Constitution.”

And when the Constitution was specifically designed to outline God’s natural law and the freedoms contained within, with the Bill of Rights guaranteeing Americans specific rights to protect against government overreach, tyranny and oppression, a declaration of martial law in which the loss of habeas corpus sets the Bill of Rights and constitutional law aside as military rule becomes the new law of the land puts military veterans, both active and retired, in the precarious position of either continuing their roles as perpetual “yes men” to unconstitutional proclamations and edicts, or instead choosing to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

When the true definition and reality of normal is an America governed by the United States Constitution, any reframing of the supreme law of the land, to include the support for suspending the writ of habeas corpus in declaring martial law, can be construed as a direct attack on the republic. And with the left having called for martial law from the onset of the Trump administrations presidency, the calls today from notable conservatives such as retired Lt. General Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos some four years into the Trump administrations reign to deploy the military inside the continental United States in declaring martial law to re-run the elections means there are those within the Republican party who have come full circle right back to their Democratic Socialist counterparts in voicing their support for the suspension of the supreme law of the land.

Interestingly, according to a University of Michigan Law School review titled, “Katrina, Federalism, and Martial Law Enforcement: A New Exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” author Sean McGrane writes that, “In the days following Hurricane Katrina, as lawlessness and violence spread throughout New Orleans, the White House considered invoking the Insurrection Act so that members of the U.S. military could legally perform law enforcement functions inside the flooded city.  This note contends that the White House's decision not to invoke the Act was substantially driven by federalism concerns- in particular, concerns about intruding on Louisiana's sovereignty.”

According to a Senate hearing from the First Session of the 110th Congress on April 24, 2007 titled, “The Insurrection Act Rider” and State Control of the National Guard”” Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont opened up the remarks at the hearings by stating, “There was a little noticed but very sweeping change in the law regarding the National Guard by the last Congress. Specifically, we are examining the recent changes to the Insurrection Act, which controls when the President can use components of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. The Insurrection Act is one of the major exemptions to our longstanding statutes but also the distinctive American tradition not to involve the military in domestic law enforcement. We are lucky in this country. We have superb domestic law enforcement. We have superb military. And they are better if they are allowed to do their own jobs.”

The report goes on to state that, “Now, it is not just bad process. It is also bad policy. The Insurrection Act Rider subverts sound policies for dealing with emergency situations that keep our Governors and other locally elected officials in the loop when they have to deal with disasters. The changes increase the likelihood that the military will be inserted into domestic situations. One of the characteristics of our nation is that we do not have the military patrol our communities. We have local law enforcement doing it.”

Later, according to the report, “Senator Bond. Well, even some of the members of the SASC who should have did not know about it. But this is an influential panel, and you know how it has changed the old law, and we now know that all 50 of our nation's Governors, Adjutants General, and local law enforcement are opposed to it. Nobody knows where it came from. Allowing the President to invoke the Act and declare martial law where public order breaks down as a result of natural disaster, epidemic, terrorist attack, is very ambiguous and gives him broad authority potentially to usurp the role of the Governors, which is extremely important. Why on Earth would anyone want to do it? If, for example, during and after the aftermath of the hurricane the Guard failed to respond, that might be one thing. But everything we all know is that the Guard performed magnificently when called upon. They were there, and the Governors and Adjutants General responded. While Katrina was one if not the nation's most devastating natural disasters, at no time did anyone question the Guard's response. The only real significant challenge was the shortfall in equipment.”

Though to anyone familiar with the history of Katrina and the deployment of the National Guard in New Orleans, they will know that firearms were confiscated from law abiding citizens by local law enforcement, National Guardsmen and federal agents in the aftermath of the hurricane, leaving honest Americans defenseless against hordes of violent criminals who took to the streets in the wake of the devastation to rape, murder and pillage what was left of their area of operation. Facts which absolutely should give every American cause for concern as talk of military invervention inside the continental United States arises when there is a myriad of overlapping legal red tape muddying the waters of what does and does not constitute martial law. Which if ever officially enacted and instated, is likely to be labeled an emergency police action instead of martial law in an effort to quell public fear and dissent.

With the democratic left in the United States aligning with numerous foreign governments in the attempted coup d’état of the Trump administration and overthrow of the United States government, there is little question traitorous elements within both parties have pulled the rug out from underneath Lady Liberty in betraying the American people. The Trump administration dealt a raw hand in being caught between a rock and a hard place in dealing with the communist takeover of America from within as the New World Order inches closer to a dystopian nightmare disturbingly labeled as the new normal.  The results of the 2020 presidential election very much in question as the very fate of the United States itself hangs in the balance of whether or not the left will be allowed to get away with their fraudulent voting activity. As a fake pandemic currently runs concurrent right alongside the attempted 2020 presidential election heist, the threat of martial law looms over our Constitutional rights. The only acceptable outcome at the end of this highway to hell is a return to the founding fathers’ original vision of America with the Constitution being restored as the supreme law of the land. With the founding of the United States itself owing its roots and origins in rebellion to government overreach and tyranny, it will no doubt help to keep in mind the words of Thomas Paine in regards to the 1776 crisis where he wisely explained that, "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country."