The debate continues on Martial Law. Would Barack Hussein Obama use it to postpone the elections in order to remain in power?

I have been one of those concerned conservatives who try to anticipate the unexpected tactics of our would-be Muslim Dictator in Chief. In my previous analysis’s I equated Barack Hussein Obama to a cornered rat who would do anything to stay in power.  When Obama authorized the killing of Muslim leaders in al-Qaida I stated it was more for publicity than anything else. When I anticipated what Obama would do if his popularity declined and his reelection became in doubt, I suggested that he would support and encourage the Occupy protesters up to the point of them causing widespread civil unrest and then Obama would declare Martial Law and use the public safety as a reason to postpone the November elections.

Now, WND.com has an exclusive commentary by Barry Farber who seems to doubt that Barack Hussein Obama would do such a nasty thing. Farber does mention a few more reasons why Obama should be booted out of Washington but he still does not agree that Martial Law will be or would be invoked.

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Will Obama impose martial law?
Exclusive: Barry Farber offers take on theory prez has plans to repress Americans

My inbox seems more and more aflame with articles quoting un-named insiders warning Americans that the Obama administration is secretly-but-ardently preparing for “organized disorder” intended to warrant the imposition of martial law so the presidential election can be canceled and Obama can continue to rule “indefinitely”! Details seem to be amazingly abundant. The deliberate violence will be just bad enough, you see, to make the American people grateful for the martial law. And the government is allegedly stockpiling everything needed to build and maintain “concentration camps.” And on applications for the military they’re now asking questions like, “Would you forcibly take guns from your fellow Americans?” Also, “Would you kill them?”

At this point I should emphasize I’m as opposed to this administration as I can arrange to get, but I’m totally unconvinced by all such talk. In fact, if brain scientists are looking for a real “complacent” to study – one who actually says, “It can’t happen here!” – I’m their man, provided it pays at least as much as jury duty.

Further down in his comments, Mr. Farber says: “will American troops nonetheless conclude, “Gee, I guess it’s time for us to go kill our own people to save the country”?” This innocuous statement sounds similar to The Oath Keepers who are appealing to law enforcement people to abide by their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and refuse orders to arrest or harm innocent civilians or confiscate their guns. Just how in hell is a cop going to know that his orders are unconstitutional or that any civilian was innocent when he was told otherwise by his superiors. How are the National Guard troops going to know they should not follow orders if they are mobilized to confront rioting Occupy forces. And whether they did or did not follow orders has nothing to do with the imposition of Martial Law. And what if there was a possibility that law enforcement people or military people would not follow orders? Did anyone ever consider that Obama could go to the United Nations and declare a national emergency and ask for a U.N. Peace Keeping force be sent to American soil? I am certain those troops from Uganda or the Congo would have no compulsions against killing American civilians.

Any government that would authorize the construction of civilian detainment centers (i.e. concentration camps) or ask for an amendment to the NDAA National Defense Authorization Act to allow the arrest and imprisonment without trial of any American who the government has determined was a threat is certainly capable of doing anything it wants to remain in power. The power that the government has already acquired in the Patriot Act and the above mentioned issues can be used against anyone they choose to use it against, whether it be genuine Islamic terrorists or right-wing conservatives. And do not forget, the Obama Dept. of Homeland Security has already defined whom it considers to be a potential threat.

Who or what you call a terrorist is not the same as what the Dept. of Homeland Security calls a terrorist. When you think of a terrorist you probably have in mind the radical Muslims who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. These people are whom the original Patriot Act was designed to go after. But the Patriot Act is simply a tool that provides law enforcement extra special powers, it is up to the government to define who those powers will be used against. It is like a powerful weapon that a good person carries but then it falls into the hands of someone who is not a good person.

As I wrote on Feb. 13, 2010 in this blog:    You have probably heard about Dept. of Homeland Security’s controversial document that was published in 2009. It was one of the first things Obama had his DHS do. It is called  (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. It is available here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf   Two weeks before this was published, Dept. of Homeland Security published another document called (U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon, that described the definitions it was using. It is available here:   http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

    The DHS document (U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon also includes precursors to the ill-fated "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" report, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. For example, the lexicon contains virtually the same broad-stroke language the right-wing extremism report used. And all right wing extremists are considered domestic terrorists

    "Right wing extremism," the lexicon defines as those "who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly anti-government and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to right wing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

    The left wing Democrats in Washington want to tie all their plans into a neat bundle. Taking into consideration that DHS has virtually declared that you and I are both “Right Wing Extremists” now consider that Atty Gen. Eric Holder has proposed legislation to prohibit any person considered a domestic terrorist or right wing extremist from owning a firearm.

The only question that remains is who is going to fire the first shot. Maybe we need to study the history of our first American Revolution and read about Lexington and Concord to find the answer.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Old Ironsides.