As of Tuesday, more than 1,500 Guard personnel in 22 states were called up to aid efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 as the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic on March 11, with President Donald Trump following two days later to classify the virus as a national emergency.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a Sunday presser said that martial law was not necessary to combat coronavirus in his state.

“If you want to establish a framework of martial law, which is ultimate authority and enforcement, we have the capacity to do that, but we are not feeling at this moment that is a necessity,” Newsom said.

On Monday, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted, albeit with a spelling error, requesting everyone stop sharing misinformation about the use of martial law to maintain stability in this ongoing crisis. He wrote, “Please stop spreading stupid rumors about marshall law. COMPLETELY FALSE. We will continue to see closings & restrictions on hours of non-essential businesses in certain cities & states. But that is NOT marshall law.” (End Excerpt)

NOTE: The National Guard was mobilized in 22 states upon the WHO declaration of a pandemic on 11 March. The US Federal Government didn’t declare an emergency until 2 days later, 13 March.

Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/martial-law.asp

(Excerpt) When martial law is declared, civilian control of some or all aspects of government operations is ceded to the military. This means that, in the case of elected governments, the representatives chosen by the voting population are no longer in power. (End Excerpt)

Consider the above carefully. Has this happened? Anywhere in the US? At any level of government?

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_States

This has information about the historical use of Martial Law in times of violent riots, war, and natural disasters.

US Constitution web site, on Martial Law: https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html looks at the suspension of Habeas Corpus in A. Lincoln’s 1863 declaration of Martial Law, which was approved by Congress in fulfillment of the Constitution’s rules. That declaration was challenged before the Supreme Court, which led to:

(Excerpt) “Martial law,” it was argued, “is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler.” In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, “The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender.” (End Excerpt)

Again, look around you at how decisions are being made at the state level, county and municipal levels, and by individuals as business owners. Is everyone being driven by “the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department”?

The Stafford Act

I think it’s time readers had more information in front of them about Martial Law and the Stafford Act. The US President invoked the Stafford Act on March 13, 2010. The impression being given by RV/GCR Gurus and Compiled Reports is that the Stafford Act is a declaration of Martial Law – and it is not. It was not created for military takeover, and it has never been used to justify mobilization of the US military. Nor were the restrictions on movement and assembly we now live under put in place all at once by order of the military, as would be the case under Martial Law. Restrictions and closings were ordered by State Governors, one at a time – and businesses were already closing and canceling events voluntarily, because it was obviously the right, sensible, proactive thing to do in the face of a spreading public health emergency.

Here are links to deeply informed sources.

STAFFORD ACT

The Center for Disaster Philanthropy discusses what the Stafford Act provides in emergencies, and how it has been criticized and amended: https://disasterphilanthropy.org/issue-insight/the-stafford-act/

ASTHO, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, explains the Act and what it does: https://www.astho.org/Programs/Preparedness/Public-Health-Emergency-Law/Emergency-Authority-and-Immunity-Toolkit/Robert-T–Stafford-Disaster-Relief-and-Emergency-Assistance-Act-Fact-Sheet/

Forbes Magazine (13 March 2020) article about how the Act has been invoked in the past several Administrations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/03/13/the-stafford-act-invoked-by-president-trump-has-rarely-been-used-for-public-health-emergencies/#6df70c301fd3

None of these explanations mentions Martial Law.

The Stafford Act enables states to ask for Federal aid – both financial and material – to respond to a disaster, emergency or crisis, when the State does not have sufficient means of its own.

Rumors and Real Response

I think it’s time readers had more information in front of them about Martial Law and the Stafford Act. The US President invoked the Stafford Act on March 13, 2010. The impression being given by RV/GCR Gurus and Compiled Reports is that the Stafford Act is a declaration of Martial Law – and it is not. It was not created for military takeover, and it has never been used to justify mobilization of the US military. Nor were the restrictions on movement and assembly we now live under put in place all at once by order of the military, as would be the case under Martial Law. Restrictions and closings were ordered by State Governors, one at a time – and businesses were already closing and canceling events voluntarily, because it was obviously the right, sensible, proactive thing to do in the face of a spreading public health emergency.

Here are links to deeply informed sources.

FAKE INTERNET RUMOR

The Stafford Act was also mentioned in an internet chain-email rumor about national lockdown. Here’s a Tweet from the National Security Council (yes, from inside the Trump Administration), about that rumor.  https://twitter.com/WHNSC/status/1239398218292748292

BuzzFeed says: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/dont-believe-stafford-act-texts

WTHR, an Indianapolis TV station: https://www.wthr.com/article/verify-text-messages-about-national-quarantine-and-stafford-act-are-fake

PolitiFact is published by the Poynter Institute (learn all about the PI by clicking on the Menu in the upper left corner): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/17/facebook-posts/social-posts-are-misinterpreting-federal-disaster-/

So. What we see around us are VOLUNTARY closings and cancellations happening BEFORE State Governors took action, and State Governors took action BEFORE the White House invoked the Stafford Act, which didn’t have anything to do with mobilizing the military. What we also see around us are businesses in the US and abroad VOLUNTARILY changing their production from beer, distilled spirits, and clothing to hand sanitizer and medical garments, including face masks. Google search terms and results:

Breweries distilleries make hand sanitizer: https://www.google.com/search?q=breweries+distilleries+make+hand+sanitizer&oq=breweries+distilleries+make+hand+sanitizer&aqs=chrome..69i57.10035j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Fashion designers make face masks: https://www.google.com/search?q=fashion+designers+make+face+masks&oq=fashion+designers+make+face+masks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7538j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Does that mean the Intel Sources are not being honest with the Gurus and Report Compilers we read on various websites? Like most answers in this RV/GCR journey, the answer seems to be, “Maybe, maybe not.” It’s possible that when a Source equates the Stafford Act with Martial Law, the statement is tangibly false, but the Source may want to say the Stafford Act is a cover for very quiet military movements. That deeper meaning may be more true, but far too transparent for the intel situation.

Besides drawing up plans for humanitarian projects, our business is DISCERNMENT. Effective Discernment requires not only a broad range of information from a broad range of sources, but also the ability and willingness to calm down and look at what is really happening around us in our communities. This is not a comic book. The best response overall is to be kind to one another.

» Source » By Sara Sicard