I have recently come to suspect that the “sovereignty” being declared from the federal government by several states is a sham – a clever ruse designed to placate the people while their states actually prepare for the coming martial law.
In part, I have based this suspicion on the fact that, among those states declaring their supposed “sovereignty” have been several that have been busily passing new gun control laws that claim to “protect” their respective citizens from gun confiscations during martial law (a very telling statement in itself), while, at the same time, actually facilitating it.
But, there is yet more evidence that some of the same states declaring “sovereignty” from the federal government are otherwise cooperating with the federal government.
Take, for example, the unemployment benefits extended to the states by the new stimulus bill passed by the Obama administration. While there are five states (Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Idaho) whose governors have said they will refuse the acceptance of those funds on principal, the remaining forty-five states have not done so. Among them is Oklahoma, the first state to issue a declaration of sovereignty. It has not only accepted those funds, but is already distributing them, as of February 28th.
While Mississippi’s governor is among those refusing the funds (and Mississippi is also one of the states declaring sovereignty), its SB2036, a law that supposedly prevents gun confiscations during martial law, actually facilitates the confiscation of guns by leaving it up to a police officer’s sole discretion. Considering what we know about cops having been trained to take our guns in recent years, I leave it to you to decide whether this Mississippi law does anything to protect Mississippi’s gun owners or not. Refusing the stimulus funds (at least for unemployment benefits, anyway – we don’t know what other funds Mississippi may or may not be accepting from the stimulus pie), while it may seem aligned with the purposes of declaring state sovereignty, is easily done if the long-term plan is for martial law – a situation in which those extended unemployment benefits will no doubt be revoked, anyway. But, preparing for martial law by hurriedly passing laws that help to implement it – as SB2036 actually does, despite the claims to the contrary, is a glaring contradiction of the entire purpose and principle of declaring state sovereignty, is it not?
As for Louisiana’s record, the Katrina debacle speaks volumes about their willingness to go along with federal plans for martial law – they’ve already done it, during the martial law practice run that was the response to Katrina, during which firearms were seized from the population of New Orleans, leaving law abiding citizens (many of whom were not affected by the flooding) without any means to protect themselves from looters for weeks.