No products in the cart.


Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?

Military Occupation

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at

A group of foreign militants infiltrates the U.S. using student visas, weak borders, bribery and cooperation with drug cartels. Secret cells integrate within metropolitan areas and blend with the populace. At the precise moment, they activate, unleashing small attacks across the country in coordinated blitzkrieg-style terror campaigns against everything from suburban neighborhoods to public schools to shopping malls, striking fear into the citizenry, which now believes no one is safe, even in the heartland. With normal law enforcement overwhelmed, the economy on the brink and the populace ready to riot, the military is deployed domestically; curfews, price controls and rationing are initiated; and special operations agents act as infiltrators in order to subdue the terrorist factions. The loss of common liberties is welcomed by most as safety and security become the paramount motivator.

A glimpse into the future? Well, perhaps. Actually, it’s the plot narrative to a Chuck Norris movie called “Invasion U.S.A.” The terrorists in that movie were communists from places like Cuba and Venezuela (hey, it was the 80s, and we had no idea that the communists were elitists that had already taken over from within), but the premise is strangely not far from what the government is trying to sell to us as a potential real-life scenario today.

As Americans, we have been bombarded with propaganda for decades, which conjures rationalizations for domestic military operations. This propaganda always presents us with an all-or-nothing option: relinquish liberty and beat the enemy, or “cling” to the “outdated” Constitution and fall as a society. There never seems to be a third option, an option that does not require the loss of freedoms and allows for security. In the film “Invasion U.S.A.,” I suppose we had Chuck Norris as a third option, which is not a bad third option in the world of cinema; but I’m sorry to say that Chuck alone cannot save us from what is coming in the real America.

I am highly suspicious of the rhetoric coming out of Washington lately in terms of the ISIS situation. ISIS has apparently secured the Iraqi city of Ramadi and put the government there on the defensive, meaning that despite the recent claims that ISIS leadership has been hit in Syria, the group continues to advance.

Rumors of potential ISIS attacks on U.S. soil continue to spread from sources like the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration.

“Former” CIA officials (is there such a thing?) are also getting in on the action, warning in mainstream media outlets that ISIS has the ability to direct at least small-scale attacks on the U.S. today.

However, the threat of ISIS does not frighten me. It concerns me, but what truly disturbs me is the likely government response if such predictions by alphabet agencies come to pass.

In my recent article “When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It,” I examined the tactics behind not only globalization, but also the most probable methods that will be used to secure globalization through the oppression of dissenting voices and groups. Part of that examination included my take on the Jade Helm 15 exercises running from summer into autumn and how they fit directly into the strategies for disrupting insurgencies (revolutions) discussed openly by internationalists in their own symposiums.

My conclusion given the clear evidence at hand? Jade Helm is definitely NOT meant to prepare troops for foreign operations. The program is admitted to be a primer for military response to “crisis scenarios,” denoting domestic operation. Special forces groups are training with domestic agencies like the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. And they are training and infiltrating completely American environments, which they would not be doing unless they planned to operate in very similar environments. Special forces always train like they fight. Period.

With at least 45% of Americans concerned that open domestic military exercises are a precursor to greater federal control over states and more than 62% convinced that government power is suffocating individual liberty, it is only a matter of time before the government spin doctors create a semi-believable rationale for such endeavors as Jade Helm. I believe that ISIS could be their perfect rationale.

As public concern is amplified and evidence indicating that the Department of Defense is lying about the purpose of JH15 is more widely recognized, the DOD may very well admit that the operation is not for training in foreign theaters. Rather, they may argue that JH15 is in fact training designed to protect Americans on American soil from widespread terrorist threats. That is to say, the new spin will be that Jade Helm is meant to save us all from the psychopathic child killing cannibal monstrosity known as ISIS.

Look at it this way, what better excuse for covert military actions in domestic environments? What better way to justify lying to the American people about Jade Helm goals and directives? What better way to silence the critics and so-called “conspiracy theorists” than for the government to say: “Yes, we lied, but it was to keep the real and honorable purpose of JH15 secret, and to save the public from terrorism, now shut up naysayers and liberty activists, you are putting the whole nation at risk…!”

Maybe I am connecting dots that are not dots, but it seems to me that the timing of ISIS warnings, the re-ignition of economic downturn in 2014/2015, the global shift away from the dollar, and Jade Helm are not entirely coincidental. Martial Law is not a scenario that can be generated in a vacuum; it needs a primer, a trigger event, if not multiple trigger events.

If the final trigger event is indeed intended to be a terror campaign on U.S. soil, then questions of the true purpose of Jade Helm will undoubtedly take a back seat to immediate solutions to what amounts to a foreign invasion (at least, that is how it will be painted), and none other than Jade Helm will be presented as that solution.

The debate over JH15 and programs like it will change. It will become a matter of the “greater good” against a foreign enemy, rather than a government overstep against the rights of the people. How can we possibly question the defense of American soil against terrorists? Isn’t that an undeniable directive of the military? And if we do question such a directive and its value to the American people, are we not “weakening” the resolve and effectiveness of the defense apparatus through negative public opinion? And by extension, would that not make us “domestic enemies” as well?

In fact, I can easily argue that there is absolutely NO rationale for domestic military operations against ISIS or anyone else, and here’s why.

ISIS Is A Fabrication

As I outlined in detail in my article “The Time Is Ripe For A False Flag Attack On American Soil,” the organization known as ISIS has long been a collaborative creation of the U.S. government and its allies. From funding and training in Libya and Jordan, to arming in Syria and Iraq, ISIS is nothing without the Western intelligence apparatus, just as al-Qaida was nothing more than a CIA Frankenstein monster.

So should Americans be forced to relinquish their freedoms in order to combat an enemy that our own government engineered out of thin air? And beyond that, who represents the greater enemy: ISIS or the lunatic elitists who gave ISIS the tools to commit atrocities?

Government Is Incapable Of Providing Security

Some people may argue that the true origins of ISIS are a matter of historical debate that will not solve our immediate problem of rampant terror threats. How can we nitpick where ISIS came from while ISIS is trying to massacre us? Fair enough.

My rebuttal would be that regardless of where ISIS found its organizational support, the U.S. government and the military apparatus under the direction of a corrupt DOD are incapable of protecting the American people anyway. If ISIS is able to unleash a campaign of attacks that give license to the idea of martial law, then the government has only proven one of two things:

1)  It is too inept to prevent such events from occurring due to its refusal to secure our borders and despite full-spectrum surveillance of the American people by the NSA.

2)  It is so evil in its machinations that it has allowed terrorist infiltration in order to further an agenda of greater control.

Either the government is a bungling bureaucratic mess not capable of keeping anyone safe, or it is a cesspool of tyranny that has no intention of keeping anyone safe. In either case, why should the American people give such an entity even MORE power, when it can’t responsibly handle the considerable power it already has?

American Civilians Can Provide Their Own Security And Do It Better

Official martial law may never be declared, but it could nevertheless become a reality. I would present the response to the Boston bombing event as a direct example of militarization of a domestic region without it being called “martial law.” This was, of course, a “federalized” response, rather than a military one. But it was militarization in its nature all the same. The establishment will use all kinds of mislabeling and spin in order to entice the populace to submit to further encroachment of liberties in the name of security.

The fact is the best defense for the civilian population of America has always been the individual population itself. Terrorists are far more likely to be thwarted tactically and psychologically by a trained, armed, aware and free citizenry than any oppressive federal or military dragnet. Why?  Because the citizenry is the target, and thus, always first on the scene to respond.  Citizens become victims when they wait around passively for government “authorized” responders to save them, instead of adopting the attitude that THEY are responsible for their own defense.  Legally, it is a constitutional mandate that American militias retain authority over domestic defense. And to be clear, the militia is every able-bodied American, not only a certain percentage of Americans the government deems acceptable (which means the National Guard does not qualify as the militia).

This is the answer to the propaganda of militarization. We do not have to choose between liberty and security. We can have both, and we can provide it for ourselves as our own protectors. Sheepdogs be damned. Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS or similar threats that matters, and martial law is not the answer.


Brandon Smith


  1. If I am not mistaken “martial law” is not allowed, permitted, or stated in our Constitution and therefore any Martial Law declaration is illegal, null and void.

  2. You know it, We know it, I know it, and I hope that THEY know it that to give up one’s arms when being attacked it STUPID!!!

  3. There is NEVER any excuse or reason here in the USA to ever declare “martial law” or “emergency powers” as they are actually an open declaration of treason by the person who does it no matter what position they occupy within the governments – state or general (federal). It is the exact opposite of the US Constitution (as much of what is done by those who serve within governmental positions today is also).

    Remember this when or IF one is given the order to impose “martial law” or martial law tactics, or “emergency powers” on the American people and ARREST the person, and the people that person took orders from for *TREASON and **Terrorism against the American people.

    Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): “Emergency does NOT create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.” (caps are mine)

    The Supreme Court of the United States: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and COVERS WITH THE SHIELD OF ITS PROTECTION ALL CLASSES OF MEN, AT ALL TIMES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Caps are mine)

    Treason is always against the American people here in the USA; and ALWAYS throughout history those taking governmental orders have been USED against their people. Do NOT do the same. YOU who are/were under governmental orders whatever position you occupy/occupied are an American, get to know intimately your US Constitution which Oath taken REQUIRES of you to support and defend it.

    Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting:
    “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

    “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

    “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” (end quote by Judge Alex Kozinski)

    Understand by “just following orders” and/or “just doing your jobs” you will be doing the same as those Judge Alex Kozinski was speaking of here “… Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops…” when they were implementing the orders of the psychopaths over them.

    Just say “NO” has a much stronger meaning now, add to it charges and arrests of those giving the orders. Fight to get the Militias recognized and assist in training them as is required of you. Better yet, QUIT as when you are not longer under governmental orders YOU are the organized Militia of your state and you can lawfully defend your family, county, state, and country.

    The People vs. Herkimer, 15 American Decisions 379, 4 Cowen NY 345, 348 (1825): “The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative rights, titles or interests, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind at the King, nor the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign. It is a maxim of the common-law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and Justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute is General, and any prerogative rights, titles or interests would be divested or taken from the king (or the people) in such case he shall not be bound”.

    Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419,458: “The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power”.

    * Treason –

    ** Terrorism – 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Ronald Reagan: “I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: ‘Freedom of assembly’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and so forth. Of course, they don’t allow them to have those things, but they’re in there in the constitution.
    But I began to wonder about the other constitutions – everyone has one – and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours.
    And then I found out, and the answer was very simple – that’s why you don’t notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, ‘We, the government, allow the people the following rights,’ and our Constitution says ‘We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.’ We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that’s the whole story of the difference – why we’re unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we’re going to overcome”.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1779: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them.”

    It is also important to realize that…
    Our Founding fathers didn’t fight for government control of your life liberty, and property… They fought against it!

    Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address: “But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

    Off subject but interesting just the same, from the old FBI website –
    Law enforcement agencies in America requires/provides training in Constitutional law, because pretty much every part of an officer’s job is intermeshed with where the Rights of the People as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the enforcement of laws meet. Examples are arrests, searches and seizures, investigative detentions, eyewitness identification, interrogations, etc. Pretty much all of these everyday law enforcement tasks, and more, are governed by the US Constitution.

    States have their own Constitutions, and under the Constitution of the United States as the highest law of this land, the States may provide greater protections to their people; but (because of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment) they cannot lawfully provide less.
    Finally, the founding fathers built a system of checks and balances into the Constitution, whereby the executive, legislative, and judiciary would check and balance each other and state governments would balance the federal while it, in turn, would maintain a check on the states.

    James Madison, wrote the following insightful words: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the Constitutional rights of the place. … If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself”.

    The most fundamental of the many checks and balances in our system of government is the power to control oneself. At no time is a commitment to this principle more eloquently expressed than when individual officers raise their hands and solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. May all of us do so with a firm understanding of the principles we have determined to defend and a clear recognition of the people we promise to protect. (end quote)

    See how far since Bush 1 things have gone? Our “traditional” American philosophy teaches that government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty is to be safeguarded, if each Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights are to be made and kept enduringly secure.

    “Just Powers” Defined – This philosophy asserts that the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from the people, ONLY the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government MAY BE ENTRUSTED in order to serve the PEOPLES purposes without endangering the PEOPLES rights, liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute are considered the “just powers” of government, as written within the Declaration of Independence. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity.

    “Limited” which is the KEY word in the phrase “Limited government” is THE major term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government’s power in these words: Limited for Liberty.

    Summarizing the meaning by the statement within the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power particularly “to secure these rights” – meaning that it is the duty of those that serve within our governments to make and keep them ever secure.

    “Limited” means limited by a written Constitution, “put into writing” the strongest type of contract, adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law – never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit.

    All governments in America – state and federal – are thus limited by written Constitutions – by the United States Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land” and, as to each State government, by that States’ Constitution.

    Understand now why here in America “martial law” and “emergency powers” are treason against the American people? Why those that serve within the US Military and law enforcement – state and federal must NEVER follow any order that goes against the US Constitution and their solemn lawfully/legally binding Oath. That it matters not what position the person above them is occupying, once they give an order to go against the contract – Constitution(s) – they are under they are committing a crime and MUST be arrested (Perjury and felony), charged and removed from the position they occupy. If the order qualifies as Treasonous and/or Terrorism against the American people then they must be charged accordingly.

    Thomas Jefferson warned many times in his many writings, both public and private (such as in the Kentucky Resolutions) in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION’S LIMITS PLACED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POWER IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE’S LIBERTIES.

    This point was stressed at great length within The Federalist (look at numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 – Hamilton, 44 and 46 – Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution – as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions.

    Hamilton’s many repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people’s mandate as to the limits on government’s power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated (“Letters of Phocion,” 1784)that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be

    “a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . .”.

    Washington’s ***Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history’s lesson, when he warned that usurpation “is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

    The American philosophy that underlies the resistance to “tyranny of king and parliament” before the Declaration of Independence, and then in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows and constitutionally is still valid today:

    Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people’s God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as “out-laws.” These defaulting trustees – thus acting lawlessly – by their undelegated actions free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-breaking/defying public servants.

    Applying this to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, are defying the limitations placed upon the powers assigned to the branch they occupy which was imposed by the “supreme Law of the Land”; then the people and any constitutional governments of the States that are left are opposing Rule-by-Man by DEFENDING Rule-by-Law, the US Constitution. Those that are working to support and defend the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; are thereby acting in defense of the people’s God-given, unalienable rights and the States’ reserved powers (not all the powers of the people or the states was granted to create the general (federal) government).

    Our American philosophy and the system we – okay, our ancestors – created of constitutionally LIMITED general government requires that the people of the several States – acting through their State governments, or on their own if the state government is also corrupted – will, when no longer given a choice, use LAWFUL, constitutionally mandated force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers to defend our legitimate government. The people and what lawful states that are left will use the military force of the people’s “Militia of the Several States” to oppose any military force used by such usurpers.

    As Samuel Adams stated: “Let us remember, that ‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'”

    ***George Washington’s Farewell Address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

Comments are closed.