Is it time for martial law in Democrat-run cities?

Here's a sampling of some recent headlines:

The Chicago Tribune, May 7: "Chicago sees its most violent week of the year: 9 killed, 76 wounded";
The Baltimore Sun, May 7: "Double shooting of teens is first in series of shootings from Saturday evening through Sunday in Baltimore";
ABC, New Orleans, May 7: "NOPD investigating multiple shootings over the weekend in New Orleans."

Equally alarming as the carnage is how desensitized we've become to normalized violence in these culturally rich and historically significant American cities.

Just how deadly and dangerous is the crime? Worse than you think

I've been hesitant to ask, but I will no longer resist: Is it time for martial law in many (perhaps all) midsize and big cities that have been ruled by Democrats for decade upon decade?

Here are the top 20 cities with the highest gun-murder rates in the U.S., per capita. Of these, every city except the last one, Tulsa, has a Democratic majority in the mayoralty and city council/board of aldermen.

Here's the non-fatal shootings top 20, per capita. Several cities overlap; the cities on the non-fatal list that are absent on the murder list are also Democrat-run cities, except the last, Jacksonville.

Here's a sampling of five Democratic empires (all days are consecutive and uninterrupted); all appear in the top 20 lists:

St. Louis: only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city councils; 15,000 days.
Baltimore: only Democratic mayors and only Democratic city councils; 18,000 days.
Philadelphia: only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city councils; 20,000 days.
Detroit: only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city councils; 22,000 days.
Chicago: only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city councils; 30,000 days.

The Democrats have ruled Chicago for longer than Stalin ruled the USSR, the Castros in Cuba and the Kims in North Korea, and for longer than slavery was legal in the U.S.

These are America's top 10 most violent cities, according to FBI data. Violent crimes include homicides, gun violence, gangs, pedophilia and robberies. Every city is majority Democrat-controlled. Several of the cities on the FBI's list also appear on the aforementioned murder and non-fatal shootings lists. Because the FBI's ranking is per capita, cities such as Chicago and Newark (only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city council; 23,000 days) are absent.

Want more evidence? St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans crack the top 50 for most dangerous cities on the planet. New Orleans has elected only Democratic mayors for the last 55,000 consecutive days; the United States as a nation has existed for 88,000 days.

When is enough enough?

We're witness to the single most treasonous and egregious cover up within the DMIC: the Democrat Media Industrial Complex.

At what point do law-abiding residents in these cities and their suburbs decide the breaking point has been reached? At what point do law-abiding Americans who have been casual observers start noticing? Is it as simple as asking, "why do you live there?"; or, "that's who you voted for"? It's not that simple; if it were, the pendulum would have swung to somewhat normalcy. Instead the breadth and frequency of violent crime in these municipalities have worsened over the years, not improved.

Is the answer to admonish families – many of whom are multi-generational residents, who have grown up, lived and worked in these places – for remaining? Why should a family feel the need to move because they're unsafe; isn't that what families in war-torn Middle Eastern theocracies do?

The most fundamental role of government, at any level, is to keep its residents safe; "that's who you voted for" is an inexcusable excuse to justify this third-world-type crime.

What do YOU think? Is it time for martial law in Democrat cities? Sound off in today's WND poll.

What is martial law?

To understand martial law, we must recognize its constitutional basis. The ninth section of Article 1 of the Constitution limits Congress' powers and says the following regarding the suspension of habeas corpus:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Habeus corpus, translated from Latin to mean "that you have the body," is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee, such as an adjudicated mentally ill patient, before a court to determine if the imprisonment or detention is lawful.

Martial law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and our Supreme Court, in the 1946 Duncan v. Kahanamoku ruling, determined that the term had no precise meaning.

In addition to the suspension of habeas corpus, Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution allows Congress "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Think about this: Our founders, in all their wisdom, innately understood that the larger and more unwieldy the State grew, the more liberty is infringed. And yet, those same founders provided for Congress a kind of last resort activation button to suspend due process in the interests of public safety and national security. Congress has never declared martial law, although martial law measures were ratified for potential use during the Civil War, in 1861, to give the Union military forces the authority to arrest persons and conduct trials.

What would George Washington do?

I'm loathe to speak for our national forefathers, but is it not within reason to suggest that they might deem the conditions in Democratic municipal hegemonies as justification for the suspension of habeas corpus? I do not know the answer; the question and the answer are complex.

What I do know, however, is that the cities governed by the same political party for tens of thousands of consecutive days have forced me to wonder aloud whether Congress must seriously consider the unprecedented step of declaring martial law. If declared, there's no going back, and none of us know what the aftermath would look like.

How many more must die? When will we unequivocally draw the line in the sand that juveniles committing violent crime in Baltimore is unacceptable? When will Americans have enough of career criminality? If martial law isn't an, or the, answer or solution, then what is? The majority of residents in these cities are law-abiding and have a right not to die simply because of where they live.

Our Revolutionaries lived under King George III for 37 years, and then decided upon the last resort of waging war; 37 years is but a pittance of time to Democrats in their cities. The king would marvel at how effectively the Democrats have maintained their stranglehold; the British monarchs ain't got nothin' on them.