Klinton Ready To Impose Martial Law!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

Heard on radio that our chief fornicator is getting ready to sue the gun firms becuase of children being killed. You know this is exactly what we expected he whould do prior to y2k, as part of his strategy to deny guns to people when y2k disaster hits the fan.

The last eight years have been tough on all god-fearing Americans. The economony has tailspun, jobs have been shipped out to dirt countries denying fair wage for honest toil, the society has gone to hell with crime and immorality skyrocketing to levels not seen since babylonian times. These have been terrible years close to a depression and klinton is responsible. Never has the country been in such dire straights as now, with no jobs and bad inflation and the economy basically destroyed.

Plus klinton has basically disarmed our military so that communist russia and communist china could invade at a moments notice. He even gave the atomic bomb to china after china contributed to his election.

So everyone hates this traitor but he wants to stay in power. How does he stay in power? Y2K. Keep the public ignorant of its affect and then when chaos hits take control for "good of country". You can see it coming, guarantted, on Jan 1.

In fact Klinton has already signed secret executive order to this affect giving him absolute power after Jan 1.

And now Klinton is talking about "terrorism" in Y2K. This is a coverup. Only terrorism was Waco and Ruby Ridge. There wont be any terrorism on Y2K, just Nato and UN troops moving into our fair land killing and raping and proclaiming the Klinton dictatorship, destroying churches and livestock, bringing on new world order.

Yes, Jan 1 will be a date to live in infamy. I pray you are all prepared. I live in Arkansas and if we see any Nato or UN troops on Jan they are dead meat that is all I can tell you. I suggest you get your ammo supplies now before inevitable lack of supplies and government takeover.

-- Jack (jackk2@aol.com), December 12, 1999

Answers

Point that a lot of people seem to be missing: The Constitution doesn't seem to give the President the power to supend the Constitution. Without that power, he cannot do so...

Note that the military take an oath to protect and defend the Consitution (not the president). Many, if not most, of the military are not in agreement with his policies, anyway.

Therefore, should he "go rogue" on us, I don't believe that he'd have the (required) support of the military. Quite the contrary.

Just a thought...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), December 12, 1999.


Please, this type of rant is best posted over at TB2K. Dontcha think?

-- (Last=first@first.=last), December 12, 1999.

You got it all right, pal. Look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/1999/US/12/12/worldwide.caution.02/

Very convenient. A terrorist attack against America? No way! Never happen! But Clinton has the boogyman bin-Laden to blame for everything which gives him an excuse to take control.

I bet Clinton and NWO conspiracy kills a bunch of Americans on y2k. Then for our "safety" the troops are called in. Guns confiscated. You get the picture.

Expect more of these warnings next three weeks. Then KABOOM on or prior to Jan 1st. Then it will be time for freedom-loving Americans to take back this country or suffer the consequences.

Bob Kendall NRA Life Member

-- Bob Kendall (bobkendall@jackson.edu), December 12, 1999.


Mad Monk, you said "The Constitution doesn't seem to give the President the power to supend the Constitution. Without that power, he cannot do so..."

Normally I'd agree with that since you're absolutely correct. The problem is that the Constitution - ANY Constitution - is only as good as it is enforced. The USSR had a wonderful Constitution that guaranteed the people all sorts of rights; those rights were totally ignored since there was no enforcement of them. Clinton (and the rest of the beltway gang) have seen the Constitution as something to be gotten around and they've actually been fairly up-front about that. Without a Congress with the guts to stand up to him, and a Supreme Court that likes to write its own laws, we have a Constitution that is increasingly weak and toothless. A good example is the much- debated Second Amendment. Given the current gun prohibitions, what don't they understand about "shall not be infringed"? Again, the Constitution is already flagrently ignored, and I see no reason to expect that trend not to continue or accelerate.

-- Stephen McGehee (scm@adjutant.com), December 13, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ