🚀 go-pugleaf

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

> What I fear is that if Perot gets in, that one of the first things he
> will do is to declare a NATIONAL EMERGENCY, and then using the emergency
> powers available to the president, declare what would be effectively
> martial law.  This would (due to the state of emergency of the deficet
> and the drug thing) permit suspension of much of the Constitutional
> limitations, and effectively permit Perot to rule by decree.  It is
> the *ONLY* way his agenda could be done without Congress and other
> inconveniences blocking him.
> 
> Some have said he has said that the answer to crime is to suspend/eliminate
> the Second Amendment.  I do know he has never come out saying that he
> supports the RKBA - and one could not support this if what I am fearing
> is planned.
> 
> Perot is used to calling the shots, and those who are not 'team players'
> can go elsewhere.  Only by invoking Emergency Execuitive Powers could
> this be done as President.
> 
> Could someone who is more expert on what emergency powers a president has
> and what is required for such an execuitive action please explore this
> possibility?  Please PROVE ME WRONG.
> 
     I don't know that Perot would do it but as far as possibilities go 
your only wrong in that you underestimate the problem.  Martial law is 
tame compared to the powers claimed by the president and FEMA under the
various executive orders and the emergency powers.  If the president 
declares a national emergency he can suspend all civil liberties and 
controll ALL aspects of our econemy and society.  That's all it takes.  
The system is already set up to take it all over.  The required 
infrastructure is there.  When I have the time I'll dig up the summary of 
the various executive orders and repost them.

     By the way the HQ for FEMA Region X is in Bothell.

     Ken Wood

> Otherwise, I am afraid we could be in DEEP doo-doo.  Riding a wave of
> popularity, one might be able to pull this off, I am afraid, and when
> people decide "ENOUGH!!" when they find they have no rights, they will
> not be able to do anything about it besides bitch (if that).
> 
> On an aside, Clinton's National Police Corp bother me, as well.  A police
> that does the functions of local police, BUT NOT ANSWERABLE TO, OR FROM
> THE LOCAL COMMUNITY MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS.  History has examples of
> countries doing this sort of a dance before.
> 
> Comments?  Am I just paranoid, or are my concerns justified???
> 
> -- 
> pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
>                       If all else fails, try:
>          ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
> WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 



+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wood@eisley.akita.com           :     Don't eat the rocks.              |
| eisley!wood@polari.online.com   : -The First Law of Bovine Cogitation.- |
| wood@seanews.akita.com          :                                       |
| wood@pismo.wa.com               :     Who let the pigs play poker?      |
| (In above order of preference.) :     Evo Shander was right!            |
| "Don't look back, someth'in might be gaining on ya."  -- Satchel Page   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+