Trump Insider Says Establishment May Declare Martial Law If Trump Wins
Trump insider Roger Stone told Alex Jones on Wednesday
the establishment may pull a range of dirty tricks, including the
imposition of martial law, to prevent Donald Trump from assuming office
if he wins the election in November.
April 28, 2016
EndingTheFed - “I think
they are capable of anything, including martial law,” Stone said. “The
establishment is petrified that the Trump wave is coming and they see no
way to stop it.”
Over the
last 40 years, at least since the racial riots of the late 1960s, the
establishment and its military have put into place numerous initiatives
designed to implement martial law, most recently Obama’s Authorization
for Use of Military Force which allows the president to
deploy the military anywhere in the world, including the United States.
A
multiplication of domestic military exercises, most recently Jade Helm,
have prepared the military for deployment inside the United States. The
Jade Helm exercise involved soldiers operating “undetected amongst
civilian populations,” to see if they can infiltrate without being
noticed.
“The
history of the federal government and the U.S. military’s preparations
for martial law in America is manifestly provable.
That is not to say
that a military takeover is imminent, but to dismiss the militarization
of law enforcement and verifiable plans for using troops to deal with
domestic unrest as ‘alarmist’ or mere ‘conspiracy theory’ is completely
erroneous,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote last March ahead of the Jade Helm exercise.
There
exists a large number of official documents, white papers,
proclamations, and executive orders spelling out how the military will
take control of America, ostensibly during a national emergency.
Keep in
mind the political elite that has ruled under the dictates of the
national security state since the end of the Second World War would
assuredly consider the election of Donald Trump a “national emergency”
requiring serious and concerted action.
Joseph Farah Seeks Clarification of Obama's Intentions Come January 20, 2017
August 3, 2016
WND.com - Barack Obama is a president known for unprecedented statements and behavior.
He lived up to that reputation this week when he asserted that GOP
presidential nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as his successor.
It’s important to listen to the words he uttered and measure their implications carefully.
- He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
- He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
- He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of
2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections,
John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the
knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he
added.
- He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the
understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
- He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
- Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.
It’s clear Obama has no use for Donald Trump. But that’s not really the point here.
Like it or not, and I don’t like it, Obama is the sitting president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017.
The question this harsh, unprecedented attack by a sitting president
on a major-party nominee to succeed him raises should be obvious: What
happens if Donald Trump wins the election in November?
Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an
obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that
mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two
centuries of transitions of power?
These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.
Should we not be concerned about what Obama might do?
Should he not be asked pointedly about the implications of his stunning statements?
Should he not express exactly what his intentions are beforehand rather than to leave any doubt in the minds of the people?
If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if
Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the
United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and
cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your
predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”
It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.
There should be no doubt in the minds of the American people. There
should be no veiled threats hanging over the heads of the citizenry as
we prepare for the next election. It’s time for Obama to lay his cards
on the table.
Will America follow the rule of law and the will of the people after
the November election no matter what Obama might think about his
successor?
Some may accuse me of being hyperbolic here – of raising questions that have no foundation for being asked. Maybe that’s true.
But never before in American history have we had a situation quite
like this, in which a sitting president has used the power and prestige
of his office – and, in this case, doing so inappropriately in the
context of a joint press conference with a foreign leader – to declare
in no uncertain terms that the nominee of one of the two major parties
is uniquely unqualified and disqualified for the office of the
presidency.
It’s time for clarity.
It’s time for Obama to address forthrightly and unequivocally the
ramifications and implications of his shocking indictment of Trump.
It’s time for Obama to go on record as to whether he will respect the
rule of law and the will of the people with regard to the 2016 election
results.
Martial Law Coming?
July 24, 2016
Scott Adam's Blog - Let’s say Donald Trump wins the election. And let’s say Democrats
believe everything they say about him – that he’s the next Hitler.
Wouldn’t President Obama be obligated to declare martial law and remain
in power?
I realize this question sounds silly when you first hear
it. But keep in mind that Democrats have successfully sold the “racist
strongman” narrative about Trump to their own ranks. If they’re right
about Trump, we need to start getting serious about planning for martial
law, for the good of the country and the world. No one wants another
Hitler. And if they’re wrong, we still need to plan for martial law
because Democrats
think they are right. That’s all it takes.
Imagine,
for example, that violence against police escalates because of the
rhetoric on the left. That seems likely. Then add in some more videos of
police shooting unarmed African-American men and you have all the
ingredients for riots, followed by martial law.
Years ago, during
Obama’s first term, a Republican friend bet me that Obama would declare
martial law and stay in office after losing his reelection bid. I
laughed and agreed to the bet. My friend paid the bet when Obama won
reelection. My friend is a nut, right?
Or was he just premature?
My
best guess is that 30% of the country believes (incorrectly) that we
are heading toward some sort of pre-Nazi situation in the United States,
where President Trump calls on his legion of racist supporters to do
some ethnic cleansing. That’s all completely ridiculous, but it doesn’t
stop perhaps 30% of the country from believing it.
Unlike most campaign rhetoric of the past, the attacks against Trump are designed to generate
action,
not words. Normal campaigns ask for little more than your vote. But
this time, Clinton’s side – mostly surrogates and supporters – have
defined their opponent as a Nazi-like dictator who will destroy the
country, if not the entire world. In that situation, action is morally
justified. And that action could include riots and violence against
authority.
How much violence against authority would it take for President Obama to declare martial law and stay in power?
Less than you think. Television coverage will make every act of violence seem a hundred times worse than it is.
I
don’t predict that we will see martial law in this country. But all of
the ingredients are in place. Keep that in mind when you do your mental
calculation about which political party is the reckless one.
Related:
