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.
Joseph Farah Seeks Clarification of Obama's Intentions Come January 20, 2017
August 3, 2016WND.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.
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, 2016Scott 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:
No comments:
Post a Comment