On the other hand, it could get very interesting in the last week in December. You can find the article about the National Emergency declaration on World Net Daily web site. This is from Y2K Newswire.
Terry
¸ 1998-1999 Arial Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved. www.y2knewswire.com
Thanks to a breaking story published by WorldNetDaily, the Y2K-aware members of
the U.S. population now know that the President has plans to declare a national
emergency on December 28th. ( The rest of the country still doesn't know about this
because the mainstream press has so far refused to report it. )
This declaration comes with one condition: that Y2K problems exceed the capacity of
local emergency response resources. With FEMA revealing it can only handle 56
simultaneous problems nationwide, it appears this condition will be met very quickly.
Whether the day is actually the 28th is questionable. Now that the cat's out of the bag,
they will likely change the day to further discredit WorldNetDaily and other
Y2K-focused news organizations. Or they may change the name. Instead of calling it a
"national emergency" the President might declare a "Y2K response week" or
something similar, making it sound like a holiday. ( That will explain the bank
closings... )
Either way, the message is now clear: some type of emergency or disaster may be
declared, granting government authorities new "rights" to bring in the military to handle
Y2K problems. Under a national emergency, of course, the executive orders already
in place grant the federal government full control over all supplies: food, medicine,
vehicles, equipment, guns, ammunition, even labor. In other words, under this
scenario, you can be legally be asked -- and required -- to turn over your "stuff." It's all
for the good of the country, of course, to feed the people who refused to prepare.
This, by itself, is disturbing enough. Add to it the fact that the government is still not
telling the people about these plans and you have an even bigger problem. By
brainwashing the public into not preparing, the government is actually creating a
situation that could lead to fear, panic, looting and other problems that justify the
declaration of a national emergency. They've created this situation -- and now it
appears they might use it to further expand government powers over the people.
There's nothing like an "emergency" to get the public to give up more rights.
Even more disturbing: the fact that the government apparently knows this is not a
"three-day snowstorm scenario." If Y2K is solved -- if it's no big deal -- why do we need
plans to declare a national emergency? Why have plans to deploy troops?
Fortunately, according to this article, the Dept. of Defense has urged field
commanders to be "very cautious" about deploying troops to help with local Y2K
emergencies. They are told not to interfere unless there is an immediate threat to life
or property. However, it seems clear that condition will likely be met very early on.
There's one saving point here: if Y2K is, indeed, no big deal, none of this is likely to
occur. If the problem is as small as they claim it to be, there will be fewer than 50
problems, no troops needed, no terrorism, no rioting, and no national emergency. This
is the desired outcome. Pray for this outcome; even if it means the Y2K-aware
people have been wrong. ...even if it means you have extra food sitting around on
January 2!
But if we're right, this now means things are far more serious than we thought. Even a
medium-case scenario is likely to stretch emergency response resources to the limit
very quickly, resulting in a Presidential declaration of a national emergency. And under
that order, anything goes. Nothing is off the books: gun confiscation, food
confiscation, the suspension of elections, confiscation of gold and cash... you name it.
It's all legal. In fact, we can't blame Clinton for a lot of this: these were legal, too, under
many former administrations, including Reagan and Bush. Those Presidents, however,
were probably far more reluctant to actually invoke emergency orders.
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
Frankly, the invocation of a "national emergency," if it happens, is probably very bad
news. We urge all government officials reading this to urge your higher-ups to back
away from this declaration. Why? Because it will be the final sign needed by every
hard-core terrorist, anti-government group or "freedom fighter" to launch an all-out
assault against government troops. It could actually spark a civil war or even a
military coup.
Here's why: Clinton is widely distrusted by nearly half of Americans -- and especially
by the military. Many people are familiar with the idea that under a national
emergency, all rights are suspended, and most thinking people are at least a little
uncomfortable transforming Clinton into a dictator ( which the declaration would
effectively do ) . Cries for civil unrest, open rebellion, and even outright resistance would
be loud, indeed.
All this would only create more chaos and potential bloodshed. We don't need this.
Y2K Newswire is in favor of peaceful government reform, not gun battles. Yet if
Clinton declares a national emergency, it could actually motivate people to take up
arms.
Make no mistake: there are probably a million Americans -- armed Americans -- who
are close to this point right now. A declaration of "national emergency" and the
unleashing of federal troops onto civilian streets would be the final straw for these
folks. They would see this as an invading force or an attempted overtaking of the
People by federal troops.
And the very first incident of bloodshed -- where federal troops blow away civilians in an
armed clash -- would unleash even more anti-government sentiments. We're literally
talking about the chemistry for a civil war here.
That's why this is potentially so dangerous and why Y2K Newswire urges the federal
informants reading this to urge the White House to avoid a national emergency
declaration. This is one case where the government overreaction can be far more
dangerous than any public overreaction. |
