From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:40:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: rwing.1763
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <klg.718992140@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>   Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
>   | The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
>   | able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
>   | after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
>   | next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
>   | satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.
>   
>     Perot, in contrast, was a breath of fresh air.  He stuck to the issues,
>     and talked straight, and more importantly, he talked sense.
>   
>I'll start with an obligatory inflamatory remark ;-):
>
>They said similar things about Hitler didn't they? "Outside the political
>system" "a breath of fresh air" "no quarter to the enemies of the people"
>(in this case, instead of Jews, the enemies selected are drug-users and
>those who simply do not care to participate in the system by not being
>productive).  
>
>"Just elect me and follow me and I'll make everything all better, you bet."
>Perot talked sense as long as he said things you want to hear, but listening
>between the sound bites, I say he's as scary a son-of-a-bitch as I've ever
>seen; even worse than Rea-bush. The man's on a par with Nixon and McCarthy.

I'm afraid I have to agree - I got a real bad feeling myself.  Some have
said 'Perot cannot do his plan, since it would never get by congress, etc'.
I am afraid they might be wrong.  I hope its ME that's wrong.

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.

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" 
Newsgroups: pnw.general