reply to post by antinwo101
Cannot tell if this is serious...
The bill referred to is from the 1995/1996 session. It was read twice
further action was taken. Title 17 wasn't amended, nor does the word "guillotine" appear anywhere in the
. Even if the bill had become a law, a Georgia statute would be
irrelevant to a federal or international NWO death camp. You are postulating that the federal government is going to "suspend the Constitution,"
presumably including the tenth amendment, so why would they care about state laws? Even if they didn't suspend the Constitution, your putative FEMA
death camps would be federal facilities, they wouldn't have or need access to the Georgia correctional system's execution system.
The executive orders are sort of old and harder to track down. The first one you listed is 10990 (Re-establishing the Federal Safety Council). The
of EO 10990 does not indicate any kind of capability "to take
over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports." The Federal Safety Council was a purely advisory body. Using the
EO Disposition Tables
, we see that 10990 was superseded by EO 11612
(Occupational safety and health programs for Federal employees). That one was superseded by EO 11654 (Transfer of the Federal Fire Council to the
Department of Commerce), which was revoked by EO 12379 (Termination of boards, committees, and commissions). So even if EO 10990 had created some kind
of transportation takeover mechanism--which it didn't--that mechanism probably didn't survive very long.
EO 11000 -- Revoked. You're probably looking for EO 12656
). This is a bad one for the Constitution-revoking conspiracy theory, since it
explicitly affirms the Constitution and US law. I didn't see anything about "work brigades" in this order, but there was quite a lot about managing
the federal workforce. I guess a federal employee might consider "employment stabilization" and "wage stabilization" to be forced labor, but ...
too bad. We can't have a federal workforce that quits at the first sign of trouble.
EO 11004 -- Also revoked and folded into 12656. What is objectionable about using federal funds to provide temporary housing and restore damaged
infrastructure, anyway? Wouldn't you want
the taxpayers to give you somewhere to live if your city was under flood waters or burned up in a
forest fire? I guess there could be federalism questions here, or a libertarian argument for personal responsibility (don't live on flood plains),
but I can't make the leap from "providing temporary housing" to "arresting people and chopping off their heads."
I thought all this evil FEMA masterminds thing had fallen out of fashion after Katrina, but it is somehow reassuring that the meme survives. The more