“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens?” Head asked. “I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.”
Head continued, delving deeper into his hypothesis and claiming that he was prepared to join the hypothetical resistance.
“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ’em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say, ‘You’re not coming in here,'” the judge said. “And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said, ‘You gonna back me?’ He said, ‘Yeah, I’ll back you.’ Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”
For those unfamiliar with the antebellum South, Nat Turner led a slave rebellion in 1831. He killed upwards to 70 whites, but the rebellion ended after just a few days. However, the fear of another rebellion lurked for the next few decades, and quite possibly prolonged the South’s desire to protect slavery. It was feared that more rebellions would take place, spurred by the abolitionists, causing black men to rape white women after killing the white men.
In the past few years, we’ve seen a return of what I call the Nat Turner syndrome among many politicians and in segments of the populace.
Anyway, just thought I’d post on it a bit. Good luck.