freedombytheway

One Small Voice. A Lot of Big Ideas. Let Freedom Ring!

Obama’s Litmus Test for Military Leaders: “Will You Obey an Order to Fire Upon U.S. Citizens?”

newsweek police state

Who could have imagined that electing Barack Obama for President may be fatal?
This story by Paul Joseph Watson at Prison Planet is shocking. I have posted in its entirety but encourage you to go to the link and read the comments.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 22, 2013

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

 Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.

The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

 

31 comments on “Obama’s Litmus Test for Military Leaders: “Will You Obey an Order to Fire Upon U.S. Citizens?”

  1. samiam60
    January 23, 2013

    Who of us in our wildest dreams could have thought we see an American President stoop to this level?

    Fact is, all of us did but nobody wanted to listen to us.

  2. gds44
    January 23, 2013

    Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.

  3. Josh Ventor
    January 23, 2013

    So let’s say a bunch of crazy leftist Americans hole up with a nuclear device in downtown Huston, and threaten to detonate it unless rich people start paying their fair share of taxes. Do you want the military to obey an order to fire upon these U.S. citizens, or not?

    • samiam60
      January 23, 2013

      Your what if comment is beyond ridiculous. Get real my friend.

    • Freedom, by the way
      January 23, 2013

      Obviously anyone who has a nuclear weapon is an immediate danger. Don’t bait. It’s not attractive. You obviously are reading too many comic books. Your scenario sounds like a Lex Luther plot.

    • AFVet
      January 23, 2013

      You need to get out of the basement josh, the mold spores are affecting your reasoning ability.

      • Josh Ventor
        January 23, 2013

        I’m sorry, I don’t know how to reply to this with anything but an eyeroll.

        • AFVet
          January 23, 2013

          See there !

        • samiam60
          January 23, 2013

          I hear Michelle Obama is good at that.

    • muse1876
      January 23, 2013

      First off the rich pay their fair share. You whole scenario is crazy. I would fire on them if I had a gun. It isn’t a left or right problem. The Military will shoot American terrorists. Obama seems to prefer killing by drones. Killing on the grounds that he may have been guility of terrorism. As for your need to correct grammer is rude. Some of us type fast and our fingers can’t keep up. I would never demean anyone for their mistakes.

    • righthook38
      January 24, 2013

      That’s the best scenario you could come up with? Don’t waste our time here.

  4. Josh Ventor
    January 23, 2013

    It’s annoying when one’s audience can’t see beyond the literal to the point being made. It’s a bit like having to explain a joke. So here goes: “The potential for domestic terror exists. It has occurred before, it will occur again. And in those situations the military will be expected to respond.”

    • samiam60
      January 23, 2013

      Do not our police and Swat Teams respond when violent criminals threaten human life? Was it not National Guard Troops who fired those shots at Kent State.

      In the broader term we understand the necessity of these things but the article in question here has more to do with Civil Disobedience and perhaps a gun roundup by the Government against Citizens operating within their Constitutional Rights.

      What part of that article did you not understand?

      It’s annoying when one commenter try to stretch the intent of an article into something it is not. It’s a bit like having to explain a joke.

      • Josh Ventor
        January 23, 2013

        I understand the article to be unsubstantiated information from a possibly credible source and reported by a single media outlet, with gun-nuts predictably hyperbolizing it into a paranoid scenario based on the timeliness of their current concerns.

        BTW, “civil disobedience,” “government,” “citizens,” and “constitutional rights” do not require capitalization.

        And perhaps you could mobilize the effort to create you own metaphors; then they might actually make sense and be valid. How exactly is my “stretching the intent of an article” like having to “explain a joke.” I’m afraid my metaphor is not universally applicable to anything you find annoying.

        • Freedom, by the way
          January 23, 2013

          Josh, you can choose to take the article at face value or not. It’s my blog and I thought it warranted enough merit to repost. You have yet to make an intelligent comment about the article itself and now have sunken to one of my worst pet peeves of commenters: The Grammar Troll. Play nice or leave. Commenters who simply want to incite and not discuss are deleted. You’ve been warned!

          • Josh Ventor
            January 23, 2013

            Apologies for the grammar; I’m of the “I judge you when you use poor grammar” school. It’s a bad habit I’m employing no effort to correct.

            The point I’m making is that in the current climate of fear in the gun advocate community over improved control, this article is offered here with only a single interpretation: that the government intends to order the military to sweep into your homes to confiscate your weapons, and will kill you if you resist. Remember that during the events of 9-11, Air Force pilots would’ve been expected, if the circumstances arose, to down commercial airliners, which would also constitute firing on American citizens. (And you want to mock me about comic book scenarios and Lex Luthor plots – how quickly you forget the events of 9-11.)

          • Freedom, by the way
            January 23, 2013

            Now, that’s more like it.
            No, I have not forgotten 9-11 and you are correct that in circumstances such as shooting down an airliner with 200 passengers to prevent the death of possibly thousands is a scenario that could have happened. The “current climate of fear” is one of our own government’s making. Why is the DHS stockpiling weapons? Why are they looking for contractors to manage camps? (You can find all of this just by searching). Why did this congress pass and this president sign orders that make lawful for your home to be searched by federal agents without a signed warrant from a judge? Does it not bother you that law enforcement agencies and the DHS have been granted permits for drones and there have been absolutely no hearings or discussion about it in congress? This isn’t about the 2nd ammendment. It is about all of our constitutional liberties and a government that disregards them.

  5. deborahbidwell
    January 23, 2013

    Reblogged this on DeborahBidwell's Blog and commented:
    need to be aware people, this is not the first step, they started this back in the last term, now he is re-elected and he can do what he wants, per an interview he had during his first term in office. those who claim to not know are only uninformed, now they think its something new when it has been in the works for a LONG time

  6. Pingback: Does History Tell Us Why Obama’s Been Firing Senior Military Officers | Grumpy Opinions

  7. samiam60
    January 23, 2013

    Why do you Liberals always try to side step the issues with “What if” scenarios? I applaud your focus on Grammar but honestly from everything else you have stated here so far you are way off the mark with that one exception.

    • Josh Ventor
      January 23, 2013

      Sorry about the double-post…my reply disappeared when I posted it, and I rewrote it. I’m not sure which I prefer.

      Two questions: how exactly is offering that there are other explanations besides “they’re coming to get our guns” considered “way off the mark”? In other words, does this mean you are stating categorically that this can ONLY be about a mass sweep by the military to confiscate America’s firearms?

      And speaking of “what ifs”, wasn’t it you who said: “the article in question here has more to do with Civil Disobedience and PERHAPS A GUN ROUNDUP BY THE GOVERNMENT [emphasis added] against Citizens operating within their Constitutional Rights”? I think the word “perhaps” answers that question.

      “He may have jumped.”
      “Or he may have fallen.”
      “Stop sidestepping the issue!”

      • samiam60
        January 23, 2013

        After two hundred plus years of being protected from Military involvement in our lives why is it that this President feels the need to feel out his Military Commanders as to if their troops would fire on American Citizen? I hate to answer your question with a question but is that not what you have been doing here all day?

    • righthook38
      January 24, 2013

      Good point with the “what if” scenarios. Hypotheticals or extreme situations are the only arguments liberals have. Just like the abortion debate. They bring up rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions as if they were the rule, and they account for 98% of abortions. The reality is that these situations make up less than 1% of the 55 MILLION babies aborted here since 1973.

      • Josh Ventor
        January 24, 2013

        Not a good point at all about “what if” scenarios, because the whole point of posting this article is to prompt a “what if.” All the righties here are outraged by the allegations of Mr. Garrow because…wait for it…”what if” this is a step toward sending the military out to confiscate your guns?

        Can anyone explain to me how it’s not a “what if”? Seriously folks, a little self-examination can go a long way before you start lambasting people for behaviour in which you yourself are engaged. There’s a word for this: hypocrisy.

        With all due respect, only fools fail to engage in “what ifs.” It’s called planning. It’s how you prepare for, you know, the future.

        • righthook38
          January 24, 2013

          Nothing wrong with “what-ifs” in general, but when you constantly use them to sidestep an issue, as you are doing, then it’s a problem.

          The “what-if” we’re using here is a legitimate concern, because history shows this is how these situations always start. Hitler is a perfect example. The man didn’t just show up and start taking guns and killing people. He was charismatic and charming and won election by a landslide. Then one step at a time, he systematically took over, by using children as propaganda tools and indoctrinating them, and by convincing people that the government was only trying to look out for them. That is exactly what this government is doing. I’m not saying Obama is HItler, which I’m sure would be your next comment, but I am saying that this is the slippery slope we constantly warn people about. Obama is systematically going after not only Republicans, but the Constitution, specifically the 1st and 2nd amendments. He thinks big government is the answer to everything, and the Constitution gets in the way of that, so goodbye Constitution. Mark my words.

          • Freedom, by the way
            January 24, 2013

            Good analogy, Righthook. Let’s not forget the stomping of the 4th & 10th Ammendments, as well.

  8. Pingback: Prison Planet.com » Drill Characterizes “Disgruntled” Second Amendment Advocates as Terrorists | 2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog

  9. Jackie Hendrix
    January 25, 2013

    Look at Syria and all of the commanders and troops who left their army and went to the other side. If it comes to that I believe our troops and commanders will figure out very quickly what they have to do and it will not be taking our guns and killing their family and friends. Some will but most will not and we shall see who is left. I will defend the 2nd amendment until DEATH! I’m ready are you.

  10. Joey
    January 27, 2013

    Wait a minute – Our Military is to defend the citizens of the United States Of America (that being us) – against foreign AND domestic threats including tyrannical government!

  11. l g weiser
    October 23, 2013

    In in the past military action against the public usualy ended with a military coup -followed by a dictatorship. I would rather our military answered the posed question NO. As to grammer – the gramerryens (sic) are concerned with form over substance. – care more about sizzel than bacon – so weaken their possition. Not all wit comes from the academinions.(sio)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 23, 2013 by in Freedom, Government, military and tagged , , , , .
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers

%d bloggers like this: