Posted on 01/24/2013 1:05:36 AM PST by TXnMA
[Emphasis added...]
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.
I’d just like to point out that Obama is also a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if anyone thinks such an award goes to credibility.
This situation has been around for years, with public fear that the military would overthrow the government orturn against the people.
The movie Seven Days in May (1964) pushed this idea hard on behalf of the Kennedys and with their support, that the “right wing military leadership” would be willing to overthrow the US to prevent nuclear disarmament by a liberal president. A blatant political dig at mostly senator Goldwater.
You’ll note the difference, however. The Democrats fear that the military will overthrow the *government*.
Conservatives fear that the military will *obey* the government, and turn on the people.
With W. Bush trashing the Posse Comitatus Act as well as constitutional protections of the people, from the government using the military to attack them, the conservative fear is more grounded in fact.
What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” Who do
governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders. But only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.
“By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fire the shot heard round the world.”
— Emerson
The government tried confiscation at Concord on April 19, 1775.
The officers then have to try to get the grunts to fire on American citizens....since even the average grunts are volunteers and more educated and morally principled then “draftees” ever were as a general rule, one can see platoons and whole battalions just laying down their arms and not shooting. They want to increase women in “fighting” roles now, you can bet the women will be conflicted. They won;t have issues with homosexuals firing on US citizens though.
In the end, they’ll have to apply the “litmus test” to all recruits....I’ll bet recruitment numbers will drop after that!
Think of all the blacks and Hispanics in the military that voted for him
1. “During time of war it is routine to disarm the enemy.”
2. The Democratic Party seeks to disarm US Citizens.
Therefore the Democratic Party is at war with US Citizens.
QED
The headline should say “U.S.” not “US”. Obama can’t talk about “us citizens” because he can’t prove he is one. /s
The headline should say “U.S.” not “US”. Obama can’t talk about “us citizens” because he can’t prove he is one. /s
I seem to remember their votes weren’t counted because the government squelched the military vote!
bttt
So that is why Mattis is on his way out but Allan is being promoted?
In 1890 the Sioux were not US citizens, so 2A just did not apply to them.
They were citizens of a nation at war with the USA.
You can make a decent case that WK was a war crime, but you can’t make a case that it was a violation of the constitutional rights of the Sioux. They didn’t have any.
BTW, I do find it interesting that the America-haters constantly talk about the few cases, mostly Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, where US troops committed actrocities against Indians. But these were greatly the exception.
Nobody ever talks about the fact that most tribes as their normal routine of business did much worse every chance they got.
“Please tell me, which media outlet would carry a story like that?”
I don’t know anything about the news source, but a retired Lt.Colonel sent it to me yesterday.
Anyone remember Kent State where Ohio NG fired on unarmed students? The response next time will not be flower children.
The military is not what you remember it to be.
Today's military brass are all political animals, pledging their loyalty to whomever will promote them.
Secondly, you all forget the numerous articles about "gangs" in our military ranks?
Gang Activity in the US Military
These are the same gangs who work with inner city Democrats to get out the vote, resulting in 100% votes for Obama in hundreds of precincts nationwide.
Wake up. There are plenty of military members who would love to play Django.
I have no doubt about some who “would play Django!” There are some who will play “The Patriot” as well!
The whole point of “queering” the military is to drive out those who will not follow orders to oppress patriotic citizens.
1995 was not the only time this test was given, and not only to U.S. Marines. Over time the basic outcome of the test was as follows.
1) Officers would generally refuse to fire on U.S. citizens
2) Of the NCO ranks, only hardcore NCOs bent on seeking promotion would fire on U.S. Citizens. A smaller percentage of NCOs, as opposed to Officers, but still a larger percentage than the hardcore NCOs, would refuse to fire on U.S. civilians.
3) The enlisted ranks, almost to a man, would refuse to fire on enlisted ranks.
The results were consistant from year to year. It Seems the thought process contained a strong element of “We are not going to fire on mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, and good ‘ol uncle Buck.
The procurement of huge amounts of ammunition, way more than would be needed for any conceivable training programme, now makes sense if you wanted to use the TSA, BTAFE, IRS, FBI, etc., etc., as the core of Obama’s private Army.
Lord, how the lower instinct part of me just wishes he would try this. I bet there is a very large percentage of the 60,000,000 arms bearing Americans who have similar feelings. We could settle the “Contitutional” issues once and for all.
Perhaps you are correct. However, I’d like to introduce a term you may not be familiar with:
Fragging.
I believe that there will always be a majority of sane-minded, oath-honoring people in the military who will, if ordered by non-oath-keeping officers to fire on US citizens, instead and if need be fire on the officers who gave the illegal order. Same goes for gangs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.