Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” ["Litmus Test"]

1800GunTrader.com ^ | January 22, 2013 10:35 pm | Not Listed (CITES Jim Garrow)

[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.

[TXnMA]

I searched several ways and didn't find this already posted...

Øbama is apparently "weeding out" generals who refuse to "fire on U.S. citizens". It is reported that is Øbama's new "litmus test" for retaining Generals.

This particularly scary in light on the new push toward "gun control".

[Kickass Conservative]

All they have to do is rename Gun Owners “Looters”, problem solved.

I sure hope Obama doesn’t lurk here.

[Fai Mao]

I would imagine he’d have a hard time finding any officers if that is the case

I know for a fact that the Obanation of Desolation is widely despised in the military.

It also means that if he provoke a civil war then the good guys will have a ready cadre of able officers

[The Wizard]

no matter what they tell this naive asshole, they will not do it. Orders have been disobeyed before....trust me.....and any soldier who shoots at Americans will be killed by other soldiers who will not

Bama is a flaming asshole who cannot leave soon enough.

[CitizenUSA]

Sorry, but I don’t believe this. I want more evidence than simply the word of someone who talked to someone who said it’s happening. What’s to prevent one of the terminated general officers from speaking out to the media? Where’s the evidence?

I can believe the military trains to put down attacks from within the US. They need to be prepared, for example, from coordinated attacks by terror cells that are undoubtedly in the country. That’s not the same thing as putting down a much wider spread civilian insurrection, although the military would be obliged to restore order in that case, too.

However, I refuse to believe the rank and file military would fire, without warning shots, on civilians who are simply deemed to be enemies of the state by virtue of owning and refusing to relinquish guns. That’s an order they would rightly disobey as being against the laws of war.

[exnavy]

Please tell me, which media outlet would carry a story like that?

[Colorado Cowgirl]

“From my cold dead hands”! Here is your History lesson: Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee South Dakota 122 years ago.
Federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children. This was the first federally backed gun confiscation program in United States history.

[RightOnline]

Exactly right......and those, like a poster above here in this very thread, who refuse to believe it’s possible are going to be shocked as all hell the first time it happens....not just in modern day America, but VERY soon.

It’s coming, folks. Be ready.

[MestaMachine]

bill clinton just came out yesterday and told them to back off. They thought their time had come. They were wrong.

BUT
Prepare for a new and different crisis because they NEED the chaos and it WILL come.

[Neil E. Wright]

Link?

Thanks in advance.

[MestaMachine]

All Nobel Prize nominees are not exactly trustworthy. I refer you to arafat, gore, and obama. The nobels haven’t been worth the time it takes to read the list anymore.

[funfan]

Well do you think Obamas Civilan army would do it one that is just as well funded and trained as our military? This video is from the 2008 campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2PP4pYGno

What do you suppose the government is planning on doing with all the guns and ammo they have been purchasing for the Dept. Of Ed, Social Seciurity department and other agencys.

[MestaMachine]

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/bill-clinton-cautions-gun-grabbers/#axzz2IsyQzINX

Published on Monday, January 21, 2013

Bill Clinton Cautions Gun Grabbers

Eric at the Gunmart Blog
United States —(Ammoland.com)- In a recent meeting with top Democrat donors, Bill Clinton tried to send a message to all those politicians who seek to disarm the civilian population and while doing so he let the mask slip just a bit.

In the meeting Clinton is trying to send the message to gun grabbers that they probably shouldn’t get too aggressive on this one. Stating:

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,”

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

Its also very telling because he showed that politicians, no matter how dogmatic they are about civilian disarmament, will always first and foremost care more about their own careers. He cautions lawmakers that this issue can and will end careers. He points out that it cost Gore precious electoral votes when a gun control civilian disarmament referendum was on the presidential ballot, and that it cost a bunch of lawmakers their jobs in 1994.

But, but, but… its about saving lives. Right? Why would any of these liberals care about the self preservation of their careers over the cost of the lives of innocent children!?! To quote President Obama, “If it can save but one life…”

“I’ve had many sleepless nights in the many years since,” Clinton said. One reason? “I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable,” he explained — saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.

Did you catch that? Clinton had “many sleepless nights“… not because his “Assault Weapons Ban” did not go far enough or because he didn’t confiscate every gun in the nation to turn us into the gun-free utopia that all the gun grabbers tell us that we can be. He lost sleep because he didn’t explain the talking points well enough to those politicians who stripped people of their rights and were up for re-election. He lost sleep, not because his “assault weapons ban” did nothing to stop the slaughter that happened at Columbine High School in 1999, but because he didn’t teach the gun grabbers how to effectively lie their way to another term. He didn’t lose sleep because his gun control civilian disarmament law caused crime to go up, but because it ended up being a political victory for the opposition. He lost sleep because he cares more about the political game than the lives that he tells us gun control civilian disarmament will save and the utopian wonderland that it will create for us.

Shameful, but very telling.
*******************************************************

Good enough?

\

[2ndDivisionVet]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

[Neil E. Wright]

Thank you. I appreciate the link.

[MestaMachine]

You are more than welcome anytime, Neil.

[SERE_DOC]

With the utmost of respect, I think your wrong. Where I work there are several SF Army types who have confirmed this as a true event, the Marines were not the only ones given this "screening"

With the advent of these ass clowns in DC and the sycophantic treasonous military hierarchy, you can bet they are planning something. Whether it is a financial meltdown or some other event, planned or whatever, DHS buying 1.6 billion rounds is cause enough to be concerned...

The mil has the 10% who are dirtbags, (having retired from the mil, and retired from it) I would say that on that account you would be, again wrong.

They would in fact, follow orders to fire on "dissidents" and folks who will not comply with the illegal orders from DC.

[CitizenUSA]

SERE_DOC: “They would in fact, follow orders to fire on “dissidents” and folks who will not comply with the illegal orders from DC.”

We can agree to disagree then. Even if the military is trained to handle insurrection, they still have to go home at some point. We can assume the red states would be most likely to put up a fight if they were ordered to turn over all privately held weapons. Do you honestly think military members from those states would open up on their friends and families? I don’t.

[Arlis]

Every military officer’s oath is to defend the Constitution - not to obey the President.

Every enlisted man/woman’s oath is to obey their officers.

Any officer who bows to O on this is violating his oath.

Question needs to be: will you defend the Constitution? And if not, stripped of rank because they are violating their oath.

Won’t happen of course.

[Sherman Logan]

The Wounded Knee incident was ruled in federal court to be an act of war with the Sioux Nation, which resulted in the acquittal of a Sioux who killed (or murdered if not an act of war) an Army officer.

During time of war it is routine to disarm the enemy.