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".
All they have to do is rename Gun Owners “Looters”, problem solved.
I sure hope Obama doesn’t lurk here.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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
So that is why Mattis is on his way out but Allan is being promoted?
Anyone remember Kent State where Ohio NG fired on unarmed students? The response next time will not be flower children.
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.
I have a feeling some states have contingency plans to intern members of its National Guard and to replace those of questionable 2A loyalty with those willing to be protective of 2A supporters.
My bump! (To share from home base.)
Well Stalin got rid of his generals sooooo.
It would be suicide. Many gun owners are/were in the military and could take out these traitorous military leaders in short order. In other words, bring it on and be careful what you wish for.