Skip to comments.Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” ["Litmus Test"]
Posted on 01/24/2013 1:05:36 AM PST by TXnMA
2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administrations 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 Americas foremost military heroes, whose goal in divulging the information was to sound the alarm.
Garrows 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, Garrows 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.
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.
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
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.
Please tell me, which media outlet would carry a story like that?
“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.
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.
bill clinton just came out yesterday and told them to back off. They thought their time had come. They were wrong.
Prepare for a new and different crisis because they NEED the chaos and it WILL come.
Thanks in advance.
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.
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.
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.
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 shouldnt 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
Ive 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt teach the gun grabbers how to effectively lie their way to another term. He didnt 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.
Thank you. I appreciate the link.
You are more than welcome anytime, Neil.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
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?
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:
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.
3) The enlisted ranks, almost to a man, would refuse to fire on enlisted ranks
3) The enlisted ranks, almost to a man, would refuse to fire on U.S. civilians
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.
Obama saying we are right wing extremists/terrorists at war with this country is entirely an exercise in semantics. If the words appear on his teleprompter, he will say them.
Was Waco an “act of war”?
We saw some of this when Benghazi resulted in Ham and a couple others to suddenly retire or get transferred.
My bump! (To share from home base.)
Well Stalin got rid of his generals sooooo.
You are correct. My current State House rep, Donna Frizzy-head Howard won by 12 votes and there were a lot of military votes that arrived a few days late. She had them disqualified.
If I remember my history, it started with a vision by the Piute Wavoka, in Nevada that swept many tribes at that time. By doing the Ghost Dance that whites would disappear and the buffalo would return. The Indians began to make Ghost Shirts that a bullet could not go through (they thought).
Settlers in the area became alarmed and called for army intervention.
Frederick Remington did a series of paintings showing the Medicine man giving the signal to start the attack. They then found the Ghost Shirts didn’t work as promised.
The military officer, who was his guide was murdered with an arrow from the “peaceable” indians.
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.
Well, no, it's a legal distinction. In the case I mentioned, a Sioux was acquitted because his nation was at war with the USA when he killed the officer.
Insurrection has to meet certain legal standards to be considered such in court.
Which is not to say that the legal system can't be corrupted or ignored, but if that's going on the semantics are pretty an unimportant issue.