Author Topic: Terrifying J. Garrow interview: Obama asks military to fire on Americans  (Read 182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70,820
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Terrifying J. Garrow Interview: Obama Asks Military to Fire on Americans

January 26, 2014
By Sara Noble

Renowned 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claimed on his Facebook page that 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. A survey taken in 1994 demonstrates that too many will fire on US citizens if ordered to do so.

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.
 ~Dr. Jim Garrow – January 21, 2013

Dr. Jim Garrow explains in an interview on you tube:

Dr. Garrow remarked in the video that Mr. Obama is detached from the US culture and listening to him is like listening to a socialist-Marxist lecture in a college.

One must remember that Obama was not brought up as an American, he was brought up as an Indonesian Marxist and has a strong kinship to Muslim Kenyans.

With military brass being purged from the military by Barack Obama’s Pentagon, and with every agency being armed to the teeth by Mr. Obama, we might want to keep our attention on this matter.

As Al Sharpton said, Mr. Obama has begun the fundamental transformation of the country and Americans knew they were voting for socialism:

As an aside, the Oaths of enlistment and the Oaths of Office are remarkably different in that the oath of enlistment swears allegiance to the president but the officers take no such oath:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Our enlisted members are swearing allegiance to a Marxist-Leninist president.

One of the commenters to Mr. Garrow’s Facebook post mentioned a survey passed around on May 10, 1994 to a few hundred men by John F. McManus at 29 Palms Naval Base in California.

The survey was part of an academic project on the part of a Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham, an Oathkeeper, who was earning his Masters Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Lt. Cmdr. Cunningham told McManus that he was a member of the National Rifle Association himself and didn’t agree with the tone of the questions.  He said the survey was intended to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about “the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans.”

He handed out the survey to test the military.

What inspired him was Presidential Directive 13 in the Fall of 1993 which became Presidential Directive 25 (PDD 25) in May 1994, which he said gave the “president authority to place the servitude of armed forces personnel under the auspices, the command and control of the United Nations and specifically under the operational field control and command of UN appointed foreign officers and noncommissioned officers.”

Cunningham said that also in Fall of 1993, came the bridging together and drafting of Clinton’s assault weapons ban, enacted in 1994.

What he discovered from the survey was that 23.66% of the soldiers taking the survey would swear to that code and 26.34%, with 11% saying they had no opinion, said they would fire on American citizens.

Here are the questions that caused a commotion at the time:

I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander- in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.
 (_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
 Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinionI would swear to the following code:
“I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”
(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinionThe U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government
 (_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
 Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

More than 74% said they would not fire on US citizens. If they understood the Constitution, the number would have been 100%.

What would that number be now?

Listen to this video, go to 04:20:

The actual wording of Presidential Directive 25  is excerpted as follows:

V. Command and Control of U.S. Forces

A. Our Policy: The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council. The greater the U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement mission that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.

There is nothing new about this Administration’s policy regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. U.S. military personnel have participated in UN peace operations since 1948. American forces have served under the operational control of foreign commanders since the Revolutionary War, including in World War I, World War II, Operation Desert Storm and in NATO since its inception. We have done so and will continue to do so when the President determines it serves U.S. national interests.

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. military personnel have begun serving in UN operations in greater numbers. President Bush sent a large U.S. field hospital unit to Croatia and observers to Cambodia, Kuwait and Western Sahara. President Clinton has deployed two U.S. infantry companies to Macedonia in a monitoring capacity and logisticians to the UN operation in Somalia.

B. Definition of Command: No President has ever relinquished command over U.S. forces. Command constitutes the authority to issue orders covering every aspect of military operations and administration. The sole source of legitimacy for U.S. commanders originates from the U.S. Constitution, federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and flows from the President to the lowest U.S. commander in the field. The chain of command from the President to the lowest U.S. commander in the field remains inviolate.

C. Definition of Operational Control: It is sometimes prudent or advantageous (for reasons such as maximizing military effectiveness and ensuring unity of command) to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander to achieve specified military objectives. In making this determination, factors such as the mission, the size of the proposed U.S. force, the risks involved, anticipated duration, and rules of engagement will be carefully considered.

Operational control is a subset of command. It is given for a specific time frame or mission and includes the authority to assign tasks to U.S. forces already deployed by the President, and assign tasks to U.S. units led by U.S. officers. Within the limits of operational control, a foreign UN commander cannot: change the mission or deploy U.S. forces outside the area of responsibility agreed to by the President, separate units, divide their supplies, administer discipline, promote anyone, or change their internal organization.

D. Fundamental Elements of U.S. Command Always Apply: If it is to our advantage to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a UN commander, the fundamental elements of U.S. command still apply. U.S. commanders will maintain the capability to report separately to higher U.S. military authorities, as well as the UN commander. Commanders of U.S. military units participating in UN operations will refer to higher U.S. authorities orders that are illegal under U.S. or international law, or are outside the mandate of the mission to which the U.S. agreed with the UN, if they are unable to resolve the matter with the UN commander. The U.S. reserves the right to terminate participation at any time and to take whatever actions it deems necessary to protect U.S. forces if they are endangered.

There is no intention to use these conditions to subvert the operational chain of command. Unity of command remains a vital concern. Questions of legality, mission mandate, and prudence will continue to be worked out “on the ground” before the orders are issued. The U.S. will continue to work with the UN and other member states to streamline command and control procedures and maximize effective coordination on the ground.

If you are not terrified, you are not paying attention.

The full survey discussed above can be found on this link.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 01:21:49 PM by rangerrebew »
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,015
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Terrifying J. Garrow interview: Obama asks military to fire on Americans
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2014, 01:22:53 PM »
Although it seems believable, Jim Garrow is not a reliable source.

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo