Originally published January 25 2013
Shock claim: Obama removing all military leaders from command if they will not fire on U.S. citizens
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) It is not a claim being made by some obscure personality who hosts a late-night "radio show" on shortwave, or by a known far-out lunatic seeking his latest 15 minutes of fame, but by none other than a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
Reports surfaced Jan. 22 that Dr. Jim Garrow, nominated for the prize in 2009, made a shocking claim on his Facebook page in recent days that he was informed by a top military vet that the Obama administration's "litmus test" for new military leaders is whether or not they will follow orders to fire on American citizens if need be.
Garrow, founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, a group that seeks to rescue baby girls from the officially sanctioned "gendercide" in China, is no "kook." He's a public figure who has been involved in "helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death," according to the Pagoda website. That knowledge alone is what makes his claim all the more disturbing and worthy of attention.
'Litmus test' for future military commanders?
From his Facebook post:
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.
Later, he followed up the post by adding that the man who told him that is "one of America's foremost military heroes" whose motivation for divulging the information was to "sound the alarm," InfoWars.com reported.
Garrow's news comes on the heels of other notable events currently taking place, including the "national debate" over the desire by the president and many on the political Left to impose sweeping new gun control laws - including the banning of certain military look-alike, semi-automatic rifles involved in the fewest amount of gun crimes, according to the FBI's crime statistics.
The news also follows a report from the Washington Free Beacon that four-star Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East and more specifically; Afghanistan, was "given the bum's rush out of his job as commander of" CENTCOM "and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned."
'Why the hurry?'
Veteran National Security reporter Thomas Ricks wrote on his blog that the firing could have been linked to Mattis' refusal to toe the line on potential military action against Iran:
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way - not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable.
But Ricks went on to say something much more revealing - and cryptic - about the Obama administration's national security team:
I am at the point where I don't trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.
Security upgrades in the era of shrinking budgets
Further, InfoWars.com reminds us:
Concerns over U.S. 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.
Finally, there is this, more recent, development. Security at military bases around the country are being enhanced, and all at a time when military budgets on the state and federal levels are supposed to be shrinking. The upgrades are being blamed on the 2010 Fort Hood shooting, but the government's narrative may give away its motives: "Nearly a year after a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, the Pentagon is taking new steps to beef up security and surveillance programs at its bases, and will join an FBI intelligence-sharing program aimed at identifying future terror threats," The Associated Press reported.
We will be following these developments.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml