Shock Claim: 'The New Litmus Test of Leadership in the Military Is If They Will Fire On US Citizens or Not'
Recently
by Mac Slavo: Citizens
Against Senseless Violence: 'Join Us! Tell Everyone Your House Is
Completely Unprotected!'
|
|
|
He was one of the 206 nominees for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, which was ultimately awarded to President Barack Obama.
Garrow, who has friends in high places, including the U.S. military, made a startling claim on his Facebook page Sunday, which if true, should leave no doubt about why the Obama administration is moving full force to seize firearms from law abiding Americans and why the US government’s law enforcement and security assets have been making preparations for years in anticipation of social breakdown and widespread civil unrest.
According to Garrow, the Obama administration has been rapidly retiring or re-assigning US military leaders based on a new ‘litmus test’ of their loyalty:
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
When
pressed for the source of his information and asked why the senior
military leader would not reveal his name, Garrow responded by saying,
“I believe that the gentleman has done what he should and
allowed all of us to sound the alarm.”
He
revealed only that the man who shared this information, “is
one of America’s foremost military heroes,”
suggesting the source is a public figure.
Paul
Joseph Watson of Infowars notes that this new ‘litmus
test’ comes at a time when millions of Americans are already
suspicious of the government’s motives behind a number of
actions, including the most recent push to disarm the population:
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.”
Would
Jim Garrow put his reputation on the line by spreading a rumor or
simply make this up to garner attention?
Or,
is it possible that he does in fact have a high level military source
who is privy to this information – someone who has himself
been removed from his position because he didn’t pass the
litmus test?
Should
the Obama administration take Executive Actions against Americans
in the event of a scenario where gun confiscation becomes reality
or a collapse
of our economic system leads to a complete meltdown of law and
order on the streets of America, the administration would likely
deploy military assets under martial law to subdue any uprisings
or riots.
The
only way this could be done is if military leaders are willing to
command their subordinates to deploy against the American people
and fire on them if necessary.
If
Garrow’s claims are true, one can only shudder at the thought
of what the end-game may be.
January
24, 2013
Mac
Slavo [send him mail] is a
small business owner and independent investor.
Copyright
© 2013 Mac Slavo
West Point think tank calls "anti-federalists" a danger
Submitted by Road Runner on Wed, 01/23/2013 - 19:33
in
Via Washington Times: A West Point think tank has issued a paper warning America about “far right” groups such as the “anti-federalist” movement, which supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
The report issued this week by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., is titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”
The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”
It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
Shocking Interview Obama Does Not Want You to See: http://youtu.be/76h7bKc_-YI via @youtube
Litmus test (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A litmus test
is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the
answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would
proceed with the appointment or nomination. (The expression is a
metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry.) Those who must approve a nominee, such as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,
may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the
nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up
most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.Usage
During United States presidential election campaigns, litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. Advocates for various social ideas or policies often wrangle heatedly over what litmus test, if any, the president ought to apply when nominating a new candidate for a spot on the Supreme Court. Support for, or opposition to, abortion is one example of a common decisive factor in single-issue politics; another might be support of strict constructionism. Defenders of litmus tests argue that some issues are so important that it overwhelms other concerns (especially if there are other qualified candidates that pass the test).The political litmus test is often used when appointing judges. However, this test to determine the political attitude of a nominee is not without error. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed under the impression that he was conservative but his tenure was marked by liberal dissents. Today, the litmus test is used along with other methods such as past voting records when selecting political candidates.
The Republican Liberty Caucus is opposed to litmus tests for judges. "We oppose ‘litmus tests’ for judicial nominees who are qualified and recognize that the sole function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. We oppose judicial amendments or the crafting of new law by any court."[1]
Professor Eugene Volokh believes that the legitimacy of such tests is a "tough question", and argues that they may undermine the fairness of the judiciary:
- Imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. "Perjury!" partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They'll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers' expectations.
- Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge's duty to sincerely consider the parties' arguments.[2]
No comments:
Post a Comment