Had the following comments been made on a fringe corner of the internet most would dismiss them as outright conjecture. However, what you are about to read comes from one of the world’s foremost philanthropists, Jim Garrow, who has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money to help over 35,000 Chinese baby girls from near certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy.
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.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
There may be a lot of military being asked to leave early... hope some stay on to defend us!
ReplyDeleteThe ones that WILL, will also be removed. By a Win-Mag at 800 yards. And just because they SAY they will, doesn't mean that the ones under their command will. Just remember, a small guerrilla force has defeated the most powerful military on the planet once before in this nation's history. An even if they assembled ALL the active duty military, ALL National Guard, and every cop in the country, they would still be OUTNUMBERED by MILLIONS. And we would have something to fight for other than a paycheck. Might explain why several high ranking military officers have, all of a sudden, been caught up in career ending scandals or abrupt retirement. just sayin'....
ReplyDeleteI had to take an oath to defend the constitution and agree not to fire on civilians. Whatever happened to that oath?
ReplyDeleteAs a former Marine all I can say is aim for the face, they will be wearing body armor and helmets, So I am sure I can put one where I need to!
Difference is my bullets won't be rubber.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the tip 6:12. I am not a military man and have no training, but I am getting prepared to defend my country. I always aim for center mass, but when your target has the best of protective gear, I guess going for the unprotected areas is the best way to neutralize the threat. Question-even with a vest, won't a chest shot with a 7.62 x 39 pretty much still neutralize the recipient for a while?
ReplyDelete6:53, No. Aim for the face. The chest shot will just pi$$ him off and show him your location.
ReplyDeleteI would think, depending on your skill, if body armor is an issue, hit the legs first so he can't move easily. Then a head shot would be easier. They can move their heads fast and you can miss easily.
ReplyDeleteSo this guy's friend told him this? Not much a call to arms. Create some more fake news from some crack-pots facebook page using un-named sources. We've got a great discussion on how to shoot military personell going on from this non-story. Paranoia begats paranoia.
ReplyDelete2:28 I think it was g gordon liddy many years ago who stated to shoot for the head when the jack booted thugs show up at your place. but that's ok, I'm sure you'll be more than glad to go peacefully into the dark!
ReplyDeleteas for me I'll be spraying my bullets with pam!