Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzT6X3_Bg9o#at=158


http://NextNewsNetwork.com | The Obama administration is openly escalating its campaign against private gun ownership, and shaking up the top ranks of the military command structure -- but is it also preparing to make war on the American population? According to a person identified as a former senior military official, the answer to that shocking question is yes.

World-renowned educator and human rights activist Jim Garrow says that the source, man regarded as "one of America's foremost military heroes," told him that President Obama is using a new litmus test for "determining who will stay and who must go" among top-ranked military leaders. That test is whether they will fire on US citizens or not. Garrow says that his source made the disclosure in order to "sound the alarm" over the administration's plans.

While Garrow will not yet reveal the identity of the source, it's important to note that Garrow himself is a man of considerable accomplishment. He is the founder of the Bethune Institute, which has established hundreds of schools throughout China. Three years ago, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work though a group called Pink Pagoda, which combat "gendercide" in China -- that is, the practice of rescuing baby girls who had been abandoned or targeted for infanticide because of the government's one-child policy. He was personally involved in helping to save the lives of more than 50,000 Chinese girls. He joins Gary Franchi on WHDT World News to discuss this new "Litmus Test."

Next News Network's WHDT World News Program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://usmediavault.com/WHDT.html

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

"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).




... wonder what 'domestic' means,,,,

No. Would you fire on American soldiers?

I dont care the nationality of someone threatening my family

Im going to defend them

thousands of americans a year are firing upon americans, its a non relevant question really

but back to yours,,,,,I probably would only fire on a soldier that was by themself and threatening the life of me or my loved ones

firing upon a group of soldiers would be self defeatist,, in my opinion

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/enemies_foreign_domestic/think_the_armed_forces_mi.php

Think the Armed Forces Might Save the Republic? Think Twice

Here's a cheery little document that looks at the costs and benefits of a national police force. Sound familiar?

A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities "Security requires a mix of military and police forces to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations. This research examines the creation of a high-end police force, which the authors call a Stability Police Force (SPF). The study considers what size force is necessary, how responsive it needs to be, where in the government it might be located, what capabilities it should have, how it could be staffed, and its cost. This monograph also considers several options for locating this force within the U.S. government, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in the Department of State, and the U.S. Army's Military Police. The authors conclude that an SPF containing 6,000 people — created in the U.S. Marshals Service and staffed by a “hybrid option,” in which SPF members are federal police officers seconded to federal, state, and local police agencies when not deployed — would be the most effective of the options considered. The SPF would be able to deploy in 30 days. The cost for this option would be $637.3 million annually, in FY2007 dollars."

A free PDF is available at RAND | Monographs | A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities

Isn't it heartwarming to know that your government is looking at the means for keeping any untoward eruption among the population under control?

UPDATE: Sherlock in the comments observes,

According to the Rand site, it is dated "2009". So, want to bet there won't be boo about this in the media? Now do a thought experiment: what if it had been dated "2008".

Posted by Vanderleun at December 7, 2009 11:00 PM
Bookmark and Share

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG819/

any mention on who the author of the piece actually is, if its a government document or a school thesis?

it just appears, in the short paragraph, to be some random questions and random sugestions,,,,

who did this 'study'?

for those who dont like to click links:

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army and conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.


.one of millions which 'waste' government grants on things people find suspect or useless,,,,,I wouldnt imagine the government comes close to taking serious consideration to all of them,

Hardly a school thesis coming from a think-tank used by the administration and US military in an advisory capacity. The authors of the study were Terrence K. Kelly, Seth G. Jones, James E. Barnett, Keith Crane, Robert C. Davis, & Carl Jensen. You might want to look up the authors' credentials...I have a sneaking suspicion they went well past high school, and I rather doubt the mentally inferior politicians in congress & the senate, who have little idea of such complex issues would be unimpressed by the credentials of the authors & reputation of the RAND corporation to the extent that they would discount their "suggestions."



It would probably be more accurate to say that RAND justifies or helps form what it presumes to be the desired opinions of its clients & sponsors (They get more repeat business that way)



...only the ones it wants to take serious consideration of, which are probably the ones the RAND corporation produces, since it uses RAND's suggestions in formulating much of its defence policy.

I would be the last one to suggest that RAND's suggestions are not necessarily taken seriously by government...in fact, based on their record of policy suggestions that are adopted, I can almost guarantee that they are.