Dr. Jim Garrow
Caveat: Dr. Garrow has become somewhat conspiratorial in some claims he has made, however, he makes some very legitimate points in the interview.
Renowned 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claimed on his Facebook page last year 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, and that was before Mr. Obama.
Weston Collegiate Institute · 5,619 Followers
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. Garrow gave an interview about his Facebook comments to Next News Network’s WHDT World News Program that same week. On the eve of the State of the Union address in which Mr. Obama will announce his intentions to rule by Executive Order, it is most relevant now.
Garrow told the interviewer that the military official who gave him the information is a military legend and is in the highest levels of the military. The question, the litmus test, being presented to military is this: If a group of people would not lay down their arms when ordered to, would you be able to fire on them, on American citizens.
This military official who spoke with Dr. Garrow told him he wanted this information released and that the message needed to go out. He felt it was a serious breach of the Constitution and of the Second Amendment.
The military official’s source heard it from a military officer who was subjected to the litmus test and failed, subsequently resigning his commission over it.
Dr. Garrow says during the interview that Obama speaks to his own narrative. Everything you see him doing is reinforcing his belief. Dr. Garrow believes Obama’s belief is socialist-Marxist. Obama takes advantage of crises to use them to his own advantage. The real agenda, he says, is about controlling the American public.
Dr. Garrow was asked if there is an ideological purge of the military and he said his source fears that and believes the country is on the edge of totalitarianism techniques to cull the ranks of people who believe the Constitution is sacrosanct. Obama obviously doesn’t believe that.
This military source is afraid Americans will be victimized to an ideology that is far from America. The moves Obama has made show he clearly does not understand the American psyche or the American culture. If you listen to what Obama says, you would think you are listening to a ‘socialist-Marxist indoctrination program in some university.’
When asked if what is happening is similar to developments in other countries that have descended into dictatorship, Dr. Garrow emphasized that ‘it is the pattern.’
Don’t be sucked into the words, the propaganda, look at what he does, Dr. Garrow warns. He uses a Barnum Bailey huckster style. What he says and does are antithetical.
What is unexpected is the role the media would be playing, Dr. Garrow said. They are more an ‘arm of the government’ spreading the ‘propaganda.’
The interviewer said that during his Second Inaugural Address, Obama abandoned any pretense of moderation, openly embraced collectivism, and treated the Constitution as a quaint relic. He then asked if this suggests he has consolidated power to the point of being candid about his ideological intentions.
Dr. Garrow said he is a position of being able to ram anything through. What you are seeing is the beginning of a despot. What he did in his Second Inaugural Address was to throw aside the niceties and he proclaimed very clearly that he was a Progressive Socialist to all of America without embarrassment. It’s no longer a warning. You have full in your face what he is.
For the national media, it’s a dream come true. The dogma they are hearing is one they believe in totally.
Obama is presenting a totally different worldview and the cheerleaders don’t examine what he has said in the past, they are not the safe-guarders of the liberty, they are apologists or cheerleaders of the Obama Administration.
Dr. Garrow knows Chinese leaders in the highest ranks but he said the Chinese have no respect for Obama and regard him as a traitor to his country. The Chinese believe in being loyal to one’s country. Garrow said the average Chinese person regards Obama as a traitor. Obama’s derided and held out as a joke.
The military leader who spoke with Dr. Garrow said China wants the US disarmed because they have been promised US resources in exchange for payment of the debt we owe to China. China has set up Chinese zones in the US thanks to an invite from Obama. China needs oil and clean coal which the US has.
Dr. Garrow said if the American public knew what was going on, they’d be preparing for a Civil War. He said Obama is surprised and the Administration is fearful that the US could rise up.
Dr. Garrow’s perspectives on China and the debt are fascinating. Listen to the interview with Dr. Garrow on the video at NextNewsNetwork, go to 04:20 or listen below.
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. 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:
via Fox News
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 or socialist-Marxist 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:
(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)
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?
via Meet the Truth
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.