“Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who ‘will fire on U.S. citizens'”
Alinsky. Cloward-Piven. Is it really that far fetched that Obama would read Ayers’ Prairie Fire Manifesto as an operator’s manual? Examiner.com:
On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama’s second term.
Garrow made the following 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.
So, who is the source?
Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”
Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.
Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country’s one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
[...]This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.
The WFB article states:
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
Did Gen. Mattis refuse to “fire on U.S. citizens?”
Couple this with Jarrett, Pfeiffer, and Obama’s strange signaling that the debate over the scope of government is over — presumably, victory has been granted to the post-constitutionalists by a 51% “mandate,” giving the President and his leftist cabal the populist sympathy to act outside the current system of government, which Pfeiffer noted is unsuitable for getting things done, and is antiquated insofar as it prevents Obama from acting the role of world-shaper and imperial President. A king, if you will. With a client base of bought-off quid pro quo votes, the mainstream “progressive” press, and academics who have always been willing to imprint their social engineering theories onto a civil society, never afraid to break a few eggs if the end result is a fluffy Denver omelet of Utopian paradise.
Ironically, I had no knowledge of this rumored military litmus test bombshell when I yesterday suggested that this second amendment “fight” being disingenuously ginned up by Obama and his media, medical, and academic cronies is perhaps designed to draw out those who would, if the time did in fact come when confiscation and police state methodology was legitimated legislatively at the state level, resist such attempts at usurping a natural and Constitutional right. That is, I posited a scenario in which leftist politicians were willing to take an acceptable number of casualties to law enforcement and even other state workers and civilians by armed citizens resisting tyranny in order to frame the narrative of fringe militia extremists at war with the government — creating a crisis in which they can “temporarily” call for a moratorium on gun and ammunition sales, and require “voluntary” registration of weapons.
Every time the organized left sneers openly at our paranoid conspiracy fantasies, it is nothing more than an attempt to shame us into silence. For months here, troll after troll scoffed at the idea that Obama wanted to take away our guns, up to and even past the time when he and his administration made it clear that these attempted bans on magazine capacity and weapon types, coupled to vague notions of “mental health” and AG determined “dangerous” traits, is exactly the piecemeal plan to disarm us. That is, to take away our only real protection of individual liberty.
And now we’re told by a trusted source that this New Lefist cabal of constitutional republican pretenders is actively seeking out a military hierarchy who would support the dictates of those in government over the people whose government this is, regardless of who has the Constitutional right of things.
For those of us paying attention, these are indeed harrowing times. I’ve no doubt anymore than I and others who blog daily about individual sovereignty and the rights of a free people to resist a tyrannical takeover of their country in what until now has been a soft coup, are on some sort of terrorist watch list — at least, if the West Point “study”, already eagerly adopted by progressive drivers of manufactured consent, is any indication.
Obama, by his own admission — and in what some breathless groupie journalists actually compared to the Gettysburg Address — is calling, almost transparently now, for a fundamental reformation of the relationship between citizen and government. Obama believes the government is the civil society; he believes the government, therefore, is the well-spring of our “collective salvation.” And he, therefore, is its Godhead.
He is a cult-like leader, and his band of true believers — and that’s whom he surrounds himself with, true believers and idolaters — are prepared to take any action to reinforce our shift from citizen to subject, and the government’s shift from ownership by the people to sovereign over them, that we allow, either through affirmation or cowed silence.
Not only can it happen here. It is happening here. And yet still many our own bien pensants on the right, lured in by the power politics of the Beltway Bubble, consider this nothing more than rugged street politics, nothing more — and find nothing “malicious” in the President’s agenda. They chide us for our “outrageous” comments while self-righteously donning the mantle of “loyal opposition,” bracketing the very real set of facts proving that today’s GOP is no real “opposition” at all.
— That, and forgetting that this president was suckled on the Communist teat of Frank Marshall Davis, moved on to Alinsky and Piven and the strategy meetings of Cooper Union communists looking for ways to make the Marxist message palatable to a country built on free market capitalists, befriended Palestinian terrorist enablers and apologists, and then emerged in politics as a protege of Bill Ayers, the man whose Weather Underground movement sought to overthrow the government — propelling into the ultimate seat of power the perfect Potemkin pragmatist, sold to us as a post-partisan, post-racial healer the would absolve us of our racist colonialist sins, with the actual means to do so.
I don’t for a second believe Ayers ever gave up on his dreams of an overthrow of our system. Guity as sin, free as bird tends to embolden an ideologue who, like Obama, appears every bit the narcissist and tyrant in waiting.
My own suspicion is that Obama is hoping the collapse his policies are designed to bring about occur after he leaves office. But he’s making contingency plans, and part of that can be heard in the subtext of his inaugural speech. Obama is looking to divide us fully — to clarify the “sides” — so that its easier to identify enemies of his new post-constitutional Utopian state.
Further, his introduction of a plethora of wedge issues, now that he’s been safely re-elected, is designed to fracture the GOP, to suss out those who may be used as useful idiots (who find principled conservatives less palatable than encroaching totalitarianism) from those who may be, as we say, “lost causes” — fringe extremists whose fidelity to the Constitution marks them as potential terrorist threats to the country who must be jailed away or worse.
When this blog began, I spoke often to “liberals” — hell, I still identify and a classical liberal, and until that designation is deconstructed and reinscribed by the language and thought police, there can be no doubt that my beliefs mirror those of classical liberalism — and we discussed on an intellectual level policy differences and our ideological divide. Those days are now long gone — and no one on the right looking to blow sunshine up our asses by telling us otherwise should be heeded. And if that sounds harsh, that’s because it’s intended to. Obama is no “good man.” He is the culmination of the New Left’s fantasy to change American into just another tyrannical backwater — albeit one that maintains the facade and all the trappings of a functioning democracy.
This is it. We are nearing the point of conflagration. And every day I sit and wait and worry that such a manufactured spark will set off the powder keg Obama and the New Left have been packing since his first days in office. His re-election has clearly emboldened him and his followers.
I only pray that no matter how many military leaders Obama can recruit and convince of the necessity to fire on their fellow countrymen — using the lie that they are quelling a violent and treasonous series of small, fringe insurrections — there are still those within the military ranks who will, when push comes to shove, remember their Constitutional oaths and refuse to participate in any post-FDR attempts to either round-up erstwhile law-abiding citizens, or worse.
Even if you aren’t religious, now would be a good time to pray for the safety of this, the last best hope for freedom, the USA as founded.