Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens�

[StumpyBeagle]

Since this comes from Alex Jones web site i'm not sure how sane it is. But after reading "Are American Gun Owners a Bunch of Fools?" I thought I'd post it anyway. Even a blowhard like Alex Jones gets it right sometimes. If someone beat me to the post, sorry for the duplication.

 

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”

 

 

[daddyo]

Most US Presidents have inspired and earned the respect of the military.

 

The current occupant of the White House hides behind it.

 

You are a coward, Mr. President.

Edited January 26, 2013 by daddyo

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, even though some will jump on the author's credibility, it has been reported the same way on other sources. I don't doubt it's integrity

one bit. It falls in line with what Obama's goals for a European style America would have to be in order to maintain control, and it goes against

the grain of the Constitution. What's not to believe?

[DaveTN]

I’m not really interested in anything Alex Jones has to say; he is not a responsible source, so I didn’t click on the link. I would be interested in reading about Obama asking military commanders if they would fire on Americans, if it were from a responsible source. In any of the nut cases ranting’s did he make any claims about where this info came from?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You don't have to. That's why I said there are other sources to verify what this article says. Do a Google or Bing if you wish to verify.

[Guest The Dude]

I’m not really interested in anything Alex Jones has to say; he is not a responsible source, so I didn’t click on the link. I would be interested in reading about Obama asking military commanders if they would fire on Americans, if it were from a responsible source. In any of the nut cases ranting’s did he make any claims about where this info came from?

He normally does in all his articles. But you wouldnt know if you dont read them.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I don't buy this for a second.  I know several military officers, including current students who will be commissioned upon graduation.  Virtually all are very supportive of the 2nd Amendment and believe very strongly in the Constitution as a whole.  At best, this so-called "litmus test" is nothing more than a confirmation that they will uphold the very same oath that all service members must take, which is to protect the nation from all enemies "foreign and domestic."  So basically, every person who has taken an oath upon joining the military has sworn to use force against fellow Americans if the need arises.  The issue here is whether there is some devious plot to use the military against the US population, and if there is, how likely it would be that thousands of American servicemen and women would see the order to fire upon fellow Americans as a legitimate order.  Our service members are not robots, but have a brain and decide whether they think the mission is legitimate or not.  I don't think that thousands of our service members would turn on Americans simply because they were told to do so by a political administration that they generally don't support. 
 

Alex Jones is a scourge on this country and the vile garbage he puts out is destructive to supporters of liberty.

[Just2Honor]

Encourage all LE and Military to join Oath Keepers.   All of us, too, whether ex-LE or veteran are eligible.        www.oathkeepers.org      You may not think it's the best solution, but is there another?  At least they are trying to educate people about their responsibilities to "We the People" and about not obeying un-Constitutional orders.

[Guest The Dude]

I know several military personell as well, and Im not so sure whether or not they will, as they havent been given an order to do so. Things change when the orders come in. Look at katrina. People said the same thing about gun confiscations. They still happened. Its not a question of if they would fire on us, but a question of if they would fire on "domestic terrorists". Which we will all become eventually.

[DaveTN]

Okay, I did a quick search. A Nobel Peace Prize “nominee” is claiming that an unnamed source is telling him “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 I’m supposed to believe that any military leader that says “No” is being removed? That would be great information if it could be verified.

 

These stories all seem to make the fact that this guy being a “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” gives him credibility. 205 people were nominated that year and Obama was the recipient. Obama won, and it doesn’t make him any more creatable in my eyes.

 

I truly believe if this is happening a credible source will step forward.

[npgunner]

Was googling around about this subject ... found this out of West Point.  It's long and I didn't read the whole thing.  Did read some of the paragraphs on "anti-federalist" movement. 

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf

 

"They also 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."

 

This statement by the Washington Times about the above quotation was somewhat concerning: "Given today's political climate, that definition could encompass much of the Tea Party and those who espouse conservatism."

 

The article from West Point serves only to characterize and develop an intellectual understanding of these "far right groups," it doesn't suggest any major government/military action to imprison us or anything. 

 

Maybe my tin foil is wrapped too tightly this morning ... but it is somewhat concerning, all things considered.

[Guest The Dude]

Okay, I did a quick search. A Nobel Peace Prize “nominee” is claiming that an unnamed source is telling him “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 I’m supposed to believe that any military leader that says “No” is being removed? That would be great information if it could be verified.

 

These stories all seem to make the fact that this guy being a “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” gives him credibility. 205 people were nominated that year and Obama was the recipient. Obama won, and it doesn’t make him any more creatable in my eyes.

 

I truly believe if this is happening a credible source will step forward.

This may not be exactly what your looking for Dave, but its a start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iaWyPsD5eEA

[DaveTN]

This may not be exactly what your looking for Dave, but its a start.

Do you agree that the conversation they were having was about something very different than what we are discussing in this thread?

 

Asking a military officer if he would order his Predator operator to kill Anwar al-Aulaqi is something very different than asking him if he would fire on civilians in this country.

 

The Navy would not choose someone as a Ballistic Submarine Commander if they think he will question his orders to launch a nuclear strike. It makes for great movies, but won’t work in the real world. I can’t think of anywhere in the world we could drop a nuke that won’t kill innocent American citizens.

[Guest The Dude]

With a military that takes their orders from the government, I consider them linked, and not off topic. Especially when the orders will come from the top to begin with.

[Chucktshoes]

Do you agree that the conversation they were having was about something very different than what we are discussing in this thread?
 
Asking a military officer if he would order his Predator operator to kill Anwar al-Aulaqi is something very different than asking him if he would fire on civilians in this country.
 
The Navy would not choose someone as a Ballistic Submarine Commander if they think he will question his orders to launch a nuclear strike. It makes for great movies, but won’t work in the real world. I can’t think of anywhere in the world we could drop a nuke that won’t kill innocent American citizens.

It isn't different. Both conversations are about an executive claiming the right to kill US citizens without due process. The conversation in the FoxNews video is about his justification for claiming that power while the conversation here in this thread is about him possibly ensuring his ability to have those orders carried out.

[TMF]

I can’t think of anywhere in the world we could drop a nuke that won’t kill innocent American citizens.

Southwest Texas.

Boom. *Drops microphone, walks off stage* Edited January 26, 2013 by TMF

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Okay, I did a quick search. A Nobel Peace Prize “nominee” is claiming that an unnamed source is telling him “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 I’m supposed to believe that any military leader that says “No” is being removed? That would be great information if it could be verified.

 

These stories all seem to make the fact that this guy being a “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” gives him credibility. 205 people were nominated that year and Obama was the recipient. Obama won, and it doesn’t make him any more creatable in my eyes.

 

I truly believe if this is happening a credible source will step forward.

They will. The Judge appears credible to me, and if you wish to doubt him, there are others in the Military who think along those same lines.

What caused Oathkeepers to form?

Being nominated or winning the Nobel Prize doesn't make one more or less credible, his knowledge of the topic and his character does. You

are questioning his character for whatever reason when you should be seeking out the truth, instead.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ah, just start calling it tinfoil. It always happens.

[TMF]

Awlaki was in a foreign military which had declared war on our government. Had he joined the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and we went to war with Iran, would we be careful not to engage the unit he was serving in simply because he is an American? No.

We shot John Walker Lindh on the battlefield in Afghanistan when he was a member of the Taliban. We would have killed him had he not surrendered before we had the chance. He got his due process. Had he not survived the gunshot wound his rights would not have been violated. Edited January 26, 2013 by TMF

[Guest The Dude]

Ah, just start calling it tinfoil. It always happens.

Its the easy way out, and makes more sense to most people.

[DaveTN]

They will. The Judge appears credible to me, and if you wish to doubt him, there are others in the Military who think along those same lines.

What caused Oathkeepers to form?

Being nominated or winning the Nobel Prize doesn't make one more or less credible, his knowledge of the topic and his character does. You

are questioning his character for whatever reason when you should be seeking out the truth, instead.

Is Jim Garrow a Judge, would it matter if he is? I’m not questioning his credibility or character; I’m questioning the credibility of an unnamed source. He may have been told that; that doesn't make it true.

 

Does anyone in this thread (besides you) not think I am not seeking the truth?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't say you weren't. You might watch your singling out, also. Several others feel the same as I, easily.

 

You questioned a web site's credibility. I said check for other sources. There has been plenty of questions posed, and not by me, about

this concern. Judge Napolitano took it to another level and, as far as I'm concerned, is credible. He may not be perfect, but I accept his

questioning. Just because something appeared to break on a site you or others may not care for doesn't make it false. I don't care for the

flavor of Alex Jones, either, but it doesn't make what he says false any more than others. Pick your poison.

[TMF]

I'm gonna write this one off as false until the source is named and there is something to back it up. When wild accusations are made the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence. Saying "I heard it from a guy who is a super good source and is a high ranking official" doesn't cut the mustard.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I even agree with you, TMF, but Napolitano is arguably credible.

[Chucktshoes]

Awlaki was in a foreign military which had declared war on our government. Had he joined the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and we went to war with Iran, would we be careful not to engage the unit he was serving in simply because he is an American? No.
We shot John Walker Lindh on the battlefield in Afghanistan when he was a member of the Taliban. We would have killed him had he not surrendered before we had the chance. He got his due process. Had he not survived the gunshot wound his rights would not have been violated.

Engaging someone on the field of battle is different than a targeted assassination by drone strike. Awlaki got what he had coming to him, but that doesn't mean that the president had the right to order it done in the manner in which he did. The most salient point being that there is no legal difference in the president ordering the targeted killing of a US citizen in Yemen or Ypslanti, MI. Edited January 26, 2013 by Chucktshoes