How can one be forced to resign on the spot? Gun to the head?
Obama weeding out Military who won't kill Americans
Is The Obama Administration Weeding Out Military Brass ThatWill Not Fire On American Citizens?
By: Tim Brown
Ben Swann Full Disclosure conducts a one on one interviewwith Dr. Jim Garrow who claims the Obama administration is weeding out topmilitary brass who are unwilling to fire upon Americans. Ben talks with Dr.Garrow and asks viewers questions.
Garrow indicates that his source referenced an officer whowas called into a private meeting and given a litmus test of whether or not hewould be able to fire on Americans. Upon, his answer that he would not do so,he was, in Garrow’s words “forced to resign on the spot.” Specifically, Garrowindicates that a scenario was with gun confiscation.
While the source is not cited and many people understandkeeping sources under wraps, couldn’t anyone make this claim? Garrow says thathe has known this source for seventeen years. He says that his source is a namethat most people in America would know.
One question posed to Garrow was, what was the context ofthe question? Could it mean to suppress a violent insurrection by extremistsgroups, whether politically affiliated or not?
Garrow simply referred to what I can only assume if theFeinstein bill, and, in my opinion, didn’t represent it fairly, as he said itincluded “any gun with a handle.” That’s not exactly what the bill talks about.However, the point is taken and that is that there is no doubt that if theObama administration thinks it can, it will go after guns.
He was also asked if there was evidence that could beprovided to give merit to his claims so that his claim could not be “washedaway” in a conspiracy theory, even if it is true. He did say that some peoplequestion whether he even knew anyone at high levels and he went on to state thepeople he did know and “sat across the table from” in high levels (ie.Alexander Haig, William Bennet, Bill Simon and others were mentioned).
While Garrow appreciated the question and understood whatwas being asked, he could provide nothing further. To be fair, this is true inmany cases where major stories are broken as well.
He was also asked how many officers this had happened to andhe simply referenced those who have called into various shows and indicatedthat it had gone on, which he said were at least “many dozens.”
Additionally, there was the question of why wouldn’t theseindividuals come forward together to out the story and confirm it. While Idon’t know that Garrow’s answer was satisfactory, perhaps it is, as hesuggested some sort of “official secrets act,” we do know that the Obamaadministration has been harder on whistleblower’s than any administrationprior.
I know there are many, many good men and women in ourmilitary that will not obey such an order. I also realize there are those whowill do and say anything to get ahead or not lose their job. Garrow indicatesthat his release of this information is to let the public know what is going onand to encourage those in the military that it is OK to say “No.”
You can evaluate Garrison’s testimony yourself. Many readersat this site already suspect things like this from the Obama administration sothis probably does not come as a surprise, especially in light of the bulksolicitations and purchases by this administration. However, I don’t have aproblem with posting the video as I believe Ben Swann to be one of the top realinvestigative journalists who desires to get at the truth. To that end, here’sthe video interview.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/is-the-obama-administration-weeding-out-military-brass-that-will-not-fire-on-american-citizens/#ixzz2LDd905GX
By: Tim Brown
Ben Swann Full Disclosure conducts a one on one interviewwith Dr. Jim Garrow who claims the Obama administration is weeding out topmilitary brass who are unwilling to fire upon Americans. Ben talks with Dr.Garrow and asks viewers questions.
Garrow indicates that his source referenced an officer whowas called into a private meeting and given a litmus test of whether or not hewould be able to fire on Americans. Upon, his answer that he would not do so,he was, in Garrow’s words “forced to resign on the spot.” Specifically, Garrowindicates that a scenario was with gun confiscation.
While the source is not cited and many people understandkeeping sources under wraps, couldn’t anyone make this claim? Garrow says thathe has known this source for seventeen years. He says that his source is a namethat most people in America would know.
One question posed to Garrow was, what was the context ofthe question? Could it mean to suppress a violent insurrection by extremistsgroups, whether politically affiliated or not?
Garrow simply referred to what I can only assume if theFeinstein bill, and, in my opinion, didn’t represent it fairly, as he said itincluded “any gun with a handle.” That’s not exactly what the bill talks about.However, the point is taken and that is that there is no doubt that if theObama administration thinks it can, it will go after guns.
He was also asked if there was evidence that could beprovided to give merit to his claims so that his claim could not be “washedaway” in a conspiracy theory, even if it is true. He did say that some peoplequestion whether he even knew anyone at high levels and he went on to state thepeople he did know and “sat across the table from” in high levels (ie.Alexander Haig, William Bennet, Bill Simon and others were mentioned).
While Garrow appreciated the question and understood whatwas being asked, he could provide nothing further. To be fair, this is true inmany cases where major stories are broken as well.
He was also asked how many officers this had happened to andhe simply referenced those who have called into various shows and indicatedthat it had gone on, which he said were at least “many dozens.”
Additionally, there was the question of why wouldn’t theseindividuals come forward together to out the story and confirm it. While Idon’t know that Garrow’s answer was satisfactory, perhaps it is, as hesuggested some sort of “official secrets act,” we do know that the Obamaadministration has been harder on whistleblower’s than any administrationprior.
I know there are many, many good men and women in ourmilitary that will not obey such an order. I also realize there are those whowill do and say anything to get ahead or not lose their job. Garrow indicatesthat his release of this information is to let the public know what is going onand to encourage those in the military that it is OK to say “No.”
You can evaluate Garrison’s testimony yourself. Many readersat this site already suspect things like this from the Obama administration sothis probably does not come as a surprise, especially in light of the bulksolicitations and purchases by this administration. However, I don’t have aproblem with posting the video as I believe Ben Swann to be one of the top realinvestigative journalists who desires to get at the truth. To that end, here’sthe video interview.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/is-the-obama-administration-weeding-out-military-brass-that-will-not-fire-on-american-citizens/#ixzz2LDd905GX
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Bersa Forum
A forum community dedicated to Bersa firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
C. Royce Honeycutt
16 Replies
MPWhite01
7 Replies
pkeane1971
5 Replies
Recommended Communities
