According to Wikipedia, “WHDT is an independent full service television broadcasting in the West Palm Beach, Miami and Boston television markets.”
WHDT is not “big-time” (mainstream) TV, but it is a real, commercial TV station.
According to a biography as Amazon.com, “Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.” Dr. Garrow was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in A.D. 2009. His background suggests that Dr. Garrow is credible.
WHDT TV recently interviewed Dr. Garrow (video below). During that interview, Dr. Garrow claimed that President Obama has instituted a new “litmus test” for top military officers: Would they be willing to “just follow” orders from their superiors and/or the Commander In Chief to shoot Americans who refused to lay down their arms?
The implications of this interview are explosive but leave me with mixed emotions.
First, let’s consider the Oath required at 5 USC 3331 for all military officers:
“I, [name], 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 on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Arguably, the officer’s Oath to “discharge the duties” of his office might be interpreted as a duty to “just follow orders” of his superiors–even if those orders included shooting the American people who refused to lay down their Arms.
But, clearly, the first express obligation in the the officers’ Oath is to “support and defend the Constitution“–and that Constitution includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear Arms”. Thus, it seems that any military officer who’s willing to “just follow orders” and shoot Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment rights should understand that doing so would constitute an act of Treason and thereby subject such officer to being hanged by the neck until dead.
I have a hard time imagining that many U.S. military officers would risk being charged with treason by agreeing to shoot Americans who were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
I have a hard time believing that Obama would dare ask many officers if they would shoot Americans (and thereby commit treason). There are no secrets in the internet age. If Obama posed such questions to just one officer, the news could quickly go viral on the internet.
Is Obama so audacious–or desperate–that he thinks he can get away with asking such questions? I can’t say the answer is No, but I am skeptical.
• On the other hand, I’m inclined to believe that Dr. Garrow is credible and almost certainly telling the truth. I don’t doubt for a minute that everything he describes in the video could be true and probably is true.
• On the third hand, while Dr. Garrow claims the source of his information is a high-ranking military officer who America recognizes and regards as a hero, that “heroic” source wishes to remain anonymous and allow Dr. Garrow to do his talking for him. I’m not inclined to respect a high-ranking military source as “heroic” who understands that Obama is seeking to use military force against the American people so long as this purported “hero” refuses to identify himself and give real credibility to this claim. It sounds to me as if this “high-ranking military” source is either: 1) a coward more interested in keeping his job and protecting his own self-interests than in truly protecting the American people; or 2) this alleged “high-ranking military source” is fabricated and doesn’t even exist.
• On the fourth hand, I watched the WHDT-TV interview and it felt “scripted” rather than an instance of independent journalism. A real interview is intended to probe rather than promote the subject’s claims. A real interview is intended to discover if “this guy’s for real”. A real interview–especially on a topic of enormous importance–is intended to ambush rather than merely play patty-cake.
But, in this case, the interviewer’s questions and Dr. Garrow’s answers generally seemed to flow together. There was no ambush; no probing questions. Other than an inquiry as to how listeners could fund Dr. Garrow’s activities, I didn’t see the interviewer ever pose a question that surprised Dr. Garrow. Dr. Garrow seemed so well-prepared to answer each question that it’s easy to suppose he had reason to expect each question.
For the most part, the two people in this interview seemed to work together, hand-in-glove. The interview seemed “staged” rather than spontaneous. Of course, just because the interview may have been scripted doesn’t prove that Dr. Garrow’s claims are false–but I had the feeling that I was watching an “infomercial” or perhaps even propaganda rather than a legitimate interview.
• When Snopes.com was asked to evaluate Dr. Garrow’s claims, Snopes replied “Probably False“. That’s interesting. Probably. Not necessarily. Probably. That means Snopes admits that Dr. Garrow’s claims might be true.
Again, I’m inclined to believe Dr. Garrow’s claims. But I recognize my own inclination and susceptibility to believing such ideas–even if they’re false. Therefore, without more evidence, I’m wary of believing even that which I’m inclined to believe.
Unless Dr. Garrow’s real objective is to discredit China moreso than Obama, I can’t yet see an “angle” that would persuade Dr. Garrow to risk his reputation by telling a fantastic lie in public. Therefore, while I’m not convinced, I’m still inclined to believe Dr. Garrow’s claims.
Still, there’s something about the actual interview–the seemingly “staged” presentation–that doesn’t ring true. The interview disturbs me. For me, the interview itself casts doubt on Dr. Garrow’s claims.
• On balance, I tend to agree with Snopes: I recognize that Dr. Garrow’s claims might be true, I suspect they are “probably false”. For the moment (especially after considering the terms of the military oath), I don’t have enough evidence to accept Dr. Garrow’s claims as true. Without more evidence, I’m about 70/30 against the validity of Dr. Garrow’s claim. They might be true, but they’re probably false.
However, if I see more evidence in the form of some military source who has enough balls to publicly accuse Obama of posing the questions reported by Dr. Garrow, I will instantly reassess my opinion in favor of Dr. Garrow’s legitimacy.
It seems to me that if Dr. Garrow is telling the truth, at least one or two more “high ranking military officers” will come forward to verify Dr. Garrow’s claims. If no such supporting claims are made by other military officers in the next week or two, I’ll become increasingly skeptical of Dr. Garrow’s claims.
• So far, the evidence is flimsy and mixed. Without more evidence, Dr. Garrow’s claims sound as much like propaganda as truth.
I won’t choose to believe Dr. Garrow’s claims until I see more evidence. If his claims are true, we should see more evidence soon. If his claims are false, somebody is going to a lot of trouble and expense to make the American people “jump” one way or another. I don’t intend to “jump” one inch–I don’t intend to over-react–until I see more evidence. I suggest you do the same.
But, what do you think? Is Dr. Garrow telling the truth about Obama–or is he merely lying like Obama?