Is Obama Asking Top Military If They Will “Just Follow Orders” and Shoot Americans?

26 Jan

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United State...

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense,  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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, “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 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?




Tags: , , , , , ,

20 responses to “Is Obama Asking Top Military If They Will “Just Follow Orders” and Shoot Americans?

  1. kansascase

    January 26, 2013 at 11:26 PM

    I believe that the possibility of the above information is accurate. I have been concerned about this for nearly a year. I have been working closely with the Veterans to ensure that they understood that “We and the People” and the Veterans are on the same side. Of course, you all have heard that on February 15th, he goes again before the Supreme Court regarding forgery, and a Federal Court just the other day ruled against him – it was about his recess appointments – ruled unconstitutional. And there are many more lawsuits out there as well. He is nearing the point of no return – actions will have to be taken according to his thinking. And, a panel of “his?” has ruled to remove Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders against the advice of prominent psychiatrists. This Narcissistic Personality Disorder is just another another name for Meglamania which is what Hitler suffered from. The biggest problem with this disorder is that there is no cure and no effective treatment. These people lack empathy and they can have lapses of being in touch with reality. There are people who are more affected and some that are less affected. I believe Obama needs to be evaluated – particularly since there may be a relationship between it and his childhood which I have heard was bad. He has such elevated sense of self, that he has been allowing some people to refer to him as “God.” That, is quite indicative of a serious mental illness. I had to work on a Veteran the other day. Somebody relayed to the Veterans that “God hates War,” “God Loves Soldiers.” I had to pull out my Bible and advise him that neither God nor Jesus were pacifists. War is justified – particularly if it is against evil. We don’t want war, but sometimes war is just. Now, that particular phrasing sounds very familiar to me. The Prince or King of Peace does not want the Veterans to assist citizens that will probably be fighting the military over gun laws. He wants complete power – ultimate power – tyrany. He is capable of creating a complete blood bath. I don’t know if he will suceed. He won’t win, but, there could be a lot of people that get hurt along the way. He can’t acquire complete control unless he can get the guns. The 2nd Amendment folks will not let him have them. He can’t stand that. The hunters won’t let him have them and neither will most of the American people. The tides are starting to turn against him. He requires praise and attention. He cannot stand to be criticized. From his standpoint, only he knows what we need. Nobody else even matters. If he has an illness like this and then gets a dose of stresses, it could be the final straw. So, yes, I do believe his story – military commanders do not lie. As to whether the soldiers will fire, I don’t know – some maybe. It is against the law for our military to fire on civilians, but, how many times has Obama broken the law – or rather, how many times has he not broken the law. I do not think that this is the way it will play out. As I have said before, and I don’t think you believed me then, but again I say that the Father’s Soldiers are on the ground too. I fight Destruction and for all that is good. I have no fear as I am not alone. There are people that are spiritually connected through the Father. We come from all walks of life and yet, we are all “as one.” It is pretty amazing, I have to say. But, responsibilities falls heavy on us all. We and the Father have protected this Country so far. When Obama went to the UN to seek a gun treaty – the Father said NO. When so many of the States in this Country wanted to succeed, again the Father said NO. I know this because I wrote His words. The Father’s anger was such that my blood nearly boiled – He was MAD.There are no political problems in this Country right now – there are serious spiritual problems. Almost All Washington has gone corrupt – greed, etc. Even the Conservatives are only looking out for themselves. I have called for atonement because I know that Judgement will come. Some may even tell you that the First Horse of the Apocalypse is coming this way. The name of that rider is Hunger. Last year there was a World Wide drought which included this Country as well. I don’t know how much the farmers have stored. I do come from a farm and some is stored if the price is too low – but there was very little crop that survived in the bread basket states. Kansas was cooked. I am going to do a bit of research on it in the event there is any Truth to it. I don’t truly know. I don’t know what will happen – not a clue, and yet I figure into it. I have to believe that the Father will give me what I need when the time comes.

  2. TA

    January 27, 2013 at 2:48 AM

    I have reservations about his connectedness in China. Plus he told alex jones he had never heard of him.

    I dont think obeying such order would be treason, but it would at least be direliction of duty and possibly sedition.

  3. johannabernays

    January 27, 2013 at 3:23 AM

    “In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”

    “Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative….”

    “On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.”

    – Bertrand Russell, “The Scientific Outlook”, 1931

  4. Anthony Clifton

    January 27, 2013 at 6:59 AM

    what difference does it make, now . . .

    John Kerry quoted Henry Kissinger during testimony and said flat out…New World Order

    as Les Visible always sez….”for purposes of DEMONstration”….

  5. palani

    January 27, 2013 at 7:48 AM

    From Talbot v. Janson, 1795, 3 Dallas 133

    Reciprocity for allegiance is lands. The system is a feudal one where allegiance is demanded (as in the oath of a military officer) and lands are offered in exchange. The system of providing warrants for land in exchange for military service is no longer practiced so oaths of allegiance don’t really count for much. These oaths are not enforceable.

    • Adask

      January 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      I’m going to guess that allegiance, under the feudal system, was enforceable at law. I don’t know if modern oaths are or are not be enforceable at LAW, but they might be enforceable in EQUITY. I’m convinced that both the federal and State constitutions are trusts. Therefore, when a man takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” he has entered into a voluntary servitude (fiduciary relationship) wherein he agrees to serve as fiduciary for all who are beneficiaries of the trust he’s agreed to “support and defend”. If the oath constitutes evidence of the officer’s status as fiduciary, that oath is enforceable in equity.

      • palani

        January 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM


        With the military structure Law and Equity are non-existent. Prior to 1950 Rocks and Shoals was the preferred legal system. After 1950 the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was the order for the remainder of the century. If the oath means anything within this (voluntary) military plane its meaning is determined by the UCMJ.

  6. Doug

    January 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM

    For one-whether or not Obama asked the question or not, the facts revealed demonstrated that at the highest levels of the Military orders are given and are being carried out all over the world to disarm maim and murder men woman and children. If military will do that somewhere else they will do it here. Also, it has already been established that Obama has the ‘right’ to have anyone arrested or murdered here and or abroad which makes the issue mute!

  7. Randa

    January 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    Shoot the messenger.

  8. kanani

    January 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    Will the Amerikkan military fire on Americans? Hell yes, they are killing brown men, women, & children all over the Middle East & Africa as I write this.

    Having done five years in the USMC infantry I can speak with a perspective different than most folks.

    The leadership in the military willingly & routinely cover up murder for the sake of not having bad reviews entered into their Service Records, as not to hinder the opportunity for advancement. This is a sad hidden truth. I witnessed this while on a combat tour in Husaybah, Iraq 04-05.

    So the powers that be in government will find those career minded personnel who love their career above all else, to carry such things out.

    My main concern is not the military or government, but the lack of men in our land. Men unfortunately get their manhood from their Harley Davidson motor bikes, vicariously through the local sports teams ,etc.

    Lastly, our American history is full of examples of the population being fired upon by the government. Currently, it already happens on a daily basis around the country via our militarized police departments.

    Keep slaving on.

  9. Anon4fun

    January 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM

    Giving an order to shoot Americans for exercising a constitutionally protected right is obviously outside the authority of someone under oath to support and defend the Constitution, so following such an order does not “discharge the duties” of anyone. Though a few members in any organization will follow whatever orders they receive, this type of minority is insufficient for a nationwide coup by an otherwise patriotic military.

    >>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.<<

    Considering how phony everything else about the show seems, the second possibility is likely correct. The purpose being to add yet another item to the long list of reasons for you to feel ineffectual, uninterested, or afraid in the ongoing contest for America's future. We the People are under constant bombardment with propaganda of this type, since rational and sure action on our part could almost effortlessly reverse hundreds of years of gains by the NWO and put them out of business in a month. They are still vulnerable in this way, which is why they live in fear of We the People finally seeing the simple fact of our overwhelming strength and making an intelligent move.

  10. earlt5000

    January 28, 2013 at 2:53 PM

    Patrick Henry cried out against such a central authority
    that could stifle state sovereignty:

    “Liberty will be lost and Tyranny will result.”

    What you need to Know about LAW

    In June 1957,
    the government of the United States published a work entitled:
    Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States:
    Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of
    Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II,

    Therein, the Committee stated:
    “The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means
    of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction
    by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 ….

    Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction,
    and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place,”
    Id., at 41

    “It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1)
    pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent,
    or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government,
    or (3)unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State,
    the Federal Government possesses No legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State,
    such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions,”
    Id., at 45.

    “The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part,
    acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State”
    Id., at 46.

    More at

    Patrick Henry cried out against such a central authority
    that could stifle state sovereignty:

    “Liberty will be lost and Tyranny will result.”

    So, here it is 2013

    “30,000 Armed Drones to be Used Against Americans”

    Patrick Henry was right:

    “Liberty will be lost and Tyranny will result.”

    Now that You know,
    What will you do?

    Read your Bible,
    Ask God for Salvation,
    Google: Preppers

    Good Luck and may God Bless you!


  11. Yartap

    January 28, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    As I have said before, it is time to befriend your local Sheriff and police Chiefs, so as to start the education process that these officers need to know. We must attempt to get them and their officers on our side.

  12. gary lee

    January 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM

    Since, in the event of a massive push on the part of a tyrannical government, the Sheriffs would probably be used mostly in outlying areas, until govco could free up enough forces to begin their operations outside of major metro areas, it might behoove the Sheriffs an such to befriend us, as well, as there are not enough of them to control much of an area, and one well-prepared American National, standing up for his Creator-endowed, Constitutionally-secured unalienable rights can easily reduce a Sheriffs department to minimum staff. I believe, for the most part, the Sheriffs will stand with, and for the People. I hope so, anyway, for their well being, as well as ours

  13. Imagine

    January 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    good questions, the answer coward wouldn’t surprise me a bit

  14. Dan brown

    February 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM

    I most certainly believe obummer is not only asking but commanding them to shoot AMERICANS!
    “Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready.” Theodore Roosevelt


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s