Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Veteran readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are vibrantly aware of the May 10, 1994 "Combat Arms Survey" administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC’s Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California. Among its 46 questions, the Marines were asked if they would be willing to swear to a United Nations code of conduct and if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn over their privately owned weapons to the government. Other questions sought their approval or disapproval about their involvement in an assortment of operations far removed from proper military assignments, some of which would even place them under formal UN command.
Im not an Obama supporter and have no love for his policies, but Im getting tired of all the paranoia that is going around. A cursory check on Google will show that this "question" can be traced back to at least 1995. Twenty-Nine Palms Survey: What Really Motivated Its Author?
Veteran readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are vibrantly aware of the May 10, 1994 "Combat Arms Survey" administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMCs Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California. Among its 46 questions, the Marines were asked if they would be willing to swear to a United Nations code of conduct and if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn over their privately owned weapons to the government. Other questions sought their approval or disapproval about their involvement in an assortment of operations far removed from proper military assignments, some of which would even place them under formal UN command.
So have fun and enjoy your self induced paranoia.
Look...let's be serious here
How else can the Kenyan fill the FEMA death camps unless he has a military willing to fire on civilians?
That's why he wanted gays in the military. Gays would have no problem shooting in your ass
I hope so since right wing nuts are planning to fire on the military.
Only if they shot at us first!
My son and i talked about this awhile back (he's in the Army) and he said Obama may get a few of the "liberal" soldiers to fight us, but the majority of the soldiers would not, they can't stand Obama. They would fight the Govt and not the citizens. Obama will have to start recruiting "his" citizens that would just love to kill others for their leader!!
The left didn't care much for the military firing on civilians at Kent State.
Oh, yes...that's because a Republican was President. Now that a Dem is in the White House, it's okay.
The left didn't care much for the military firing on civilians at Kent State.
Oh, yes...that's because a Republican was President. Now that a Dem is in the White House, it's okay.
Of course it is OK
We elected the Kenyan to take away your guns. It was on all the posters. You can either comply or take your rightful place at Camp FEMA
You will find your life is just fine without your arsenal. You can spend your time doing volunteer work at the local retiremant home and helping old ladies cross the street
No American in the military would fire on their own people.
You people are fucking idiots
If ordered to fire upon US Citizens, US military rank and file will turn against their leaders
Oh, and as for the OP:
Uniformed Services Oath of Office: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
Oath of Enlistment: ""I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.."
So this so called "litmus test" is willingness to follow the oath already given.
And while it has been a few years, are people forgetting we had a whole war that consisted entirely of shooting US citizens?
No American in the military would fire on their own people.
Oh, and as for the OP:
Uniformed Services Oath of Office: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
Oath of Enlistment: ""I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.."
So this so called "litmus test" is willingness to follow the oath already given.
And while it has been a few years, are people forgetting we had a whole war that consisted entirely of shooting US citizens?
And if those elected have lied when taking this oath turn against us,
It never stops, does it? Extreme partisanship on both sides. This time, it is the idiocracy of the right wing. They are SO convinced that the very military they idolize, worship and hold Holy will somehow turn into mindless zombified killing machines to be unleashed on their own friends, families, neighbors.
Right wingers- do you REALLY have that little faith in the military?
And Im sorry to say, but there is just no way the military, US or any other, would win an occupation war with the American people. We basically lost the occupation (not the war) of Iraq, and Afghanistan isnt going much better. If we cant occupy and control a bunch of goat farmers with old AK's, then how can we do that to this nation, full of much technically smarter and heavily armed people? Add to that the compassion the troops would feel towards our people, making the killing even harder (You need to read "On Killing" by Lt. Grossman), and its a nearly impossible thought that our military would be unleashed on us.
Oh, and as for the OP:
Uniformed Services Oath of Office: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
Oath of Enlistment: ""I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.."
So this so called "litmus test" is willingness to follow the oath already given.
And while it has been a few years, are people forgetting we had a whole war that consisted entirely of shooting US citizens?
And if those elected have lied when taking this oath turn against us,
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Please give an example.
A Facebook entry is a reliable source now? It's a completely unsubstantiated rumor.Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will Fire On US Citizens
Jim Garrow is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing. 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, Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, one of Americas foremost military heroes, whose goal in divulging the information was to sound the alarm.
Apparantly Gen Mattis rubbed a lot of people the wrong way...happens all the time. Doesn't mean anything ominouslIt also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.
Note: "academic project" which was falsely portrayed by many paranoid people as being an offical government inquiry. And notice that it was in 1995...hardly a precusor to anything.Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.
Well, yeah..."all enemies foreign and domestic."The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.
2006. So how is this something to do with Obama?In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations (PDF) dating from 2006.
Of course. There are contingency plans for everything. Hell, we have a plan for the invasion of Canada.Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations. The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.
We're soldiers. We don't fire warning shots. But that doesn't mean we murder civilians either. I can't access the FM from work but I'll bet it doesn't say we should commit murder.On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of deadly force in confronting dissidents on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, Warning shot will not be fired.
And if those elected have lied when taking this oath turn against us,
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Please give an example.
Barack Obama has taken the oath of office for the second time.
Such as?He has circumvented the Constitution of the United States on several occassions during his previous term.
I've read the Executive Orders. Nothing in them "destroys" the Second Ammendment. Nothing in them infringes in the least on the right to own guns. Which particular executive order (none of them have been formally published, by the way) do you think destroys the 2nd ammendment?His latest violation of his oath is to destroy the Second Amendment to our Constitution by Executive Order.
You have to present evidence first. You haven't. You've just made assertions.Has Obama lied to the American PEOPLE when taking his oath of offce? You decide...
