Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: “We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers”

[rickjump1 0]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/army-officer-wants-disarmed-will-pry-gun-cold-dead-fingers/ "A report earlier this year from well connected philanthropist Dr. Jim Garrow claims that there is a new litmus test for military leadership:


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.

Obviously, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman passed the test with flying colors."

LTC Robert Bateman is certainly "General" material and will crawl over the Constitution with his Commander-in-Chief to get a star. He, no doubt, feels it's his "duty".

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[AndyBoyd 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTO-xVLG5HE

Your proposal is acceptable.

[quade 3]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 58]

This claim surfaced awhile back. One fact remains, our senior military leaders are being purged at an accelerated rate. Retired LTG Jerry Boykin has stated often that military morale among senior officers is very low.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[regulator 0]

quade

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

And my question to you is do you honestly think that if the POTUS did want to find servicemen who would fire on US civilians that snopes is the end all be all US secret ops information guide?...and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

Using snopes to verify urban myths is one thing...using it to verify something on this scale this large is completely assinine when you have an abundance of liars in washington.

[jclalor 12]

regulator

***http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

And my question to you is do you honestly think that if the POTUS did want to find servicemen who would fire on US civilians that snopes is the end all be all US secret ops information guide?...and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

Using snopes to verify urban myths is one thing...using it to verify something on this scale this large is completely assinine when you have an abundance of liars in washington.


I'm constantly amazed at the utter absurdity of the shit you buy into.

How many time-shares do you own?

[wolfriverjoe 1,366]

jclalor

***

And my question to you is do you honestly think that if the POTUS did want to find servicemen who would fire on US civilians that snopes is the end all be all US secret ops information guide?...and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

Using snopes to verify urban myths is one thing...using it to verify something on this scale this large is completely assinine when you have an abundance of liars in washington.

I'm constantly amazed at the utter absurdity of the shit you buy into.

How many time-shares do you own?

I stopped being amazed by the gullibility of people. Not just on here, but everywhere.
The absurd crap some people believe (mainly because it supports their agenda) is hilarious. Ridiculous. But not amazing.

I get the "Snopes isn't always right" garbage too.

In this particular case, the first couple lines of the page are what stick out to me.

Quote

For as long as we've been operating this web site (close to twenty years), the three most commonly and continuously circulated types of conspiracy theories have to do with claims that the President of the United States or some other federal agency is about to declare martial law, is readying mass internment facilities (i.e., concentration camps), or is preparing to use armed force against U.S. citizens.

P.T. Barnum was right.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 58]

jclalor

******http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

And my question to you is do you honestly think that if the POTUS did want to find servicemen who would fire on US civilians that snopes is the end all be all US secret ops information guide?...and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

Using snopes to verify urban myths is one thing...using it to verify something on this scale this large is completely assinine when you have an abundance of liars in washington.


I'm constantly amazed at the utter absurdity of the shit you buy into.

How many time-shares do you own?

Snopes in a crock, decidedly liberal. They lost credibility several, many years ago. Always compare to Truth or Fiction. Compare Wikipedia to Conservapedia.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jclalor 12]

Has there ever been a negative Obama story that you've been unable to believe because it was just too crazy?

[jakee 1,274]

Quote

Retired LTG Jerry Boykin has stated often that military morale among senior officers is very low.

Yeah, retired. In 2007.

I don't think that a guy who never served under Obama and is so conservative that GWB distanced himself from him is a useful source of information on the military under Obama.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Compare Wikipedia to Conservapedia.

I did, that was some of the best laughs I've had in a while. Do you seriously reference this site when you need "information"?

[jakee 1,274]

Quote

and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

You're an idiot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,274]

Quote

Compare Wikipedia to Conservapedia.

Right, because the one with the pre-declared extreme conservative bias is surely more trustworthy that's neutral.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rickjump1 0]

quade

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

Snopes is in the tank for Obama, and it's doubtful that the original leftwing hippies actually own it anymore. They may work there, but that's all. Who pays them to protect Barack Hussein Obama is the big question?

Little by little this president is attempting to circumnavigate the US Constitution. Do you think Snopes cares about this or the conspiracies of Barack Hussein Obama to impose socialized medicine on the country or his attempts to disarm us with the use of the military? They will cover Barack until he is gone, and then they will continue protecting the radical left's agenda.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

AndyBoyd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTO-xVLG5HE

Your proposal is acceptable.

Batemen probably goes through a case of Mountain Dew everyday.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

jakee

Quote

and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

You're an idiot.

I like that jakee. Do you run around with a tin cup in your hand?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jakee 1,274]

rickjump1

***

Quote

and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

You're an idiot.

I like that jakee. Do you run around with a tin cup in your hand?

I don't know what that means. Are you asking if I'm Kevin Costner?

Do you think the President edits Snopes?

Do you think the President is trying to disarm you by military force?

Do you believe that the President is ridding the military of officers who won't shoot US civilians?

Answer yes to any of the above questions (including the Costner thing) and you're probably an idiot too.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[champu 1]

rickjump1

***http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

Snopes is in the tank for Obama, and it's doubtful that the original leftwing hippies actually own it anymore. They may work there, but that's all. Who pays them to protect Barack Hussein Obama is the big question?

That would make for a pretty funny Snopes article: "Claim: Snopes receives funding to suppress negative information regarding President Obama."

rickjump1

Little by little this president is attempting to circumnavigate the US Constitution. Do you think Snopes cares about this or the conspiracies of Barack Hussein Obama to impose socialized medicine on the country or his attempts to disarm us with the use of the military? They will cover Barack until he is gone, and then they will continue protecting the radical left's agenda.

I like Snopes and FactCheck and the like, I think in general they compile a lot of good information, but like any resource you need to read what they present and make up your own mind. Particularly with FactCheck there have been situations where I didn't disagree with any information presented, but their overall rating/conclusion seemed way out of line.

In the case of this article I think Snopes is right, but I think this is one of the lazier offerings they've dished up. They could potentially submit a FOIA request to get some info about turnover in the ranks and use that to more concretely counter this claim, but instead the page really just says, "Nah, we highly doubt it. False."

Again, I think Snopes is right, but presenting that page as though it's some kind of definitive proof isn't correct.

[AndyBoyd 0]

rickjump1

***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTO-xVLG5HE

Your proposal is acceptable.

Batemen probably goes through a case of Mountain Dew everyday.

Come again?

[Boomerdog 0]

Under Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution, the President may appoint (commission) officers to act in his behalf with the advise and consent of the Senate. All appointed officers both civilian and military serve at the pleasure of the President which means the President may appoint and remove as seen fit. Obviously within the flag officer ranks (generals and admirals), the political factors can be a factor for selection and promotion. So we should not be under any prevention that Obama is doing anything out of the ordinary from past presidents. To the extent that newly promoted flag officers share Obama's view, I don't know. In the worst case, however is that if they are, this could be disturbing.

A military officer's oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. The transitive nature of that oath, however, recognizes the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. But here again there are limits as all orders that emanate from the President through the military chain of command must be legal and within the scope of both Constitutional authority and all treaties negotiated and ratified by the Senate…the Laws of War established by the Geneva Conventions come to mind. The defense of "I was just following orders" is NOT a legal defense as many defendants at the Nuremberg trails after WWII were found guilty of war crimes with many hanged for "just following orders."

The military mirrors civilian life in that the political opinions of military members are as wide and diverse as that of the civilian population they serve but they are required to keep that opinion politely to themselves.

Military officers must understand their first loyalty and allegiance. If this LtCol published this paper, I find his position somewhat dubious and on shaky ground. Many of my peers in the retired officer corps I can assure you do not share the viewpoint of this officer.

[jclalor 12]

champu

******http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

You should really check these things out before you post them.

You might not like what Bateman said, fine, but there's no reason to bring complete falsehoods into your argument as well.

Snopes is in the tank for Obama, and it's doubtful that the original leftwing hippies actually own it anymore. They may work there, but that's all. Who pays them to protect Barack Hussein Obama is the big question?

That would make for a pretty funny Snopes article: "Claim: Snopes receives funding to suppress negative information regarding President Obama."

rickjump1

Little by little this president is attempting to circumnavigate the US Constitution. Do you think Snopes cares about this or the conspiracies of Barack Hussein Obama to impose socialized medicine on the country or his attempts to disarm us with the use of the military? They will cover Barack until he is gone, and then they will continue protecting the radical left's agenda.

I like Snopes and FactCheck and the like, I think in general they compile a lot of good information, but like any resource you need to read what they present and make up your own mind. Particularly with FactCheck there have been situations where I didn't disagree with any information presented, but their overall rating/conclusion seemed way out of line.

In the case of this article I think Snopes is right, but I think this is one of the lazier offerings they've dished up. They could potentially submit a FOIA request to get some info about turnover in the ranks and use that to more concretely counter this claim, but instead the page really just says, "Nah, we highly doubt it. False."

Again, I think Snopes is right, but presenting that page as though it's some kind of definitive proof isn't correct.

There are just some claims by the nutty right that don't even deserve to be looked into.

This being a perfect example:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/03/photo-shopped-picture-obama-sasha/

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

******

Quote

and the president can't modify that site to his liking? Puhlease.

You're an idiot.

I like that jakee. Do you run around with a tin cup in your hand?

I don't know what that means. Are you asking if I'm Kevin Costner?

Do you think the President edits Snopes?

Do you think the President is trying to disarm you by military force?

Do you believe that the President is ridding the military of officers who won't shoot US civilians?

Answer yes to any of the above questions (including the Costner thing) and you're probably an idiot too.

I think the reference is to you pan handling - or at least believing that what everyone else has is somehow part of your entitlement.
It sickens me that people think that what everyone else has is somehow partly theirs.

Theft makes me sick.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

jclalor

***In the case of this article I think Snopes is right, but I think this is one of the lazier offerings they've dished up. They could potentially submit a FOIA request to get some info about turnover in the ranks and use that to more concretely counter this claim, but instead the page really just says, "Nah, we highly doubt it. False."

Again, I think Snopes is right, but presenting that page as though it's some kind of definitive proof isn't correct.

There are just some claims by the nutty right that don't even deserve to be looked into.

This being a perfect example:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/03/photo-shopped-picture-obama-sasha/

And yet... the article you linked to dives into a detailed photoshop critique between the original and the doctored image. No one ever said debunking stupid crap like this was glamorous, but if they're going to make it the charter of their webpage then the pages they post should be as thorough as possible.

Snopes posting a page about something where they just dismiss the claim out of hand doesn't really help anybody.

[davjohns 1]

If this LTC wrote what he is credited with in this article, he obviously does not understand his oath of office or the US Constitution. What is penned here is obviously contrary to the US Constitution he swore to uphold.

Since the article suggests he is running for office, it is likely he is no longer serving as an Army officer. That would make it rather difficult for him to be promoted.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,274]

Quote

I think the reference is to you pan handling - or at least believing that what everyone else has is somehow part of your entitlement.

Oh, so you think he's going off on a random tangent to distract from the fact that he's talking absolute bollocks?

For once I agree with you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?