Military that will fire on citizens.

[DGF]

Take a deep breath. I'm not sure what Obama can do in four years but it doesn't sound good. Why would he be looking for military officers that would be willing to fire upon U.S. citizens. He must have a reason. Hmmmm.

http://www.examiner.com/article/renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

[JC5123]

I saw this yesterday. Here are my thoughts.

Without a source I am still skeptical. Unnamed sources are notoriously WRONG.

However my next thought was that considering this regimes outright hostility towards true Americans, sad that you can actually consider this plausible, if not likely. 

[GeorgeCook]

Like mentioned before unnamed sources is wrought with challenges; healthy skepticism is in order here. However, I do believe it is plausible to believe that an avowed globalist/New World Order type like Obama would want to restructure the military leadership to reflect a globalist agenda.

[MikeBjerum]

Unnamed sources do not get a lot of attention from me, but on the other hand ...

Businesses, organizations, and politicians have long used the "unnamed source" or the "person close to the situation" as a way of sending an unofficial message - a shot across the bow if you will.  With my tin foil a little to tight I ask, is this a way of sending a message to those who say they will fight rather than surrender?  

[Jrlobo]

One explanation is the possible reluctance of military leaders, especially CENTCOM AND AFRICOM CDRs, to fire (in foreign countries) on U.S. citizens who have been declared terrorists and have been put on the President's kill list. Some general officers take the oath to defend the Constitution too seriously! Another explanation, is to ready the standing army to act against "domestic terrorists" consistent with the DHS studies that indicate that there is where the problem will lie in the not-so-distant future. Remember MacArthur is one general who rose to great heights in his career by "following orders" and then crashed and burned by not doing so.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

MacArthur was already as high as he could go, Chief of Staff of the Army when he ordered the  attack on the "Bonus Marchers".
The order he didn't obey was aiming for stalemate in Korea .
He intended to win and that was not acceptable to the communists and sympathizers known to have flooded the FDR and Truman administrations .
Democrats, isn't that a surprise ?

[jaybet]

The guy is temporarily famous because of his assertions...what every knucklehead in the media wants. In the event of an armed conflict there will be choices made by military personnel just like everyone else. Some will be with us and some against, so it's a bit of a silly discussion.

[cookie62]

Sounds like one of those heard it from a friend of a friends third cousin type stories. But then again he put it on facebook so it must be true.

[DGF]

I also am skeptical of un-named sources but.........

It is very, very hard to trust anything about BHO. I have a hard time believing anything he says.

[jnevis]

MacArthur was already as high as he could go, Chief of Staff of the Army when he ordered the  attack on the "Bonus Marchers".
The order he didn't obey was aiming for stalemate in Korea .
He intended to win and that was not acceptable to the communists and sympathizers known to have flooded the FDR and Truman administrations .
Democrats, isn't that a surprise ?

MacArthur and BHO would be great friends, if you could get thier egos through the HANGAR door.  Looking at the South Pacific in WW2, Nimitz spent almost as much effort in appeasing MacArthur than he did fighting the Japanese.  His military actions were minimal at best, but he put on e GREAT show.