Ben Swann Asks About Obama’s Litmus Test for the Military

Don’t Miss This Interview! 

Share on Facebook and Reblog as much as possible!


16 responses to “Ben Swann Asks About Obama’s Litmus Test for the Military

  1. I am doubtful of this being true. First of all I know quite a few former Military Officers and if something like this was occurring they would band together and speak out as a group. I know of no “secrets law or oath” applicable to this kind of activity. One thing Military Officer do not lack is Courage. However, I would not put something like this past BO or his evil band and while I do not believe it is true I will also not bury me head in the sand to such an event occurring.


    • They way some venal suck-up careerists (“perfumed princes,” as ol’ David Hackworth called ’em derisively) are, we’re lucky Stalin just didn’t promise to triple the per diem rate.


    • Richard, this HAS happened….give this a read. Would you willingly administer enough progressive electric shocks which would result in death simply based on the orders of a perceived authority figure? Before you DEFINITIVELY answer, read the results of this experiment. THEN, consider whether or not our commander in chief(the authority figure) has any power over our police and military. Yes, there is a percentage(statistically speaking) we CAN depend on to choose the MORAL and RIGHT path, but I can assure you, there will be many who will not. This gives a whole new light to the Psalm 29 questionnaire that was given to hundreds of military personnel.
      Then, on page 20 of the US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations”, 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.” Please understand, too, that our own government has stated that those identified as vocally supporting the 2nd Amendment, those who even question the government’s official story on such things as obama’s birth certificate or the Sandy Hook narrative(no matter how inconsistent and convoluted), those who identify themselves as constitutionalists, etc. are enemies of the state and are labeled as terrorists by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, a group that tracks hate crimes.
      Please understand, much of this is documented…attainable by simply going to our own government’s websites….they are not trying to hide anything….they just think Americans are either too stupid to “get it” or they are relying on our normalcy bias to operate in plain sight….counting on us to NOT use critical thinking to understand and make logical predictions based on more evidence that many criminals are convicted with.


    • Actually, if the question posed to some flag rank officer (general/admiral) was classified (likely, if so) and folk with access can’t talk about such info (unless declassified) even after they get out, then flag officers could be told to submit their retirement paperwork upon given an unwanted answer… and result in the situation of folk getting retired and not saying why.


  2. Reblogged this on cedarridge2007.


  3. Although this was not an issue when I was in the USN, folks I know in the military now say it is true.


  4. While this developing scenario warrants keeping an open eye, it would behoove ones self to keep an even wider eye on the agency that WILL fire on americans, the DH$.(Dept. Homeland Socialist)


  5. The normal statutory oath (5 USC S3331) sworn by 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.”

    It’s to the Constitution, not anything else.


    • Interesting how the latest United States Navy commercial seems to omit the second most important part of the Oath. Obviously the most important part is swearing to the constitution itself and not some two-bit dictator thinking he’s the second-coming.

      Here is the vid. See if you guys notice.


      • I see what you mean with the ” obey the orders of somebody above me “crap .


      • Yup, I’d rather they’d just crib from the Code of Conduct (“I am an American fighting man guarding our nation and way of life. …”) for their ad instead slapping stuff together– and sticking that in.

        It’s from the oath of enlistment– “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice”– which has that instead of the parts about not having any reservations and discharging the office. “Those appointed over me” is but a mite vague, however. By whom? Not “the President” by office but whomever, by name, perhaps? It’s been done… and not in free countries.


    • Anonymous, the PROBLEM occurs when it comes to exactly WHO gets to determine WHO those enemies ARE… is it the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery????? the ones who say that anyone who QUESTIONS obama is a terrorist? them? I SAY THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS. :/


  6. They take an oath to the constitution , not some commie bastard in the w.h. There is no grey area here , you’re either for the constitution and the oath that you SWORE or your against the const. and the American people . You can’t straddle the fence on this one !!!


    • Compare that oath to the Constitution to an oath to something else, for example:

      “I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.” –Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Hitler, 1934.

      Wikipedia ( reports: “Though historians cite a number of factors why Hitler’s opponents within the armed forces failed to act when they realized the dictator’s aims, their reluctance to violate their personal oath of loyalty is cited as a prominent factor.”


      • And if you remember , that ” just following orders ” line of crap didn’t go over too well at those Nuremberg trials , did they ? Which goes to show blind faith in a leader or anybody else will most likely get you killed .


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s