Noble Peace Prize nominee and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow is not known for outrageous accusations. Dedicated to his humanitarian work, he has not ventured into the spotlight for a moment other than to write a book about the trouble of China’s one-child policy. That has changed as he has recently divulged information he says he received from a former senior military leader in the Obama Administration.
“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.”
Dr. Jim Garrow has spent the last 16 years rescuing baby girls from the harsh realities and near-certain death of China’s one-child-per-couple rule. From his efforts to raise awareness of the problem and his willingness to facilitate the adoption of these infants, it is estimated that he has saved 40,000 babies and has been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. While he has not released who his source is, Garrow has maintained a pretty low profile and seems to not be associated with any fringe ideologies.
It is a bold accusation, but one that fits into a bigger picture. As America becomes, arguably, more and more polarized, states have discussed secession and state and county officials all across the country have publicly claimed that they will refuse to enforce executive orders that violate the Second Amendment.
Whether one agrees that America should be so polarized or not, the fact remains that this revelation comes at a time when America is deeply divided on a variety of issues ranging from gun rights to the basic question of how to solve any one of our fiscal crises. With such deep divides, the issue of secession has been discussed and people all across the country have expressed worry at a looming federal presence.
Added to the volatile mix of ideologies is the recent executive orders that were aimed at enacting gun control measures and the near-constant threat of outright bans on many firearms. Such speculation has fueled dissent and discussion amongst mainstream Americans as to how far the government ought to be allowed to go.
Read More: http://tpnn.com