Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read and carefully consider.  It is a sad and stunning state of affairs when we have to even consider the possibility that something like this could be true.  All I can say is that too many dots connect to ignore sharing this with my readers.  Just know that I don't make this stuff up.  On your way to the prime articles, don't overlook the following background articles:

ALERT Spinning out of control: Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report.

DOJ internal memo confirms Obama plan for gun confiscation -- According to Bob Owens, the NRA obtained the memo in February. But apparently there were questions as to the veracity of the information. Owens says that the existence of the memo, and its outline of a plan for gun registration and confiscation, can now be confirmed.

First, Obama's military purge ... now this

Progressive pace & intensity increases to weaken America

SEAL Veteran: U.S. Military Leaders Being Asked if They Will Shoot Americans if Necessary to Disarm Them + more

FLASH: U.S. Pentagon falls to Islamist enemy ... in April 2012

 

Americans, Are You Prepared To Die For A Communist Dictator?

 

Former U.S. Special Forces Take On Domestic Enemies Promoting Gun Control

 

Shock Claim: 'The New Litmus Test Of Leadership In The Military Is If They Will Fire On US Citizens Or Not'

 

Treason: Big Time Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration of White House, DHS, DoS, Congress & Pentagon

Please read on ....

******

“………For the first time in his life someone said no, meant it, and stopped him from murder and devastation. The next few days are critical. Be afraid and go to prepper sites to find out how to save your family, if you can…….”

Pic of Obama’s crazed / dazed appearance. [Michelle's brother, Craig Robinson {left} would agree]. Does Obama look like he has his cookies together? This Moralmatters author definitely thinks not; especially when one considers aka Obama’s duel personality of the demonic and mental instability. Pic attribution - washingtontimes.com – Click on the pic to enlarge.

 

 

The following script was sent to this author from one of my sources. This Moralmatters.org author could not link this information [below] because Dr. Garrow’s (online) post was removed:

 

 

Dr. Jim Garrow’s timely message:

Three individuals have just saved 300 million lives in the past 2 weeks. They saved the 90% of the population that would be dead if Bathhouse Barry had not been stopped from using 3 nuclear devices against the American populace. 2 Army Generals and 1 Navy Admiral, whose duties included the safeguarding and oversight of the nuclear arsenal. Obama ordered that 3 nukes be transported in a major breach of protocol and safety regulations of long standing. He wanted it NOW, and these officers were made aware of what the intention was. The admiral had the one Navy nuke taken 200 miles off South Carolina and detonated deep in the ocean. The other 2 nukes disappeared thanks to the handiwork of the 2 Generals, the numbers 1 and 2 men in charge of the Army ordinance. These three men are heroes of the highest order. Look up the events of 2 Generals and 1 Admiral being dismissed in the past two weeks and you will find their names. They saved your lives and the lives of 300 million of your fellow citizens.

Mr. Obama’s intention was to set off the three nukes to devastate all computer related systems on the continent thus taking America back 200 years and guaranteeing a total breakdown in society and with in one year the death of 300 million Americans. To see how this would be possible read, “One Second After”. You can get it on Amazon.

We peered over the edge of the precipice of the death of our civilization and have lived to tell the tale. 3 heroes stood tall for America and the mad man in the white house was stopped for the first time in his life. He is unsure of what to do just now and he does not possess the keys to the nuclear submarines nor the two nukes that are now hidden. For the first time in his life someone said no, meant it, and stopped him from murder and devastation. The next few days are critical. Be afraid and go to prepper sites to find out how to save your family, if you can.

- Dr. Jim Garrow -

In the condominium complex in Casa Grande, Arizona, where I have a unit, a visit was made yesterday by a group of 4 men in a black Suburban with lots of antenna’s on the roof. The management of our large group of condo’s was asked to open the door of my unit. The badges were a combination of many different alphabet agencies including my former one. Interesting because after I posted about EMP’s and missing nukes my phone rang late in the evening and I was requested to cease and desist. My posts have been removed. I am not however repentant, nor cowed. If anything like this happens again I have instructed people to begin the release of documents and information as per prepared plans in the hands of these people. Obama is known for overplaying his hand, and now should be known far and wide as a dangerous amateur. He may have gotten Breitbart, Hastings and Clancy, but they were just writers. I hope that he enjoys the protests today in DC.

- Dr. Jim Garrow -

Related to the above: 

• Ex-US Agent Claims Military Thwarted Obama False Flag Nuke/EMP Attack this Fall - erikrush.com

• Obama Ousts Top Officers After Nuke Explodes In Ocean Instead Of Charleston – thetotalcollapse.com

• Demonic Obama: America’s Omen Child - moralmatters.org

******

******

Obama vs. The Military Generals! Things Beginning To HEAT Up!

As Dingy Harry likes to say, “Word on the street is….” that Obama and the military are not getting along. Wow. Really. What could have given that away? Could it be the firing of the now 200+ high ranking military officers including our very top generals and admirals? Could it be that Obama has authorized use of the American Military for the first time in over 200 years to operate on American soil as a “policing force.” That, along with several other completely un-American atrocities can be found in the National Defense Authorization Act Barry signed into law a year or so ago. Could it be that Barry has made a point to strip the military of high raining officers who would NOT be willing to fire on Americans if there was trouble at home? TRANSLATION: Will they be willing to fire on the Tea Party? 

Take a look at just some of the most recent stories in just the last few weeks. It seems pretty obvious if there isn’t a problem with Obama and senior military leaders, there SHOULD be. Enjoy every day like it’s your last. Everything we know could be completely flipped upside down on us overnight some day. None of what has been happening gives even the most remote sense of stability within our country and within its leadership. In the following clip I borrowed from another story, even Congressman Louie Gohmert who HAPPENS to be the VICE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY and HE CAN’T GET ANSWERS!!!!!!!!  IF the D.H.S. won’t give HIM answers, and HE’S SCARED, who are they reporting to and WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

Watch yourselves patriots. Be careful! 

[Audio/Video below cannot be seen in Newsletter - have to go to Blog]

• Top Admiral: Barrack Obama A Benghazi Co-Conspirator…
• Soldiers Slam Obama’s Military Purge – HELP US THEN!
• War on Terror is a Charade…Real Target American Patriots
• Obama Now Weakening the Military in Unprecedented Ways
• General: Some In Military Want To ‘Take Out’ Obama From Presidency…
• Obama Firing of Military Reminiscent of Stalin’s Purge
• The US Military Does Have the Legal and Lawful Jurisdiction to Arrest Obama
• Military Assumes Power to Police the Streets Without Local or State Consent
• EXTORTION 17! Did Obama Throw 22 Seal Team 6 Members To the Wolves?
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Corresponding Executive Orders!

Was there a single moment when Obama’s relationship with the military began to sour? Most observers point to the bruising 2009 debates about troop numbers in Afghanistan.

Immediately after his 2009 Inauguration, Obama set out to make good on his promise to “finish the job” in Afghanistan. He commissioned a sweeping review of U.S. policy and announced that he had authorized the interim deployment of an additional 17,000 U.S. troops in response to theater commander Gen. David McKiernan’s request.

By the end of February 2009, the president had adopted the new strategic objectives recommended by his interagency review team: From now on, the United States would emphasize the fight against al Qaeda—and build up the Afghan military’s security forces. But by mid-May, McKiernan, the first of several Afghanistan theater commanders under Obama to discover just how elusive “finishing the job” would be, had been fired. “War is a tough auditor,” retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis told me. Not every commander passes muster.

McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”

I don’t think Obama really realized we were losing the war in Afghanistan until late in 2009,” a retired Army general with substantial Afghanistan experience told me. Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.

After months of increasingly tense meetings, Obama came to a decision: Another 30,000 U.S. troops would be sent to Afghanistan, but after 18 months those troops would begin to withdraw. And the military wouldn’t be left to solve every problem on its own, the president promised; a “more effective civilian strategy” would promote improved Afghan governance and economic development. (The president’s “civilian surge” never truly materialized. In his book Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan, Rajiv Chandrasekaran quotes Brig. Gen. Kenneth Dahl’s sarcastic 2011 rejoinder to Karl Eikenberry, then the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, who said that the civilian surge had reached “the high-water mark.” “That’s great,” Dahl responded. “I can feel it lapping at my ankles.”)

Following the president’s decision, I saw both civilian and military officials work loyally to put the best possible face on a compromise that, in truth, left no one entirely happy. “The White House was convinced that the military had a vested interest in escalating the conflict,” says a former White House official. “They felt manipulated.” And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden.

The White House was convinced that the military had a vested interest in escalating the conflict,” says a former White House official. “They felt manipulated.”

For the White House, the lasting lesson was to take military advice with more than a few grains of salt. Former White House officials I spoke with generally agreed with the generals’ characterization of the concerns and mutual mistrust that marked the relationship. Obama “is now less deferential to the military,” adds a Senate staffer familiar with these debates. “There is some default mistrust.”

The Pentagon’s take on the Afghanistan debate was rather different.

“The [military’s] general stance is, ‘We can do this, but we want you to acknowledge the mess, cost and complexity,” says a former senior Pentagon official. To many in the military, McChrystal’s 2009 troop recommendations fell victim to a White House unwilling to acknowledge any of those things. “There’s a sense that the White House wants contradictory, impossible things … but won’t resource them,” a congressional staffer with previous military experience told me.

Indeed, most of the military leaders I interviewed said they believed that military recommendations often go unheeded by senior White House staff, who now assume that a risk-averse Pentagon exaggerates every difficulty and inflates every request for troops or money.

This assumption turns discussions into antagonistic negotiating sessions. As one retired general puts it, “If you said, ‘We need 40,000 troops,’ they’d immediately say, ‘20,000.’ Not because they thought that was the right number, but they just took it for granted that any number coming from the military was inflated.”

“Sometimes you want to tell them, ‘This isn’t a political bargaining process,’” another retired senior military official says ruefully. “Where the military comes in high, they counter low, and we settle on an option that splits the difference. Needless to say, the right answer is not always in the middle.”

A former White House official with Pentagon experience says White House staff often remain willfully uninformed about the logic behind military recommendations: They “don’t want to take the time to go through the slide deck or get the full briefing. Basically, they don’t want to know.”

Over time, of course, a White House tendency to split the difference is bound to create perverse incentives for military planners, making mutual mistrust self-reinforcing. “If you believe the mission truly requires 50,000 troops and $50 billion, but you know that the White House is going to automatically cut every number in half, you’ll come in asking for 100,000 troops and $100 billion,” says the aforementioned former White House official. “The military eventually starts playing the very game the White House has always suspected them of playing.”

The stakes are high, says former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks. Whether the ostensible topic is Afghanistan or Syria, “the backdrop is really tensions over budgets and money. Senior military officials worry that they’re being asked to do all these [different] things, but who will fund it? Who’s looking out for the military’s institutional interests?” Meanwhile, she adds, “the White House suspects that the military is exaggerating the problems that will be caused by budget cuts, which just makes the military even more frustrated.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, a veteran of Donald Rumsfeld’s rocky reign at the Defense Department, chalks up such misunderstandings to the cultural gap that often separates military and political leaders. There are several basic models of civil-military relations, he notes. The first is the traditional one of separate spheres of authority: “Civilians do policy; the military executes”—but still decides the means of execution.

In a second model, “Civilians are the principals, the military are specialized employees. The military can advise, but they must do what the boss says in the way the boss wants, no more and no less.” But, Dubik says, “most people in the military still favor the traditional separate-spheres model, while most people in the White House tend to think in terms of the employer-employee model. That’s a recipe for unhappiness.”

That culture gap between the Pentagon and the White House frequently feels unbridgeable. The military is hierarchical and structured; civilian organizations, even within the White House, are organized more loosely. To the military, “planning” is a meticulously defined process designed to develop implementable blueprints for action, down to the smallest logistical details; to civilians, planning often just means talking about what might happen in the future.

In my own brief time at the Pentagon, there were many moments when White House and military officials were so far apart that they might have been speaking different languages, forcing Defense Department civilians like me into the often awkward role of translators.

There was the White House staffer who called me up and asked me to have CENTCOM move a U.S. drone to Kyrgyzstan, for instance, in an effort to track an alarming outbreak of ethnic violence. When I told him why I couldn’t—the chain of command just doesn’t work that way, and in any case no formal planning or risk assessments had taken place—he quickly grew exasperated.

“You guys”—the Pentagon—“are always stonewalling us on everything. I’m calling you from the White House. The president wants to prevent genocide in Kyrgyzstan. Whatever happened to civilian control of the military?”

“You,” I had to tell him, “are the wrong civilian.”

As if to emphasize the culture clash, after episodes like this one, the response from some of my Obama administration colleagues in the White House was bitter: Had I “gone over to the other side?” one asked.

***

The military and the White House are not supposed to be on different “sides,” but there’s a long history of mutual recriminations; it’s practically an American tradition. Recall President Harry Truman’s theatrical firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur amid the dispute over whether to escalate the Korean War; Dwight Eisenhower’s condemnation of the “military-industrial complex,” John F. Kennedy’s struggles with military leaders during the Cuban Missile Crisis; and Bill Clinton’s failed effort to end the ban on gay people serving openly in the military. And that’s just in the post-World War II era.

Dubik argues that critics of Obama’s relationship with the military have short memories. “This administration seems more inclusive and willing to listen than the last few,” he says dryly. And, he adds, if anyone imagines that military leaders are more comfortable with Republican administrations, “that’s baloney.” Charles J. Dunlap, an Air Force major general who retired in 2010, agrees: “The longer you’re in the military, the more you realize that there’s not all that much difference between administrations.”

The only thing worse than an overtly dissenting military is a covertly dissenting military. “Beware the silence of the generals,” one quips.

Disputes between military leaders and the White House can be healthy for a democratic society. After all, senior commanders have a legal and ethical obligation to provide the president and Congress with honest military advice, and although Dempsey’s openly expressed concerns about Syria may not have sat well with White House officials, says retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, “the chairman does have to say, ‘Here are the risks in that course of action.’”

In any case, warns another retired general, the only thing worse than an overtly dissenting military is a covertly dissenting military. “Beware the silence of the generals,” he quips. “Public silence doesn’t mean private inaction.” It is far better, he argues, to have top brass be “out in the open and accountable for what they’re thinking” than for them to be “speaking through proxies and doing back-channel manipulations.”

Meanwhile, the president is “right to ask his generals tough questions,” says Dunlap. Every administration prefers to present a united front with the military, but, as another retired senior military leader told me, the president needs to be comfortable if that proves impossible: “There’s nothing wrong with the president saying, ‘The military wanted something, but as president, I decided different, and here’s why.’ The president shouldn’t be afraid of that.”

That’s easier said than done. For this White House, the military is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla—more so than ever. After the Sept. 11, attacks, resources and authorities flowed lavishly to the Pentagon, which saw its budget almost double in the following decade. President George W. Bush’s administration “always wanted military guys between themselves and whatever the problem was,” recalls a retired general who served in senior positions during that period. And Bush was more than willing to spend the money needed to make that happen.

Meanwhile, budgets for civilian agencies and programs remained largely stagnant. “Ten to 15 years ago, the military was much smaller and less holistic,” notes another retired officer. Today’s military is doing more with more: It sponsors radio and television shows in Afghanistan, operates health clinics in Africa, provides technical assistance to courts and parliaments, engages in cyberdefense, carries out drone strikes in far-flung places, and collects data from our telephone calls and emails.

“It’s just the easiest way out of any problem,” says Eaton. “Give money to the military and let them deal with it.”

The relentlessly expanding U.S. military, Barno says, is becoming “like a super-Walmart with everything under one roof.” Like Walmart, the military can marshal vast resources and exploit economies of scale in ways impossible for mom-and-pop operations. And like Walmart, the tempting one-stop-shopping convenience the military offers has a devastating effect on smaller, more traditional enterprises—in this case, the outnumbered diplomats of Foggy Bottom. Or the boutique national security shop at the White House, where power lives but resources don’t.

And yet no one—least of all Obama—seems to know how to cope with the military’s relentless Walmartization. However committed the president is, in theory, to rebalancing civilian and military roles, Obama has found himself repeatedly turning to the Pentagon in times of crisis, whether in Libya, Syria or Yemen.

That, in the end, may be the real story of Obama and his uneasy relationship with a military he came to office determined to rein in.

“When the shit hits the fan,” says a former White House official, he’s “racing for that super-Walmart every single bloody time.”

Read the article here at Politico: