ADVERTISEMENT

Sixty minutes tonight

destewart

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 5, 2001
50,887
32,759
113
In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air November 22, Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for citizens between the time they call 911 and the moment police arrive.
Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can “run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position to do so.

According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed that the situation has changed.

Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”

She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBR
In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air November 22, Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for citizens between the time they call 911 and the moment police arrive.
Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can “run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position to do so.

According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed that the situation has changed.

Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”

She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.

Generally speaking, I do not disagree. If and there usually is a large congregation, they can swarm a gunman. Unfortunately, that is not most individuals natural reaction. Have to hope some off duty police, veterans, or active duty soldiers are in attendance.

the issue with a vest though is completely different. Just hard to see. Can really only be detected by scanners, dog, or a pat down. Baggy clothes, even loose fitting clothes, hide them pretty easy.
 
The Army's policy for active shooters is hide or run. It is "confront" only if the opportunity to hide or run is not available.

Sounds more sensible to me then confront first arguments. Trained people hit innocent bystanders all of the time, an untrained person popping off rounds against an armed terrorist is a formula for added harm and confusion.

You want to be a leader during one of these events? Lead people to a hiding place, or better yet lead them out of the area as quickly and quietly as possible. Leave your gun in your holster and get folks as far away as possible to free up the trained people to more easily take these guys down.
 
The Army's policy for active shooters is hide or run. It is "confront" only if the opportunity to hide or run is not available.

Sounds more sensible to me then confront first arguments. Trained people hit innocent bystanders all of the time, an untrained person popping off rounds against an armed terrorist is a formula for added harm and confusion.

You want to be a leader during one of these events? Lead people to a hiding place, or better yet lead them out of the area as quickly and quietly as possible. Leave your gun in your holster and get folks as far away as possible to free up the trained people to more easily take these guys down.

What we are seeing a new paradigm and so I tend to believe the Chief knows better. Why a new paradigm? If the active shooters are in a suicide mission there goal is to inflict maximum casualties. It is kill of be killed, not hide and seek or let's talk this over or we'll just wait for help.
 
What we are seeing a new paradigm and so I tend to believe the Chief knows better. Why a new paradigm? If the active shooters are in a suicide mission there goal is to inflict maximum casualties. It is kill of be killed, not hide and seek or let's talk this over or we'll just wait for help.

You believe the Chief knows better why exactly? Other than her views align with yours?
What special experience or training does she have that the US Army doesn't? Or other police chiefs of major cities?

The Army's policy has ZERO to do with "let's just talk this over." It's about what response is the most likely to save the most lives.
 
You believe the Chief knows better why exactly? Other than her views align with yours?
What special experience or training does she have that the US Army doesn't? Or other police chiefs of major cities?

The Army's policy has ZERO to do with "let's just talk this over." It's about what response is the most likely to save the most lives.[/QU


As you may be aware, since Ferguson the military's

Well, I guess that is the gospel then. Shame on the Police Chief in the Nation's Capitol to have expressed what surely is a totally misguided policy shared by nobody else. I guess Bobby Knight was right, "If it is inevitable just enjoy it!"
 
Well, I guess that is the gospel then. Shame on the Police Chief in the Nation's Capitol to have expressed what surely is a totally misguided policy shared by nobody else. I guess Bobby Knight was right, "If it is inevitable just enjoy it!"

LOL this from the guy who claims I never answer questions and am only capable of sarcastic responses, then proceeds to play the role of pot. Here, let me try it again.

You stated that the you believe the Chief of DC police knows better.
I asked a simple question: why do you believe that?

I introduced two other pieces of information:

1. The Army does not hold the same policy to active shooters that the Chief does (and the Army policy does not say "unless it's a suicidal Muslim terrorist").

2. Most other police chiefs would likely disagree with her, a point she implicitly makes in her own statement and one you don't appear to challenge.

That's it.

So, do you have an actual answer to my question, or no?
 
LOL this from the guy who claims I never answer questions and am only capable of sarcastic responses, then proceeds to play the role of pot. Here, let me try it again.

You stated that the you believe the Chief of DC police knows better.
I asked a simple question: why do you believe that?

I introduced two other pieces of information:

1. The Army does not hold the same policy to active shooters that the Chief does (and the Army policy does not say "unless it's a suicidal Muslim terrorist").

2. Most other police chiefs would likely disagree with her, a point she implicitly makes in her own statement and one you don't appear to challenge.

That's it.

So, do you have an actual answer to my question, or no?

Let it suffice to say that I will always abide by the idea that having a half dozen concealed permit carriers and being some to fight is a helluva lot better alternative than waiting to be asked if I can recite the Korsn and then getting their response of disapproval.

Out of curiosity, in the Mali situation with shooters coming door to door and you are in a hotel do you prefer having a 9 mm Glock with two to three clips in your suitcase or would you prefer waiting for help or hiding under the bed?
 
Let it suffice to say that I will always abide by the idea that having a half dozen concealed permit carriers and being some to fight is a helluva lot better alternative than waiting to be asked if I can recite the Korsn and then getting their response of disapproval.

Out of curiosity, in the Mali situation with shooters coming door to door and you are in a hotel do you prefer having a 9 mm Glock with two to three clips in your suitcase or would you prefer waiting for help or hiding under the bed?

So the answer is, I believe she is more qualified because her answer says what I want her to say.

Got it.

I would prefer escaping, to trying to have a shootout with multiple armed men. I enjoy living, and it's pretty hard to live if you are engaging in shoot-outs. I would also prefer to have as few bullets flying through the air as possible. I'd also hate the idea that in such a shootout, my bullets being the one that took some innocent bystanders life.
 
So the answer is, I believe she is more qualified because her answer says what I want her to say.

Got it.

I would prefer escaping, to trying to have a shootout with multiple armed men. I enjoy living, and it's pretty hard to live if you are engaging in shoot-outs. I would also prefer to have as few bullets flying through the air as possible. I'd also hate the idea that in such a shootout, my bullets being the one that took some innocent bystanders life.

Not responsive to the question. If terror strikes you will not have the luxury of deciding the rules of engagement.
 
Not responsive to the question. If terror strikes you will not have the luxury of deciding the rules of engagement.

Sure you will. You can fight, flee or hide. Those are almost always choices available in most of these situations. Most of the folks in Paris had this option, but not all. If you want to create an uber-restrictive scenario where flight and hide are literally impossible, sure, fight is the only option left.

Of course, rarely is it impossible to hide or flee. It might be hard, or certainly there are those who will be paralyzed with fear, or caught completely by surprise (in either case, none of the three options are really options now are they?), but most people will have each of those options available to some degree in most situations.

And of course, your preferred COA leaves us with the increased chance that someone will misidentify something as a terrorist attack and shoot first, ask questions later, and that in the resulting cross-fire, innocent people will be hit.
 
Inw
Sure you will. You can fight, flee or hide. Those are almost always choices available in most of these situations. Most of the folks in Paris had this option, but not all. If you want to create an uber-restrictive scenario where flight and hide are literally impossible, sure, fight is the only option left.

Of course, rarely is it impossible to hide or flee. It might be hard, or certainly there are those who will be paralyzed with fear, or caught completely by surprise (in either case, none of the three options are really options now are they?), but most people will have each of those options available to some degree in most situations.

And of course, your preferred COA leaves us with the increased chance that someone will misidentify something as a terrorist attack and shoot first, ask questions later, and that in the resulting cross-fire, innocent people will be hit.

I have you a specific scenario. High rise hotel in Mali, terrorists going room to room and asking occupants to recite portions of Koran. Pass you live, fail you die. Long corridors enables on shooter to cover the entire hallway with automatic fire. Do you choose my way and accept the Glock and three clips, or go your way and hide under bed, try and outrun automatic rifle fire or hope somebody arrives to rescue you before they get to your room?
 
Inw


I have you a specific scenario. High rise hotel in Mali, terrorists going room to room and asking occupants to recite portions of Koran. Pass you live, fail you die. Long corridors enables on shooter to cover the entire hallway with automatic fire. Do you choose my way and accept the Glock and three clips, or go your way and hide under bed, try and outrun automatic rifle fire or hope somebody arrives to rescue you before they get to your room?

I'm pretty sure, once the first shots are fired, folks are going to have an option other than waiting in their room to either recite the Koran or try to win a firefight with multiple armed attackers.

So unless you are in that very first room, you will have options to flee, there are windows, you can barricade the door. Getting into a firefight with attackers armed with machine guns is not a survival options...MAYBE you take out one of them, but you are pretty much guaranteed to die in your scenario unless you think you are going to Die Hard your way out of the situation.

So yes, I'm going to look to all of the ways where the chances of survival are non-zero, and not the way that is almost guaranteed to end in my death.

Please, tell us how that Glock is going to save me against multiple attackers with automatic weapons. (Let's assume I'm not someone who just qualified on range in the last two months with a 9mm--and even then, so what...it ain't going to hold up against multiple attackers with automatic weapons.)
 
I'm pretty sure, once the first shots are fired, folks are going to have an option other than waiting in their room to either recite the Koran or try to win a firefight with multiple armed attackers.

So unless you are in that very first room, you will have options to flee, there are windows, you can barricade the door. Getting into a firefight with attackers armed with machine guns is not a survival options...MAYBE you take out one of them, but you are pretty much guaranteed to die in your scenario unless you think you are going to Die Hard your way out of the situation.

So yes, I'm going to look to all of the ways where the chances of survival are non-zero, and not the way that is almost guaranteed to end in my death.

Please, tell us how that Glock is going to save me against multiple attackers with automatic weapons. (Let's assume I'm not someone who just qualified on range in the last two months with a 9mm--and even then, so what...it ain't going to hold up against multiple attackers with automatic weapons.)

Well, the reality is that in the only known matchup this year of a weapons trained person with a 9 mm Glock and two bad guys in body armor and AK 47's the outcome was Good guy 2' Bad guys zero and both were DOA!!
 
Well, the reality is that in the only known matchup this year of a weapons trained person with a 9 mm Glock and two bad guys in body armor and AK 47's the outcome was Good guy 2' Bad guys zero and both were DOA!!

1. I'm pretty sure it's not the only matchup this year.
2. This isn't a sporting event, it's real life
3. If you seriously think most people will be successful going up against multiple attackers with automatic weapons while armed with a handgun, then your IQ is in no danger of reaching triple digits.

When I was in Iraq in a convoy, I didn't say, oh, I've got a handgun by my side, I'm good...I said hey, let me take an M16, because the idea of going into a firefight armed with a handgun when the other side had automatic weapons was pretty much a nonstarter.

No one in their right mind would go into an encounter such as this with an expectation that they will come out alive on the other side. At best, they take someone with them, at worst, they don't and/or they hit an innocent person, but either way, they are likely to be "DOA" as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pub1986
1. I'm pretty sure it's not the only matchup this year.
2. This isn't a sporting event, it's real life
3. If you seriously think most people will be successful going up against multiple attackers with automatic weapons while armed with a handgun, then your IQ is in no danger of reaching triple digits.

When I was in Iraq in a convoy, I didn't say, oh, I've got a handgun by my side, I'm good...I said hey, let me take an M16, because the idea of going into a firefight armed with a handgun when the other side had automatic weapons was pretty much a nonstarter.

No one in their right mind would go into an encounter such as this with an expectation that they will come out alive on the other side. At best, they take someone with them, at worst, they don't and/or they hit an innocent person, but either way, they are likely to be "DOA" as well.

I am just going to say I do not think there is a right or wrong but it is specific to event and surroundings.

There are going to be times depending on the incident where one cannot run or would not be close enough to an exit. I posted my thoughts above on a group of people swarming an attacker, but in reality, you need a group and you need to be pretty close right from the start. If not you likely get mowed down in your charge.

In a lot of cases especially with terrorists the initial attack is designed to get people moving to a certain area, where a larger attack occurs. So while you think you are escaping you really are not.

Do I think a pistol is outmatched vs an assault rifle. Of course. In all cases one is outmatched trying to outrun a bullett too. Take a quick look at surroundings and make the best decision one can make. Having a side arm, while noting Rambo type firefights are not real, well it is not bad to have options.

I am certain the people riding the train in France earlier this year are glad the military members/veterans did not decide to run and hide and instead took the guy out.
 
I am just going to say I do not think there is a right or wrong but it is specific to event and surroundings.

There are going to be times depending on the incident where one cannot run or would not be close enough to an exit. I posted my thoughts above on a group of people swarming an attacker, but in reality, you need a group and you need to be pretty close right from the start. If not you likely get mowed down in your charge.

In a lot of cases especially with terrorists the initial attack is designed to get people moving to a certain area, where a larger attack occurs. So while you think you are escaping you really are not.

Do I think a pistol is outmatched vs an assault rifle. Of course. In all cases one is outmatched trying to outrun a bullett too. Take a quick look at surroundings and make the best decision one can make. Having a side arm, while noting Rambo type firefights are not real, well it is not bad to have options.

I am certain the people riding the train in France earlier this year are glad the military members/veterans did not decide to run and hide and instead took the guy out.

And yet they didn't have a handgun. And it was a quite fortuitous outcome against a lone, and rather incompetent gunman. Against multiple, more competent gunman, it wouldn't have turned out nearly as well. You can play the bravery card all you want, but there's a reason why the military has the advice they have, and it has nothing to do with being brave, it's about saving/protecting lives.
 
1. I'm pretty sure it's not the only matchup this year.
2. This isn't a sporting event, it's real life
3. If you seriously think most people will be successful going up against multiple attackers with automatic weapons while armed with a handgun, then your IQ is in no danger of reaching triple digits.

When I was in Iraq in a convoy, I didn't say, oh, I've got a handgun by my side, I'm good...I said hey, let me take an M16, because the idea of going into a firefight armed with a handgun when the other side had automatic weapons was pretty much a nonstarter.

No one in their right mind would go into an encounter such as this with an expectation that they will come out alive on the other side. At best, they take someone with them, at worst, they don't and/or they hit an innocent person, but either way, they are likely to be "DOA" as well.[/QUOTE


So your advice to the families of the 132 Paris victims is just pray they miss your loved ones next time because you are doomed otherwise.

With all due respect, I will choose the Glock to expand my options and increase my odds.I still think the majority of folks would choose the option to fight over the option to fie
And yet they didn't have a handgun. And it was a quite fortuitous outcome against a lone, and rather incompetent gunman. Against multiple, more competent gunman, it wouldn't have turned out nearly as well. You can play the bravery card all you want, but there's a reason why the military has the advice they have, and it has nothing to do with being brave, it's about saving/protecting lives.

So you still have no practical, common sense advice for people who might find themselves in a similar situation as the Paris Concert Hall, Parisian restaurants or the Mali luxury hotel. You tell them what they should not do, but give them no practical advice what they they should do.
 
In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air November 22, Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for citizens between the time they call 911 and the moment police arrive.
Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can “run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position to do so.

According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed that the situation has changed.

Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”

She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.

You realize she is a police chief in a city that has some of the strictest gun laws that she supports? She's not necessarily saying shoot the person with your concealed weapon….
 
You realize she is a police chief in a city that has some of the strictest gun laws that she supports? She's not necessarily saying shoot the person with your concealed weapon….

To me the most intuitive thing anyone could ever do when confronted with people they know are intent on killing them is fight for your life with whatever means are available. Do I think having a concealed carry permit increases your odds of survival? Yes! Why? Because they do not expect anyone to be armed and you actually have the element of surprise in your favor. The least intuitive thing IMHO is just waiting for them to get to you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilers1975
So you still have no practical, common sense advice for people who might find themselves in a similar situation as the Paris Concert Hall, Parisian restaurants or the Mali luxury hotel. You tell them what they should not do, but give them no practical advice what they they should do.
Only someone for whom English is a third language they just started yesterday would come to that conclusion.
 
To me the most intuitive thing anyone could ever do when confronted with people they know are intent on killing them is fight for your life with whatever means are available. Do I think having a concealed carry permit increases your odds of survival? Yes! Why? Because they do not expect anyone to be armed and you actually have the element of surprise in your favor. The least intuitive thing IMHO is just waiting for them to get to you!
yes those are the only two possible choices...pack a weapon or wait to die.
 
Well, the reality is that in the only known matchup this year of a weapons trained person with a 9 mm Glock and two bad guys in body armor and AK 47's the outcome was Good guy 2' Bad guys zero and both were DOA!!
Wasn't that a police officer-not a civilian? He was very brave but also well trained. BTW what happened to G8outdoorsman?
 
Grt8 got burnt out on the direction of the forum and tone I believe

One of his last posts and maybe Waterloo was Half Time of Minny game and predicting Purdue would come back and win (I think)
 
Grt8 got burnt out on the direction of the forum and tone I believe

One of his last posts and maybe Waterloo was Half Time of Minny game and predicting Purdue would come back and win (I think)
Purdue football will do that to you. If that is all it is he should be back for Big Ten basketball conference play.
 
To me the most intuitive thing anyone could ever do when confronted with people they know are intent on killing them is fight for your life with whatever means are available. Do I think having a concealed carry permit increases your odds of survival? Yes! Why? Because they do not expect anyone to be armed and you actually have the element of surprise in your favor. The least intuitive thing IMHO is just waiting for them to get to you!

The police chief of Detroit has advised residents of that city to get concealed permits and carry.
 
The police chief of Detroit has advised residents of that city to get concealed permits and carry.
That sure makes me feel safer that everybody in Detroit will be carrying concealed weapons. What could possibly go wrong with that?
 
In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air November 22, Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for citizens between the time they call 911 and the moment police arrive.
Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can “run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position to do so.

According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed that the situation has changed.

Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”

She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.

The global government is moving into the violent phase where they are now moving their armies into the Western countries. All ISIS really is, just another name for Al Queda so that the U.S. population doesn't associate ISIS with what happened on 911. They had to change the name because the military would associate it as treason, arming the same people that UN Security Council Chairman Obama and Skull and Bones Illuminati chapter 322 member George Bush blamed for 911. Obama's plan is to move ISIS into Western nations so that ISIS can attack the local populations and with each attack keep the populations under fear so that there is no rebellion as the full mass extermination grid is uncloaked. They use the Hegel Dialect (problem / reaction / solution). If you create the problem and are in a position to offer the solution you can takeover the world. The public has a very difficult time understanding this. If you perpetrate something essentially you can become an absolute ruler. Only, these world leaders work for European dynasty families. Their end game is an absolute ruler of 10 different kingdoms around the world merged under a one world government. They call themselves the enlightened ones, the Illuminati. Look how this worked. Had 911 never happened the Middle East would have been stable and subsequently not a threat to anyone. Saudi Arabia though was setup by the English Crown. Saddam was selling cheep oil to the U.S. and around the world. Working with MI6 and the CIA Saudi Arabia along with secretive divisions of the US Delta Force bombed the world trade centers. Then Bush and his administration, as did Clinton before him with the Oklahoma City bombing, they took aggressive measures against the US public. They started attacking the former US system of government and attacking the constitution to usurp power into a centralized government and adopted national socialism as the new form of government in the United States. This was the whole point of world war 2. Now then Obama opens up the US border. He didn't reverse any of Bush's policies he added to them and created even more draconian attack on the US. The US border is insecure and open. Then Hillary arms ISIS to destabilize the Middle East further. Those secretive armies operating as a mercenary proxy army for Obama and his European controllers then invade Western Civilization to overthrow it. These are Trojan Armies being red carpeted and they are already attacking. The minute that attack happened in California Obama came out attacking Christianity and trying to disarm the US population. The shooters came in with fake documents to the US and it wasn't his open border policy coming into question. It was the natural born rights of the US citizen. The main focus of each attack is to craft ways to rid the American of his rights, and then Obama will call his political opposition the terrorists. Hitler did the same thing against the Jews. He called the Jews the terrorists and his political opposition in Europe and had them exterminated. This too is the ultimate goal of Obama's superiors. To put tens of millions of Americans on a watch list to eventually round them up for Soviet styled extermination in a death camp. Once Obama fully breaks the US system and his proxy ISIS army marches all over the United States the plan is to call for the United Nations troops to occupy the US and restore order. This will involve both converting military command of the US over to NATO and the UN as well as the developmentally phases where the US military has been being converted into a global army through the years. They will soon be trained to be UN fighting forces as they are fully converted over. This is a lengthy process, but is the ultimate plan. While Obama will leave office if they don't decide to have WW3 first, it isn't going to matter who becomes president or what political party they belong to. They are political infiltrators and members of secret societies loyal only to the European aristocracy that runs the world through proxy governments. These ISIS people are agents. They are going to run the extermination program in the US and Obama is going to use them to infiltrate the intelligence agencies. Just like in WW2 to get people to exterminate the Jews religious overtones will be used to create the sub-culture necessary to perpetrate this. By radicalizing Muslims against Christianity and putting them in power in the US, an extermination grid is likewise suddenly intact.


The 911 attack was so obvious even Hollywood Directors put clues in their damn movies about it. OBAMA IS A TRAITOR



Why is this related to this 60 minutes? Because it absolutely shows who Obama is. It is true that if Obama really cared about Americans the govt would urge them to get guns to protect themselves. Obama is protected 24 hours a day by snipers and so are all of these people telling Americans that it is the lowly scum slave American that needs to surrender their weapons. This is called conquering a nation. You are only conquered with you are disarmed. You would't disarm the US military and then send them into a war zone. Police could never protect the US form a shooting unless they were on 24 guard day and night at a specific target. It is not only impossible to predict an attack, it is even more impossible to protect a killing because this type of thing can happen in mere minutes with seconds of reaction time. As Paris shows, being a completely disarmed city, is that a disarmed city is ruled by terrorists with foreign machine-guns. So the natural response to this should you want a protected society is the arming of the citizens as was so eloquently articulated by the founding fathers in the US constitution. If you are under attack the solution then would be to arm people. His solution is to take your guns away because his Delta Forces went out and trained ISIS and armed them under Hillary Clinton. Problem/reaction/solution. Only Obama runs the problem so his solution obviously isn't going to counter the problem but merely work in the favor of the terrorist army he is sneaking into the US as I type this. Obama marches a million man army through the US borders. In our intelligence agencies, in our secret services, and they rule the country now. And that us what the former US generals are saying as well. You see here is how it works. Hillary arms ISIS. Hillary gives them guns. Obama then complains that too many Americans have guns. They attack. Then Obama says it was the fault of Americans and Americans need punished and should turn in their firearms. For your "protection" of course. Lets keep in mind that some of the highest and most famous US military Generals have come forward calling for Obama to be arrested FOR HIGH TREASON. Do you realize this? The 4 star Admiral once in charge of the entire US Pacific Fleet has come out publicly calling for Obama's arrest FOR HIGH TREASON.



It is one thing for me or some lowly citizen to say this. But when the most highly decorated Admiral probably in modern US history is saying the same damn thing then that means people damn well better listen.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...-announcement-obama-muslim-brotherhood-video/


BREAKING: Four-Star Admiral Makes HUGE Announcement About Obama & Muslim Brotherhood (VIDEO)

Retired 4-Star U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons was recently at the National Press Club. And his claims are shocking.

It appears that the Obama Regime has been FULLY infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism front group on every level. And that pro-radical Islam group is also in every level of U.S. security agencies. Lyons went on to say that “the transformation of America has been in full swing ever since 2008.” And when Obama campaigned on a platform to “fundamentally transform America,” Obama has done exactly that!



In addition Lyons made the important point that there is no meaningful line between Islam and radical Islam. “Islam is Islam,” he said.


Speaking about Obama’s refusal to attend the recent march in France, reportedly attended by more than 50 world leaders to condemn Islamic terrorism following the gruesome murders of cartoonists who had the audacity to lampoon Islam, Admiral Lyons said that act was a “signal to Islamic Jihadis,” and is “one of many signals he sent over the years while in office.”

“There’s no question we got a hell of a job ahead of us,” Admiral Lyons said. “With the Muslim Brotherhood penetration in every one of our national security agencies, including all our intelligence agencies,” he proclaimed.

Admiral Lyons said that our “lead intelligence agency” is “headed by a Muslim convert,” a reference to Obama CIA head John Brennan.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT