ASSASSIN@TION: With just months left in office the Biden-Harris regime decided to update the 17 year old Bush-era directive against assassin@tion of Americans. Why would the regime feel the need to legalize killing Americans who threaten the foundations of our democracy?
In a chilling and unambiguous act, the Biden-Harris regime has recently updated the 2007 DoD Directive 5240.01, stripping away crucial protections that safeguarded American citizens from government-sanctioned assassin@tions. The original directive contained an explicit prohibition, stating, "Under no circumstances shall any DoD Component or DoD employee engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassin@tion." This unequivocal language has been removed, paving the way for a dangerous new precedent that authorizes the targeting of both American citizens and foreign nationals—both on domestic soil and abroad—under vague and ominous "special circumstances."
This egregious alteration marks a perilous departure from the established norms that have historically protected the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The notion that the government can now potentially authorize the assassination of Americans under the guise of national security is nothing short of a constitutional crisis. It opens a Pandora's box where the executive branch could circumvent legal processes and judicial oversight, allowing for a chilling expansion of government power and an alarming erosion of individual rights.
The Biden-Harris regime’s willingness to authorize assassin@tion reflects a profound disregard for the sanctity of American lives and the rule of law. It exemplifies a troubling trend toward authoritarianism, where the state’s interests are prioritized over the rights of individuals. By enabling the targeting of U.S. citizens—often without the checks and balances that judicial oversight provides—the regime is setting a dangerous precedent that could lead to abuses of power reminiscent of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history.
Moreover, the implications extend beyond mere policy shifts; they signal a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the government and its citizens. The ability of the state to conduct targeted killings without due process undermines the very foundations of our democratic society, where the rule of law and the protection of individual rights have been paramount. It raises unsettling questions: Who decides what constitutes a "threat"? What criteria are used to determine when such extreme measures are warranted?
This new directive does not merely modify existing procedures; it fundamentally alters the landscape of governmental authority and individual rights in America. As we stand at this critical juncture, we must remain vigilant and resolute in our defense of civil liberties. The implications of the Biden-Harris regime’s actions demand serious reflection and urgent action from all who cherish the freedoms granted to us by our Constitution.
In conclusion, the recent updates to DoD Directive 5240.01 should serve as a clarion call for all Americans. The stripping away of prohibitions against assassin@tion represents not just a policy change, but a grave threat to the very essence of our democratic principles. We must rally together to demand accountability, transparency, and a reaffirmation of the rights that define our great nation. The time to act is now; let us not allow this regime to tread upon the rights of the American people without consequence.
Facebook did a massive study on its ability to emotionally manipulate people in 2012. Pushing negative interactions causes people to mirror that negativity. Ergo, flooding social media with increasingly mean bots is like releasing a hate virus that will have real world effects. – Source | Article
All social media platforms take part in this.
🇺🇸 - The Lindsay Clancy case has brought renewed attention to the chilling story of Constance Fisher.
In 1954, Fisher drowned her three young children in Maine while suffering from severe mental illness. Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, she was committed to a psychiatric hospital but released five years later. Fisher and her husband didn’t split, eventually having three more children. In 1966, she drowned them as well.
Clancy’s defense argues that postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand the wrongfulness of killing her three children in 2023, while prosecutors maintain that she IS criminally responsible.
Fisher’s case raises a difficult question about Clancy: When someone commits an unthinkable act during severe mental illness, how can the system balance treatment, accountability and the protection of others?
Six children died in the Fisher case after doctors once believed she had improved. That history deserves consideration, but the children in both ...