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.
🇸🇪 Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants
Sweden's parliament passed a law on Monday allowing authorities to revoke immigrants' residency permits based on bad behaviour, such as having unpaid debts, doing undeclared work or links to extremist organisations.
The law, which covers pending permits but also retroactively already granted permits, is part of a wider tightening of immigration rules by the right-wing government and its support party, the nationalist Sweden Democrats, ahead of a parliamentary election in September.
The law has been criticised by the opposition and human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.
The law does not specify what types of behaviours are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and links to extremist organisations. The Migration Agency is tasked ...
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has fallen to 340.3 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983, after the government released another 8.9 million barrels last week.
The reserve has dropped 18% (75 million barrels) since the Iran conflict began in February.
The administration has used SPR releases to help keep oil prices from surging.
Source: CNN
After several hours of confusion and uncertainty, it’s time to bring some order to the situation.
What exactly did Trump agree to?
The agreement rests on two very lean principles:
“The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to free navigation, and Iran must not possess nuclear weapons.”
Trump has insisted in nearly every other post that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, while simultaneously pushing to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to unrestricted maritime traffic at any cost.
But why was Trump so eager to reach such a minimal agreement? Why did he pressure Israel not to interfere, even at the cost of merging the various fronts and exposing soldiers to greater danger? Why did J.D. Vance, who has opposed military intervention, suddenly move to the forefront while Rubio faded into the background? And why has no one managed to offer a convincing explanation beyond references to the World Cup, birthdays, the midterm elections, and other superficial reasons for this apparent obsession?
Most ...