Kamala’s Election Strategy? Because Who Needs Votes When You’ve Got Directive 5240.01?
Directive 5240.01 isn’t just your run-of-the-mill violation of rights — it’s an unholy anointing of the federal military with the power to turn on its own citizens, up to and including lethal force.
Let that sink in for a second. Joe Biden and his merry band of Democrats have greenlit the military to spy, surveil, and, if “deemed necessary,” execute operations that can use lethal force against Y-O-U, the American citizenry.
This is beyond dangerous — it’s a blatant declaration that the government views its bosses, the people, as potential enemies.
Sure, “national security” is the catch-all excuse, but strip away the euphemisms, and you have the federal military being given free rein to do what only totalitarian regimes dream of.
Kamala Harris, with her CBD gummie-induced cackles, spacey nodding, and scripted soundbites influenced by Oompa Loompas, is complicit in endorsing this militarized assault on civil liberties because she approved this.
So much for “protecting democracy.”
And yet, the Democrats love to scream about how the Right is the one flirting with fascism. Well, if giving the military the power to use lethal force against citizens isn’t dictatorial, what is?
This isn’t just another policy overreach—this is the government turning the military inward against its own people.
Biden and Harris have crossed a line that shows their true, authoritarian nature. They’ve handed the military the keys to the kingdom and told them, “Do what you need to.” If there was ever a move that screams dictatorship, it’s this one.
The Democrats are no longer pretending — this is the raw power grab of a regime that will stop at nothing to control, surveil, and, if necessary, eliminate dissent.
Directive 5240.01 is nothing short of a brazen slap in the face to posse comitatus.
Posse comitatus, that dusty old law the government claims to uphold, is clear:
Military force is not for use against civilians on U.S. soil.
But apparently, someone decided that “national security” could magically override this pesky legal restraint.
So here we have it: a directive that turns the Department of Defense’s vast intelligence network inward, weaponizing it against citizens under the guise of “protection.”
Sound familiar?
Should.
This is the same playbook that was used to force the Patriot Act and gropings at the airport security checkpoints on you, me, and Grandma.
It's as if someone handed the Democrats a legal Sharpie and said,...
"Just redact that whole ‘no-military-on-civilians’ thing."
Civil liberties?
Out the window.
Posse comitatus?
Torn to shreds.
With 5240.01, we’re handed a military surveillance apparatus pointed not outward but inward.
If this isn’t a direct and obvious violation of both the spirit and the letter of posse comitatus, what is? We’re left with a government that says, . . .
“Don’t worry, we’re only using our military intelligence on you for good reasons.”
Directive 5240.01 was initially drafted and implemented during the Cold War era of 1982. The critical difference between that version and Kamala Harris’ and Joe Biden’s Department of Defense version is this verbiage:
[Authority “reserved” to the Secretary of Defense] :
“Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury."
This language is as ambiguous and porous as a politician's promise during campaign season — vague enough to mean everything and nothing but perfectly tailored to justify whatever action they feel like taking (against you).
Some will say the Founding Fathers crafted the Second Amendment with precisely this kind of government overreach in mind.
Well, it’s difficult to argue against this in the context of the Democrat's modern lusts for censorships, lockdowns, and destruction of the nuclear family unit, not to mention child mutilation in the name of gender identity dysphoria advocacy.
The Founders experienced firsthand the dangers of an unchecked central authority wielding military power over its citizens under British rule.
Their response?
A constitutional guarantee for citizens to bear arms is not only an inalienable right given to people by God but also a safeguard against tyranny, which historically almost always seems to be a federal government.
Go figure.
The Second Amendment isn’t merely about personal protection — it’s a bulwark against a government that might, in its hubris, decide that military force is justified against its own people.
When the federal government contemplates bending posse comitatus or drafting policies like Directive 5240.01, which veer dangerously close to sanctioning the military against citizens, the very rationale behind the Second Amendment comes into sharp focus.
The amendment was designed to empower citizens to resist, deter, and defend against a government that forgets its role is to protect freedoms, not trample them.
Madison, Jefferson, and others warned that governments inevitably grow in power and scope, often overstepping their bounds unless checked by an armed, vigilant populace. In this view, the right to bear arms is fundamentally about balancing power in favor of freedom, especially when the lines between military and civilian enforcement blur.
So, when a government directive threatens to sideline protections like posse comitatus, the Second Amendment is a reminder and a last-resort defense against precisely this kind of potential tyranny and abrogation of authority given it to by us, The People.
The Biden-Harris administration always projected that Donald Trump would use the military against the people, but here we are, folks.
Two weeks ago, Mamala-Kamala and empty-suit Joey signed this directive to use the American military against American people on American soil.
It would be prudent for the Department of Defense to be reminded that the American civilian population owns more firearms than all the world’s militaries combined.
Estimates suggest that approximately 393 million firearms are owned by civilians in the United States, far outnumbering the roughly 133 million firearms held by military forces worldwide, according to the,. . . (wait for it) . . .
According to the Small Arms Survey (linked above in directive), a research organization that tracks global arms ownership, American civilians account for 46% of the global stock of civilian-held firearms.
This civilian arsenal surpasses the combined weaponry of all nations' military and police forces. By comparison, the world’s military forces are estimated to own about 133 million firearms, a fraction of what the U.S. civilian population holds.
It makes one think, are they trying to start a civil war?
Why?
Who are “they”?
. . . to be continued . . .