Constitutional Authority for Special Operation

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

In the context of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers expressed a belief that when a government fails to protect the inherent rights of its citizens such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it becomes necessary for the people to challenge and potentially overthrow that government. This belief is rooted in the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

When a government becomes oppressive or unjust, it violates this social contract and forfeits its legitimacy. The Declaration of Independence suggests that in such cases, it is both the right and the duty of citizens to take action. This is not merely a theoretical concept but a foundational principle that justified the American Revolution against British rule.

Thus, patriots and citizens have both a moral and civic obligation to stand against tyranny and injustice, exercising their rights to seek redress, reform, or replacement of an unjust government. This principle underscores the importance of active citizenship and the vigilance required to ensure that a government remains true to the principles of justice and liberty.

There is no bigger patriots in the US Government than the members of our military and defense community who have sworn an oath to the constitution to protect and defend America from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Constitutional Authority for Special Operation

The Constitution grants the NSA, DIA & DOD privilege to launch a special operation to counter domestic enemies if the republic is threatened and the chain of command is compromised.

My argument hinges on the assertion that certain national security laws and institutions have become compromised, leading to a situation where those who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution have a duty to act outside established legal frameworks to restore justice.

If one can understand these legal frameworks are a form of legalistic civil war in order to cement Rogue CIA & Globalist control over the Republic which can be proven with evidence before a JAG court, then the military can receive the legal justification which can be made in court in the future for this special operation.

Here’s a detailed explanation of the key points: Compromised National Security Framework: The claim is that the National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Department of Defense (DOD) should challenge the current National Security Laws that grant the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) oversight over all data shared between the 17 intelligence agencies. The concern is that this centralized oversight might contribute to an imbalance of power and could facilitate abuses or covert manipulations.

Historical Context of Compromise:

• Silent Coup of 1963: The argument references the alleged covert actions of the CIA, specifically relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It suggests that a rogue faction within the CIA has since manipulated Congress, the Senate, and the White House to achieve geopolitical goals and maintain control over global narcotics networks. This is used as evidence of a broader corruption and compromise within U.S. intelligence and government structures.

• Silent Coup of 1913: This refers to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, which some argue was orchestrated by globalists with nefarious intentions. The claim here is that this event marked a significant shift away from governance by the people towards control by a global elite, further undermining the democratic principles of the U.S. government.

Oath and Duty of Military and Intelligence Personnel: Those in the military and national security agencies have sworn an oath to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. If it is determined that the President or other high-ranking officials are committing treason or acting against the nation’s interests, the argument is that these institutions have a duty to act to restore constitutional governance.

Legal Authority and Special Operations: Under the premise that the existing laws are unjust due to their role in enabling or concealing corruption, it is argued that the military and national security agencies could seek legal waivers through a Judge Advocate General (JAG) court. This would theoretically allow them to conduct special operations to rectify the situation, even if such actions would normally be considered outside established legal frameworks.

Restoring the Republic and We the People: The ultimate goal of such actions would be to restore governance to its intended owners: by the people and for the people. The argument is that extraordinary measures might be necessary to combat entrenched corruption and ensure that the government functions in alignment with its foundational principles.

Key Considerations:

• Legality and Constitutional Authority: Any actions taken outside the bounds of established law would need to be carefully considered for their legality and constitutional implications. The U.S. Constitution provides mechanisms for addressing grievances and holding officials accountable, such as impeachment and judicial review.

• Precedent and Risk: Acting outside established legal frameworks can set dangerous precedents and potentially undermine the rule of law. It is essential this special operation follow all chains of command and custody for the rule of law. It is essential that all actions can be defended in a court of law and before Congress.

• Transparency and Accountability: Restoring trust in government institutions often requires transparency and accountability. Addressing systemic issues through reform and oversight might offer a more sustainable solution.

Overall, the argument underscores deep concerns about governmental integrity and the need for actions that align with democratic principles and the rule of law.