There are numerous reports of the U.S. military engaging in recent political activity that has raised some eyebrows. Many are wondering what is going on…. and there’s likely an alarming reason. Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.
Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple. The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.
Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).
If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws, it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state who would be non-compliant.
Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific state action.
When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.
If our suspicions/predictions are correct, this would explain exactly why there has been a recent uptick in the visual politicization of the military; including empirical examples of emboldened U.S. military leadership openly engaged in domestic political advocacy against Tucker Carlson.
The marching of the U.S. military through the Capitol building to the offices of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be another orchestrated optic sending the same political message.
These are not examples of the military “woke” community advancing political correctness, instead these are examples of advanced politicization of the military (in an open context) in preparation for domestic political use. The “insurrection narrative” is then considered a seed planted to blossom later in support of the overall agenda.
One of the data-points highlighting future intent was clearly visible and seemingly overlooked by almost all media. It happened when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman first became a political whistle-blower against the office of President Trump.
It was not the details of the Vindman accusation that stood out, though that was the aspect the media focused on. What was more concerning was the lack of action by the Pentagon after Vindman compromised his position as an advisor to the commander in chief.
2019 – When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.
I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.
Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.
The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC did not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political. The necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.
The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not. WHY?
There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.
In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove. Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise. They do nothing to assist.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office. Let me make this implication crystal clear:
The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.
The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.
This is not a complex issue.
No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman. No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature. Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment. Yet his command does nothing? (more)
That was the alarming lack of action from the Pentagon everyone seemed to overlook. Why did senior military leadership not remove Vindman from his post at the White House once he clearly compromised his ability to carry out his duty? Their lack of action was stunning when you consider their primary obligation.
Fast forward to 2021 and now a very political military officer, General Russel Honore’, is appointed by Nancy Pelosi to be in charge of the military deployment around Washington DC. When you consider the political ramifications of the military supporting a false narrative, this is more than just another data-point.
The increased frequency of the military being politicized is what leads me to believe this phase is all just a public relations pre-positioning. I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands… the likely origination point will be federal COVID mandates.
The leftists are weaponizing COVID mandates for a political agenda. It is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands. That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point. That will be when the U.S. military is held as a compliance activation against any rebellious state. It could be another issue that activates this triggering of the military (ex. state election laws), but as it stands right now federal COVID compliance seems the most likely trigger.
Bottom line… The American electorate are being positioned to accept deployment of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, under the guise of insurrection and/or a public threat. That is why we are seeing so much willful politicization of the military.
If you live in a region or state that values individual liberty and/or freedom, you are likely in a location that leftists consider a risk to their ability to execute their agenda. You are likely right now being defined as a ‘dissident’, or possibly a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, get ready to see this type of activity in your neighborhood.
