Davin News Server

Watch Democrat Senator Mark Warner suggest that the military could "save us" 
from President Trump.

He is openly calling for the military to overthrow the President.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1996244812215844864/vid/avc1/1280x720/Uu
sCcjHxmgpP8mSq.mp4

"Uh, um, unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep 
rally in front of Hegseth and Trump. This is an administration that's fired, 
you know, uniformed generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency.

(oh... wow... you mean NO other President in the history of Presidents, has 
EVER fired someone in any of those positions?)

(cue rich-boy researching fired NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency heads and 
whether they served their terms and got out)

And I think, um, uh, in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us 
from this President and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their 
commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump... 

(uhhh... wrongo, homo... their commitment is to the President, you know... 
their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? They are sworn to UPHOLD, SUPPORT and DEFEND the 
constitution... not be "committed" to it, insofar as to police it. THEIR job 
is not to uphold the Constitution, or they would have shot President Obama for 
violating MANY Constitutional laws) 

... and I expect Bradley to adhere to that."

So Senator, let's go a little further on this. What are concerns you have 
about the legality of these strikes at all?

=============================================================================

The concern here, is that the military would be taking on a role that is not 
within their authority.

In the United States, the military is subject to civilian control, and their 
role is to support and defend the Constitution, NOT TO ENFORCE IT DIRECTLY.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from engaging in 
domestic law enforcement activities, except in specific circumstances.

The idea of the military carrying out directives on their own, without proper 
oversight and control, raises concerns about:

Militarization of law enforcement: The increasing involvement of the military 
in domestic law enforcement activities can lead to a blurring of the lines 
between military and civilian roles.

Constitutional implications: The Constitution grants specific powers to 
different branches of government, and the military's role is to support and 
defend it, not to enforce it directly.

It's essential to ensure that the military operates within their authority and 
under the guidance of civilian leaders, to prevent any potential abuses of 
power. 

The uniformed military has no authority in the matter of upholding the 
Constitution because that responsibility lies with other branches of 
government, specifically:

The Executive Branch: The President and other executive officials are 
responsible for enforcing the laws and upholding the Constitution.

The Legislative Branch: Congress has the authority to make laws and oversee 
the executive branch.

The Judicial Branch: The courts have the authority to interpret the 
Constitution and make decisions on cases related to its enforcement.

The military's role is to support and defend the Constitution, not to enforce 
it directly. This means that they provide a supporting role to the other 
branches of government, but they do not have the authority to take direct 
action to enforce the Constitution.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a federal law that prohibits the military 
from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities, except in specific 
circumstances. This law ensures that the military does not overstep its 
authority and that civilian control over law enforcement is maintained.

If the military were to take on a role that is not within their authority, it 
could lead to:

Militarization of law enforcement: The increasing involvement of the military 
in domestic law enforcement activities can lead to a blurring of the lines 
between military and civilian roles.

Constitutional implications: The Constitution grants specific powers to 
different branches of government, and the military's role is to support and 
defend it, not to enforce it directly.

To prevent any potential abuses of power, it is essential to ensure that the 
military operates within their authority and under the guidance of civilian 
leaders.


=============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has 
been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the 
point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the 
Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or 
stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The 
president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were 
all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's 
vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of 
hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from 
reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk 
opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump 
announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would 
suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. 
There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be 
received positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 
2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for late-
night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first 
coined by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer back in 2003. 
The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in 
otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - 
the very existence of George W. Bush."