The Trump Administration has changed its rationale for using the National Guard from fighting crime in so-called crime-ridden cities to one of protecting ICE facilities and personnel. Such protection, if it is actually needed, would only be because of the thuggish behavior of ICE itself. So the Trump Administration has in fact created the conditions it seeks to protect ICE from.
"According Trump that deference — and noting evidence that protesters had thrown Molotov cocktails, concrete chunks, and bottles of liquid at ICE agents — the appeals court ruled that Trump had satisfied the needed conditions." Not to mention Subway sandwiches which the administration said should be a felony.
Is there is an area in Portland that is self governing, i.e. where legitimate law enforcement no longer functions? Does the South Side of Chicago have a murder rate that is the same as that El Salvador? Are there coordinated, funded groups impeding ICE? During the Biden administration, I watched on Fox News while streams of migrants flowed unimpeded into the country. The PBS News Hour, same news cycles, showed nothing. When Walter Cronkite disputed the official story of Vietnam, after going there himself, he was believed because he had a reputation for factual reporting. Gabe, thank you for trying to provide history and facts as neutrally and as broadly as you can.
Relative to politicizing the military (which seems to be going on) I believe 10 U,S. Code § 12406, #2 is the Steven Miller goal. That is, to deploy the military against the "enemy from within" when "(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States;"
"All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands." Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1849.
Interesting research, Gabe. It does bother me that Trump, and others in his orbit, just say stuff about real places or people that are blatant lies. Just stating something about incidents or people they don’t like seems to make them true according to them (e.g., Portland is burning to the ground.). I see this kind of thinking as the real danger.
Wow! Thank you for all the research you must have done for today's column. Congratulations, Gabe. I've always expected great things from you. Today was a very large step in the direction of those Great Things!! Go, Gabe!
Great research on this, thanks for writing about this! It is important to hear real background on this to let it digest in my mind. So crazy. Wife and I were just discussing Presidents and their use of the National Guard last night, and we were missing some of those pieces.
What I find peculiar after reading your article is we write the Declaration of Independence, a document basically saying that the people in a land have the right to rebel against their own country....then 30 years later write laws to say a President can use militias to stop people from rebelling against their own country.
Legal parsers fiddle while the country burns under fascism.
No mention here that this is Taney of the Dred Scott decision.
"It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused. All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. But it would be difficult, we think, to point out any other hands in which this power would be more safe, and at the same time equally effectual."
Does anyone believe that this is true of Trump (or rather Stephen Miller)?
I suppose they don’t get that trump is the invasion from within.
The Trump Administration has changed its rationale for using the National Guard from fighting crime in so-called crime-ridden cities to one of protecting ICE facilities and personnel. Such protection, if it is actually needed, would only be because of the thuggish behavior of ICE itself. So the Trump Administration has in fact created the conditions it seeks to protect ICE from.
"According Trump that deference — and noting evidence that protesters had thrown Molotov cocktails, concrete chunks, and bottles of liquid at ICE agents — the appeals court ruled that Trump had satisfied the needed conditions." Not to mention Subway sandwiches which the administration said should be a felony.
Is there is an area in Portland that is self governing, i.e. where legitimate law enforcement no longer functions? Does the South Side of Chicago have a murder rate that is the same as that El Salvador? Are there coordinated, funded groups impeding ICE? During the Biden administration, I watched on Fox News while streams of migrants flowed unimpeded into the country. The PBS News Hour, same news cycles, showed nothing. When Walter Cronkite disputed the official story of Vietnam, after going there himself, he was believed because he had a reputation for factual reporting. Gabe, thank you for trying to provide history and facts as neutrally and as broadly as you can.
Relative to politicizing the military (which seems to be going on) I believe 10 U,S. Code § 12406, #2 is the Steven Miller goal. That is, to deploy the military against the "enemy from within" when "(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States;"
"All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands." Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1849.
Thanks for the research Gabe!
Interesting research, Gabe. It does bother me that Trump, and others in his orbit, just say stuff about real places or people that are blatant lies. Just stating something about incidents or people they don’t like seems to make them true according to them (e.g., Portland is burning to the ground.). I see this kind of thinking as the real danger.
Really enjoyed the Rhode Island history, especially the ironic consequence, that unlike the American Revolution, in Rhode Island, a King won out.
Wow! Thank you for all the research you must have done for today's column. Congratulations, Gabe. I've always expected great things from you. Today was a very large step in the direction of those Great Things!! Go, Gabe!
Great research on this, thanks for writing about this! It is important to hear real background on this to let it digest in my mind. So crazy. Wife and I were just discussing Presidents and their use of the National Guard last night, and we were missing some of those pieces.
What I find peculiar after reading your article is we write the Declaration of Independence, a document basically saying that the people in a land have the right to rebel against their own country....then 30 years later write laws to say a President can use militias to stop people from rebelling against their own country.
Legal parsers fiddle while the country burns under fascism.
No mention here that this is Taney of the Dred Scott decision.
"It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty, and may be abused. All power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. But it would be difficult, we think, to point out any other hands in which this power would be more safe, and at the same time equally effectual."
Does anyone believe that this is true of Trump (or rather Stephen Miller)?
From the photos it appears that someone is biting his fingernails to the quick. Is it Rubio or Trump?