By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump, in a Truth Social post, directed the Secretary of Defense to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon, escalating his use of military deployments in US cities, despite legal challenges. This follows deployments to Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Memphis, with local officials condemning the actions as provocative and unauthorized. Trump’s authority to deploy troops is legally dubious, violating the Posse Comitatus Act and facing legal setbacks, as a federal judge has already ruled against a similar deployment to Los Angeles. Civil liberties experts warn that Trump’s actions, including designating “Antifa” as a domestic terrorism organization, could be used to suppress progressive groups and pose a significant threat to American democracy.
Read the original article here
Trump Says He’ll Send Troops to Portland and Sanction “Full Force” Against Americans, and the implications are, frankly, chilling. It’s the kind of thing that makes you sit up and take notice, even if you’ve been following the political landscape for years. The fundamental question is, what does it mean when a former President, someone who has held the highest office in the land, suggests deploying military forces against citizens on American soil and then promising “full force?”
This idea, as it echoes through the collective consciousness, raises immediate alarms, not just because of the potential for violence, but because it strikes at the heart of American democracy. Using federal troops against the populace, well, that’s not a good look. It’s something the Founding Fathers explicitly warned against. Add to that the accusations of using the office to enrich oneself – a double whammy of things to be wary of when considering how power might be abused. It’s the sort of thing that makes one start to think of dark historical parallels.
On one hand, there’s the bizarre contrast. Trump, in his own words, often paints America as the “greatest, hottest” country on Earth. But on the other hand, he apparently sees the same nation as a “crime ridden hellscape” that requires the presence of troops marching in the streets. The juxtaposition of these ideas creates a dissonance that’s hard to reconcile. It’s like he’s simultaneously praising and condemning the country, which leaves you wondering, what’s the real agenda here?
Then comes the question of what “full force” actually means. Are we talking about tanks rolling down the streets? Is it a threat of a show of power, something that will be followed by arrests or the use of less-than-lethal weapons? Or could it be something much, much worse? It’s enough to make anyone uneasy. Considering the context, the suggestion of “full force” does sound like a dangerous escalation.
One perspective is that this is all just posturing. That Trump’s words are simply empty threats and bluster, more about garnering attention than any actual intention to act. He has a reputation for making bold statements, after all. He might be testing the waters, seeing how far he can push things. However, there is also the argument that this is a dangerous game to play, that even if it’s not a genuine call to action, the rhetoric itself can have serious consequences.
The whole situation is amplified by the presence of federal troops. The purpose of these troops is unclear, and the presence of them can be seen as a sign of intimidation. Some have suggested this is a deliberate attempt to incite a confrontation with “the left.” Given the political climate, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that these actions are meant to provoke a reaction and further polarize the country.
The people in power would probably argue this is all completely legal, but is it really? A chilling thought, isn’t it? The notion that the government might be at war with its own taxpaying citizens. It’s a thought that runs counter to the very principles of democracy.
The question of what it would take to actually stop this is also a troubling one, some people are suggesting the only thing that will work is a general strike. People should be refusing to work and refusing to pay bills, which would force the state to stop. It’s a radical thought, but one that underscores just how serious some people view the situation.
It really gets you wondering where the 2A crowd is in all of this, the so-called “don’t tread on me” advocates. Where are the people who have always claimed to value small government and states’ rights?
Ultimately, the situation in Portland serves as a test. It’s a test of our values, our institutions, and our commitment to the rule of law. It’s a test of the people’s ability to come together and reject authoritarianism. And it’s a test of the former president’s true intentions.