By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has asserted that he could deploy the military to U.S. cities, stating that courts would not prevent him from doing so. He suggested he could invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass the legal system and send in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. These comments, made on Air Force One, have been widely criticized as an attempt to play out a “dictator fantasy,” particularly given existing legal restrictions like the Posse Comitatus Act. Trump’s remarks come amid rising tensions and deployment of the National Guard in cities such as Chicago.
Read the original article here
Trump Goes Full Dictator With Bonkers Threat to Use Air Force and Navy in U.S. Cities is a chilling prospect, and the level of outrage it should inspire is immense, especially considering the double standard. It’s a stark contrast to the manufactured outrage some expressed over hypothetical scenarios involving the current administration. The rhetoric used here feels less like a slip of the tongue and more like a carefully crafted threat, a clear message directed towards American citizens who might not align with his views. This is, without a doubt, a frightening development.
The reactions from the right, the supposed defenders of the Constitution, are deafeningly silent. Their fear of retribution from someone who seemingly views himself as royalty is palpable. This silence speaks volumes, highlighting the extent to which loyalty to an individual supersedes allegiance to the nation and its founding principles. It’s treasonous, plain and simple, a deliberate dismantling of the very foundations of democracy. The contrast is infuriating. Remember the outrage over a tan suit? It’s a testament to their skewed priorities.
The implications of such a threat are far-reaching. The deployment of the military, particularly the Air Force and Navy, against American cities is not a policy; it’s an act of war against his own citizens. The purchasing of wartime armaments by border patrol, including potentially lethal weaponry, raises serious questions about intentions. Are they preparing for civil conflict? This behavior makes it seem so.
The question of why this is happening is key. Is it about controlling the narrative? Is it about preventing the election next November? It’s easy to forget that the threat is not “bonkers” or just some stray remark; it is, in fact, an actual threat.
The scenario becomes even more disturbing when you consider the potential catalysts for unrest. Economic hardship, particularly widespread hunger, could be used as a pretense for escalation. It’s easy to see how a “state of emergency” could be manufactured, mirroring events in other countries and paving the way for the suspension of elections. It’s hard to ignore the potential for orchestrated events, the “poking the bees’ nest” strategy, where conflict is actively stoked to achieve political goals. This all points towards a terrifying direction.
The legal ramifications are also worrying. The idea that his actions are protected because they’re “official acts,” as suggested by some legal interpretations, is a dangerous loophole. It underscores the importance of holding those in power accountable, regardless of their position. I think we need to impeach this guy.
The lack of any pushback from the military is deeply concerning. The oath is to the Constitution, not a single individual. The idea of the military being used against the American people is something that we should all fear. The fact that a portion of the population supports this craziness shows how divided the country is.
We need to consider the aftermath, the appropriate response when this is over. Should this man ever leave office, the best path forward involves complete erasure from public consciousness. No legacy, no memorials, no recognition. The biggest FU will be to remove all attention.
The anger is understandable. The joke about bombing a city, even if said in jest, becomes less funny as reality inches closer. And the idea that he’s not acting alone, that there are “powerbrokers” guiding him, makes it more frightening.
The prospect of the Navy in the Midwest, or any city, is not only absurd but also incredibly dangerous. This is not a scenario to be taken lightly. It’s a dire warning sign that demands immediate attention. We need to be loud in our disapproval. The consequences of silence could be irreversible.