By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Independent’s reporting highlights a developing situation where the Trump administration is deploying federal law enforcement to Democratic-led cities, with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker accusing the administration of using the situation as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act. Pritzker argues that Trump is exaggerating the violence in cities like Chicago to justify military intervention, a move that is facing legal challenges. Trump has stated he would consider invoking the Act if necessary, but the governor and other officials believe state and local police can handle any situation, and his actions appear to violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act, which was last invoked in 1992, could suspend that Act, potentially allowing federal troops to enforce domestic law.
Read the original article here
Trump is trying to cause chaos in American cities before invoking the Insurrection Act, a scenario that many are understandably concerned about. The underlying sentiment is that there’s a strategic plan in motion, possibly orchestrated by figures like Stephen Miller, to create an environment of unrest. The perceived goal is to justify the deployment of federal forces under the Insurrection Act, a move that would effectively grant the president immense power and potentially undermine state authority. This isn’t just about political maneuvering; it’s about a fundamental shift in the balance of power.
The specter of history casts a long shadow here. Comparisons to the Nazi playbook are being made, highlighting the potential for manipulating legal frameworks to consolidate power. The core fear is that peaceful protests will be strategically targeted and that any resistance will be labeled as terrorism, justifying a crackdown. This fear is further amplified by concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement and military personnel. The idea is that those who do not follow the constitution will be seen as the enemy. The concern is that the military might be ordered to enforce the president’s will rather than uphold the Constitution.
The perceived motivations are clear: to deflect attention from damaging revelations, such as the Epstein files, and to fundamentally alter the structure of American government. The suggestion is to replace a democratically elected government with one more authoritarian. The plan, as it’s being described, involves provoking reactions, and then capitalizing on them. The goal is to establish a climate of fear and unrest to then justify extraordinary measures. The current political climate is described by some as a massive smoke screen to avoid releasing the Epstein files.
The discussions also raise serious questions about the role of the Democratic party, criticizing the fact that the Dems didn’t lift a finger to correct the situation in the past, which may allow such behavior to happen again. It’s pointed out that the Insurrection Act could have been repealed. The underlying concern is the historical pattern of the Democrats’ supposed inaction. The implication is that this inaction has enabled the current situation to develop.
The core of the matter is: what can be done? It’s thought that peaceful protests may be the way to deal with this situation, not violence. There is the acknowledgment that the plan is already in motion, and the need for people to be prepared, and plan their responses accordingly. The idea being to not simply react to events, but anticipate them. There is a hope that the military, which is considered to be the final line of defense, would stop any further action.
There is also the point that the former president is a coward, that he has not invoked the act yet, since he isn’t willing to go all the way. The argument is that his fear of the military and the final act of crossing the line is what is keeping him from going all the way, as many people don’t believe that killing people would be something he’d be willing to do. This also ties into the fact that his strategy is to instigate others.
The core message is: to be ready and to be prepared. The importance of vigilance cannot be overstated, as it is feared that the public will move on as if everything is normal. This will allow the fascists to regroup and attack again.