As you all know, a “war-lord” has claimed a 6-block territory within Seattle. It is blocked off by barriers and controlled by armed militia. The police was kicked out, and it is now a police-free zone.
For some of the residents, things seemed to be going quite well… there is (was) free food, free movies, free entertainment…. On the other hand, the chief of police (now outside CHAZ) reports violent crime, such as rape and robberies, to have quadrupled in this zone, and the police is unable to respond.
Just this morning, I read that one person in this zone was kicked out, because it turned out he was anti-abortion. They called him a “white supremacist”.
The democratic mayor of Seattle (in an interview on 6/12) ignored the bad side of this situation and called it a “summer of love”.
Similar events are now planned in other cities.
This situation has met with much approval from many politicians of the Left… at the same time, Pres Trump has said that this situation was intolerable.
I am now remembering the many campaign speeches of the last few months….many Dem candidates wanted to open our borders and abolish ICE.
So now, we have an autonomous zone, loved by the Left…. and look what they have:
Amazing hypocrisy !
Gunter,
There are plenty of interesting things about CHAZ. One of them is the signs that say "You are now leaving the United States" around the outside.
So one of the problems that the generals who came out against President Trump using the military had, was that we would be using our military against our own citizens(who are exercising their rights to express free speech in the form of peaceful protesting)
But do these people claim that CHAZ is not the United States? Are they or are they not denouncing their citizenship?
The Insurrection Act allows the president to use the military force in our country on our people.
Those who keep saying it hasn't been used in centuries and should never be used in a situation like this are full of doo doo, including the generals that stated that.
It's been used 5 times since 1967 for protesting that got out of hand, turned violent and into rioting. The first time, during the July 1967 riots just a few miles from where I lived at the time in Detroit. Actually, I forgot that it was also used during the 1943 riots in Detroit by President Roosevelt. I see too that it was used for the MIssissippi riots of 1962, so 7 times in recent history for situations like this that got out of hand and in fact, most of the time that it was used since 1943, was for situations like this that got out of hand.
Guys like Don Lemon, who insist that the president threatening to use the military is evidence that he's a dictator and we need to "fight back" are apparently ignorant of history, unless he thinks that Presidents, Bush-1, Johnson, Kennedy, and F. Roosevelt were all dictators, who sent in the military for protests that turned violent.
With regards to the military leadership attacking Trump on this and none of them, not 1 mentioning any of the 7 times this was done with past similar situations, they are clearly showing their bias. Miltary leader are some of the smartest people on military history. We can assume that they know the long history of the military coming in for violent protesting that turned into riots.....but are intentionally pretending that this would be unprecedented and wrong.
After doing the research/homework on this, it clearly supports President Trump if he should end up taking this path in the event that the protesting turned into riots. In fact, it compels him to do it based on the past precedent and need to control the damage being done to lives and property. Ideally, he and the governor of that state should agree on the use of the military........but he has the power to do it on his own. If the governor wants the military there, then the military should be there.
Looks like most of the time, the states actually requested the military help out, so Trump sending in the military to clear out this fake country that has hijacked the BLM movement to meet their marxist agenda demands would be against the wishes of the liberal leaders in that state(including the mayor) and met with severe backlash and negative consequences for how the MSM interprets the situation. These people will be seen as brave individuals standing up for what they believe in and wanting to make positive changes to the world and Trump as surpressing their desire to express their rights and free speech.
If Trump goes in there, that be the narrative. And if 1 person from CHAZ gets hurt or killed, even if they were aiming a loaded gun at a cop, they will be turned into martyrs. If somebody from the military gets killed by a bad guy.........we will be told that it was Trumps fault because they never should have been there.
So Trump can't win by sending in the military which their extremely liberal leaders that hate Trump will NEVER ask for. So that solution should be off the table in Seattle.
President Trump should just try to not let this get under his skin and let it play out. Some of the demands of these people are pretty far out(like abolishing prisons and police) and more likely than not, the longer they exist, instead of it winning over more and more people outside the extreme left.........which is the only group that would support this, it will make their ability to stay in control that much scarier to average people who want police and want prisons and want protection and safety from the real bad people out there that their world allows to do as they please.
These people have some good messages in their too about race but the solution is to have NO police and NO prisons? because blacks commit the most crime. Sorry, I am for focusing most of the effort on helping young black men to fit into society as productive, responsible members with better educations and jobs but to hold them accountable when they fail....................not to change society to allow their destructive behavior to continue with impunity and no consequences......the world of CHAZ.
Who really thinks at this point, that almost every police department in the country is not doing everything possible to insure blacks are treated fairly and cops are held accountable for their actions.
Here is the problem. When you have won a major victory, as clearly has been the case, you should celebrate the victory and build on the positives which are everywhere and could dominate in this environment. Instead, we are being hammered with a message of hate and attempts to use this opportunity, to go well beyond just changing the police to make things better for society but to obliterate the police as much as possible because they represent an entity that keeps them from taking over society and turning it into their version of the future.
This is where the marxists/socialists come in. Police enforcing rules/laws are a deterrent to them achieving their political objectives...........over throwing this type of government and getting rid of capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
I decided to look at as many articles as I could about President Trump THREATENING to use the military in cities that were/are having the violence...........looting, fires, vandalizing and shooting(even killing cops) and not one of them ever mentions that this has been done before 7 times under similar circumstances by 4 different presidents........last time when Los Angeles had riots over Rodney King by George Bush-1.
The NYT does mention the Rodney King case but neglects to tell us about all the other ones, listed on the previous post/page:
"Legal experts regard the act as a major exception to the law that generally forbids the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.
Generally, the law gives the president the power to send military forces to states to quell widespread public unrest and to support civilian law enforcement. But before invoking it, the president must first call for the “insurgents” to disperse, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in 2006. If stability is not restored, the president may then issue an executive order to deploy troops.
The idea for the law was that there could be circumstances in which the local and state authorities were either unable or unwilling to maintain order, said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law. In those cases, the military would be the backstop."
"The last time that the act was used was in 1992, when riots in Los Angeles broke out after four white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King, a black motorist."
metmike: Why did they not tell us that it was used 7 different times and for more than all the other things combined since 1943 for this exact same reason?
Answer: Because it would justify Trump doing it.
Here is the letter from General Mattis.
You will note above that I agreed with him previously on the way that President Trump handled this, which should have been done in a less divisive way but after having some time to do some research today on the Insurrection Act, was shocked on how dishonest and biased his letter attacking Trump was.........especially after he had said, after resigning a year ago because Trump didn't agree with his hawkish stance and more military presence in the Middle East that he was going to be quiet and let Trump finish out his term before commenting.
In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.
"This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers."
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them."
metmike: "Small number of lawbreakers?" What planet is Mattis on. There was massive damage in many cities, fires, vandalism, looting and even shootings and deaths. Trump did not send in the military either, he THREATENED to do it if these people continued to destroy their communities so he was going exactly by the book of the Insurrection Act.....before invoking it, the president must first call for the “insurgents” to disperse, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in 2006. If stability is not restored, the president may then issue an executive order to deploy troops"
So Mattis may have a point about divisiveness but he is full of crap on the Constitution and really full of it for pretending there was not significant violence taking place this time and being dishonest about the 7 times recently since 1943, that the military came in to stop situations like this that got out of control.....FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
Why is nobody telling this?