We really don't want to go there even though it may end up happening.
The situation would be like you being caught in the middle of a home invasion robbery of your business where they are just cavalierly carting away everything you own while randomly killing your employees and customers. You call the police to come and stop them
because there are very definite laws on that matter which the robbers are flagrantly breaking. The police inform you that they can't do anything to help since they are under new management, the robbers are their new bosses. But you can go to the courts and file a lawsuit there. You might win
after a few years, but even then the police's new management has a policy of ignoring court rulings.
The urgency couldn't be greater and requires immediate action. But the DOJ is complicit in the criming, so they won't do anything about it. The Republican-run Congress is also complicit and won't do anything, leaving us with the only hope with Congress is to win the next election
two years from now (that's assuming elections will even still be held). The courts are proving to be our only hope, but not only are they far too slow to meet the need for immediate action stop the irreparable damage being done in real time, but their rulings require law enforcement to enforce those rulings
and that law enforcement (eg, US Marshall Service) is working for the robbers and so will never enforce the courts' rulings.
In the meantime, other possible rapid responders (eg, FBI, CIA, DoD, military) are also being placed under new management as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the robbers. Since those agencies and institutions are having their entire leadership be replaced with the robbers, that eliminates them in terms of any kind of organized response, rapid or otherwise, except for response
in support of the robbers.
Developments we see with the military is the top brass being replaced with Trump's DEI hires ("DEI" in the perverted weaponized MAGA sense), losers whose incompetence is surpassed only by their personal loyalty to Trump.
Therefore, any kind of military response to this threat cannot come from the top of the Chain of Command, but rather would necessarily have to come from lower echelon leaders taking action on their own. That would lead to violent chaos in which patriotic units forced to act independently (or in
ad hoc coalitions with each other) would be opposed by Trumpist forces being directed under the Chain of Command ... with extreme prejudice and violence characteristic of Trump's fantasies.
Having the military lead a coup in order to stop a horrifically and flagrantly criminal civilian government would be bad enough and hard enough to come back from
with a unified military, but having to do it with a splintered military would destroy the Republic. The result would be armed civil war in which mainly the military would be fighting amongst itself
with us serving as collateral damage.
The irony is that Trump will thus end up creating the
"deep state" that he constantly decried but which did not exist. Before.
quote:
Zohan: "I have seen this. I have done this. You do not want this."
The same would apply to any rapid response from the intelligence community in that it would require lower echelon teams (as depicted in so much Hollywood fare) to respond independently
and in direct violation of orders from the top. Again, an internal civil war and chaos.
And, of course, in the midst of all that national security would have been flushed completely down the tubes -- though that's already happening anyway
right now with the wanton dismantling of law enforcement, intelligence, alliances, etc.
Things to look for in the coming months.
Trump will turn the active duty military being turned against us. It will make Kent State look like a snack break.
We are trained to obey
lawful orders and to disobey
unlawful orders. But that requires guidance on what constitutes an unlawful order. That determination is the job of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), military lawyers who advise military leaders. Trump's DUI hire, DefSec Numbnuts (or whatever his name is), has fired the JAG officers. That opens the door for abusive misuse of the military through unlawful orders.
We already saw this in Trump's first term where during the BLM demonstration in front of the White House (June 2020) Trump ordered active duty army units (82nd Airborne as I seem to recall) to oppose the demonstrators; he also pushed for use of deadly force against the demonstrators, Gen. Milley's opposition making him "back down" to "why don't you just shoot them in the legs?" But it was SecDef Esper who, knowing that Trump's calling out active duty military against American citizens was damned illegal, recalled those army units back to base. So Trump mobilized them again and Esper had to recall them back to base again.
The difference this time is that all the adults are gone. The current SecDef would gladly deploy active duty troops against American citizens. And when Trump orders that those troops fire on American citizens, his DUI-hire SecDef will gladly relay those orders.
The only thing stopping them would be for those troops to rebel and refuse to follow those orders. Which would spark the splintering of the military and an internal civil war that would grow into a general one.
Trump will use those demonstrations as an excuse to invoke the
Insurrection Act of 1807 which in turn he would use to justify his bloody response -- during the campaign, he kept talking about the Insurrection Act so we know he has his eye on using it. That will be part his final takeover and assumption of emergency powers.
Just like Hitler did, which leaves us wondering just what Trump's
Reichstag fire will be. They're doing everything they can to leave us open and vulnerable to a terrorist attack (eg, by destroying the law enforcement and intelligence communities), so he might use such an attack as his excuse.
Nor is it hyperbole to compare everything Trump's doing with how Hitler consolidated power, since just about the only thing that Trump has studied has been what Hitler did. Besides, even Godwin has declared that
Godwin's Law against comparing an opponent to Hitler
does not apply to Trump:
Wikipedia:
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion in The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you." In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."
I need to take a break. Besides, I still have to make breakfast.
™ Version 4.2
