Yet another American city is slated for military occupation.
First it was DC, a blue city, and Donny lied about out of control crime and then he went about threatening other blue cities like Chicago, Baltimore, etc….and now he has ordered his storm troopers into another city….this time Memphis….
President Trump signed an order Monday sending the National Guard into Memphis to combat crime. Trump made the announcement with Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee visiting the Oval Office, calling what’s coming a “replica of our extraordinarily successful efforts” in Washington. The AP describes the move as Trump’s “latest test of the limits of presidential power by using military force in American cities.”
- “Today, at the request of Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee, who’s standing with us, as you know, I’m signing a presidential memorandum to establish the Memphis Safe Task Force,” Trump said, per the Commercial Appeal. “It’s very important because of the crime that’s going on, not only in Memphis, in many cities. We’re going to take care of all of them step-by-step.”
Trump said that in addition to troops, the push in Memphis would involve officials from various federal agencies, including the FBI, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the US Marshals Service: “We’re sending in the big force now.”
- Shortly before Trump’s announcement, the White House said on social media that the Memphis total crime rate was higher than the national average and suggested that the rate had increased since last year, bucking national trends. That’s despite Memphis police recently reporting decreases across every major crime category in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period in previous years. Overall crime hit a 25-year low, while murder hit a six-year low, police said. Despite the overall decrease, Memphis has dealt with gun violence problems for years. In 2023, the city set a record with more than 390 homicides.
- A White House memorandum on “Restoring Law and Order” noted that according to the FBI, Memphis had the nation’s highest rate of violent crime per capita last year. “The city, a beacon of American culture that was Elvis’s home and is often called the birthplace of rock and roll and the blues, should be safe and secure for all of its citizens and Americans who visit its historic landmarks such as Graceland, Beale Street, and the Memphis Pyramid,” the memorandum states.
- Tennessee’s governor embraced the troop deployment as part of a broader law enforcement surge in Memphis. Lee said Monday that he was “tired of crime holding the great city of Memphis back.”
- Trump first suggested he’d be deploying the National Guard to Memphis on Friday, drawing pushback from the Democratic leader of Memphis, which is majority Black. “I did not ask for the National Guard, and I don’t think it’s the way to drive down crime,” Mayor Paul Young told a news conference Friday while acknowledging the city remained high on too many “bad lists.”
- The first troops could be deployed as soon as this week, CNN reports. Young says he hasn’t been given a date and he is still waiting for information including the number of troops and their duties.
- Speculation had centered on Chicago as Trump’s next city to send in the National Guard and other federal authorities. But the administration has faced fierce resistance from Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and other local authorities. Trump said Monday, “We’re going to be doing Chicago probably next” but also suggested that authorities would wait and not act immediately there. “We want to save these places,” Trump said. He singled out St. Louis and Baltimore, but didn’t say either place would be getting federal forces or the National Guard.
WE will see how effective this game becomes.
Now we wait for His Royal Highness Donny to drop the shoe on Chicago.
This is just silly….there are more national problems that beating up of blue cities.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
This is nothing compared to the wonderful things they have on the books for the blue states and cities…just watch the video that I sent to your email.
Will do….thanx chuq
How many times can he do this before he runs out of National Guard and has to send in the regulars? If he’s not careful he won’t have enough troops left to invade Venezuela.
Best wishes, Pete.
This is getting disgusting. Good point chuq
Not a problem and not as relevant as what is really happening..the radical left will soon enough be contained in internment camps….
Or they will use those thugs on the Right to do all their dirty work for them with impunity. chuq
We now live in a world where the President is at war with our own country….
I think the criminals and drug cartels certainly are at war with our country.
HA! Sorry you think that’s who they are targeting….we will continue to agree to disagree…
Yep well at least half of the country….chuq
“military occupation” is quite a pejorative and absurd characterization. Presently cities are ravaged by criminal occupation. Is that OK ? Occupation suggests a foreign power’s population imprisonment . Our national guard is not a fascist military caste. It is a voluteer citizen force composed of our own family and relatives and neighbors and is not an entity in itself. They would never enforce control by a dictatership and a dictatorship cannot exist here because a dictator would never have an army of his own.
You have military on the streets…..looks like a third world nation….these cities are not ate up with criminals…..I will admit that Memphis does a problem but the rest is made up crap. chuq
If this is what you think, I won’t argue about it. Pam and Kristie and Tulsi have the numbers. My suggestion does not include non criminal undocumented people but certified monsters only. It is probable we live on two different planets.
Carl the numbers that you referenced are made up….but that is okay as long as the boots continue. chuq
I hear you, Carl…… The idea that “it can’t happen here” is a very common belief in many societies—but history shows us that no country, including the U.S., is immune from abuses of power. The danger doesn’t usually come from an openly declared “dictatorship” overnight, but from gradual shifts in norms, laws, and power balances. Let’s unpack how it could happen in America, despite what your interlocutor believes, and highlight historical episodes when similar dynamics already have taken place.
1. The National Guard is made up of citizens—but citizens have enforced oppression before.
Members of the Guard are indeed “our neighbors,” but that doesn’t make them immune from carrying out questionable or even brutal orders. In moments of political tension, they have been used to control, suppress, and sometimes kill fellow citizens.
Examples:
Kent State (1970): National Guard troops opened fire on student protesters against the Vietnam War, killing 4 and wounding 9. These were ordinary college-age Americans killed by “neighbors in uniform.”
Attica Prison Uprising (1971): The National Guard and police stormed the prison after negotiations broke down, killing 39 people (both prisoners and hostages).
Little Rock Nine (1957): The Arkansas National Guard was initially ordered by the Governor to block Black students from entering Central High School. They followed orders to enforce segregation until President Eisenhower federalized them and reversed course.
These show that the Guard’s role is political, and depending on who gives the orders, they can be used against civilians in repressive ways.
2. Dictators don’t always need their “own” army.
Dictatorships rarely start with a leader conjuring up a private army from scratch. Instead, they co-opt existing institutions: the military, police, courts, and legislatures.
Historical pattern: A strong leader gains influence, frames emergencies (crime, riots, terrorism) as justification, and gradually reshapes institutions to serve them. By the time it feels “dictatorial,” the institutions already belong to the state, not the people.
Examples abroad:
Germany (1930s): The Nazi Party didn’t build a new army overnight; they inherited the German military and police structures, and subordinated them step by step.
Chile (1973): Augusto Pinochet used the Chilean military (the same one meant to defend the constitution) to overthrow the elected government.
3. The U.S. has flirted with authoritarian repression before.
Even if America hasn’t had a full dictatorship, there are many moments when democratic rights were crushed under the weight of government force:
Suspension of Habeas Corpus (Civil War, 1860s): Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, allowing indefinite detention without trial. While done during wartime, it showed how easily core rights can be stripped away.
The Palmer Raids (1919–1920): Federal agents and local police raided homes and meeting halls, arresting thousands of immigrants and leftists—many without warrants—under the banner of anti-communism.
Japanese-American Internment (1942–1945): Over 120,000 Japanese Americans (two-thirds of them U.S. citizens) were forced into camps. The U.S. military enforced these orders, imprisoning people not because of crimes but because of ancestry.
COINTELPRO (1950s–70s): The FBI (backed by police and sometimes Guard units) spied on, infiltrated, and disrupted civil rights groups, Black liberation movements, and antiwar organizations.
4. Why “it can’t happen here” is dangerous.
The biggest enabler of authoritarian abuse is the assumption that “our institutions” or “our people” are somehow immune to human nature. In fact:
Ordinary soldiers follow orders, even if they disagree.
“Emergencies” (crime waves, terrorism, pandemics, riots) give cover for exceptional measures.
Once rights are suspended temporarily, they can become permanent.
✅ So yes, the National Guard is made up of volunteers, neighbors, and citizens. But history shows they can be ordered to enforce unjust laws, suppress dissent, or even kill fellow Americans. And authoritarian systems don’t need a dictator with a private army—they just need a leader willing to bend existing forces to their will, often with broad public support at first.
Gentlemen, and gentle ladies… I’m submitting this in a print venue but want to pass this your way for comment.
THE INTERNET MAY BE THE ONLY THING KEEPING AMIERCIA FROM BURNING… SO FAR.
Comparisons between today’s political tensions and the 1960s are everywhere. Commentators point to deep polarization, generational divides, and rising distrust in institutions. But one striking difference remains: America’s cities are not burning.
In the 1960s, unrest spilled into the streets. Riots in Detroit, Watts, Newark, and dozens of other cities scarred neighborhoods for decades. Protesters clashed with police, bombings struck government buildings, and marches filled capitals. Leaders, for all their disagreements, often spoke with restraint. Even Richard Nixon promised “law and order” more than vengeance.
Today, despite equally heated divisions, violence looks very different. Instead of nightly riots, we see sporadic attacks — a synagogue shooting, a school massacre, the storming of the Capitol. These acts are shocking, but they are not mass uprisings. Why?
The answer may be the very thing we blame for radicalization: the internet.
Think of society as a pressure cooker. In the 1960s, anger had one outlet: the streets. If you wanted your grievance seen, you marched, burned, or occupied. That was the release.
Today, outrage has another path. It can vent online — in memes, hashtags, livestreams, or viral videos. Social media gives people visibility, affirmation, and a sense of community without leaving their living rooms. A protest sign in 1968 might reach a thousand people on a street corner. A meme in 2025 can reach millions in a day.
This makes the internet a pressure valve: it contains much of the energy that would otherwise spill into riots. People can fight, posture, and organize virtually, with less risk and more reach.
But the internet doesn’t just contain conflict — it reshapes it.
The 1960s were about crowd impulse: groups gathering, anger escalating, storefronts smashed. Today’s violence is more surgical: a flash mob directed at a government building, or a lone gunman striking a symbolic target.
The difference is precision. Online networks can assemble and disband mobs quickly, or inspire individuals to act in the name of a cause. This isn’t chaos in the streets — it’s disruption with a point.
Another difference is who commits the violence.
Much of today’s bloodshed comes from individuals with deep mental health struggles. Isolated and searching for purpose, they turn to the internet for community and affirmation. Forums, chatrooms, and feeds become substitutes for family or friends. Symbols and slogans provide identity. Algorithms reward anger with more anger.
In the past, these same individuals might have been swept into a mass protest. Today, they are more likely to act alone — until someone recruits them.
That brings us to the danger.
So far, most violence has been lone-wolf. But history shows that when groups begin to organize and harness these vulnerable individuals, the tenor changes. The 1960s had the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers. If today’s digital echo chambers evolve into operational cells, we cross into something more sustained and dangerous. (ie. could “ANTIFA” benign now, become a real threat down the line, FROM the internet.. should someone hijack the name?)
That is the civil war threshold: when isolated acts become coordinated campaigns.
The internet’s containment role is fragile. A handful of triggers could flip online outrage into physical eruption:
• A disputed election or judicial ruling.
• A political leader openly endorsing violence.
• Viral images that unify disparate online groups into a single frame.
• A sense that institutions no longer work — that courts, legislatures, or ballots offer no relief.
• Weak enforcement, where early acts of violence are seen to go unpunished.
Unlike the 1960s, we wouldn’t see whole cities in flames. Instead, we’d see distributed flashpoints erupting almost simultaneously: symbolic, targeted, and unpredictable.
So we face a paradox. The internet, often accused of radicalizing America, may also be the reason we haven’t seen a repeat of 1968. It absorbs outrage, offers the illusion of community, and provides symbolic victories without physical destruction.
But this containment comes with risk. The same networks that keep anger online can also channel it into sharper, more targeted into more destabilizing forms of violence. And if enough triggers align, the release will not be one riot — it will be many fractures across the country, hitting at symbolic targets with surgical precision.
The pressure cooker hasn’t disappeared. It’s just hissing through screens… waiting to pop.
Golly… I spelled “America” wrong. Piss poor editing on my part.. and no, it wasn’t misspelled on the original that went out. Don’t read into it… it’s not Freudian.
I can recall when its spelled Amerika…..but I am an old fart chuq
Very insightful analysis. Yes, the internet has created a battleground. Elected leaders that call people Nazis and fascists and racists stir the mix. Even Biden said ” The most dangerous threat to our democracy is a maga republican white male “. Such crap really sickens and infuriates me.
Carl it is somehow okay to broadly paint Dems as socialists….can you see the hypocrisy? chuq
Good piece….thanx for sharing…antifa confronts fascists no matter where they are….they are not some far Left group. chuq
Where did you get such a riduculously false idea ? Antifa confronts fascists ? They say they do. They are nothing more than disrupters at events, arsonists. attack law enforcement, looters, and paid criminals. Just look at the summer of 2020.
Probably the same place you get your false information. and that is your false opinion…..you want to talk about 06 January as long you are trying to deflect. chuq
Before it is over every city, town, village and hamlet will be permanently under military control…what is happening now is just being done to get people used to the idea of a permanent troop presence.
Part of the Nazi play book. chuq
Carl DiAgostino said, and I quote, “Very insightful analysis. Yes, the internet has created a battleground. Elected leaders that call people Nazis and fascists and racists stir the mix. Even Biden said ” The most dangerous threat to our democracy is a maga republican white male “. Such crap really sickens and infuriates me.”””
But let me tell you what kind of crap really sickens and infuriates me:
What infuriates and sickens me– and what, incidentally, makes Carl’s comment irrelevant and sickening to me is Trump’s often aired insistence that everyone on the Liberal or Progressive side of the aisle are either scum, or are enemies of the state or are terrorists.
But I doubt that dear old Carl would ever see my point.
Probably not in this lifetime. chuq