In other words, they’re upset that they have lost lots of power. Power granted to them by the duly elected Congress which also gave the POTUS authority to deal with emergencies
As more National Guard units arrive in D.C., local officials question the need
A fourth Republican governor announced plans to deploy troops from his state’s National Guard to D.C. on Monday, as city officials and residents questioned the need for an influx of hundreds of uniformed service members into the capital.
Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement that he had approved the deployment of about 200 Guard soldiers to aid President Donald Trump’s “effort to return law and order to our nation’s capital.” The news came after three states said over the weekend they would send hundreds of troops: 200 from South Carolina, 350 from West Virginia and 150 from Ohio.
Along with the 800 D.C. National Guard members already mobilized in the city, the deployments announced since Friday would bring the number of Guard members in the city to about 1,700. The deployments are federally funded; the Pentagon has not produced a cost estimate of the mobilizations, and defense officials did not immediately return a request for comment Monday on when those figures would be made available.
The city was already down about 800 cops, so, this very much helps
But D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) told reporters the growing number of National Guard troops from other states “doesn’t make sense” — and was not a matter she had any control over. Unlike governors of states, the D.C. mayor does not even have the authority to deploy her city’s own National Guard.
“So if you want to know what’s happening, the question is not really for us — it’s why the military would be deployed in an American city to police Americans,” Bowser told members of the news media following a ribbon-cutting ceremony of a newly renovated elementary school. “That’s the question — and it’s not for me.”
Says the lady presiding over the nation’s capitol which has areas of massively high crime, where 13, 14, and 15 year olds violently carjack citizens.
As images have circulated showing Guard members taking photographs with passersby and patrolling parts of the city that aren’t considered high-crime areas, some have questioned what purpose the troops are serving. In a video shared on social media Monday, council member Christina Henderson (I-At Large) gave viewers a tour of where National Guard members were present, showing them standing in a grassy area near the Washington Monument and strolling the Tidal Basin. Narrating the video, she said, “This is not what I would consider a high-crime, violent crime area. It’s actually quite scenic and beautiful on the Tidal Basin.”
Henderson said the governors who are sending more National Guard members should be asked, “What are your troops actually going to be doing here? Because the current ones are not doing a lot.”
In fact, it is a medium crime rate area, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol Building, mostly property crime. Further, that’s not the only area they and others are operating in
Maybe Ms. Henderson would care to wander in higher crime areas? Hey, there’s one just south of where the Smithsonian buildings are, where there are lots of federal office buildings. We can read about it in the crime blotter.
They question the need, but what they had been doing in the past wasn’t working; is there something wrong with trying more vigorous law enforcement to see if that helps?
It all depends on the definition of “working”. The democrats definitely have a different metric than rational people, or even the metric they publicly announce. Ask yourself, if Democrats wanted the exact opposite result of what they claim to want, how would they do things differently than they are?
Federalization of local law enforcement worked in Nazi Germany, the Shah’s Iran, and is working today in China, North Korea and Russia, so it’s worth a try here.
What has worked in Israel, Denmmark, Germany today, Ireland, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, Austria, Poland etc is not only vigorous law enforcement but also aggressive social safety nets. Is there something wrong with trying a more vigorous social safety net to see if that helps?
And not just “welfare” (healthcare, education, Social Security, food) but a change from “toxic capitalism” (over $50 TRILLION has moved from the working class to the leisure class since the “Reagan Revolution”} to an economy as if working people actually mattered.
The wealth and income gap between the working and leisure classes has been widening for decades and is accelerating.
As billionaire Nick Hanauer said years ago:
And from the House Budget Committee:
Mr Dana is probably correct – the way to make the poor behave is with overwhelming force, even the military, just like Russia and China does. Will 300 million Americans take it or will the pitchforks come out? Will they prefer the Chinese or Danish approach for “peace”?
Uh, Elwood, could U please provide some details?
Inquiring minds want to know.
If they send them to the hood, they better arm them first- the hoodrats have full-auto Glocks. Who made the decision that firearms might “be available”? What does that mean, in their vehicles? Great, now the hoods will jack the vehicles. Many are MPs. They should have their sidearms- fully loaded. Otherwise, send in the Girl Scouts.