Skip to main content

Trump Statement

"If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” said Trump.

With that, Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act.

Defense Secretary Tries to Walk Back Trump Statement

If you support Trump, please note the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, Corrects Trump

“The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act,” said Esper.

Esper Translated

We F'd up big time.

Esper's walk-back comes on the heels of scathing Op-Ed by retired Admiral Mike Mullen, a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I Cannot Remain Silent"

Mike Mullen , Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says I Cannot Remain Silent.

I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.

Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.

Too many foreign and domestic policy choices have become militarized; too many military missions have become politicized.  This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.

How often does a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff blast a sitting president?

Former Undersecretary Resigns From Defense Board

James N. Miller, a former Defense Undersecretary, sent a scathing letter of resignation yesterday to Esper. The letter directly accused Esper and Trump.

Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You [Esper] then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church for that photo.

I must now ask: If last night’s blatant violations do not cross the line for you, what will?

I cannot believe that you see the United States as a “battlespace,” or that you believe our citizens must be “dominated.” Such language sends an extremely dangerous signal.

Instead of focusing on what is important, nitwits make a case that it was not tear gas but rather pepper spray.

Five Republican Senators Rebuke Trump

In a rare rebuke, five Republican Senators Criticized Trump

Sue Collins R-Maine: "It was painful to watch peaceful protesters be subjected to tear gas in order for the president to go across the street to a church that I believe he’s attended only once. I thought that the president came across as unsympathetic and as insensitive to the rights of people to peaceful protest."

Scroll to Continue


Ben Sasse R-Nebraska: “There is a fundamental — a constitutional — right to protest, and I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop."

James Lankford R-Oklahoma: Lankford said it was “definitely not” right for peaceful protesters, who were gathered around Lafayette Park in front of the White House, to be sprayed with tear gas. And he criticized the president for walking to St. John’s Episcopal Church right before the 7 p.m. curfew, because “everyone knew there were going to be protesters in that area.”

Tim Scott: R-South Carolina: “If your question is: Should you use tear gas to clear a path so the president can go have a photo-op? The answer is no.

John Thune Senate Majority Whip R-South Dakota: “I hope he projects calm. I hope people act calmly,” Thune told reporters Tuesday. “He has moments. But I mean, as you know, it lasts generally as long as the next tweet.”

Question Time

This may be asking far too much, but can I please have an honest answer to a simple question:

What if this happened?

"If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” said Obama.

I am supposed to believe that if Obama threatened to send in the military to resolve riots in states, Republicans would cheer from their rooftops, make lame excuses, or respond to reporters "I am late for lunch".

Yes, many Republican Senators made that "late for lunch" excuse yesterday when asked what they thought of the bible incident by reporter Kasie Hunt. Others pretended they did not see the news. 

I suggest most of the rabid Trump supporters along with Fox News and all the Republican Senators would go ape-s**t batty.

By the way, hypocrisy is on both sides. If Obama made that statement, Republicans would be up in arms, and most Democrat Senators would then look the other way. 

Trump's Bubble Just Shattered

For further discussion, including a list of senators "late for lunch" or allegedly unaware of the news, please see Something Changed for the Better: Trump's Bubble Just Shattered

Sadly, most people back parties and presidents, with only a small percentage sticking to beliefs. 

OK hypocrites, have at it. 

Addendum: New Rule: What If Obama Said It?

In response to my post, a friend sent this.

I had never seen that before. It's hilarious.