FACE IT: TRUMP HAS ALREADY CHOSEN THE INSURRECTION "OPTION"

[ancianita]

(caps for EMphasis, not yelling) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143546568

WE'RE IN STAGES ONE AND TWO.
OUR PEACEFUL NO KINGS DAY MIGHT BE THE SETTING FOR STAGES THREE AND FOUR.

1. THE COVER LIE = FICTIONAL DOMESTIC UNREST

2. THE REAL TRUTH = NON-FICTION ORGANIZED VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS

3. GOVERNMENT INSURRECTIONS ESCALATE VIOLENCE THAT CIVILIANS FINALLY DEFEND AGAINST,

4. A GOVT INSURRECTIONIST IS INJURED,

5. THE FELON IMMEDIATELY DECLARES CIVLIAN DEFENSE A "REBELLION,"

6. THE FELON INVOKES THE INSURRECTION ACT, AND

7. HENCHMEN SPREAD THE DIGITAL ZONE WITH AI FAKES & PROPAGANDA.

[durablend]

1. "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO"

[NCDem47]

2. More of that abuser mentality.

[ancianita]

4. Exactly.

Last edited Mon Oct 13, 2025, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

[ancianita]

3. "I WARNED YOU BUT YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN"

[SoFlaBro]

5. Orange Bastard is a piss soaked dog turd. Piss on that fucking turd.

[Botany]

6. I expect that somehow "they" will manufacture some incidents @ the 10/18 "No Kings" rallies.

President Miller wants some heads to be busted, lots of arrests, and deportations. If you are going to
a No Kings rally pay attention to anybody who is there just to stir up shit. Do not engage and or give
“them” a reason for any actions.

[Blues Heron]

7. Or it might be a huge, successful, peaceful demonstration like the other no kings, hands off, Tesla dance parties etc.

I say DAMN THE TORPEDOES GET OUT THERE AND MAKE SOME NOISE! (Caps for yelling not emphasis)

[ancianita]

8. Though you're right and righteous, this is still his chosen option. Let's hope all cameras are on Democratic cities.

[Miami Blue]

9. SO, UNDOUBTEDLY 🙏🏻

TACO 🌮 THE FELON IN CHIEF & TRAITOROUS
PEDO CAN BE IM-🍑£D FOR A 3RD TIME IN LESS
THAN 7 YEARS.

SAD
😂

[ancianita]

10. Undoubtedly. Invoking the Insurrection Act would be the Big Lie 2.0 extension of Jan 6.

[The Madcap]

17. Oops...I misread.

I mistook the peach for "pale." Things were getting a bit violent there.

[Metaphorical]

11. I'd say this was obvious

There is nothing that is going to stop him from citing the insurrection act, and from there using it to declare war against the blue states. This is what MAGA wants. They want to reignite the Civil War, only with them holding all the cards. Problem is that I don't think most people in the country actually want this, in red or blue states, and they aren't going to believe that it is happening until you have troops attacking civilians and drones dropping bombs.

[ancianita]

12. Sometimes the obvious has to be stated. It should go without saying that we on DU do that a lot here.

If red/blue civilians don't face this obvious probability, it's still better for us Democrats to see his plan now and not wait until he rolls it out, when the din of lies is at its shrieking loudest.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

13. When he invokes it, what is our best response? A question for all

General Strike at that very moment?

[ancianita]

14. Know the law. Support those who use it to fight back Here's the law...

When the president invokes the Insurrection Act, civilians retain their constitutional rights,
but they may face increased military presence with law enforcement powers, and have options for legal challenges and political/public response.

Retained Rights
The invocation of the Insurrection Act does not establish martial law or suspend the Constitution. Civilians still have:
Constitutional Protections: Federal troops, while having law enforcement duties, are not free to violate constitutional rights.

Right to Peaceful Protest: Peaceful assembly and protest remain legal and constitutionally protected. The law targets violence and insurrection, not lawful dissent.
Right to Legal Counsel: Individuals arrested by military forces acting as law enforcement are still entitled to due process and legal representation.

Civilian Options
Civilians have several options, ranging from individual legal action to collective political engagement:
Legal Challenges:

Challenge Unlawful Actions: Civilians who believe their constitutional rights have been violated by military actions can pursue legal action. Courts may review the lawfulness of the military's actions even if they defer to the president's initial decision to deploy troops.
Support or Initiate Lawsuits: Affected parties can initiate or support lawsuits that challenge the invocation of the Act itself, arguing that the conditions for an "insurrection" (e.g., a genuine rebellion or inability of civilian authorities to function) have not been met. Federal judges have shown a willingness to review the president's determination and have previously blocked deployments where no evidence of a rebellion was presented.

Political and Public Response:

Contact Representatives: Civilians can contact their members of Congress to voice concerns, urge them to provide oversight, or advocate for reforms to the Act that would add clearer criteria and checks and balances against potential abuse.
Engage in Peaceful Dissent: Participate in organized, peaceful demonstrations to express opposition to the president's action. This is a protected form of expression, distinct from the violent actions the Act is meant to address.
Strategic Organizing: Grassroots organizations and advocacy groups (like the Brennan Center for Justice) provide guidance and roadmaps for strategic public responses and pressure if the Act is invoked.
In essence, the primary civilian options revolve around utilizing the established legal and political systems to ensure accountability and the protection of civil liberties.

Thanks, DeepMind AI

[ancianita]

15. As for a General Strike, it's likely to increase violence, lead to civil war, or lead to martial law, and here's why...

A general strike, in the sense of a coordinated, multi-union labor action, is generally illegal under U.S. labor law, specifically due to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which outlawed solidarity actions by unions.

The legality of a general strike under the Insurrection Act is a separate but related question, largely dependent on how the President chooses to define and use the Act's broad powers.
The Insurrection Act does not explicitly mention general strikes, but it grants the President broad authority to use the military domestically to suppress "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" against the government if it becomes "impracticable" to enforce the law through normal judicial proceedings.

Here's how the Insurrection Act could impact a general strike:
Historically, Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act to intervene in labor disputes on behalf of employers to break strikes.
The Act grants the President significant discretion to define what constitutes an "insurrection" or "unlawful combination". A large-scale general strike could potentially be labeled as an "unlawful combination" or an "obstruction" of federal law, allowing the President to use the Act to deploy military forces.

Invoking the Act allows federal military forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, which is otherwise prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.These troops could enforce court orders against striking workers.
Any use of the Insurrection Act in this context would likely face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, although courts tend to defer to the President's decision to invoke the Act while still reviewing potential constitutional violations.

In summary, while the Insurrection Act doesn't explicitly outlaw general strikes, its broad language and historical application in labor disputes suggest a President could use it to deploy military force to suppress one, which would likely lead to legal and political conflict.

Thanks, DeepMind AI

[ancianita]

16. The the Insurrection Act and martial law are significantly different legal concepts in U.S. law.

Insurrection Act
Assists, not replaces, civilian authorities: The Insurrection Act is a federal statute that provides a legal exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the President to deploy U.S. military forces domestically to assist state or federal civilian law enforcement in specific scenarios, such as suppressing an insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence.
Civilian law remains in effect: Under the Insurrection Act, civilian government and the court system continue to function, and the military personnel operate in support of these existing civilian authorities, not in their stead.

Constitutional rights remain:
U.S. constitutional protections for civilians are not suspended when the Insurrection Act is invoked.

Martial Law
Replaces civilian authorities: Martial law is a more extraordinary measure, generally understood as the temporary replacement of civilian government authority with military rule during an extreme emergency, such as an invasion or a complete breakdown of civilian law and order.

Military assumes governance:
The military takes direct control of governing the area, and civilians may be subject to military law and tribunals.

Undefined in federal law:
There is no single federal statute that explicitly defines or authorizes the President to declare martial law, and experts argue that a federal declaration of martial law that completely supplants civilian government is difficult to reconcile with the Constitution.

In essence, the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as an aid to civilian law enforcement, while martial law involves the military effectively becoming the government and taking direct control of an area.