A Line in the Sand, that would be nice, too bad Taco Man is at the other end of the stick.
Skip to content
Bottom Line:
Mayor Muriel Bowser rejects the narrative of rising crime. She’s implemented youth curfews, and critics warn that Trump’s approach risks eroding democratic governance, not improving safety.
The Promise:
The Problem:
The Politics:
The Reality:
Posts in Category: The Fallout
Anger in America, Part 3: The Way Forward
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
The truth is simple: anger is real, and it’s justified. But unchecked, it’s dangerous — for others and for ourselves. The frustration that millions feel, the sense of betrayal and powerlessness, can easily spill into harm if it isn’t channeled. That’s why the way forward matters more than ever.
We can’t pretend that the chaos and lies haven’t left scars. But we can take that energy and turn it into something constructive. Citizens still have power, even when it feels like the system is rigged. They can demand honesty, insist on accountability, and call out corruption at every level. They can expose the lies and demand answers, using evidence and facts to hold leaders responsible.
Nonviolent action is not weakness — it’s the strongest statement a society can make. Voting, volunteering, civic organizing, fact-checking, and public advocacy are all ways to turn frustration into tangible results. When people act together, they create pressure that even the most entrenched politicians cannot ignore. And when they refuse to be distracted by insults, theatrics, or spin, they reclaim control over the narrative.
This is not about taking the easy path or expecting instant change. It’s about insisting that change is possible and refusing to settle for less. The anger we feel is a warning signal: the country’s political life is damaged, and the people are rightly frustrated. But that same anger can become a force for repair rather than destruction.
Leaders have sown this climate of division and deception. But citizens still hold the remedy. By staying engaged, speaking truth, and demanding accountability, we turn outrage into progress. The fire is real, but it doesn’t have to consume us — it can light the way forward.
Share this:
The Hidden Cost of Calling Out the National Guard
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
Okay, call out the National Guard, we can hear the echoing across our living rooms, in our cars and during breaks at work. But what does that cost and more importantly what does it do to the weekend warriors that aren’t trained for civil disorder or prepared financially to be forced to leave their paying employment so Trump can beat his chest and scream he saved us all, Yes, saved us from another overblown or made up crisis.
1. Cost to Guardsmen
A. Personal Income & Career Impact
-
Many Guardsmen are part-time reservists and also work civilian jobs.
-
When called to active duty, they may lose pay from their civilian employers if it isn’t fully covered. The federal law USERRA protects jobs, but gaps in pay and benefits can still occur.
-
For longer deployments, career projects, side hustles, or family responsibilities can suffer.
B. Stress & Mental Health
-
Sudden activation to a politically charged situation (like a presidential order) can cause stress and moral dilemmas, especially if the orders conflict with their personal beliefs.
-
Deployments can disrupt family life and schooling for their children.
C. Physical Risk
-
Guardsmen are trained, but they are often not equipped or trained for full-scale combat or civil unrest policing at the same level as active-duty soldiers.
-
Exposure to rioting, tear gas, or physical confrontations carries real risk.
2. Cost to Taxpayers / Public
A. Direct Financial Cost
-
Pay & benefits for Guardsmen during activation come from federal or state budgets. This includes base pay, hazard pay, travel, and per diem.
-
Activation costs include transportation, housing, equipment, fuel, and logistical support — often millions for large-scale operations.
B. Opportunity Cost
-
When Guardsmen are deployed, they are unavailable for their usual missions: disaster relief, local emergencies, and community support.
-
Local services may be understaffed, slowing responses to fires, floods, or other emergencies.
C. Political / Social Cost
-
Deploying troops for political purposes can undermine public trust in the Guard’s neutrality.
-
Using part-time citizen-soldiers in domestic political maneuvers can affect morale and recruitment long-term.
Example: Washington, D.C. (Jan 6, 2021 & other activations)
-
Guard troops were activated with little notice, often sleeping in parking garages or unheated gyms, sometimes for weeks.
-
Costs ran into tens of millions of dollars for housing, meals, and pay.
-
Many Guardsmen reported stress, PTSD symptoms, and resentment over being caught in politically charged deployments.
Bottom line: When Trump or any politician calls out the National Guard, the burden isn’t abstract — it hits individual soldiers, their families, local communities, and taxpayers. The part-time nature of the Guard amplifies these costs because they are not career combat troops; they are civilians asked to drop everything for politically motivated missions.
So, for concise recap:
The Hidden Cost of Calling Out the National Guard
Who They Are:
-
Part-time citizen-soldiers with civilian jobs, families, and responsibilities.
-
Not full-time combat troops — often under-equipped for large-scale civil unrest.
Cost to Guardsmen:
-
Income & Career: Potential loss of civilian pay or disruption of work.
-
Family & Life: Missed time with children, disrupted routines, and personal stress.
-
Physical & Mental Risk: Exposure to unrest, injury, and long-term stress/PTSD.
Cost to Taxpayers:
-
Financial: Base pay, hazard pay, per diem, housing, transport — millions per activation.
-
Opportunity: Guards unavailable for fires, floods, and disaster response.
-
Political / Social: Morale and recruitment take a hit; public trust erodes.
Example: Washington, D.C. (Jan 6, 2021)
-
Guardsmen slept in gyms and parking garages, deployed under stressful conditions for weeks.
-
Deployment cost tens of millions; personal and community disruption was immense.
Bottom Line:
Calling out the National Guard isn’t abstract theater. It’s a real burden on people, families, communities, and taxpayers, amplified when used for politically motivated missions rather than true emergencies.
During the January 2021 inauguration of President Joe Biden, thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, D.C., to provide security following the January 6 Capitol breach. Initially, many Guardsmen were housed within the Capitol complex itself, including the Capitol Visitor Center and other areas, where they rested between shifts. However, shortly after the inauguration, these troops were ordered to vacate the Capitol and were relocated to a nearby parking garage. Reports indicated that the garage lacked adequate facilities, with only one electrical outlet and two bathrooms for thousands of soldiers, leading to widespread criticism.
After bipartisan outrage from lawmakers, the Guardsmen were allowed to return to the Capitol complex and were provided with better accommodations. Some were also allowed to rest in nearby hotels. These events highlighted concerns about the treatment and conditions faced by National Guard members during domestic deployments.
In ending, Guardsmen are not full time soldiers, they are not trained for insurrection and most importantly, they are forced to make their friends and neighbors the enemy.
But if it makes potus feel the mostus, go for it.
Putz, oops, did I say that?
Share this:
Trumps Line in The Sand
/
RSS Feed
So there you have it, short, sour and simple. You do know we have enabled comments. If you want to spew hate, stay away. And that doesn’t matter which side you hate. If you want to discuss solutions, then welcome.
Share this:
When Crime Is a Convenient Excuse: Trump’s Selective Martial Law Target List
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
When Crime Is a Convenient Excuse: Trump’s Selective Martial Law Target List
Donald Trump’s recent threats to impose martial law have sent chills through the nation. But behind the bluster and fear-mongering lies a disturbingly clear political agenda: targeting cities that dare to resist his authority while ignoring those that align with it — no matter their crime rates.
Take a look at the cities Trump has publicly set his sights on: Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle. These are places branded as “woke,” fiercely protective of immigrant rights, and openly hostile to the kind of mass deportations and ICE raids Trump champions. For him, these cities aren’t just trouble spots — they are the heart of an “Evil Empire” that must be brought to heel.
The justification? Sky-high crime rates. Trump and his allies wield “crime” like a weapon, confident that most Americans won’t bother checking the facts. But here’s the inconvenient truth: violent crime in these cities has often been declining in recent years. While not crime-free by any means, these urban centers aren’t the out-of-control war zones Trump portrays.
Meanwhile, some of the most dangerous cities in America fly under the radar. St. Louis, Missouri, with violent crime rates far exceeding those in Seattle or Portland, remains off Trump’s radar. Little Rock, Arkansas, another high-crime city nestled in a deeply Republican state, doesn’t warrant a mention in Trump’s crackdown plans. Why? Because these cities don’t challenge his authority. They don’t defy his immigration policies. They are loyal to the political order he demands.
If crime were truly the issue, the list of cities facing martial law would look very different. But it doesn’t. Instead, the threat of military intervention is wielded as a blunt instrument of political control — reserved for cities that resist, ignored where loyalty prevails.
This is not about safety or justice. It’s about power.
The real danger lies not in the streets of America’s “woke” cities but in the unchecked ambitions of a man eager to silence dissent under the guise of law and order.
So next time you hear “crime” used as a reason to militarize a city, remember: crime only matters when it votes blue.
Share this:
Martial Law, if you Allow It. Kiss Freedom Goodbye
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
He is doing it again, he tried it in Los Angeles and was pushed back. He was swamped with No King protests and changed the subject, deflection 101. He let it cool down. You have to remember that Trump relies on the proven two week rule. That we have an attention span that’s less than two weeks, and we are stupid.
Trump has repeatedly declared he is the smartest man in the room and in his words. “They don’t know what the fuck they are doing” and you thought he was talking about the Middle East.
It’s time to get those no king signs out of the garage or trash because it has just begun again and he isn’t going to stop trying.
Let me ask you one question, “What idiot would spend two hundred million dollars to add a Ball Room nobody else wants if he wasn’t planning on using it for a long, long, time?”
What is to be talked about in a moment should have just a little preface.
-
What the Data Tells Us About Washington DC
Crime Is Actually Falling
Violent crime in D.C. is down significantly:
26% drop in 2025 compared to last year
12% decline in homicides, 29% drop in robberies
The city hit a 30-year low in violent crime in 2024 (The Biden Administration)
What’s Trump Saying and Proposing
Federal Takeover Talk …
Trump has publicly threatened to federalize D.C.—essentially overriding the Home Rule Act if city authorities don’t get crime under control. He’s exploring whether Congress could revoke local autonomy
National Guard & Police Control …
He has floated deploying the National Guard, potentially taking control of D.C.’s police force, and even sending homeless individuals out of the city. Flyers on Truth Social warn of making the city “safe” by replacing local with federal order
Crime Surge Claims …
Trump framed the city as being “out of control,” referencing a high-profile attempted carjacking of Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, to justify his hardline approach.
Now to repeat the preface.
What the Data Tells Us
Crime Is Actually Falling
Violent crime in D.C. is down significantly:
26% drop in 2025 compared to last year
12% decline in homicides, 29% drop in robberies
The city hit a 30-year low in violent crime in 2024
Local Officials Push Back
Mayor Muriel Bowser rejects the narrative of rising crime. She’s implemented youth curfews, and critics warn that Trump’s approach risks eroding democratic governance, not improving safety.
What’s Actually Happening On the Ground
Federal Law Enforcement Surge
The White House has ordered a weeklong deployment of federal officers from over a dozen agencies—including the FBI, ATF, DEA, and Capitol Police—in “high-traffic tourist areas” of the city
Minimal Visible Impact So Far
Early observations found little overt difference from usual policing levels. However, one report indicates 450 federal officers were active on a recent Saturday night, though city police say the situation remains stable.
Bottom Line
While Trump is ramping up rhetoric around an alleged crime wave in D.C., the actual numbers tell a different story: crime rates are falling, not rising. His push for federal control—via the National Guard, eviction of homeless camps, and taking over local policing—appears to be a power play rather than an urgent safety measure. Whether Congress or courts would allow such actions remains highly uncertain.
So back to Martial Law, Washington DC is not a State and it has considerably less control over actions that can be taken by Trump, But what Washington D.C. does have, is us. The people of the United States of America. Don’t just sit there and say that this is their problem because it is a problem for all of us.
We stopped him in Los Angeles, we need to stop him in Washington D.C. Oh, hell, we just need to stop him.
Share this:
Martial Law, The Beginning of the End
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
Historically, authoritarians rarely start with sweeping power grabs. They start with one example that “makes sense to the public” and then expand it until it becomes the new normal.
Here’s the blunt truth:
If Trump uses crime in Washington, D.C. as his pretext for asserting direct federal control, the concern is that it could be less about solving the crime problem and more about creating a legal and political foothold to normalize bypassing local authority.
D.C. is unique — it’s not a state, so Congress already has extraordinary oversight powers. That makes it a tempting testing ground for executive overreach. If a president successfully assumes direct operational control of its government or police under the banner of “restoring order,” it could set a precedent for similar moves elsewhere, especially in Democrat-led cities.
The risk here isn’t just what happens to D.C. — it’s the potential for a proof of concept for federalized policing or even quasi-martial law in targeted regions. If crime statistics are manipulated or selectively publicized, he could manufacture justification for interventions in other cities by declaring them “failed” or “in insurrection.”
That’s why civil liberties lawyers, local leaders, and constitutional scholars are already warning that the real fight isn’t over crime numbers — it’s over whether we accept the normalization of federal takeovers of local governance. Once that door is cracked open, closing it again could be nearly impossible without a major court battle or political shift.
If Trump used crime in D.C. as the opening wedge for federal intervention, the big question is whether it would be a contained, temporary measure or the start of a broader power grab. Based on his past rhetoric, his leadership style, and the constitutional tools available to him, here’s how it could unfold:
Step-by-Step Risk Progression
| Step | What Could Happen | Why It Matters | Risks of Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Targeted D.C. Takeover | Federalizes D.C. police, replaces local leadership, suspends city control “to restore law and order.” | Sets precedent for bypassing local government. | Establishes legal and political justification for further interventions. |
| 2. Expansion to Other Cities | Uses similar “emergency” declarations in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc., citing rising crime. | Selective targeting of cities could be politically motivated. | Blurs the line between legitimate crime control and partisan enforcement. |
| 3. Creation of a Federal Security Force | Deploys DHS, DOJ task forces, or even military units in urban areas. | Federal policing on a broad scale is rare and controversial. | Public acceptance could normalize permanent federal presence. |
| 4. Invocation of the Insurrection Act | Claims civil unrest or political violence requires military deployment inside U.S. borders. | Law allows bypassing governors and legislatures. | Opens door to nationwide martial-law-like conditions without declaring martial law. |
| 5. Soft Martial Law | Controls protests, media access, curfews, and assembly rights “for public safety.” | Framed as temporary, but lacks clear end date. | Can become permanent under “continuing emergency” logic. |
| 6. Consolidation of Power | Redefines “domestic threats” to include political opposition or journalists. | Destroys checks and balances at the practical level. | Moves from crime control to authoritarian rule. |
Why This Isn’t Far-Fetched
-
Past behavior: Trump has already floated ideas of “sending in the military” during protests, and praised leaders who used harsh crackdowns.
-
Legal mechanisms exist: The Insurrection Act and certain emergency powers are broad enough to be abused if courts don’t act quickly.
-
Psychological strategy: Framing the moves as “temporary safety measures” makes them easier for the public to accept.
-
Weak local defenses: D.C. is not a state, so it has fewer legal protections against federal takeover.
Share this:
Robert F. Kennedy Independent Thinker, I Think Not – Part 3
/
RSS Feed
The Dangerous Allure of “Independent Thinking” — When Anti-Establishment Becomes Anti-Truth
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has built his entire campaign on one central appeal: “I don’t trust them, and you shouldn’t either.” Them, of course, being the government, the media, public health officials, scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and in some cases even common sense. It’s a seductive narrative. It gives people permission to throw away anything that makes them uncomfortable — and label it a lie.
Kennedy isn’t just tapping into populist skepticism. He’s exploiting it.
And that exploitation is dangerous.
He’s framed himself as the truth-teller in a sea of deception. But the truths he’s telling aren’t based in fact. They’re based in fear. And fear spreads faster than reason.
The Myth of the Medical Maverick
RFK Jr. has no medical degree. No epidemiological background. No formal training in public health.
What he does have is a recognizable name, a passionate speaking style, and decades of practice weaving compelling-sounding arguments from cherry-picked data and fringe science. And when that doesn’t suffice, he leans on conspiracy.
Let’s be clear: questioning authority is healthy in a democracy. But rejecting every expert opinion as “part of the machine” while offering no credible alternative is not courageous — it’s reckless.
Anti-Vax, Rebranded
RFK Jr. claims he’s “not anti-vaccine.” He says he’s just asking questions.
But those questions often come laced with misinformation:
That vaccines are causing autism (a claim long debunked).
That the COVID vaccine is more dangerous than the virus itself (false).
That government and pharma are in secret cahoots to suppress natural immunity (no evidence).
This isn’t healthy skepticism. This is repackaged paranoia.
And worse, he’s giving it a respectable face — one the public instinctively associates with credibility because of his family name.
When Influence Outpaces Integrity
With social media reach, podcast appearances, and alternative media platforms, Kennedy’s views are no longer fringe. They’re front and center. And when people make healthcare decisions based on his claims, real people suffer.
Parents skip vaccinations, endangering herd immunity.
Vulnerable communities turn to unproven treatments.
Trust in public health institutions erodes further — even when they’re telling the truth.
Freedom of speech is sacred. But freedom to deceive should not be without scrutiny.
A Country Starved for Trust
What makes Kennedy so appealing to many voters isn’t his policies, which are vague or self-contradictory. It’s his posture. He positions himself as the last honest man in a dishonest world.
And for people who feel lied to by politicians, doctors, or the media — that’s intoxicating.
But it’s a mirage.
He’s not offering independence. He’s selling suspicion.
He’s not empowering people. He’s leaving them lost — unsure who to believe, who to trust, or whether truth even exists anymore.
And in a democracy, that’s a dangerous place to be.
Share this:
Veterans’ Healthcare: The Promise, the Politics, and the Price
On
- Commentary, The Fallout
/
RSS Feed
Clickbait-Style Headline Options:
-
“They Fought for Us. Now They’re Fighting the VA.”
-
“Veterans to the VA: We’ll Take Our Chances With the Private Sector!”
-
“Rural Vets Are Ditching the VA—And Congress Just Made It Easier”
-
“Trump Says He Supports Vets—But This Healthcare Move Tells Another Story”
-
“The VA Is Broken—And Lawmakers Just Admitted It”
No body cares unless you scream the sky is falling. Click bait is what gets the views, “Epstein points the finger from the grave”, or “Trump give rude gesture after Courts find him lying, again”. It gets frustrating, after all going viral is the thing today. But after looking over these titles.
We decided to stick to our tried and true format, the facts, just the facts (credited to sergeant Joe Friday) for those old enough to have voted for the past 60 years.
In his second term, Donald Trump has made bold claims about transforming veterans’ healthcare. But behind the headlines and hashtags, the reality for many veterans—especially those in rural or underserved areas—remains murky. The question is not whether veterans deserve better; it’s whether they’re actually getting it.
The Promise:
Trump has pushed forward a second-phase expansion of the VA MISSION Act, originally signed in 2018. It now places even more emphasis on privatized, community-based care—with the argument that choice and speed matter more than bureaucracy. Veterans who live more than a 30-minute drive from a VA facility or face long wait times are now more easily referred to private doctors.
In theory, this sounds like freedom of choice. But choice is only meaningful if there’s quality behind it.
The Problem:
Many rural areas simply don’t have adequate medical providers to meet the new demand. Some veterans now wait longer for community appointments than they did under the VA system. Worse, these providers aren’t always trained in the unique mental and physical health needs of veterans—PTSD, combat injuries, military sexual trauma—leading to subpar or even harmful treatment.
And there’s another wrinkle: privatized care often costs more. While Trump touts efficiency and market-based solutions, critics argue that siphoning money from the VA weakens its capacity over time. What’s being called “choice” might in fact be a slow-motion dismantling of the system that was built for veterans in the first place.
The Politics:
Let’s be honest: veterans are a reliable Republican voting bloc, and Trump knows it. His messaging isn’t subtle—he claims to be “the best president veterans have ever had.” But when political loyalty becomes the goal, instead of actual outcomes, veterans become pawns rather than patriots.
Meanwhile, attempts to reform or expand mental health services have been delayed or diluted, often buried in partisan fights over budget ceilings and “woke” policies. Some of Trump’s allies in Congress have actively blocked bipartisan bills that would have improved suicide prevention programs and housing support for homeless vets—because they didn’t align with the broader MAGA narrative.
The Reality:
Veterans aren’t looking for fanfare. They want competence, consistency, and care. They want promises that are kept—not headlines that disappear the next news cycle.
If this administration truly believes veterans are the backbone of America, it’s time to stop using them as a backdrop for political theater and start treating their healthcare like the sacred duty it is.
Share this:
RFK Jr. and the Weaponization of Doubt – Part 2
/
RSS Feed
Violence, who’s who.
Evidence from Studies and PollsMultiple peer-reviewed studies and polls quantify rhetoric’s role. Here’s a summary table of key data:
Comparative Analysis: Rhetoric by PartyWhile both sides use aggressive language, the scale and impact differ:
Conclusion: Which Party’s Rhetoric Promotes Violence Most?Based on empirical data, Republican rhetoric promotes violence the most in the current U.S. context. It is more pervasive among elites, amplified by aligned media, and correlated with higher rates of lethal attacks (e.g., mass shootings, insurrections). This isn’t to absolve Democrats—fringe left rhetoric contributes to unrest—but the asymmetry is clear: Right-wing language has spilled into more widespread, deadly actions, per sources like the Journal of Democracy and Greater Good Science Center.To mitigate: Cross-party pacts against dehumanizing speech (as Carnegie recommends) and media accountability could help. Rhetoric alone doesn’t “cause” violence, but it primes unstable actors—reducing it starts with leaders modeling restraint.
Share this:
Like this: