oh12 🌻🧢🍎🦉

💕Loves Jesus, family, & America. Not left. Not right. Forward. Joined twitter to support Andrew Yang. Watch #CobraKai 🥋

[oh12 🌻🧢🍎🦉 @012oh12]

#endtheduopoly

[Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 @AdamKinzinger]

Why is fake agency DOGE attacking Politico Pro and others for selling legit services (purchased by many Republicans) and not attacking @SpaceX or @Tesla payments and subsidies? We all know why

[Zach W. Lambert @ZachWLambert]

One of our church members has been working in humanitarian relief for decades and is an employee at USAID. As of Monday morning, her access to all USAID systems was cut and her position was discontinued. She’s heartbroken and angry—not because she lost her job, but because untold numbers of marginalized people will suffer.

She told me: “The people we’ve helped for decades are now cut off from our help. No food, no vaccines, no protection programs, no more restoring water systems, etc… it’s beyond tragic, and to have this done by an administration that is supported by evangelical Christians is heartbreaking.” (this is all shared with her courageous encouragement, even though she knows DOGE could retaliate)

Watching people use the name of Christ to justify taking support for basic needs away from the most vulnerable people in our world is abhorrent. It’s blasphemous. It’s evil.

Father James Martin put it best when he wrote, “In its simplest terms, the apparent demise of USAID s the result of the world's richest man ending a program that helps millions of poor people. You don't need a Ph.D. in moral theology to see why this is an evil. You can just read Jesus's parables on the rich and the poor.”

If you are a follower of Jesus, the time is now to stand up and speak out against this evil.

[Rev. Benjamin Cremer @Brcremer]

If our politics as Christians cause us to be more suspicious about how a poor single parent spends their welfare check than we are about how billionaires use their wealth to gain unprecedented access to our nation’s halls of power, we need a grand reversal.

[Jo @JoJoFromJerz]

Hold the fuck on — the Department of Government Efficiency, the entity which claims its mission is to end “wasteful spending”, was given SEVEN MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS to cover its “expenses” in the span of a single week?!?!

Are you fucking kidding me?!?

[Karen Piper @PiperK]

Shutting down the FBI means you better watch your daughters closely because no one will be around to catch sex traffickers.

Shutting down the CIA means terrorists will be on the loose everywhere.

Is this what you voted for?

[Heath Mayo @HeathMayo]

So according to MAGA, we can’t afford to give Ukraine tactical weapons to fight Putin’s invasion—but we can afford to fully take over the Gaza Strip? Makes no sense.

[oh12 🌻🧢🍎🦉 @012oh12]

@EWErickson Sure - but what about constitutional process?

[Turnbull @cturnbull1968]

Democratic leaders are not prepared for this moment. They’re writing letters while Republicans are taking hostages.

You don’t combat propaganda with logic, you overwhelm it.

Here are some examples:

1. Our sources are telling us that up to 500K Americans may not receive their SS checks because their data was tampered with.

2. You don’t refer to Elon’s team as young kids, you call them hackers.

3. We have reports that the social security numbers and personal data of over 10M Americans was sold on the dark web just last week by some hackers at USAID.

4. A whistleblower is telling us that Trump has redirected over $25B in payments from Treasury to his businesses.

5. We have reports that Trump is shuttering the VA to pay for his Sovereign Wealth Fund.

Wake up and start playing the game by the same rules as the opposition. Also, put the geriatric members of the party in the back and your young members in the front, for fucks sale.

[Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom]

That @elonmusk hasn’t been hauled before Congress & forced to answer questions under oath is all the evidence u need to know that we’re in a Constitutional crisis. The legislative branch has officially abandoned its duty to defend the Constitution. Hence, a Constitutional crisis.

[Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom]

The history of this era will be of a tyrant who turned an American political party into an authoritarian-embracing cult. And of virtually EVERY member of that party who knew better, but meekly fell in line. And the very few of us Republicans in exile who didn’t fall in line will be an afterthought.

[Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 @AdamKinzinger]

Dear Democratic Leaders: here’s a free idea, send members of congress into the buildings where Elons people are and see what they’re doing. Dare them to stop you.

Do something

[Tristan Snell @TristanSnell]

The last time America increased tariffs like this, it was 1930 — and it triggered the Great Depression.

[Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski]

Our friends and allies are furious, our enemies are thrilled, prices are going up, 401Ks are going down, jobs will be lost, but as long as the libs are upset the MAGA cult is happy.

[oh12 🌻🧢🍎🦉 @012oh12]

@anthonycabassa I hope this means good.
but unfortunately, I think it’s bc they were told to stand down. If they engage, it’ll make mainstream news - inspiring more citizens & making more people realize what actually is going on.. bc most people aren’t paying attention

[Niels Groeneveld @nigroeneveld]

Weaponizing Pain: How Economic Strain Could Justify Military Deployment Under the Insurrection Act

In a striking acknowledgment of the consequences of his proposed economic policies, former President Donald Trump recently stated on his Truth Social platform that there could be “some pain” as the U.S. implements new tariffs against Canada, China, and Mexico. While framed as a necessary step to counter what he described as a “decades-long RIPOFF OF AMERICA,” the acknowledgment of economic hardship as a side effect raises an unsettling question: Could economic pain be used as a strategic tool to foment civil unrest, justify emergency measures, and enable military deployment under the Insurrection Act?

This question takes on greater significance within the broader framework of Project 2025, a comprehensive plan designed by conservative policymakers to expand executive authority. A key component of this initiative is the aggressive use of federal power—including military force—to counter domestic opposition, secure borders, and impose order. By tracing the intersection of economic turmoil, political instability, and emergency governance, it becomes clear that tariffs, protests, and military deployment may not be separate issues, but rather interdependent elements of a larger strategy to consolidate power.

Economic Pain as a Precursor to Domestic Unrest

Historically, economic crises have been fertile ground for political upheaval. Sudden spikes in unemployment, inflation, and consumer goods prices have sparked protests, labor strikes, and civil disobedience. The tariffs proposed by Trump—25% on imports from Canada and Mexico, and 10% on Chinese goods—are likely to increase costs for American consumers and businesses, exacerbating existing economic pressures. Key industries such as agriculture, energy, and manufacturing, which rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico, could face significant disruptions.

As economic hardship deepens, frustration and anger are likely to manifest in public demonstrations, worker strikes, and clashes between interest groups. These conditions create a political environment where the government may claim justification for extraordinary measures. If mass protests arise over increased costs of living, supply chain disruptions, or job losses, it could provide the perfect pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807—a legal mechanism allowing the President to deploy active-duty military forces within U.S. borders to suppress disorder.

The Insurrection Act as a Tool for Political Control

The Insurrection Act has historically been used sparingly, primarily in cases where state and local governments were unable to maintain public order. Notable examples include President Dwight Eisenhower’s deployment of federal troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and President George H.W. Bush’s use of military forces during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. However, the potential use of this act in response to economic unrest rather than explicit acts of rebellion would mark a dramatic expansion of its application.

Under Project 2025’s vision, the Insurrection Act could be used not only to control riots or violent protests but also to assert federal authority over states that resist executive mandates. If certain states refuse to comply with federal immigration enforcement, border security measures, or economic policies, military deployment under the Insurrection Act could be framed as a necessary action to uphold national security.

A Manufactured Crisis to Justify Military Intervention?

The idea that economic distress could be used deliberately as a pretext for military intervention is not far-fetched. Governments throughout history have recognized that social instability grants an opportunity to centralize power. If economic turmoil creates a situation where large segments of the population take to the streets in protest—whether due to job losses, rising costs, or food shortages—it could be leveraged as a justification for the suppression of dissent under the guise of restoring order.

This raises key concerns about the future trajectory of governance in the United States.

1. Who determines what qualifies as an insurrection? If peaceful protests against economic conditions are labeled as “threats to national security,” what prevents the government from using force against political opponents?

2. What legal precedents could be set? Once the Insurrection Act is invoked for economic or politically driven reasons, future administrations could follow suit, effectively normalizing the use of military intervention in domestic affairs.

3. Could federalization of law enforcement be expanded? If military forces are deployed under the Insurrection Act, there is a possibility that localized police forces could be stripped of authority, creating a precedent for permanent federal oversight of civilian law enforcement.

Historical Parallels: From the Great Depression to Martial Law

The relationship between economic crises and authoritarian responses is well-documented.

During the Great Depression, widespread financial collapse led to violent labor strikes and civil unrest. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was pressured to use federal troops in response to protests, but he resisted, opting instead for economic recovery programs rather than militarized crackdowns.

In 1970s Chile, economic collapse paved the way for General Augusto Pinochet’s military coup, in which dissenters were labeled as security threats and suppressed through mass detentions and executions.

Russia’s post-Soviet economic crisis in the 1990s led to the rise of Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule, where economic distress was used to justify state control over key industries and media.

While the United States has historically avoided prolonged periods of martial law, the increasing willingness to normalize military intervention in domestic affairs represents a dangerous shift.

Pain as Policy: A Feature, Not a Bug

The rhetoric surrounding the tariffs suggests that economic pain is not an unintended consequence but a calculated risk that the administration is willing to take. Trump’s statement that Americans must endure “some pain” suggests an acceptance—if not an outright endorsement—of hardship as part of the broader strategy. In this context, the economic strain resulting from tariffs could be seen as a political weapon rather than a side effect.

By creating conditions where unrest becomes more likely, the administration may seek to invoke emergency powers, bypass traditional checks and balances, and justify expanded executive authority. The Insurrection Act, once reserved for dire national emergencies, could become a tool for political control, reshaping the landscape of governance in ways that fundamentally alter the balance of power between the federal government and the American people.

What Comes Next?

If Project 2025 and its emphasis on executive authority continue to shape policy, Americans should prepare for an era where economic hardship, civil unrest, and military intervention are deeply intertwined. While history warns against the dangers of militarized governance, the coming years may test the resilience of democratic institutions in ways that were once considered unthinkable.

The pain Trump describes may not simply be an economic burden—it could be the key to unlocking an entirely new form of governance where military force becomes a standard instrument of domestic policy. Whether or not this vision becomes reality depends on whether institutions, lawmakers, and the public recognize the strategy at play and resist its most dangerous implications.

[𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰 @politicsusa46]

If you’re a veteran take a listen to this. The reason I’m posting it is because it’s genuine, it comes from the heart and deserves to be heard.

He doesn’t understand some of the nuance of politics and the limited ability Democrats have to hold Trump account, but it represents an unfiltered moment that I do feel reflects the feelings of many.

[Jessica Valenti @JessicaValenti]

The Trump administration is scrubbing the CDC’s website of documents on reproductive rights issues, sexual health, intimate partner violence, and more.

I'm trying to save them.

You can find the deleted docs at https://t.co/8XlteewbRp - I'll be adding more over the weekend.

[Angry Staffer @Angry_Staffer]

Exactly.

Everyone realizes they’re trying to shift the Overton Window, right?

They’re conditioning you to be accepting of the insane shit they’re doing now so you’ll accept the more insane shit they do later.

[Noah’s Ark @noaharkmoney]

@RpsAgainstTrump What happen to all the MAGA freaks saying no more wars, not our problem, America first

[Angry Staffer @Angry_Staffer]

Pay attention to all of the voices on the right insulting NATO.

This is a trial balloon for Trump pulling out.