165 Comments
User's avatar
SimulationCommander's avatar

I think Trump should pull EVERYBODY out so the world can see exactly how quickly DC becomes a shithole again. Cleaning up crime is possible and not even that difficult -- he just has to show the world that shithole cities like Portland are a CHOICE. Portland looks like Portland does because the leaders of Portland want Portland to look that way.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

That's why my little redneck town in Texas is so orderly. We would never tolerate disorder. If somebody around here assaulted a woman or a child and was released without consequence, his next crime would be his last

Expand full comment
MDM 2.0's avatar

boy howdy, there is sumpin to be said about open carry....probably promotes a certain level of respect for others.

Expand full comment
MajorSensible's avatar

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert A. Heinlein

Expand full comment
MDM 2.0's avatar

Heinlein is one of my favourite authors

who knew he was a far right wing idealogue? (by MSM standards)

Expand full comment
PhilH's avatar

Not exactly. He was just… Heinlein. In Stranger in a Strange Land, there’s some pretty open sexuality. I love the guy, I’ve devoured everything he’s ever written.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

A legally armed society is a polite society.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

Nobody out here openly carries. But everybody has one in the truck

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I'm glad your town is safe, but it must be the only small town in Texas where no one open carries.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

Not sure what you base that on. Not only do I live in a small town, I go through several others regularly on my way anywhere. About the only open carry I see are cops.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I lived in Texas for over 20 years, and business took me to a lot of towns. It's not like Tombstone, but plenty of people with one on the hip. The cooler guys have one of the strap-on-your-thigh holsters.

And you're right, there's one in the truck, and often if you can't see it on someone, it's in a shoulder holster.

Expand full comment
MDM 2.0's avatar

if I head to breakfast at Skillets, prolly 50% of the folks in there are open carry... quite a few LEOs, but not all of them.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

When I used to live in WV, at the breakfast place at least a third of everyone was wearing a carry vest. Constitutional carry there. Any misbehaving would go down in a hail of gunfire. Breakfast was always secure and peaceful. I never bothered carrying. Might as well let people who like that kind of thing shoulder the load.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Well, I’ll bet that breakfast place was always secure and peaceful, long before some men decided they had something to prove by carrying. Not sure what. They look ridiculous.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

You don't always even have to shoot. As Gus McCrea noted in Lonesome Dove after a pistol whipping. “Anyway, whacking a surly bartender ain't much of a crime.”

Expand full comment
Michael Karg's avatar

"...released without consequence...," I would hope it would be found out his last crime was his last.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

That!!!

Expand full comment
Mtu_wa_kweli's avatar

The "wild west" was a polite and orderly society

it didn't pay to insullt a man, woman or child

when that act might get a person shot

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Been catching up on Bonanza and Bounty Law lately?

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

Indeed, though maybe more a case of Hanlon's Razor, of stupidity or slow learners. Apropos of which and ICYMI, a quote from The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker:

"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order."

https://iainuki.livejournal.com/77686.html

Expand full comment
Taras's avatar

This may depend on the local culture.

Years ago, I read of a Florida city where the police went on strike.

Armed citizens took control — and it appears that the terrified criminals decided to stay home.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

This is also kind of a red herring, because Washington DC has its own police force that is ostensibly on the job, they're just not doing it based on orders from political superiors.

Expand full comment
Frank @txtradcatholic's avatar

The head of the DC PD union also said the City Council has stripped them of so much funding that they are severely understaffed, and morale has been awful because the local prosecutors and judges keep releasing the people they do arrest.

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

That appears to be the problem everywhere. The police can arrest the worst people, but if the DAs and Judges keep letting them out, we have a problem. We must stop the madness and stop the judges.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

Thanks for subscribing. 🙂

But your "armed citizens" reminds me of a fairly famous western movie, "The Oxbow Incident". And of a scene from "Gone With the Wind" where, I think, Melanie's husband, Ashley, had been part of a possee of vigilantes who had raided some homeless encampment of various robbers and thugs -- and had been shot-up for his troubles.

Rather imperfect solutions at best, but understandable when local governance falls down on the job, or refuses to take responsibilty.

Expand full comment
Joy Shivas's avatar

I remember that night. I was living in Montreal at the time and, ever since, I tell folks that there is a very fine line between civility and utter chaos. Those committing crimes were not all street criminals and thugs. There were many ‘good’ citizens who were caught stealing and cleaning out businesses like the well renown Eatons department store. The morning after the strike newspapers had photos of the ‘good’ folks loaded down with fur coats and anything else of value. There wasn’t a pane of glass left unbroken in the downtown business area. During those 24 hours I watched civil society collapse as we sheltered in our homes. Lawlessness became a time of opportunity for many.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

"They" say that the veneer of civilization is rather thin -- and getting even thinner in some places ...

But "NZ psychotherapist" -- eh? 😉🙂 Somewhat apropos of which, a note from our sponsor, my oldish post on:

"Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology; Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight":

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted

Includes those of both New Zealand and Canada. Link to my submission to Canada's below -- whoever was responsible there at Statistics Canada should fired, demoted, or be obliged to take remedial courses in basic biology:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kRIpfkx0sq8y0nC7HBK6GyMiI_SUv_zv/view?pli=1

(That link copy should work though it might be necessary to use the one actually in the Substack post.)

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

Wow. Never heard that story.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

"wow", indeed. 🙂

But there on page 331 of the Penguin paperback edition, though not sure of the year of printing. Filed in the index under Bakunin.

Though The Guardian story quotes someone else who has a somewhat different perspective on the events:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/28/steven-pinker-celebrity-scientist-at-the-centre-of-the-culture-wars

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

That's a really long article about a Harvard psychologist. What is the connection to what happened in Quebec?

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

?? As indicated in a previous comment, the connection is with the consequences of doing away with the police:

https://www.racket.news/p/activism-uncensored-resistance-in/comment/154105847

That bit about the Montreal police strike is some 60% down in that Guardian article, but this is the start of it:

"From a Pinkerian perspective, the story of his own family is the story of modernity’s rising trend lines. He was born in Montreal in 1954 in a community of Jewish refugees. His maternal grandmother lived through the Kishinev pogrom in what is now Moldova, in 1903; his paternal grandmother’s entire family was annihilated in the Holocaust. In Montreal, Pinker’s father lived in what Pinker described as 'the most oppressive immigrant poverty'."

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

I never heard of this before. This story, of course, is made even more interesting b/c, being Canada in 1969, it would seem to lack the racial dynamic that unfortunately underlies most urban disorder in the United States.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

Apparently, and as indicated, it was published in that book of Pinker's. Have it on my bookshelf, in fact; may provide a page number later. 🙂

But the US has some heavy-duty baggage in having been founded, to a substantial degree, on slavery -- something of a "black" mark with far-reaching consequences.

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

Wrong again.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

🙄 Wikipedia: "The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Expand full comment
bestuvall's avatar

the usa was not “founded on slavery”. not at all

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Not technically "founded on," but considering that half the country was an agrarian economy entirely dependent on free labor, it was there from the get-go.

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

Wikipedia: "The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

Reading and quoting Wikipedia is your first mistake.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and SF need help. To some surprise, SF voters appear to have accidentally elected a mayor attempting to reverse the decades of idiocy of prior city mayors and leaders (including Newsom and London Breed). At least someone is trying there. Portland and Seattle have given up.

Karen Bass is still wetting the bed over Trump sweeping up illegals in LA. It's odd as she herself declared homelessness an emergency in 2022 after she got elected.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

They need help but the mayors and the governors don't want to ask Trump, so to save their egos from being harmed, the "leaders" will allow the citizens of their cities to be harmed.

Send the guard to states who will appreciate it. Make sure the difference between red and blue is clear -- and make sure it's obvious who's responsible for that difference.

Expand full comment
Michelle Enmark, DDS's avatar

Completely agree! Not sure why we’re spending so many resources on cities where the help is not wanted. Something to be said for natural consequences of poor leadership. Maybe they need to implode. Maybe they haven’t hit rock bottom yet.

I completely agree with Washington DC, considering it’s the nation’s capitol. Other than that, I’d distribute resources to those who would like help first.

Expand full comment
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

Problem is there are people who voted for different government, but got out voted & can’t escape for any one of a number of reasons.

Expand full comment
LHuff8's avatar

I appreciate that, being from Southern CA. Our vote doesn't matter much here, statewide. We have a 40 year old business and grandchildren, so it's hard to leave. Thankfully we have Sheriff Chad Bianco, who saved us from much of the craziness of the Plandemic.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

I totally empathize with that viewpoint. But it's not Donald Trump keeping the Guard out of Portland.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Our 'karen' bass is whining that she can't keep ICE out of LA. She might need more lip injections to keep that joker grin going.

Expand full comment
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

I understand.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I have mixed feelings about using the military to "clean up" the Democrat shitholes. I'm opposed to forcing the use of the military in states that don't request it. While many of these cities need it, I can't help but feel the citizens of said shitholes voted themselves into this mess, so why should my Federal tax dollars pay to fix their foolishness.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Simple, but great point. Thanks

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Yes. DC is a special case because so much of it is federal responsibility, but the upcoming move to put Guard in red states that request it is a good one. Just keep pumping out example after example of how it's not only possible, it's really easy.

Meanwhile, the Portland Police literally call Antifa members as friendly witnesses while claiming they don't have to enforce their own noise laws. (Police won that one, and Antifa has been emboldened by the admission the police will do nothing to stop them, leaving all action up to the feds.)

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

If Oregon needed an enema, they'd stick the nozzle in Portland.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

And it's kind of ironic because the criminals I'm talking about in Portland are OVERWHELMINGLY white so the "Trump is racist" angle that they're trying to play up in DC and Chicago wouldn't even work.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Thank goodness for some common sense. A President is not authorized to use our military against our citizens, except to quell an insurrection. This is serious. If people don’t know why this should not happen, they weren’t paying attention in history or US government classes. Many of us were not fortunate enough to be exposed to such history, and this is the result. Trump is pushing the limits here, why? Do we want the guard deployed indefinitely? It’s a show, he’s a showman. Think about it. A million dollars a day would go a heck of long way in DC if put into funding police forces and vice operations, and collaborative programs involving police, community and youth that were proving successful there. Especially since the Fed portion of funding for these sorts of programs has been slashed. Recall the success during Clinton era when bipartisan efforts resulted funding for increasing police forces. And Portland? Portland has a serious homeless situation. A million dollars a day? We could rebuild the mental health institutions and whatever else needed to house and care for the mentally ill and addicts. A million dollars a day!

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I hate to point out the obvious, but "A million dollars a day!" is peanuts when you're talking about housing or mental health institutions. $365M a year is very short of what would be needed. I'm no math whiz but even if there were only 50,000 "displaced people" across the nation, that would only be about $7,200 per case. Given the well known efficiency of government, well...LOL. Another fact you throw out is lack of funding for police, and while there is some credence to that, in the worst of Democrat ran cities the police could arrest all the criminals, but the failure of liberal DAs to prosecute coupled with the leniency from liberal judges would nullify any policing results.

Expand full comment
Ann22's avatar

Ah…well. It’s a start. And $365 million is not enough. But neither is using military against our citizens, at the whim of a President. What the heck happened to the mantra of the right….States rights? I think you know this is a game, not a solution. We solved a lot of problems back in the Clinton and Giuliani eras. What is happening now is not American. It’s ugly and it’s backward and it dismisses laws and our rights. Pull me over and demand to see my ID? Law enforcement with no ID, masked? No way.

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

Not sure it has anything to do with egos.

Ever watch Narcos? The gang landers have payrolls as large as a Fortune 500 company.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Also a fair point. We know all about the homeless industrial complex, it would not surprise me in the least to find out there's also a crime industrial complex. (Indeed, there are rumors of just such a thing in Charlotte.)

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

The idea of getting government out of social programs by funding non-profits to do the work instead seemed like a good one at the time. Private entities could be more effective for less, right?

Little did we know we were creating a bigger monster in funding the NGOs. NGOs work at nothing more than increasing their funding and influence. Their clear incentive is to perpetuate problems.

It will be hard to extract ourselves from the mess created by our naive good intentions.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"Little did we know we were creating a bigger monster in funding the NGOs."

Moreover, to whom who exactly are NGO's accountable?

Expand full comment
Ministryofbullshit's avatar

Major hospital group PE profits are funded through Medicaid- crime, mental health, pharma.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I would think it is entirely possible. The Mexican cartels have honed their government corruption skills for decades. It's not much of a leap to consider they would do the same in any new territory.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"I would think it is entirely possible."

I think it is a certainty.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Can you elaborate on the Charlotte situation? I know the mayor is in hot water for encouraging citizens to suppress information and outrage about the stabbing death of that poor Ukrainian girl by a homeless thug.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Supposedly the judge who let the killer out also owned a rehab-type place that criminals would be sent to in lieu of jail. Her profile page is gone now but there are captures floating around out there.

https://nc.bold.pro/my/teresa-astokes

Captures:

https://x.com/MattWGraver/status/1964706903088656629

Expand full comment
LHuff8's avatar
2hEdited

Both money & ego (& power).

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Truth. A key factor in the unprecedented political polarization of our country is the fact that political support for Ds is squeezed into extremely tight demographic/geographic spaces. Ds cannot get tough on crime b/c there are not enough Rs/independents in these areas for an incumbent D to survive a tough on crime pivot-due to loyalty to party hacks and the party machine, nor are there enough non-D voters to make an anti-incumbent voters revolt in D primaries plausible. Big cities are politically sclerotic

in a way reminiscent of the USSR circa 1984.

This situation, in turn, gives Trump and the GOP a never ending juicy ( and undeniably legitimate) target that springs up for more like those sand-bottomed punching bags, while simultaneously threatening to end the political careers of any D hacks who actually buck the system and get real on crime.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

If Trump actually did pull back and let the DC politicians have their way, the criminals would take over faster than the Taliban after we pulled out of Afghanistan.

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

It's been apparent to me since the '70s that civilization exists in our large cities for one reason only: the lights stay on. Seven people died in NYC in 1977 when the lights went out for 25 hours in July. The animals come out at night.

Expand full comment
Bruce Herman's avatar

Excellent observation. The problem with a monopoly is spinning blame elsewhere is difficult.

Chicago's a great example. Many forget that since it's founding in 1848, Chicago has had 12 years of Republican mayor; Bill Thompson held the office from 1915-23 and 1927-31. There were D mayors who were effective in spite of the machine and too many fingers in the pie, but this took superhuman focus on doing right for the populace, something absent in most politicians.

Expand full comment
Jose Pinto's avatar

What has a more negative effect on "patrons": the out-of-control predator that will rob/rape/kill you or a national guardsmen that will nod at you politely? As Joe Briben would say: C'mon Man!!!!

Expand full comment
Art's avatar

Right? “The presence of law enforcement and military on patrol might scare off criminals, but they also scare off law-abiding people. Nightlife-dependent businesses are suffering…”

The first sentence doesn’t make sense. On the contrary, for example, I would ride light rail if they had a cop on each train, otherwise I’ll take a hard pass to avoid ending up like the Ukrainian lady. Public transit stations in my region smell like urinals and lawless anarchy is a slight turnoff. The second sentence only makes sense in that half or fully drunk people might worry about being seen jumping behind the wheel. So businesses that routinely overserve might suffer.

Expand full comment
Larry's avatar

"drunk people might worry about being seen jumping behind the wheel"

That's exactly what it is.

But for obvious reasons, the Bartenders aren't going to tell you that.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Drunk people will just get drunk at home. If someone is getting shitfaced in downtown Cincinnati or Charlotte or Atlanta, they aren’t driving home to the suburbs completely smashed-they are getting an Uber or spending the night at a hotel, Airbnb, whatever. Most/a very high % of people don’t plan nights out in the city with the intent of driving home smashed, crime problem or no crime problem.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

This is a very interesting point. I think you're exactly right. More DUIs and alcohol-related deaths occur in rural than urban areas. People staying home aren't scared, they're "protesting."

Expand full comment
Larry's avatar

You don't have to be drunk to get charged with a DWI/DUI in DC.

.07% or lower means a single beer or a glass of wine.

So a heavier than normal law enforcement presence is definitely going to dissuade nightlife activities.

https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/drunk-driving-prevention

Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)

DWI applies to a person having a statutorily prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher. (The District of Columbia adopted the .08 percent BAC standard for Driving While Intoxicated in April 1999.) The suspect can be convicted in court based solely on the breath, blood or urine results without any structured field sobriety test.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

DUI applies to a person having a blood alcohol concentration of .07 percent or lower. Under DC Code, a driver can be charged with a DUI offense if, in addition to a BAC reading, the officer has other signs of impairment from a structured field sobriety test and from observations of the suspect's driving behavior.

And the penalties are brutal:

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/50-2206.13

--

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Damn! I used to travel to Ireland for business, and the locals had one beer only while out at dinner, and they were pretty religious about it, as their laws are pretty tough as well.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Law-abiding people aren't scared off. Some of them may stay home because they don't like the military presence and are socially protesting by not going out for sushi and beers.

I don't want the military in my town, but I'm not scared when I see cops. Unless I'm going 70 in a 45 zone. I don't buy that people are being scared off. Criminals sure, but not normal citizens.

Expand full comment
PhilH's avatar

Joe Bribem

Expand full comment
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

Well, besides driving impaired , perhaps the after hours patrons are used to partaking in extralegal substances with their legal beverages, no?

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

Oh please, Matt. We're supposed to worry about nightclubs? Because loser liberals are "scared"?

Please fuck off on this one.

Expand full comment
Mossback's avatar

I have to agree. Saying that higher law enforcement presence on the D.C. streets at night is keeping people home due to fear, and is hurting restaurants and night-spots just sounds like a false statement. I would like to see some objective evidence to back that up. Could it be that the folks making these statements have their own political agenda? I would guess this is a more sensible explanation.

Expand full comment
Dustin's avatar

Why is that such a stretch to believe? Seems to me like the message is that its so dangerous in the street that the military needs to get involved and that would send the wrong message to people who want to go and enjoy a night out on the town.

Expand full comment
Mossback's avatar

But the gist of the comment in the article wasn't about some sudden awareness to D.C. dangers at night, but rather, that the very presence of National Guard troops was in and of itself what was keeping people afraid and staying at home. It's the gist of that comment that I find difficult to believe.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Yes, but that would be the fear of crime keeping them home, not fear of Guardsmen.

Expand full comment
KHP's avatar

Why the hostility towards the writer reporting this alleged fact? I didn't see a hint of a suggestion from him that the nightclub owners' and patrons' concerns needed to take precedence here, just a note that those concerns existed.

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

It's not hostility, it's exasperation because in my view these concerns aren't really newsworthy given the overwhelming public safety interest in dealing with out of control crime.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

That wasn't Matt talking. It was Greg Collard, a guy I have been totally unimpressed by

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

Yes, but it shows up in my inbox with Matt's name - and I hold Matt responsible for what shows up in my inbox under his name.

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

So you don't care about reality, you just wanna cry about imaginary stuff you don't like. Sounds like a personal problem, get back on those meds and put the internet down.

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

You are not wrong, and I'm a little disappointed sometimes that Matt's name is on Greg's work. But in the end, this is Matt's show. He can run it how he wants. He even admitted to poor organizational skills on Yesterday's ATW

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

Yep, totally correct on that. We don't run Matt's show and wouldn't want to - overall he does a great job especially on the items he pens himself - but we do pay him. He in turn (I assume) pays idiots like Greg. This is just some direct feedback to the guy we're paying. He can and probably will ignore it and that's fine. Sometimes speaking the truth is the only satisfaction we have available.

Expand full comment
Dustin's avatar

Or you could just disagree and move on rather than throwing a hissy fit because something that you don't agree with showed up in your inbox.

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

It took me about the same amount of time to write my response as it took for you to write this. You could take your own advice.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

yeah, but Dustin's comment had a purpose.

Expand full comment
Dustin's avatar

Your comment is what I see a lot of on here. I pay for this thing therefor the content must align perfectly with my political tastes. I mean, feel free to tell Matt to fuck off some more. I'm sure he'll listen.

Expand full comment
Acastus's avatar

You’re welcome to the last word. Not interested in your opinion.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Does "fuck off" apply to nightclubs in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, etc. also?

Expand full comment
Elisheva Levin's avatar

Oh, for heaven's sake. Spare me the liberal whining and drama. DC was a hellhole the last time I was there. Two Jews were killed while we were there, and we were told not go out at night. Frankly, the city was disgusting, and even in the daytime going out alone was a dicey proposition. DC belongs to the United States. It is our capitol city. I am happy that Trump had the good sense to put his foot down and make the place better. If it is not yet perfect, so maybe the national guard should patrol the areas where the nightlife happens, so that people can enjoy themselves day and night.

Expand full comment
Mark Leone's avatar

Maybe the protestors are scaring off the nightclub patrons. You could make the case that people protesting lawful anti-crime enforcement are possibly mentally unbalanced and best avoided. Regardless, on what planet should protection against violent criminals be based on whether it bothers late-night partiers?

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

And all the protesters appear to be shooting video with phones. So a nightclub patron, say a CEO out with his Head of HR mistress, would NOT want to be caught on the wrong video.

Expand full comment
reel life's avatar

I’ve read other reports that nightlife is fine. Who is really afraid of safe streets?

Expand full comment
Charles weaver's avatar

Hard to believe any legitimate business would suffer from presence of a police force tasked with public safety? I see how it may deter criminal types and maybe that’s the business clientele left in the crime riddled city.

Expand full comment
Edge Donaghey's avatar

"The presence of law enforcement and military on patrol might deter criminals, but it can also intimidate law-abiding citizens." Put another way, this approach might help, but it definitely unnerves law-abiding people. What a weak argument. I can find Chicago residents willing to testify and provide evidence of the benefits they’ve experienced from ICE and increased police presence. Ford, you go ahead and back this claim with solid examples of how law-abiding citizens are supposedly scared of the police. This is another 80/20 issue, with over 80% of people supporting these efforts. But go ahead and prove that 20% when it becomes a pattern, not just isolated or staged incidents.

Expand full comment
Dog Milk's avatar

I see your point, but you could also argue this is a less handsy version of stop and frisk, a policy that did more to fracture the relationship between police and the urban poor than any other in recent history.

Expand full comment
Edge Donaghey's avatar

You are right; I am unfortunately at a point as a citizen where I do not care if they get handsy. I grew up in Bridgeport. The cops were handsy because I deserved it. Again, unfortunately, I can no longer support a more measured approach until the more aggressive approach plays out for the rest of 2025 and through the election in 2026. Chicagoans largely know that if we act out with the police and first responders, then we will be treated in kind. We don't want the Chicago joke (many argue this is a Philly joke ... see Karen Ballsnatcher) we said as kids ... "Hey guys, guys ... I am a Chicago cop ... BANG BANG freeze!!!"

Expand full comment
Dog Milk's avatar

Fair enough. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We've seen America's urban centers spiral under local lefty leadership for a long time now. Whatever long-term consequences this move invites (the glaring-est of which is the precedent of federal overreach into local law enforcement), it will be interesting to see what the effects of more assertive policing will have in cities like DC.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I don't think Ford is trying to back any claim. He's a reporter gathering video.

Expand full comment
Chip Douglas's avatar

So stats show fewer people are getting murdered, but on the other hand we have a YouTube clip indicating fewer whisky sours are being sold. Easy choice.

I regret to inform you libertarians are at it again.

Expand full comment
mark wells's avatar

Unfortunately DC located "nightlife business" owners and employees likely voted their way into this mess. Also noteworthy; nightlife tends to pick up as crime goes down. Short term pain, long term gain.

Expand full comment
Charles weaver's avatar

I wonder if someone might verify if and what type of business is suffering?

Expand full comment
joeybar's avatar

Oh goodie another Youtube video on paid protestors. BTW what exactly is meant by “Nightlife-dependent businesses are suffering”? Is that a euphemism for dive bars and progressive drinking holes?

Expand full comment
Julie In MN's avatar

Interesting that so many protesters are protesting something else — I saw Epstein signs, Palestine flags, etc.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I like to trot out my "Bring Back the McRib!!" sign at the protests.

Expand full comment
Current Resident's avatar

And men dressed as women but definitely not passing. I believe they call it "entryism." I'm surprised there wasn't anyone there tying it to climate change.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

Resistance - You mean coddled, white retired federal bureaucrats who don't live in DC?

Expand full comment
Susan Russell's avatar

They can't be that dumb. I heard that restaurants were getting more business because people have been afraid to venture out at night. Why would anyone who's not a criminal be afraid of the National Guard? Sociopathic teenagers are so much more comforting, I guess.

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

I grew up in Jersey and I spent a lot of time in a lot of places. Most people there are afraid of firearms. Unsurprising they'd be uncomfortable by open carry displays. It's a long term conditioning thing. I work with the Army and am used to having lots of firearms in my presence, but even I was a little surprised at my negative reaction to South Korea. There, they will take a full uniform M-16 toting conscript (2 year national service) and put them on each loop of a clover leaf, four soldiers in all just standing there in the middle of each loop. This has no military purpose but it definitely grabs your attention, which I think was the point. Or after 9/11 when they started aiming a .50cal machine gun at my hood when I was driving on post. I mean there was no belt in it, but it still wasn't pleasant.

You get used to it _after a while_.

Expand full comment
Susan Russell's avatar

I can see that but the alternative is much worse. How come the protesters went from a paltry hundred in the first one to thousands?

Expand full comment
HBI's avatar

That's an irrelevancy. Obviously the protesters are political. Ignoring the real considerations of putting armed forces in the streets of places unaccustomed to them is going to doom the whole thing to failure.

Expand full comment
Don Hynes's avatar

Years ago Matt, we “boomers” of the “something’s happening here” generation, thought ourselves the great transformers of culture and country. Looking back we produced the Clintons of the body politic, the hollowing out of industry and the American workforce, and now the flood of gray ponytails and aging hairdos that mark the supposed “everyone is DC” protesters. The transformers, who largely live in the suburbs where they can pretend “crime is down” don’t have to face the live fire in cities like DC, Baltimore and Chicago, the dystopian city streets of LA, SF, Portland and Seattle. They climb the purity spiral to revile Trump while the people who live in their liberally governed mess have to suffer the consequences.

Expand full comment