I am currently staying in L.A. County, some 30 miles from the center of the city.

When I visited there yesterday, I saw blues skies, people going about their business, working, taking lunch breaks, getting groceries and bringing flowers home from the market.

Where were the hordes of insurrectionists? The burning city? The trash, as claimed by vocal members of the current administration?

For scale, here is a map that shows part of LA in relation to the area of isolated protest at government buildings down town resisting specific ICE raids. (Protests at red dot.)

Police blocked highway ramps,

and the National Gard “protected” federal buildings, including the courts at the Edward R. Roybal Center and federal buildings.

Here is who they protected against…. with the number of protesters matched by the number of press reporters, it looked like.

I very much recommend a thoughtful essay by Rebecca Solnit (the author, as of yesterday, banned from Face Book for this very piece) about the nature of violence and its sources.

It seems surreal that the narrative of a city being burnt by violent protesters is picked up by mass media in justification of the administration’s trial run of mobilizing federal forces against a population that is not silently cowering in fear of the government. Then again, it also seems wild that we now have a military that openly cheers the hostile ranting of a commander in chief and boos elected state governors, with no peep by the brass against this show of partisanship, as happened yesterday at Fort Bragg. Defying norms is one thing. Defying laws is another.

Let’s look what we got so far (I am using multiple sources, but a good comprehensive legal account can be found here):

Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act.

Instead, the initial federalization of the California National Guard happened on June 7 with Trump’s memo invoking 10 U.S.C. 12406. That allows state National Guards to be used in federal service for very limited reasons, but requires orders to be issued via the governor, a thing that definitely did not happen here.”

There are limits to section 12406. It can only be used when (1) there is an invasion or danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the government; or (3) the president cannot execute federal laws with the regular forces available. (Section 12406 has only been used once, in 1970, when President Nixon invoked it to have the National Guard help deliver mail during a postal worker strike.) Trump never asserted that California is being invaded.  His memo mentions rebellion and defines it as: “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

“Under that broad definition, any defiance of a federal law, no matter how fleeting, could be a “rebellion,” even though, as the California complaint points out, that word typically means an organized attempt to use violence to overthrow the government. The Los Angeles protests have been largely peaceful, with only sporadic vandalism, some committed by people unaffiliated with the demonstrations. There is no threat to overturn the government, organized or otherwise. Even the LAPD noted that the protests were peaceful. California’s lawsuit notes that ICE has continued to act on warrants and make arrests, so nothing about the protests has prevented the execution of those laws.” (Remember, after all, that Obama deported 3.16 million people, Biden 4.44 million. All without troops in the streets.)

Sending in the Marines without invoking the Insurrection Act is blatantly illegal. But the deliberate overreach will serve a purpose increasingly evident in the administration’s communications: inciting increasing protest reactions in the population which in turn warrant more repressive responses.

Note that the President’s memo did not specify California, either. Trump is trying to use section 12406 as a catch-all for any protest anywhere at any time, saying he can federalize state National Guard “at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.” It basically assumes that the President can deploy a state National Guard in any state even before any unrest occurs and before ICE is even operating in the state. That would make state control over the National Guard functionally meaningless.

The goal is to normalize the idea that active-duty troops can be used on American streets against American citizens, who they swore to protect. In its simplest form: to exert power without any possibility of resistance.

Being king, in other words.

By afternoon, I was back at our guesthouse, watching the hummingbird feed her young. So much work, so much care. Thinking about the 44 million school lunches that could feed hungry little humans if we applied the money spent on the deployment of unwarranted federal troops and a birthday parade for that instead. What a sick world.

Music today from a new album by Maurice Louca, titled Fera(l).