Posted on 10/09/2025 10:19:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When the guardians become the hunted, and the protectors need protection, you know a city has crossed the line from civilization into something darker.
That line isn’t just being approached in Chicago; it’s been obliterated, leaving federal agents to fend for themselves in what should be American streets, not war zones. The very people sworn to uphold the law are being abandoned by those who claim to represent justice.
President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago didn’t come from nowhere. The reality on the ground tells a different story—one where federal law enforcement officers are being systematically targeted, threatened, and left to defend themselves without backup.
A federal judge allowed Trump to deploy 200 Texas National Guard soldiers to Chicago this week. Troops are expected to arrive by midweek. This isn’t some arbitrary show of force; it’s a response to something far more sinister than the mainstream narrative suggests.
What triggered this deployment reveals just how far Chicago has fallen. Last Saturday, Border Patrol agents found themselves in an unthinkable situation. They weren’t just doing routine enforcement … they were fighting for their lives.
The attack came suddenly and violently; two individuals deliberately rammed their vehicles into a Border Patrol convoy, trapping the agents inside. This wasn’t a protest that got out of hand—this was vehicular assault on federal officers.
From the Department of Homeland Security:
Agents were unable to move their vehicles and exited the car. One of the drivers who rammed the law enforcement vehicle was armed with a semi-automatic weapon.Law enforcement was forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed U.S. citizen.
The armed attacker has been identified as Marimar Martinez, who had previously been flagged in federal intelligence bulletins for posting online threats. Her message to followers was chilling in its directness:
“Hey to all my gang let’s f those mother**ers up, don’t let them take anyone.”
This wasn’t just talk—and trust me, we’ve all seen enough keyboard warriors to know the difference—she actually showed up with a semi-automatic weapon.
But here’s where the story takes an even darker turn: When the trapped agents called Chicago police for desperately needed reinforcements as an angry mob gathered around the scene, local officers were ordered to stand down.
Federal law enforcement, under violent attack by an armed assailant, called for help from local police—and were abandoned.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s response to these troops coming to protect federal agents? Oh, this is good—he called them “thugs” and vowed to “use every lever at our disposal to resist this power grab.” Not a word about the actual thugs ramming federal vehicles, not a whisper of concern for law enforcement officers under siege in his state.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson doubled down on this insanity by signing an executive order creating “ICE-free zones” across the city. His response to federal agents being violently attacked? He gave their attackers more safe spaces.
“City property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids,” Johnson declared, as if the problem is law enforcement, not the armed individuals trying to kill them.
Look, I get political disagreements, but this is insanity. When local police are ordered to abandon federal agents under attack, when governors call law enforcement “thugs” while actual criminals ram government vehicles, when mayors create safe zones for those who threaten to “f*** up” federal officers … we’re witnessing something far more dangerous than a policy disagreement.
We’re watching the systematic breakdown of law and order, blessed and enabled by the very officials who took oaths to uphold it. These Democratic leaders aren’t just opposing Trump—they’re choosing violent mobs over the rule of law.
Democrats who claim to stand for justice are literally standing aside while justice is under assault. They call Trump’s response a “power grab” while grabbing power themselves to protect those who violently attack federal officers. They manufacture outrage about “militarization” while their cities require military intervention just to protect law enforcement from being murdered.
What happens when the thin blue line isn’t just stretched—it’s actively cut by those in charge? What happens when protectors need protection not from criminals, but from the very city officials who should have their backs? Chicago is showing us the answer, and it’s darker than any of us imagined.
Sources: The Daily Wire, BBC.com
Now...let’s see what happens in Portland
Send they reinforced with Apache gunships
Ha, poor mayor doofus...
The governor lets the IRS employees do their job but not ICE employees. What does that tell you American citizens?
Allow this, b*tch.
Oh, thanks your judgeship.
It took attacks against federal agents for a judge to allow Trump to send the national guard to Chicago.
But it was okay with the judge to allow the huge amount of crimes to the citizens of Chicago?
Maybe we need to have federal agents permanently assigned to blue cities, and then have them attacked, in order to get automatic judge orders to allow the federal government to come in and ‘fix’ the problems.
“”””””allows””””””” ********DRINK********
The resistance to federal troops is absolute proof that the Democrats want to destroy our cities and, in the long run, America.
Excellent.
God Bless TEXAS!
Amen, bro.
“A federal judge allowed Trump to deploy 200 Texas National Guard soldiers to Chicago this week.”
He could not stop him anyway....
Apache gunships
—
They may need them with 110,000 gang members in town. But would be great practice with FPV drones with explosives.
Funny side-line...
When the story ISN’T about gun-control the media uses the term “semi-automatic weapon”.
As opposed to the ultimate gun to grab, an AR-15.
The bros got em a nice T-bird.
No, the federal government cannot revoke a state's statehood and revert it to territory status, even in cases of insurrection. The U.S. Constitution provides no mechanism for such an action, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White (1869) established that statehood is permanent and indissoluble once a state joins the Union, with the federal government unable to unilaterally alter a state's status in this way. The Union is described as perpetual, and even during rebellion or secession attempts, a state remains legally part of the United States, as was the case with Confederate states during the Civil War.
Instead of revoking statehood, the Constitution empowers the federal government to address insurrection through other means:
Historical precedents from the Reconstruction era further illustrate this:
| Event | Description |
| Post-Civil War Reconstruction | Southern states were placed under military rule and required to meet conditions (like ratifying the 14th Amendment) for full congressional representation, but their statehood was never revoked—they were treated as states that had never legally left the Union. |
No U.S. state has ever had its statehood revoked, and legal analyses confirm there is no constitutional process for doing so without the state's consent (and even then, it's debated and untested). Attempts to interpret Article V (protecting states' equal suffrage in the Senate) as allowing non-consensual revocation have been rejected in scholarly and legal discussions, as demoting a state would violate this guarantee.
Federal judge didn’t allow the President anything. The President was in his lane the whole time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.