A Parable of the Broken Streetlight
A main streetlight goes out in a neighborhood. As it always does, City Hall ignores the phone calls, despite the darkness inviting trouble, with cars being broken into, fights in the shadows, and parents afraid to let their kids walk home. At some point, a man steps in to pay for the repair of the streetlight that's not his responsibility, because safety doesn't wait for politics. The man is boisterous and has the couth of a frog, yet the block is safe again by the next night.
This is the situation President Donald Trump faces with Baltimore and Chicago, where local leaders downplay crime or refuse to take action. The president offers to send in the National Guard, acting not as a tyrant, but as the man fixing the streetlight before the neighborhood falls into chaos.
Baltimore: Trump Versus the Governor
Trump's message to Baltimore was Trump being Trump: He was blunt, blasting Governor Wes Moore for letting crime run rampant, and warning that if Moore wouldn't act, federal resources would.
Moore responded like a typical lefty: He denounced the idea as unconstitutional and invoked state sovereignty. Then, he played the typical progressive card: Trump's a tyrant for enforcing order, yet it's compassionate governance when local leaders let the streets rot.
Baltimore residents aren't asking for lectures on the 10th Amendment because they know the truth. They're not asking for the moon; they just want their kids to be safe walking to and from school, riding the school bus without fear, and for convenience store cashiers not to have to look over their shoulders when locking cash in the safe.
Chicago: “Tyranny” by Any Other Name
Chicago's political machine generated the same outrage. Mayor Brandon Johnson directly accused the president of tyranny, while claiming Chicagoans would rise against federal troops. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and other Democratic leaders, such as Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, have repeatedly insisted that Trump lacks a basis for deploying troops.
The governor and representative talk with authority in their voices when speaking with a press corps that wouldn't slap a mosquito if it carried a D flag on its back. I'd love to see them talk to families living in neighborhoods plagued by carjackings and shootings, and tell them they're overreacting. It doesn't matter if business owners have been installing steel bars over their storefronts, while nighttime brings terror to their streets.
Ordinary people living in extraordinary circumstances aren't screaming tyranny when federal support arrives.
They call it help.
Eisenhower’s Example: Little Rock, 1957
History offers a sharp rebuttal to cries of federal tyranny. In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling on school desegregation.
The governor, Orval Faubus, used the Arkansas National Guard to block black students from entering the school.
Despite leading the Allies to victory in Europe 12 years earlier, Eisenhower was a dictator, trampling on states' rights. Critics didn't care about that; a dictator is a dictator, regardless of his history.
President Eisenhower used his constitutional authority to protect children from mob violence, while upholding federal law. Using the definition of a tyrant, Eisenhower was a lousy tyrant.
In fact, history calls his act one of courage, not despotism. Similarly, if Trump is a tyrant for protecting people by sending the troops in, then, using that same logic, Eisenhower was too.
Any historian worth their salt wouldn't dare make that claim.
Bush’s Example: Los Angeles, 1992
Now, let's go to Los Angeles in 1992, after the Rodney King verdict. The city exploded in riots, killing 50 people andinjuring thousands. California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance, and President George H. W. Bush responded by deploying federal troops and federalizing the California National Guard.
Residents welcomed the intervention, while some activists denounced it as a form of militarization. Without it, however, the city would've become the basis of Snake Plisken's adventure in "Escape from LA."
I think most critics attend the same school, because, no matter when or where, they all use the same vernacular. Why do I say this? Because critics denounced President Bush's action as heavy-handed. History, however, declared the action decisive and necessary.
Trump’s Version: Baltimore and Chicago
When President Trump suggested federal intervention in two cities strangled with crime, he was described as a tyrant.
Ask yourself, what separates Trump from Eisenhower in 1957 or Bush in 1992? Before answering, consider their mission: to protect everyday Americans because local leadership failed.
Something all critics of President Trump fail to see is that every action he takes is rooted in legal authority. Whether under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the Insurrection Act, or cooperative deployment laws, presidents maintain the power to restore order.
There isn't anything that President Trump has done, or even suggested, that violates our Constitution. When the Left throws accusations of tyranny towards him, sometimes they mention an amendment; most of the time, they don't. Regardless, they only use keywords as a dog whistle for those on the Left, such as the MSM and academia, to start barking their fool heads off. (I really wanted to throw the "dog whistle" idea back on the left. It's overdue.)
The “Retribution” Smokescreen
Tyranny isn't the only theme the Left leans on. The other is Trump's campaign promises of retribution. Outlets like theHuffPost frame his actions as vengeance carried out against his enemies, rather than a policy aimed at defending Americans.
Merriam-Webster defines "retribution" as "something given or exacted in recompense." Even taking the word literally, retribution isn't illegal; it's a political act. What matters most is whether any actions occur on lawful grounds.
Name a single person in American history has been investigated more than President Trump. Microscopes run by Robert Mueller, Letitia James, and Adam Schiff, among others, haven't found anything untoward about the man, anything illegal, or any example of tyranny.
The Real Victims
Recent history shows that with any noise the left makes, it forgets about the real victims. People without names, such as the Chicago mother walking her children past drug corners, or the Baltimore store clerk who prays to not see a gun during his shift. These people aren't lying awake debating constitutional theories; they worry if they'll see another sunset.
It's those unnamed people whom President Trump is speaking directly to, saying that if local leaders fail them, he won't.
Critics call this authoritarian. People living there call it a lifeline.
Final Thoughts
American presidents, from the time of Reconstruction to Rodney King, have used troops to restore order. Eisenhower was called a tyrant, and Bush was criticized for militarizing a city. Eisenhower is remembered as a steady leader, while Bush answered the call from a city that needed him.
Now, critics cast Trump as a wannabe Caesar.
History and law tell a different story about how strong presidents act. They aren't dictating, seizing power, and abandoning citizens to chaos: They enforce order when others refuse, which is what Eisenhower and Bush did.
And now, it's what President Trump is doing.
The corporate media will keep pounding the word “tyrant” until it loses all meaning. PJ Media is where you’ll find the counterweight: sharp reporting, unapologetic commentary, and the courage to say that law and order is not authoritarian, it’s American.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member