“Advocates say.” Two words that signal attribution—but have become a shield, a cudgel, and a journalistic sleight of hand. This phrase, and others like it, are increasingly used in what is presented as mainstream reporting but is actually laced with opinion.
But “advocates say” is not journalism—it’s an ideological hustle that holds the truth hostage. It is, well, advocacy.
Consider this lede from the Los Angeles Times:
A federal judge … temporarily blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests that advocates say have terrorized Angelenos, forced people into hiding and damaged the local economy.
A lot is going on in that snippet from the Times, but it is illustrative of what we are seeing more and more in mainstream media reporting on the Trump administration—particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.
So, let’s take it apart:
- “Indiscriminate” and “racial profiling” are a legal oxymoron. If the government is targeting by race, it’s not indiscriminate. If it’s indiscriminate, it’s not targeted. You can’t have both—unless you’ve abandoned logic, emotional restraint, and the premise that words have meaning. But that contradiction doesn’t matter when emotional impact is the goal—and critical thinking has been replaced with narrative scripting. This isn’t journalism. It’s ideological storytelling, spoon-fed for mass consumption.
- “Terrorized Angelenos”? No evidence. No sourcing. Just a free-floating assertion from unnamed “advocates”—repeated uncritically as if it were fact.
Terrorized? No. Hamas terrorizes. Hezbollah terrorizes. Al-Qaeda terrorizes. ICE enforces federal immigration law. They do not terrorize anyone by executing their duties within the bounds of the law. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. It’s narrative warfare—and prima facie agitprop: the use of a term as incendiary as “terrorize,” offered without substance, sourcing, or rational context, and slipped into what is presented as straight news.
Then there’s this:
- “Forced people into hiding”? What does that even mean? The phrase is clear enough, but it drips with legerdemain, bordering on gaslighting. Frank and Jesse James were “forced into hiding.” So were the Younger Brothers, Bonnie and Clyde, and maybe D.B. Cooper—not to mention thousands of fugitives from justice evading law enforcement in the United States right now.
Our courts across the country handle such cases every day—from misdemeanors to child support deadbeats to violent felonies.
No one “forced” them into hiding. They are hiding to avoid justice. Plain and simple.That’s hardly governmental oppression—it’s consequence avoidance by those eluding law enforcement. That’s what happens when many people break the law: they hide.
The only thing “forcing” them to do so is their own willful decision to avoid accountability.
When a nation enforces its immigration laws, and an individual has entered or remained in that nation unlawfully, it follows that any concealment or evasion is self-imposed.
The decision to hide stems not from federal force, but from the individual’s desire to avoid lawful consequences.
And now this shameless feint:
- “Damaged the local economy”? We’re talking about raids on federally illegal cannabis operations. If violating federal drug and immigration laws is now the backbone of your local economy, the problem doesn’t lie with the federal government—it emanates squarely from Sacramento.
Just because California has spent a generation operating as a state of the Union in name only does not mean the federal government is obligated to accept that arrangement.
And yes—it may well be “harmful” to a local economy when a cash crop that is illegal under federal law becomes the centerpiece of regional commerce.
This is hardly a policy failure in Washington.
It is a governance failure in California—and the other states of the Union are under no obligation to assent to it.
And about those local economic impacts:
Moonshine fueled much of western North Carolina’s economy during the Prohibition era.
Al Capone did a bustling trade in bootlegging and racketeering across Chicago and the industrial Midwest.
George Remus—a lawyer who memorized the Volstead Act—exploited a legal loophole allowing the manufacture of medicinal alcohol, but then illegally redistributed it for drinking.
In less than three years, he built a moonshine empire and banked $40 million.
In 1860, enslaved labor powered the Southern economy. That didn’t make it just, right, or untouchable.
Economic impact—whether local, statewide, regional, or national—is not a defense to criminal economic activity. It’s not even a mitigation.
Often, it’s just the weathered excuse used to prop up illegal or indefensible economic activity—from slavery, to Prohibition-era rackets, to today’s black markets in cannabis and labor, much of that labor trafficked illegally across our southern border.
And who knows what other seedy, tawdry activity agents will uncover once they lift the lid on California’s cannabis cartels—and the cockroaches scatter.
Or just who’s making millions on the sly, while lecturing the rest of the country on justice, equity, and accountability.
The idea that the federal government should back off because an illegal activity has become economically profitable is, to borrow a phrase from last year’s elections, a threat to the rule of law.
When entire sectors of an economy depend on illegal labor, federally prohibited drugs, and resistance to immigration enforcement, the problem isn’t federal enforcement.
The problem lies in the sector itself—and those who built it—and profited on a foundation of deliberate lawlessness.
And despite the results of the 2024 elections, the grand pooh-bahs of the California Unholy Empire expect plebes like us to like it or lump it.
And if we do, we’ve gutted labor law, immigration enforcement, tax withholding, and the entire premise of controlled substance regulation—and any number of laws beyond the scope here.
You don’t think all those farmhands are being paid minimum wage, working 40-hour weeks, getting parental leave and workers' compensation, and the whole union-approved package, do you?
Well, do you?
And speaking of bootleggers:
Simply put, this California notion—that we should tolerate illegality for the sake of local profit—is, quite literally, moonshine. Look it up.
When journalists start quoting advocates as though they were neutral observers—without sourcing, critical context, or substantiated fact—and then stitch those quotes into a clearly biased narrative, laced with charged and incendiary language, you can safely conclude:
The straight reporting has ended. You’re deep into the narrative arc of manipulation.
And it’s fair to ask: advocates for what? For impunity? For exemption from legal consequences? For a two-tiered system of justice dressed up as compassion?
The most effective way to counter manipulation is to confront it—directly, unapologetically, and with clarity.
Because the best defense is a good offense.
And right now, going on offense isn’t just smart.
It’s essential.