Saturday, June 14, 2025

Trump Won in that Trade Pact with China -- In More Ways Than One


President Trump and his cabinet secretaries announced that “we have a deal with China!” – and the stock market didn’t react.

Didn’t go up, didn’t go down. The first two days since the announcement, at least, the market remained flat.

In part, this is likely due to the fact that everyone’s waiting to see the final deal, though they’ve given us the big picture:  both sides give in a little; the U.S. will still have high additional tariffs on Chinese goods and will allow most Chinese college students, and mainland China will stop holding critical rare earth components hostage. 

The devil will be in the details, of course, but this big picture should at least have been enough for either excitement or horror from the market, and it drew neither.

What it did draw, interestingly, was a lot of editorials, implying that President Trump has backed down, or that he never really had a strategy, even though the net end result has a much higher tariff total on Chinese goods than the tariff level in place when he entered office.  So, from the President’s tariff strategy at least, it’s a win.

But there’s more to it than this.  This entire experiment has been a lesson, to both the American people and the entire world, and more and more people are beginning to absorb this crucial lesson, at long last.

First, some background:  All imported products have import duties, around five percent or so, give or take, which are the same for goods from almost all countries on earth.  On top of those basic U.S. import duties, some products from some countries have some additional tariffs, such as the 7.5% additional and 25% additional that were added to most Chinese products during President Trump’s first term.

This year, for Chinese goods alone, President Trump added first ten percent, then twenty, then even more, until the new tariffs totaled 145% on top of the normal duty and the old 7.5% and 25% additions.   So, for a short while, before the current truce, America was charging between 145% and 190% on Chinese goods, depending on the product.

Now with the new deal in place, it will about 55% plus the basic duty, possibly plus the first term tariffs (these details haven’t yet been clarified).

The people who want to attack President Trump can do so, saying that he’s been talked down to a much lower tariff, compared to the massive level briefly imposed in April.  But is that really what’s happened?  At the end of this process, the total tariffs on Chinese goods will be much higher than they were when he started his second term.  So from the perspective of setting tariffs, President Trump has definitely won.  He’s raised the tariffs considerably on Chinese goods.

But that’s not the main lesson here.

President Trump’s thesis – and not just his, but the thesis of the conservative movement, the MAGA movement, the American working class, and all American patriots – is that the United States has lost far too much manufacturing over the past half century. 

The United States of America was the king of the industrial revolution; our economic dominance was propelled by our ability to make everything, and to be more efficient than anyone else in doing it.

Gradually, over the generations, due to an unhealthy mix of union power, Marxism, bureaucracy, a litigation culture, high taxes, and crime, America lost our dominance, and gradually ceded the production of whole classes of products to other countries.

More and more, over the past forty years, due to China’s relentless industrial espionage and intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, subsidizing of industry, bribery of western politicians, and use of slave labor, China came to dominate this transfer of production.

Instead of the United States losing all this industry evenly to a couple dozen low-cost countries across the third world, we’ve lost almost everything to China.  How can China be the best, most magnetic draw on earth, not just for textiles and toys, machines and appliances, raw materials and finished goods, but for all of the above?  How indeed.

President Trump has set out to reverse this decline, to try to revive the American model. 

This takes tax cuts, bureaucracy reduction, tort reform – lots of things.  It’s possible, but it’s not easy, and it’s not quick.  And it still requires some push, to overcome inertia, because it’s difficult and costly for any company to move production in the first place, so once it’s happened, it’s very difficult for a company to justify doing it yet again.

Here’s what we have learned from President Trump’s tariff experiments, in both the first term and the second:

·         Our normal low import duties are not enough to discourage companies from importing from China.

·         The new additional tariffs (Section 301) of 7.5% or 25% that he implemented in 2018 and 2019 encouraged a lot of companies to start finding other vendors outside China – both in other low-cost countries and here at home in the USA – but of course nowhere near enough.

·         The new additional fentanyl tariffs of 20% in February and March of this year encouraged a lot more companies to start moving away from China, but again, not nearly enough.

·         The next 125% in additional tariffs in April, on top of everything else, brought importing almost to a stop. 

So now we will settle on some lower number that won’t stop all trade, but which will be enough to get most American companies to look seriously at moving their supply base outside China.

What we learned from this experiment is that 5% wasn’t enough, 30% wasn’t enough, even 60% wasn’t enough to get American businesses to take the issue seriously, but 150% to 180% certainly is.  So we will now look forward to a period in which the tariff on Chinese goods will be something like forty or fifty points higher than the tariff on the goods of any other country. 

The president is pursuing a combination strategy: much higher tariffs on Chinese goods to encourage American businesses to look for new sources outside China, and lower taxes and much less regulation here, to enable American suppliers to at least compete for some of that business.

Nobody expects 100% of the business taken away from China to come back to the United States. But twenty percent?  Thirty percent? Maybe even forty percent?  That would be wonderful for the American economy. 

And it will be wonderful too, for all of our other allies whom China has been smothering over the years with their corrupt trade practices: Taiwan and the Philippines, South Korea and Costa Rica, and so many more -- there are lots of other low-cost countries who have been frozen out of participation in global manufacturing growth, due to China’s countless violations of international law and fair trade policy.

Perhaps most important of all, this process has pulled off the tarp that had hidden how terrible our dependence on China is, for so many years. Now we all realize how unforgivably dependent the American manufacturing sector has allowed itself to become, on the world’s biggest rogue nation.

We have long known that we bought too much from China, but only in the last few years, and especially the last few months, have we realized how bad it really is.

One day, China will attack Taiwan or the Philippines and start the war of all wars in Asia.  We all know it’s going to happen; we just don’t know when. But once it does, we know that we will be unable to get anything at all – components, subassemblies, or finished goods -- from China, for years and years, no matter how desperately we need it.

To the extent that the American economy survives that future period, we will all owe President Trump all the credit -- for fighting so hard, for so long, to inoculate these vulnerable United States against that fateful day.



Parade coverage. -June 14

 



Consequences of Sanctuary Cities Come Home to Roost


It’s been a week since violent riots broke out in Los Angeles and the surrounding areas after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted a series of raids. The left got their marching orders and started wreaking havoc on the city, knowing they’d likely get away with it at the local level.

“The real solution of all of this is for the administration to stop the raids,” failed Democratic Mayor Karen Bass lamented after days of burning and looting in the city. “We have heard these raids may take place for the next 30 days. We don’t know how many will take place.”

But it wasn’t the ICE raids that caused the chaos, and all of it was preventable.

For decades, California, and more specifically Los Angeles, has been a so-called “sanctuary” for illegal aliens — including convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, and much more. In fact, sanctuary status has been repeatedly touted by leftist politicians for years and they’ve boasted about local law enforcement refusing to cooperate with federal authorities to get criminal aliens off of the streets.

“California's new governor is promising the most populous state will be a ‘sanctuary to all who seek it’ in a direct affront to President Donald Trump's immigration policies,” CBS News reported in 2019 about Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s inaugural address. “Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the Trump administration repeatedly as he was sworn in to office Monday, particularly on immigration.”

In fact, Los Angeles voted to permanently institute sanctuary policies last year for political reasons. 

“Today, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to establish the City of Los Angeles as a 'Sanctuary City’ and prohibit any City resources, including property or personnel, from being utilized for any immigration enforcement. The approved ordinance, borne from a motion introduced by Councilmembers Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez, and Hugo Soto-Martinez and adopted unanimously in 2023, comes on the heels of the election of Donald J. Trump, who has expressed broad support for mass deportations across the country,” the official Los Angeles city website states.

“The newly adopted ordinance permanently enshrines sanctuary policies into municipal law and prohibits the use of City resources, including property and personnel, from being utilized for immigration enforcement or to cooperate with federal immigration agents engaged in immigration enforcement. Critically, the Ordinance also prohibits the direct and indirect sharing of data with federal immigration authorities,” it continues.

ICE raids wouldn't be as necessary if local law enforcement worked with the federal government on ICE retainers. It’s much less disruptive and dangerous for criminal aliens to be temporarily held in jails until agents can easily and peacefully transfer them into federal custody. Instead, Democrat policies put everyone at risk by forcing ICE into neighborhoods and public spaces to serve warrants. Despite the difficulties and non-cooperation, the work must be done.

"There are millions of illegal aliens in this city,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared. “We're going to stay here and build our operations until we make sure that we liberate the city of Los Angeles.”

Thirty days of raids is hardly enough, given the decades of harboring criminals. The long-awaited consequences for sanctuary policies have arrived. It’s about time.



Before the Flag, the Fight

 

By Jared Gould  |  June 14, 2025 Minding the Campus


On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress took its first bold step toward becoming a nation: it created a national army. Until then, each colony had relied on its own militia. But after the violent clashes at Lexington and Concord, it was clear that isolated efforts wouldn’t be enough. A unified defense would require a unified force.

By mid-June, delegates meeting in Philadelphia resolved “That six companies of expert riflemen, be immediately raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland, and two in Virginia; that each company consist of a captain, three lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, a drummer or trumpeter, and sixty-eight privates.”

That resolution gave birth to the Continental Army. Infantry came first, followed quickly—on June 16—by the formation of the Adjutant General’s Corps, the Finance Corps, and the Quartermaster Corps. Artillery was added in November; Cavalry in December. By the following summer, Congress had authorized a full military structure, including the Army Medical Department, military chaplains, and the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. An army—and the framework of a nation—had been built from scratch.

[RELATED: Ethan Allen Didn’t Fear the Rabble]

On June 15—just one day after authorizing the army—Congress appointed George Washington, planter, soldier, and Virginian, as commander-in-chief. Under his leadership, that fledgling force became capable of frustrating and eventually outlasting the world’s greatest empire—and we can’t forget the crucial French support.

Two years later, on June 14, 1777, Congress adopted a national flag. It was a formal symbol of the unity the colonies had already forged through shared sacrifice. The resolution declared “that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white…[with] thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” Before then, each colony had marched under its own banner.

But the order of events is worth remembering: the army came before the country. The country came before the flag.

[RELATED: Liberty’s No Bargain]

Today, June 14 is recognized not for the founding of the army, but for the adoption of the flag.

Like many civic holidays, Flag Day honors a symbol. And symbols matter. But the harder task is to remember what came before them: the decision to act together, to fight before there was a name, and to believe in a future that hadn’t yet been realized.

America’s resolve did not come from a flag, but from men who stood their ground before they had one. Nationhood was not declared into existence with words or symbols alone. It had to be fought for first.

Follow Jared Gould on X, and for more articles on the American Revolution, see our series here


Art by Beck & Stone

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/06/14/before-the-flag-the-fight/

Is LA Mayor Karen Bass Still Working for Cuban Intelligence?


“It is peaceful now, but we do not know where and when the next raids will be. That is the concern, because people in the city have a rapid-response network. If they see ICE, they go out, and they protest,” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, as quoted in the New York Post last week.

For Cuba-watchers, Mayor Bass’s terminology has a familiar and ominous ring. To wit: “The rapid-response brigades, are made up of civilian snitches — neighbors, co-workers and plainclothes cops loyal to the regime —they are out in force after protesters demanding food, medicine and freedom took to the streets (of Cuba) beginning July 11," the New York Post reported on July 17, 2021. 

So where might Bass have picked up some of her lingo? Well:

“In the mid-1970s, California Congresswoman Karen Bass…was an organizer for the Venceremos Brigade," reported Tablet Magazine in 2020. "An event blurb in an October 1975 issue of the communist Daily World newspaper describes Bass, then 22, as 'leader of the Venceremos Brigade in southern California'….As a ‘brigadista’ and then organizer for the Venceremos Brigades, Karen visited Cuba every 6 months."

In that heady Age of Aquarius, hundreds of starry-eyed college kids were volunteering to “help build Cuban Socialism” and “fight U.S. Imperialism,” mostly by joyfully cutting Cuban sugar cane and raptly imbibing communist propaganda lectures while seated in front of large pics of Che Guevara and “Uncle” Ho-Chi-Minh.

In fact, the terrorist offshoot from the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) known as The Weathermen and staffed most famously by Barack Obama’s future “neighbors” Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn served as the DGI’s U.S. recruitment officers at the time, which proved easy. Castro’s DGI and their KGB masters had other goals in mind, as we’ll see in a minute. 

Ok, that Karen Bass was a very enthusiastic and active Venceremos Brigadista, we’ve already established. But was there more to these Venceremos Brigades? Perhaps a declassified FBI report (from well before the bureau was run by people like Comey and Wray, I might add) might help:

“The ultimate objective of the DGI (Cuban Intelligence’s) in setting up the Venceremos Brigades 'is the recruitment of individuals who are politically oriented and who someday may obtain a position, elective or appointive, somewhere in the U.S. Government, which would provide the Cuban Government with access to political, economic and military intelligence.'"

Interestingly, right at about this time, Cuba’s DGI, which had always been mentored by the KGB, come under direct and total control of the KGB. Let’s see the sworn testimony of a high-ranking DGI defector during a congressional hearing titled: The Role of Cuba in International Terrorism and Subversion, Intelligence Activities of the DGI, Feb. 26, 1982, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, Feb. 26, 1982″:   

Mr. Gerardo Peraza [a high-ranking Cuban intelligence defector]: Between the years 1959 to 1970 there was close cooperation between Cuba and the KGB [...] But by beginning of 1970, the intelligence service of Cuba was placed under the director orders of KGB Colonel Simonov.” 

Senator DENTON. Are you personally aware, Señor [Peraza], that there were any successful placings of high-ranking DGI or KGB agents within the U.S. intelligence service or any defense or security-oriented agencies?  [...] 

Mr. PERAZA. Yes, definitely. We can use as an example the [U.S.] Senate. 

Senator DENTON. I imagine we better have a closed session on that.

Mr. PERAZA. Yes, yes. (Much more here.)

In brief, a prominent Democratic political figure, and one-time VP candidate (wittingly or not) was intimately linked with the Russian KGB. Genuine “Russian Collusion,” anyone? 

In fact, according to yet another high-ranking Cuban DGI defector, Jesus Perez Mendes, the DGI didn’t just control the Venceremos Brigades of starry-eyed American students of the time, they actually helped pick them!  

Ok, that Karen Bass often traveled to Cuba in the early '70s when it was officially illegal and very difficult, we’ve established. But what of it, Humberto, some might ask? I mean, a lot of college kids were stupid and duped at the time. Hasn’t Bass mended her ways?

In fact, Bass continued visiting totalitarian Cuba (which carefully vets all political visitors) and has been traveling there quite often. Plus, while there, she seems to be hob-knobbing with some pretty shady people, intelligence–wise.  

For instance, in one of her (apparent) publicity pics, we find Bass in the company of a KGB-trained Cuban spy, Josefina Vidal, who was expelled from the U.S. in 2003, pursuant to the arrest of top Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes, responsible for the most damaging penetration of the U.S. Department of Defense in recent history. Montes was convicted of the same crimes as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.  

While accompanied by Vidal, the seemingly enchanted Karen Bass also poses in front of pics of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, whose lifelong obsession was the destruction of the U.S. 

Now let’s go back to those congressional hearings for more tidbits regarding Bass’ Cuban companions:

Sen. DENTON:  (Julian Torres) Rizo was at the DGI (Cuba’s KGB-controlled intelligence service) Station chief in New York for 3 years, as I understand it. 

Mr. PERAZA. Yes.  He was also an active DGI agent in the Venceremos Brigade camps. 

Mr. PERAZA. Yes. This was his first intelligence job. His first intelligence job was to recruit members of the Venceremos Brigade. He had also connections with many North Americans, preparing himself to come to the United States. And he continued directing the work of these agents in the United States.

And wouldn’t you know it?  In another apparent publicity pic from one of her red-carpet trips to Stalinist, terror-sponsoring Cuba, we find an (apparently) enchanted Karen Bass accompanied by an old Venceremos Brigadista comrade named Gail Reed who is married to Julian Torres Rizo!

That Venceremos Brigadista Gail Reed married the DGI Venceremos Brigade handler Julian Torres Rizo is thoroughly documented by America’s top Cuba spycatcher (retired) Lt Col. Christopher Simmons of the Defense Intelligence Agency. 




🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


USAID Official and Three Corporate Executives Plead Guilty to Decade-Long Bribery Scheme


The Justice Department has announced that a USAID official named Roderick Watson, 57, of Woodstock, Maryland, and three corporate executives, Walter Barnes, 46, of Potomac, Maryland; Darryl Britt, 64, of Myakka City, Florida, and Paul Young, 62, of Columbia, Maryland, have pleaded guilty to a decade long scam involving bribery using USAID funds and awarded government contracts.

Roderick Watson took bribes and directed over $550 million to the three USAID contractors.  [SEE DETAILS HERE]

DOJ – […] According to court documents, beginning in 2013, Watson, while a USAID contracting officer, agreed with Britt to receive bribes in exchange for using Watson’s influence to award contracts to Apprio. As a certified small business under the SBA 8(a) contracting program, which helps socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, Apprio could access lucrative federal contracting opportunities through set-asides and sole-source contracts exclusively available to eligible contractors without a competitive bid process.

Vistant was a subcontractor to Apprio on one of the contracts awarded through Watson’s influence. After Apprio graduated from the SBA 8(a) program and it was no longer eligible to be a prime contractor for new contracts with USAID under this program, the scheme shifted so that Vistant became the prime contractor and Apprio became the subcontractor on USAID contracts awarded through Watson’s influence between 2018 and 2022.

During the scheme, Britt and Barnes paid bribes to Watson that were often concealed by passing them through Young, who was the president of another subcontractor to Apprio and Vistant. Britt and Barnes also regularly funneled bribes to Watson, including cash, laptops, thousands of dollars in tickets to a suite at an NBA game, a country club wedding, downpayments on two residential mortgages, cellular phones, and jobs for relatives.

The bribes were also often concealed through electronic bank transfers falsely listing Watson on payroll, incorporated shell companies, and false invoices. Watson is alleged to have received bribes valued at more than approximately $1 million as part of the scheme. (read more)


Newsom Ignores Kamala Harris' Call During LA Riots

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris tried to call California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) during the recent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. However, she was not able to reach him and left him a voicemail. Reports say Newsom never called her back. Harris, an LA resident, also called Bass, but it is unclear whether she could reach the mayor. 

Harris’ phone call comes after President Donald Trump ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles after violent anti-ICE agitators destroyed the city by throwing rocks and other objects at law enforcement, looting businesses, and setting cars on fire. 

The outlet reported that Harris hesitated over whether to speak out about the riots unfolding in her own backyard, worried that doing so might sway voters. In the end, she chose to weigh in—only to criticize President Trump for deploying the military in response.

Harris wrote on social media that Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to LA was a “dangerous escalation.” She was also criticized after claiming the riots were “overwhelmingly peaceful.”

Reports suggest that Harris was phoning Newsom and Bass as a strategic move, as rumors claim she is gearing up for a California governor run in 2026.  Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio told Politico that Harris may be “eyeing Newsom’s rising stock as she contemplates her next moves.” 

Another source told Politico that if Harris had concerns about becoming a bigger target as governor of California, recent events have shown the state is already a primary target regardless of who’s in charge. 

The failed Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly eyeing another run for the White House in 2028. That’s right—the same person who couldn’t carry a single one of the seven key battleground states is considering a comeback. So it’s no surprise she’s worried about her home state going up in flames—it could seriously hurt her chances next time around.



How The L.A. Riots Demonstrate Democrat-Media Complex’s Loss Of Narrative Control


All of the media narratives shoved down America’s throat in 2020 to justify rioting are falling flat this time around — but they’re still trying to deceive you.



As much as it’s horrifying to watch a city burn and the lives of cops and federal agents threatened by violent protesters, there is a silver lining to the last several days of rioting in Los Angeles. The desperate attempts to spin what’s happening do a fairly good job of illustrating what’s wrong with the political discourse in this country — and further demonstrate that the dishonest sophistry used to excuse violent riots in 2020 is no longer remotely persuasive.

Still it’s worth classifying and breaking down the specific arguments and talking points that have been employed by the Democrat Party-media-industrial complex since the riots began. When those arguments are examined in isolation, it becomes even clearer why attempts to justify the violence in L.A. are falling on deaf ears.

Misleading Attempts to ‘Contextualize’

Since the riots began, there have been the usual attempts to selectively present the violence and protests in such a way as to downplay what’s happening. For some reason, media figures have been obsessed with pointing out that the rioting is only occurring in a small portion of L.A. Here’s a local news reporter in L.A.:

CNN’s Brian Stelter, along with many others, has also been at pains to emphasize this same point:

The Associated Press chimed in by emphasizing that “much of the city saw no violence.”

So what? It’s true that the violence and protests have occurred over a small part of L.A., but what’s the point? L.A. is a vast, sprawling urban area, and regardless of whether the violence is confined to the downtown, ordinary Americans find burning cars, looting stores, and throwing large rocks at cops from freeway overpasses utterly unacceptable no matter where they occur.

The problem is that context in these cases is always selective; so while you can attempt to couch everything in facts that make these protests seem less significant than they are, there are usually other salient facts that get ignored when choosing the context.

For instance, the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol essentially lasted four hours — and the media spent the next four years scrutinizing everything that happened with the specific goal of portraying the American right broadly as uniquely threatening. We’re now on day eight of the L.A. riots, and from the moment it began the media have been looking for ways to downplay the significance. The double standards are glaringly obvious.

Downplaying Violence

The attempts to recontextualize everything all have an ultimate goal, intended or not, and that is to excuse violence. Note the reporter above saying, “The majority of the protests are peaceful, a small fraction are violent.”

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel made a point of blatantly lying, “There’s no riot outside. We have more so-called ‘unrest’ here when one of our teams wins a championship.”

After rioters looted an Apple store the night before, The New York Times called L.A. protests “muted.”

Someone on a local ABC affiliate actually described the riots on air as “just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn.”

The New Yorker ran a cartoon with a couple of cops on horseback looking at a crowd with the caption: “The protesters seem to be doing some sort of joyful synchronized dance. Is it time to call in the Marines?” And on and on.

Look, you can go online and see videos of the protesters breaking up sidewalks to create rocks to throw at the cops and creating barriers in the middle of the street to hide behind as they use actual mortars to launch illegal exploding fireworks at the cops. These protests are undeniably violent, and anyone who says otherwise is straight-up lying.

Again, some context would be helpful. Just because not everyone at a protest is violent or rioting doesn’t mean you get to say everything is mostly peaceful. In 2020, there were around 11,000 BLM protests, and one out of every ten turned violent. Yes, you could argue 90 percent of Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful — but it would be more honest to say that there was an overwhelming rash of civic violence all across the country in 2020 that was directly connected to the BLM movement. It was a straight-up insurgency by historical definitions. At the same time, a far smaller portion of the total police or ICE interactions turn violent, and you would never see the media characterizing either as “mostly peaceful.”

At War with the Facts

The attempts to downplay such obvious violence quickly run into absurd territory. What are you going to believe? What the media tells you or your lying eyes? Here’s The New York Times:

And here’s Stelter, again, telling us, “The powerful algorithms that fuel social media platforms are feeding users days-old and sometimes completely fake content about the recent unrest in L.A., contributing to a sense of nonstop crisis.”

Yes, it’s true that misinformation online is a problem. But it’s also true that nearly everyone complaining about it in the context of the L.A. riots is also downplaying the violence and is unhappy that the legacy media no longer gets to set a political narrative helpful to the protesters and national Democrats.

Stelter at least tips his cap to the fact that the misinformation can cut both ways but isn’t really hiding his sympathies. In any event, a few hours after Stelter suggested the “sense of nonstop crisis” was an online invention, the crisis proved real enough that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, no doubt reluctantly, declared a curfew.

Blame Shifting

Since the beginning of the riots, Democrats have tried to shift the blame — with virtually no pushback. It’s basically an approved talking point that all the violence in L.A. is the Trump administration’s fault, an argument that has been made with sociopathic intentions.

Gavin Newsom has been making the same disingenuous argument, telling J.D. Vance, “We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.” Again, ICE was trying to disrupt cartel activity in L.A., which seems like a big problem. He’s also dubiously saying Trump administration law enforcement caused criminal behavior: “Violent criminals who take advantage of Trump’s chaos WILL be held accountable.” (If past is prologue, the L.A. district attorney will drop almost all the charges against rioters.)

But the Trump administration is obviously not to blame for enforcing immigration law — and regardless, the media have conveniently buried the fact that the ICE raid that supposedly touched off the violence in L.A. wasn’t some random sweep of illegal immigrants. It was a raid to stop a cartel-linked money laundering operation.

Further, even if federal agents had been reckless, that doesn’t change the fact that cities such as L.A. have intentionally gutted their police forces and been deliberately lax on crime for so long that they can’t get a handle on unrest for days. As a result, the city is basically governed by anarcho-tyranny; it’s a place where, as Adam Carolla notes, they will arrest you for smoking on the beach but allow you to light cars on fire.

In any event, Karen Bass publicly suggesting there’s a connection between ICE agents doing their job and her voters looting a mall is risible. And yet the media will again tell you with a straight face, “These protests, which have been abbreviated in the media as ‘unrest,’ were actually a cry of hope, and a reminder of the human need for community, the need to turn to each other to find something to believe in.”

Anyway, take some comfort in the fact that the attempts to retcon obvious criminal behavior into a “cry of hope” aren’t exactly going well.

Conspiracies

Political conspiracies are everywhere these days, and I won’t excuse the conspiratorial thinking on the right. That said, at least the worst conspiracies on the right come from the online fever swamps. The left not only has their own online extremists, but some of their most insane conspiracies come from the supposedly prestigious legacy media outlets they excoriate us for dismissing. A major feature of the coverage of the riots from the beginning has been that Trump didn’t just intentionally stoke the violence in L.A. — he’s deliberately doing this to seize power.

Here’s CNN: “Trump is hyping a case to use American troops on domestic soil”

The New York Times: “Trump Declares Dubious Emergencies to Amass Power, Scholars Say”

David Frum in The Atlantic: “If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections, he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control.”

This is pure insanity and totally unsupported. There would be no deployment of troops if Dems swiftly cracked down on the rioters with their own cops, restoring law and order without letting violence drag on for days. But they simply lack the will to do that.

And in particular, Frum’s contention that Trump is provoking violence to seize control of elections is not only wildly unsubstantiated, it’s wildly irresponsible. If supposedly credible publications circulate the wholly unsupported claim that Trump is trying to nullify elections, they are justifying violence against the government.

Nakedly Anti-American Sentiment

One of the most revealing aspects of the coverage is that the media have been seriously entertaining bizarre left-wing claims about America’s ownership of California and the Southwest somehow being in dispute. The implication that it’s somehow unfair to kick illegal immigrant Mexicans off their own land has been everywhere.

Former Univision anchor María Elena Salinas went on CNN to argue that her family roots are deep in L.A. “California was part of Mexico, all of the Southwest is Mexico.” Except that when America acquired the Southwest from Mexico in 1848, Mexico had only controlled the territory a couple of decades — “The Simpsons” has been on the air longer than Mexico ruled California — and there were virtually no Mexicans living in the territory. To the extent that there are Hispanics in the area, it’s almost all from illegal migration since.

Pop star Katy Perry made a much-circulated, historically illiterate social media post arguing that Los Angeles was “founded by Mexican settlers in 1781.” L.A. was, of course, founded by the Spanish as a colonial settlement, not by “Mexican settlers,” and generally the pro-immigration left is of the opinion that settler colonialism is very bad. As David Polansky quipped, “Over a long enough timeline, I guess even conquistadors become indigenous.”

Another very problematic issue for the people supporting the protests has been that normal Americans have been repelled by images of rioters routinely waving Mexican flags. The rioters are presumably very upset about the possibility of ICE sending people to live in a country they take great pride in being from?

In any event, the media attempts to explain away flying a foreign flag in an uprising against the federal government have been something to behold. The New York Times probably takes the cake here:

Taking Sides

At root, though, there’s often no deeper analysis required — the media are just obviously taking sides. It’s pretty hard to read the coverage any other way; here are just a few examples pulled from Drew Holden’s eye-popping X thread:

No Morals, Just Politics

Finally, perhaps the biggest tell is that there are no moral arguments made against rioting or criminal behavior to be found anywhere. This is Gavin Newsom’s best attempt to discourage violence:

Note that there’s no moral argument against rioting. No pleading with protestors to stop damaging their communities. No telling people to stop destroying businesses. The most persuasive thing he can conceive of is telling people not to help Trump.

It’s politics all the way down. When you have an entire political movement willing to blur the line between rioting and “a cry of hope,” the unfortunate implication here is that the violence might be tolerable if the politics were different.

But condemnation of rioting MUST be without any political reservations for it to be effective. The Trump administration has been consistent about that, as well as serious about addressing the problem, given its willingness to call in the Marines and National Guard.

By contrast, Democrats such as Gov. Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have lamely shifted blame off themselves and sent mixed messages since the beginning of the riots. And national Democrats are struggling to support them.

Americans have wised up since 2020, and they’re not going to let politics and media gaslighting get in the way of seeing the L.A. riots for what they are — a complete failure of Democrat governance and a naked attempt to use violence to stop enforcing immigration laws a large majority of Americans want enforced.

Thankfully, none of these dishonest narratives appear to be working anymore — but that won’t necessarily stop us from seeing more radicalism and violence this summer.