Something’s afoot in the Middle East
The art of the China deal
A trade deal with China has been announced:
“Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me,” Trump revealed in an all-caps post on Truth Social. “Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China.”
“Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%. The relationship is excellent! Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
“President XI and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American Trade,” the president added. “This would be a great WIN for both countries!!”
The rare earth licenses are temporary, due to last for 6 months and then they can be renegotiated.
How long can the media fool the public about “mostly peaceful protests”?
The MSM tried to frame the riots in the summer of 2020 as mostly peaceful protests. Sure, many of the people involved that summer were indeed peaceful protesters, but many were not. That means a lot of destruction was caused; after all, it’s not necessary that every single participant be violent in order to have a very dangerous situation.
In 2020 the coverage seemed to fool a lot of people, though. I know intelligent people who follow the news (although only CNN and the like) who were unaware of the damage done by protesters/rioters in 2020. So the MSM is trying the same approach now, hoping for the same result with the same group of viewers.
But can you fool many of the people much of the time, over and over and over? I don’t know the answer. But to us on the right, who get a fuller picture because we watch news sources that show the mayhem, it seems ludicrous that anyone could still believe that there was no need for more crowd control in LA than initially provided, or that the call for the Guard was not needed.
Then there are the facts about what it was that the protesters/rioters were actually protesting. Who are the people ICE was apprehending? As Trump would say, “not their best”:
These arrests occurred June 9 and 10 despite prolonged violent riots and assaults on ICE and other federal law enforcement officers.
“Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect. How much longer will Governor Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass continue to prioritize these criminal illegal aliens over their own citizens?” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “Secretary Noem has a message to the LA rioters: you will not stop us or slow us down. ICE will continue to enforce the law and arrest criminal illegal aliens.” …
Gerardo Antonio-Palacios, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested by ICE Los Angeles. He has criminal convictions for homicide and burglary. He was previously deported.
Mab Khleb
ICE Los Angeles arrested Mab Khleb, a 53-year-old illegal alien from Cambodia. Khleb’s criminal history includes a conviction for transport of a controlled substance, possession of controlled substance, lewd action with a child, and battery.
Sang Louangprasert
ICE Los Angeles arrested Sang Louangprasert, a 66-year-old illegal alien from Laos. Louangprasert’s criminal history includes a conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 in Fresno, CA and inflicting corporal injury, spouse or cohabitant in Santa Barbara, CA.
Antonio Benitez-Ugarte
Antonio Benitez-Ugarte, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested by ICE Los Angeles and has been convicted of drug trafficking.
Alberto Morales-Mejia
Alberto Morales-Mejia, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested by ICE Los Angeles and has criminal convictions for manufacturing amphetamine. He also has previous arrests for document fraud and possession of a weapon.
And more. It’s not a list to engender a great deal of sympathy among the public. But the Democrats and the press hope the public never get these sorts of details.
And here’s a poster boy for the mostly peaceful demonstrators:
“Emiliano Garduno-Galvez is a criminal illegal alien from Mexico who threatened the lives of federal law enforcement officers by attacking them with a Molotov cocktail during the violent riots in Los Angeles. ICE arrested Garduno-Galvez, and he is now being charged with attempted murder. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a Wednesday statement.
Attempted murder sounds about right.
ADDENDUM:
And Jimmy Kimmel says there are no riots. Well, I bet they don’t center around his neighborhood, so out of sight, out of mind:
Los Angeles-based comedian Jimmy Kimmel told his audience on Tuesday that “there’s no riots outside” and slammed “mentally ill” President Donald Trump for deploying troops to quell what he claims is exaggerated unrest in the city.
Trump sent over 700 Marines to Los Angeles in an effort to quash anti-ICE protests that have ravaged parts of the city on Tuesday. Images from L.A. showcase masked protesters blocking roads, destroying vehicles and engaging with police, while Mayor Karen Bass issued a curfew for a portion of the city’s downtown area.
Kimmel mocked the media for portraying the anti-ICE protests as “some kind of totalitarian hellscape” and condemned the Trump administration for deporting “people who have lived here their whole lives.”
It’s irrelevant how long they’ve lived here, if they are criminal illegal aliens – although I also think many of the deportees have not lived here their whole lives. I’m also fairly sure that Kimmel is unlikely to have met any of the above rogue’s gallery, although they’ve certainly done damage to other people. Kimmel couldn’t care less.
RIP Brian Wilson
A musical genius, gone at 82. Then again, who ever thought Brian Wilson would reach the ripe old age of 82? But he did, and gave us a lot of music along the way.
The Beach Boys were a family act that featured harmonies and had a fresh sound when they came on the scene:
Encapsulating the group’s import in “The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll,” critic Jim Miller wrote, “In the ’60s, when they were at the height of their original popularity, the Beach Boys propagated their own variant on the American Dream, painting a dazzling picture of beaches, parties and endless summer, a paradise of escape into private as often as shared pleasures. Yet by the late ’60s, the band was articulating…a disenchantment with the suburban ethos, and a search for transcendence.”
In other words, they went from early 60s music to late 60s music, much as the Beatles did only in their own special way, led mostly by Brian Wilson.
Wilson was a troubled guy and spent a lot of time dealing with that:
The product of a torturous relationship with his father, Wilson from the early ’60s on experienced a series of mental breakdowns (which led to his early withdrawal from live performances with the group), struggles with drug and alcohol abuse, thickets of litigation, and deepening acrimony with his bandmates, who included two brothers and a cousin. In 1982 he was officially fired by his own group.
However, Wilson fought off his demons and opened a bright second chapter in the late ’80s, cutting a string of solo albums and receiving renewed acclaim via live performances of his masterpieces “Pet Sounds” and “Smile.” On the 50th anniversary of the Beach Boys’ founding, he took to the road again with the band after a decades-long absence.
The Beach Boys were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Brian Wilson also gave the 1997 introduction for the induction into the same institution of another family group featuring harmonies and falsetto: the Bee Gees.
In trying to decide which Beach Boys song to feature here, I would think the obvious choice would be “Good Vibrations,” their later magnum opus. Or perhaps “God Only Knows,” a song whose lead vocalist was Brian’s brother Carl. For me, though, it’s the early-60s songs of the Beach Boys, full of optimism and fun, and a time when California was a dreamy place to be. My favorite of all was this one – “I Get Around.” This video has the song followed by two bonuses: a short interview, and then a performance of “When I Grow Up.” Note the outtro lyric to that second song: “won’t last forever.”:
Thanks for the music and the memories, Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.
Open thread 6/11/2025
The beleaguered and persecuted heroes of CBS
A reporter at CBS exhibits his delusional self-aggrandizement combined with paranoia:
“The most important thing is to have the courage to speak, to not let fear permeate the country so that everyone suddenly becomes silent,” the former “CBS Evening News” anchor added. “If you have the courage to speak, we are saved. If you fall silent, the country is doomed.” …
Cooper asked Pelley, a nearly 40-year veteran of CBS: “Do you still believe in journalism? Do you still believe in the role of journalists?”
“It is the only thing that’s gonna save the country,” Pelley responded. “You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can’t be done.”
What do they mean by “journalism”? They mean their own brand, which “saves” democracy by lying to the people. The news must be filtered through those “journalists” who controlled the spigot for so long and have now lost that ability, to a large extent. Pelley would like to keep his finger in the dike.
The article goes on to add:
Trump filed a legally dubious lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris last fall.
CBS News journalists and executives have sought to fight the suit and its allegations of “election interference.”
The authors fail to mention that the reason for the suit was deceptive editing on the part of CBS in order to make Harris’ performance look much better than it was. It is always possible and even easy to get some legal “experts” on the left to say a Trump lawsuit is dubious, and I actually doubt he will be victorious in this one. But at least let the reader know what Trump is alleging and why.
And yes, there was plenty of “election interference” in 2024 – that’s what the news networks now do best.
What is the left’s goal in staging these LA riots?
Commenter “Bauxite” wonders:
Understanding that this is being driven by the leftmost flank of the American left, I still can’t see how it makes sense. Trump is at his strongest on law and order and illegal immigration. They’ve changed the subject from tariffs and the the so-called big beautiful bill to illegal immigration and leftist rioting.
Trump’s enemies ride to the rescue again. Credit to Trump for sending in the national guard right away this time.
It would indeed seem to play into Trump’s hands, and Bauxite is hardly the only person making such an observation. For example, there’s this from Democrat strategist Chuck Rocha, saying very much the same thing (I can’t embed the video, but that’s the link; it’s about a minute long).
So why does the left do this? I think there are many reasons. First of all, their base loves it. Secondly, it sows chaos and might actually impede some of the deportations, which stymies Trump and causes more chaos. But I believe the deeper desire is to provoke a strong reaction from Trump that can then be labeled in all the ways they love to label Trump: he’s a fascist and a power-mad brutal dictator. Today it’s the illegal criminal aliens, tomorrow it will be you!
It’s a classic leftist move. Their playbook – in US history, anyway – is the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I wrote a piece back in 2006 about this leftist strategy. Most of the remainder of the present post will be quotes from that 2006 article, and I believe the relevance is obvious (the Horowitz link no longer works, however).
This contemporaneous article from Time magazine (hardly a right-wing fringe publication) discusses the intent of the leaders of the 1968 Chicago Convention demonstrations:
“[The protestors] left Chicago more as victors than as victims. Long before the Democratic Convention assembled, the protest leaders who organized last week’s marches and melees realized that they stood no chance of influencing the political outcome or reforming “the system.” Thus their strategy became one of calculated provocation. The aim was to irritate the police and the party bosses so intensely that their reactions would look like those of mindless brutes and skull-busters. After all the blood, sweat and tear gas, the dissidents had pretty well succeeded in doing just that.”
Some demonstrators came prepared; defensively:
“…many were equipped with motorcycle crash helmets, gas masks (purchasable at $4.98 in North Side army-navy surplus stores), bail money and anti-Mace unguents.”
And a few, offensively:
“A handful of hard-liners in the “violence bag” also carried golf balls studded with spikes, javelins made of snow-fence slats, aerosol cans full of caustic oven-cleaning fluids, ice picks, bricks, bottles, and clay tiles sharpened to points that would have satisfied a Cro-Magnon bear hunter.”
The leaders were also prepared:
“Most of the protest leaders stayed in the background. Mobilization Chairman David Tyre Dellinger, 53, the shy editor-publisher of Liberation, who led last fall’s Pentagon March, studiously avoided the main confrontation before the Hilton. His chief aide, Tom Hayden, 28, a New Left author who visited Hanoi three years ago, was so closely tailed by plainclothesmen that he finally donned a yippie-style wig to escape their attentions. Nonetheless, he was arrested. Rennie Davis, 28, the clean-cut son of a Truman Administration economic adviser, took a more active part as one of the Chicago organizers: his aim, he said, was ‘to force the police state to become more and more visible, yet somehow survive in it.’ At Grant Park on Wednesday afternoon, he both succeeded and failed….”
And here’s David Horowitz’s insider-turned-apostate version:
“In fact, the famous epigram from ’68 ‘Demand the Impossible’ which Talbot elsewhere cites, explains far more accurately why it was Hayden, not Daley, who set the agenda for Chicago, and why it was Hayden who was ultimately responsible for the riot that ensued. The police behaved badly, it is true and they have been justly and roundly condemned for their reactions. But those reactions were entirely predictable. After all, it was Daley who, only months before, had ordered his police to ‘shoot looters on sight’ during the rioting after King’s murder. In fact the predictable reaction of the Chicago police was an essential part of Hayden’s calculation in choosing Chicago as the site of the demonstration in the first place.”
… The organizers of the demonstrations in Chicago in 1968 … [had this intent]: to act from a weakened position to provoke, by their actions, a repressive response from authorities (in this case, the police) that would then further inflame public opinion against those authorities, and engender more sympathy for the cause of the planners.
In that endeavor, they were wildly successful in Chicago, but that success required an overreaction on the part of the Chicago police, who kindly obliged and played their predicted part in the drama.
And what of other intents of the demonstration leaders, and other consequences? Horowitz again:
“In a year when any national ‘action’ would attract 100,000 protestors, only about 10,000 (and probably closer to 3,000) actually showed up for the Chicago blood-fest. That was because most of us realized there was going to be bloodshed and didn’t see the point. Our ideology argued otherwise as well. The two-party system was a sham; the revolution was in the streets. Why demonstrate at a political convention? In retrospect, Hayden was more cynical and shrewder than we were. By destroying the presidential aspirations of Hubert Humphrey, he dealt a fatal blow to the anti-Communist liberals in the Democratic Party and paved the way for a takeover of its apparatus by the forces of the political left, a trauma from which the party has yet to recover.
One reason the left has obscured these historical facts is that the nostalgists don’t really want to take credit for electing Richard Nixon, which they surely did.”
That’s the end of my excerpts from my own 2006 post. And yes, many of the excesses of the left during the Biden administration helped re-elect Donald Trump. At this point, however, the left is well aware (despite their rhetoric) that this is Trump’s final term as president. They seem to be playing a longer game. Will they succeed? It depends on the American public. The way in which we get information, and the attitudes with which we digest that information, are quite different these days than in 1968. But although I don’t think the left is so stupid as to not understand how bad the current riots look to a lot of people, and that there is indeed a danger of playing into Trump’s hands, I suspect they think there may be some distinct advantages for the left in the long run.
I certainly hope they are very very wrong about that. But I believe that is their calculation.
Open thread 6/10/2025
I can do this. It’s like riding a bicycle; you don’t forget:
Bathtub magic
And now for a commercial break.
I have a bathtub that’s somewhat porous. I suppose it’s old and has lost some of its finish. I have no wish to replace it, but it seems that it gets dirty quite quickly from my showers, with stains that I think may be mostly soap scum but which have been almost impossible to get out.
Actually, they have been impossible to get out with any product that I have tried, homemade or store bought – till now. That includes several things that are supposedly specially formulated to remove soap scum, as well as buying three – count ’em, three! – special tools for the purpose, one of which was battery-operated.
Oh, I could reduce the intensity of the stains. But a significant amount remained.
Enter Mr. Clean’s Magic Eraser for the bath. I wouldn’t say I had zero expectations, but let’s just say my expectations were almost non-existent. It had a perfumy smell I’m not fond of, as well. But let me just say that the thing worked like nothing else has. I am astounded.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East
Quite a few developments of interest:
(1) As Hamas fades, what group will rise? Of one thing you can be sure: it won’t be the equivalent of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Almost certainly, all the possible candidates are pretty awful. Which are the least awful? Perhaps this bunch, which Israel is said to be arming in order to help protect the aid distribution:
The concept of using Yasser Abu Shabab’s militia was approved because it was already an existing, anti-Hamas armed group independent of Israeli assistance. Contrary to some reports, it is not connected to ISIS or extremist Salafi groups.
Notably, the militia was already armed prior to the current conflict. Members of the militia, all from the same tribe, have long opposed Hamas’ rule in the area. The militia has been defined as an armed group even before the start of the war.
In the Rafah area, very few terrorists remain, and most of the terror infrastructure has been dismantled. This improved security situation now allows for easier control of the area without Hamas governance.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not necessarily.
(2) Israel detains the self-aggrandizing publicity hound, Greta Thunberg – who is no longer a teenager – and one condition of her release is that she will be watching the video of Hamas atrocities. I doubt it will make a particle of difference to her:
Her boat carried less than one truck-full of food, which she claimed she was bringing to Gaza to stop the genocide.
They needed all that space for their videocameras, phones, and make-up kits.
(3) Macron changes his tune – somewhat – on Palestinian statehood:
An international conference, the brainchild of France, to recognize a Palestinian state, has lowered its sights.
Scheduled for June 16-18 at United Nations headquarters in New York, it will now focus on determining steps toward recognition rather than recognition itself.
The redefined goal signals a retreat from the conference’s earlier ambition of seeing a large bloc of countries, including France and the United Kingdom, recognize a Palestinian state, The Guardian reported on June 7.
French President Emmanuel Macron said recognizing “Palestine” “was not only a moral duty but a political necessity,” speaking during a press conference in Singapore on May 30.
Europe is hopelessly lost on this issue as well as on so many others. And it’s not as though Europe has a stellar past record, either.
(4) Speaking of which, here’s a video on why Ireland is so rabidly anti-Israel.
(5) Iran claims to have some secret Israeli nuclear intelligence:
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday that the information Iran claimed it seized regarding Israel’s nuclear program “seems to refer” to the country’s Soreq Nuclear Research Center, the first acknowledgment outside of Tehran of the theft.
The Prime Minister’s Office had no immediate response to the remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who spoke during a news conference in Vienna.
The alleged theft comes at a time of renewed tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, which enriches uranium a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels and looks poised to reject a US proposal over a possible deal on its atomic program.
Insurrection, LA style
This is the way it goes.
First you realize that summer is coming, and it’s the best season for riots. Next, you prepare the ground by choosing your favored cause, and make sure the MSM misrepresents it properly. Protecting criminal illegal aliens and opposing their arrest and deportation is a cause that’s a mite tricky to convince people to rally around. But after all, you don’t just want disruption and chaos – although you do indeed want that – but you also want the ordinary Democrat voter and even a few Independents to be sympathetic to your side. If the MSM does its job the way you want, they have delivered the message over and over that ICE is deporting ordinary illegal aliens (you call them “undocumented workers,” of course) and not dangerous people or criminals.
Once that’s done, you organize the riots. There’s no dearth of people willing to riot for money and/or for fun and/or for the leftist cause du jour. The venue is a blue city in a blue state, so that the mayor and governor won’t rein you in very much or very hard, if at all.
And there you have it:
The Los Angeles anti-ICE riots have erupted into a soft civil war in the streets. President Trump isn’t waiting for the local Democrats to get a handle on this; they can’t. They won’t. Some have even called agitators to escalate their actions against federal law enforcement. Around 2,000 National Guard units have been deployed for a riot that the media and the LAPD have called “mostly peaceful.”
There is a great deal of coverage of some of the details, so here are just a few articles: about CNN’s coverage, about ABC’s coverage, on the funding, and on the LAPD chief’s admission of being overwhelmed:
One day after President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guardsmen to the city — over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats who have insisted they have the situation in hand — Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell admitted that his officers were “overwhelmed” by the scale of the riots, which have continued for four consecutive days in Los Angeles.
“We are overwhelmed,” McDonnell said at a Sunday evening press conference. “Tonight, we had individuals out there shooting commercial-grade fireworks at our officers. That can kill you.”
“They’ll take a backpack, and the backpack will have a cinderblock in it,” he continued. “They’ll break up the cinderblock and use that, pass it around to throw at officers, to throw at cars and other people.”
Around 4 p.m. local time on Sunday, a crowd of at least 2,000 rioters blocked both lanes of traffic on the 101, prompting authorities in riot gear to create a line to prevent them from moving forward. They pushed the crowd onto an exit ramp, though two motorcyclists attempted to break through the skirmish line, injuring two officers.
The road was reopened around 5 p.m., but had to be shut down again around 7:30 p.m. when rioters started throwing objects and damaging police vehicles.
In downtown L.A., rioters were seen destroying self-driving Waymo taxis and spray painting anti-ICE messages on them. At least three were set on fire while protesters slashed tires and smashed windshields. Lime electric scooters were also thrown into the flames. One rioter appeared to have a makeshift flamethrower, according to the Los Angeles Times.
You can bet that neither the city of Los Angeles nor the state of California will be treating these people harshly. What the federal government will do remains to be seen. But with the J6 defendants, the feds had a venue – DC – that was very friendly to the prosecution. Not so now.
Governor Newsom says he’ll sue Trump for calling in the National Guard, and that the action was illegal. But the provisions of the Insurrection Act, which Trump invoked, seem to cover it:
Section 251 allows the president to deploy troops if a state’s legislature (or governor if the legislature is unavailable) requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection in that state. This provision is the oldest part of the law, and the one that has most often been invoked.
While Section 251 requires state consent, Sections 252 and 253 allow the president to deploy troops without a request from the affected state, even against the state’s wishes. Section 252 permits deployment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebellion” whenever “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the president to use the military in a state to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provision to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
The second part of Section 253 permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This provision is so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorizes the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.
You can find another discussion of the legal issues here.
ADDENDUM: RedState also has a great deal of coverage.