The California Department of Education is facing backlash after permitting a host of anti-Israel activists to build a statewide educational curriculum that demonizes the Jewish state and is said to be fostering hatred of Jewish and Israeli-American students, sources said.
Already, 83 pro-Israel and anti-discrimination organizations have petitioned the state’s education department to reform its Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) to remove multiple instances of what they say is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias…
“The anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias of the proposed ESMC curriculum—including its implicit portrayal of Jews and Israel as part of ‘interlocking systems of oppression and privilege’ and its endorsement of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as a form of ‘direct action’ or ‘resistance’ that students are encouraged to engage in—clearly exposes the politically motivated and directed nature of the curriculum and its drafters,” the organizations wrote.
“Not surprisingly, more than one-quarter of the Model Curriculum Advisory Committee members, appointed by the State Board of Education to draft the ESMC, have publicly expressed animus towards Israel and its supporters, with some members openly supporting BDS,” the letter states. “There is no doubt that these committee members have unconscionably used the state-mandated curriculum as a tool for politically indoctrinating California’s high school students with anti-Israel propaganda and encouraging them to engage in political activism against the Jewish state.”
Slowly but surely, the Gramscian march through the institutions is accomplished. Perhaps it’s already been accomplished.
The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a “Pandora’s box” of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.”
The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.
People who believe they know what happened to Epstein based on the conflicting and shaky information we’ve gotten so far are mistaken, although of course at least one group of them is probably right. We just don’t know which group it is.
Murdered by the right? Murdered by the left? Murdered by the shadowy cabal that controls the universe? Suicide through the negligence of the prison system? Suicide allowed “accidentally on purpose” by the corruption of the prison system? In the Witness Protection Program?
Or perhaps behind that curtain in Oz?
My personal opinion, which is merely one possibility of many, is “suicide through the negligence of the prison system.” Some people find that to be the very least likely of all the choices. I consider it the leading one, but only slightly.
That may be because I tend to follow Hanlon’s razor, which goes this way: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Or incompetence. Or bureaucratic disorganization.
However, Epstein’s death is one of those things that lends itself to conspiracy theories of all stripes. And one of those theories may indeed be correct. But I don’t actually think we’ll ever know, and I also predict that these theories will flourish for decades. The situation is just that suspicious and disturbing, and Epstein’s death is indeed convenient for many people.
One thing I’d like to clarify is that the term “suicide watch” (which pretty much everyone agrees Epstein should have been on) is not a single thing. There are many degrees of watch, and the most effective are the most Draconian and the least likely to be implemented for very long. The more bearable ones are nowhere near as effective. Here’s a description:
In many cases, any dangerous items will be removed from the area, such as sharp objects and some furniture, or they may be placed in a special padded cell, which has nothing outcropping from the walls (e.g., a clothes hook or door closing bracket) to provide a place for a ligature to be attached, and with only a drain-grill on the floor. They may be stripped of anything with which they might hurt themselves or use as a noose, including shoelaces, belts, neckties, bras, shoes, socks, suspenders and bed sheets. In extreme cases the inmate may be undressed entirely.
In even more extreme cases, inmates may be placed in “therapeutic restraints”, a four- or five-point restraint system. The inmate is placed on their back on a mattress. Their arms and legs are tied down and a belt is placed across the chest. In a five-point system the head is also restrained. An inmate is allowed a range of movement every two hours, when one limb is released and they are allowed to move it for a short period. They are then restrained again, proceeding to the next limb. This process is repeated until all areas restrained have been moved. This process usually continues in eight-hour shifts, and the inmate has a face-to-face encounter with a mental health professional at least once in each eight-hour interval. This cannot continue for more than 16 consecutive hours. The inmate is continually watched by staff during this time.
In the most extreme cases of self-harm, only when all other avenues have not worked or are impracticable,[citation needed] “chemical restraint” drugs may be used to sedate the inmate. In order for a facility to administer a chemical restraint, it must have the approval/recommendation of a licensed mental health professional, the facility warden, and a court order.
People who are determined to kill themselves will do so unless under those very stringent conditions.
But why wasn’t Epstein on even the more lenient type of suicide watch? That’s one of the things that needs to be addressed. Hindsight is 20/20, but even foresight would dictate some sort of longer suicide watch than was ever implemented.
Another thing I want to mention is the oft-stated idea that Epstein provided underage girls for sex with many prominent men. This is repeated regularly as though it is a given. It is not. Epstein’s proven crimes are that Epstein recruited and paid underage girls for various sex services to Epstein, and recorded these things with hidden cameras.
The rest—all the other men who are alleged to have been clients of Epstein’s in this repeated and lengthy program of sexual exploitation of minors—involve allegations only, and apparently most (or perhaps all?–it’s a bit hard to sort out) of the allegations are by two victims who filed civil suits.
You can read about that here. It’s very complex, but suffice to say that none of this has been proven and that some of the men named by the women, as well as a women who dated Epstein and supposedly helped him with the “business,” strongly deny the claims. And as far as I know there is absolutely no independent evidence of these people’s involvement in the illegal sexual activities in which Epstein himself definitely engaged.
The perception that these particular accusers of enormous numbers of the rich and famous were telling the truth was (and still is) helped along by a number of factors: the tabloid and/or politically-motivated press and internet and the natural tendency of many people to believe in conspiracies by the rich and powerful. In addition, the proven fact of Epstein’s guilt in his own exploitative sexual activities lends itself to the idea of tremendous and widespread corruption of a similar nature at the highest ranks. But Epstein knew a lot of famous people; he was a powerful guy (or someone who certainly seemed powerful) and one with a wealthy and sociable lifestyle, and there were a lot of more obvious and clear perks to knowing him than sexual relations with minors for pay.
I’m always skeptical of the sort of allegations featured in this case about the additional people, until I see the evidence. So I remain skeptical here, as well. But that could change and is certainly not set in stone.
My current theory remains: suicide, and a negligent prison administration. And a lot of false allegations about a lot of people other than Epstein. But that theory of mine is a weak leader rather than a very strong one.
One thing I will add is that this story makes me feel weary and almost ill. Whatever happened, it’s sordid and disturbing. Which do you prefer, a dangerous and enormous conspiracy or a dangerous incompetence? Take your pick.
[NOTE: I fully expect most people to find me way too naive here. But actually, I am highly skeptical—even of conspiracies. That does not mean they don’t exist. But my threshold is probably higher for believing in them than that of most people.]
Which gaffe of Biden’s? I’m talking about this one:
Everybody knows who Donald Trump is. Even his supporters know who he is. We got to let him know who we are. We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts.
Everybody keeps referring to that last sentence of the paragraph as a “gaffe,” and so I called it that in the title of this post. And I suppose it’s possible that it’s some sort of slip or error by Biden. But let me take the whole paragraph, one sentence at a time.
!. Everybody knows who Donald Trump is.
Oh, really? People see what they want to see and read what they want to read, and there are many echo chambers. How many people really look at the objective truth, or read all sides? I suspect that Biden (or his speechwriters) believe that his listeners—or at least, the audience he’s addressing, Democratic primary votes—think they know exactly who Trump is: racist, liar, white supremacist, Russian tool, president by deception, rapist, criminal. These things often can and have been easily proven to rest on invalid assumptions. But Biden’s audience believes they are truth.
2. Even his supporters know who he is.
And they disagree with Biden and Democrats about who Trump is. But that sentence of Biden’s—which granted, is a bit inscrutable—seems to me to be implying that even Trump’s supporters know that Trump is all those things I just listed, and they don’t care or they applaud it, because they are bigots and liars, too.
3. We got to let him know who we are.
I guess Democrats have been hiding on a desert island for the past twenty years, with radio silence imposed. I guess it’s just now that they need and are able to show us who they are, because we haven’t been able to observe who they are till now.
4. We choose unity over division.
That would be humorous if it didn’t reflect another “truth” that Democrats seem to believe about themselves, or at least like to present as the truth about themselves. But it is positively Orwellian. Division is their middle name, their modus operandi, their main tactic.
5. We choose science over fiction.
Democrats love to present themselves as the science lovers. But if any finding of science contradicts the preferred leftist narrative, it is considered heresy. See what happened to Larry Summers way back when he dared to mention the idea that the fact that women are underrepresented at the very highest levels of science should be studied. The left chooses fiction quite often, plus silencing and hounding out the person who wants discussion and further research on the science they find so offensive. There are myriad examples of this behavior. See this piece for much much more on the subject.
6. We choose truth over facts.
In light of what I’ve already written here, that sentence follows as the day follows night. The left does choose “truth over facts.” After all, isn’t that what “a higher truth” is about? Fake but accurate.
NEW: Joe Biden said he was vice president when the deadly high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, took place. Except, it happened in 2018, two years after he left office — the latest gaffe by the Democratic presidential front-runner.https://t.co/QiWHMCI8uo
Commenter Kate recently alerted me to this good piece by Scott Adams entitled, “The ‘Fine People’ Hoax Funnel”. It’s well worth reading. I missed it first time around, but better late than never.
It’s not just applicable to the “fine people” myth. It spotlights techniques used by people to hold onto any pre-existing belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.
…was murder. For the right it’s obviously the Clintons who contracted for the deed, and for the left it couldn’t be clearer that the culprits are their favorites, Trump and the Russians.
But I think the most likely explanation is that Epstein actually killed himself.
I can hear you saying, “Ah, neo, you naive fool!” I’ve heard that before. I hear it whenever I post something about Oswald having been the lone assassin of Kennedy. I heard it incessantly when I asserted that Bernie Madoff’s sons were innocent (and I have never seen a single thing to dissuade me from that belief). I fully expect to hear it now.
When I first read about Epstein’s death I had a number of thoughts. One of them was that, of course, the conspiracy theories would come instantly and variously. But I had some questions, too, and the two leaders were what kind of suicide watch Epstein was on, and what was the material or implement used to kill him.
At first I didn’t see any articles that were able to answer those two questions, which seem central to me. And I still haven’t read any details of how. But then it began to emerge that he was not on suicide watch at all.
What on earth?
All the articles I initially read about Epstein stated that he had been on suicide watch. Were they just assuming that? Do we really know? From the article I just linked:
Department of Justice spokesman Lee Plourde told The Post that Epstein, 66, was not “currently” on watch in his cell at the Manhattan Correctional Facility while he awaited trial on child sex-trafficking charges.
Plourde refused to say whether that meant Epstein had been taken off additional monitoring or whether he had never been getting special attention to make sure he did not kill himself.
“I’m not going to discuss his previous medical status,” he said…
It is also unclear if Epstein was in a cell by himself or shared his cell.
As an old boyfriend of mine used to say, clear as mud.
It’s not hard to understand why the conspiracy theories are flying. I acknowledge that the situation is exceedingly suspicious, and the lack of detail or explanation feeds into the conspiracy theory mindset. I will add that I certainly would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that Epstein was indeed killed by someone, either another inmate or someone who didn’t want him to talk. But I don’t think we’ll ever know.
But one federal prison official with knowledge of the incident said Mr. Epstein had been taken off suicide watch a few days ago, and was being held alone in a cell in a special housing unit.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired, said guards found Mr. Epstein in the empty cell during morning rounds. He had hanged himself and he appeared to be dead…
To take an inmate off suicide watch a “post-watch report” needs to be completed, which includes an analysis of how the inmate’s circumstances have changed and why that merits removal from the watch.
As I said, however, at this point (subject to revision as facts emerge) I think it most likely that Epstein actually did kill himself, and I think it most likely that the prison administrators were negligent rather than purposely setting him up.
In the comments to a previous thread, “R.C.” wrote, in a comment that I think states what the vast majority of people believe: “The notion that [Epstein] actually killed himself — when already on suicide watch — seems too vanishingly unlikely to be worthy of consideration.”
However, it seems Epstein wasn’t on suicide watch, although he had been until very recently. But even if he had been on suicide watch at the time of his death, the fact is that people sometimes do kill themselves under such circumstances, depending on the type of watch it is. Although successful suicides under watch are rare, some people are so determined to kill themselves that they can find very creative ways (see this).
If you want to get up to speed on all the varieties of suicide watch, take a look here (see also this). Usually the most stringent sort of suicide watch is not used, for reasons that will become obvious if you read the link.
But the main reason I think it at least somewhat likely that Epstein committed suicide is that his motivation to do so was probably very powerful. Think about it. By his own standards he’d had many decades of an exciting ride, full of money and famous people and the ability to fulfill his kinky sexual proclivities. But his fun life as he knew it was over. He was facing the prospect of being locked up for his remaining years, after a trial that exposed his worst deeds and also probably was going to feature a lot of lies about him too, from pilers-on. He is a figure of enormous revulsion from most of the world. He’s 66 years old. He has neither wife nor children.
Why would the man I just described not want to kill himself? What does he have to live for? And where there’s a will, there’s generally a way.
When I first read that they were charging Epstein again, despite his previous (suspiciously mild) plea deal, I wrote the following (and I suggest you read the whole post for some additional background):
I was just reading an email from a reader who mentioned that the real target of the SDNY action against Epstein is Trump. Just as occurred with many of the prosecutions related to the Mueller investigation, the idea is to get the accused to turn on Trump in exchange for some sort of leniency.
Well, naturally. And even if Epstein himself doesn’t give them what they want, the press can report all sorts of rumors about it. The fact that Bill Clinton has a far greater paper trail that potentially implicates him in terms of Epstein is of no importance whatsoever to present-day Democrats, who consider him (and his wife, to a certain extent) as a Great White Albatross.
On, and another person connected with Trump who can be slammed (probably correctly, in this case) is Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, who years ago was the US Attorney instrumental in arranging the previous lenient deal that let Epstein off surprisingly lightly…
As I connect the dots, there might be some genuine outrage at how relatively lightly Epstein got off, but far more important in terms of motive was the opportunity to distract the public and call its attention to Acosta, who had nothing to do with Trump at the time as far as I know but who now serves under him, and then potentially to Trump. That Clinton and others might be collateral damage is of no importance to them by now; he’s become a liability anyway.
I continue to believe that the opportunity to get Trump, even though there is actually nothing that has emerged implicating Trump in relation to Epstein’s crimes at all, was paramount in precipitating this new action against Epstein. Now it has resulted in Epstein’s death, which serves the purpose of keeping the conspiracy theories alive—probably forever.
I think that anything by Andrew C. McCarthy is likely to be worth reading, so I call your attention to his new bookBall of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. Keep in mind that McCarthy was never a Trump fan. But he is a big supporter of the rule of law, and Russiagate has shocked him to his core.
While we’re at it, you might want to take a look back at Watergate and some new information.
I remember that, in the late 1990s when I heard that Hong Kong would ultimately be turned over to China, I got a chill of foreboding. Hong Kong was being sacrificed, and the assurances that China would not impose itself unduly on Hong Kong seemed hollow.
Going back now to review what happened over decades ago during the lengthy negotiations, I find this, which occurred during Margaret Thatcher’s first visit to Chine in 1982, after Chinese leaders had already been working the UN for many years (since mainland China’s entry into that august [sarc] body in 1971) and agitating for the takeover of Hong Kong when the British lease would expire in 1997:
In light of the increasing openness of the PRC [Chinese] government and economic reforms on the mainland, the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sought the PRC’s agreement to a continued British presence in the territory.
However, the PRC took a contrary position: not only did the PRC wish for the New Territories, on lease until 1997, to be placed under the PRC’s jurisdiction, it also refused to recognise the “unfair and unequal treaties” under which Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Consequently, the PRC recognised only the British administration in Hong Kong, but not British sovereignty…
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that “I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon”, to which she replied that “there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like”…
Actually, I think that at that time most of the world already knew.
More:
During the reception of former British Prime Minister Edward Heath during his sixth visit to the PRC, Deng Xiaoping commented quite clearly on the impossibility of exchanging sovereignty for administration, declaring an ultimatum: the British government must modify or give up its position or the PRC will announce its resolution of the issue of Hong Kong sovereignty unilaterally…
In accordance with the “One country, two systems” principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China, the socialist system of the People’s Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.
However, many in Hong Kong weren’t buying it, and I certainly don’t blame them:
After the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Executive Councillors and the Legislative Councillors of Hong Kong unexpectedly held an urgent meeting, in which they agreed unanimously that the British Government should give the people of Hong Kong the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
More than 10,000 Hong Kong residents rushed to Central in order to get an application form for residency in the United Kingdom. On the eve of the deadline, over 100,000 lined up overnight for a British National (Overseas) application form. While mass migration began well before 1989, the event led to the peak migration year in 1992 with 66,000 leaving.
Many citizens were pessimistic towards the future of Hong Kong and the transfer of the region’s sovereignty. A tide of emigration, which was to last for no less than five years, broke out. At its peak, citizenship of small countries, such as Tonga, was also in great demand.
Singapore, which also had a predominantly Chinese population, was another popular destination
No one should be sanguine about China’s intentions, then or now.
The Chinese authorities acknowledge Hong Kong’s unrest is the worst since they regained the former British colony 22 years ago. Yet they have so far denied a key protester demand that even Beijing sympathizers support.
On Wednesday, the head of China’s top agency overseeing the city ruled out an independent inquiry into the unrest, one of the few protester requests with support from business leaders and others who typically back the government…
Of course he didn’t. But that’s something like the argument they’re using for El Paso and Trump.
[NOTE: If you don’t know what I’m referring to, it’s this:
Officers Steven Spiro and Peter Cullen were the first policemen to arrive at the scene; they were at 72nd Street and Broadway when they heard a report of shots fired at the Dakota. The officers arrived around two minutes later and found Chapman standing very calmly on West 72nd Street. They reported that Chapman had dropped the revolver to the ground and was holding a paperback book, J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Later, he claimed, “If you were able to view the actual copy of The Catcher in the Rye that was taken from me on the night of Dec. 8, you would find in it the handwritten words, ‘This is my statement.'” They immediately put Chapman in handcuffs and placed him in the back seat of their squad car. Chapman made no attempt to flee or resist arrest.
Twisted minds are twisted, and they are “inspired” by strange things.]
But Woodstock passed me by almost completely at the time. I read about it right after it happened, and it was just one of many hippy-ish events that happened during those years, albeit a photogenic one that was hyped to the skies as meaningful.
At the time, my mind was very much on other things. My boyfriend had just come home from fighting in Vietnam. I was looking for a place to live while in law school. I was very young, rather confused, and already utterly sick of the 60s.
The 60s had already not been especially kind to me. I was of the generation that started college in one world and ended college in a very different one. Whiplash. We began college subjected to rules about curfews and no boys in the dorm except in the public rooms (“four feet on the floor”), and we ended up with a free-for-all that never felt completely comfortable to me and in which I always felt like I didn’t belong.
Impulsiveness and dancing naked in the rain was not my natural element. Most of the social skills I had laboriously learned while growing up were no longer valued, and what was sought after now was a kind of mindless hazy hedonism mixed with mindless hazy thinking.
The fashions were fun. The music was fun. The rest of it made me very uneasy.
I still remember going to a single SDS meeting and being thrown by the anger, the nihilism, and the sheer stupidity I saw and heard there. Not for me, not ever, and that experience helped to inoculate me against the more extreme movements that happened during the 60s. But that doesn’t mean I emerged unscathed.
Neither did the US. As Paul Mirengoff writes in the article I linked at the outset of this post:
If Woodstock helped define a generation, that generation wasn’t the one at Woodstock. In the decades after the festival, radical holdouts gained control of America’s colleges and universities. The jury may still be out on the extent to which these misfits have helped define later generations, but arguably they have done so to a considerable degree.
Since the El Paso shootings, the Trump opposition has ramped up one of its favorite angles for attack: Trump is a racist! They think this is a winner.
That message was heavily pushed ever since Trump first declared his candidacy in his kickoff speech. The misleading message they promoted was that Trump had said that Mexican immigrants were all rapists. It was their preferred narrative, you might say. And that’s been an approach ever since: to take a word Trump actually used and to generalize it far beyond anything he actually said.
Collusion and obstruction were just detours along the way, different means to the same goal: Remove him. Or at the very least, defeat him in 2020.
Even the assassination talk they air so freely is a form of that: if all else fails, kill him.
That’s why they called themselves The Resistance right from the start. They wanted to frame this as a battle in WWII terms: Trump’s a Nazi and so are his supporters, and the rest of us are the brave Allies and their helpers in occupied lands. World War II was one of the last times it seemed to most Americans that we were on the side of Good and the other side was Evil. So metaphors about Trump are geared to imitating that particular conflict, and what may seem like over-the-top rhetoric on the part of the left is an attempt to invoke that sort of Good/Evil dichotomy.
And believe me, they’ve been pretty successful.
How does Trump play into that? He’s blunt. He doesn’t mind calling things by names that are not the usual diplomatic boilerplate. Whether it be “Rocket Man” for the head of North Korea, or “invaders” for the caravans of illegal immigrants trying to cross the border, he uses speech that the left and NeverTrumpers on the right feel is offensive and that they can exploit for their own purposes.
Today a commenter “The Other Chuck” got into an exchange with a few other commenters (and me) on this thread. Among other things, TOC wrote this:
What I cannot support is his toying with the alt-right and his continued demonization of “invaders” from the south. You can make all the excuses in the world about crazy gamers with AKs, that we’ve had them before, that they are a tiny fraction of the killers and killings nationwide, etc. The fact remains Trump got elected because he singled out illegal aliens as “invaders” and continues to hammer it away at rally after rally.
TOC is singling out one thing—Trump on illegal immigration—as the reason Trump got elected. I think there are many many reasons he got elected, and that is just one. Another big one is that he was running against Hillary Clinton and the extreme left. And that may have been the biggest reason of all that Trump was elected, although the appointment of judges and the revival of the economy were big ones, too.
More about the “invader” quote in a while, but first I want to add that TOC also invoked the shadow of Hitler and WWII and the Jews:
How many times must he rail against the “invaders” before you wake up and realize they are his foil, as the Jews were Hitler’s?
Trump has many other foils, too. And having “foils” does not equate those foils with Jews in WWII, nor does it make you Hitler or Hitlerian.
Whether through endless tweets, or campaign rallies that mimic Nuremberg in the 1930s, he has found his focal point, and they are brown skinned refugees, like the ones killed in El Paso.
Where to begin?
First of all, Trump has made it crystal clear that he is not talking about legal immigrants, ever. He is only talking about illegal immigrants of any race or creed. That many of them happen to be Hispanic is irrelevant; many (perhaps most?) legal immigrants are Hispanic, too,and Trump has no beef with them.
So although if you are in favor of open borders, you might say that Trump doesn’t favor illegal immigration and you disagree with that position of his, it is simply false to say this has anything to do with racism. It has to do with illegal immigrants being lawbreakers.
What’s more, “invaders” is exactly correct for the large groups (“caravans”) of illegal immigrants who marched here (with leftist help, quite organized) shouting militant slogans and invading their fellow Latin American and Central American countries along the way, not always welcome in those countries by any means. Many Mexicans considered them “invaders” as well. These caravans of illegal immigrants planned to storm the border and overwhelm the guards there, and thus gain illegal entry. And they were extremely explicit about that.
Those are the people who are rightly called “invaders.”
I don’t watch Trump rallies ordinarily, but I was curious to see how he actually has used the words “invaders” and “invasion.” So I decided to get transcripts of his rallies. Although I have no intention of spending hours checking this, I checked two recent trasncripts, this from a mid-July rally in Raleigh NC, and this from 8/1 in Cincinnati, as well as this rally from two years ago in Phoenix. I did a search on each page for “inva” which should have lead me to either “invasion” or “invader” or “invaders” if those words had occurred, and I got nothing.
So it is clear that Trump does not use that word in every speech.
When does he use it or when did he use it? As far as I can tell, it was in connection with the huge illegal caravans that seemed to reach a crescendo last fall. The word seems quite appropriate to me:
Comparing any of this to the Holocaust is an abomination. For starters, Jews were legal residents and citizens of the countries in which they and they families resided, in many cases for many centuries. They were being rounded up in those countries in which they resided, their goods confiscated, and on pain of death sent to death camps to be murdered, or labor camps with conditions so dreadful that they would probably only survive a few months there. By trying to leave, they were running away from virtually certain death and torture.
The caravans are voluntary. People are coming for economic reasons, as well as to escape turmoil in their own countries that is not specifically directed at them. Crime, for example. Poverty. Many people from all over the world want to come here for very similar reasons, and they have to wait in line to come here legally. The people in the caravans should be no different. And anyone with a bona fide claim for asylum can make that claim as well, and they don’t have to be in the US to do it.
And of course, for a certain percentage of the people in the caravans, entering illegally is just the tip of their lawbreaking activities. They are habitual lawbreakers, child smugglers, and/or gang members. That is the case, and although we don’t know what percentage of the whole this group is, the legal immigration system is designed to weed them out. But the “invaders” want to overwhelm that system illegally.
Let me repeat again what TOC wrote: “[Trump] has found his focal point, and they are brown skinned refugees, like the ones killed in El Paso.”
A lot is packed in there, isn’t it? The implication is that it’s their “brown skins” that Trump’s against, when there’s nothing he’s ever said or done that indicates any problem with brown-skinned people per se. Invoking El Paso in that sentence links Trump’s blunt talk about illegal immigration with mass murder [see ADDENDUM below], as though discussing an unpleasant reality and a legal remedy for it (a wall or deportation) necessarily provokes murderous hatred.
And last but not at all least in that quote, there’s the idea that illegal immigration has been Trump’s “focal point.” But it’s only one of the themes he harps on, the economy being another that I would argue is far more central to his message. In fact, back when I was no Trump fan at all, I analyzed his original speech—the one where the MSM jumped on him for supposedly saying Mexicans coming here are rapists—and I was surprised to discover that the portion on immigration was a very very small part of his speech. Unfortunately, I can’t find the post where I did this, but I can find a transcript of his speech, and you can see for yourself that immigration, illegal or otherwise, was a rather minor part of it.
Back on July 2, 2015, I wrote a post about the controversy over his remarks about immigrants in that very first speech. I’m going to reproduce my post here in full to end the present post. It’s fascinating—to me, anyway—to look back and see what I said right at the beginning, when I couldn’t stand Trump:
You can’t say Trump isn’t getting press. That’s his thing, in addition to making money: attention-getting.
Why is he #2 on the Republican candidate list? Because a lot of people like his big, brash mouth, and because there are so many other candidates competing. I don’t think Trump has a chance of actually winning the nomination [NOTE: by August of 2015 I had reversed that opinion and thought he did have a chance of being nominated], but he will draw from the “I’m sick of the Republican Party” crew and get a certain not-so-small percentage of Republicans to favor him.
Which brings us to the fallout from his immigration remarks. Let’s look at what he actually said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
“And some I assume are good people,” he added.
But it’s not just Mexico that’s dumping all of it’s problems in the U.S., Trump continued. “It’s coming from all over South and Latin America and it’s coming probably, probably, from the Middle East. We don’t know.”
Was Trump’s main problem hyperbole, the failure to say it the other way around, as in: “Most of the people coming here are good people, but many are bringing their problems with them—drugs, crime, rape”? Would that have gotten any attention at all?
I don’t know. But Trump is defending his rape remarks as true, and there certainly is some evidence to back him up (see this, this, this from HuffPo, and this from Amnesty International).
I guess it’s okay to say when they’re the ones saying it. From Amnesty:
Kidnapping for ransom isn’t the only risk. Health professionals report that as many as six in ten migrant women and girls are raped on the journey. And activists repeatedly raise concerns that abducted women and girls are vulnerable to trafficking.
From HuffPo:
But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom.
Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants, bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.
The assaults are so common that many women and girls take contraceptives beforehand as preventative measures.
So it’s not only coyotes doing the raping; fellow-migrants are involved as well.
The media and liberals are hyper-concerned with campus rapes whose high numbers are largely a myth. But they seem to show little concern for these women—as long as its Trump bringing it up.
As for drugs, there’s this, from a 2006 House Committee on Homeland Security report:
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reports that the Mexican drug syndicates operating today along our Nation’s Southwest border are far more sophisticated and dangerous than any of the other organized criminal groups in America’s law enforcement history. Indeed, these powerful drug cartels, and the human smuggling networks and gangs they leverage, have immense control over the routes into the United States and continue to pose formidable challenges to our efforts to secure the Southwest border. The cartels operate along the border with military grade weapons, technology and intelligence and their own respective paramilitary enforcers. This new breed of cartel is not only more violent, powerful and well financed, it is also deeply engaged in intelligence collection on both sides of the border.
You can read more general statistics on illegal immigrants and crime here. And, as Ann Coulter’s recent book indicates, the problem is hardly limited to illegal immigrants; many legal immigrants are a problem, too, because the type of screening process that used to be in place no longer is.
Coulter points out that we have “a media determined to cover up immigrants’ crimes.” The reaction to Donald Trump is an indication of that, but it’s not just the media. It’s businesses who are boycotting him, because anyone who says the sorts of things Trump has said—which, although hyperbolic, are based on a core of truth, a truth that cannot be told—must be shunned. American now no longer cares what’s actually happening to the country, as long as we talk about it in a politically correct manner.
The narrative—it’s everything. And you wonder why politicians get so mealy-mouthed?
[ADDENDUM: There is now a controversy over the manifesto that has been attributed to the El Paso shooter. Did he write it? Did he post it? If not, who did, and where? And by the way, that article I just linked distorted what the 8chan owner said. He did not say the manifesto was posted at Instagram. He said that the shooter ordinarily used Instagram to post things, and then that the manifesto was uploaded to 8chan by a person who was not the shooter. No one seems to know who that was, but I assume we’ll hear more as time goes on. However, the narrative has already been set: that this is the El Paso shooter’s manifesto and will remain so in people’s minds, whether it is ever authenticated or not.]
