The Outrage for Next Week: They’re Literally Gassing Children at the Border

 

Late on a Sunday night, we’re starting to see next week’s outrage story taking hold: There are children present in the migrant caravan and the U.S. Border Police are sending tear gas into it, and mothers and their children are being affected.

There is, as there always is, more to the story than simply “the United States is gassing children.” What else is happening at the border? Well, just this:

The United States is now in the tough position Israel has found itself in countless times: You cannot storm a sealed border; so how does a country stop a mob of people attempting to do so? Asking nicely doesn’t work, but when you use non-violent means like tear gas and rubber bullets (there are no reports of the latter being used), world condemnation comes rolling in. What options do countries have when trying to defend their own borders from those trying, violently and forcefully, to penetrate them?

Breitbart Texas editor (and my friend) Brandon Darby expressed what is likely a widely held belief among Americans,

Critics of the President and those in the media will frame this story as simply “Trump is gassing children” and in so doing, they will undercut their own trustworthiness further. These aren’t children randomly present at the border; they were put there by their parents, who joined a mob attempting to break into a country illegally. They are not “seeking asylum,” the above videos are not how one goes about doing so.

There is a conversation about how best to repel these kinds of mobs and one we perhaps should have had before this evening, given how much-advanced notice we had that a caravan would be arriving at our border. But to paint this as simply a war crime is plainly and profoundly dishonest, and unfortunately for those trying to set that narrative, most Americans will recognize that fact at first glance. And so, critics of the President remain one of his greatest assets, even as chaos unfolds on our border.

Published in Immigration
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 90 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Fred, do you know the “First Rule of Holes”?

    Deny that you’re in a hole?

    • #61
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Fred, do you know the “First Rule of Holes”?

    Libertarians don’t do rules.

    • #62
  3. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Yes. If you want to present yourself as aware of trends, movements, and conversations over the last year, you should instantly understand the reference.

    I really don’t follow those things.  And I don’t watch news on TV, so I never see pictures of people.  I have no clue who that lady is.

    • #63
  4. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Fred, do you know the “First Rule of Holes”?

    Libertarians don’t do rules.

    Tell that to the LPNY state committee.  (Si supieras…)

    • #64
  5. ST Member
    ST
    @

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Yes. If you want to present yourself as aware of trends, movements, and conversations over the last year, you should instantly understand the reference.

    I really don’t follow those things. And I don’t watch news on TV, so I never see pictures of people. I have no clue who that lady is.

    Fred this is more than just a flash in the pan pop culture moment.

    Here is just under 3 minutes of the half hour TV interview that went viral.

    Same clip here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRpzoEJcm0

    • #65
  6. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Mike "Lash" LaRoche (View Comment):

    They are an invading army, comprised of objectively hostile actors. They have attacked American border security personnel with rocks, bottles, and other weapons. Not only does our government have the right to defend our country against such barbarism and savagery, it has a moral obligation to do so.

    But then, you are on record – on this website – referring to American border security personnel as “thugs.“ That is a highly offensive and ignorant statement.

    The men and women who served in past years with such agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the U.S. Customs Service – which now operate as Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – have put and continue to put their lives on the line for you daily, despite your contemptible ingratitude.

    My father was just such a man, spending nearly three decades serving with distinction in what was then called the U.S. Customs Service. Prior to that, he served in the United States Marine Corps. Tell me Fred, was he a thug?

    Your response will say much about the kind of man you are, or aren’t.

    I completely agree. Thank you for saying what reasonable people are thinking.

    • #66
  7. Mike "Lash" LaRoche Inactive
    Mike "Lash" LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Mike "Lash" LaRoche (View Comment):

    They are an invading army, comprised of objectively hostile actors. They have attacked American border security personnel with rocks, bottles, and other weapons. Not only does our government have the right to defend our country against such barbarism and savagery, it has a moral obligation to do so.

    But then, you are on record – on this website – referring to American border security personnel as “thugs.“ That is a highly offensive and ignorant statement.

    The men and women who served in past years with such agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the U.S. Customs Service – which now operate as Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – have put and continue to put their lives on the line for you daily, despite your contemptible ingratitude.

    My father was just such a man, spending nearly three decades serving with distinction in what was then called the U.S. Customs Service. Prior to that, he served in the United States Marine Corps. Tell me Fred, was he a thug?

    Your response will say much about the kind of man you are, or aren’t.

    I completely agree. Thank you for saying what reasonable people are thinking.

    Thanks, @goldwaterwoman, and you’re welcome.

    • #67
  8. Mike "Lash" LaRoche Inactive
    Mike "Lash" LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Okay, so let me take this a piece at a time.

    Mike "Lash" LaRoche (View Comment):

    They are an invading army, comprised of objectively hostile actors. They have attacked American border security personnel with rocks, bottles, and other weapons. Not only does our government have the right to defend our country against such barbarism and savagery, it has a moral obligation to do so.

    Sure. They are “objectively hostile actors.” They must hate America or something. That’s why they want to come here for a better life. And yes, some of them may have thrown rocks, so we should totally use tear gas on women and children. Only by being barbaric and savage can we defend against barbarism and savagery.

    But then, you are on record – on this website – referring to American border security personnel as “thugs.“ That is a highly offensive and ignorant statement.

    Sure. I mean, I can’t really defend myself because I don’t recall the specific context. But CBP has expanded rapidly in the last 15 years or so and operates without sufficient internal (or external for that matter) oversight. The result is a culture of misbehavior, flagrant illegality, and thuggish behavior.

    The men and women who served in past years with such agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the U.S. Customs Service – which now operate as Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – have put and continue to put their lives on the line for you daily, despite your contemptible ingratitude.

    Yes, yes. And I’m sure the honest folks at the DEA also put their lives on the line every day for me too, despite the fact that I have contemptible ingratitude for what they do too. They are truly America’s heroes and I should rightly show my gratitude for their “service” while I’m taxed to pay for it.

    My father was just such a man, spending nearly three decades serving with distinction in what was then called the U.S. Customs Service. Prior to that, he served in the United States Marine Corps. Tell me Fred, was he a thug?

    Your response will say much about the kind of man you are, or aren’t.

    Now we get to the heart of the matter. You think I was calling your father a thug. Was he? I don’t know. Did he engage in thuggish behavior?

    Evasive, non-responsive, fact-free snark. As expected.

    • #68
  9. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    ST (View Comment):

    Fred this is more than just a flash in the pan pop culture moment.

    Here is just under 3 minutes of the half hour TV interview that went viral.

    God, no.  Sorry.  I’m not gonna watch anything that looks like that.  Thanks.

    • #69
  10. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    ST (View Comment):

    Fred this is more than just a flash in the pan pop culture moment.

    Here is just under 3 minutes of the half hour TV interview that went viral.

    God, no. Sorry. I’m not gonna watch anything that looks like that. Thanks.

    Just so you are clear on the context Fred, you are the woman ‘that looks like that.’

    You and she have the same words (see comment #55) and rhetoric when conversing with a conservative.

    • #70
  11. Mike "Lash" LaRoche Inactive
    Mike "Lash" LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Here is yet another savage from the caravan invading our southern border, wanting to “come here for a better life.” God bless every one of our border agents.

    • #71
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Mike "Lash" LaRoche (View Comment):

    Here is yet another savage from the caravan invading our southern border, wanting to “come here for a better life.” God bless every one of our border agents.

    He climbed a tree and then set it on fire?

    Which itch is that jamoke here to scratch? Florida is not suffering from a shortage of Florida Men, is it?

    • #72
  13. ST Member
    ST
    @

    @fredcole a video of the guy, Jordan Peterson, that you never heard of talking about borders and The Wall.  The clip is just over 11 minutes but most of border/ wall talk is during the first couple of minutes.

    Enjoy (or not).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exz8gM_QK5c

     

    • #73
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Open borders folks are concerned, first and foremost, with coercion. People who like borders are more concerned with defense of civilization. Fundamentally different starting points. 

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-how-liberals-libertarians-and-conservatives-choose-to-think

    http://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics/

    Hat tip @philturmel

     

    • #74
  15. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Eridemus (View Comment):
    We ought to offer them police support money or whatever it takes to disincentivize them from playing the role of becoming enablers, as there is really no “neutral” ground on this.

    Mexico said they could stay there, if they restricted themselves to the southern two provinces. I wish we could give them some capital, to make those people economically productive and get some education there.

    They really do live in hellholes, but what can anybody do about it?

    More importantly, why is it our job to do something about it?

    • #75
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    JosePluma (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Eridemus (View Comment):
    We ought to offer them police support money or whatever it takes to disincentivize them from playing the role of becoming enablers, as there is really no “neutral” ground on this.

    Mexico said they could stay there, if they restricted themselves to the southern two provinces. I wish we could give them some capital, to make those people economically productive and get some education there.

    They really do live in hellholes, but what can anybody do about it?

    More importantly, why is it our job to do something about it?

    I listen to Chris Plante quite quite often. One of the neat things he does, is when he gets a sophisticated caller, he just lets them run, which brings me to two of the most depressing things I’ve ever heard. One guy calls in and identifies as a Puerto Rican ex-pat. He hates Puerto Rico. He says the culture is hopelessly corrupt and unproductive and he literally blames it’s Spanish heritage. There will never be any improvement. The other one was a guy that was working on ecological issues in central America and he said the same thing: there is just no fixing all the crime and in corruption in that place.

    The other thing is, and I’m not an expert on this, but a lot of those places set up constitutions just like ours but it doesn’t happen because that stuff has to live in peoples hearts. I think back in the day, the way Protestantism was practiced in the early USA, I think made a big difference. I’ve heard that the Mexican Constitution is just endemically corrupt and it really just builds inequality in.

    I believe everything that Peter Kirsanow says about legal and illegal immigration, and I think CATO sucks.

    I think the first order of business is saving The Republic, instead of being nice. I hate saying that, but I think that’s right.

    I’ve been thinking about this stuff for forever and among the long list of smart people that agree with me is Yoram Hazony, who just hits it out of the park, here. You have got to have political subsidiarity and cultural bonds or you are going to have problems. There are Republicans that are judgmental as hell about Brexit, but the EMU and the EU are completely overwrought and they are going to go down the hard way.

    • #76
  17. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    They are truly America’s heroes and I should rightly show my gratitude for their “service” while I’m taxed to pay for it.

    And yet, you have no problem with my being taxed for the horde of illegals your open borders fetish results in.

    • #77
  18. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    Sure. They are “objectively hostile actors.” They must hate America or something.

    LOL. They love America!

    • #78
  19. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    Sure. They are “objectively hostile actors.” They must hate America or something.

    LOL. They love America!

    • #79
  20. ST Member
    ST
    @

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    ST (View Comment):

    Fred this is more than just a flash in the pan pop culture moment.

    Here is just under 3 minutes of the half hour TV interview that went viral.

    God, no. Sorry. I’m not gonna watch anything that looks like that. Thanks.

    Up 2 U

    • #80
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Another topic I’m interested in is Republicans that hate Jordan Peterson. All of these guys are in an anti-Trump Camp that I don’t agree with on anything. 

    • #81
  22. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Another topic I’m interested in is Republicans that hate Jordan Peterson. All of these guys are in an anti-Trump Camp that I don’t agree with on anything.

    Milo Yiannopoulos just wrote the introduction to Vox Day’s takedown of JP; both Milo and Vox are still strongly pro-Trump, though neither is Republican.

    Milo:

    Peterson’s manner of speaking is designed to be fascinating. It’s easy to get sucked in. He constantly defers solutions, leaving listeners to fill in the gaps and reach the ultimate conclusions themselves. And he’s always hedging his own statements with phrases such as, “It’s something like that.” The way he speaks is designed to conjure up a rigorously precise, intellectually humble professor who doesn’t want to commit wholly to a claim unless he knows he is absolutely correct.

    I do not find this way of speaking fascinating, though clearly I’m in the minority. I prefer plain talk. I like simple, clear, unambiguous statements of opinion. I believe in objective truth and such a thing as right and wrong. I’m never going to be satisfied by a writer who is constantly pointing to deeper solutions that are endlessly deferred. I want to know what a person really thinks. I have no idea what Jordan Peterson really thinks.

    And I’ve come to the conclusion that all this constant prevarication occurs not because he’s a great teacher, eagerly hoping his charges will make the final leap of their own volition. Nor is it because he’s a modest Socratic thinker. No. It’s a public relations strategy, deployed so he never really has to commit to saying what he means, because he doesn’t really want to be understood, because, like his friends in the risible “intellectual dark web,” he doesn’t actually like or agree with his own fan base. When Peterson is put to the test, he has an established pattern of going soft at the critical moment.

    Peterson’s watershed was a tweet he must now bitterly regret sending, because it gave the game away entirely. He said Brett Kavanaugh should accept his Supreme Court nomination and then quit. Peterson, apparently forgetting everything he knew about the feral Left, claimed that this might somehow soothe the activist wing of the Democrat Party into treating the rest of us with a bit more civility. Ugh, come off it. I remember thinking to myself, Jordan Peterson of all people cannot possibly believe this. And no amount of thrashing around on social media afterwards, claiming he was just engaging in a thought experiment, has persuaded anyone that he was just floating an idea out there.

    • #82
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Another topic I’m interested in is Republicans that hate Jordan Peterson. All of these guys are in an anti-Trump Camp that I don’t agree with on anything.

    Milo Yiannopoulos just wrote the introduction to Vox Day’s takedown of JP; both Milo and Vox are still strongly pro-Trump, though neither is Republican.

    Milo:

    Peterson’s manner of speaking is designed to be fascinating. It’s easy to get sucked in. He constantly defers solutions, leaving listeners to fill in the gaps and reach the ultimate conclusions themselves. And he’s always hedging his own statements with phrases such as, “It’s something like that.” The way he speaks is designed to conjure up a rigorously precise, intellectually humble professor who doesn’t want to commit wholly to a claim unless he knows he is absolutely correct.

    I do not find this way of speaking fascinating, though clearly I’m in the minority. I prefer plain talk. I like simple, clear, unambiguous statements of opinion. I believe in objective truth and such a thing as right and wrong. I’m never going to be satisfied by a writer who is constantly pointing to deeper solutions that are endlessly deferred. I want to know what a person really thinks. I have no idea what Jordan Peterson really thinks.

    And I’ve come to the conclusion that all this constant prevarication occurs not because he’s a great teacher, eagerly hoping his charges will make the final leap of their own volition. Nor is it because he’s a modest Socratic thinker. No. It’s a public relations strategy, deployed so he never really has to commit to saying what he means, because he doesn’t really want to be understood, because, like his friends in the risible “intellectual dark web,” he doesn’t actually like or agree with his own fan base. When Peterson is put to the test, he has an established pattern of going soft at the critical moment.

    Peterson’s watershed was a tweet he must now bitterly regret sending, because it gave the game away entirely. He said Brett Kavanaugh should accept his Supreme Court nomination and then quit. Peterson, apparently forgetting everything he knew about the feral Left, claimed that this might somehow soothe the activist wing of the Democrat Party into treating the rest of us with a bit more civility. Ugh, come off it. I remember thinking to myself, Jordan Peterson of all people cannot possibly believe this. And no amount of thrashing around on social media afterwards, claiming he was just engaging in a thought experiment, has persuaded anyone that he was just floating an idea out there.

    Vox Day and Milo? If the two of them joined forces and went all-out, they might be able to field the intellectual firepower of your average halfwit.

    • #83
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    That book compares Peterson to L. Ron Hubbard.

    It is not worth reading on that account. Perterson is not evil.

    • #84
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The thing about Jordan Peterson is, he worked at Harvard, he’s probably a successful psychotherapist, and he’s read one hell of a lot of Western thought.

    Then you throw in the fact that I don’t like a lot of the people that don’t like him. Most of their CVs are weak as hell compared to him.

    I know jack about all of this, but that’s where I’m at.

    • #85
  26. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Percival (View Comment):
    Vox Day and Milo? If the two of them joined forces and went all-out, they might be able to field the intellectual firepower of your average halfwit.

    Milo demonstrates that Jordan “don’t say things that aren’t true” Peterson lied about him, and cogently discusses other specifics.

    If you can prove there was no lie or have a plausible explanation for Peterson’s bizarre Kavanagh remark, discuss it.

    Ad hominem doesn’t cut it.

    • #86
  27. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The thing about Jordan Peterson is, he worked at Harvard, he’s probably a successful psychotherapist, and he’s read one hell of a lot of Western thought.

    Then you throw in the fact that I don’t like a lot of the people that don’t like him. Most of their CVs are weak as hell compared to him.

    I know jack about all of this, but that’s where I’m at.

    The problem is that Peterson filters his reading of Western thought through Jung. 

    • #87
  28. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    In addition to achieving a level of self-promotion that would make Michael Avenatti blush, Milo was far too accepting for far too long of the more odious bogttom-feeders of the so-called “alt-right.”

    I’ve no use for his opinions.

    • #88
  29. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    ST (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Yes. If you want to present yourself as aware of trends, movements, and conversations over the last year, you should instantly understand the reference.

    I really don’t follow those things. And I don’t watch news on TV, so I never see pictures of people. I have no clue who that lady is.

    Fred this is more than just a flash in the pan pop culture moment.

    Here is just under 3 minutes of the half hour TV interview that went viral.

    Same clip here:

    I found the interviewer’s befuddlement rather refreshing, actually…Thanks, ST!

     

    • #89
  30. ST Member
    ST
    @

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Another topic I’m interested in is Republicans that hate Jordan Peterson. All of these guys are in an anti-Trump Camp that I don’t agree with on anything.

    They hate on “JP” because he points out that their attitude towards Trump is incongruent with their support for the conservative movement.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.