It’s an in­va­sion! ... Of mo­ronic ar­gu­ments

The Saline Courier Weekend - - OPINION - ANN COUL­TER

BREAK­ING NEWS: MASS SHOOT­ING IN DAY­TON, OHIO, LAST SATUR­DAY NIGHT. (This may not be news to you, but I watch MSNBC, so I didn’t find out about the Day­ton mas­sacre un­til Tues­day.)

There were two hor­ri­fy­ing mass shoot­ings re­cently, but our me­dia are fix­ated on only one -- the one in El Paso, Texas -- be­cause the shooter, Patrick Cru­sius, is­sued a “man­i­festo” that con­tained some of the same ar­gu­ments made by Trump about il­le­gal im­mi­gra­tion.

Cru­sius be­gan: “This at­tack is a re­sponse to the His­panic in­va­sion of Texas. They are the in­sti­ga­tors, not me. I am sim­ply de­fend­ing my coun­try from cul­tural and eth­nic re­place­ment brought on by an in­va­sion.”

Wait a sec­ond! Didn’t Trump use the word “in­va­sion” to de­scribe our wide-open border? Why, that makes him a co­con­spir­a­tor in the white su­prem­a­cist’s slaugh­ter!

Of course, if we be­lieve the part of Cru­sius’ man­i­festo that talks about an “in­va­sion,” I don’t know why we’re re­quired to dis­be­lieve the part where he says his ideas have noth­ing to do with Trump -- or the part where he de­nies be­ing a “white su­prem­a­cist.”

But those are the rules. A white su­prem­a­cist, who com­mit­ted mass mur­der in El Paso, made ar­gu­ments that “echoed” those made by Pres­i­dent Trump -- and pay no at­ten­tion to the avowed so­cial­ist and El­iz­a­beth War­ren-sup­porter who com­mit­ted a mass shoot­ing in Day­ton later that day.

The hunt is on to find any­one who has ever used the I-word about il­le­gal im­mi­gra­tion.

(How about the “Bri­tish In­va­sion”? Do we owe the Rolling Stones repa­ra­tions now, too? Ev­i­dently a per­fectly good word, ap­pro­pri­ate in a mil­lion other con­texts, sud­denly be­comes “racist” if ap­plied to His­pan­ics.)

Ac­cord­ing to the Trump hys­ter­ics, if a ter­ror­ist cites X as the rea­son for his at­tack, then: 1) that con­sti­tutes de­fin­i­tive proof that X is false; and 2) any­one who agrees with X is pro­vid­ing “ma­te­rial sup­port” to ter­ror­ists.

So, I guess I’d be in trou­ble if I were to say, “The El Paso shoot­ing was an awak­en­ing, a mo­ment of reck­on­ing with politi­cians’ bro­ken im­mi­gra­tion prom­ises and the aveng­ing ha­treds it arouses.”

That’s a para­phrase of what Michael Ig­nati­eff wrote in 2003 in The New York Times mag­a­zine about the Amer­i­can Em­pire pro­vok­ing the 9/11 ter­ror­ists.

Or how about this:

“It is not only Patrick Cru­sius who feels this anger and re­sent­ment. Through­out the coun­try there is wide­spread bit­ter­ness against our politi­cians, even among the prag­matic and well-ed­u­cated, who may sin­cerely de­plore the re­cent atroc­ity ... but who still re­sent the way the gov­ern­ment has re­fused to se­cure our border.”

That’s a para­phrase of what au­thor Karen Arm­strong wrote in 2001 in The Guardian about the 9/11 ter­ror­ists’ re­sent­ment of Amer­i­can power.

They weren’t mak­ing un­rea­son­able points, but clearly no one held back for fear of “echo­ing” the be­liefs of ter­ror­ists who had just mur­dered 3,000 Amer­i­cans.

To the con­trary, in the words of left­ist pro­fes­sor Todd Gitlin in 2002, his fel­low lib­er­als felt the 9/11 at­tack was a “damnable yet un­der­stand­able pay­back ... rooted in Amer­ica’s own crimes of com­mis­sion and omis­sion ... reap­ing what em­pire had sown. Af­ter all, was not Amer­ica essen­tially the oil-greedy, Is­lam-dis­re­spect­ing op­pres­sor of Iraq, Su­dan,

Pales­tine? Were not the ghosts of the Shah’s Iran, of Viet­nam, and of the Cold War Afghan ji­had rat­tling their bones?”

Lib­er­als did not feel it in­cum­bent on them to hate Amer­ica any less just be­cause the 9/11 ter­ror­ists hated it, too. Why should im­mi­gra­tion pa­tri­ots re­con­sider their views one iota be­cause Cru­sius agreed with them? So do a lot of vot­ers -- not too many, just enough to put Trump in the White House.

In Novem­ber 2009, Ma­jor Ni­dal Hasan shot up Fort Hood mil­i­tary base while shout­ing “Al­lah Ak­bar!” killing 13 peo­ple and wound­ing 32 oth­ers. He did so pri­mar­ily be­cause he was an­gry about Amer­ica’s war in Iraq.

Had Obama cre­ated a “toxic” en­vi­ron­ment with his cam­paign pledge to pull all our troops out of Iraq? Was that pol­icy proved wrong be­cause Hasan agreed with it? I don’t re­call any­one say­ing, Well, now we’ve got to stay in Iraq FOR­EVER be­cause a ter­ror­ist didn’t want us to!

(And, by the way, con­trary to the non­sense re­peated every six min­utes on TV about white killers be­ing called “men­tally ill” while poor, put-upon Mus­lim killers get called “ter­ror­ists,” for months and months, The New York Times and Pres­i­dent Obama as­sured us that Hasan was men­tally ill, not a ter­ror­ist.)

Just two years ago, a gungho Bernie San­ders sup­porter, James Hodgkin­son, drove to the na­tion’s cap­i­tal and gunned down Repub­li­cans on a Vir­ginia baseball field, leav­ing House Ma­jor­ity Whip Stephen Scalise in crit­i­cal con­di­tion, re­quir­ing mul­ti­ple surg­eries. Sev­eral oth­ers were also in­jured in the hell­fire of bul­lets.

Hodgkin­son was in­spired to com­mit at­tempted mass mur­der by his pas­sion­ate de­sire for uni­ver­sal health care and his ha­tred of Repub­li­cans (es­pe­cially Trump). These toxic be­liefs were reg­u­larly re­in­forced by his fa­vorite TV pro­grams, “The Rachel Mad­dow Show,” “Real Time With Bill Ma­her” and “Democ­racy Now!”

You want “ma­te­rial sup­port”?

All those shows are still on the air! And the hosts still hate Trump! In­deed, every sin­gle Demo­cratic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date is pro­mot­ing an agenda that could have been lifted di­rectly from Hodgkin­son’s Face­book page, from gov­ern­men­trun health care to hik­ing taxes on “the rich.”

Does this mean uni­ver­sal health care is, ipso facto, a hate­ful, ter­ror­is­tic idea be­cause of Hodgkin­son’s sup­port of it?

A few months be­fore shoot­ing up a GOP baseball game, Hodgkin­son wrote on his

Face­book page: “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has De­stroyed Our Democ­racy. It’s Time to De­stroy Trump & Co.”

Based on the new El Paso stan­dard for brand­ing be­liefs “hate­ful,” “toxic” and “ma­te­rial sup­port” for ter­ror­ism, every Demo­cratic pres­i­den­tial can­di­date should be on a ter­ror­ist watch list right now.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.