Tipsheet

The New York Times Just Went Full North Korea on the LA Riots

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  June 09, 2025 9:10 PM

It’s par for the course material, but it’s still astounding as we write new chapters in the annals of liberal media bias, which include meltdowns like the one ABC News’ Terry Moran had over top Trump aide Stephen Miller. Trump broke these people. So, it’s not shocking that The New York Times editorial board concluded that Trump federalizing the National Guard and deploying 2,000 troops to quell the pro-illegal alien and anti-ICE mayhem in Los Angeles was the “real emergency.”

We have Molotov cocktails being hurled at cop cars, law enforcement being assaulted, businesses looted—LA is a war zone again. It’s a city that’s been twice burned to the ground, once by Democrat incompetence during a wildfire, and now this coddling and enabling of illegals who are terrorizing the city. Measures to restore law and order are now problematic. It’s truly amazing stuff: 

Some legal experts note that Mr. Trump’s order goes even further. He “has also authorized deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement are occurring or are likely to occur, even if they are entirely peaceful,” Liza Goitein, the senior director at the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said in a social post. “That is unprecedented and a clear abuse of the law.” 

There is, however, a long tradition of political protest making America stronger. And protesters will do nothing to further their cause if they resort to violence. But Mr. Trump’s order establishes neither law nor order. Rather it sends the message that the administration is interested in only overreaction and overreach. The scenes of tear gas in Los Angeles streets on Sunday underscored that point: that Mr. Trump’s idea of law and order is strong-handed, disproportionate intervention that adds chaos, anxiety and risk to already tense situations. 

[…] 

The biggest challenge posed by Mr. Trump federalizing the National Guard is this: What’s the limiting principle? Could any president order federalized combat troops to enforce his or her whims? And ultimately, who and what is the U.S. military in service to — the American public or the president’s political agenda? 

With this Trump White House, there’s a strong guarantee that the answer will not be sought in the rule of law, longstanding values or established norms. Instead, it will come down to — as it always does with this administration — whatever most serves the president’s interests and impulses. 

The last graf is just hilariously predictable, so much so that there are no words to say. Everyone has ignored this talking point because none of the ‘generalissimo’ panic porn ever caught on, except for the inordinately dense and stupid who happen to be Democratic Party voters.  

Is everyone hitting Hunter Biden’s crack pipe at the Times? Who am I kidding—of course, they are. If it’s not that, it’s finding new ways to write poetic verses for antisemites and pro-Hamas activists. Can we all calm the F down? It’s 2,000 men; Trump didn’t deploy two divisions into Los Angeles. Troops were deployed before the 1992 riots. Rare, yes—unwarranted? No.  

Also, let’s not kid ourselves. If this happened under Biden, and if he wasn’t braindead and deployed the Guard, he’d be lauded. Sure, hypothetical non-drooling Biden would've likely been trashed by the lunatic far left, but the media would call this a measured response. We all know the game here. 

Recommended

Did You See What Was Featured Prominently As Jamie Raskin Spoke at 'No Kings Day' Rally? Rebecca Downs
Guess Which Network Became Totally Unglued Yesterday Matt Vespa