There are non-troversies and there are non-troversies.
The following story undoubtedly falls into the latter category, as the media’s faux outrage in reaction to a Donald Trump Jr. “Skittles” tweet has spurred mass collective eyerolls among people who know what an analogy is when they see it.
This is what Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out that caused a news media uproar:
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 19, 2016
The caption on the Tweet-in-question:
“If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?”
“That’s our Syrian refugee problem.” Trump Jr. wrote in his Tweet: “Let’s end the politically correct agenda that doesn’t put America first. #trump2016”
It’s been fascinating to watch the media reaction, which includes all manner of heated responses–except one that addresses the argument Trump Jr. actually made.
The Huffington Post led the way with an overheated piece called, “Trump Jr.’s Poisoned Skittles Tweet Goes Horrifically — And Hilariously — Awry.” How did it go awry, you ask? Social justice warriors objected to the analogy being made at all.
How did they combat the analogy? Why, they chose to interpret it literally.
— Anthony Oliveira (@meakoopa) September 20, 2016
I think we should stop eating any #Skittles. Just until we find out what's going on.
— Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) September 20, 2016
JR: “If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?”
If your dad wins, I’ll eat them all.
— Dave Pell (@davepell) September 20, 2016
are you proposing we eat refugees?
— PAQ Daddy (@paqdaddy107) September 19, 2016
It’s not just the blogosphere that lowered our political conversation to a third-grade level. The Mars Company itself got in on the action:
— Mars, Incorporated (@MarsGlobal) September 20, 2016
The money line: Skittles are candy; refugees are people. Thanks, Mars, we didn’t know that already.
Then, the Trump campaign defended the Skittles analogy:
Trump campaign on Trump Jr.’s use of refugees and Skittles comparison: "Speaking the truth might upset" some. pic.twitter.com/cmVthwb2gM
— NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt (@NBCNightlyNews) September 20, 2016
The Trump campaign’s reaction boils down to “Speaking the truth might upset” some people. One might suspect that Trump Jr.’s tweet caused an outraged reaction precisely because it was a little too effective.
If you think you’ve seen a similar argument as the Skittles analogy made before, and you weren’t around in the Nazi era to remember a 1938 children’s book about poison mushrooms, perhaps this will jog the memory:
This is the best video you'll ever see on immigration/refugees. It sums up the entire debate with gumballs…
Posted by NumbersUSA on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The video masterfully demonstrates the problem with massive immigration to the United States, and the more effective strategy of exporting freedom and democracy around the world to improve people’s quality of life. Gumballs, Skittles, there’s something about immigration controversy that lends itself to candy analogies.
The controversy over Syrian refugees has simmered in part because the left argues we should let anyone into the nation who wants to be here, regardless of background, on humanitarian and “diversity” grounds.
The right counters that there have been terrorist attacks in the U.S. committed by immigrants, such as with San Bernardino and the Boston Marathon Bombing, and that all legal immigrants to the country need to be from a culture compatible with Western Civilization.
Syria, a tragically war-torn nation, has produced tens of thousands of refugees in recent years under brutal strongman Bashar al-Assad (the one that Hillary Clinton referred to as a “reformer”). Syria is a hotbed of terrorist activity, having become a base of activities for Sunni terrorist groups ISIS and al-Qaeda, as well as the Shi’ite Hezbollah.
Only in the liberal echo chamber of the mainstream media is it completely “unreasonable” for the American people to ask for exceptionally heightened screening or outright freezing immigration from such a nation.
A December 2015 poll of the Syrian people showed that a majority were against the United States’ military actions against ISIS. An estimated 82 percent believed that the United States created ISIS. Although public opinion polling in Syria is scarce, a majority of Muslims in the Middle East hold extreme views against women, gays, and apostates, according to Pew Research.
Outside of the mainstream media’s outrage against Trump Jr., is an intelligence community that knows law enforcement can be right 99 times out of 100 stopping a terrorist attack, but it only takes one mistake for there to be a disaster.
One might think that the terrorist strike in Chelsea, which left 29 people injured, would provoke sobriety in the media.
- Mohammad Rahami, the father of the Chelsea bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami, both sued the city of Elizabeth for anti-Muslim discrimination and informed the FBI his son was a terrorist after a 2014 domestic dispute. The father later recanted his statement about his son’s activities.
- The Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan attempted to contact al-Qaeda via a website, but the FBI stopped investigation into Hasan due to “political correctness.” Hasan killed 14 people, including a pregnant woman with an unborn child, in a “gun free zone” on a military base.
- The FBI halted investigation into the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s case while chalking up his colleagues’ concerns to ‘Islamophobia.’ The attack killed 49 people–the most deadly mass shooting in U.S. history.
It was not unreasonable for Donald Trump Jr. to point out the obvious danger of bringing in a mass influx of refugees from a hotbed of terrorist activity, because it only takes a few bad actors to do Americans grave harm.
What is unreasonable is a media that won’t make a sensible counter-argument. Instead, the liberal media is resorting to playing dumb with a literal interpretation that no one over the age of 11 years old should be making, while insisting it’s the son of a political candidate who is out of line.