WHAT’S WRONG WITH ANONYMOUS SOURCING? all you need to know:
The New York Times’ “Anonymous”? The the “senior administration official” was actually just a staff guy out in the bureaucracy.

New York Times’ Miles Taylor Op-Ed Shows Everything Wrong With Anonymous Sources
If The New York Times was willing to lie about its anonymous source for their high-profile information operation, imagine the lies they’re willing to tell about all the other anonymous sources they use.

Two years after the New York Times published an op-ed from what they described as an anonymous, principled conservative “senior administration official,” it turned out to have been written by a low-level bureaucrat who later worked for tech giant Google and gave money to far-left Democrats.

Miles Taylor revealed he was the author of the highly hyped op-ed headlined “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” He claimed to secretly work to thwart Trump’s policy goals as the elected president of the United States.

While constitutional scholars worried about implications of such unaccountable thwarting of the will of the people, most media focused instead on identifying who “Anonymous” was. The New York Times assured readers that when it said “senior administration official,” it meant someone “in the upper echelon of an administration.”

Not A Senior Administration Official
People took seriously the New York Times’ claim that the anonymous writer was in the upper echelon of an administration. In “13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed,” CNN followed the New York Times’ lead by offering the names of actual senior administration officials, such as Don McGahn, Dan Coats, Kellyanne Conway, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Kelly, Jeff Sessions, James Mattis, Nikki Haley, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump. Chris Cillizza also suggested it might be Fiona Hill or Melania Trump.

He also wrote of the Times, “They aren’t publishing an anonymous op-ed from just anyone in the Trump administration. They especially aren’t publishing one that alleges a near-coup … If some midlevel bureaucrat in the Trump administration comes to the Times — or has an intermediary reach out to the Times — asking to write a piece like this one without their name attached to it, the answer would be an immediate ‘no.’” He added:

Given all of that, it’s telling that the Times was willing to extend the cloak of anonymity to this author — especially, again, because of the stakes and the target. This is not a decision made lightly. That the decision was made to publish it should tell you that this isn’t some disgruntled mid-to-upper manager buried in the bureaucracy. This is a genuine high-ranking official. A name most people who follow politics — and maybe some who don’t — would recognize. The Times simply wouldn’t do what it did for anything short of a major figure in Trump world.

In fact, they were willing to do it for a very low-level political appointee. Taylor has been billed as “chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security,” but he didn’t have even that position that nobody knew existed when he wrote the op-ed and was described as a senior administration official.

Continue reading “”

Property owner shoots alleged break-in suspect in Oklahoma City; suspect in critical condition

One dead, one arrested after southside resident confronts alleged car burglar

TUCSON (KVOA) – The victim of a fatal shooting that occurred Monday evening on the south side was identified by Tucson Police Department Tuesday afternoon.

According to TPD, 27-year-old Christiaan Miguel Silva was found lying in the roadway next to a Jeep near a home located in the 1700 block of E. Holladay St. at around 10:20 p.m. Monday. Officials say Silva had obvious signs of gunshot trauma when police located him.

Despite rendering aid and CPR, Silva was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police said Silva was allegedly fatally injured in connection to a shots fired report in the 2300 block of E. Calle Joya de Ventura near Tucson Boulevard and Bilby Road.

According to TPD, the occupants of the home reportedly observed a man, later identified as 35-year-old David Anthony Santos-Esqueda, attempting to “gain entry in their vehicle” from their home security video.

One of the residents reportedly retrieved a firearm and then confronted the man. Police say shots were fired during the confrontation, resulting in Santos-Esqueda reportedly fleeing the scene in a white Jeep.

TPD said “detectives believe Silva was driving the white Jeep and was
parked several yards away waiting for Santos-Esqueda.” Silva was allegedly shot when during the confrontation between Santos-Esquda and the resident.

Santos-Esquda was also located and detained nearby the home at 1700 block of E. Holladay St.

He was later arrested for attempted theft of means of transportation, attempted third-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and first-degree felony murder.

The 35-year-old is currently being held at Pima County Jail.

Man fatally shot during Orange County home invasion robbery attempt

ORLANDO, Fla. – A 21-year-old man was shot and killed late Friday in Orange County during an attempted home invasion robbery, according to the Sheriff’s Department.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office on Monday identified the victim as Michael Ramos.

Deputies said Ramos was found shot to death around 10:45 p.m. on Lake Pleasant Road in northern Orange County. Investigators said Ramos was among several people involved in a home invasion robbery attempt around 10:10 p.m. on the 100 block of South Lake Pleasant Road.

Additional suspects fled in a vehicle parked in a nearby neighborhood, according to the Sheriff’s Office. Investigators are seeking information from the public regarding suspicious persons or vehicles in the neighborhood on the night of Oct. 23.

An investigation is ongoing. No other details have been released.

Homeowner shoots burglar in Webster

A Webster New York homeowner shot someone who allegedly had broken into a Gravel Road home early Tuesday morning, according to Webster police.

Webster Police Chief Joseph Rieger said that officers were called to a residence on Gravel Road, near Klem Road, just before 1:30 a.m. Rieger said it appears that the homeowner “encountered and shot” an alleged burglar.

Specifically, officers said that the homeowner encountered an intruder in an outbuilding (a garage/barn) on the property, not attached to the residence.

Webster Police investigate an early morning shooting on Gravel Road. Police said a homeowner shot an alleged burglar.
The injured man suffered serious injuries and was taken to an area hospital for treatment where he is listed in critical condition, according to Webster police. Officers have not released the name of the alleged burglar or homeowner.

A portion of Gravel Road was temporarily closed Tuesday morning. Officers continue to investigate the encounter.

No charges have been filed in connection with the incident.

Triggered: Church shooting heroes rip Biden gun control as ‘insane.’

The heroes of two Texas church shootings who used their own legal arms to take out the gunmen are warning that Democrat Joe Biden’s “insane” gun control plans will hurt public safety, raise billions in taxes, and force millions to give up their weapons.

“If it was Hunter Biden and your wife and family sitting in those pews at that church, would you still not want me to have this gun to protect them with?” asked Stephen Willeford, who on Nov. 5, 2017, used his AR-15 to stop a shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that killed two dozen.

 

“The fact is, the only thing that will keep us safe in times of evil are our guns. Evil will always exist,” added Jack Wilson, who, with his pistol, stopped the fatal shooting Dec. 29, 2019, at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas.

They are featured in a new National Rifle Association video that decries the Biden gun proposals that include taxes on gun parts, rifles, and a potential ban of some weapons. Both are NRA members, and the group has endorsed President Trump.

“Biden’s dream is to leave us all defenseless against criminals,” said Wilson. “I put a terrorist down in a matter of seconds with this gun, and it’s not even a weapon of war or whatever that means. You know what Joe told me? That I shouldn’t have been armed in that church,” he added in the video that shows Biden criticizing the use of the weapon.

The duo also raises two key issues worrisome to gun owners — taxes on guns and a ban of online purchases. And they note that Biden has promised to put anti-gun advocate Beto O’Rourke in charge of gun policy and let gun control advocate Sen. Kamala Harris lead the charge.

“All of this is nuts,” said Willeford.

BLUF:
“Our final analysis finds that race, gender, political ideas, ideology does not matter” in determining gun ownership, Khubchandani said. “What matters is, have you been threatened? Have you been exposed to violence? Do you know someone who was threatened, and therefore, by default, does that make you a little more protective about your own self and your family?”

Health Care Workers Help Drive Gun Surge, New Study Says

When the coronavirus hit American shores, nurses and doctors stocked up on guns, a new study reports.

Researchers at New Mexico State University and the University of Toledo found that being a health care provider was one of the strongest predictors of buying a firearm during the first few weeks of the coronavirus pandemic. Sixty-seven percent of people who reported buying a gun during the pandemic also reported being health care professionals.

“One of the things we should see, in my limited view, is these are people who are civilians who are not criminals and they have seen a lot of unrest in the past six months,” New Mexico State University professor Jagdish Khubchandani told the Washington Free Beacon. “And they want to be on the front foot with their own safety.”

Khubchandani said this surprising finding becomes more understandable when considered alongside the study’s other main finding: Gun-ownership demographics as a whole have shifted during the pandemic.

Gun buyers were more likely to be younger, more urban, more female, and less white. As the gun-owning demographic diversifies, then, it starts to look more like the demographics of health care, one of the country’s largest industries.

“America now has more job opportunities in health care,” Khubchandani said. “Almost 15 percent of Americans today have a job in health care. And as that demographic has changed, so has the gun-owning demographic, and they’ve intersected.”

Khubchandani pointed to two recent surveys finding that between a quarter and half of physicians own guns. He also noted recent real-world examples of health care professionals lining up at gun shops to purchase guns. Continue reading “”

U.S. voters agree on one thing: They’d feel better owning a gun

CHANTILLY, Va. — Like many Americans, two women a thousand miles apart are each anxious about the uncertain state of the nation. Their reasons are altogether different. But they have found common ground, and a sense of certainty, in a recent purchase: a gun.

Ann-Marie Saccurato traced her purchase to the night she was eating dinner at a sidewalk restaurant not long ago in Delray Beach, Florida, when a Black Lives Matter march passed, and her mind began to wander

It takes only one person to incite a riot when emotions are high, she remembers thinking. What if police are overpowered and can’t control the crowd?

Ashley Johnson, in Austin, Texas, worries about the images she’s seen in past weeks of armed militias showing up to rallies and making plans to kidnap governors. The outcome of the election, she thinks, will be devastating for some people regardless of the winner.

“Maybe I’m just looking at the news too much, but there are hints of civil war depending on who wins,” Johnson said. “It’s a lot to process.”

In the U.S., spikes in gun purchases are often driven by fear. But in past years that anxiety has centered on concerns that politicians will pass stricter gun controls. Mass shootings often prompt more gun sales for that reason, as do elections of liberal Democrats. Continue reading “”

Hundred Plus Miles Of New Border Wall Seeing Positive Results In Western Arizona.

Construction workers are buzzing with work along a 126 mile-long portion of the United State’s southern border with Mexico, as a wall is being erected with the goal in mind of reducing the number of illegal immigrants able to cross over into our country. An already completed section of the wall located in Arizona is said to be delivering impressive results. border wall positive results

via Washington Examiner:

The back and forth between smugglers and Border Patrol continued after Porvaznik took over the region in 2015. Arrests of illegal immigrants doubled. During last year’s border crisis, up to 60% of his agents were so overwhelmed with illegal immigrant arrests, half of whom were families, that taking care of detainees took up more time than their normal law enforcement duties. The “hodgepodge” of existing barriers was not cutting it.

The new wall is comprised of six-inch square posts filled with concrete. A gap of four inches was left between each post to allow agents to see through the fence when looking straight at it. The only downside to agents is that a five-mile stretch of the border will not get new wall because the land belongs to the Cocopah Reservation. This area is where agents are seeing the most illegal immigration right now, an indication of the new wall’s success at preventing illegal entries.

Agents suspect that when the coronavirus pandemic passes and they are no longer able to immediately return illegal immigrants south of the border, as they have been able to, more will attempt to sneak into the U.S. With so many miles of new wall in place, Porvaznik thinks his agents now actually stand a chance at holding the line.

“We’re much better positioned right now to deal with that traffic when they do come than we have been in the past,” he said.

Liberals have been telling us that these sort of fences will not work to keep folks out of the country, but that’s obviously not the case. Sure, individuals bent on crossing the border illegally will somehow manage to find a way, but many will also be discouraged by the difficulty posed by this wall. And if they try, the fence will slow them down, giving our border agents more time to “greet” them.

President Trump promised that at least 400 miles of the wall will be built by the end of 2020. Per DHS, as of October 19, 371 miles of the wall has been built.

In and of itself, that will reduce the strain on border patrol officers and enable them to better protect it without feeling outnumbered or outmatched. Trump was right about the wall, just like he’s been right about so many other issues.

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden

As the presidential campaign enters its final phase, one of the messages of the Biden campaign is that putting him, a 47-year veteran of national politics, into the White House will return us to something approaching normal. With Biden in charge, all the Trump craziness will expire, and things will be safe, sane and familiar.

In fact, there’s no chance of this happening. If Biden wins, things won’t go back to “normal.” You probably won’t even hear less from Donald Trump. And in a lot of areas, like foreign policy, it turns out the establishment’s version of normal wasn’t all that normal anyway.

Many of my lefty friends want Biden to win not so much over policy as because they have a visceral reaction to President Donald Trump. They hate the sight of his face, the sound of his voice, even the mention of his name. Electing Biden, they expect, will sweep Trump off the national stage.

But will it?

We are a long way from normalcy

Trump was big on the national stage long before he was president. Why would he go away after the election is over? He’ll still have tens of millions of (probably angry) followers, deep pockets and a huge megaphone.

There has already been some talk of Trump starting his own television network to rival Fox News, and/or his own social media platform — the latter made more plausible by the heavy censorious hands of those running Twitter and Facebook — and I suspect that Trump would regard a 2020 loss as a setback, not a defeat.

 Grover Cleveland came back to win a second term after losing the White House, Trump might reason. Why not me? He’ll probably hold campaign-style rallies around the country starting right after the election.

And the deep toxicity of national politics, which grew worse after the 2016 election but which has been brewing at least since the turn of the millennium, is not going to go away. In fact, a lot of what we’re hearing from Biden supporters suggests that it will get worse under a Biden administration.

Democrats are already calling for a Biden administration to pack the Supreme Court by adding new justices until Democrats have a majority, to pack the Senate by admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states, and even to establish a “truth and reconciliation commission” in which Republicans will be dragged in front of the public and forced to confess the error of their ways. And, of course, abolishing the Electoral College. None of that is normal.

COVID-19 won’t simply disappear

Of course, maybe a “return to normal” really just means an end to worries about the coronavirus, which has in fact turned the world upside down. Biden is running commercials suggesting that tens of thousands of deaths from coronavirus are Trump’s fault.

That’s a pretty weak argument, given that Europe is doing no better than the United States, and arguably is doing worse.

Politicize things as much as you want — and Biden, who accused the president of xenophobia after Trump’s January order banning flights from China, and continued to hold mass rallies for two weeks afterward even after many states declared emergencies, is on thin ice here in claiming Trump acted too slowly — the coronavirus isn’t going away no matter who is in the White House on Jan. 21. It’s an aspect of nature, over which politics has very little influence.

So forget talk of a return to normal under Biden. It’s not going to happen. At most, you can vote for the flavor of abnormal that you prefer. Good luck!

Top Gun-Control Group Ducks Guns in Election Ad
Brady PAC focuses on health care, not gun control, to boost Dems

A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.

Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.

Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.

The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.

“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”

Biden’s pledge to take away “assault weapons” and support for a variety of strict new gun-control proposals are key reasons the groups support him, Malcolm said.

“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”

Tucker documented his first hand knowledge of the shenanigans by the actual people who had just enacted and ratified the Constitution to try and subvert and evade its restrictiveness.

Online:
View of the Constitution of the United States 

On amazon:
View of the Constitution of the United States 
by St. George Tucker

As professor of law at the College of William and Mary, St. George Tucker in 1803 published View of the Constitution—the first extended, systematic commentary on the United States Constitution after its ratification and later its amendment by the Bill of Rights. View was originally part of Tucker’s “Americanized” or “republicanized” edition of the multivolume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone. Generations of American law students, lawyers, judges, and statesmen learned their Blackstone—and also their understanding of the Constitution—through Tucker. As Clyde N. Wilson notes, “Tucker is the exponent of Jeffersonian republicanism . . . in contrast to the commercial republicanism of New England that has since the Civil War been taken to be the only true form of American philosophy.” In addition to the entirety of View, the Liberty Fund volume includes seven other essays from Tucker’s renowned edition of Blackstone. These include “On the Study of Law,” “Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England,” and “Of the Several Forms of Government.”

St. George Tucker (1752–1827) was an officer in the American Revolutionary Army, a Professor of Law, justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, judge of the Federal District Court for Virginia by appointment of President James Madison, progenitor of a long line of jurists and scholars, and stepfather of John Randolph of Roanoke.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

Homeowner fatally shoots burglar in Marquette Park

A homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar Sunday in Marquette Park on the Southwest Side, according to Chicago police.

About 11:15 a.m., the man, believed to be in his 40s, was shot by the homeowner during a burglary in the 7100 block of South Mozart Street, police said.

The Cook County medical examiner’s office has not yet commented on the death.

Area One detectives are investigating.

Senior al-Qaeda leader Abu Muhsin al-Masri killed in Afghanistan
Abu Muhsin al-Masri, believed to be al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, was on FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.

Afghan security forces have killed Abu Muhsin al-Masri, a senior al-Qaeda leader who was on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Terrorists list, according to Afghanistan’s intelligence service.

Al-Masri, an Egyptian national believed to be al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, was killed during a special operation in the central Ghazni province, Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) said in a tweet late on Saturday.

Al-Masri, who also goes by the name Husam Abd-al-Ra’uf, has been charged in the United States with having provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, and conspiracy to kill US nationals. The US issued a warrant for his arrest in December 2018.

Coyotes Comment Confuses Trump Haters

During Thursday night’s Presidential debate, President Trump claimed — correctly — that coyotes have taken unaccompanied children across the border. “Coyotes,” of course, is a common term for people who illegally smuggle humans into the U.S. Everyone knows that, right? Apparently not. In fact, progressive social media blew up after he made that comment, because everything Trump says is stupid or something.

Moderator Kristen Welker had asked him about 545 illegal children whose parents can’t be found. Here is Trump’s full response:

“These children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they used to use them to get into our country.” 

Granted, Trump isn’t the most fluent of speakers, so Joe Biden took it as his cue to show Trump’s supposed ignorance:

“Coyotes didn’t bring them over, their parents were with them. They got separated from their parents, and it makes us a laughingstock, and violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”

It’s true that the vast majority of illegal children come with family members. However, some smugglers, aka “coyotes,” do smuggle children, often with heartbreaking results.

Like the three-year-old boy whom Border Patrol agents found alone and crying in a cornfield near the border. Or the two-year-old girl — two years old! — whom smugglers left at the riverbank with just her name and a phone number on her T-shirt.

But some liberal Twitter users thought that the President was being racist or just ignorant, since Trump Derangement Syndrome controls their every thought.

Like David Hogg, the cream of Hah-vahd, who accused Trump of “xenophobia.” Why? Because “immigrant parents” are the “coyotes.”

He has no clue, does he?

 

So the “level of xenophobia is sickening?” The level of Hogg’s ignorance is staggering.

One Twitter user attempted to educate him. I’m not sure it would’ve made a difference with Hogg, however. The Trump Derangement is strong with that one.

“You don’t know what you’re talking about. “Coyotes” are human smugglers; in Central America they call them “Polleros.” Human trafficking is controlled by violent cartels; many immigrants are raped, beaten, or even left behind to die.”

But Hogg the Irrelevant at least correctly identified these smugglers as human. However, lots of Trump haters across the Twitterverse thought that the President referred to the animal. Or maybe they thought Trump was talking about this guy? Who knows what goes on in their fevered brains?

coyotes Continue reading “”