Connect with us

News

Trump Condemns ‘Coyotes’ On Southern Border

Published

on

Progressives Take Him Literally

President Donald Trump referenced “coyotes” helping to smuggle families from Mexico across the southern border into the United States when addressing the topic of illegal immigration during Thursday night’s presidential debate.

“Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here, and they used to use them to get into our country,” he said. “We now have as strong a border as we ever had. We have over 400 miles of brand new wall, you see the numbers. And we have to let people in, but they have to come in legally.”

Following that statement, Twitter lit up with a flurry of confused responses, as users thought the president meant that literal coyotes were smuggling people across the border.

Since when did coyotes start bringing kids over here?” tweeted Karlous.

The children are brought here by coyotes?” tweeted “Frasier” actress Peri Gilpin.

What does ‘children are brought here by coyotes’ mean?!” tweeted Nicole Schuman of PRNewsonline.

“I thought i was tripping when i heard that,” tweeted Tennessee Titans fullback Khari Blasingame in response to a tweet that said, “‘Children are bought here by coyotes’ -WTF DONALD TRUMP.”

Hot damn, coyotes are so much smarter and capable than I ever gave them credit for. I apologize for underestimating you,” tweeted actor and producer Sendhil Ramamurthy.

Did @realDonaldTrump just say 545 kids they can’t find their parents for came over through “cartels and coyotes“?! How the hell does a coyote bring a whole human across the border?! Lord—–stop talking,” Georgia state Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick wrote.

Kids came over on coyotes to America!?! Am I missing something?” tweeted Eric Metcalf of the Cleveland Browns.

I’ve seen a lot of coyotes here in SoCal but I’ve never seen one carrying a kid,” said Natalie Campisi of Forbes in a now-deleted tweet.

And there were so many more:

Other progressives simply attacked the president for making the argument at all and did not confuse the point with literal coyotes.

“TRUMP and the GOP have torn 520 Children from their parents! They came with their parents. It’s not Coyotes, it was their parents. This is an atrocity that TRUMP and GOP committed,” tweeted actor Mark Ruffalo.

Imagine calling the immigrant parents that bring their children to the United States for a better life ‘Coyotes’ The level of xenophobia is sickening,” tweeted David Hogg.

As noted by The Federalist, “coyote” is a common term among border patrol agents and politicians in reference to smugglers on the southern border.

“Human smuggling happens on an industrial scale along the U.S.-Mexico border, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars each year for smugglers, corrupt Mexican officials, and drug cartels, which charge a per-person ‘tax’ for every man, woman, and child who crosses the Rio Grande in an area under their jurisdiction,” the outlet noted.

“At the height of the migrant crisis in 2019, the number of family units being apprehended at the border was at an all-time high,” it continued. “Smugglers—coyotes—would bring across large groups, sometimes as many as a thousand people at once, and tell them to turn themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol claiming asylum. Nothing like this had ever happened before, certainly not on this scale.”

Author : Paul Bois

Source : Daily Wire : Trump Condemns ‘Coyotes’ On The Southern Border; Progressives Take Him Literally

News

The Left’s Gender Theories Are Anti-Scientific Nonsense

Published

on

On Nov. 22, 2020, New York Times columnist Charles Blow unleashed one of the most bizarre tweets in recent memory.

“Stop doing gender reveals,” he stated. “They’re not cute; they’re violent. All we know before a child is born is their anatomy. They will reveal their gender. It may match your expectations of that anatomy, and it may not. If you love the child you will be patience, attentive and open.”

This is patently insane for a variety of reasons.

First, the characterization of gender reveal parties—parties during which parents celebrate finding out whether their unborn children are boys or girls—as “violent” is, in and of itself, radically nuts. Parents are excited to learn whether their children will be boys or girls. That is absolutely unobjectionable.

But for an ardent fan of abortion-on-demand such as Blow to characterize a gender reveal party celebrating the sex of an unborn baby as “violent” while characterizing the in utero dismemberment of that same unborn baby as “choice” is so morally benighted as to boggle the mind.

Blow’s tweet goes further. The implication that parents are doing violence against their own children if they connect sex and gender is utterly anti-evidentiary. Sex and gender are interconnected. For nearly every human being born, biological sex will correspond with genital development in the womb.

And gender, contrary to the idiotic, pseudoscientific paganism of the gender theory set, is not some free-floating set of biases we bring to the table. Males and females have different qualities in a variety of functions, attitudes, desires, and capabilities.

In every human culture—indeed, in every mammalian species—meaningful distinctions between male and female remain. To reduce children to genderless unicorns simply awaiting hormonal guidance from within piles absurdity upon absurdity.

And, of course, Blow’s take on “patience” is not limitless. Presumably, should your daughter announce that she is a boy at the tender age of 5, all measures will immediately be taken to ensure that she is treated as a boy by those such as Blow. There will be no call for watchful waiting; to do so would be yet another act of “violence.”

Why does any of this matter? Because Blow’s perspective has become mainstream on the left. In October, Healthline, a supposed medical resource, ran an article reviewed by a licensed marriage and family therapist titled “‘Do Vulva Owners Like Sex?’ Is the Wrong Question—Here’s What You Should Ask Instead.”

Whether “vulva owners” like sex is indeed the wrong question. The right question, to begin, might be what makes “vulva owners” distinct from women; as a follow-up, we might ask how one would go about leasing or renting a vulva if ownership seems like too much of a burden.

But the madness gains ground. CNN reported in July that the American Cancer Society had changed its recommendations on the proper age for cervical cancer screenings for women, only CNN termed women “individuals with a cervix.” Which seems rather degrading to women, come to think of it.

Lest we believe that this is merely some lunatic fringe, it is worth noting that Blow, Healthline, and CNN are merely saying out loud what those who place gender pronouns in their Twitter bios, such as Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, imply: that gender and sex are completely severable, and that biology has nothing to do with the former.

President-elect Joe Biden has openly stated that an 8-year-old can decide on his transgenderism; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., infamously stated that she would have a 9-year-old transgender child screen her secretary of education nominee. Male and female are arbitrary categories to which anyone can claim membership.

Unless, of course, the left wishes to treat sex as an important characteristic. Then the logic changes. Thus, it is historic that Biden has nominated an all-female communications team, and it is deeply moving that Harris is a woman.

It’s almost as though the definitions of words have no meaning, according to the left. All that matters is fealty to whatever narrative the chosen moral caste dictates on a daily basis. And if you cross it, you’re doing violence.

Author : Ben Shapiro

Source : Daily Signal : The Left’s Gender Theories Are Anti-Scientific Nonsense, but They’re Gaining Ground

Continue Reading

News

The Horrific Killing Of Christians In Nigeria

Published

on

Horrific massacres of Christians in the northern and middle parts of Nigeria at the hands of Muslim militants and terrorists have been a daily occurrence in recent years.

Nigeria, a nation of close to 200 million, is made up about evenly of Christians and Muslims. Christians live predominantly in the South; Muslims are the majority in the North.

Over 11,500 Christians have been murdered in Nigeria since June 2015, Genocide Watch reported in April.

The perpetrators of the killings are Islamist terrorists from Boko Haram (also known as the Islamic State in West Africa), who seek to create a state like the so-called caliphate that took hold in parts of Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2015.

Increasingly, the attackers have included another group, militant nomadic Fulani herdsmen who raid villages and kill Christian men, women, children, and babies with AK-47s and machetes.

The Fulani are a massive tribe that stretches across many African countries. The vast majority of the tribe’s members aren’t guilty of mass murder and shouldn’t be lumped in with the militant segment that is committing the atrocities.

Some in the government of Nigeria, which notoriously lacks the rule of law, have been complicit in the attacks. Data on cellphones inadvertently left behind by the killers identified owners of the phones as government insiders.

Police are also complicit, according to reports. Some police stations haven’t responded to brutal anti-Christian violence even when loud gunfire and screams are clearly audible from less than a mile away.

Such inaction by police is common when victims aren’t Christians. The terrorists also have benefited from millions of dollars in ransom payments, leading Nigeria to be called the kidnapping capital of Africa.

Nigeria should protect the rule of law by using its military to confront and crush the perpetrators.

As the entry on Nigeria in The Heritage Foundation’s 2020 Index of Economic Freedom shows, the country is among the worst in the world in supporting the rule of law. The most heinous forms of cruelty and brutality go unopposed. Terror reigns in Christian villages.

A new book titled “The Next Jihad: Stop the Christian Genocide in Africa” documents atrocities and warns that all-out genocide could happen if Nigeria’s government and the world’s media organizations don’t stop turning a blind eye to what is going on.

The authors, both Americans, journeyed to the scene of attacks from January through March in which more than 400 Christians lost their lives. The authors interviewed many survivors whose lives have been ruined, reporting:

[T]he Fulani raiders arriv[ed] under cover of darkness with their jihadist chants and their AK-47s. The marauders swiftly maimed and murdered Christians while burning down every structure and pillaging what remained.

Hundreds of similar incidents have occurred. We reviewed one confidential list that precisely documents attacks by Fulani militants on seventy-nine Christian villages over the last five years in one state alone. Yet we haven’t identified a single case where the perpetrators were brought to justice or where security forces prevented an attack.

“The Next Jihad” goes on to describe courageous acts by some Muslims who risked their lives to save Christian neighbors during attacks by the militant Islamists.

Tragically, denial of the atrocities is rampant. Some media organizations ludicrously have blamed global warming for the attacks on Christian villages by militant nomads. Nigerian government officials have claimed that COVID-19 would stop the militant Fulani from attacking villages.

In the aftermath of the terrible genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton told an audience there:

All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror. … Never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence.

Those words seem prophetically apt, given the situation in Nigeria today.

Author : Patrick Tyrrell

Source : Daily Signal : The Horrific Killing of Christians in Nigeria

Continue Reading

News

It’s Not A Slogan. It’s A Mandate: Progressives Push Back On Obama, Defend Defund The Police

Published

on

Progressives, including most members of the Democratic Socialist “Squad”, fired back at President Barack Obama Wednesday, torching the former leader over his comments deriding the far-left for advocating to “defund the police” — a slogan which Obama and other experts believe had a widespread, negative impact on Democrat success in down-ticket and statewide elections.

Speaking to a Snapchat audience Tuesday night, Obama mocked efforts to “defund the police,” deriding Democrats for adopting the slogan and then suggesting they had no real intention of “defunding” any police department, using “defund the police,” instead, as code for reforming law enforcement, panicking voters.

You lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done,” Obama told “Good Luck America.” “The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?”

Some Democrats, indeed, admitted, after noticing how deeply unpopular defunding and disbanding police departments was among key voters — including minority voters — that they had no intention of actually “defunding” the police. But far-left progressives like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) insisted, Wednesday, that they fully intend to follow through on their promise to end ‘racist” policing.

Omar was the first to fire back, tweeting that, “We lose people in the hands of police. It’s not a slogan but a policy demand. And centering the demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country gets us progress and safety.”

Tlaib suggested, in her own tweet, that Obama was threatening the legacy of civil rights crusader Rosa Parks by siding with law enforcement against progressive reformers or suggesting that the far-left wasn’t seriously considering a “defund the police” platform.

“Rosa Parks was vilified & attacked for her civil disobedience. She was targeted,” Tlaib wrote. “It’s hard seeing the same people who uplift her courage, attack the movement for Black lives that want us to prioritize health, funding of schools & ending poverty, rather than racist police systems.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), also a key member of the “Squad,” added that she and other progressives were “out of patience” with Obama’s rhetoric.

“The murders of generations of unarmed Black folks by police have been horrific,” Pressley tweeted. “Lives are at stake daily so I’m out of patience with critiques of the language of activists. Whatever a grieving family says is their truth. And I’ll never stop fighting for their justice & healing.”

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) may have been the most adamant, firing back at Obama, claiming that “defund the police” is “not a slogan” but a “mandate:” “With all due respect, Mr. President—let’s talk about losing people. We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We’re losing our loved ones to police violence. It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police.”

Progressive efforts to defund the police, particularly at the state and local levels, have largely failed. Minneapolis, Minnesota’s, City Council, the first metropolitan government body to pursue a true cut in law enforcement budget, gave up on the effort over the summer after crime rates skyrocketed and minority residents complained directly to the City Council about the lack of law enforcement presence in at-risk communities.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio pledged deep cuts to the New York Police Department but has yet to make those cuts permanent, likely because, as with Minnesota, New York City also suffered a summer crime wave that correlated with an increase in anti-police sentiment.

Obama, of course, has been a thorn in the side of “Democratic socialists” the entire 2020 presidential campaign, warning big-money donors and Democratic bigwigs early on that the party had no chance of success if it nominated a far-left candidate like Sen. Bernie Sanders or if progressive forced the party to adopt an extreme far-left platform. Now that he and others affiliated with his White House are guiding a potential Joe Biden administration, it could signal a burgeoning rift within the Democratic party.

Author : Emily Zanotti

Source : Daily Wire : It’s Not A Slogan. It’s A Mandate:’ Progressives Push Back On Obama, Defend ‘Defund The Police’

Continue Reading

Join Our Mailing List

Recent News

Trending

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!