Month: October 2018

We were told over and over again that Christine Blasey Ford had “nothing to gain” by her testimony, which is why we should believe her.

Take these quotes from late September during Ford’s testimony accusing then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago:

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois: “You had absolutely nothing to gain by bringing these facts to the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Sen. Kamala Harris, Democrat of California: “I want to thank you, because you clearly have nothing to gain for what you have done.”

It turns out that if you still think she has nothing to gain, your definition of “nothing” may be a lot different than ours.

TRENDING: Trump Supporters Infiltrate Bernie Sanders Rally… Hilarity Ensues

That’s at least the takeaway from a piece by journalist Paul Sperry and published on Monday by RealClearInvestigations. Perry found that the aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearings could be awfully profitable for Ford.

“In fact, Ford stands to gain some $1 million and counting from national crowdfunding campaigns launched by friends and other supporters, while she is said to be fielding book offers,” Sperry wrote.

“The potential seven-figure windfall, which she says she intends to cash in on – while still asking donors for more money – has some questioning her motivation for accusing the conservative judge after 35 years of silence, and whether it goes beyond personal or even political justice. Others worry the largesse sets a dangerous precedent: Crowdfunding, which unlike political donations is unregulated, could be routinely used in the future as a bounty for providing political dirt on opponents.”

Ford has insisted that she’ll be using the money for legal fees and security.

“The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up,” a recent statement from Ford on one of the accounts reads.

“Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.”

However, donors will have no idea where that money goes aside from Ford’s word. A spokeswoman for GoFundMe told Sperry that crowdfunding money can be withdrawn at any time for any purpose.

And that had Sperry raising doubts:

“Some question the necessity of the financial assistance given that much of the costs associated with Ford’s testimony — including all of her legal fees plus a polygraph examination — were covered by Democratic attorneys assigned to her by the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, committee sources say; panel Democrats were allotted half of a $1 million committee fund for transportation, security, investigations and other expenses associated with the tumultuous confirmation process. The Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police also provided ‘heightened security’ for Ford,” he wrote.

RELATED: NBC Exposed: Buried Interview Where Avenatti Witness Flipped, Defended Kavanaugh

During her testimony, Ford had said that she was was forced incur security expenses due to threats after she came forward.

“My family and I have been the target of constant harassment and death threats,” Ford said. “My family and I were forced to move out of our home.”

However, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said the committee was “not provided with specifics of any threats against Dr. Ford” and the only minatory message any media outlet received was second-hand information given to The New York Times by a friend of Ford’s.

According to a Twitter post by Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, the message stated, “From what I’ve heard, you have 6 months to live, you disgusting slime.”

Sperry also speculated that journalists and pro-Ford demonstrators camped outside her house may have played as much of a part in prompting her relocation as any real security threat, although that kind of thing doesn’t get as much sympathy from liberal donors.

This isn’t to say that Ford is misusing the GoFundMe money. However, although we’re not necessarily entitled to a breakdown into how it’s being used, I certainly would be curious.

And, as for Ford’s potential book deals — well, this is pretty much de rigeur these days. Between James Comey’s self-hagiography and whatever tripe Michael Avenatti ends up cluttering remainder bins with, pretty much every anti-Trump figure feels the need to write some sort of blatantly unnecessary tome for which they’ll receive an insane amount of money.

We don’t begrudge her that. We don’t begrudge her any of this. Nor would we say that it makes her any more or less believable.

But we would question the argument that she had “nothing to gain” from this. She offered no proof beyond her own (oft-contradicted, oft-contradictory) testimony; she nearly destroyed a man professionally when he was nearing the peak of an otherwise blameless and distinguished career; and she walked away with a fortune.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Almost from the first moment he entered the political realm with the announcement of his presidential candidacy in 2015, Donald Trump has been denounced and smeared by the Democratic Party and their allies

These groups paint Trump as some sort of hateful bigoted racist against minorities, specifically black Americans.

To hear only the liberal media report it, one would assume that the feeling is quite mutual among monolithic black Americans in regards to President Trump — with the rare exception of a Trump-supporting black individual like Kanye West or Candace Owens, isolated and abused with intolerant smears designed to discredit them among other minorities.

But the reality of the situation is that black Americans are not some monolithic group that all think the same way.

An increasing number of black Americans have begun to reject the liberal dogma they’ve been force-fed for years and have, at the very least, become open-minded with regard to Trump, the Republican Party and conservatism in general.

TRENDING: Watch: Crowd Full of Young Black People Erupts When Trump Walks In

Such a shift had already been showing up in various polls conducted over the past year, but a new poll just released by Rasmussen is garnering attention as it places black support for Trump at a historic high, little more than one week prior to the incredibly crucial midterm elections.

Trump Approval Today Back at 50%

Black Voter Approval at Record High.https://t.co/mazBCW77nY pic.twitter.com/gQiNHhJmhX

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 29, 2018

The Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll for Monday, Oct. 29, placed total approval for Trump at 50 percent with 49 percent of respondents registering disapproval of the president.

However, the big news was contained within the breakdown of the total approval and disapproval numbers, as it showed black support for the Republican president at a record high of 40 percent.

Comparatively, the Rasmussen poll showed total approval and disapproval among likely white voters and “others” at 53-47 and 47-52, respectively.

More broadly, that includes an approval/disapproval rating of 50-50 among men and a somewhat surprising 50-48 among women … surprising given the liberal media’s alternate narrative that Trump is a raging misogynist and sexist who hates all women, in addition to being a bigoted racist.

Among likely U.S. voters who are black, some 25 percent “strongly approve” of President Trump while 54 percent “strongly disapprove.” The fact that roughly a quarter of black voters “strongly approve” of a president who is routinely smeared as being a hateful racist is rather significant, but the news gets even better.

Factoring in soft approval with the strong approval, Rasmussen found that about four out of every ten likely black American voters support the president, while nearly six in ten, 58 percent, disapprove of Trump.

Again, in comparison, 37 percent of white voters “strongly approve” of Trump while 41 percent “strongly disapprove,” and the breakdown for others who felt “strongly” was 33 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

RELATED: Al Sharpton Has Complete Meltdown After Seeing Black Crowd Full of MAGA Hats

To be sure, those overall numbers still place Trump underwater with black Americans in terms of support, but a support level of 40 percent is significantly higher than the 10-15 percent support he earned in the 2016 election.

A support level of 40 percent is also much higher than what the media would have you believe it is now and effectively puts the black vote “in play” going forward, something Democrats most certainly don’t want to see.

As a result of their obsession with identity politics and incessant shouts of racism over the past few decades, Democrats have made the black vote an integral part of their political strategy in election years — so much so that they require upwards of 80-90 percent of the black vote in order to remain competitive nationwide, having ignored or rejected and lost the vote of a substantial portion of the blue-collar white working class.

If anywhere near 40 percent of black voters break ranks with the Democrats in the upcoming elections — both 2018 and 2020 — and vote for Republicans and Trump, that could very well prove devastating to Democrat electoral chances.

This is a “Yuuuugggeee” development that undoubtedly will be ignored or downplayed by Democrats and the liberal media, who will point to other polls historically skewed in their favor to show that black voters don’t support Trump, but we will all see what happens on Election Day. Keep in mind, however, that Rasmussen was one of the most accurate polls in 2016, when virtually all others were decisively wrong

If these numbers put forward by Rasmussen are anywhere close to reality, Democrats can wave goodbye to any sort of political majority for the foreseeable future.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

I occasionally scour Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter feed for hours on end for reasons I find inexplicable.

The most positive spin I could put on my explanation I could give is that I’m doing research on stories, but that’s not quite it. In fact, I’ve actually written about socialism’s favorite useful idiot considerably less as the New York City Democrat approaches an almost certain election to Congress this November.

Rather, I trace the trend back to my tendency to listen to bands like The Cure, The Smiths and Joy Division during high school — because they allowed me to reinforce my superchargedly pessimistic outlook on life.

At least the works of Robert Smith, Morrissey and Ian Curtis were supposed to do that, however. Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter feed is supposed to be full of love and energy, a symbol of the fact that these are going to be the young people that are going to take over our nation’s political discourse and lead us to an egalitarian utopia of free college, free health care, open borders and no guns.

That’s cheerless enough if you bother to examine it, but it’s only half the problem. If you want to see the other half, witness this tweet about how it is somehow racist to use the word “caravan” to describe a caravan of migrants seeking to use American asylum law in a way it clearly wasn’t meant to be used:

TRENDING: Illegals Beware: Mattis Begins Rolling Out Welcome Party for Migrant Caravan

These are refugees using legal routes to seek & apply for asylum.

At this point, if you are an outlet adopting the President’s language to describe this as a “caravan,” you‘re playing yourself. And letting him play you. https://t.co/RfUL0d6Owy

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) October 26, 2018

So, to quote the Black Sheep, the choice is yours: You can get with this (adjusting your language and understanding of asylum law to come more in line with that of Ocasio-Cortez) or you can get with that (enforcing our laws as written).

The president, it seems, is getting with that.

“The U.S. military announced Monday that, by the end of the week, it will send 5,200 active duty troops to the southwest border, as well as helicopters and heavy equipment to build new barriers, to meet a request from the Department of Homeland Security to augment resources in anticipation of the arrival of two caravans of migrants currently in Mexico,” ABC News reported Monday.

“The deployment of active duty service members was triggered by President Trump’s remarks last week that he wanted the military to get involved in dealing with the caravan of migrants from Central America.”

The Pentagon is deploying thousands of active-duty troops to beef up security along the US-Mexico border in a bid to prevent a caravan of Central American migrants crossing https://t.co/qazuf79jdW pic.twitter.com/qPMKKYw3oW

— AFP news agency (@AFP) October 30, 2018

In a tweet, the president indicated that “Many Gang Members and some very bad people” were among the caravan members. This went by without confirmation from the media, although I’d just like to throw this out there for your perusal:

RELATED: Obama Trashes GOP on Immigrant Kids ‘in Pens.’ Doesn’t Mention He Built the Pens

One migrant caravan member admits he’s been deported and convicted of attempted murder in the U.S. – he’s planning to reenter and request a pardon for his felony.

pic.twitter.com/jdECzdwWt1

— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) October 30, 2018

Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2018

This is a small sample size, mind you, but it shows this isn’t just a caravan (oops, sorry, forgot — “refugees using legal routes to seek & apply for asylum”) full of well-meaning people who don’t entirely understand asylum law.

Yes, most of them probably are — although they’re also using this caravan to politicize the somehow-controversial idea we can patrol our own borders. But there are also individuals who shouldn’t be in the country under any circumstance trying to enter under its auspices.

Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, commander of U.S. Northern Command, told a news conference in Washington that the caravan poses a very real threat.

“I think the president has made it clear that border security is national security,” O’Shaughnessy said, according to ABC. “That’s the direction we are given. That’s the direction we are marching to. Our orders are very clear. We are engaged and here to support (Customs and Border Protection). We are going to secure the border.”

He also said that if there were issues, 5,200 troops could just be the beginning, including air support and heavy equipment.

“According to O’Shaughnessy, the active duty troops will help ‘harden’ the border using the Army Corps of Engineers and construction units that will build vehicle barriers and fencing,” ABC reported.

“Like the 2,100 National Guardsmen already deployed in a similar mission, the active duty troops will not carry out law enforcement duties, since that is prohibited by the federal law known as Posse Comitatus.”

“Everything that we are doing is in line with and adherence to Posse Comitatus,” O’Shaughnessy told reporters, according to ABC.

So, it’s legal, and they’re looking to enforce our immigration laws. What say you, liberal twitterati?

Evidence? They’re seeking asylum from situations you’ve never experienced b/c your daddy gave you everything, even your wealth. They carry peace & are ready to truly make America great. Unlike you, they’re willing to take the back-breaking jobs, pay taxes, & contribute to society

— Marco LCR (@MrMarco_LCR97) October 30, 2018

Beyond the whole ridiculous daddy thing, there’s not actually any argument to support that. (I’m sure Marco LCR probably has a computer and/or a mobile phone in part because his mommy and/or daddy was somewhat prosperous while most of these asylum seekers didn’t have that luxury. That’s not an argument for anything, unless you consider privilege-baiting an argument.)

Furthermore, asylum law only protects against a credible fear of persecution based on specific criteria. You don’t just get in because your country is in chaos — you have to show actual threat of persecution.

That point seemed to be lost on a lot of people.

They ARE doing it legally. They’re walking to our port of entry (as is their right) to request asylum. That’s actually how it’s done. Legally. We approve their request or turn them back. We don’t call in the military and have a big freak out.

— GiGi (@Zazochi) October 30, 2018

The media has made it clear that most of these individuals don’t meet the basic criteria for asylum. Oh, and lest we forget, this caravan began in Honduras; general international principles of asylum tend to indicate that individuals ought to apply for it in the first safe country they reach — which, in this case, would have been Guatemala or Mexico. That wasn’t what they planned to do. They planned to come to the United States border for reasons that ought to be prima facie obvious.

So, no, this deployment of 5,200 troops isn’t racist. It isn’t a sop to the base for the midterms. It’s a necessary step to prove we have the will to guard the border.

Let’s face facts: If the individuals in this caravan got into the United States, it wouldn’t make too much of a difference at a practical level — although given some of the elements that have joined the parade, it’s clear that America would likely be a better country with their being left out.

At a theoretical level, what it would do would be weaken the moral precedent to guard the border. If these individuals wanted to get asylum, there are ways to go about it that don’t involve caravans. In fact, many of them don’t even involve America.

What’s clear, therefore, is that asylum isn’t the main issue. Instead, it’s adding more kerosene to the bonfire of internecine enmity we’ve been building in America over these past few years.

That’s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Twitter feed is so vital: Not only is it the perfectly bleak social media soundtrack to our times, it’s a way of gaining insight into the views of Democrats who are trying to subvert United States borders — and its sovereignty.

Trump’s views are exactly the opposite. Sending troops to deal with the caravan at the border is the only rational response at this point. If other countries aren’t willing to step up, this is the only way to ensure our borders stay safe.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Mexico’s immigration authorities issued a warning about individuals in Guatemala who are building Molotov cocktails and other makeshift incendiary devices to be used against federal police officers guarding their southern border. The alert follows an incident where a group of migrants in what’s being dubbed the second caravan threw rocks at officials at the Guatemala-Mexico Border and tried to break through international barriers. Mexican law enforcement confirmed that some of the protesters in the clash carried firearms.

The warning was issued by Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM). The agency claimed it learned of various individuals in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, were building Molotov cocktails with the intent of using them against Mexican border authorities. In a public statement, INM asked the Guatemalan government to intervene, adding the violent actions were those of “criminals and not of a vulnerable migrant population.”

 

The group in Guatemala appears to be part of another caravan of migrants trying to make their way into Mexico and then the United States. As Breitbart News reported, that group clashed violently with authorities at one of the border fences in Guatemala as they tried to make their way into Mexico. Ten police officers sustained various injuries and one Honduran national died, Mexico’s Secretariat of the interior confirmed in a statement.

Due to the violent nature of the protest, authorities in both Mexico and Guatemala are working to identify the individuals who are believed behind the clashes and those preparing the improvised incendiary devices, said Mexico’s Secretary of the Interior Alfredo Navarrete Prida. The official also confirmed that in the most recent clash, some of the suspects carried firearms and Molotov cocktails.

The group in Guatemala is separate from the migrant caravan, which is currently in Mexico and is making its way to the United States. Mexico’s government asked the members of the northern caravan to follow immigration law so they could receive temporary employment, state-funded healthcare, and education. However, the group turned down the offers and is preparing to continue north. From that caravan, 422 migrants requested assistance from Mexican authorities to return home.

Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 

Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

Tony Aranda and “J.M. Martinez” from the Cartel Chronicles project contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump is moving forward with a plan to end birthright citizenship via executive action, he said in an interview with Axios released on Tuesday.

“On immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get rid of birthright citizenship without changing the Constitution,” Axios’ Jonathan Swan asked President Trump in the video interview.

“With an executive order,” Trump replied.

“Exactly,” Swan followed up. “Have you thought about that?”

“Yes,” Trump replied.

“Tell me more,” Swan implored.

“It was always told to me that you needed a Constitutional amendment–guess what? You don’t,” Trump said. “Number one, you don’t need that. Number two, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it with just an executive order. Now, how ridiculous–we are the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits? It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous–and it has to end.”

Swan asked if Trump has discussed this matter with legal counsel for the White House and he confirmed he has, and that this is “in the process.”

“It will happen–with an executive order, that’s what you’re talking about right?” Trump said. “I didn’t think anybody knew that but me, I thought I was the only one.”

Revoking birthright citizenship would have immediate and far-reaching consequences. It would mean the children of illegal aliens, even if born in the United States, would not be bestowed U.S. citizenship upon birth. It would also likely deter the practice of foreigners having “anchor babies,” where they aim to give birth to children on U.S. soil so as to obtain U.S. citizenship for their children at birth.

In fact, the anchor baby population–those born in the United States to at least one illegal alien parent–has skyrocketed in recent years. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the anchor baby population per year now exceeds the number of U.S. citizen births from American citizens.

Trump moving forward on such plans would likely set off a legal and political battle of epic proportions, as lawsuits would come in challenging the order’s legality and the president’s authority to act via executive action on this front. But there also remains a possibility, if Republicans hold the House in next week’s midterm elections and add seats in the Senate, that a more permanent legislative fix not dependent on who is in the White House could come for dealing with ending birthright citizenship.

Expect an explosion of media outrage and high powered lawsuits, especially in jurisdictions with Trump-hating federal judges.  President Trump has launched an October surprise.

Last night in an interview granted to Jonathan Swan of Axios, President Trump announced his plans to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born on American territory to illegal immigrants and foreign citizens, presumably at least those “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as required by the 14^th Amendment.

The Washington Post reports

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump said during an interview with Axios scheduled to air as part of a new HBO series starting this weekend. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

Trump, who has long decried “anchor babies,” said he has discussed the move with his legal counsel and believes it can be accomplished with executive action, a view at odds with the opinions of many legal scholars.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Axios.

When told that view is disputed, Trump asserted: “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

“It’s in the process. It’ll happen . . . with an executive order,” he said, without offering a time frame.

Watch the one minute segment in its entirety:

The Washington Post scoffs:

The move, which many legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution, would be the boldest yet by a president elected to office pledging to take a hard line on immigration, an issue he has revived in advance of next week’s midterm elections.

The Constitution says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants – or tourists on vacation in the US — being entitled to citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The key words are “subject to the jurisdiction.” As far as the “many experts” that the WaPo cites, the only experts that will matter in the end are those in the majority of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.  

Although Trump is not detailed in his remark, I assume that children of immigrants who are in the process of obtaining US citizenship would have citizenship passed along to their children, either immediately upon birth, or when their parents are naturalized. I leave it to legal eagles in the White House to work out the exact wording of the executive order/

This lengthy and detailed  article by P.A. Madison explores the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and by subsequent legislators who drafted citizenship legislation. There is no evidence that they wished to grant citizenship to children anyone who wandered across the border, however temporarily or illegally.

Trump’s dropping of this bombshell 8 days before the election is obviously intended to fire up both his base and his opponents, who will denounce him and – we can safely assume – go over the top and say things that defy common sense.

The stakes could not be higher. With millions of illegals, poorly educated and unable to obtain lucrative employment, in this country and having children who will be set up for a lifetime of dependency, the Democrats’ plans to change the electorate to a majority of dependents is succeeding.

Expect an explosion of media outrage and high powered lawsuits, especially in jurisdictions with Trump-hating federal judges.  President Trump has launched an October surprise.

Last night in an interview granted to Jonathan Swan of Axios, President Trump announced his plans to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born on American territory to illegal immigrants and foreign citizens, presumably at least those “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as required by the 14^th Amendment.

Swan does not seem pleased, at least to my eyes (HBO screen grab)

The Washington Post reports

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump said during an interview with Axios scheduled to air as part of a new HBO series starting this weekend. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

Trump, who has long decried “anchor babies,” said he has discussed the move with his legal counsel and believes it can be accomplished with executive action, a view at odds with the opinions of many legal scholars.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Axios.

When told that view is disputed, Trump asserted: “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

“It’s in the process. It’ll happen . . . with an executive order,” he said, without offering a time frame.

Watch the one minute segment in its entirety:

The Washington Post scoffs:

The move, which many legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution, would be the boldest yet by a president elected to office pledging to take a hard line on immigration, an issue he has revived in advance of next week’s midterm elections.

The Constitution says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants – or tourists on vacation in the US — being entitled to citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The key words are “subject to the jurisdiction.” As far as the “many experts” that the WaPo cites, the only experts that will matter in the end are those in the majority of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.  

Although Trump is not detailed in his remark, I assume that children of immigrants who are in the process of obtaining US citizenship would have citizenship passed along to their children, either immediately upon birth, or when their parents are naturalized. I leave it to legal eagles in the White House to work out the exact wording of the executive order/

This lengthy and detailed  article by P.A. Madison explores the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and by subsequent legislators who drafted citizenship legislation. There is no evidence that they wished to grant citizenship to children anyone who wandered across the border, however temporarily or illegally.

Trump’s dropping of this bombshell 8 days before the election is obviously intended to fire up both his base and his opponents, who will denounce him and – we can safely assume – go over the top and say things that defy common sense.

The stakes could not be higher. With millions of illegals, poorly educated and unable to obtain lucrative employment, in this country and having children who will be set up for a lifetime of dependency, the Democrats’ plans to change the electorate to a majority of dependents is succeeding.

Mexican authorities arrested two Hondurans who allegedly shot at federal police officers escorting the migrant caravan across the southern state of Chiapas. The attack follows shortly after government warnings about Molotov cocktail attacks around a second caravan near the border with Guatemala.

The attack took place near Ignacio Zaragoza, Chiapas, when members of Mexico’s Federal Police were escorting the migrant caravan as part of “Operativo Caminante” or “Operation Walker” across the southern border state. According to Mexico’s Interior Secretariat, two men identified only as 22-year-old “Jerson” and 17-year-old “Carlos” spotted the group of police officers guarding the caravan and began firing at them.

The attackers’ pistol jammed, allowing police officers to arrest them without any injuries. Federal authorities seized a .380 caliber Glock with nine rounds still in their magazine.

The attack came soon after Mexican authorities issued a warning about migrants in Guatemala who were preparing Molotov cocktails and acquiring firearms to use against police officers in their attempts to break through the border to Mexico. Over the weekend, several clashes occurred where migrants threw rocks and used various makeshift weapons against border security forces.

Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 

Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

Tony Aranda and “J.M. Martinez” from the Cartel Chronicles project contributed to this report.