Just one day after Democratic leadership denied that there is a crisis at our southern border, three illegal immigrants were arrested in New York for stabbing a 16-year-old boy.

On Wednesday afternoon, the 16-year-old victim was eating at a Burger King in Long Island with his friend, according to WABC-TV.

While they were eating, six of their classmates from Huntington High School entered the restaurant and began staring at them threateningly.

The two teens left the fast-food restaurant, but they were followed by three students who turned out to be illegal immigrants and MS-13 gang members.

A fight broke out in the parking lot with gang members wielding bats and knives.

TRENDING: Hundreds of Memes Mocked Creepy Schumer, Pelosi Last Night. We’ve Got All the Best Ones Right Here

That’s when 19-year-old illegal immigrant Ramon Arevalo Lopez stabbed the victim in the back.

The stabbed boy was taken to the Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries and the illegal immigrants tried to flee.

Police were able to catch the alleged perpetrators, who were found covered in blood.

Lopez and the other MS-13 gang member suspects, 20-year-old Nobeli Montes Zuniga and 17-year-old Oscar Canales Molina, were charged with second-degree assault.

Each of these gang members had been caught by the Department of Homeland Security in late 2017, but were later released by a federal judge.

This horrific attack from three illegal immigrants came just one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once again announced to the nation their refusal to fund border security.

On Tuesday, Schumer slammed President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall as “ineffective,” despite testimonies from border agents saying otherwise.

The same night, Pelosi claimed that “the women and children at the border are not a security threat.”

.@SpeakerPelosi: “The fact is: the women and children at the border are not a security threat, they are a humanitarian challenge – a challenge that @realDonaldTrump’s own cruel and counterproductive policies have only deepened.” https://t.co/DhbFovuVyo pic.twitter.com/WW1LhnL5cP

— Charles Davis (@CharlesPDavis) January 9, 2019

RELATED: Watch: BP Officer Standing Next to Trump Defends the President, Goes After Lying Media

With no wall, violent gang members like the ones who committed this stabbing are able to enter the United States and travel anywhere in the country.

It’s unacceptable that three illegal immigrants, who were once caught, easily traveled from the southern border to New York.

The threat of attacks from violent MS-13 gang members can happen anywhere.

Democrats need to get over themselves and do what’s best for the country they have sworn to serve.

If they don’t, it sure seems to prove what the president said about Democrats on Thursday: “They don’t give a damn about crime.”

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

During their infamous Oval Office showdown last month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer essentially laid out what the Democratic perspective on border security was going to be: “The experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn’t solve the problem.”

That’s been pretty much what almost every liberal factotum has been repeating, in varying forms, since early December.

Nobody seems to have given the message to former President Barack Obama’s Border Patrol chief, however.

Mark Morgan served under Obama during the last year of his presidency. He was removed by President Donald Trump. Yet he seems to agree more with the man who fired him than the man who hired him.

In an appearance Thursday night on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Morgan said that — no matter what the media’s current line may be — the problems at our southern border certainly weren’t a “manufactured crisis.”

TRENDING: Hundreds of Memes Mocked Creepy Schumer, Pelosi Last Night. We’ve Got All the Best Ones Right Here

“Anybody who says that, Tucker, is misinformed,” Morgan told Carlson. “And they’re misleading the American people.”

“Before I was even chief of the Border Patrol, I served in the FBI for two decades,” he continued. “One of my assignments was that I led the El Paso office.

“From my office, on the border, I could see Juarez (Mexico). Every single day, Tucker, we worked the DEA and all components of DHS. And we worked human trafficking cases, we worked drug cases and we worked gang cases all impacting the southern border.

“And then as chief (of Border Patrol), Tucker, I was briefed every single day about the men and women who are risking their lives every day and they’re apprehending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, other violent offenders and gang members.

“That is not manufactured, that is real, and it’s a fact, and it’s still happening today.”

Obama’s fmr. Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan: “I was briefed every single day about the men and women who are risking their lives every day and they’re apprehending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, other violent offenders, and gang members. That is not manufactured, that is real” pic.twitter.com/doyB6lCgyq

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 10, 2019

Morgan had appeared on the show just days earlier where the former Obama official also offered an endorsement of President Trump’s strategy.

“The president is right, the president of (National) Border Control Council is right,” Morgan said, according to The Daily Caller.

RELATED: Trump Digs Up Obama, Hillary Dirt: Uses It To Bury Leftist Opposition to Border Wall

“The other day when they had the national press conference and they got up and they said, ‘The wall works,’ they are right, and it’s not based on a personal, political ideology,” he said. “That’s based on historical data and facts that can be proven.”

“Why do you think people oppose it?” Carlson asked.

“I think it’s a political point they are trying to make,” Morgan said.

At least on that account, Morgan isn’t playing ball with Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

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

In a shocking video, award-winning actor Robert Davi blasted Democratic leadership for their “disingenuous” comments about President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

Davi uploaded the video to Twitter on Wednesday morning with the caption: “To the American people.”

The video seems to be in response to the address from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after Trump’s Oval Office address on Tuesday.

“My dear Mr. Schumer, I find what you are doing is absolutely disingenuous. You’re lying to the American people. How many times are you going to continue to sit there like a rotten corpse with a bald-faced lie on your face?” Davi said.

Davi wasn’t the only one who thought Schumer resembled a “rotten corpse” on Tuesday night. His awkward appearance with Pelosi sparke hundreds of memes and mocking tweets.

TRENDING: Hundreds of Memes Mocked Creepy Schumer, Pelosi Last Night. We’ve Got All the Best Ones Right Here

Who OK’d their lighting and staging? It made them look like if you say their names three times while facing a mirror they’ll appear behind you. It would make anyone look harsh. They went with this optic with all the people they know in Hollywood and the networks? Seriously. pic.twitter.com/8PusDio0iN

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 9, 2019

But Schumer’s comments that night were just as bad as his appearance. He claimed that Trump’s proposed border wall would be “ineffective.”

Davi also criticized Democratic leadership for their hypocritical opposition to the border wall after they supported a wall in the past.

“I saw you, sir, vote for the wall. You voted for a wall, sir. Several years ago. So did Ms. Pelosi,” Davi exploded.

In 2009, Schumer applauded efforts to secure the border. He claimed that a 630 miles of border fence “created a significant barrier to illegal immigration.”

Chuck Schumer tonight: Trump’s border wall is “ineffective” and “unnecessary”

Chuck Schumer in 2009: “630 miles of border fence” made our southern border “far more secure” because it “created a significant barrier to illegal immigration” pic.twitter.com/3ywVpKu2LH

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 9, 2019

Old comments about illegal immigration have haunted several other Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

RELATED: Somebody Tell Pelosi & Schumer 3 of Their Harmless Illegals Were Just Arrested for Stabbing Teen

Of course, you won’t see the establishment media cover the Democrats’ flip-flop.

“How come the networks aren’t showing your flip-flopping?” Davi asked. “Show that, CNN, MSNBC. Show Schumer wanting a wall.”

To the American people pic.twitter.com/oEkouZBnYL

— Robert Davi (@RobertJohnDavi) January 9, 2019

Davi also slammed Democratic leadership for questioning the morality of a border wall.

Last week, Pelosi claimed that the border wall is an “immorality.”

Nancy Pelosi: “The fact is, a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.” https://t.co/l6dDLDRRf0 pic.twitter.com/tq3DDjG0Gp

— ABC News (@ABC) January 4, 2019

But Davi reminded Democrats that their party is pro-abortion, the definition of immoral.

“What about 50 million babies being killed, sir and madam? Is that not immoral?”

Bravo Mr. Davi, bravo.

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

Back in December, as the media congratulated itself for standing up to anything Donald Trump-related while steeling itself against the possibility that there might be another side to the issue, CNN’s Dana Bash made it clear how hurtful the words “fake news” were and how they tried their hardest to get to the bottom of every story.

“The attacks on the media work. And it breaks my heart,” Bash said, according to The Hill.

“Are reporters humans who get things wrong? Of course. But we wake up every morning trying to get things right. By demonizing reporters and calling our work ‘Fake News,’ it is chipping away at a critical pillar of American democracy.”

A critical pillar of American democracy that works so hard to get things right that it rescinded an invitation for a local television station to partner with them on a story after they realized it wouldn’t support their narrative.

As part of their coverage of the border fence debate, CNN decided to reach out to San Diego’s KUSI-TV to ask what locals think about the barrier separating their little chunk of America from Mexico.

TRENDING: Watch as Ex-Secret Service Agent Absolutely Takes Geraldo Apart on Immigration

The end result was this 40-second segment posted Thursday detailing exactly what happened.

“A sign of the times in this debate on the shutdown,” anchor Anna Laurel says. “CNN asked if KUSI would provide a reporter to offer our local view of the debate, especially to learn if the wall works in San Diego.”

KUSI is an independent local news station in California. CNN probably expected someone to come on and tell them how the wall was a crime against humanity and it was a waste of money.

They weren’t going to get that.

“KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who’s reported many times that the wall is not an issue here,” anchor Sandra Maas said.

Thursday morning, @CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if a reporter could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown. After we informed them about our past reports, they declined to hear from us.

More info: https://t.co/RX4mB6EdNE pic.twitter.com/r0SAvWxFIm

— KUSI News (@KUSINews) January 11, 2019

“In fact, most officials believe that it is effective. The issue we face is the migrants and the debate over their treatment.”

This would have been an interesting segment — Plante, certainly not offering a take that CNN wasn’t used to, spurring some conversation on a network that’s not necessarily known to view the wall with any great kindness.

RELATED: Jim Acosta Has To Be Furious After Watching What Happened During His Report on the Border Wall

I say, of course, “would have been.” It didn’t happen for reasons that aren’t going to shock you.

“Now, knowing this, CNN declined to have us on our programs,” Laurel says, “which often present the wall as not required in other places like the stretch of the Texas border that the president visited earlier today.

“They didn’t like what they heard from us,” Laurel concludes.

“Just some background for you,” Maas says.

Well, imagine that. And imagine what would have happened if this would have been Fox News. There would have been gnashing of teeth and rending of Balmain T-shirts from every celebrity on Twitter. The silence on this one couldn’t be more deafening.

However, one outlet that wasn’t staying silent was KUSI. They were willing to speak out about how blatant this all was. If there was any sign that conservatives are winning, it’s that.

Thankfully, CNN managed to spoil its own carefully crafted narrative without any help from KUSI:

I found some steel slats down on the border. But I don’t see anything resembling a national emergency situation.. at least not in the McAllen TX area of the border where Trump will be today. pic.twitter.com/KRoLdszLUu

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 10, 2019

Nice wall there, Jim.

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

The first public thing Mitt Romney did in the year 2019–on Jan. 1–was publish an attack on President Trump in The Washington Post, which, as we know, has not lacked for attacks on Trump.

He did not even wait until being sworn in, two days later.

I campaigned for Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, when he ran for president, including a closed-door meeting with him to raise funds among wealthy Los Angeles Republicans. As it turns out, I worked to elect a somewhat foolish man with few identifiable convictions. (For the record, I would do so again, since just about any Republican president will do less damage to the country than any leftist–and Democratic politicians are now all leftists.)

Life is filled with disappointments, and I will survive this one. But I should explain why this Romney column is so disappointing.

First the foolish part. What did Romney seek to achieve by publishing an attack on his own party’s president? Did he think he would persuade one supporter of the president to stop supporting him? If he did, he failed, not because none of us can be persuaded to change our minds but because the piece was so intellectually and morally shallow.

So, why did he write it?

And why did he publish it in The Washington Post, a Trump-hating newspaper?

Does he share The Washington Post’s political, social, and moral values?

Did he think he would enlighten Washington Post readers, the vast majority of whom already loathe the president, the Republican Party, and the half of the country that voted for Donald Trump?

Of course not.

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than addressing whether the United States has borders secure enough to prevent millions of people from coming into America illegally?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than the left’s suppression of free speech at virtually every American university and the left’s suppression of free speech on the internet?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than the left’s ongoing attempt to abolish male and female identities among children?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than attacking the left’s goal of weakening the American military?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than attacking the gargantuan size of the federal government, which undermines the unique American ideal of limited government?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than attacking the left for essentially destroying the Boy Scouts, from which his own Latter-day Saints church has now withdrawn support?

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than the dramatic decline of religion in American life? He is, after all, a religious man.

Does he believe attacking Trump is more important than preventing the left from dominating the country’s federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court?

If he does, he may be more than a fool. And that something more may involve character defects.

I try to avoid directing comments at the character of those I differ with, but since Mitt Romney deems it of national significance to publicly attack the character of the president of the United States, and given that he considers character more important than policies that affect the nation and the world, he has invited consideration of his character.

Given his attack on the president, rather than on the nation–and civilization-destroying policies of the left and the Democratic Party, character issues may explain his Washington Post column.

While we have every reason to assume Mitt Romney is personally honest and faithful in marriage, a public figure’s character is far more than his or her personal honesty and marital fidelity. Plenty of honest men and women and plenty of faithful husbands and wives have helped ruin societies. And in those more important areas of character, Mitt Romney is apparently quite lacking.

One character issue is lack of courage. In today’s environment, it takes no courage to attack Donald Trump, especially in The Washington Post. Romney is now the darling of the elites of this country. He will be showered with praise by the elite newspapers and all the news networks (except Fox). He will be invited to give talks at universities throughout the country. He will be feted in Europe. And no one will scream obscenities at him when he dines in Washington, D.C., restaurants.

Another character issue is pettiness. It now seems very hard to deny that Romney resents Trump for doing what he failed to do: win the presidency.

A third character problem is a lack of conviction. Does anyone reading this column know what Mitt Romney stands for aside from winning elections? Can one reader name one strong conviction Mitt Romney holds?

I can’t.

He appears to be essentially conviction- and ideology-free. The New Republic wrote in 2012, the year Romney ran for president, “In his various incarnations as a candidate, he has campaigned as a progressive, a conservative, a technocrat, and a populist, suggesting his deepest attachment is to winning.”

When Donald Trump sought the Republican presidential nomination, I was convinced he had no ideology. And I could not identify any convictions. I therefore opposed his nomination. But I vigorously supported his campaign for president and hoped my original assessment was wrong.

Lo and behold, Trump turns out to have the most solid conservative convictions of almost any Republican politician since Ronald Reagan–and an almost preternatural amount of courage to put them into practice.

In 2012, The Wall Street Journal wrote of Romney’s campaign director, Matt Rhoades, “People who know him say he isn’t inspired by ideology …” And Fox News host Chris Wallace described Romney’s chief campaign strategist, Stuart Stevens, as “not big on ideology.”

Just like their boss.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Few people deserve to be excoriated more than Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Few people are better at excoriating leftist nonsense than conservative actor and producer James Woods.

It’s a perfect match.

As she is wont to do, Pelosi opted to grandstand publicly in an interview last week about why President Donald Trump’s border wall is, in her mind, such a horrific idea.

Nancy Pelosi: “The fact is, a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.” https://t.co/l6dDLDRRf0 pic.twitter.com/tq3DDjG0Gp

— ABC News (@ABC) January 4, 2019

TRENDING: Nancy Pelosi Botches Student’s Black Lives Matter Question, Stumbling Answer Angers Leftists

“The fact is, a wall is an immorality,” Pelosi said shortly after being sworn in on Thursday. “It’s not who we are as a nation.”

An immorality? I’m sorry, but it completely eludes me as to how and why wanting to secure the borders of a sovereign nation is “immoral.”

Worse than not making sense, Pelosi’s remarks are the utter height of hypocrisy. It only took Woods seven words to nail her on it.

Well, then, why do you have one? https://t.co/3hTIvJWbMu

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 6, 2019

“Well, then, why do you have one?” Woods sharply retorted.

It’s a question many leftists would struggle to answer. If security and protection are so immoral, why have any at all surrounding their homes?

Woods’ remark echoes a tweet Trump sent in late December skewering former President Barack Obama for a wall around his Washington property.

President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2018

And just to be clear, this isn’t some nutty right-wing conspiracy theory. Even the left-leaning fact-checkers at Snopes admitted that there was at least some truth about these walls leftists had around their homes.

RELATED: Less Than Zero Chance? NY Post Writer Wants James Woods To Host Oscars

It’s true that there have been some debunked memes about a wall surrounding Pelosi’s home that turned out to be false, because it was not actually her residence. But a different Snopes fact check noted that Pelosi owned property “along the banks of the Napa River on Zinfandel Lane in Northern California” that did have some sort of fencing or gates around the enclosure.

Snopes noted that the shorter walls likely provide no additional security, but at the very least Pelosi wanted to make it clear exactly where the rest of the world ends and her own land begins.

And anyone crossing that border without permission would be trespassing — and could be dealt with accordingly.

Gee, why does that sound so familiar?

Oh that’s right. It’s because that basic idea is one of the many reasons Trump has been touting border security in the face of hypocrites like Pelosi for the last several years.

Pelosi and her ilk, of course, deny that.

“And this is not a wall between Mexico and the United States that the president is creating here,” Pelosi also said in the ABC News clip. “It’s a wall between reality and his constituents, his supporters.”

Pelosi, as classy as ever, also had time the throw in a jab at the president.

“He’s a master of diversion,” she added.

Here’s the thing, Mrs. Pelosi. President Trump is not the one diverting attention from a problem here. He is the one facing the reality of a major problem, as the recent, tragic death of a policeman in California showed.

And he’s striving to protect the country in the process.

That’s far more preferable than a hypocritical hack who’d rather not get anything done.

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

I’d like to joke that this might be the worst case of senioritis in history, but it’s no laughing matter when police officers are being killed.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, mockingly referred to as “Moonbeam” for decades now, had to have been utterly checked out, knowing that his term would be over on Monday.

How else can you possibly explain Brown’s butt-covering interview with KXTV last week when he had just days left on the job?

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard of the utterly tragic story of Newman, California, police Cpl. Ronil Singh, who was shot and killed during a traffic stop in the early morning hours of the day after Christmas.

He is survived by his widow, Anamika Chand-Singh, and the couple’s 5-month-old son.

TRENDING: Nancy Pelosi Botches Student’s Black Lives Matter Question, Stumbling Answer Angers Leftists

As Fox News notes, the alleged killer, identified as Gustavo Perez Arriaga, is an illegal alien who had multiple DUIs and suspected gang ties.

So to recap, Singh, a legal immigrant, was allegedly shot and killed by an illegal immigrant within a “sanctuary state” that helps illegal immigrants hide from the proper authorities.

But Gov. Moonbeam thinks that SB54, the “sanctuary state” law, had “nothing to do” with Singh’s death.

Here’s his interview. The “sanctuary” part occurs in the first few minutes.

Brown was asked if he thought bad people could slip through the cracks of such a lenient set of laws.

” I don’t think so,” he responded. “I think people now are looking to blame somebody because of the terrible things that happened. But it had nothing to do with the law of California.”

Are you kidding me?

Brown does have a point in that it’s not fair to blame SB54 for Singh’s death. The law prevents local authorities from sharing information with the federal government if an illegal alien is arrested for an unrelated crime.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga’s previous DUI arrests took place before the bill became law in 2017, so it didn’t apply.

RELATED: ‘Progressive’ Cali Took 9 Years To Make Fire Risk Map

However, for Brown or any other politician to say the permissive atmosphere that gave birth to SB54, and the one that continues to be fostered by California liberals today, had “nothing to do” with Singh’s death is simply a lie, and a slap in the face to Singh’s widow and infant child.

Whatever laws were on the books three years ago, whatever law was on the books when Cpl. Singh was shot to death, it’s indisputable that California and its municipalities have bent the law in recent years to favor the presence of illegal aliens in the Golden State.

And if they had not been doing so, it’s a very good chance that the illegal alien charged with Singh’s death might not have been in the country at all.

The technicalities of Brown’s argument don’t change the fact that he presided over an era in California when the very idea of “law” became warped in favor of a group of people who are only in this country because of their defiance of the law.

One of those people was Gustavo Perez Arriaga. That’s the reality, and every thinking person knows it.

Good riddance, Moonbeam. Something tells me you won’t be all that missed.

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