53percenter's Blog

Conservative writer, radio host, and combat veteran Jesse Kelly was banned from Twitter on Sunday. According to the explanation and screenshot provided by Kelly to The Daily Wire, Twitter violated their own policy by not informing him of the content that apparently earned him the permanent suspension.

Kelly claims the only communication he had with Twitter regarding the ban was the following message: “Your account was permanently suspended due to multiple or repeat violations of the Twitter rules. The account will not restored. Please do not respond to this email as replies and new appeals for this account will not be monitored.”

Kelly told The Daily Wire that aside from the screenshot provided, there was “no explanation” provided by Twitter.

The combat vet confirmed that he sent the following sarcastic statement, which he called “hilarious,” to podcast host and former Playboy writer Bridget Phetasy: “Throughout history, the powers that be have always feared greatness. Nelson Mandela and I aren’t the first to be persecuted. We won’t [be] the last. I’m just happy my memory will be passed down from generation to generation,” he said.

Conservatives have been worried about the seemingly targeted censorship of conservatives on social media platforms like Twitter for some time, now. As noted by Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro in July, Twitter essentially copped to so-called “shadowbanning” conservatives accounts: “Twitter’s argument is that they aren’t preventing you from seeing the tweets of people you follow — they’re just requiring you to visit their Twitter pages directly. Which is shadowbanning,” he wrote.

The ban on Kelly, who says he doesn’t even cuss on his account, coupled with the new Orwellian Twitter guidelines regarding transgenderism, only adds legitimacy to the growing concerns from the Right.

Moreover, Twitter isn’t even upholding their own restrictive policies. As highlighted by conservative writer Jeryl Bier, Twitter violated their own policy when they banned Kelly without informing him of the content it deemed to be in violation (h/t Reason.com).

Under “permanent suspension,” Twitter.com says they will inform users “which content was in violation” (emphasis added):

This is our most severe enforcement action. Permanently suspending an account will remove it from global view, and the violator will not be allowed to create new accounts. When we permanently suspend an account, we notify people that they have been suspended for abuse violations, and explain which policy or policies they have violated and which content was in violation.

“Twitter should not be regulated as a utility, but they’re going to end up being regulated if they continue to attack only people on the Right with little or no explanation,” Kelly told The Daily Wire.

In August, Kelly warned conservatives in a piece at The Federalist that tech companies and the Left more broadly would “not stop at Alex Jones” when it comes to censorship.

Thanks to the expected midterm correction, Republicans only have a one-month lease on full control of Congress — but still have several spending bills to use as leverage. Donald Trump wants to use those, and the dramatic events taking place on the border, to get a showdown over funding for his long-promised security wall. With Nancy Pelosi getting ready to take charge of the House, the next few weeks will likely be Trump’s last best chance to get it — although he’ll have to throw Homeland Security under the bus to succeed:

Congress is returning to Washington with a tight deadline to pass seven spending bills and avert a partial government shutdown over President Trump’s demand that lawmakers fund his wall on the Mexican border.

The partial shutdown will take place on Dec. 7 if Congress does not pass legislation, creating the last chance for Trump to win wall funding before Democrats take over the House majority in January.

Trump has threatened to veto a spending bill that does not include funding for the wall. If he follows through, the partial shutdown would hit the Homeland Security, Justice and State departments, among other government entities.

This isn’t the most promising ground on which to fight. Homeland Security includes the Border Patrol as well as agencies responsible for counter-terrorism operations. It might be a tough sell to argue that one has to shut down those operations in order to get a border wall that will enhance them to an arguable extent. The same goes for the Justice Department, which prosecutes immigration violations and already has a long backlog of work in that regard. Trump has repeatedly excoriated both departments for not moving swiftly and forcefully enough to crack down on illegal immigration, sometimes very publicly. How will a shutdown make that better?

Besides which, the long and inglorious history of government shutdowns shows them to be political losers for the parties that initiate them. Just as Chuck Schumer, Ted Cruz, and even Newt Gingrich how well they worked out in the past. A poll last week from Morning Consult reminded everyone of the political futility of these ultimata:

In the Nov. 15-18 survey, 55 percent of registered voters said increased wall funding would not be important enough to warrant a shutdown of the federal government, compared with 31 percent who said it would be.

That included majorities of Democrats and independents, while Republicans were somewhat more divided. While nearly half (49 percent) of GOP voters supported the idea, 34 percent did not.

One has to wonder whether some Republicans are looking at the midterm results with this question in mind. Trump made border security a top priority during the campaign, tweeting nearly daily about the migrant caravans and the need to fortify the southern border. The GOP lost the House anyway, perhaps losing as many as 40 seats in the process, as Democratic enthusiasm outpaced GOP turnout in the cities and the suburbs.

Nevertheless, Trump is persisting:

Republicans and Democrats MUST come together, finally, with a major Border Security package, which will include funding for the Wall. After 40 years of talk, it is finally time for action. Fix the Border, for once and for all, NOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2018

Meanwhile, Democrats are attaching a condition of their own:

Congressional Democrats heading into the critical stretch of the lame-duck session increasingly say they will tie their support for a high-priority spending bill to a measure protecting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian electoral interference. …

If Congress and the White House cannot agree on a spending bill by Dec. 8, many agencies—including such high-profile entities as the Department of Homeland Security—will shut down. Democrats’ demand to protect the special counsel is just one piece of a complex fight over the spending package; Mr. Trump, for example, has said it must include $5 billion more for construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was “not going to rule out any option” if the spending bill doesn’t include language to shield Mr. Mueller.

“I feel very strongly about protecting Bob Mueller, “ Mr. Wyden said in an interview. ”I think that I will look at any and all vehicles in order to do that. That goes to the question as to whether the president is above the law.”

The proposed measure would protect a special counsel from removal except for “good cause.” That is generally interpreted as meaning malfeasance or some other grave problem, rather than a general dissatisfaction with the direction of an investigation.

Rick Moran calls this “a recipe for a shutdown that could last well into January,” but why not take a glass-half-full perspective? It’s also a recipe for a grand bargain. Trump could agree to swap protections for Mueller in exchange for significant border-wall funding, perhaps shorn of his other immigration demands or perhaps including all four of his “pillars.” Democrats get Mueller protected, Trump gets the border protection he wants. If Trump really isn’t going to interfere with Mueller — and it seems really far too late for him to intervene at this point — he’s not giving anything away of value anyway.

The main problem here, of course, that Mueller’s not really the main issue here for Democrats or Republicans. Immigration has been far too useful as a demagogic wedge for both parties, at least until this cycle. Maybe the midterm results changed that calculus for the GOP. Offer Mueller protections and see whether Democrats have a new calculus.

The U.S. has pretty much tried everything it could to dislodge the corrupt, brutal socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. One thing it hasn’t, though, is putting Venezuela on the state sponsors of terror list, which would be easy to do, given that it actually fits the ticket.

Does it issue passports to terrorists affiliated with Iran, Hezbollah and others from among the Mideast’s gamiest players? Sure does.

Does it succor these people and provide them a safe landing pad any time they are in the regional neighborhood? It rolls out the welcome mat.

Has it allowed vast swathes of its country to be taken over by the Castro-founded Colombian guerrilla group known as ELN? A recent report says that more than half the country is controlled by these inhuman thugs.

Has it succored Colombian terrorist group FARC? Yep. And the Spanish Basque terrorist minions, too.

The whole creepiness of the Venezuelan regime runs the gamut of terror-sponsorship, and oh, don’t forget to mention that the country is pals with these other state sponsors of terror, starting with Iran.

The Chavista socialist regime has created a humanitarian nightmare for Venezuela’s neighbors as human rights violations flow something fierce and people are starved for food, water, medical care, transport and housing. According to a column in Forbes today, the socialist regime’s odds of getting its act together in the coming year are exactly … zero. USA Today reports that the Maduro regime is consolidating its power to go Full Castro, and if there’s no intervention, he will get away with it.

The only real question to ask is why it hasn’t been done already, given the thuggery and threats we and our regional neighbors are enduring.

The non-pro-Trump press is all for it, starting with the Weekly Standard, as is President Trump’s political rival, Sen. Marco Rubio.  According to an editorial calling for it from the Miami Herald:

The designation would place Venezuela on a list reserved for governments repeatedly accused of being “a state sponsor of terrorism,” like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. Cuba fought and won removal from the list in 2016 during the Obama administration.

Does Venezuela really qualify as a top danger to America? Yes, according to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has led the push to label Venezuela as such. Indications are that the administration is acting on Rubio’s expert advice. The senator has long been a thorn in Maduro’s side. We commend Rubio for his tenacity against a power-hungry dictator who has made a mockery of his country’s democracy.

In a letter, Rubio and two Senate colleagues lobbied Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to put the designation on Venezuela, highlighting the regime’s links to U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the National Liberation Army, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, and Hezbollah supporters.

“The crisis in Venezuela is dire and worsening every day,” the senators wrote. “The United States must use all available tools to protect the American homeland and our people from the Venezuelan dictatorship’s egregious support for terrorism and narcotrafficking. We strongly believe that the Maduro regime meets the criteria necessary to designate the current Venezuelan government as a state sponsor of terrorism.”

Give it to them.

The U.S. has pretty much tried everything it could to dislodge the corrupt, brutal socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. One thing it hasn’t, though, is putting Venezuela on the state sponsors of terror list, which would be easy to do, given that it actually fits the ticket.

Does it issue passports to terrorists affiliated with Iran, Hezbollah and others from among the Mideast’s gamiest players? Sure does.

Does it succor these people and provide them a safe landing pad any time they are in the regional neighborhood? It rolls out the welcome mat.

Has it allowed vast swathes of its country to be taken over by the Castro-founded Colombian guerrilla group known as ELN? A recent report says that more than half the country is controlled by these inhuman thugs.

Has it succored Colombian terrorist group FARC? Yep. And the Spanish Basque terrorist minions, too.

The whole creepiness of the Venezuelan regime runs the gamut of terror-sponsorship, and oh, don’t forget to mention that the country is pals with these other state sponsors of terror, starting with Iran.

The Chavista socialist regime has created a humanitarian nightmare for Venezuela’s neighbors as human rights violations flow something fierce and people are starved for food, water, medical care, transport and housing. According to a column in Forbes today, the socialist regime’s odds of getting its act together in the coming year are exactly … zero. USA Today reports that the Maduro regime is consolidating its power to go Full Castro, and if there’s no intervention, he will get away with it.

The only real question to ask is why it hasn’t been done already, given the thuggery and threats we and our regional neighbors are enduring.

The non-pro-Trump press is all for it, starting with the Weekly Standard, as is President Trump’s political rival, Sen. Marco Rubio.  According to an editorial calling for it from the Miami Herald:

The designation would place Venezuela on a list reserved for governments repeatedly accused of being “a state sponsor of terrorism,” like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. Cuba fought and won removal from the list in 2016 during the Obama administration.

Does Venezuela really qualify as a top danger to America? Yes, according to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has led the push to label Venezuela as such. Indications are that the administration is acting on Rubio’s expert advice. The senator has long been a thorn in Maduro’s side. We commend Rubio for his tenacity against a power-hungry dictator who has made a mockery of his country’s democracy.

In a letter, Rubio and two Senate colleagues lobbied Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to put the designation on Venezuela, highlighting the regime’s links to U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the National Liberation Army, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, and Hezbollah supporters.

“The crisis in Venezuela is dire and worsening every day,” the senators wrote. “The United States must use all available tools to protect the American homeland and our people from the Venezuelan dictatorship’s egregious support for terrorism and narcotrafficking. We strongly believe that the Maduro regime meets the criteria necessary to designate the current Venezuelan government as a state sponsor of terrorism.”

Give it to them.

This probably sounds like a joke (and it really should be), but it’s apparently a serious discussion taking place this year. There’s climate change on the moon and, obviously, man must have caused it. So will there be wildfires raging out of control? Tsunamis? Hurricanes? No, but the surface temperature is slightly warmer than it was before we arrived fifty years ago. (Business Insider)

Newly discovered temperature data from the 1970s moon landings, released in the Journal of Geophysical Research in April, reveals that NASA astronauts probably warmed up the moon’s surface temperature by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit by walking around and poking into the lunar surface.

The data comes from so-called heat-flow experiments that were installed on the moon in 1971 and 1972 during the Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 missions. For the experiments, astronauts on each mission drilled two holes into the surface of the moon at depths ranging from 3.2 feet to 7.5 feet deep. The astronauts inserted fiberglass tubes into the holes and plopped platinum thermometers inside to read the temperatures at varying depths below the moon’s surface. Those probes beamed the temperature data to Earth in near real time.

There you have it. Manmade climate change on the moon. Of course, that’s a rather disingenuous way to put it since the moon doesn’t really have much in the way of a “climate.” But the surface temperature does change based on how much sunlight it gets. Still, that didn’t stop the author of the article from opining, “if just a few moonwalks can cause a kind of climate change on the moon, that gives scientists a new factor to consider when planning future human missions.”

Seriously? We should take climate change into account when planning a base on a lifeless satellite with no measurable atmosphere? (Okay… the moon does technically have a wispy atmosphere but it’s literally ten billion times less dense than Earth’s.) Just how much climate change do you expect to happen and what would it impact?

All they’re really talking about is the fact that when you dig a hole in the moon to install a temperature sensor, you end up brushing away some of the light colored dust which covers the surface on the near side and exposing some of the darker regolith underneath. The lighter material reflects the sunlight more while the dark rock absorbs it. So basically you’re allowing the specific area around the sensor to heat up a bit more while the rest of the moon stays as it was.

But don’t worry, sports fans. I’m sure Al Gore is starting up a new company to sell moon climate change prevention equipment as we speak.

“When did sports get so political? When did ESPN become MSNBC? When did Colin Kaepernick become Mahatma Gandhi,” asks sports writer and host of “Outkick the Show” Clay Travis in the latest feature from PragerU. Sports are supposed to unite us, he maintains, but the politicization of sports is doing the opposite — and the sports media’s to blame.

“Sports are a living civics lesson,” he says. “Think about it. Every team represents its community — a city, a college, a high school. It is, after all, the New York Yankees. The player who wears the team uniform represents that community. Now, let’s take it one step further: a soldier, also in uniform, represents his country. He is a member, in effect, of the nation’s team. The flag and the anthem are symbols of that team. That’s why every professional sports event in America begins with the national anthem. When you stand for the anthem you are not only cheering for the home team, but for the nation. In short, we begin every sports contest united. Then, of course, it’s game on. But the lesson has been taught. Unfortunately, the unifying power of sports is being trashed.”

“Who is responsible?” he asks. “The worst culprits are, ironically, the very people who cover sports in the first place — the sports media. How did this happen? There are, of course, many factors. But a good place to start is with four letters: ESPN. 24/7 sports news and highlights — every fan’s dream. That is, until a few years ago. That’s when ESPN realized that it was losing its clout. Their answer? A new approach: sports mixed with politics.”

This decision by ESPN changed sports reporting and has even affected how others do their reporting, Travis argues.

“You’d think that sports reporters — the guys who eat, drink and sleep sports — wouldn’t put up with this nonsense, that they’d know politics has no place on the field. But you’d be wrong. They’re just as political as their news desk colleagues,” Travis says. “Because they’re afraid of being called ‘racist’ or ‘sexist,’ because they want to be friends with the athletes, because they want to think of themselves as ‘serious’ journalists, and because they come from the same journalism schools as the political reporters. And because, yes, they’re overwhelmingly on the left. Sorry… that’s just a fact.”

Video and transcript below:

When did sports get so political? When did ESPN become MSNBC? When did Colin Kaepernick become Mahatma Gandhi?

I love sports. I always have. Growing up, I played every sport I could. Michael Jordan and Bo Jackson posters adorned the walls of my bedroom. Sports remains my passion, and for two decades has been my career. I love that sports allows us a break from daily worries, to lose ourselves in the game – where the rules are clear, where talent reigns supreme, and surprise is always possible.

And I love sports not only for my own selfish reasons, but for what it does for the nation. Sports brings together people of all backgrounds to “root, root, root for the home team.” No other form of entertainment does this. Sure, a movie might be great, but you don’t see Democrats and Republicans hugging and high-fiving after watching Tropic Thunder.

I’m not done. Sports are a living civics lesson. Think about it. Every team represents its community—a city, a college, a high school. It is, after all, the New York Yankees. The player who wears the team uniform represents that community.

Now, let’s take it one step further: a soldier, also in uniform, represents his country. He is a member, in effect, of the nation’s team. The flag and the anthem are symbols of that team. That’s why every professional sports event in America begins with the national anthem. When you stand for the anthem you are not only cheering for the home team, but for the nation. In short, we begin every sports contest united. Then, of course, it’s game on. But the lesson has been taught. Unfortunately, the unifying power of sports is being trashed.

Who is responsible? The worst culprits are, ironically, the very people who cover sports in the first place—the sports media. How did this happen? There are, of course, many factors. But a good place to start is with four letters: ESPN. 24/7 sports news and highlights—every fan’s dream.

That is, until a few years ago. That’s when ESPN realized that it was losing its clout. Their answer? A new approach: sports mixed with politics.

ESPN replaced ratings bonuses with diversity bonuses; gave “woke” analysts like Jemele Hill, Max Kellerman, and Bomani Jones their own shows; and an anti-American former backup quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, more airtime than he got playing time. And because ESPN leads the field, much of the sports media followed suit.

The result? When you go to the sports section of USA Today or Yahoo or even Sports Illustrated, you’re as likely to read about players’ thoughts on the president as you are about their thoughts on the game.

Here’s how insane this has gotten: In August 2017, ESPN pulled 40-year-old Asian American play-by-play announcer Robert Lee from calling a University of Virginia college football game in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Why?

Because in the wake of the violent Charlottesville protests surrounding the removal of the statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, ESPN didn’t want to “trigger” its viewers. So, an Asian American named Robert Lee couldn’t comment on a game because of incident involving a statue of Robert E. Lee.

No, I’m not kidding.

You’d think that sports reporters—the guys who eat, drink and sleep sports—wouldn’t put up with this nonsense, that they’d know politics has no place on the field. But you’d be wrong. They’re just as political as their news desk colleagues.

Why?

Because they’re afraid of being called “racist” or “sexist,” because they want to be friends with the athletes, because they want to think of themselves as “serious” journalists, and because they come from the same journalism schools as the political reporters.

And because, yes, they’re overwhelmingly on the left. Sorry—that’s just a fact. Over 80% of sports journalists, according to a survey from The Big Lead, voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Less than 4% voted for the other candidate—you know, the guy who actually won. And do we know who those 4% are? Of course not. They want to keep their jobs.

So, how’s this new business strategy working out for ESPN? Since 2011, the network has been losing about 2 million subscribers per year. It hasn’t turned out any better for the NFL. The league has lost nearly 20 percent of its viewership since 2016.

But you don’t see me celebrating.

We need sports. We need that break from our everyday cares. We need its unique ability to unite our communities, our nation. We need the civics lesson.

What else brings Americans together?

It certainly isn’t politics.

I’m Clay Travis, host of Outkick the Show, for Prager University.

BY: Mikhael Smits Follow
@mikhaelsmits

November 26, 2018 11:36 am

The Associated Press claimed in a report on Saturday that “Iran has never threatened to attack Israel.” The AP later clarified that Iran has frequently predicted Israel’s demise, saying Israeli officials “view” those comments as existential threats, but the news agency did not revoke the statement.

Nasser Karimi, a 14-year veteran of the AP, wrote the story, titled “Iran’s Rouhani calls Israel a ‘cancerous tumor,'” from Tehran. It was shared by multiple media outlets, including the New York Times, Daily Mail, and U.S. New & World Report.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) pointed out the inaccurate statement about Iranian threats and contacted the AP about the error, according to a story published on its website Sunday.

The AP subsequently clarified the story, casting Iranian threats as Israeli perception.

In a story Nov. 24, The Associated Press reported that Iran frequently condemns Israel and predicts its demise. The story should have made clear that Israeli officials view any such comments from Iran as existential threats.

The updated AP story reads as follows:

Iran supports militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that are pledged to Israel’s destruction. Iran has never threatened to attack Israel, but has vowed to retaliate if it is attacked. Israel views Iran as an existential threat.

Iran’s threats and desire to destroy the state of Israel are well-documented. In 2011, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, a commander in Iran’s IRGC, said: “We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases.” In 2018, Guardian Council secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said ”[s]oon we will celebrate the destruction of this [Israeli] regime in Palestine.”

The AP in 2016:

Iran has threatened to destroy Israel in the past.

The AP in 2018:

Iran has never threatened to attack Israel.

Former Infowars D.C. bureau chief Jerome Corsi will reject a plea agreement offered by the special counsel and fire back with a criminal complaint, accusing Robert Mueller of “Gestapo” tactics in attempting to pressure the author into pleading guilty to one count of perjury.

“They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie,” Corsi said in a brief telephone call with CNN. Asked what Mueller office will do next if he does not agree to the plea deal, Corsi replied, “I don’t know.”

Corsi told NBC producer Anna Schecter that a plea agreement would involve the author of pleading guilty to one count of perjury. “I’d rather sit in prison and rot for as long as these thugs want me to,” he told Schecter.

Corsi tells me he’s been offered plea deal on one count of perjury. “They want me to say I willfully lied. I’m not going to agree that I lied. I did not. I will not lie to save my life. I’d rather sit in prison and rot for as long as these thugs want me to.”

— Anna Schecter (@annaschecter) November 26, 2018

As reported Friday, Corsi revealed that he has been negotiating a potential plea but declined to comment further on the matter. He said on a YouTube show earlier this month that he expected to be charged with lying to federal investigators, though he said at the time that he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Mueller’s team questioned Corsi as part of an investigation into Stone’s connections with WikiLeaks. American intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia was the source of hacked material released by WikiLeaks during the 2016 election that damaged Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mueller’s office is trying to determine whether Stone and other associates of President Donald Trump had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans.

It is unclear whether the charges against Assange are related to Mueller’s investigation, but WikiLeaks was singled out in an indictment last summer against a group of Russian intelligence officers accused of carrying out the wide-ranging hack of Clinton’s campaign and other Democratic organizations.

It is also not known whether any plea by Corsi signals a new raft of charges by the special counsel — or merely that investigators are aggressively pursuing cases against people they believe made false statements to investigators. Mueller has brought such cases against four others, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Corsi has said he cooperated with the probe for about two months after he received a subpoena in August. As part of that cooperation, he turned over two computers and a cell phone and provided the FBI access to his email accounts and tweets.

But he said earlier this month that talks with investigators recently had “blown up.”

“I fully anticipate that in the next few days, I will be indicted by Mueller,” he said.

The spokesman for the special counsel, Peter Carr, declined comment on Friday.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Five years almost to the day before President Donald Trump’s border officers blocked migrants with tear gas, authorities under President Barack Obama used identical tactics along the same stretch of border near the San Ysidro Port of Entry, according to 2013 press accounts.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported November 25, 2o13:

The incident occurred about a quarter-mile west of the San Ysidro border crossing in the Tijuana River channel. No one was seriously injured, no shots were fired and no arrests were made, said Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman.

The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said.

As the crowd kept advancing and throwing rocks and bottles, she said, more agents came to the scene and used other “intermediate use-of-force devices” to push back the group. The agents also contacted Mexican law enforcement.

In 2018, on November 25, border officers used tear gas to drive migrants back from a border fence they were seeking to push through.

Reminder: The Obama Admin also used force and tear gas in 2013 when a large group of people stormed our border and threw rocks at our agents—at the same exact place. Source: https://t.co/YPlc8KXpdo

— Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) November 26, 2018

The incident took place at almost the same location, but five years apart. The major difference is that Trump’s deputies installed a temporary barrier to fill a gap between permanent fences.

We can’t allow people to enter our country in this manner. I’m sympathetic to the plight of migrants, but we can’t allow this. Not like this. https://t.co/aNxzpW7eZz

— Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) November 26, 2018

KPBS News reported the 2013 clash, saying:

Deported migrants attempted a once-common tactic of rushing the border en masse on Sunday. But Border Patrol agents met them with tear gas and rubber bullets and forced them to turn back.

Deportees in Tijuana said plans to rush the border had been in the works for a week.

It all started with a guy handing out pocket-sized fliers at the Padre Chava breakfast hall for migrants and deportees in Tijuana. The fliers called for a mass border crossing on Nov. 24.

“So that we can reunite with our children, families,” the flier read in small, Spanish text.

According to the Union-Tribune, pro-migration groups defended the 2013 migrants, saying they were “desperate:”

Immigrant-rights groups in San Diego said they didn’t know beforehand about the plan to rush the border, and they worry that desperation is driving homeless deportees to make a bold bid to rejoin their families in the United States.

…

Christian Ramirez, human rights director for the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said he does not believe the move could have been a strategic protest. He views it as an act of desperation on the part of deportees who have been pushed to live around the river in makeshift camps or those who are set up in other migrant camps in the city.

In 2018, progressives and pro-migration activists supported the aggressive migrants.

Read it all here.