Sparks in the Divine Tragi-Comedy

by Phil Erwin

Last week’s most outrageous political conflict revolved around Trumpian remarks taken from a meeting the President had with a group of California lawmakers and law-enforcers, who met with Trump to discuss the difficulties of discharging their professional responsibilities under California’s so-called “sanctuary state” law.

Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims explained how “sanctuary” policies increase the difficulty of protecting her county from violent gangs such as MS-13. The President responded with a scathing rebuke of criminal gang members: “These are not people. These are animals.”

Trump’s remark was very clearly about violent criminal members of gangs such as MS-13. But the Mainstream Media [MSM] hysteria was unmistakeable in it’s deliberate mischaracterization of his words:

  • The Associated Press claimed “Trump referred to those crossing US border illegally as ‘animals’…”
  • The Washington Post worried that “In his reference to ‘animals’, Trump evokes an ugly history of dehumanization…”
  • The Huffington Post headline lamented that “Trump Refers To Immigrants As ‘Animals.’ Again.”
  • Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer even joined the effort to distort Trump’s words with this Tweet: “When all of our great-great-grandparents came to America they weren’t ‘animals,’ and these people aren’t either.

USA Today headlined their story, “Trump ramps up rhetoric on undocumented immigrants: ‘These aren’t people. These are animals.’” That misleading headline wasn’t milked from an otherwise-accurate story. The text insists that Trump used extraordinarily harsh rhetoric …calling undocumented immigrants “animals”. [My emphasis – he did not say that!] Then the article further obfuscates the truth, quoting the Fresno sheriff’s remarks about MS-13 gang members as though she were responding to what was, in actuality, Trump’s subsequent remark.

This wasn’t just a case of misunderstanding. They reversed the two remarks. Then they resurrected Trump’s endlessly-mischaracterized campaign comments about Mexico “sending rapists.” The USA Today story was deliberately crafted to take Trump’s comments and re-cast them in an inaccurate, misleading, damaging light, in such a way as to reinforce previous “fake news” tropes.

They knew what they were doing. They were deliberately lying to you.

Here’s the thing: When I heard Trump’s remarks to the California delegation, I knew instantly, unequivocally that his “animals” remark was pointed directly at gang members in general, and MS-13 in particular. There was absolutely no mistaking the intent of his remarks, unless you overlook the Fresno sheriff’s remarks, to which Trump was responding – and which every single misleading MSM video clip purposefully excluded.

They were deliberately lying to you.

When the White House moved to “clarify” (correct) the media’s mischaracterization, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell complained that “…he certainly didn’t make that clear.”

Ah, but he did, Andrea. It was selective video editing that deliberately removed the clarity.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell squawked, “Trump defenders immediately proclaimed that Trump was only talking about members of the gang, MS-13, which Is. Not. True! ” [His emphasis]

Well, Larry – your assertion is accurate only in that Trump was talking about criminal gangs in general, including those of MS-13. But that’s not what you meant to imply, is it?

Eventually, some Media outlets either corrected or retracted the obvious lie. But the damage, as they say, was done. The new “meme” that Trump called all immigrants, or more particularly all undocumented immigrants, “animals” was out there in the Internet Ether, never to be un-memed, or otherwise squelched. As FOX media correspondent Howie Kurtz pointed out, “…the furor keeps growing, despite the Media’s corrections and clarifications.”

Trump-haters, after all, “know” the Truth.

Never mind the actual video evidence.

FOX’s resident humorist, Greg Gutfeld, points to the weird Internet “Yanni-Laurel” controversy (in which people listening to a spoken word hear either the phrase “yanni” or the word “laurel”) as an apt metaphor for politics in the era of Trump: When Trump speaks, people either hear vile, hateful rhetoric, or they hear long-awaited America-saving sanity – depending on whether they reside politically in the Trump-despising Left or the Center-to-Right half of the country.

Journalist John Harwood at least got the fundamental thrust of Trump’s remarks correct, but still couldn’t resist giving gangs a nod of acceptance, if not outright approval, in his Tweet: “However repugnant their actions, MS-13 gang members are human beings, IMHO.” But as Gutfeld rather sardonically notes, “So were Hitler, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer…”

Not to be left behind in the Leftist rush to mischaracterize Trump’s remarks, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi piously proclaimed: “When the President of the United States says, about undocumented immigrants, ‘These aren’t people. These are animals’ – you have to wonder: Does he not believe in the spark of Divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?” [My emphasis]

Madame UsedToBe: If you honestly believe that MS-13 gang members have a “spark of Divinity” within their murderous bosoms that qualifies them as “human” and belies Trump’s right to call them “animals” – how, then do you explain your dogged support of Planned Parenthood, which by itself is responsible for deliberately snuffing out more than 300,000 tiny “sparks of Divinity” in a single year?

And need I remind you, those sparks have not yet had even the chance to draw a breath – much less choose whether or not to rape, disfigure, dismember and murder other “sparks.”

How is it possible that the Left is so stubbornly supportive of the “rights” of violent gang members, while at the same time so stubbornly refusing of the right of the unborn to a life; to a chance to be somebody, to be fully human?

Why are MS-13 gang members more deserving of American “sanctuary” than are those unborn sparks?

The only answer to that clear conundrum is this: The Left, the Democrat Party, and all who cleave to these two fundamentally, diametrically opposed political stances, are bereft of a moral compass.

You cannot in good conscience support the right of MS-13 gang members to be considered “human,” while at the same time considering developing babies to be mere “biological waste.”

Babies are, after all, the very essence of human “innocence,” while gang members are, by their associations and actions: Not innocent.

Which population really deserves our support?

If you’re a Conservative, a Republican, a Trumpian, or even an Independent who tends toward a middle-ground political stance, the choice is pretty obvious.

I don’t even like babies; but they get my nod.

If you’re a Democrat, a “Progressive,” or any other form of Leftist loon, apparently your choice is also obvious. And obviously idiotic. And unacceptable. Intolerable.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that allare endowed… with certain unalienable rights… [to] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Madame Pelosi: You and your crowd think murderous gang members are Divine, but babies are disposable?

Frankly, you have no place in the real America.

You don’t even understand it.



Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He would like to support some Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies (and is highly suspicious of Statistics.) That pretty much eliminates supporting most Democrats, and a bunch of Republicans to boot.

Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Naomi Fisher

Good one, Phil.