Student newspaper editorial board endorses nonwhite segregated housing
Monday, April 22, 2019
DANIEL PAYNE - ASSISTANT EDITOR | The College Fix
IMAGE: iQoncept / Shutterstock.com
The editorial board of a campus newspaper has endorsed a student proposal to establish segregated housing on campus, claiming that such housing will help make the school “safe” and “welcoming.”
The Coalition Against Racist Education Now, a coalition of activists students at Williams College, recently released a list of demands “calling upon the College’s trustees to fulfill their ‘obligation to the well-being and safety of its students, faculty and staff’,” .
Among those demands was a request for “affinity housing,” what the editorial board of describes as “the organization of student housing around common identities.”
The board goes on to declare that it “wholeheartedly support[s] establishing affinity housing at the College,” specifically segregated housing for nonwhite students:
As a community, we must recognize that the College is a predominantly white institution in which students of color often feel tokenized, both in their residences and more broadly on campus. Establishing affinity housing will not singlehandedly solve this problem, but it will assist in making the College a more welcoming, supportive and safe community for minoritized students.
Anticipating the objection that segregating nonwhite students might not be the wisest choice from an equity standpoint, the board writes:
Some say affinity housing reinforces division, arguing that having minoritized students cluster in one space would be harmful to the broader campus community. We believe, however, that allowing for a space where students can express their identities without fear of tokenization or marginalization will encourage students to exist more freely in the broader campus community, rather than recede from it.
The editors also claim that “there currently exists a de facto system of affinity housing” on the campus already, citing “the predominantly white, upper-class athletes who reside on Spring Street and Hoxsey Street during their senior years.” (However, the board notes that “these off-campus homes are rented on the private market and not a part of the housing lottery system.”)
A Reader’s Comment:
roccolore : It's funny how Democrats love to lecture everyone else on diversity while advocating the return of segregation.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
By ROBERT STACY MCCAIN | The American Spectator
For approximately 3 million people, nothing in the Mueller report could exonerate President Trump of “Russian collusion,” obstruction of justice, and various other high crimes and misdemeanors of which they are certain he is guilty.
For those 3 million people (a number reflecting the combined average weekday primetime audience of CNN and MSNBC) Trump’s guilt is an indisputable fact, his presidency an ongoing crime against humanity, his 2016 election a fraud.
In a nation of 325 million people, of course, 3 million is less than a single percentage point. However, that hard-core audience of obsessive Trump-haters includes every Democrat in Washington and the vast majority of our nation’s journalists, university faculty, and other such members of the intelligentsia.
Therefore, their deranged idée fixe has enormous influence, calling into existence a sort of anti-Trump industry that manufactures a constant output of rage-inducing propaganda.
The CNN/MSNBC bubble is the cable-TV equivalent of a cult compound, where dissent from their political religion is forbidden. For the past two years, the fanatics have been told every night by Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, et al., that the final destruction of Trump was at hand — “the walls are closing in!” — and the left-wing faithful awaited their deliverance from the evil man in the White House.
“Orange Man Bad” — that’s a shorthand label for the anti-Trump mentality, coined by an anonymous contributor on a Reddit forum in 2017, mocking the robotic mindlessness of the president’s enemies.
No fact that might contradict their Trump-hating beliefs has any validity to them, because Orange Man Bad. By obverse principle, anything done to harm Trump or his supporters, including libel and violent assault, is considered legitimate, because Orange Man Bad. Living inside a media-generated echo chamber where everyone shares their simplistic worldview, the Trump-haters tune in nightly to their MSNBC/CNN religious revival and are catechized, so to speak, with the latest reiteration of the Orange Man Bad gospel.
What else can explain what happened Thursday, after Mueller finally delivered his 448-page “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.”
The delivery of the special counsel’s report was preceded by a press conference at which Attorney General William Barr summarized the result of the investigation.
Barr “made clear that, after two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and endless media speculation, the ‘Russian collusion’ story was, as some of us had noted all along, a story about nothing,” as Professor Glenn Reynolds observed. “No member of Trump’s campaign — and in fact, no American anywhere — colluded with the Russians to influence the campaign.”
Contrary to what MSNBC and CNN viewers had been told night after night for month after month, Trump is not a Kremlin stooge and yet: “Orange Man Bad!”
Proven wrong on the matter of “Russian collusion,” the anti-Trump media sifted through the Mueller report in search of evidence of other wrongdoing by the president, who of course must be guilty of something.
The Twitter feeds of media types filled up with excerpts of the report proving… what? Well, Trump was very angry about being falsely accused of “collusion,” and he didn’t enjoy watching his former associates being investigated and prosecuted as part of what he considered a partisan witch hunt, inspired in large measure by the phony Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign. But we already knew that.
Trump’s animus toward the Mueller investigation was certainly no secret, but being angry is not a crime and, however angry he was, nothing Trump did amounted to obstruction of justice. Because there was no “collusion,” and thus no crime to conceal, it would be hard to figure out how or why justice could be obstructed in such a case.
The innocent don’t fear justice, and if Trump was innocent of “collusion” (as Mueller concluded) why should he engage in obstruction? Never mind basic logic, cried the Trump-haters, because Orange Man Bad!
CNN went into complete meltdown mode Thursday afternoon, led by the network’s chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who declared the Mueller report was “pretty bad” and “very damaging” for Trump.
CNN commentator Ana Navarro ranted on Twitter that Barr is “complicit… duplicitous” and “disloyal to the Constitution,” and harrumphed: “I don’t know how anyone can read [the] Mueller Report and conclude Trump did not attempt time and time again to obstruct justice.”
Things were no better on MSNBC, where Chris Matthews reacted to Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions: “My God, it was like he had failed an Alzheimer’s competency test.”
MSNBC commentator and former CIA director John Brennan, who’s spent two years promoting the Russian collusion narrative, claimed that the Mueller report, which effectively exonerated Trump, nonetheless contained “really quite extensive” information supporting his own view.
Brennan said the Mueller report showed Trump’s “conduct was unethical, unprincipled, dishonest and I would say it really does back up political corruption.”
Their minds are made up, and mere facts cannot penetrate their ironclad certainty about Trump’s maliciousness.
Thus, a 22-month, $25 million federal investigation that disproved their Russian conspiracy theory was really just a waste of time and money.
The anti-Trump media and Democrat politicians in Washington continue to believe what they have always believed: “Orange Man Bad!”
On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program last night, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel said bluntly, “It’s over.”
No collusion. No obstruction. No more indictments. The whole Russians-stole-the-election narrative has been conclusively debunked, and despite the Mueller report’s detailed accounting of Trump’s angry outbursts about the investigation, justice was never obstructed.
Yet the 3 million viewers of CNN and MSNBC may not realize this, because those networks are still saying the same thing they’ve been saying since 2016: “Orange Man Bad!”
What can be done about the anti-Trump cult?
It’s obvious that they cannot be persuaded by rational argument to abandon their paranoid delusions, and they’ll still be ranting about Russia until the day Trump leaves office.
They never believed he could win the 2016 election, and the Russian “collusion” theory was a way to deny the reality of his victory. Now we are barely a year-and-a-half away from the next presidential election, and Trump’s chances of winning a second term have significantly increased.
The nearly 63 million Americans who voted for Trump seem to be sticking with him — his job approval numbers have gained about 7 points in the Real Clear Politics poll average since December 2017 — and the Democrat field for 2020 is a clown car full of left-wing crazies.
Despite what his enemies in the media might believe, the end of the Mueller probe is a clear victory for Trump, and if the economy keeps roaring along like it is now, the odds of him being re-elected are quite good.
None of these facts matter to the 3 million who watch CNN and MSNBC, the cable-TV echo chamber defined by the anti-Trump cult mentality of Maddow and Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Erin Burnett, Chris Hayes and Chris Cuomo.
The good news is that this alternative universe appears to be shrinking.
Maddow has lost nearly a third of her audience since last April, and CNN recently recorded its worst ratings week of the year.
It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, and this is exactly what Trump’s media enemies seem to be doing.
The more often the president mocks them as “fake news,” the more determined they become to destroy him, and the more they limit their audience to the most fanatically deranged Trump-haters.
However, it never seems to occur to them that they might be mistaken, no matter how often they find themselves humiliated in the ratings.
They know only one thing, and they are completely committed to it: “Orange Man Bad!”
Friday, April 19, 2019
By Raynard Jackson
Last Sunday, on my flight back to Washington, DC, I, like millions of people all over the world, was captivated and mesmerized by the play of Tiger Woods during the final round of the 2019 U.S. Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Georgia.
As Woods tapped in his final putt to ensure his victory, there was a loud cheer that went up throughout the entire golf course; there was also a very audible cheer that you could hear throughout my plane.
For those of you who don’t follow golf, Tiger Woods had totally dominated golf in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Woods turned pro in 1996 at the age of 20. In 1997 he won his first Masters by a historic 12 strokes, making him the youngest player in history to win this tournament. In his first ten years as a professional, Woods won thirteen majors, which was and is unprecedented.
Tiger was so dominate in golf, that the majors began to redesign golf courses to make them more difficult; thinking this would give Wood’s competitors a better chance of defeating him. This was called “Tiger-proofing.”
During the next decade, Woods encountered all sorts of personal and professional problems; marital infidelity and numerous health issues. Many of Woods detractors and the so-called experts predicted that Tiger would never win another major and was all but washed up.
His Masters win on Sunday was his first major victory in eleven years. Tiger’s victory on Sunday will go down as one of the greatest comeback stories in sports history.
So, while everyone was celebrating Tiger’s improbable comeback on Sunday, my mind drifted in a different direction.
I heard the voice of Whitney Houston singing the 2008 Seoul Olympic theme song, One Moment In Time. One of the versus goes like this: …”I want one moment in time, when I’m more than I thought I could be, when all my dreams are a heartbeat away, and the answers are all up to me, give me one moment in time, when I’m racing with destiny, then in that one moment of time, I will feel free, I will feel eternity.”
For one moment in time, the world and America specifically, didn’t see race; for one moment in time Tiger Woods and America was great again; for one moment in time, Blacks and whites were hi-fiving; for one moment in time, there were no enemies.
What was it about this golf tournament, embodied by Tiger Woods, that gave us a brief respite from all that divides us?
The answer is very simple my friend.
Tiger Woods is the American story of defeat and triumph; sin and redemption; agony and ecstasy.
Oh, and did I tell you that Tiger Woods is also Black? Tiger was celebrated not because he is Black, but because he overcame and excelled.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, this is what makes America great.
America was birthed in sin with its treatment of the Indians who were already here and the importation of Blacks as slaves. We have overcome these issues with the various treaties signed with Indians and the various Civil Rights laws that have been passed to make America more equal. [Editor’s Note: To review civil rights history, see the article posted on this blog with the title “Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides On Racism.”]
Why was Tiger able to excel?
This answer, too, my friend, is very simple.
Tiger was able to excel because he knew what the rules were upfront. No one started the match with an advantage.
Income didn’t matter. Race didn’t matter. Family linage didn’t matter. Religion didn’t matter. Nationality didn’t matter.
Everyone played on the same golf course. Everyone was subjected to the same weather conditions. Everyone’s equipment was based on the same set of standards.
To qualify for the Masters, either you met the cut-off score or you didn’t.
Once you have established a system based on fairness, then your talents and skills will take you as far as you want to go.
America has come a long way in this regards; but we are a long way from where we ought to be.
What makes America great is that we are on the road to redemption from our past; we still have work to do.
When our justice system treats everyone the same for identical crimes; when our legal system is no longer tilted in favor of those with wealth; when our school systems are not based on one’s zip code; then, maybe we can have that one moment in time.
That one moment in time when “the answers are all up to me…that one moment of time I will feel free, I will feel eternity.”
Raynard Jackson is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter; Raynard1223.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.
A brief summary of how the smear against President Trump began:
Starting with the ridiculous DNC-funded dossier, the Obama admin obtained a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.
After Trump won the 2016 election, Democrats called for a ridiculous investigation that culminated with Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel.
THERE WAS STILL NO COLLUSION.
At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s investigation which AG Barr summarized saying there was no collusion and no obstruction, Democrats led by Adam Schiff demanded a the full report be released.
STILL… THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.
Bottom line: Now we know the history of the lies Democrats told the American people as part of their political vendetta against President Trump, Democrats need to be held accountable for recklessly dividing America for their own political gain.
Barr: White House Offered Unfettered Access to Special Counsel Investigation, Did Not Obstruct Justice, No Executive Privilege Claimed
By Katie Pavlich | Townhall
Speaking to reporters at the Justice Department Thursday morning, Attorney General Bill Barr addressed questions about obstruction of justice during the Special Counsel investigation into the 2016 presidential election.
During his remarks, Barr argued that not only was there no obstruction of justice, but that the White House cooperated with every aspect of the probe, offered witnesses and provided requested documentation. During this section, he specifically cited the Mueller report.
"The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation," Barr said. "Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."
Barr also provided context surrounding President Trump's frustration with the probe, which he cooperated with anyway.
"In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates," Barr said.
"At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks."
When Barr released his four-page letter with the bottom line findings three weeks ago, the White House said President Trump would not assert executive privilege over the contents in the final report. That position still stands.
"Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege," Barr said.
Shortly after the press conference ended, President Trump tweeted the following.
Mueller report shows probe did not find collusion evidence, reveals Trump efforts to sideline key players
The Justice Department posts online a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election online; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.
After two years of suspense, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report was released into Washington’s partisan scrum Thursday showing investigators did not find evidence of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia – as Attorney General Bill Barr declared last month – but revealing an array of controversial actions by the president that were examined as part of the investigation’s obstruction inquiry.
This included President Trump allegedly telling his White House counsel in June 2017 to inform the acting attorney general that Mueller had conflicts of interest and "must be removed." The report said Trump also fumed over the original appointment -- lamenting it would mean the "end of his presidency" -- first telling then-DOJ leader Jeff Sessions he should resign, and later trying to get Session to take back control of the probe.
Mueller ultimately did not reach a conclusion on whether the president's conduct amounted to obstruction, stating: "[W]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
But even though Barr's DOJ determined they did not have evidence to pursue such a case, the details in the report only fueled Democrats' mounting calls to not only see the unredacted report but have Mueller testify.
"This is exactly why we need to hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller and receive the full, unredacted report with the underlying evidence," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler tweeted, highlighting that section.
Trump and his legal team, though, declared victory upon the release of the report.
"No collusion, no obstruction," Trump said.
The swift reactions indicated the release of the report is only likely to fuel, not quiet, the long-raging debate in Washington over the Russia probe and serve as fodder going into the 2020 election year.
As stated in Barr’s summary last month and reiterated again at a press conference earlier Thursday morning, though, the special counsel did not find clear evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” the report said, while also saying there were "links" between the two.
“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal,” the special counsel report stated.
The version of the more than 400-page report that the Justice Department made public Thursday includes redactions, consistent with Barr’s plan to black out portions of the document—including grand jury material, information the intelligence community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods, any material that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions and information that could implicate the privacy or reputational interests of “peripheral players.”
The redactions in the report were color-coded, labeled with the reasoning behind each redaction, with categories including "grand jury material," "personal privacy," "investigative technique;" and "harm to ongoing matter."
The report, meanwhile, went in depth on the obstruction of justice question, despite the lack of a decision on that front. In Barr's summary to Congress last month, he said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found the evidence was “not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
The report itself noted that they obtained evidence about the president’s “actions and intent,” and that presented “difficult issues that would need to be resolved” if they were making a traditional judgment.
The report looked at 10 episodes related to the allegations of obstruction of justice, including:
“The campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump; Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn; The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation; The President's termination of Comey; The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him; Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel's investigation; Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence; Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation; and Conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, [REDACTED]; conduct involving Michael Cohen.”
The report revealed that the president reacted to the news a special counsel had been appointed by telling his advisers that it was “the end of his presidency,” and demanding that Sessions resign. Once Sessions submitted his resignation, the president did not accept it.
The report also details Trump's alleged effort to have Mueller sidelined, amid reports at the time that special counsel’s office was investigating the president for obstruction of justice. The report details a dramatic moment where the president's White House counsel apparently rejected the push.
“On June 17, 2017, the president called [White House Counsel Don] McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre,” the report stated, referencing the Watergate scandal.
The report also revealed that when the media reported of the president’s request for McGahn to have Mueller removed, the president directed White House officials “to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed.”
“McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening,” the report said.
The report went on to explain that two days after the initial request to McGahn, the president made another attempt to “affect the course of the Russia investigation.”
“On June 19, 2017, the president met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions,” the report said.
“The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was ‘very unfair’ to the president, the president had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and ‘let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.’”
Lewandowski, according to the report, said he understood what the president wanted Sessions to do.
“Lewandowski did not want to deliver the president’s message personally,” the report said, “so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions.”
Dearborn ultimately did not follow through with the task.
The report also said “substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst” for the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey was his “unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.” But the report said the evidence “does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.”
The report stated that while the areas the special counsel investigated “involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations” shed light on the “nature” of his acts. The special counsel determined that the actions investigated are divided into “two phases,” which they said reflected “a possible shift in the President’s motives.”
The first phase was related to the firing of Comey. “During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation.
Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry,” the report said, adding that “at that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”
The evidence detailed in the report related to allegations of obstruction of justice, though, is likely to come under intense scrutiny from congressional Democrats and could be used in their sweeping Trump-related investigations.
The president’s legal team, in anticipation of obstruction of justice claims in the report, has prepared their own report to counter the allegations.
“They assumed all along that there was going to be a finding of no collusion, so the rebuttal is about obstruction,” a source close to Trump’s legal team told Fox News. “They are preparing a rebuttal to presumed allegations which will be refuted.”
The special counsel wrote that they sought a voluntary interview with the president, but after more than a year of discussing the prospect of one, the president declined. The president did, though, agree to answer written questions on certain Russia-related topics. But according to the report, he “did not similarly agree to provide written answers to questions on obstruction topics or questions on events during the transition.”
Mueller’s team also said that, while they believed they had the “authority and legal justification” to do so, they decided not to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the president’s testimony.
Fox News' Adam Shaw, Jake Gibson, Catherine Herridge, and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
BY JOHN HINDERAKER | POWERLINE
It is a truism of contemporary public life that liberals are bullies.
And the bullying is worst on college campuses, which are now, more than ever, islands of repression in a sea of freedom.
But some brave souls, like Candace Owens, are willing to run the leftist gauntlet to bring a dose of common sense to college students.
Candace was at the University of Pennsylvania, which I believe was once a pretty good institution. She was besieged and harassed by an Antifa group, augmented by the usual cadre of liberals.
Antifa is here!! Enjoy this video of the neo-KKK stalking and harassing me as I try to invite a group of peaceful black students into my event at UPENN. The Democrat’s domestic terrorist arm strike again! Too bad we will NEVER BACK DOWN. WE WILL BE FREE. #BLEXIT
Candace is right about Antifa. Antifa is indeed a neo-KKK organization because they are, as she says, “the Democrats’ domestic terrorist arm,” just as the KKK was for many years. Candace’s grandfather was besieged by the KKK, which, as I recall, fired shots into his house.
Two generations later, Candace is confronting the same kind of pure evil. Thank goodness we have people with such courage in our public life.
Two charged with assault, robbery after allegedly beating man wearing 'MAGA' hat
BY JUSTIN WISE | THE HILL
Two men in Maryland were arrested and charged with assault and robbery last weekend after allegedly attacking a man wearing one of President Trump's signature "Make America Great Again" hats.
The Montgomery County Police Department said in a statement Monday that the suspects, Jovan Crawford and Scott Duncan Roberson, began harassing the victim about the hat as he walked in an area in Germantown, Md., on Saturday. The suspects are accused of beating the victim, Atsu Nable, after he told them he was entitled to his own political beliefs.
The police said that the assailants repeatedly struck Nable until he fell to the ground. They then "removed property from the victim, and destroyed items of value."
Crawford and Roberson are facing charges of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery and second-degree assault, as well as related crimes.
Nable told Fox 5 DC that he immigrated to the U.S. from Togo in 2007 and that he is now a U.S. citizen. He said to the news station that he's been staunch supporter of Trump since he launched his presidential campaign.
He added to WJLA, a local ABC affiliate, that Trump's campaign caused him to register as a Republican.
“I like everything that he does. Like, I came here legally," Nable said. "Why can’t all people come here legally then? I went through the right process, the proper channels and I’m here, so why can’t they do the same thing?”
The caps with Trump's signature slogan have been at the center of multiple altercations since Trump's presidential campaign.
A woman in Massachusetts was charged in February with disorderly conduct after confronting a man in a Mexican restaurant and forcefully taking his MAGA hat off his head. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said at the time that the woman was in the U.S. illegally and now faces deportation.
That same month, a New Jersey teen was arrested and charged with attacking an 81-year-old man for wearing a "MAGA" hat.