VIDEO: #AnywhereButTARGET is impacting Target’s bottom line!

As the Thanksgiving leftovers start to fill the fridge, many people will be turning their attention to the start of the Christmas shopping season. Black Friday is just a couple days away, and the retail industry expects to bring in its highest revenues over the next few weeks.

We launched our #AnywhereButTARGET campaign just one year ago during Target’s most critical time for business and we know they felt the impact. Last Christmas shopping season, Target reported a 3% drop in sales and saw profits decrease by 43% because of millions deciding to shop #AnywhereButTARGET.

However, despite the impact to their bottom line, Target continues to champion the left’s radical agenda. Not only does Target contribute financially to liberal activists, but its dangerous policy of allowing men into women’s restroom and bathroom facilities remains in place.

Let’s continue holding Target accountable for its left-wing activism!

Our #AnywhereButTARGET campaign continues this Christmas shopping season and we need your help spreading the word.

Please watch this video and share with your friends and family. Let’s keep sending Target’s leadership the message that we’re still shopping #AnywhereButTARGET.

Thank you for supporting our initiatives! If you’re willing to support 2ndVote’s research and advocacy, please consider one of our membership options.

Feast On The Real Reasons For Thanksgiving

Given that what the Pilgrims put into motion 400 years ago remains the last best hope on earth, a shining city on a hill, we should be thankful everyday for this nation.

Rather than feast on a smorgasbord of anti-American revisionism that paints every element of our history as evil, or to just glide breezily through it as day off from work to eat a lot and watch parades and football, we should take a moment to look at the historical facts for why we have Thanksgiving Day. It’s not to launch the Christmas shopping onslaught.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way many of us “celebrate” Thanksgiving today would leave the originators and greatest proponents of Thanksgiving — from the Pilgrims to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln — aghast and dismayed.

They all saw Thanksgiving as a time to pause and reflect in gratefulness for what was given by God. They had gone through starvation and wars, and they were giving thanks to their Creator. We live in a time of unparalleled luxury and ease — but actually giving thanks for any of it seems an ancillary reason for Thanksgiving.

Something is amiss. We need to be more than thankful for blessings, we need to be thankful to the Giver of those blessings.

Consider this natural thought progression: If we give thanks, there must be a recipient to whom we are giving thanks. We are literally giving something. Without there being a recipient of that gift, thankfulness seems an ultimately empty gesture. Thankful to an empty, uncaring, purposeless universe?

For the majority of Americans still, the thanks that is offered, is offered up to God — specifically the Biblical God. While considerably lessened, that continues from early in our history for Thanksgiving. For those who do not think Thanksgiving is a heavily Christian concept, let’s go to the national origins of Thanksgiving Day.

We start at America’s beginning of Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims. After the fall crops were gathered in November 1623, Governor William Bradford of the Plymouth Plantation colony proclaimed: “All ye Pilgrims with your wives and little ones, do gather at the Meeting House, on the hill…there to listen to the pastor, and render Thanksgiving to the Almighty God for all His blessings.”

By the time of the Revolutionary War, not much had changed in the spiritual culture of the colonies and the young nation, nor did it in the early decades that followed. In fact, Congress proclaimed National Days of Thanksgiving to Almighty God many times throughout the following years.

On November 1, 1777, Congress created the first National Thanksgiving Proclamation:

“…for solemn thanksgiving and praise. That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor;… and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them (their manifold sins) out of remembrance… That it may please Him… to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth of ‘righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’…”

After the war and the early bumpy creation of the young United States, President George Washington wrote his famous National Thanksgiving Proclamation on January 1, 1795. Here’s the key element:

“…our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue is…our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experienced…”

In the midst of the terrible Civil War 68 years later, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, in accordance with Congress on October 3, 1863, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving “on the last Thursday of November, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

The proclamation included:

“…announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord… But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, by the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own… It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people…”

Lincoln’s establishment of the final Thursday in November remains today.

Don’t let the revisionists fool you. But also don’t forget actual thankfulness. Let’s remember to give thanks to the One who gives all good things, and to fight by all peaceable means to protect this amazing legacy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Joy Villa: Everyone Should Stand for the National Anthem

Why should every American stand for the National Anthem? Because the Anthem and the flag represent America, and America is a free nation. That alone is worth standing for. Joy Villa, singer, songwriter, and recording artist, explains.

EDITORS NOTE: Please donate today to PragerU by CLICKING HERE.

Take Action Now – Term Limit School Board Members in Florida!

Who’s ready to term limit every School Board member in Florida?

Florida is, without question, THE term limits state. Our voters have limited the terms of our governor, attorney general, state legislators, county commissioners, city councilors and many other offices. But elected School Board members, who manage billions of your tax dollars, have always been able to evade term limits. With the exception of a single county, all 356 School Board members in Florida are allowed to serve for life.

That must be changed. Our School Boards should be run by citizen leaders, not career politicians. 

Florida’s Constitutional Revision Commission is deciding whether to put a measure on the November 2018 ballot limiting all School Board members to two four-year terms in office (eight years total). This is the same term limit that applies to the president and countless other offices. We have to tell the Commission to put School Board term limits on the ballot.

Click this link to tell members of the Revision Commission: We want School Board term limits! Eight is Enough.

President Trump wants sexual harassers in Congress outed

Multiple news outlets are reporting that when asked about sexual abusers in the U.S. Congress President Trump responded,

I do. I really do. I think they should.

There are 535 Members of Congress – 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 who serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Daily Caller’s Henry Rodgers in a column titled “Congress Spent $17 Million Paying For Its Sexual Harassment Settlements” reported:

The OCC said it decided to release the information regarding payment of awards and settlements regarding all types of harassment due to the mass amounts of recent inquiries. In the released statement, OCC executive director Susan Tsui Grundmann explained that these cases originate from multiple offices inside of the legislative branch, other than the House or the Senate. [Emphasis added]

The Federal Office of Compliance has released a list of payouts to those who were sexually harassed in the past 20 years by members of Congress and others in the federal government.

The list shows that $17,240,854 dollars has been paid out to 264 recipients. This is an average payment per sexually abused individual of $65,306.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice NSOPW website, “Approximately 30% of sexual assault cases are reported to authorities.”

Therefore the number of persons sexually abused by members of Congress and others in the legislative branch of the federal government over the past 20 years could be as high as 871 individuals. The two largest annual payouts from this Congressional slush fund are: $3,974,077 to 10 individuals in 2002 and $4,053,274 to 25 individuals in 2007 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. Under the administration of former President Barack Obama the slush fund paid out a total of $5,034,508 to 111 individuals.

What we do not know is how many members of Congress and legislative branch are/were the sexual predators in the cases reported resulting in a payment made.

If each case reported that resulted in a payment was perpetrated by one member of Congress then potentially 49% of members of Congress and those serving in the legislative branch are/were sexual predators. We understand that the members of Congress as well as administrations have changed over the past 20 years. Different members of Congress and those in the Executive Branch retire or are voted out of office. However, the numbers are what they are.

It would be unthinkable that one person committed all 264 reported cases of sexual abuse that resulted in all of the over $17 million in payments made. Given the larger number of potentially 871 (reported and unreported) victims gives us an annual average of over 87 acts of sexual abuse by members of Congress and the legislative branch over the past 20 years.

We will only know the truth when:

  1. Congress release the names of those paid.
  2. Congress release the names of the members/employees who are/were a sexual predator.
  3. Others who did not report sexual abuse and did not receive a payment must be encouraged to come forward. Perhaps given immunity and compensation?

This is a major scandal that members of Congress and members of past administrations had to know about this sexual abuse, if for no other reason than money exchanged hands and non-disclosure documents were signed and records kept.

Perhaps it is time for President Trump to demand that the Republican leadership in Congress release all of the names, dates, payment details and release those who signed non-disclosure agreements from previous administrations if possible. Or the President demand that the U.S. Congress release the names, dates and payment details.

It is past the time to know how deep this rabbit hole truly is.

It is time to actually drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Congress has paid nearly $1 million in settlements after workplace complaints this year

Florida Democratic Party chair apologizes after 6 women complain of ‘demeaning’ behavior – Politico

Liberals’ Sudden Concern About Bill Clinton’s Behavior Is Cynical And Self-Serving

The Left’s Deafening Silence on Bob Menendez

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Trump on the South lawn of the White House is courtesy of the AP/ Manuel Balce.

Why George Washington Thought the Practice of Gratitude Was Essential for the American Character

Our two greatest presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, respectively thought Thanksgiving sufficiently important to initiate its national celebration and to later revive this tradition.

Our accepted convention is that Thanksgiving is about family togetherness and feasting. Surely this is part of it—but perhaps a more refined notion of what this nearly ancient holiday should mean for us today is helpful.

National days of reflection are required to unify the American public in common sentiment. Washington had this in mind in issuing his rightly famous Thanksgiving Day proclamation of 1789.

First begun as a harvest holiday, Thanksgiving predates the founding of our republic. But in this first proclamation of the first year of his presidency, Washington gave a political direction to the holiday. As he said elsewhere, he wanted, through his example, “to establish a national character of our own.”

In doing his part to establish our national character, Washington was aware that we are a people capable of courage and assertion, able to win independence. He was likewise aware of our ability to choose, through representatives, a new constitutional order.

Progressivism’s quasi-religion lacks any understanding of gratitude and humility.

But this holiday is of a different character, as it calls us to develop a capacity for gratitude. The American public ought to be grateful not merely, however, for the immediate circumstance of their lives, but also for the greater blessings of liberty bestowed upon their nation. Our gratitude is directed toward a nonsectarian God—like the God of the Declaration of Independence—which all citizens can worship.

Importantly, gratitude also means acknowledgement of our frailty and the imperfection of our understanding; gratitude implores us to deepen our self-knowledge. Thanksgiving is, therefore, a holiday against self-satisfaction and pride.

At the end of the Proclamation, Washington implores Americans toward modesty regarding our own powers, reminding citizens that we live in an order that may be mysterious insofar as God possesses superior knowledge of what is “best.”

But are all peoples capable of gratitude? In the present time it has become fashionable to espouse if not open atheism, then at least antagonism toward religion. These opinions come forth in various, sometimes obfuscated, forms.

Part of the left’s recent fanaticism originates from the fact that progressivism’s quasi-religion lacks any understanding of gratitude and humility. Progressivism precludes belief in these since progress as an alleged cosmic force is neither merciful nor beneficent, but is merely abstract and all-powerful. As such, it does not encourage its believers toward either humility or gratitude.

Neither does belief in the abstract and inhuman forces of progress require humility on account of human frailty and ignorance. Rather, progress, claiming perfect knowledge of the laws of the universe, leads to fanaticism.

Is the individual, modeled on these assumptions, of the kind required for self-government? Rather, does not self-government require generosity between citizens, which can be the product only of a common recognition of an America inhabited by one people, united in a common cause, with common beliefs, grateful for what has come before us?

What happens to a people when they lose the ability for gratitude? Insolence and impudence rule, while the various factions devour each other, competing for the national stage. Alternatively, one might inquire whether a people is up to the task of ruling itself once gratitude is lost, since then it loses its ideals and the justification for its self-government.

Our nation has produced hitherto-thought impossible prosperity on the broadest scale. “The civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed” has endured as an ideal for many generations. Indeed, many remarkable individuals have fought to secure these blessings for our benefit.

On Thanksgiving this year, perhaps raising our purview above the pleasures of family togetherness, we might think about our nation, the good fortune we have to be its citizens, and the task ahead in preserving it.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Arthur Milikh

Arthur Milikh is assistant director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.

Stop the Theatrics Roy Moore Cannot be Replaced as U.S. Senate Candidate by Jon Moseley

Let’s stop the theatrics by the Republican establishment:  Roy Moore is the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama.  Either the Republican Party wins with Roy Moore or they elect the Democrat Doug Jones who is far worse.  Republicans have no choice but to fight for the win.

Even if a change of candidate were legally possible, any alternate candidate now would simply lose — guaranteed.  Hysterical calls for Roy Moore to drop out are merely handing the seat to the Democrats.

What if Clarence Thomas had quit when Anita Hill’s salacious accusations erupted on the eve of Thomas’ nomination hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court?  Republicans stood by Clarence Thomas when he was accused by Anita Hill from many years in the past.  Imagine the Supreme Court today if Republicans had abandoned Clarence Thomas instead of demanding proof and asking insightful questions.

Remember:  This is how we got Barack Obama.  In 2004 a little-known, inexperienced Barack Hussein Obama was running for U.S. Senate from Illinois.  Obama’s cronies got the divorce records of the Republican nominee unsealed.  Republicans ran for the hills in their usual panic.  Jack Ryan withdrew rather than continue a fight he might have won.

So in June 2004, the brilliant Dr. Alan Keyes, Ph.D. was substituted in as the Republican nominee against state Senator Obama. Yet June 2004 was too little, too late to change candidates.  Today it is too late to change candidates in Alabama with less than 30 days to go.

Jeri Ryan’s divorce attorney claimed that Jack Ryan took her to bondage sex clubs and asked her to engage in public sex there.  Divorce cases frequently contain outlandish allegations which few people take seriously.  Jeri Ryan, who had starred in “Star Trek: Voyager,” supported her husband during the campaign even after the revelations:  “Jack is a good man, a loving father, and he shares a strong bond with our son. I wish him all the best,” her statement said.

Both Keyes and Obama are African American men, then young and attractive.  Both are Harvard graduates.  Obama’s claim to be a good orator (if there is a teleprompter) was vastly out-classed by Alan Keyes magnificent mind and stirring speaking abilities.  Obama had few qualifications.  Alan Keyes had been Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations and an Ambassador to a United Nations agency.  He had been a diplomat serving in the U.S. Embassy in India and Zimbawe. Dr. Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste and Interim President of Alabama A&M University.  In 2000, Keyes was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President.

Yet jumping in from June to November was too little time for Keyes.  Today, no Republican can be substituted for Roy Moore in less than 30 days.  The Republican leadership talking about it endlessly is merely handing the seat to the Democrats.

Why didn’t John McCain drop out of the 2008 race for President when McCain was accused of trading sex with a lobbyist 30 years his junior, Vicki Iseman, for votes on legislation beneficial to Iseman’s lobbying clients?   The allegations were corroborated contemporaneously because former aide John Weaver warned Iseman at the time to “stay awayto protect [the Senator] from himself.”  McCain’s campaign denounced the allegations:  “Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics.” The charge of trading votes for sex is a serious allegation.

But when it comes to Roy Moore, the same John McCain rushed to condemn Moore. The same Republicans who opposed Moore anyway are not interested in expelling Senator Robert Menendez, who by extensive evidence had sex with underage girls and was just on trial for bribery.

We are urged to remember that women are equal human beings.  But somehow men lie while women don’t?  How did telling the truth become genetically-determined?  Many seem unable to perceive a motive for accusers to change the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts, trillions of dollars of crony capitalism, and to reshape the nature of our society by a U.S. Senate election. Did we forget the $1.6 million court settlement paid over Rolling Stone’s rape that never happened story?

With Moore, four of the women claim only that they went out on a couple of dates at ages 17 to 19 and there was kissing. Roy Moore flatly denied all of this in a radio interview with Sean Hannity, yet somehow that is being twisted into an admission. Moore stated that not only did he not date women under 19 but he never dated any woman at all without her mother’s permission.

A fourth woman Beverly Young Nelson is clearly lying. In 1999, about 20 years after the alleged sexual advance she accuses Roy Moore of, her divorce was assigned to him as the judge. Moore’s attorney released the actual court documents.

This is nearly absolute proof that Beverly Young Nelson made up the story. Nelson’s attorney argues that there was never an actual hearing in the courtroom. But it is undisputed that Nelson’s divorce was formally assigned to Moore as the presiding judge.

If a man attacked you and you rebuffed him, would you want him presiding over your divorce? All Nelson needed to do was advise her lawyer that she knew Judge Moore or had once dated him. The case would be transferred to a different judge. She wouldn’t need to say any more than that. It is iron-clad proof that Nelson did not mention a conflict of interest with the judge in 1999.  The incident never happened.

Moore would have recused himself if the incident happened. I am a lawyer. I assure you a judge has many ways to quietly transfer a case without revealing why. The risk of Nelson blurting out something provoked by events in the divorce would be astronomical.  (The case was ultimately withdrawn, but no one knew that at the time the case was assigned to Judge Moore.)

As for the other women, could Leigh Corfman be sincere, but sincerely wrong? Could she be honest and sincere yet mis-remembering?  What were you doing 38 years ago today?  Tell me about someone you dated only a couple of times 38 years ago.  What did they look like exactly?  Would you recognize them today aged 38 years since then?

Corfman’s “corroboration” is that she told friends that she “was dating an older man.”  Maybe she did date older men from time to time.  Did Leigh Corfman — who could easily pass for 18 to 21 in the photographs from the time published by The Washington Post — go to an older man’s house where things got out of control sexually? Probably. (But even in Corman’s account, the man stopped when asked. There was no force. There was no sexual intercourse.)

Was that man Roy Moore? We can never know. Did Corfman combine different memories 38 years ago and include events that actually happened with another man?  Could Corman be sincere yet sincerely wrong?  She openly admits to a life of alcohol and drug abuse in between those events and now.  That does not render Corfman less important.  But it could influence memories from 38 years earlier.

We must confront the fact that some things are unknowable.  They simply cannot be determined. That’s why it is called an “October Surprise.” These smears typically come just before an early November election so that there isn’t time to debunk them or evaluate them.

We have to separate the question of whether the incidents happened from whether we can act on them today. For all practical purposes we are forced to assume that the allegations are false, merely because they come 38 years after the fact, yet just 30 days before an election, it is now impossible to investigate and determine the truth because of the fading of memories and loss of evidence.  Yet the charges are thrown at us too close to the election.  It is impossible now to ever know the truth 38 years later.  Therefore, we cannot consider politically-convenient allegations.  We have to treat the allegations as if they do not exist because they are impossible to confirm.

RELATED VIDEO: Roy Moore Campaign Officials Hold Press Conference.

BankThink: Mortgage deduction helps housing lobby, but not homeowner

The battle lines are drawn between those seeking to protect the mortgage interest deduction (MID) and a legislative effort to greatly reduce the use of the MID. Hopefully, this is a battle that taxpayers will win over the housing lobby — the loudest supporter of keeping the deduction intact.

The housing lobby’s effectiveness is measured by its success at garnering subsidies. But the proposed House bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, would be a shot across the industry’s bow. The stage is now set for a crucial debate between two competing visions: the House plan — which would disincentivize the MID by raising the standard deduction and capping loans qualifying for the MID at $500,000 — and Senate tax reform legislation that effectively would leave the deduction intact.

From the perspective of taxpayer cost and federal budgeting, it’s no contest which plan is better. Since 1994, the cost of the MID, the separate real estate tax deduction (also downsized in the House plan), and other single-family tax subsidies has totaled over $2.5 trillion and in fiscal year 2017 were estimated to cost $141 billion. This does not include the many hundreds of billions in subsidies over the same period provided to or by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, Ginnie Mae and others, and the $6.7 trillion in taxpayer mortgage debt guaranteed by these same agencies.

What did the U.S. taxpayer get for this massive level of rent-seeking? First, the U.S. homeownership rate today is 63.9% — statistically no different than the average rate of 64.3% since 1964 (excluding the bubble years). Second, these policies directly caused the 2008 financial crisis — a catastrophe for the U.S. and world economies.

True to their past positions, both NAR and the NAHB are opposing the House tax reform plan, favoring the Senate version. NAR had previously released a study it commissioned that found that a doubling of the standard deduction, elimination of the state and local tax deduction, and lower marginal tax rates would cause home prices to fall by 10.2%. On the other side are supporters of tax reform and lower marginal rates. Gary Cohn, President Trump’s head of the National Economic Council, stated in September: “People don’t buy homes because of the mortgage deduction.”

Before getting to the merits of these positions, it is worth noting the “man bites dog” nature of NAR’s admission that the MID drives home prices up higher than they otherwise would be. While this certainly explains the NAR’s past and current support for the MID, it is a damning admission for a group that purports to promote homeownership and “affordable housing.”

In terms of the merits, federal subsidies for homeownership like the MID get capitalized into higher prices, encourage the taking out of more debt, promote the buying of larger, more expensive homes, and price homes out of reach of lower-income buyers. Recent research at the Federal Reserve confirmed these points and found “when house prices are allowed to adjust in response to the elimination of mortgage interest deductions, the homeownership rate actually increases.”

One could end the argument here. However, this would leave NAR’s claim about a 10.2% price reduction unaddressed. First, a common sense reading of “a fall in home prices” is that prices would actually drop from current levels. This conflates a drop in price level and a slowing of the rate of increase. High-end home prices in 16 large metropolitan areas were up about 5% in July compared to a year earlier. A slowing of the rate of increase for high-end homes to the inflation level of 2% would, over three years, result in high-end home prices ending up about 10% lower than they otherwise would have been, but without an actual drop in prices.

Why is a slowing in the rate of increase, not an outright drop, the likely result? According to NAR, existing home sales have been in a seller’s market for 61 straight months and there are no signs of this abating anytime soon. A seller’s market is commonplace even at the higher price end of the home market. This includes San Francisco, where homes selling for more than $4.6 million have less than 2.5 months inventory along with similar conditions for the highest price points for metro areas such as Seattle and Los Angeles. Areas like Boston, Denver, New York City and Washington D.C. have a seller’s market except for price points in excess of $1.5 million to $2 million.

Jerry Howard, chief executive of the homebuilder association, told The Wall Street Journal that the House legislation is “a bad bill for housing.” In reality, it’s a good bill for American taxpayers and homebuyers.

VIDEO: President Trump endorses Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate

President Trump decided to weigh in on the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. He not only endorsed Roy Moore but defended him against the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct nearly 40 years ago.

Watch this White House video of President Trump responding to reporters on November 21st, 2017 about Roy Moore:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alabama Senate hopeful Doug Jones defended man with ties to KKK, Holocaust deniers | Fox News

Witnesses: We never saw Roy Moore, Nelson at Olde Hickory

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s Spokesman on Mitch McConnell, the establishment, the main stream media, fake news and Alabamans.

Feminists Own Words Condemn Them

As waves of sexual assault and harassment allegations roll in — and the media, liberals and feminists hyperfocus on the allegations against Roy Moore because of the opportunity to flip a very solid Republican Senate seat — it’s worth revisiting what leading feminists said on the exact same issue in 1998 when it was Democrat President Bill Clinton’s position at stake.

This is important because there are a stunning number of people today who seem to have amnesia about the Clinton years — or young people today who were never taught them.

The context is that just a few years earlier feminists ardently supported the less-than-credible allegations made by Anita Hill that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. They jumped in to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in reality, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, and his labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

Fast forward to 1998 and Bill Clinton. Please read these in light of how both Anita Hill a few years earlier and the Roy Moore accusers today are treated by some of the same feminists.

⇢ “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”

⇢ “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”

⇢ “We do not know what happened in the Lewinsky case,” said Kathy Rodgers, executive director of the NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. “The only thing that is clear is that the facts are not clear.”

⇢ One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina BurleighTime magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

⇢ “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him,” said Susan Faludi, a feminist author, said of one of Clinton’s prominent accusers.

⇢ Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty FriedanOr true.

⇢ After 60 Minutes interviewed Kathleen Willey that Clinton had manhandled her in private when she was seeking a job, Anita Perez Ferguson — president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said the charges were more “quantity rather than quality, in terms of my feelings…There’s no question that it’s disturbing…. But to come to any judgment now is definitely not something that I think is timely.”

⇢ “What is important for the American people to know is that there is a process in place to deal with these allegations,” said California Sen. Barbara BoxerSo let’s not be Roy Moore-like hasty.

⇢  “Not so many years ago, a woman couldn’t be a White House intern,” Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said in an an amazing attempt at distraction on Meet the Press.

⇢ And finally Rep. Nancy Pelosi complained that Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was causing “humiliation” by calling Clinton’s female victims before the grand jury.

There is an obvious trend here. Against Republicans, feminists say the accusing female must be believed. Against Democrats, not so much. That’s not a philosophy, that’s straightforward partisan politics. And it makes their words today truly incredible.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

China, India, U.S., Nigeria, Haiti, Pakistan, Mexico, Somalia, Cuba, Jamaica refuse to take Canada’s illegal migrants

Although the story is headlined….

Canada Attempts To Deport Illegal Somali Immigrants

….the article makes the case that the Canadian government is not naming those countries, but obviously someone is naming the countries as we see in the headline and the last paragraph!

The United States is listed as one country not willing to take back its ‘citizens’ (probably for very good reasons!) who fled to Canada! 

From Shabelle News (a Mogadishu, Somalia news outfit):

Canada’s attempts to send up to 1,000 foreigners who are here illegally back to their home countries are being stymied by nations refusing to take them back, officials said Monday.

abdulahi-hasan-sharif

Somali ‘refugee’ Abdulahi Hasan Sharif fled to “welcoming” Canada and is one the U.S. doesn’t want back!

International and domestic laws in most countries require governments to allow their own citizens entry.

“But some countries are refusing to provide travel documents to their citizens or are just outright refusing to take them back,” Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, told AFP.

[….]

According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the current backlog of foreign nationals facing deportation from Canada tops 15,000.

[….]

The removal list includes rejected refugee claimants and persons deemed inadmissible because of a criminal background or because they pose a national security threat.

[….]

China, India, the United States, Nigeria, Haiti, Pakistan, Mexico, Somalia, Cuba and Jamaica are the top countries of origin on Canada’s deportation list.

Go here for my Canada category.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Talks collapse in Germany, specter of new election rises

Wholesale movement of Bhutanese refugees to U.S. to end!

Tillerson wants further investigation before jumping on the Buddhists are bad, Rohingya are victims bandwagon

The Iron Cage of Educational Bureaucracy

It is the nature of bureaucracy to get caught up in processes rather than persons; to focus on means and lose sight of the ends to be served by those means.

It was the nineteenth century “father of sociology” Max Weber who warned that bureaucracy would become an “iron cage,” a translation of the original German stahlhartes Gehäuse made popular by Talcott Parsons in the 1930s, but which more literally means a “steel-hard housing,” suggesting something that cannot be broken into.

Bureaucracies depend upon rigid rules to which all human affairs, no matter how complex, must be fitted. This can cause them to de-humanize persons into categories. Bureaucracies also tend to have a narrow focus, which can cause them to fail to see the good of the whole. This can put them in a perpetual trouble spot: too large to deal with individual needs and problems, and too narrow to serve the interests of the whole. With neither a vision broad enough to serve the common good nor a system flexible enough to provide for the individual, what do bureaucracies do well? Their claim is that they are “effective.”

But effective at what?

Alasdair MacIntyre in his groundbreaking book After Virtue describes the modern moral character he calls “the Manager” whose position is justified by the claim that he or she can coordinate materials and human resources most effectively to realize the goals of the corporation, whatever they are, which “the Manager” never questions. This is true enough, but MacIntyre’s description is too optimistic.

It often happens that the processes developed by mid-level managers become more important than the goals of the corporation. Requests that don’t fit into the current categories employed by the bureaucracy are taken to be “disruptive,” as are changes in the goals of the organization that disturb the mechanism of the bureaucratic process.

In a university, this can result in the needs and requests of students becoming an annoyance, even though the institution exists to serve them. And it can cause resistance to rededication to the mission of the institution when that mission has not been the animating principle for years. Such institutions are like the driver who, upon being told by his passenger consulting a map that they are going the wrong direction, responds: “Shut up, we’re making great time.” Too often, bureaucratic processes, created to serve an end, become the end to be served, and the tail begins to wag the dog.

It makes sense for leaders to delegate tasks to bureaucracies, but only if they understand their inherent weaknesses. A group involved with Catholic classical education told me a story of their appeal to the charismatic director of a major Catholic educational outreach program. “We need to be doing this!” he declared. “Let me put you in touch with my associate director.” After making the same impassioned appeal to the lower-level functionary, the response was: “We already do that,” which is the verbal equivalent of: “There is no problem.” Because, of course, if there were, they would have already fixed it. The processes work fine. End of discussion. This is the way to stifle innovation.

The claim isn’t that their current processes don’t work. No one would approach a broken institution with a new idea; you go to a working, dynamic one. The issue is whether a new approach might serve the students even better. But this is unthinkable to many mid-level bureaucrats. Their “effectiveness” is not measured by how well they foster new goals, but by how well they coordinate resources to meet current ones. Innovative ideas are a threat to a manager’s job security in one of two ways: because (a) they presume the current staff is not entirely self-sufficient and (b) they represent possible new priorities that, without new staff, will mean less efficiency at current priorities.

I once heard a prelate ask an assembled audience of academics to produce a resource to help his deacons understand the basic ideas of metaphysics. I spoke to him afterward and told him that the International Catholic University has a superb series of lectures on metaphysics by the late, great Ralph McInerny; that we could have them downloaded on each deacon’s computer for a minimal cost to each man; and that I could arrange on-line quizzes and tests if needed. “Wonderful!” he exclaimed, “Would you please contact Monsignor so-and-so.” I did, got a polite reply explaining they were “examining possibilities,” and then nary a word in response to any of my next five messages. I would be very surprised if the bishop ever got anything on metaphysics.

If leaders don’t know what ideas, facts, and potential innovations their staff is keeping from them, then they are like a mind floating in the mist without a body. We are an incarnational Church. It’s not enough to want good education for young people; you have to pry open the bureaucratic cage to make sure it happens.

If you really want something, you have to empower its implementation, saying: “I will send a note to my associate directing that this must be done, and I want a report in two weeks.” Anything less is an abdication of responsibility and simply an invitation for outsiders to beat their heads against the hard steel casing of the bureaucracy.

Pope St. John XXIII spoke about aggiornamento, about letting fresh air blow through the stuffy corridors of Church bureaucracy. If you hired someone from a mediocre school district to run yours simply because he or she had “experience,” what makes you think the results will be better? Maybe you should take a risk on some fresh blood.

If a person has been running a chancery office since the 1970s or 80s, he or she may not be innovating. Have things been good for the past 35 years or decaying? Someone should let that fresh breeze of the authentic Spirit blow, because the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

VIDEO: Case Against Roy Moore Exposed as a Lie, former Waitress Disproves Accuser’s ‘Facts’

Here is an MSNBC interview with Janet Porter discussing the facts in the Roy Moore allegations:

The Janet Porter Report released the following press release on November 21st, 2017:

Former Olde Hickory House waitress disproves the “facts” asserted by accuser Beverly Nelson, who is represented by abortion-activist Gloria Allred in the effort to defeat Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate.

Rhonda Ledbetter, who worked at the Olde Hickory House from 1977-1979, explained that the “facts” in Nelson’s story are simply untrue:

  •  “First, Nelson said she was 15 years old when she started working there but you had to be 16,” said Ledbetter.
  • “Second, Nelson said the restaurant closed at 10:00 p.m. but I know the earliest it closed was 11:00, though I believe it was midnight,” Ledbetter stated.
  • “Third, the area wasn’t dark and isolated as she described. Rather, the building was right off the busy four-lane highway and people and cars were always around…anyone in the parking lot was visible from the road,” she explained.
  • “Fourth, the dumpsters were to the side of the building, not around the back and there sure wasn’t room to park in between the building and the dumpsters,” Ledbetter said.

Ledbetter’s statements were confirmed by Renee Schivera, who worked at the Olde Hickory House in 1977, and by Johnny Belyeu, Sr., a former police officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department, who was a regular customer at the restaurant.

“As the tangled web of lies unravels, Judge Roy Moore is being proven innocent,” stated Janet Porter, President of Faith2Action, who has known Judge Roy Moore for nearly 20 years.

“If the people of Alabama want to prevent child abuse and sexual assault they will vote FOR Judge Roy Moore and run from his opponent,” stated Porter.

  • “While Judge Roy Moore is a champion for the rights of children in the womb, his opponent supports the ultimate child abuse–taxpayer funded abortion until the moment of birth.” explained Porter.
  • “Unlike his opponent, Judge Moore stands for the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves against sexual predators,” stated Porter.
  • “Judge Moore will protect our daughters, while his opponent will open the door of your daughter’s bathroom and locker room to every male who claims to ‘identify’ as a girl–literally putting out the welcome mat to predators,” she added.
  • “While Judge Moore wants to protect our borders from those who would enter our country illegally, his opponent said building a wall was ‘too expensive,'”said Porter.
  • “Most importantly, Judge Roy Moore will vote to confirm pro-life judges on the Supreme Court, but, if elected, his opponent will be the deciding vote to block them,” stated Porter.

“If we allow the establishment and the media to steal this election, we are handing over not just a Senate seat, but the Supreme Court along with it,” stated Porter.

EDITORS NOTE: Titles are for identifying purposes only.

The Problem of Identity Politics and Its Solution

Matthew Continetti
Editor-in-Chief, Washington Free Beacon

Matthew ContinettiMatthew Continetti, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, received his B.A. from Columbia University. Prior to joining the Beacon, he was opinion editor of the Weekly Standard. The author of The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine and The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star, Continetti’s articles and reviews have appeared in The New York TimesThe Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 24, 2017, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.


The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago—a book that demolished any pretense of communism’s moral authority—was published in the West. The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling. This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?

The Left found its answer in an identity politics that grew out of anti-colonialism. Marx’s class struggle was reformulated into an ethno-racial struggle—a ceaseless competition between colonizer and colonized, victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed. Instead of presenting collectivism and central planning as the gateway to the realization of genuine freedom, the new multiculturalist Left turned to unmasking the supposed power relations that subordinated minorities and exploited third world nations.

The original battleground was the American university, where, as Bruce Bawer writes in The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Politics and the Closing of the Liberal Mind,

The point [became] simply to “prove”—repetitively, endlessly—certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression. In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.

Under the new leftist dispensation, the study of English became the application of critical and literary theory to disparate texts so as to uncover the hidden power relations they concealed. The study of history became the study of social history or “people’s history,” the record of Western Civilization’s oppression of various groups. And popping up everywhere were new departments of “studies”: African-American Studies, Women’s Studies, Queer Studies, Chicano Studies, Gender Studies, and so on. “What these radicals blandly call multiculturalism,” wrote Irving Kristol,

is as much a “war against the West” as Nazism and Stalinism ever were. Under the guise of multiculturalism, their ideas—whose radical substance often goes beyond the bounds of the political into sheer fantasy—are infiltrating our educational system at all levels.

This revolution in American universities was accomplished swiftly and largely outside the public eye. What little resistance the radicals met was vanquished with accusations of racism. It was not until the late 1980s, with Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns, the battle over the Stanford core curriculum, and the publication of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, that the rise of identity politics on campus and the idea of “political correctness” became a page one story. By that time, however, it was too late. Alumni, trustees, and parents had no recourse. The American university was irrevocably changed.

There have been liberal critics of identity politics through the years. In 1991, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. published The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Schlesinger noted that the Soviet Union had collapsed in a heap of warring nationalities and that the state of Yugoslavia was in the process of doing the same, and asked whether America would be next. Presenting America as a nation of nations, a shared national culture whose diverse citizenry is united behind principles of liberty and equal justice, Schlesinger quoted Jean de Crèvecoeur’s 1782 Letters from an American Farmer:

He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.

In 2004, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published Who Are We? Huntington examined the stunning immigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and argued that it was undermining longstanding notions of American national identity. America, Huntington said, has both a creed and a culture. The creed is formulated in the founding documents of our nation and in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. The culture derives from the Anglo-Protestant settlers who first peopled North America. Huntington worried about a “hispanicization” of American culture.

This book was controversial, to say the least. Nor was it without weaknesses. It is hard for this descendant of Irish and Italian immigrants to accept the notion that America’s culture is monolithically Anglo-Protestant. Furthermore, Huntington tended to underestimate the importance of the creed in shaping the culture. But such criticism should not obscure the fundamental point: Huntington, a Democrat who advised Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, shared the same concerns one finds today among Trump supporters about immigration’s effect on American society.

This year another liberal academic, Columbia humanities professor Mark Lilla, has taken up the banner. “Identity politics on the left,” he writes,

was at first about large classes of people . . . seeking to redress major historical wrongs by mobilizing and then working through our political institutions to secure their rights. But by the 1980s, it had given way to a pseudo-politics of self-regard and increasingly narrow, and exclusionary self-definition that is now cultivated in our colleges and universities. The main result has been to turn people back onto themselves, rather than turning them outward towards the wider world they share with others. It has left them unprepared to think about the common good in non-identity terms and what must be done practically to secure it—especially the hard and unglamorous task of persuading people very different from themselves to join a common effort.

Lilla exhorts Democrats to replace identity liberalism with civic liberalism in the mode of Franklin Roosevelt. That Lilla’s opponents wasted no time in labeling his argument as racist is a testament to how divided the Left is on this issue.

Despite these intellectual dissidents, the Democratic Party and liberal elites appear committed to the idea that multiculturalism and identity politics, combined with the changing demographics of America, will bring about an enduring Democratic national majority. The two victories of Barack Obama strengthened their assumptions and set the template for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Lilla notes, for example, that a visitor to Clinton’s website could open tabs related to ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, but not one related to a shared vision of American community.

This approach has had catastrophic consequences for the Democratic Party. “The fatal conclusion the Clinton team made after the Michigan primary debacle,” Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg writes, “was that she could not win white working-class voters, and that the ‘rising electorate’ would make up the difference. She finished her campaign with rallies in inner cities and university towns. Macomb [County, Michigan] got the message.”

But the Democrats’ theory behind support for identity politics rests on shaky assumptions. Liberal journalist John B. Judis, who helped originate the theory with his book The Emerging Democratic Majority, has recanted his thesis. “The U.S. census makes a critical assumption that undermines its predictions of a majority-nonwhite country,” he writes. “It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as ‘Latino’ or ‘Asian’ will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely.”

Intermarriage and assimilation will affect immigrants from these groups just as they have affected other immigrant groups. What’s more, voting allegiances can change as newcomers are integrated into the majority. There is also the problem that, as Democrats become more closely identified with identity politics, non-minority voters may swing even more decisively to Republicans—continuing the trend we saw in 2016.

Democrats fooled themselves into thinking that identity politics won Obama his two terms when in fact precisely the opposite had occurred. Obama made his debut on the national stage in the summer of 2004, during the Democratic National Convention that nominated John Kerry for president. The only reason anyone remembers that convention is because of Obama’s keynote address, where he repudiated the division of American society and famously said, “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” From the start, Obama’s appeal on the campaign trail was to the noblest and most unifying aspects of the American political tradition.

This didn’t last. Shortly before Obama was reelected, he gave an interview where he said his top priority in a second term would be immigration reform that included an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The reason, he explained, was that Hispanic turnout would win him victory. Here Obama was wrong. Targeted appeals to Hispanic and black voters did not win him reelection. What won him reelection were his attacks on Mitt Romney for not understanding the economic condition of working Americans.

The most significant and effective advertisement of the 2012 campaign was a testimonial from a factory worker who had been laid off during one of Romney’s corporate downsizings. What came to be known as the “coffin ad” drove a wedge between the Republican nominee and the voters on whom Republican victory depended. Four years later, when the Republicans nominated a very different sort of candidate, these voters switched allegiances and backed Donald Trump.

It is no accident that identity politics is most rampant today in the academy, in entertainment, in the media, in Silicon Valley, and in corporate boardrooms. Identity politics is a veneer over the class politics that truly defines our society, and education is the best prism through which to view class in America today. Higher levels of education are not only correlated with higher incomes and better life prospects, but also with a greater acceptance of the theories behind identity politics—including the idea, rejected last year by the voters of the rural Midwest, that they are the beneficiaries of white privilege.

The condescension of liberal elites toward the white working class, evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of immigration control and cultural assimilation is as pronounced as it is repulsive. It is summed up in Hillary Clinton’s writing off of so many voters last year as belonging in a “basket of deplorables”—the converse of Mitt Romney’s similarly destructive class-based dismissal of the 47 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes. (They don’t pay income taxes because they don’t make enough money to qualify.)

Liberals seem blind to the connection between the high levels of income inequality they criticize and what they would otherwise call the hegemonic discourse of identity politics. This is why Clinton’s comment that breaking up the big banks would do nothing for the minority groups at the base of her campaign was so revealing. It might not do anything for them as members of identity groups, but perhaps it would help them as workers and as citizens.

Ensconced in affluent city centers and tony suburbs, liberal elites tell themselves that identity politics will carry them to the progressive future of their dreams. They appear utterly unaware that the radical cultural transformation they support—not to mention the insulting, dismissive, and self-righteous way they meet opposition to their designs—is seen from outside their bubble as provocative.

As political analyst Sean Trende has written:

Consider that over the course of the past few years, Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention . . . endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations—despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights—and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners.

We tend to view these stories as examples of the culture war. They are more than that: they are examples of a coastal, metropolitan, highly schooled upper class warring against the traditions and freedoms of a middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle and working class with some or no college education. In short, examples of a privileged few attempting to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority.

Here is Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg again:

Obama’s refrain [of building “ladders of opportunity” for those left behind in the economic recovery] was severely out of touch with what was happening to most Americans and the working class more broadly. In our research, “ladders of opportunity” fell far short of what real people were looking for. Incomes sagged after the financial crisis, pensions lost value, and many lost their housing wealth, while people faced dramatically rising costs for things that mattered—health care, education, housing, and child care. People faced vanishing geographic, economic, and social mobility. . . . At the same time, billionaires spent massively to influence politicians and parked their money in the big cities whose dynamism drew in the best talent from the smaller towns and cities.

The result of this class conflict is an America in danger of coming apart. “Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion,” writes Peter Beinart in The Atlantic Monthly. But despite the efforts of liberals like Beinart and Lilla, the Left faces obstacles to stitching America back together. The wealthiest and most energetic segments of the Left are committed to multiculturalism on the one hand and transnationalism on the other. What is more, the Left rejects the natural rights theory of the American Founding at the core of our tradition.

What has traditionally held Americans together is the idea that each of us is made in the image of our Creator and endowed with certain unalienable rights. But not only that idea. We are also held together by the culture that emanates from the intermingling of dynamic peoples and unchanging principles. To combat identity politics, we must emphasize an American nationalism based on both a commitment to the ideals of the American Founding and a shared love of our national history and culture—a history and culture of individual freedom and religious pluralism, resistant to centralized authority and ever expanding into new frontiers and new possibilities.

The American people are united by our creed of freedom and equality, and also by our habits, our manners, our national language, our territorial integrity, our national symbols—such as the National Anthem, the Flag, and the Pledge of Allegiance—our civic traditions, and our national story. We should tell that story forthrightly and proudly; we should continue our traditions of local government and patriotic displays; we should guard the symbols of our heritage against attack; and we should recognize that the needs of our citizens take priority.

We should also remember the words of a great American nationalist, Abraham Lincoln, at the close of his First Inaugural Address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

After Agent’s Death, Trump Declares U.S. ‘Must Build the Wall!’

President Donald Trump is renewing his demand that Congress fund a wall on the southern border after a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed from injuries inccurred while working over the weekend in southwest Texas, while his partner was injured.

“Border Patrol officer killed at southern border, another badly hurt,” the president said in a tweet. “We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the wall!”

Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner were responding to “activity” in Van Horn, Texas. Martinez died and his partner, not named by officials or in news accounts, is reportedly hospitalized. News reports Monday morning said the government hasn’t confirmed what the agents were responding to.

The cause of death is not known. Jeanette Harper, with the FBI’s El Paso, Texas, office told the San Antonio Express-News: “They were not fired upon. There are so many different agencies working together that we need to come together and develop a timeline.”

“Earlier this morning, I was notified that Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez died as a result of serious injuries suffered while on patrol in the Big Bend Sector of our southern border in Texas,” acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said in a public statement. The Border Patrol is a division of the Department of Homeland Security.

Duke continued:

Agent Martinez was responding to activity while on patrol with another agent, who was also seriously injured. We are fully supporting the ongoing investigation to determine the cause of this tragic event. On behalf of the quarter of a million frontline officers and agents of DHS, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Agent Martinez and to the agent who is in serious condition.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also weighed in.

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Podcast: The Dangers Border Patrol Agents Face

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.