Illegal Aliens Killed Border Agent by Crushing in His Skull with Rocks, Says NBPC


Exclusive details have emerged on the early morning attack against Border Patrol agents that left one agent dead and another hospitalized in serious condition on November, 19 2017. Breitbart Texas first broke the news of the death and injuries and now the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) says that their agents on the ground have stated that the agents were tracking a group of illegal aliens who then beat the agents with rocks until one was killed and the other hospitalized.

Border Patrol Agent Brandon Judd, also president of the NBPC, stated, “What we know is that Border Patrol Agent Rogilio Martinez appears to have been ambushed by a group of illegal aliens whom he was tracking. Our agents’ reports from the ground say that he was struck in the head multiple times with a rock or rocks.”

Agent Judd continued, “The other agent arrived on scene a short time later and was also ambushed and struck in the head with what is believed to have been a rock or rocks. These disgusting acts and complete disregard for human life need to stop immediately. Family members of slain Agent Martinez will never get to see him come home again all because we have failed to secure our borders from such criminals.”

Shortly after Breitbart Texas broke the news of the incident, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that one Border Patrol agent was dead and another hospitalized in serious condition; however, authorities would not provide more details. Breitbart Texas was unable to confirm the details with CBP and other federal agencies. The NBPC is the organization that represents approximately 16,000 of our nation’s Border Patrol agents.

Our original report is included below.

One Border Patrol agent is dead and his partner left hospitalized in serious condition in the Big Bend Sector of Texas. The FBI is leading the investigation while Border Patrol Special Operations agents and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations aircrews are currently searching the area for possible attackers.

Breitbart Texas learned from a trusted CBP official that details on the matter are scarce.

We do know that two Border Patrol agents working as partners in the Van Horn Station area of responsibility of the Big Bend Sector responded to “activity.” Whether the activity was an activated sensor or something else is currently unknown. This occurred on the morning of Sunday, November 19, 2017.

One of the Border Patrol agents later radioed into the communication center saying that he needed assistance and that he was injured. Other Border Patrol agents responded and found one agent injured and unconscious with injuries to his head and body. That agent, Rogelio Martinez, was later pronounced dead. Breitbart has learned that the agent’s family has been notified.

The responding agents also found the partner who had radioed for help. The agents transported the injured agent to the hospital where he is in “serious condition,” according to the official.Border Patrol agents and Culberson County Sheriff’s Office deputies secured the area.

Border Patrol Agent and President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Brandon Judd spoke with Breitbart Texas and expressed the council’s deepest condolences to the family of Agent Martinez and to the family of the other agent who is not named at this time. Agent Judd said that this is another example of why the border must be secured. Judd stated, “When all facts come to light on this matter, I believe the public will be outraged as there are those who do not value life who come across our border. Our borders must be secured and criminals must be held accountable.”

llegal Aliens Killed Border Agent by Crushing in His Skull with Rocks, Says NBPC

Exclusive details have emerged on the early morning attack against Border Patrol agents that left one agent dead and another hospitalized in serious condition on November, 19 2017. Breitbart Texas first broke the news of the death and injuries and now the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) says that their agents on the ground have stated that the agents were tracking a group of illegal aliens who then beat the agents with rocks until one was killed and the other hospitalized.

Border Patrol Agent Brandon Judd, also president of the NBPC, stated, “What we know is that Border Patrol Agent Rogilio Martinez appears to have been ambushed by a group of illegal aliens whom he was tracking. Our agents’ reports from the ground say that he was struck in the head multiple times with a rock or rocks.”

Agent Judd continued, “The other agent arrived on scene a short time later and was also ambushed and struck in the head with what is believed to have been a rock or rocks. These disgusting acts and complete disregard for human life need to stop immediately. Family members of slain Agent Martinez will never get to see him come home again all because we have failed to secure our borders from such criminals.”

Shortly after Breitbart Texas broke the news of the incident, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that one Border Patrol agent was dead and another hospitalized in serious condition; however, authorities would not provide more details. Breitbart Texas was unable to confirm the details with CBP and other federal agencies. The NBPC is the organization that represents approximately 16,000 of our nation’s Border Patrol agents.

Our original report is included below.

One Border Patrol agent is dead and his partner left hospitalized in serious condition in the Big Bend Sector of Texas. The FBI is leading the investigation while Border Patrol Special Operations agents and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations aircrews are currently searching the area for possible attackers.

Breitbart Texas learned from a trusted CBP official that details on the matter are scarce.

We do know that two Border Patrol agents working as partners in the Van Horn Station area of responsibility of the Big Bend Sector responded to “activity.” Whether the activity was an activated sensor or something else is currently unknown. This occurred on the morning of Sunday, November 19, 2017.

One of the Border Patrol agents later radioed into the communication center saying that he needed assistance and that he was injured. Other Border Patrol agents responded and found one agent injured and unconscious with injuries to his head and body. That agent, Rogelio Martinez, was later pronounced dead. Breitbart has learned that the agent’s family has been notified.

The responding agents also found the partner who had radioed for help. The agents transported the injured agent to the hospital where he is in “serious condition,” according to the official.Border Patrol agents and Culberson County Sheriff’s Office deputies secured the area.

Border Patrol Agent and President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Brandon Judd spoke with Breitbart Texas and expressed the council’s deepest condolences to the family of Agent Martinez and to the family of the other agent who is not named at this time. Agent Judd said that this is another example of why the border must be secured. Judd stated, “When all facts come to light on this matter, I believe the public will be outraged as there are those who do not value life who come across our border. Our borders must be secured and criminals must be held accountable.”

Illegal Aliens Killed Border Agent by Crushing in His Skull with Rocks, Says NBPC

Exclusive details have emerged on the early morning attack against Border Patrol agents that left one agent dead and another hospitalized in serious condition on November, 19 2017. Breitbart Texas first broke the news of the death and injuries and now the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) says that their agents on the ground have stated that the agents were tracking a group of illegal aliens who then beat the agents with rocks until one was killed and the other hospitalized.

Border Patrol Agent Brandon Judd, also president of the NBPC, stated, “What we know is that Border Patrol Agent Rogilio Martinez appears to have been ambushed by a group of illegal aliens whom he was tracking. Our agents’ reports from the ground say that he was struck in the head multiple times with a rock or rocks.”

Agent Judd continued, “The other agent arrived on scene a short time later and was also ambushed and struck in the head with what is believed to have been a rock or rocks. These disgusting acts and complete disregard for human life need to stop immediately. Family members of slain Agent Martinez will never get to see him come home again all because we have failed to secure our borders from such criminals.”

Shortly after Breitbart Texas broke the news of the incident, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirmed that one Border Patrol agent was dead and another hospitalized in serious condition; however, authorities would not provide more details. Breitbart Texas was unable to confirm the details with CBP and other federal agencies. The NBPC is the organization that represents approximately 16,000 of our nation’s Border Patrol agents.

Our original report is included below.

One Border Patrol agent is dead and his partner left hospitalized in serious condition in the Big Bend Sector of Texas. The FBI is leading the investigation while Border Patrol Special Operations agents and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations aircrews are currently searching the area for possible attackers.

Breitbart Texas learned from a trusted CBP official that details on the matter are scarce.

We do know that two Border Patrol agents working as partners in the Van Horn Station area of responsibility of the Big Bend Sector responded to “activity.” Whether the activity was an activated sensor or something else is currently unknown. This occurred on the morning of Sunday, November 19, 2017.

One of the Border Patrol agents later radioed into the communication center saying that he needed assistance and that he was injured. Other Border Patrol agents responded and found one agent injured and unconscious with injuries to his head and body. That agent, Rogelio Martinez, was later pronounced dead. Breitbart has learned that the agent’s family has been notified.

The responding agents also found the partner who had radioed for help. The agents transported the injured agent to the hospital where he is in “serious condition,” according to the official.Border Patrol agents and Culberson County Sheriff’s Office deputies secured the area.

Border Patrol Agent and President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Brandon Judd spoke with Breitbart Texas and expressed the council’s deepest condolences to the family of Agent Martinez and to the family of the other agent who is not named at this time. Agent Judd said that this is another example of why the border must be secured. Judd stated, “When all facts come to light on this matter, I believe the public will be outraged as there are those who do not value life who come across our border. Our borders must be secured and criminals must be held accountable.”

Harvard Faces Federal Investigation Over Racial Discrimination In Admissions — JONATHAN TURLEY


Harvard University has been accused of failing to cooperate with an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice on its use of race in admissions. While such lack of cooperation with discrimination investigation was once the signature of universities fighting desegregation, it has now become something of a badge of honor for academics who are […]

via Harvard Faces Federal Investigation Over Racial Discrimination In Admissions — JONATHAN TURLEY

7 Deadly Mistakes That Even Great Leaders Make by lollydaskal


It’s a sad truth of our time that the state of leadership is not well regarded. It seems to be associated with a lot of deadly mistakes.

Most leaders never show up in headlines or polling data. They have good intentions, work hard to be effective, and serve well. But even the best can fall into habits of mind that hold them back and can cost them credibility.

Here are some of the most harmful leadership mistakes you may be making:

A sense of omnipotence. An inflated sense of self-importance can lead to a host of problems—in building relationships, in creating trust, and even in keeping your organization competitive. In today’s world, you have to rely on consensus and shared ownership rather than any individual point of view—even your own. Leadership is all about humility.

Moving too fast. Business moves fast, and sometimes transactions seem to happen at the speed of light. But a pace that’s too fast for too long makes it impossible to keep up and compounds the risk of errors—the small annoying kind and the catastrophic kind. The best leaders know how to work efficiently and meet deadlines, but they also know how to pace themselves and their team and to slow down the process when they need more time.

Thinking you have to be perfect. When we feel overwhelmed, our first impulse is to regain control—and for many leaders, that means trying to be perfect. But perfectionism is a dangerous state of mind in an imperfect world of business and leadership, the enemy of creativity, innovation and effectiveness.

Constantly putting out fires. Demands and pressures on leaders are always expanding. Many of the leaders I coach say they feel that instead of being visionaries of their business they are a sort of chief trauma officer, constantly putting out fires, resolving conflicts and sorting through struggles. As a leader, your job is to improve, grow and expand the organization—and to empower people to put out their own fires.

Needing to know everything. In business, as in life, we often have to operate in a fog of uncertainty. If you demand absolute certainty before acting you you’ll avoid risks, but it’s risks that get you to greatness. When you keep doing what you know instead of being innovative and creative, you—and your organization—lose a competitive edge.

Feeling defeated and despondent. Every leader, no matter how skillful they are or how much aptitude they have, will face situations and circumstances that make them feel powerless. It’s important to learn how to be aware of that despair without lingering in it. Leaders need to understand what they feel, and sometimes they need to be coached on how to let go.

Losing yourself while creating yourself. In the past, leaders were occasionally called upon to defend their integrity. Today, with social media and a 24/7 news cycle, everything you do is scrutinized. Don’t lose your ground but stand where you are. If values and virtues drive you as a leader, there is no mistake you will succeed.

The best way not to make these deadly mistakes it to be aware of them, manage them and get a great coach to help you leverage them.

IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING ‘VERY FISHY’ IN FOSTER DEATH? Exclusive: Joseph Farah


If President Trump still believes, as he said last year, that there’s something “very fishy” about the official Independent Counsel report on the still-mysterious death of Bill Clinton’s White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster, he might want to reconsider one of his new candidates for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.One of five candidates for a potential opening on the court named Friday by Trump is Brett M. Kavanaugh.image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/08/donald-trump-american-legion-screenshot-600-300×153.jpgIn making the Kavanaugh announcement, the White House noted the following credentials: “Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.”Conspicuously not mentioned in that biography is Kavanaugh’s role in leading the badly flawed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster in July 1993.In fact, Kavanaugh took over that investigation when his predecessor, attorney Miguel Rodriguez, resigned, saying in a letter to Kenneth Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation, WND reported last year.The smoking-gun information was reported by WND exclusively early in the 2016 presidential campaign in the form of two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Rodriguez, Starr’s original lead prosecutor.Click here or on the image to see Rodriguez’s letterimage: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/StarrLetter1.jpgClick here or on the image to see Rodriguez’s complete memoimage: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/MiguelMemo32.jpgRodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/11/Brett_Kavanaugh.jpgJudge Brett KavanaughThe breathtaking discovery of these documents in the National Archives and Records Administration was made in 2009 by researchers Hugh Turley and Patrick Knowlton. But Knowlton was not just any amateur researcher. He was a grand-jury witness who happened to be in Fort Marcy Park the day Foster died and noticed discrepancies that were never addressed by Starr’s report.Allan Favish, a Los Angeles attorney who took a Freedom of Information Act case all the way to the Supreme Court seeking access to photographs of Foster’s body as it lay in the park, said he started looking into the case shortly after Foster’s death in 1993. It was Favish who brought the National Archive discoveries by Turley and Knowlton to the attention of WND.You can read Favish’s brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court here.The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.“At meetings and via memoranda, I specifically indicated my disagreement that there existed ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Foster committed suicide where he was found at Ft. Marcy Park,” Rodriguez wrote to Starr in his resignation letter.Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.Four paramedics recalled seeing Foster’s neck wound when they had their memories “refreshed” by “new photographic evidence,” Rodriguez told Starr. Rodriguez indicates the FBI had originally shown these witnesses “blurred and obscured blowups of copies of (Polaroid and 35mm) photographs.”What the FBI had apparently done was to use a Polaroid camera to take pictures of the original Polaroid pictures, essentially producing blurry “copies of copies.”The FBI claimed some of the original photos taken by Park Police had been under-exposed and were basically useless. But when Rodriguez found the original images buried in a file, he took them to an independent photo lab used by the Smithsonian Institute and had them enhanced. He was astounded at what they showed. What had once been a blurred spot on the neck, possibly a blood stain as claimed by the FBI, was now clearly something much more.One of the paramedics, Richard Arthur, described it as a bullet hole about the size of a .22-caliber round.In January 2001, Favish filed a motion requesting permission to take a deposition from Rodriguez so he could question him about the photos. His motion was denied by a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles and ignored by the appeals court in D.C.image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/05/Vince_Foster.jpg” style=”max-width:100%;” />

Stop Making Sense


BREVITY's Nonfiction Blog

Have we got an offer for you!

Black and white picture of David Byrne dancing in a boxy oversized suit from the Talking Heads concert film Stop Making SenseHow did I get here?

Would you like to improve your writing craft today? By, say, 10%?

This doesn’t apply to everyone of course, but after editing essays and books and posts for the Brevity blog, for experienced writers and new writers and everyone in between, I’ve noticed a lot of repetition.

Not from book to book, although I see that. Not even from paragraph to paragraph, although I see that too.

Within the same sentence.

Sometimes it’s telling as well as showing:

He looked like an old man with his grey hair and gnarled hands.

Tell it once:

His hands were gnarled.

Better yet, show it in an action:

He ran a gnarled hand through his grey hair.

He picked at the tablecloth with a gnarled hand.

Sometimes it’s showing the same thing multiple times:

Jane patted my shoulder, gently massaging my…

View original post 516 more words

The Sexual Revolution Turns Ugly


How many intellectuals have come to the revolutionary party via the path of moral indignation, only to connive ultimately at terror and autocracy? ∼ Raymond Aron

The Sexual Revolution is now out of control. Initially promising freedom, like all revolutions, it has entered something like its Reign of Terror phase and is devouring its own children. As with other revolutions, it is not because the revolutionaries enjoy broad popular support; it is because civic and religious leaders are confused, divided, and cowed into silence. Those whom one expects to impose some order on all this—conservative politicians, religious leaders, civil libertarians, journalists, scholars—are either hiding under the table or signaling their virtue by themselves fanning the flames of a hysteria that they show no interest in trying to understand.

Even as one hysteria—the campus “rape epidemic”—is finally exposed as a hoax by the common sense of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, another breaks out over Harvey Weinstein and others (and still others) emerge almost daily. The commentariat from the left to the right is either diffident or so intoxicated with sanctimony that they are unable to write about it critically. Yet once we strip away the obfuscating jargon and ideology, it becomes very clear what is going on.

For there is nothing new about the sordid behavior. All that is new—and all that makes it newsworthy—is that it has been politicized.

To begin with, there is not, and never has been, any epidemic of “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault,” “domestic violence,” or the rest. It is not that deeds associated with these terms do not happen; the terms themselves are ideological constructions designed to create hysteria and mean nothing. There are, and always have been, criminal statutes in place to protect women (along with everyone else) from violent crime. There have also long been civil provisions to protect them from sexual pressure from superiors in the workplace. Anyone experiencing either of these offenses can readily file charges or complaints. And no, there is certainly no longer any “stigma” against doing so, if there ever was.

What we do have—as many long ago warned we would have—is a highly sexualized culture controlled by men and women who have succeeded in changing the terms of sexuality because they have both ideological and pecuniary interests in using sex as a financial tool and a political weapon. Privileged men and women have thrown off virtually all controls on sexual indulgence, which they can use not only for personal self-gratification but also—and quite predictably—as the means to advance their careers, accumulate wealth, eliminate rivals, punish opponents, extort money, and generally acquire political power. These practices are especially rampant in the commanding heights of our culture: the media, universitiesHollywood, television, and the fashion industry, all of which by their nature are dedicated to profiteering off sexual appeal and which bestow high rewards on people who provide it. Because most of us are consumers of these industries, few of us can completely wash our hands of responsibility.

The early opposition to all this, by Christians and other ethical critics, was long ago ridiculed into silence by the political shock troops of the Revolution: the feminist and later the homosexualist ideologues, who advertised unrestricted sex as a form of political “liberation” from “oppression.” This enlisted the intellectuals and provided a moralistic zeal that diametrically inverted the moral stigma from those who indulged in the sexual freedom to those resisting it, who were then stigmatized as political oppressors.

Now, after decades of serving as the intellectual apologists for this crass culture, those same radical ideologues have found that they can further increase their influence and power from the chaos they helped create by turning the resulting unpleasantness into newfangled quasi-crimes that no one fully understands and which permit no defense. Having ridiculed not only the Christians themselves into silence but also their annoying, old-fashioned vocabulary of “sin,” “immorality,” “fornication,” and “adultery,” the radicals have substituted jargon that instead condemns ideological unorthodoxy (“sexism,” “misogyny”) and implies criminality: “sexual harassment,” “sexual abuse,” “sexual misconduct,” “sexual assault,” sexual this and sexual that.

In short, sexual ideologues have created a new political theology, replete with a politicized, government-approved definition of sin. Or in other words, they eliminated religious sin and replaced it with political crime. Rather than removing the shame and stigma of the “fornicator” and “adulterer” as they promised, they have simply replaced it with that of the “abuser” and “harasser.” In the process they have replaced morality with ideology, and community standards with themselves as the sole arbiters of innocence and guilt.

Is there a difference? Yes. The traditional sins were clear and precise, they applied equally to all, they were enforced by apolitical authorities like parents, churches, and local communities, and the punishment was social disapproval and ostracism. By contrast, the new ideological crimes are vague and lack any fixed definition, only men can be guilty of them, and they are enforced by lawyers and gendarmes and punishable with lawsuits and prison.

This “liberation” illustrates precisely the logic that transforms the Rights of Man into the Reign of Terror. The fanatical Antoine de St. Just could have been speaking for the Sexual rather than the French Revolution when he declared, “No freedom for the enemies of freedom!”

No one really understands what terms like “sexual harassment” and “domestic violence” mean, which is precisely the point. They can mean anything, and the definitions are constantly expanded (even with a seemingly clear matter like “rape”) and tailored to fit the accused. Thus they blur the distinction between behavior that is distasteful or (dare I say it?) immoral from that which is criminal, and they circumvent the due process protections of the criminal law with flimsy procedures and “relaxed” rules of evidence, often in irregular kangaroo courts which are erected—like the pseudo-courts in other revolutions—to ensure the predetermined outcome of punishment.

In Weinstein’s case, it is not clear what precisely the accusations are. Typically, we hear of matters that seem clearly criminal: “rape.” But then it starts to sound vague: “abuse,” “exploitation,” “misbehavior.” Which is it? (A columnist notes the same modus operandi in the “harassment” scandal now engulfing the British House of Commons: a “toxic list included open and perfectly consensual sexual relationships along with the supposed infractions.”) This MO allows the penal system to intervene in the private lives of innocent people by linking their ordinary acts to criminality. The vagaries allow them to establish the larger principle that all male-female relations themselves constitute political oppression.

None of the Hollywood figures queueing up to advertise their virtue by denouncing Weinstein seem to have any first-hand evidence of anything. Two report that he met them for interviews in his room wearing a bathrobe. The rest have “rumors” and “stories” from others. Several say he behaved with complete professionalism and did nothing improper. Some report physical passes, and some reports do sound like they crossed the line into both sexual and physical assault (including many against men), in which case there are, again, criminal statutes that could readily have been invoked at the time. Would complaints have jeopardized one’s career? Welcome to the responsibilities of citizenship.

Far more likely of course is that the “victims” were part of a larger game trading sexual allure for career advancement.

If someone has evidence that Weinstein committed a crime, it can be reported, he can be tried, and that could be the end of it. But that would not serve the radicals’ lynch mob agenda—the same lynch mob that Secretary DeVos has challenged in the universities, and others have challenged involving “child abuse,” “domestic violence,” “deadbeat dads,” and the rest.

The point is not to report a crime but to create hysteria that can then be used against people far more innocent than Weinstein appears to be. Weinstein will have to plead his own case. But once the flimsy procedures are in place—as a result of hysteria from the same Hollywood and media culture that created the problem in the first place, they can then be used again the innocent.

Even beyond the university students, few of whom will ever see the inside of a jail, other targets are indeed already languishing behind bars because of the zeal of the sexual hysterics—and the silence of others.

Now that Secretary DeVos has made it safe to do so, conservative pundits—who for years remained mute as other journalists and a few scholars risked their careers and reputations to blow the whistle—are now coming out of the woodwork to trumpet their own virtue. Even the National Review, which for years studiously looked the other way in the face of rampant injustice, and even supported the hysterics, has suddenly discovered that the witch hunt, about which they were told for years, is real.

But the proof of their newfound virtue will be seen in how they respond to the other, more serious injustices and witch-hunts still being fomented by the feminist victimization industry. Military men are likewise subject to trumped-up accusations of “sexual harassment” and hounded out of the services, as Brian MitchellMartin Van Creveld, and others have documented, if they are not first plundered by the divorce courts. And as Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson along with others have shown, those accused of rape in the real courts can no more expect justice than in the campus kangaroo courts, and they can spend years in prison.

In fact, even the larger the rape hoax is only one of a series of witch hunts generated by the radical sexual lobby:

I.  Despite numerous exposés since the 1980s, knowingly false accusations of child abuse against selected parents for political purposes are still out of control: Christian parentshomeschooling families, involuntarily divorced fathers, or any parents. Here too we see the politics of accusation, the suspension of due process protections, and the fingerprints of the radicals. Like the feminist attorneys whose salaries drain taxpayers’ dollars at the Department of Education and students’ tuition in the state-funded universities, feminist lawyers and social workers launch equally groundless accusations to rationalize the government confiscation of children from their parents. Also like the university rape accusations, hoax after hoaxhorror story after horror story, make little impact on the juggernaut of fabricated accusations.

II.  Systematic accusations of “domestic violence” constitute what attorney David Heleniak calls “a due process fiasco”:  Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process (and there are more). Here too, violent assault is criminally punishable in every jurisdiction on earth. But “domestic violence” has nothing to do with violent assault, any more than “campus rape” has anything to do with real rape. It is another politicized collusion between the radicals and the bar associations, earning enormous salaries by denying due process to innocent Americans who possess no platform to defend themselves. In feminist parlance, “domestic violence” can mean anything from verbal insults to refusing demands for money. It is virtually never adjudicated with a jury trial, and—most astounding of all—no one is ever acquitted.

III.  Accusations of nonpayment of child support—so-called “deadbeat dads”—constitute perhaps the most vicious witch-hunt and hoax, where due process protections are non-existent. Assembly-line hearings often last a minute or two, when men are sentenced to indefinite incarceration that can last years. Many receive no hearing at all but are sentenced (they too are never acquitted) in an “expedited judicial process.” According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, accused fathers must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury. Most frighteningly, no public record of the incarcerations exists.

Unlike these men (and women), those like Harvey Weinstein (Bill Cosby, Julian Assange, etc.), plus students and soldiers who indulge in casual sex, arguably are asking for trouble and deserve what they get. At one time, we might have understood their ordeal theologically: though they receive an unjust punishment from man, they are being justly punished by God. This theological principle might help some men see a more constructive course to correct not only their own comportment but also the larger political problem. It could well convey the message to men that, like it or not, you are inevitably the ones that will be held responsible, and it is therefore up to you to exercise the moral (and political?) leadership.

Yet significantly, no such argument has been put forth for discussion by church leaders, who simply avert their eyes and hold their tongues from matters that would seem to be in their direct purview: sexual morality. So cowed are Christian leaders that they almost never speak of “fornication” and “adultery” (or even “sin” very much), even in their own churches. So now they too try to save themselves from irrelevance by jumping on the bandwagon to advertise their own ideologized virtue. Today one is far more likely to hear a sermon about “sexual harassment” or “misogyny” than about fornication or adultery, despite the huge social and economic consequences generated by out-of-wedlock births. Ironically, the very “self-righteousness” accusation they have tried for years to deflect they now embrace.

Yet the theological principle hardly justifies unjust quasi-criminal punishments. For one thing, any secular government must distinguish sin from crime, as the old religious standards recognized in distinguishing legitimate spheres for Caesar and for God. Ironically, the hyper-secularized radicals are the ones substituting a new political theology and a quasi-theocratic approach to sexual ethics.

Now the revolutionaries, intoxicated with power, are moving beyond defenseless private individuals and targeting larger prey in the realm of high politics. They tried this in the election campaign against Donald Trump, turning his lewd comments into an opportunity to further insinuate ideology in the place of traditional sexual morality.

Now, more subtly, they have set their sights on their own liberal-left elite. By targeting Weinstein and others like him, the radicals are (by accident or design) adroitly recruiting conservative moralizers as their stooges. Conservatives delight in pointing out that liberal male politicians like Bill Clinton who are the most outspoken feminist supporters are also the most aggressive womanizers. Yet lacking the fortitude to content themselves with traditional stigmas against Clinton’s or Weinstein’s immorality in hitting on married women and betraying their own wives, they parrot the radical jargon of the “harassment” industry. When one understands the dynamics of feminist politics it is clear that the radicals will have the last laugh, because the end result is that we further abandon morality for ideology.

But perhaps the greatest impact of this sleight-of-hand is the morally debilitating effect it has on all of us. I mean not simply our willingness to accommodate sexual permissiveness but even more our willingness to confuse self-righteous moralizing with true moral understanding. The Weinstein affair vividly illustrates how ideology has turned our public discourse into a cacophony of sanctimonious scolding. Rather than establishing clear rules of sexual morality and having the courage to uphold them in our daily face-to-face interactions with other people, we hire professional disapprovers with political muscle—journalists and media pundits, lawyers, judges, police, and jailors—to inflict punishments in our name, while we sit back and safely jeer at the malefactors from afar. This indulgence in the soothing pleasures of moral posturing entails no risk to ourselves and no requirement to take responsibility for our own role in either the sexual decadence or, if they turn out to be unjust, the ensuing witch hunts. And we need not bother ourselves about niceties like rules of evidence or due process of law. In short, we have adopted the justice of the mob, into which the Sexual Revolution, like every revolution, must inevitably degenerate.

A Dangerous Retreat from Anticorruption Aid


GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog

The US government’s drive to cut foreign aid in favor of increased military spending is shortsighted, even if one focuses only on national security objectives. This is especially true for aid devoted to supporting anticorruption efforts, which can act as a powerful tool for improving regional stability without direct, overbearing involvement in a region. The past decade has shown how difficult on-the-ground involvement can be, and anticorruption-focused aid can help secure dangerous regions and allow the US to withdraw some of it physical presence abroad.

One striking example of the danger that corruption poses to security and stability can be seen in the context of land use and land rights. When corrupt officials deprive people of their land, destroying both their livelihoods and often their local communities in one move, they may push those affected into a situation where violence may seem like the only option. For example, recent land…

View original post 451 more words