American Thinker continues the attempt to assassinate my character and the characters of Senator Ted Cruz, Representative Louie Gohmert, Glenn Beck, Aleveda King, and anyone attempting to reduce the burden on poor border towns over the weekend—with no less than two separate attack pieces today alone (!!). They published a demonstrably false remark which they need to retract immediately:
If Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, and Ted Cruz wanted to make a private contribution to the care of these illegals, that would be fine. (As a matter of fact, Sen. Cruz did make a private donation while in the company of Ms. Loesch on the border visit, something she revealed to her listeners, apparently without the senator’s permission.)
This is provably false. I specifically said on my radio program, with audio available here, hour three, that Glenn Beck made a private donation. Not Senator Cruz. Beck handed a check to a border patrol chief. Not sure why American Thinker would print a false remark about Cruz after they attacked him for visiting the border of the state he represents, but I think they’ve established that facts mean little when their focus is petty political attacks.
*UPDATED to add this great analysis of American Thinker’s drama. Read the whole thing at the link:
I’m concerned less by such a seemingly grotesque gesture and more by the note of almost derision in Ms. Evans tone that the group would consider such a thing. In any case, I sincerely doubt that Glenn Beck would organize a significant venture to the southern border just to one-up Nancy Pelosi. Hosting a popular talk show, he can lambast her for hours without leaving his studio.
After noting that Loesch supported Beck’s initiative despite being firmly anti-amnesty, Ms Evans derided her “elitist rhetoric” and stated that, as one of the beneficiaries of the support of “the people” who patronize their creative outputs, they ought to cease their “pandering”.
But pandering to whom, and for what purpose? Evans suggests as a push for “votes and money”. Not sure how kicking a new soccer ball around with an immigrant kid will push a new book, or how clothing a family will reveal a hitherto unknown conservative voting bloc among an ethnicity that doesn’t really vote conservative. Maybe just once, Ms. Evans, charity is just charity?
Ms Evans is of course entitled to her criticism. But for the life of me, I don’t understand why she would, especially with such force. Charity for charity’s sake is it’s own worthy endeavor, but this effort and those like it speak to a deeper philosophical point about the nature of conservatism; one that Ms. Evans should fall in line with.
We may argue among ourselves how conservatism is the theoretically preferred ideology or about the interplay between government involvement and private efforts until we’ve sucked all the oxygen from the room, but theory must spread its wings eventually: we must prove it can actually do something.
And in the little corner of the world that McAllen, Texas inhabits, this group has demonstrated that private machinations can be mobilized to address a societal ill without making an appeal to the sclerotic bureaucracy that is the federal government. Such charitable organizations are affecting that area of the situation they can control, and proving they can do it to the exclusion of government and taxpayer-funded resources. Every dollar they spent was one dollar John Q. Taxpayer didn’t have to. That is to be commended.