Political Palaver

It Starts With the Money, and Ends in a Prison State

2013-06-16T06:19:00.001-07:00

Descending into the rabbit-hole of the government’s apparent war on liberty and privacy, it’s easy to get lost. It’s dirty, deep, and as each new leak provides some illumination, the motives and actions of this government become ever darker. Whether it’s the IRS’s selectively targeting the administration’s political enemies, or the Department of Justice’s spying on major news networks, or the National Security Administration’s securing secret court orders to track and store the everyday phone conversations of innocent Americans, there can be no question -- America today is a dystopian visage of its former self.

If the scandals themselves do not evidence our predicament well enough, consider the unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers during Obama’s administration.

Tim Shorrock of The Nation offers, in this piece from April 15, 2013:

In the annals of national security, the Obama administration will long be remembered for its crackdown on whistleblowers. Since 2009, it has employed the WWI-era Espionage Act a record six times to prosecute officials suspected of leaking classified information.

[…]

By using the NSA to spy on Americans, [NSA whistleblower] Binney told me, the United States has created a police state with few parallels in history: “It’s better than anything that the KGB, the Stasi, or the Gestapo and SS ever had.” He compared the situation to the Weimar Republic, a brief period of liberal democracy that preceded the Nazi takeover of Germany. “We’re just waiting to turn the key,” he said.

Appraising why and how this bleak scenario came to pass is a quagmire complicated not only by partisanship, but by the sheer scope of it all. If you consider each scandal individually, it’s simply too much for an ordinary person to process. After all, if we were to join Obama’s lemmings in their leap of faith, we’d believe that the intricacies of bloated government bureaucracy left even Obama in the dark about some of this, despite it being his business to stay on top of such things in his administration.

So how could we average Americans have any in-depth understanding of all this? However much we might like the notion of individual liberty and despise the government’s suppression of it, we’re too busy with our menial jobs trying to produce wealth for ourselves, the government, and our neighbor that lives on the government dole, all the while fighting big government expansionists at every turn in efforts to make our progeny self-sufficient producers, in hopes that future generations might become something more substantial than a gaggle of Julia’s, feeding for a lifetime at a communal trough.

Is it any wonder that the flood of insidious details about these scandals drives the average American to indifference? I can think of no other reason that, according to Pew, 56% of Americans find nothing wrong with the NSA’s tracking and storing everyday phone conversations without reasonable cause. If asked whether they agree with the principles of the Fourth Amendment, I’d wager that a vast majority of Americans would answer in the affirmative. So what else but numbness could cause the majority of Americans to believe that the government has a right to willfully and blatantly violate it?

It is the natural tendency of government to manipulate the will and finances of the people to serve its own ends. This incontrovertible truth caused Thomas Paine to observe that “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” And thwarting this natural tendency of government is the very reason that our Constitution, providing a rigid framework of limited central government, was penned.

When government overreaches its Constitutional boundaries, it becomes ever more “intolerable,” and individual liberties disappear. Given the Constitution’s explicit prohibitions, the government can’t simply set the Constitution alight and rebrand overnight without public outcry. Rather, it strikes liberties incrementally, under the guise of crisis management and benevolence, until one day -- a day like today -- the Constitution and its Amendments like the Fourth no longer have any meaning, and the people can’t even seem to remember why the Amendment was there in the first place.

Our government has done precisely this. And the primary method of its malevolence, to this point, has been to assume ever more control of your money and property via tax legislation, federal spending, and regulation. But that's not were it ends.

As Mark Steyn points out in a driving theme in After America: Get Ready for Armageddon: “It starts with the money. For dominant powers in decline, it always does.”

“It starts with the money,” he says, “but it never stops there.”

Steyn gives us an idea about where he believes it ends:

Conservatives often talk about small government, which in a sense, is framing the issue in leftist terms. They’re for big government, and when you’re arguing for the small alternative, it’s easy to sound pinched and mean and grudging. But small government gives you big freedoms. And big government leaves you with very little freedom.

The opposite of big government is not small government, but big liberty. The bailout, and the stimulus, and the budget, and the trillion dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic of the productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher. And you make it very difficult ever to change back.

In the end, it’s not about money, but about something more fundamental. Yes, you can tax people to the hilt, and give them free healthcare, and free homes, and free food, but in doing so you turn them into, if not yet slaves, then pets. And that’s the nub of it. Big government leads to small liberty and small men.

Liberty is profoundly tied to capitalism, free markets, and the eschewing of increased government control of wealth -- and while not the sole ingredients for liberty, they are necessary ones. Steyn has not been the first to notice this correlation. Milton Friedman said as much to an audience member in a taped appearance at Cornell University. At about 8:25 of this video, we see a gentleman in army fatigues ask:

I see society as more and more tending to the usurping of my individual rights and freedoms as time goes by. What do you see as the ultimate end of this, i.e., either in democracy or socialism, and why do you think the individuals within this society are letting this happen to them?

What is “the ultimate end of this,” in Friedman’s eyes? He isn’t one to mince words, and he implies that finding the end is the easier part of his question to answer. And like Steyn, he traces the roots of liberty’s erosion to government appropriation of wealth.

If we continue along the road we’ve been going on, of usurping more and more power to government officials to control our lives, I see only one end. And that’s the loss of anything that has any meaning as democracy, a loss of human freedoms, and a prison state. That’s the end.

Why are they letting this happen to them? That’s a much more difficult question to answer. I think that is largely because of ignorance about where they are going. A lack of recognition. I don’t believe they want to go this road. But I believe they are unwittingly letting themselves go down this road, because on each issue that comes up, people look at their separate special interest instead of the broader interest in governmental activity. Everyone wants to cut down government, provided that those things he has an interest in are maintained.

[…]

The solution is for people like you and me to talk. To ourselves, and to our fellows, and to try to persuade our fellow free men to be of like mind. To change the climate of opinion in these respects, to try to correct the political structure … I’ve been recently working on one particular proposal along those lines, which is to have a Constitutional Amendment setting a maximum limit on the amount that the government may spend. I won’t go into the details, but I think fundamentally, we are getting what the public at large has been asking for. And the public is asking for it, I believe, because they do not understand where it’s going to lead them.

It has led us to where we are today, an environment in which we have no idea which individual liberties the government will choose to recognize or ignore. We just know that this choice seems to be at the government’s discretion. And we are clearly not done traversing the path Friedman describes.

We never got that Amendment setting a spending limit for government. As a result, government has never been bigger than today, and liberty has never been smaller than today. After nearly a century of amassed government control of Americans’ wealth, we are but a turn of the key from a prison state, if NSA whistleblowers in the know are to be believed.

In the last century we have witnessed the reimplementation of a progressive income tax that supplanted tariffs as the chief revenue source of the federal government, the legislation of the redistributive Titanics called Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the establishment and perpetual expansion of the welfare state, mimicking Euro-democracies that are now collapsing under that gargantuan yoke. In the last decade alone, government expansion has gone into hyper-drive, acting as broker for the taxpayers in buying billions in worthless assets for banks’ benefit, investing billions more taxpayer dollars in a stimulus package that did little to stimulate, and the government has procured administrative control of the healthcare industry, a significant driver of American GDP. Even as we speak, the government is seeking to legislate even more control over the American economy by granting amnesty to illegal aliens and granting previously legislated federal benefits to them as reward for their having broken our laws, increasing the liability of the productive class and ensuring the need for more aggressive redistributive measures in the future.

We don’t have time to be ignorant anymore about where we are headed, or the manner in which we’ve been cobbling the path to get there. It starts with the money -- it will end in a prison state, and the latter isn’t going to manifest itself decades hence, but at any moment. All it takes is the right crisis, real or manufactured.

It’s not enough that we wait around for 2014 in hopes to get the right people in office to support “big liberty” instead of “big government.” As Milton Friedman said in 1975, which he alludes to in the above-linked video and which Steyn cites in After America:

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is to simply elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.

This is why it is important that we work to change the direction of our public discourse. We must demand that our representatives recognize that the purpose of our government is not to provide Americans with collectivized benefits. The purpose of our government is to preserve Americans’ individual liberty. And increased government spending at this dire breakpoint, in any capacity, wholly subverts liberty.

And if the American people cannot be made to see that, well… our end is loosely written for us.

William Sullivan

Where Do We Go from Gosnell?

2013-06-12T00:30:00.000-07:00

Abortion advocates have made considerable efforts create daylight between the issue of abortion and the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the notorious abortionist who has now been found guilty first-degree murder for the termination of babies which survived abortion attempts, including "hundreds of lesser charges ranging from infanticide to running a corrupt organization."

The ethical slipperiness of the media in covering the case was astounding. New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal, for example, asked, “What does the trial of a Philadelphia doctor who is accused of performing illegal late-term abortions by inducing labor and then killing viable fetuses have to do with the debate over legal abortion?”

It is an interesting choice to refer to a live baby extracted from the womb as a “viable fetus.” This verbiage obfuscates not only the distinction between a fetus and a baby, but also the understanding of viability versus unviability, which is, of course, the crux of the abortion debate in general.

It is ironic, therefore, for Rosenthal to suggest that the case has nothing to do with abortion by raising the very question upon which the Gosnell crimes are measured and the entire abortion debate hinges: at what point does a fetus become viable, and at what point does a fetus’ life warrant legal protection?

Gosnell understandably elicits an ethical question about late-term abortion in the minds of Americans, and other abortion advocates choose to lament this truth rather than deny it. Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast, for example, admits that “late-term abortion can be problematic” because “once a fetus has gestated to five or six months, most people, whatever their politics, can see its inherent human value.” Referring to a 3D ultrasound of her son at twenty weeks gestation, she recalls, “At that stage a fetus appears quite human. Not that I referred to him as a fetus. I am very pro-choice, but I already referred to him as my baby.”

Even Goldberg, a staunch abortion advocate, recognized this child in her womb at twenty weeks to be just that -- a child. And if that is true, it might stand to reason that other children in other women’s wombs at twenty weeks, wanted or unwanted, are also children worthy of protection by the law. Nonetheless, she cannot condemn “problematic” late-term abortion outright, because the “anti-abortion movement” does not have the “solution.” Better to continue having these children die, she offers, than bring any added attention to Gosnell or videos exposing practices at other late-term abortion clinics.

Such efforts are about protecting the institution of abortion. The protection of children, which again, she understands exist within a mother’s womb at the very least at twenty weeks and beyond, is a secondary concern to that, especially when such a trivial number of abortions take place after twenty weeks gestation -- only 1.5%, she says.

But with abortion levels in the United States estimated at or above one million per annum, this trivial 1.5% accounts for 15,000 or more late-term abortions per year. That is more than 15,000 children last year, now dead, at the hands of abortionists like Gosnell. This number greatly exceeds recent annual murder levels. Only a fraction of those murders are actually due to guns, and only a fraction of those murdered by guns are children. Yet there couldn’t have been more scrutiny on the tragedy of those children in Newtown dying at the hands of an evil gunman to illustrate the moral imperative of gun control legislation. How can it possibly be defended that the tragedy of those dead children at the hands of evil Gosnell is not scrutinized with the same fervor?

The Roe v. Wade decision set precedent that viability can be reasonably assumed at some undefined point of gestation after the first trimester, and that state legislation can define at what point this occurs and protect the child within the mother’s womb. So a discussion on the matter of the legality and limits of late-term abortion is not a direct subversion of the practice of abortion, but entirely reasonable within the scope of Roe v. Wade.

Just this once, why can we not set politics aside? The vast majority of Americans are not after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and they do not seek to end all legal abortion practice in the United States. The vast majority (roughly 80%) of Americans do, however, disagree with late-term abortions, and only fringe extremists support the practice of infanticide, a category to which, sadly, our president has clearly belonged.

Abortion in early fetal development, emergency contraceptives, Sandra Fluke’s mean insurance company that won’t pay for her birth control -- we can continue our discussion about all of that, separate of this issue. But can we not do the one thing that we all know that we should do, and ban the practice of any and all frivolous late-term abortions?

It is only natural that such a horrific revelation as the Gosnell case should jolt America’s social conscience to reevaluate how we view the practice of late-term abortion in America. If it does not, then it evidences that protecting the political golden calves of the status quo is more important than protecting that which we know to be right.

William Sullivan

The New Monument at Ground Zero, A Decade Late

2013-05-10T09:49:00.001-07:00

Ground Zero has a new monument to replace the ones that Islamic jihadists destroyed on that clear Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001, and a spire has just been hoisted to signify the building's final height. CNN reports:

The spire brings the iconic building to a height of 1,776 feet -- an allusion to the year the United States declared its independence. It also makes the building the tallest in the Western Hemisphere and the third-tallest in the world.

The company developing the building in partnership with the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey confirmed the installation.

While the building still has significant construction before its scheduled 2014 opening, the installation brought cheers from New Yorkers, and from people around the country.

"NYC is back ... America is back!" Twitter userTheJeffSullivan posted to the social networking site.

Twitter user mattnewby04 called it a "very powerful moment to see the figurative rebuilding of NYC."

Only eleven and a half years later, eh? While I love the idea of an edifice taller than the World Trade Towers and appreciate the effort to imbue its height with American symbolism, you'll have to forgive me for not finding this a marvelous achievement. It's not necessarily that the building itself is underwhelming, it's more a matter of the timing. As Mark Steyn writes in After America:

The most eloquent statement about America in the 21st century is Ground Zero in the years after. 9/11 was something our enemies did to us. The hole in the ground a decade later is something we did to ourselves.

[...]

The Empire State Building, then the tallest in the world, was put up in 18 months during a depression – because the head of General Motors wanted to show the head of Chrysler that he could build something that went higher than the Chrysler Building. Three-quarters of a century later, the biggest thing either man's successor had created was a mountain of unsustainable losses – and both GM and Chrysler were now owned and controlled by government and unions.

[...]

In the decade after 9/11, China (which America still thinks of as a cheap assembly plant for your local KrappiMart) built the Three Gorges Dam, the largest electricity-generating plant in the world. Dubai, a mere sub-jurisdiction of the United Arab Emirates, put up the world's tallest building and built a Busby Berkeley geometric kaleidoscope of offshore artificial islands. Brazil, an emerging economic power, began diverting the Sao Francisco river to create some 400 miles of canals to irrigate its parched north-east. But the hyperpower can't put up a building.

Thirteen years after the towers fell, a new building will take its place. Even with all the symbolism meant by this construction and the pride Americans now seem to take in it, I fear that it's just too little, too late for it to mean a damn thing to the rest of the world which recognizes how far we've fallen from the zenith of American greatness.

William Sullivan

Egyptian Salafi Cleric Weighs in on the Boston Bombing

2013-04-18T20:56:00.000-07:00

Cleric Murgan Salem has some pretty dire revelations for America, seen in the video below.

There is much in this chilling clip that is revealing, and first and foremost is the obvious reminder that, even if the attack in Boston was not an act of Islamic jihad, jihadists see such attacks as a victory. Clearly, he sees the attack as too "amateurish" to have been the work of al-Qaeda and posits that it could have likely been an American who is dissatisfied with American policy, but nonetheless, the bombing sends a message that we Americans can be attacked anywhere, anytime, and by anyone.

Second, we notice that his appraisal of jihad runs in clear conflict with the standard leftist mantra about armed jihad being a fringe phenomenon, only embraced by those who follow the twisted perversion of Islam practiced by the late Osama bin Laden, for example. He assures the world that it is not bin Laden or al-Zawahiri that gave the world the notion that violent jihad is a religious imperative -- that honor belongs with Allah and the Quran. While many Muslims, particularly in the West, have evolved a more progressive view of jihad, the more archaic brand of jihad still courses in the veins of Islamic fundamentalism, pumped by various hearts like al Qaeda. Hence, Islamic fundamentalism remains a global scourge, not a fairy tale made up by right-wing conservatives.

Third, and I thought most interesting (considering the above mentioned items are not necessarily news to me, but reminders), we notice that he believes America to be finished. What is his reasoning, beyond the fact that Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened and increasingly take the jihad to America's back yard? He cites America's bloated debt and Americans' increased dependence on welfare. In America, millions of the usefully dim refuse to see this as a problem, believing our unfathomable debt to be sustainable, and steadily increasing welfare dependence to be a good thing. In the Islamic world, fundamentalists cheer at our willingness to commit to economic self-atrophy, thereby assisting the jihadists who long for America's demise.

Barack Obama sought to improve relations with the Islamic world through dialogue, insisting that with the right leadership, the Islamic world would respect and accept a relationship peaceful relationship with America. But it appears that our president's candor and domestic policies have done little more than assure the Islamic world that we are weaker than ever, and ripe for destruction.

William Sullivan

How Public Educators Subvert Education

2013-04-09T14:27:00.000-07:00

In a chilling video (apparently sponsored by MSNBC), Melissa Harris-Perry suggests that your children do not belong to you, but to the collective. And the sooner we realize that and relegate ourselves to dumping more money into public education, she says, the better off we'll all be.

I provided some commentary for the American Thinker blog regarding the reasons Americans should find this video frightening. Suffice it to say, her ignorant mindset, however well-intentioned, is universally the framework of ruthless socialistic and fascistic dictatorship. See: History.

Harris-Perry isn't about driving success, any more than education unions are about academic success, or "No Child Left Behind" is about academic success. It seems, rather, that the goal of our current education system is to hamstring any who get further ahead of the pack because they might be differently advantaged.

It's the equivalent of requiring a Kenyan marathon runner to carry weights, because thin Kenyans seem to be just too damn good at marathons and it's making the other, slower marathon runners feel bad.

That's just not how success is driven, and it's an absolute travesty that there is a need to explain that. This, like many of the problems we face today, is a result of American ignorance of the fact that collectivism does not nurture progress, but regression.

Here's an example to explain why, courtesy of the recently deceased Margaret Thatcher. In her last appearance in Britain's House of Commons in 1990, she was confronted by a socialist who laments that, sure, Britain thrived for the most part during her tenure as Prime Minister, but the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% increased during that time. Thatcher reminded him that even the poor had it better in 1990 than they did in 1979, and by focusing on the discrepancy rather than the more important result -- prosperity -- the member was admitting that "he would rather that the poor get poorer, provided that the rich become less rich." That's it. In a nutshell. Why socialism fails. Watch this, it really is thing of beauty:

And we see it in our education system. In Wisconsin (patient zero for the corrupt unionism disease), Racine Unified superintendent Dr. Ann Laing had this to say:

I think Milwaukee is a good example of what will happen on a smaller scale here. In Milwaukee, it’s pretty much been white families who’ve taken advantage of private schools, with a few African-American families. The African-American families are the ones who are most prone to enroll their kids in the fly-by-night schools that cropped up after vouchers existed.

They don’t know how to make good choices for their children. They really don’t. They didn’t have parents who made good choices for them or help them learn how to make good choices, so they don’t know how to do that.

First of all, the racism is in-your-face. For her to sit there and suggest that black people are just bad parents in such broad terms should be shocking. If anyone without union protection, who is not toeing the line for the progressive agenda, were to make such a comment, he or she would be tarred and feathered by the media. But no, this flies undert the radar for the most part, because it advances the narrative of collectivism.

Mikel Holt exposed these comments in the Milwaukee Community Journal, and in response, Laing said the comments were "taken out of context." "Many parents," she says, "don't have access to the information or tools" necessary to make good decisions.

Funny. It doesn't seem like she was taken out of context at all, because her later comments-- that a lack of resources is the problem, not a lack of ability-- sound nothing the previous statements -- that black people just don't know how to make good decisions because black people's parents didn't make good decisions.

If it were really about "information or tools" to help people make good decisions, wouldn't the school district try to provide "information and tools" to people, so parents and children can make good decisions?

That's precisely what the school district would do if it were about grooming successful academics. But no, the point is to demonize those parents who have worked to have the means to pay for a better investment in their children's education. Additionally, she is trying to eliminate competition to the public school option by delegitimizing the "fly-by-night" schools that some parents are exercising via the voucher system, which is the bane of public education unions.

It does beg the question... if the public school option is so wonderful for these children, why are so many exercising the voucher system?

Dr. Laing suggests that it's because they're incapable of making good decisions because they're black, or they had bad parents, what have you. But I think the truth is that parents who care are seeking other options for their children, because they know well enough that many public schools are dangerous, and that their children are not getting a good result from public education.

So public schools are so bad that everyone is seeking alternatives. But advocates of expanding public education, like Harris-Perry, like Dr. Laing, think that we should increase federal funding to public education and that these alternatives should be limited to the public, because the state knows better than parents what is good for their children.

Essentially, the suggestion is that when free-market principles are applied to education and there is competition with public education, there is discrepancy between those who go to good schools (often alternatives to public schools) and those who go to bad schools (often public schools). So since we've more than doubled the investment in public education since 1970 and the results have been regressive (ie, kids are less educated today than in 1970), we should eliminate those alternatives and just have everyone go to public schools to eliminate the discrepancy.

In other words, these social engineers would rather the dumb become dumber, provided the educated become less educated. Just another example of why collectivism fails.

William Sullivan

Big News? NFL Player to Come Out of the Closet

2013-03-26T00:31:00.000-07:00

"Some believe atmosphere is safe for a gay NFL player to come out." That is the headline of this CBS article linked on Drudge today. From the article:

Based on interviews over the past several weeks with current and former players, I'm told that a current gay NFL player is strongly considering coming out publicly within the next few months -- and after doing so, the player would attempt to continue his career.

I'm told this player feels the time is now for someone to take this step -- despite homophobic remarks from San Francisco 49ers defensive back Chris Culliver and the controversy arising recently at the Indianapolis Scouting combine, when prospects were asked questions about their sexuality.

This player's true concern, I'm told, is not the reaction inside an NFL locker room but outside of it. The player fears he will suffer serious harm from homophobic fans, and that is the only thing preventing him from coming out. My sources will not say who this alleged player is.

[...]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments on California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. Opponents of the proposition say it discriminates against gay men and women.

To Fujita and others, this is an important case that could have ramifications in the NFL. If the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, it would send yet another signal to closeted gay NFL players that the environment is changing for the better.

To be sure, this would probably not be as big of a news item, if not for the hubbub surrounding the Supreme Court review of two gay rights cases, one of which is a review of California's Prop 8 vote where Californians voted in the majority to ban gay marriage in the state. Implied in the above mentioned article, if the Court strikes down Prop 8, it will signal an environment in which it might be "safe" for NFL players to be openly gay.

It amuses me that there is such an effort to tie the fate of gay NFL players to a decision in favor of gay marriage. After all, the right to be openly gay in the NFL has little if anything to do with the ability to be married in a state-recognized ceremony. The implication is that if gay marriage isn't given a federal legal allowance, it will signify that America is still just a bigoted nation of homophobes, and a homosexual football player might be threatened with violence daily for his life choice. But if nine lawyers in the Court reimagine current law and overrule California's popular vote, then it will signal that America has somehow changed enough to warrant a gay NFL player safely coming out. It's hard to imagine such a silly presumption being taken seriously by anyone -- but here we are, discussing an article by an author who does.

The funniest thing about all of this, though, is that the author suggests that he hopes, when this gay player comes out, that it will be a non-issue. The truth is, it is already a non-issue to the vast majority of Americans. It is the author, and the pro-gay marriage lobby that he represents, that is making an NFL player being openly gay an issue by tying his coming out to a legitimate and polarizing legal issue.

I'm an avid NFL fan, and when this gay player and others come out, I'll simply do what most Americans will do. I'll say, "Good for him," and go on about my day. Ironically, the people that will undoubtedly make the biggest deal of it are the same ideologues who are invested in the issue of gay marriage -- which, again, is somewhat silly, considering that being openly gay in the NFL has nothing to do with gay marriage as a social or legal issue.

The truth of the matter is that the choice to be gay is broadly accepted in America today, even if the issue of gay marriage is a polarizing cultural matter, and NFL players can, and should be able to be openly gay in the NFL without fear of hatred or violent acts against them. But a state should also not have to forfeit its constitutional right to govern in the manner that its people demand, so long as it's within legal limitations.

A gay NFL player's ability to be openly gay should not be dependent on a state's forfeiture of sovereignty, no matter how attractive it might be for gay marriage advocates to lump the issues together.

William Sullivan

Academy Sports and Outdoors Changes Its Circulars to Accomodate Gun Control Efforts

2013-02-06T13:17:00.000-08:00

An Open Letter to Academy Sports and Outdoors:

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read my concerns. My name is William Sullivan, and I have been a shopper at your [local] locations since I was old enough to buy my own sports/outdoor equipment. My father is an avid fisherman, and he was a customer long before that. I am, however troubled by your recent circulars, which I regularly peruse, that have neglected to advertise the sale of firearms for many weeks now. In the current political context, this troubles me.

I am a financial professional by trade, and as a side business and passion, I am an author who contributes to various political magazines which carry substantial readership. On the topic of the Second Amendment, I am a stern believer that changes to its form and intent should come via legislation/amendment abridging it (if at all), and certainly not shaped via executive intimidation or media/corporate campaigns.

On this, I do not budge, nor should any American who values our laws that grant us this unique right which affords the self-preservation of liberty. (As evidence of the sternness of this belief, I direct you to this recent article I’ve authored: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/how_many_bullets_are_enough.html)

Enough time has elapsed to surmise that these omissions of firearm sales in your circulars amount to succumbing to political pressure in our current environment, as a detailed look at previous circulars would show no such omissions for any such length of time, to my knowledge. This makes Academy, either in fear of public backlash or complicit association, an integral part of a public campaign to marginalize firearms in general.

I understand that you have every right to not see it this way, and that your company’s public relations representatives can offer various, yet thoroughly less convincing, criteria for these omissions beyond the conclusion at which I have arrived. And I also understand that the loss of my business, and that of my friends who value and share my opinion, will not alter your chosen agenda. But suffice it to say that my son, now three years old and for whom I will be purchasing his first fishing pole and tackle this year, will be selecting these milestone possessions elsewhere if my concerns are not reasonably addressed.

As stated before, thank you for reading my concerns. I will end my correspondence in asking that you address them, as ending my time as an Academy customer is not something that I do happily, but something I will do as a matter of personal conviction if my concerns are not assuaged.

With the deepest sincerity,

William Sullivan

NY Times on Tebow: An Atheist's Amazing Analysis

2012-12-18T22:44:00.001-08:00

In an article published at American Thinker last year, I argue that there was a certain magic in Tim Tebow's 2011 NFL performance. From a broad political perspective, I argue, "He is a personification of the traditional American belief that if people work hard, believe in themselves, and have the humility to believe in something greater than they are, they can exceed what the collective believes them to be capable of. That the impossible can become possible, even if only for a short while."

In short, a miracle. But not the kind of miracle that only Christians can relate to -- not the kind that specifically require that you imagine it is the result of God's touch. It is something innate in human nature, an indescribable component of humanity that we desire such outcomes, and revel in watching events unfold. I believe that people want to see miracles, as a world where such things can happen is a beautiful world. An interesting world.

But then, I am Christian, albeit of the less devout persuasion. Stephen Marchie of the New York Times, an atheist, approaches miracles from a different angle. Though he admits that he was captivated by Tebow's incredible 7-4 record last year and the unexpected success, he describes that he was relieved to see Tebow fail against the Patriots in the playoffs. "My stomach began to relax," he writes. The material world made sense. The Patriots won. The problem of joy was momentarily solved."

This is amazing perspective. Where Christians generally want to see miracles, and find them to be an affirmation of their worldview, some atheists, like Marchie, find miracles to be a repudiation of their worldview, and their natural inclination is to be more comfortable in the thought that miracles just don't happen. Nonetheless, he admits that he, too, relishes these unexplained miracles, these gut-wrenching moments of joy -- like the one he relates in the article, in which his friend's 3 year old daughter tumbled down a stairwell in inexplicable, perhaps even miraculous, safety.

He explains that when he discovered she was unhurt, he "kept randomly repeating, “That was a miracle.” It was the only phrase I could come up with. I didn’t know how to deal with inexplicable good fortune. Even after my friends returned to New York, the strange constriction in my chest persisted.

He goes on:

Christians famously have the problem of pain: how can a benevolent and omnipotent god permit evil to exist? But atheists like myself have our own paradox to contend with: the problem of joy. Why do randomly good things happen? In Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory,” a priest gives the explicit defense of their reality to his Red Shirt captor: “Can’t you see the doctors round the dead man? He isn’t breathing anymore, his pulse has stopped, his heart’s not beating: he’s dead. Then somebody gives him back his life, and they all — what’s the expression? — reserve their opinion. They won’t say it’s a miracle, because that’s a word they don’t like.” C. S. Lewis described his conversion to Christianity as a process of being “surprised by joy.”

Emmy was my confounding miracle, my joyful surprise. How had she survived without a single scrape? It didn’t make sense, and I couldn’t make it make sense.

The article (found here) is simply fantastic, and I urge all readers to give a moment to check it out. Personally, my more recent experience with atheists has been that there is an implied arrogance in their opinion, and an immediate rejection of anything religious, often in the form of anger and ridicule. (For example, Richard Dawkins linked my article, a critique of fundamentalist Islam, to his website, where the mere possibility that I might be a Christian was enough for many readers and commenters to write off my opinion that they might otherwise agree with -- if I were an atheist and anti-religion)

This seems to me a respectful analysis, written with a certain humility, deep introspection, and impressive craft.

And furthermore, I agree with his conclusion. The Jets should let Tebow play.

William Sullivan

America Shows Union Thugs in Lansing the True Meaning of "Solidarity"

2012-12-13T14:12:00.001-08:00

This, friends, warms the heart and musters hope.

Clint Tarver, well known in the Lansing area as “The Hot Dog Guy,” had his hot dog cart- the source of his livelihood- destroyed by frothing-at-the-mouth, stark-raving-mad union thugs who launched a bitter protest in opposition to state legislature measures to implement a “right to work” policy for Michigan workers.

What these protesters seem most opposed to is the fact that a”right to work” policy will give workers the option to not take part in a union, not pay dues, and not have their money fill Democratic politicians’ war chests. This will significantly hamstring the unions’ advantage in negotiating workers’ wages and benefits with the taxpayers who pay for them. And I use the word “negotiating” loosely. In this regard, “negotiation” is more akin to Don Corleone “negotiating” a job for his nephew Johnny Fontane.

How'd He Do That?

Democrat leaders and union bosses understand the danger this portends, so they are warning of “civil war” and “blood in the streets” of Michigan if the unions are not appeased. Likely, that’s why union thugs took to the streets like a gaggle of old, fat Mafioso thugs and raised hell, punching those that disagree with them and destroying a man’s hot dog cart because they arbitrarily judged him to have been part of anti-union efforts.

The extent to which unions should be able to influence public policy is a conversation we need to have, but union thuggery makes that pretty difficult. The most aggravating thing, for me, is that unions accuse their opposition of being in the wrong, when they are patently guilty of extortion, intimidation, assault, and in some cases, like AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka, curiously implicated with a non-union agitator being shot in the back of the head.

But amidst all this, there is hope. Lorilea Susanne has created a webpage to help Mr. Tarver replace his hot dog stand that the union drones destroyed. As she’s made perfectly clear, it is not political for her. It is just an effort to show solidarity to support a good, hard working man who was clearly wronged. And America responded in spades. The initial goal was to raise $2,000. In just a day, the webpage accumulated over $28,000, and has already linked the funds to Mr. Tarver’s account. (You may donate here, if you please)

To me, there could not be more a more stark contrast to union “solidarity” on display in Lansing. Americans don’t identify with Mr. Tarver because he is a member of their club and agree with their politics. I don’t know his political affiliation, nor do I care. But as is my right, I will offer my rather political opinion on why he has garnered so much support from Americans everywhere.

It is because he is an industrious entrepreneur, and he adds value to his community by doing a good job that warrants voluntary, repeated business. He does not demand that his community pay a specific price for his hot dogs, and then become violent when they counteroffer with a lower price. This is precisely why he is worthy of admiration, and precisely why union goons like those in Lansing are not.

Furthermore, by all accounts, he is a good man. His reaction to the incident, as recorded on the Dana Loesch radio show, is evidence of that. Honest. As understanding as could be expected. And most of all, civil.

Thank you, Mr. Tarver. Thank you for showing America the yin to the yang of union thuggery. And may you and your family have a Merry Christmas.

This post authored by William Sullivan, first published at Red Pill Report, found here.

Romney's Biggest Mistake

2012-11-07T13:15:00.002-08:00

By 10 pm on November 6, 2012 it was becoming painfully obvious to conservatives that the election was, for all intents and purposes, over and Barack Obama would be serving a second term as President of the United States. Everyone playing Monday morning quarterback will tell you that Mitt Romney made mistakes. What these mistakes were is already a heated topic of discussion by people on both sides of the aisle. Some will say Mitt went too soft, while others will say he just could not make that connection with the lower and middle classes. As all the election data comes together, it is obvious that Mitt Romney did make one huge mistake that far overshadows any other. That mistake was believing in the American people.

Mitt Romney believed the American people were smart. He honestly believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that a president that has had his way for four years was still somehow campaigning on what he would do if given the chance. He believed that the American people were smart enough to realize that the slight upticks in the economy were not because of Obama's regulations and fiscal policies but in spite of them. He didn’t feel that he had to present this to the American people in a harsh, mud slinging, negative way. Instead his approach was based more on presenting a better alternative, a better America. He did this in a no-nonsense and yet never condescending way. Polls consistently show that people overwhelmingly disdain negative attack ads when asked face to face. Romney took them at their word, and unfortunately the actual results of many a political race have proved negative ads have quite a different effect when a person is behind the voting curtain. This race was no different.

Romney also believed that the American people, as a whole, are not satisfied being subsidized by the government. He believed that 16 million more people on food stamps is a horrible statistic that should outrage Americans. He never believed in stripping away the helping hand but instead instituting a plan where people would get themselves back to work. He believed that Americans would jump at the opportunity to have a life where the sky is the limit, not one where you are capped by a welfare check. A nation where people are constantly striving to improve their lot in life so that next year has the possibility of being better than the last, not because the government gives you a slightly larger handout, but because the government no longer impedes or punishes your success.

Mitt Romney truly believed in the American people. Today it is obvious he was mistaken.

Calvin Parker
@murph_clp on Twitter

Vikings Punter Chris Kluwe and Same-Sex Marriage

2012-09-21T15:35:00.000-07:00

(Warning: Language)
According to Deadspin.com:

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

Hold it right there, you arrogant schmuck. I can't stand when people flex their grammatical skills and lexicon as if that somehows lends added weight to their argument. So at this point of Kluwe's letter, you know that what follows is going to be a garbled mess of purposefully pompous verbiage that the author uses to express how much smarter he is than you. But let's read on:

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain...

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

All fine and good, Chris. You spoke your mind, flexed your lexicon and all that, so I imagine you feel pretty good about yourself. But it doesn't change the fact that in your "personal quibble," you falsely assume that gay marriage opposition is about hate and bigotry. So for all the philosophical prowess and wit you tried to exhibit in this letter, it could have just as well been, "Dear Representative. You're a dickhead homophobe. Fuck off. Sincerely, Chris Kluwe"

No, he should not have admonished Ayanbadejo for speaking his opinion. Being a fan of this "freedom" thing America touts, I will never be against your right to express your opinion. You and he are for gay marriage. Fine. Dandy. I'm not, and have legitimate reasons for it, and in publication I've laid out Constitutionally viable reasons why the federal government has no right to legislate on the matter of gay marriage. (Ex: [www.americanthinker.com]) But despite my legal and reasonable opposition to it, I'm sure you'll assume that I'm some homophobic hatemonger bent on suppressing freedom.

It'd be one thing if you were simply expressing your opinion that gay marriage should be legal in Minnesota- it's another that you say anyone who disagrees with you is a hate-filled asshole and their desires should be suppressed in favor of your cultural opinion that is in no way representative of the majority of Americans. If, you know, popular state voting on the issue, i.e., quantifiable data, is important to you.

You've obviously read a book or two, so I shouldn't need to tell you that legislating gay marriage in spite of broad opposition to it would rightfully be called "fascism."

I hope that you will read this, and that, in some small way, you can comprehend the silliness in your assumption that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. As I have written, the issue is not about hate or homophobia. The real issue "is that Americans have a problem accepting a political mandate that they must fall in line with a cultural agenda that they, for the most part, disagree with. And that, in a land of liberty, should be entirely reasonable."

Regards,
William Sullivan

P.S. You're no Jackie Robinson, guy. You're a Rosie O'Donnell that happens to be able to kick a football.

A Sad Day for Free Speech

2012-09-15T08:44:00.000-07:00

I'm sickened this morning. I awoke to news that the filmmaker, whose "film" was nothing more than a straw man in the calculated attacks made by Islamists in the past days, had been confiscated by the government for "questioning."

Regardless of where your politics lie, there are certain things that are constant, and beyond any negotiation. Among those things is our natural right to free expression, which, if stripped or limited, is an act of tyranny. No more, no less. If we allow this, we cease to be America. Our contract we made with our government becomes null and void, as we, the people, who drew the terms of that contract, will have been wronged.

As I said, this is not negotiable. You can think it's a great thing that the filmmaker was arrested. Hell, the majority of Americans can think it's a good thing. But I will not accept mob rule in my country. The freedom to follow the mob or buck its will is my birthright, and it will not be taken from me, and I'll fight to see that it is not taken from you. And I will not apologize for being blessed to live in a nation where I am free to express a faith in God, a faith in government, or a faith in nothing with equal zeal.

Nothing can capture the absurdity of what we are witnessing. But Mark Steyn comes as close as can be hoped for here:

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.

The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.

Read it all here.

Bill Maher Outclassed and Outmatched by Dinesh D'Souza

2012-09-08T09:04:00.000-07:00

A week ago, Dinesh D'Souza met Bill Maher on his home turf of “Real Time with Bill Maher” for a debate. Apparently, Bill Maher hasn't shared much talk time with Dinesh D'Souza in the last ten years, and given the outcome of this interview, it's not hard to imagine why. By no small measure, D’Souza destroys Maher in terms of substance and class.

Of course, Maher is a little too smug to realize that he looks as foolish as he does. Emboldened by his audience's loud encouragement that can only be likened to the zeal of a blind religious following, he never loses that trademark "I'm the smartest guy on the planet" look of self-satisfaction.

Maher’s problems occur when his comments are appraised by someone unencumbered by a zealot's devotion to the idea that Maher is as smart as he thinks he is. Because when viewed through a more logical lens, it becomes clear that he is fabulously wrong in nearly everything he says.

This article on the website Reading the Score points out much of this, including:

It really is a marvel to witness. Every time D’Souza was allowed to speak he completely refuted Maher’s points. D’Souza didn’t seem even slightly threatened by Maher’s trite points.

Maher makes several embarrassing comments when he was trying to refute D’Souza’s points, such as “the whole thing was a republican plan” referring to the health care bill. This is a comment that would get him laughed out of the room with even a moderate audience. And when D’Souza makes points that any rational audience would see as fair, Maher can just dismiss it by insulting D’Souza, and his audience will back him up.

Throughout the interview, Maher makes it clear that ideology drives his thought process, not facts. Among many other falsehoods Maher cites as evidence for his beliefs, the most glaring is perhaps seen when he defends Barack Obama's stimulus efforts that have yielded what is, in the most positive way of describing it, and extremely flaccid economic recovery.

Maher suggests that resorting to taxpayer-funded stimulus to combat economic recessions is just natural- as if Obama didn't have any other choice but to seek tax increases and massive spending on social programs. This is, of course, the great Keynesian lie that the left hopes can be uttered often enough to make it truth. However, it is unequivocally false, and to believe it requires an insane disregard for historical evidence.

Ronald Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's horrible economy and “chronic deficits,” and yet he reacted with the Economic Recovery Tax Act, signed into law his first year in office, which was “the largest tax cut in American history.” And the tax cut was indiscriminate- 25% across the board. The result is either something unknown to Maher, or something he just ignores. Tax revenues increased under Reagan from an annual $599 billion to $1 trillion. After the bulk of the tax cuts were implemented in 1983, there were significant spikes in GDP. By 1984, Reagan was able to explain to the American people how his tax cuts had put Americans on the right track, and America agreed. Inversely, Obama’s speech at the DNC did not mention the words stimulus, ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act- not even once. While stumping for his second term, Reagan was able to convey that “the best “stimulus” relies on the tried-and-true American way: Letting free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.” Why then, is Obama finding it so difficult to reference how his platform of tax hikes and taxpayer-funded stimulus is the right path for America?

Because there is no proof in the pudding, and because that is not the “tried-and-true” American way- it is the way of Euro-socialism that we are currently watching collapse under the weight of the concept of an entitlement state.

Given time, and given D’Souza’s intimate acquaintance with Ronald Reagan’s presidency, I imagine he could have enlightened Maher of these facts. But instead, Maher quickly changed the subject and resorted to childish attacks. He brings up a scenario from years ago that has apparently been festering, when D’Souza shared time on a panel with Maher. D’Souza made comment on September 17^th, 2001, that the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were not cowards. Maher agreed, and added that we, Americans, are the cowards for lobbing missiles from thousands of miles away. Maher rightfully received backlash from our military and patriotic Americans everywhere and was fired from ABC, but he was a little miffed that D’Souza didn’t shoulder some of the responsibility for the comment. D’Souza simply reminds him that he said that the terrorists were not cowards, but he never said that the American military were cowards. Maher cannot grasp that distinction, and in his confusion, he says that D’Souza escaped the media’s ire at the time because he was a nobody, and Bill Maher was somebody.

This display of elitism is a wonderful conclusion to the interview. Here, a comedian who fancies himself a great political thinker is captured deriding a Dartmouth alumnus, a proven intellectual, a bestselling author, and the mind responsible for this year’s underdog political smash, 2016: Obama’s America. And maybe that’s what Maher’s really miffed about. D’Souza’s film has already crushed Maher’s own political documentary, Religulous, and is already one of the most successful political documentaries of all time, poised to surpass even Al Gore’s popular documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

But if that is Maher’s beef, he’s got a long list of grudges. For example, Kirk Cameron (who I’m sure Maher would suggest is of lower cultural esteem) made a low-budget, widely panned Christian film called Fireproof- it also trounced Religulous at the box office. Next time Maher wants to flex his intellectual chops and impugn a fellow filmmaker for his more successful film, perhaps he might do better to invite him on the show.

William Sullivan

DNC Pushes All-In on American Serfdom

2012-09-06T22:17:00.001-07:00

A few months ago, Democrats unveiled their promise to America when they revealed the “Life of Julia” storybook ad, depicting a woman who enjoys cradle-to-grave assistance from the government. Implied in this, of course, is that without government, Americans are vulnerable to the harsh realities of life. The message is that you can’t do it on your own, and you need the government’s help.

Barack Obama doubled down on that message in July, telling an audience, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The implication is even less vague here. Barack Obama suggests that even if you think you can do it on your own and have seemingly proven that fact, not only do you need government’s help, but the government has already helped you and you couldn’t have done it on your own.

This week, with the unveiling of their DNC video, Democrats gave Americans this message again in the clearest terms imaginable. Not only can you not do it without the government, and not only has the government already helped you even if you think it hasn’t, but “the government is the only thing we all belong to.”

“Belong.” This implies possession. There is no ambiguity here. The Democratic message is that “we the people” are possessions of the government, and are beholden to see to its success as a collective machine.

There is nothing- I repeat, nothing- that is more antithetical to American values than this gross assumption of ownership by a government. Our founders believed, above all things, that we “belong” to our Creator alone, who has granted us inalienable individual rights, and that a government’s only reasonable function is to protect those rights. Among these is the fundamental right to individual property ownership, a concept which cannot exist in a social contract that includes our servitude to a government that can take away one’s property, absent his consent, for the purpose of providing that property to someone else. Our freedom, our birthright-- established by God, nurtured by America’s founders, and protected by brave men and women-- will cease to exist.

It is such a fitting juxtaposition to set the DNC’s message of our “belonging” to the government alongside Clint Eastwood’s message last week at the RNC, when he said to his audience, also in the clearest of terms, that “you, we-- we own this country.” This polar dichotomy is the single best representation of the fundamental choice that lies before us in November. Do you believe that you belong to the government, or do you believe that the government belongs to you?

And do you feel the need to elect a savior, or do you feel the need to elect someone who will protect your ability to save yourself?

It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

William Sullivan

This commentary first appeared in American Thinker, found here.

The GOP Problem That Akin Has Exposed

2012-08-24T13:19:00.000-07:00

Whether or not Akin should heed the calls to step down because of his “legitimate rape” comment, I don’t know. His gaffe has been costly for Romney's support in the state, according to a new poll. And he has scheduled a press conference this afternoon, so maybe he will announce his withdrawal, or just dig in.

Maybe he should withdraw, but that signals a very disturbing reality. It shows that conservatives are truly impotent in terms of information relay to the public, unable to counter a calculated and false social assault by the leftist media. It shows that conservatives are incapable of conveying reality to Americans, even though that reality is painfully obvious.

Disarmed by an uncomfortable series of questions, Akin cited “legitimate rape” when he clearly meant to reference “forcible rape,” a legally viable distinction referring to the violent, physical act of rape that one commonly thinks of when the word “rape” is uttered. This is different than, say, statutory rape, in which a twenty year old might engage in consensual sex with a sixteen year old, which is why a legal distinction exists between the two. Akin’s purpose was to convey that in situations of forcible rape when a woman is in peril, the stress can cause female reproductive functions to be compromised.

Sure, this is silly support to reach his thrust- that in instances of rape, the “punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” And politically, this hardlined stance is a topic he should be avoiding in an election anyway, given that most Americans agree that abortions should be available to rape victims. But it was simply a gaffe, and nothing more. It does not signal that he is pro-rape or insensitive to women, as some of the more wild accusations suggest.

But conservatives seem helpless to convey that fact, and have chosen to cannibalize one of their own- not because he is as extreme as the left says he is, but because the left says he's as extreme as they want him to be portrayed, and conservatives lack the means to direct the conversation otherwise.

And that is sad.

William Sullivan

Crumb and Get It, a VA Bakery, Tells Joe Biden to Know His Roll

2012-08-16T07:23:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden, while on his way to a campaign rally in Blacksberg, VA, decided to stop off in the town of Radford. According to the Daily Caller:

Chris McMurray, the founder and owner of “Crumb and Get it” in Radford, turned away the vice president’s advance team when they approached him about using his establishment as a stop on the way to a campaign rally in Blacksburg, Va., WDBJ7 reports.

“This is an opportunity of a lifetime but essentially I said ‘No offense to you or the campaign but I just decline you guys coming in here. At that time she said ‘Are you sure? There’s going to be a lot of press, a lot of activity,’” McMurray told the local station.

And why did he refuse his services to this particular government official who wanted to use his business as a photo-op to be seen rubbing elbows with hard-working Americans? The report goes on:

According to McMurray, his decision stemmed from the president’s Roanoke, Va. speech in which Obama stressed that entrepreneurs owed others for their successes.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help,” Obama said last month. “There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Murray reportedly did not want to be part of the administration’s photo op. “Very simply, ‘you didn’t build that’” McMurray said, explaining his reasoning. “Speaking of small businesses and entrepreneurs all across this country, and actually last night my wife was up all night. No sleep, she’s worked a full 24 hours.”

Hard work. Ambition. And above all, values. Rather than thanking Joe Biden for helping him create a business, Chris McMurray chose instead to remind Joe Biden that these are still the things that America is all about.

Jonah Goldberg Finds the Losers Under ObamaCare

2012-07-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

In his recent article, Jonah Goldberg indentifies the losers under ObamaCare, a task that the legislation's supporters seem to have difficulty in achieving:

For the record, there are losers under Obamacare. Here's a short list: (1) taxpayers who will carry the load of what the Congressional Budget Office says will be a $2 trillion price tag when the law is fully implemented; (2) the millions of workers the CBO says will be pushed off their current insurance coverage, even though the president insists you can keep your existing insurance if you like it; (3) innumerable and unknowable numbers of sick people who will not be screened for various diseases because some bureaucrats' protocol says it's too expensive; (4) Roman Catholic and other religious institutions forced to violate their values; (5) a few million so-called freeloaders who don't want to buy health insurance for perfectly rational reasons.

[...]

Only a third of Americans fully supported the law when it was signed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll, and today that number stands essentially unchanged. In fairness, a fifth of the law's opponents are left-wing voters who would prefer a single-payer system that doesn't involve incestuous collusion between government and big business. I don't support socialized medicine, but I can respect this sort of principled objection.

But why is the only legitimate opposition to the law one that creates "losers" in some actuarial or accounting sense? Even if I thought we could afford a vast new entitlement, I'd still be opposed to Obamacare.

Whether it's called a tax or a mandate, the federal government has never opted to compel citizens to purchase something as a condition of breathing while American. Obamacare represents a major advance for the old FDR vision of turning sovereign citizens into clients of the state. It empowers an army of Bloombergs to do what they think is for your own good and to redefine your rights as mere perks of the system.

The only thing I might disagree with here is his contention that "the federal government has never opted to compel citizens to purchase something as a condition of breathing while American." To believe that, you'd have to believe that buying disability insurance or a deferred annuity for retirement is "not purchasing something." Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Roberts' decision is that it solidifies the leftist belief that a mandate to purchase anything can be found constitutional by labeling them "taxes," as progressives past have done with Social Security's insurance mandate. And forcing Americans to purchase insurance is as unconstitutional today as it was in the '30s. But the analysis is spot-on otherwise, and the rest can be read here.

William Sullivan

Happy Father's Day to all... Single Mothers??

2012-06-17T18:07:00.000-07:00

The above picture, and others expressing a similar message, have been making their way around the social media this Father's Day.

It is a travesty to suggest that single mothers can fulfill the role of a father, and that they should be celebrated as fathers on Father's Day. It cheapens the sacrifices fathers make for their families, and it cheapens the overall role of fathers in family units and society- and fathers are essential in the well-being of both.

It is a bit sad. Has our society become such that we must make efforts to explain the simple truth that "single mothers are not fathers" and should therefore not be included in our culture's celebration of fathers? Apparently so. And doing just that is David L. Pipkin, fellow Houstonian and author whose work can be found here at Examiner.com. He manages to capture and expose the absurdity of all this in a Father's Day Facebook post. Enjoy, and Happy Father's Day!

I don't consider myself to be one who offends easily, but this is offensive. This is thinking that has caused a great deal of harm in our society and in our country. Too many single mothers make more of their status than what is due. No matter how great you think you are, you cannot replace a father. Messages like this cheapen the value of single moms who really are having to pull double-duty because of a father lost at war or some other untimely death; fathers who truly cannot be there for their children. Too many single moms try to make themselves out to be heroes after divorcing the father of their child because marriage was more difficult than what they had anticipated. Many mothers use that title to become barriers between their children and their fathers. Going through my divorce, I learned that more than 75% of the divorce cases are filed by the wife, and the overwhelming majority of those cases are petitions based on "irreconcilable differences," which basically means, "Oops." The "no-fault divorce" has destroyed the lives of too many children. Other single moms lay claim to hero status because they were careless in their sexual lifestyle and were then surprised when the guy with whom they were shacking up decided he did not want to raise a child. Is it difficult? Sure. Was it foreseeable and preventable? Absolutely. You reap what you sow, but you are not a hero merely because you are a single mom, and you certainly are not pulling "double-duty." The truth is that, rather than fulfilling both roles, too many single moms have deprived their child of a father, and in so doing they have also weakened themselves as mothers. Do some research - look at the disproportionate number of children who fall into alcoholism/drug-abuse, teen pregnancy, drop out of school and ultimately end up dead or in prison who were raised by single mothers. Sure, many men have sired children, but they are no-shows as dads. Father's Day is not to honor them. That is what today is - Father's Day. Mother's Day was in May. This is to celebrate the Dads who are fulfilling or have fulfilled their roles as fathers. If you're a single mother, regardless of how you arrived at that status, I appreciate your passion and your efforts. That said, you have no right to use Father's Day to bolster your delusions of grandeur. You can certainly be a great mother, but you will never, ever replace a father. To all the real Dads out there, HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!

DNC Fuhrer Hitler Upset About Unions' Loss In Wisconsin

2012-06-13T20:14:00.001-07:00

We've all seen (and likely have become tired of) the running internet meme of users creating augmented videos of Adolf Hitler- flawlessly portrayed by Bruno Ganz in the historical drama Downfall- ranting about various news items, at one time enraged about a Dallas Cowboys' playoff loss the New York Giants, at another upset about Disney's acquisition of Marvel, Inc., and we've even seen him fly off the handle at the news that his parody videos are being taken down from sites like YouTube. Sure, the theme is tired. But this one, meant to capture the DNC's disgust at their labor union generals' inability to deliver a victory in the Wisconsin recall election, manages to refresh the meme's relevance with some sharp observations. Check it out. As I introduced my most recent article published at American Thinker: "Democrats are settling into a hybrid state of denial, anger, and depression in the aftermath of the Wisconsin election, where Scott Walker handed them an historic and embarassing defeat." (Read the article here.) In this video, Hitler captures all three of these emotions nicely.

How MSNBC and Chris Hayes Choose to Remember Our Fallen

2012-05-28T08:56:00.000-07:00

This Memorial Day weekend, we witnessed MSNBC pundit Chris Hayes saying that he's "uncomfortable" calling our fallen soldiers "heroes," and suggests that we call them "something more neutral." That the title of "hero" is "rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war."
His contention is that our society's choice to remember our fallen soldiers as "heroic" is tantamount to warmongering. The first thought that comes to mind is probably how utterly ridiculous that contention is. But when you wade through his elitist condescension toward the sacrifices made by our soldiers- an obvious and lamentable remnant of 60's counterculturalism- you see that these are really nothing more than the words of a depraved creature.

This quote by John Stuart Mill, found below, is a profound observation about war- and as relevant now as it has ever been.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

It is safe to say- Chris Hayes and his ilk embody the "ugliest of things" that Mill spoke of, disguised as intellectualism and compassion. This Memorial Day, may God keep our fallen heroes, and may God continue to bless America.

William Sullivan

Quanell X Should Be Prosecuted

2012-05-18T06:17:00.000-07:00

We must recognize, once and for all, that Quanell X’s grandiose street confrontation acts that stoke fear and racial tension are nothing more than a malignant contribution to the public discourse. Because now, he has become more than just the boisterous farce that Houstonians have come to know- his latest comments and actions are cause for prosecution.

To be honest, vast numbers of people are already well-aware that Quanell’s rhetoric is not to be taken seriously. There is perhaps no better example of why than his demand that Nike and Michael Jordan lower the prices of Air Jordan sneakers last Christmas. This one incident explains quite a lot. First and foremost, it shows that he lacks even a grade-schooler’s comprehension of pricing, or the supply and demand that dictates it. Secondly, his making demands to a legendary sports figure and a globally successful business shows the insane level of egotism he harbors. But most importantly, it shows that he is so blinded by the belief that the black community is the perpetual victim of society that he cannot even come close to a proper assessment of blame. It’s not the black community’s fault that its members are committing violence to attain these sneakers, as a sensible person might clearly understand it to be. No, it’s the fact that the shoes are so damn expensive. And Nike and Michael Jordan must be held accountable, despite their obvious innocence.

But for the most part, up to this point, it has just been words. Stupid, stupid words. But in the aftermath of a verdict of “not guilty” in the trial of HPD officer Andrew Blomberg, his choices and his words have a much more dangerous effect.

Mayor Annise Parker issued a stern warning to Quanell and local news outlets to not release the surveillance footage of Chad Holley being forcefully arrested by HPD officers. She, as any reasonable person might, understands that the footage is better suited to be appraised in the court of law rather than in the court of public opinion that is apt to make premature and emotional decisions. But Quanell, unequipped with reason, has chosen to release the footage, and has thereby created an environment of racial tension that is potentially explosive.

And that wasn’t enough. Quanell then sought to spark that explosion.

When asked how he would view riots or violence in the wake of this verdict, he replied, “Whatever the community response is, I believe it’s appropriate.” He is an influential public figure, and he has advocated violence as civil disobedience that he would condone. Effectively, he is calling for riots. This is a crime that compromises the safety of Houston’s citizens and businesses.

To put the nature of this comment in context, imagine that its equivalent left the mouth of local radio personality Michael Berry, who is routinely lambasted for virulent and vitriolic rhetoric. Imagine that he advocated violence against the Occupy Houston protestors that have defiled our public grounds and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Would the outcry against the use of his influence to incite violence be so deafeningly silent? Absolutely not- he would be the subject of scorn and campaigns to prosecute him.

What is the difference? Why is there an underlying cultural acceptance of calls to violence when it is believed that it can be attributed to black persecution and the subsequent rage? We witnessed this travesty in the public indifference to the violent rhetoric of the New Black Panthers in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and it is one that we now witness in the public indifference to the incendiary rhetoric of our very own Quanell X.

William Sullivan

More Views of Louis Farrakhan's Evil Mind

2012-04-12T21:23:00.000-07:00

A diseased mind, with a diseased army of zealots in tow. And perhaps most frightening, they are but a small sample of the militant anti-Semitism infecting the globe.

It's All Invasive

2012-03-27T22:09:00.003-07:00

Recently Patricia Kilday Hart wrote an article for the Houston Chronicle in which she compares lawmaker’s reactions in the state of Texas to those in the state of Virginia regarding the use of a trans-vaginal wand in what is commonly called the Sonogram Law. In this article, which of course wasn’t labeled by The Chronicle as an op-ed, she wonders why the Virginia law got so much national attention, while the Texas law received so little. Her furor stems from the use of a 10 inch trans-vaginal wand that would be used to detect the fetus up to 10 (and rarely 12) weeks gestation. In an attempt to kill the legislation in 2011, Texas state rep Carol Alvarado D-Houston, presented the wand during Texas’ last legislative session and described the procedure. The bill still easily passed. Now a couple weeks ago the Doonesbury comic strip began lambasting the Texas law causing the strip to be moved from the comic section into the editorial section by many newspapers. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have also brought the wand into their respective comedy routines, with Colbert using it to make Republican margaritas and Stewart comparing the procedure to rape. The reaction in Virginia, according to Hart, was that the bill was “watered down”, whereas in Texas no changes were made.

So why, may you ask, has the use of the wand to obtain a sonogram prior to an abortion received so much attention and anger from the left? The answer given by Alvarado, Hart and others is that…wait for it…it’s an “intrusive” procedure. Other than medical (chemical) abortions, which can only be performed during the first 49 days of gestation and only account for between 13-17% of US abortions, every method of abortion is an invasive procedure. From suction aspiration where a plastic tube is inserted into the cervix and the suction literally rips the fetus apart, to a suction/D&C where a curette (a thin metal rod with a knife-sharp loop at the end) is inserted into the uterus and is used to dismember the fetus which is then suctioned, to D&E where forceps are inserted into the uterus to forcibly dismember the fetus, abortions are intrusive! And in up to 8% of chemical abortions suction aspiration must still be used. So to recap, it is supposedly asinine to think that a woman going in for an extremely invasive procedure (abortion) should have to undergo a trans-vaginal sonogram first while keeping in mind that the trans-vaginal sonogram only applies to gestation periods up to 10 weeks in most cases.

The article goes on to state that Texas lawmakers did not use the specific term trans-vaginal sonogram in their bill. Which maybe they didn’t, but they also didn’t refer to abortions as trans-vaginal fetus dismemberment and removal procedures which technically they could have.

And it gets better. Some of the responses to this article, as well as the comments from the likes of Stewart, delve further into issue of the sonogram law in general with opponents claiming that doctor-client privacy is being violated. No where in this or similar bills are there provisions to make public the results of the sonogram or the choice the woman makes afterward. It would seem that prior to an abortion that the doctor would have the obligation to divulge all pertinent information about the procedure. After all, doctors thoroughly go over x-rays, CT scans and MRI’s with the patient prior to performing any other medical procedure, why should this be any different?

But somehow the left wants you to believe that this is different because the government should have no place in women’s health affairs, that is of course until the left demands the government to force insurance companies to pay for contraception and other “family planning options”. The lack of logic and continued hypocrisy of the left’s argument would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Calvin Parker

http://www.chron.com/news/kilday-hart/article/Reaction-to-trans-vaginal-sonogram-a-tale-of-2-3422249.php

Before You Say "War On Women" Again...

2012-03-25T18:11:00.006-07:00

To be sure, I'm all for having a discussion about how healthcare should be administrated in this country. Personally, I advocate local and private administration rather than a federal single-payer system, and I think history, evidence, and fiscal reason support my preference. But sure, let's have the conversation about the merits of boths paths, and lawfully implement changes without circumvention of the Constitution. Looking at you, Democrats that support ObamaCare.

But where I take particular issue is when some among the American left argue that the lack of a federal birth-control mandate constitutes a GOP-led "War on Women."

Before using these words in the future (as they have little value beyond being an emotional trigger, anyway), read this amazing and informative article by Robert Fisk. It may offer perspective on some other cultures and ideologies that truly wage war upon women. I will suggest reading it all (full link below), as it is a global epidemic that warrants far more attention than it is given, but for those pressed for time, here is an excerpt that particularly affected me:

"[A] young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honour" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children"."

Now, remember that Rush Limbaugh is known far and wide as a misogynist of the highest order for saying that Sandra Fluke should buy her own birth control and for calling her a slut. Then, think about the fact that events like this are quietly happening every single day in other nations, most often in predominantly fundamentalist Islamic ones, without the slightest mention of condemnation by the American left.

And then, reflect on how incredibly ridiculous this GOP-led "War On Women" nonsense really is.

Found at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html

William Sullivan

** Above image courtesy of Global Post. Hat tip to Dr. M. Zudhi Jasser for providing this article.

Assessing the Racial Hatred at KC's East High

2012-03-07T10:32:00.004-08:00

Selwyn Duke at American Thinker offers a startling and absolutely dreadful glimpse inside this Kansas City school where a white child was doused with gasoline and immolated last week. The two assailants were black, and were reported to have been saying, "That's what you deserve, white boy!"

Selwyn Duke reports, based upon documented interviews:

While this crime is making headlines, Coon [mother of child that was attacked] states that it was merely the horrible culmination of continual racial harassment her son had to endure at East High... I've learned that Coon's son is not alone. Other white students also report a pattern of racial harassment at the high school at the hands of their peers -- and, shockingly, their teachers.

Two of these victims were the twin 14-year-old daughters (first names withheld upon request) of Karin Wildeisen. Ever since their family relocated from Texas, they had endured racial animosity in the Kansas City school system and inappropriate behavior by staff, which included teachers laughing while boys humiliatingly manhandled the girls and a teacher slapping one of them on the backside. But there was far worse to come.

The twins started coming home and talking about the goings-on in an advanced-English class taught by a teacher Wildeisen identifies as Ms. Veda Monday. Wildeisen said that her daughters told her, "There are four white kids in the class; they are being targeted racially"[...]

One day, Monday allegedly showed an explicit film involving portrayals of whites lynching blacks and then, reports ex-Texan Wildeisen, "in front of the class attacked my daughters, telling them that 'everybody from Texas is ignorant rednecks'" and that all white people were "responsible for Jasper because [their] skin is white." This reference is to an atrocity in Jasper, TX, in which three white men murdered a black man in 1998.

This is far from the only example of the staff's propensity to instill racial hatred, and I would definitely suggest reading the whole thing, found here. But what really caught my attention was this bit:

Melissa Coon had been complaining to the school's administration about her son's harassment repeatedly -- only to be ignored and stonewalled -- repeatedly. At one point an administrator told her that her son could have a transfer only to another district school but said that Allen would have "more problems there" and that he should stay at more "racially diverse" East High (which has no more than 20 white students).

This administrator admits, and accepts wholesale, the notion that a white child will be the target of racial hate when surrounded by black students. I'm not saying he agrees that a white child should be the target of racial hate when surrounded by black students. I'm saying that the administrator is confessing that a white student being the target of racial hate when surrounded by black students is a reasonable expectation, and if the child were to become more outnumbered by blacks, he would be in greater danger.

This blows my mind. I went to school in New Caney, TX, among the "ignorant rednecks" this teacher described. We had a very small minority of black students when I attended (the exact number unknown, but less than 10 among 1600 or so students). Not once do I recall any organized racism against any one among them by either students or faculty. The irony, of course, being that we "ignorant rednecks" are far more tolerant than the "English" instructor that teaches her students hate rather than prose.

Yet we have become numb to the indifference by the media and the Department of Justice in reporting and prosecuting cases of black-on-white violence. There is something sinister in America today, and deeper than we want to believe. East High in Kansas City is the proof. There, racial hate is organized among students and faculty and is acceptable classroom material. And the administration even seems keenly aware that the ratio of black to white students is a metric used to set expectations of violence and hate, such that the more white students are outnumbered by blacks, the more likely they can expect such things.

Yet all of this had flown under the radar until two black kids poured gasoline on a white kid and set him on fire.

But sadly, this incident, too, will likely be short-lived in the public discourse. Mr. Eric Holder of the DOJ once said America's refusal to address issues of race makes us "a nation of cowards." You are right, Mr. Holder. And if you choose not to prosecute this case and investigate these incidents, count you among the most cowardly.

William Sullivan