NY Times on Tebow: An Atheist's Amazing Analysis

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"

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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??

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

In Memory of Andrew Breitbart- The World Loses Its Nuclear Newsman

I, like much of America, was shocked and saddened this morning to hear about the passing of Andrew Breitbart at the young age of 43.

Meteoric is perhaps the only way to describe Andrew Breitbart's ascension into conservative prevalence, and the magnitude of his reporting has rocked the very foundation of progressivism. But perhaps what I will remember most of him is his courage in the face of an enemy bent on destroying him.

As a conservative, I have found his fearlessness immeasurably refreshing. He pulled no punches and minced no words in describing the political tactics of the American left. In a world where it had become normal for conservatives everywhere to bite their tongues in reverence to political correctness- in Hollywood, politics, media, schools, and workplaces across America- Andrew Breitbart spoke harshly and openly about the sinister agenda to inject progressive ideological planks into American culture through the media's slanted manipulation of facts.

This, as anyone can imagine, made him a reviled figure to the American left. But when the left spewed venom at him for his efforts, he did not cower- he reveled in it. As Jonah Goldberg notes, and as I know well as a follower of his on Twitter, it was normal for him to retweet the most incendiary attacks he would receive. Of this, Goldberg says, "it was his Wheaties. It's what he had for breakfast."

And his death has not stopped the flow of venom. Just this morning, I read a tweet from a woman,** self-described as a proud "wine-sipping liberal," directed at the deceased Breitbart, that reads: "I hope Satan fucks you in the ass with his flaming cock. Rot in hell!"

Where we all might wince at the unmitigated hate in this comment, there is a part of me that wants to smile. This woman, who would likely claim her ideology is predicated upon intellectualism and tolerance, has, with this crass and insensitive comment, proven to the world that she, like so many "wine-sipping liberals," possesses neither intellect nor tolerance. Social media has given her a length of rope, and she thoroughly hung herself. This was Breitbart's passion- to enjoy the spectacle of progressive self-destruction- and I have no doubt that had Breitbart been able to read the tweet, he would have smiled and happily retweeted it, knowing that it only reinforces his opinion of the left, and further exposes them for what they are.

But there is no escaping what an incredible loss the world, and conservatism in particular, has suffered. In efforts to explain what we are to make of that, I would offer these insightful words from Thomas Lifson of American Thinker, found here:

Breitbart had a zest for political combat. He reveled in being a polarizing figure. He had a genius for getting the goat of the opposition and never apologized for his swashbuckling style of journalism.

In the ancient world, opposing kings preparing for war would send out their champions to engage in single combat, sometimes to decide the outcome of the conflict, more often to indicate which side God was on. Andrew Breitbart was a conservative champion. But instead of riding out to meet a single warrior, he gladly sallied forth - sometimes alone - to combat the entire left. Along the way, he picked up many allies - and made many enemies. Win or lose, it seemed that most of the time, God was indeed on his side.

But if "A man's greatness can be measured by his enemies," so, too can it be judged by his friends. Don't listen to the prattling left today. Simply remember a man, made for his time, unique in his abilities, who left us for a far, far better place.

Rest in peace, Andrew, my friend whom I never met. I wish your family comfort, and offer my undying thanks for what you have given the world.

William Sullivan

** The author of this tweet may be found here, should you wish to offer her a thought.

A Much More Fitting Apology for Quran Burnings in Afghanistan

President Obama recently apologized to President Karzai of Afghanistan for our military, whose soldiers burned copies of the Quran that contained secret messages- messages covertly being passed along between captured Taliban. Granted, it's become natural for us to expect calls to violence and murder when fundamentalist Islamic sects perceive any insult to the prophet or his revelations, and even more natural for this president to lay American honor prostrate before a world only too eager to condemn us.

But this apology is much more fitting, I think.

Who's Raping Who, Occupy? Olbermann and Breitbart Duke It Out

Andrew Breitbart doesn't like the Occupy movement.  Keith Olbermann couldn't love it more. These two just can't get along.

I smell a sitcom!

Breitbart has taken issue with the number of sexual indiscretions (just rapes, mostly) that have taken place at Occupy locations, and according to Keith Olbermann's impressive rant here, he's falsely accusing Occupiers as the perpetrators of said crimes rather than properly focusing on the fact that Occupiers are, in many cases, simply victims of the crimes.

I have to say it- and I rarely do- but I agree with Olbermann here. Breitbart's evidence does seem a tad on the inflated side. Tick a point for Olbermann, who all but lost me a couple of years ago when his best argument to prove allegations of racism in the Tea Party was, "How come there ain't no black faces?" Well done, Keith.

Thing is, it seems that Breitbart is working overtime to discredit Occupy. But please, America, for the love of God, Buddha, the ever-expanding cosmos, whatever you believe in, PLEASE stop assuming that it requires hyperbole or slander to discredit the Occupy movement. These guys are shitting on flags, turning beautiful taxpayer-funded parks into sewers, calling for immediate forgiveness of all debt (c'mon, do us a solid, China!) and saying that having a house- that's right, one of those things your parents saved for years to get- is a human right. These people do not "occupy" reality, and they fail to meet the basic levels of reason required to be a human being.

C'mon Andrew, Keith. Can't we just let bygones be bygones and just say that your little feud is pure partisanship, and just all agree that Occupy discredited itself a long time ago?

William Sullivan

The Politics of Breast Cancer Prevention

A Letter Sent to Susan G. Komen for the Cure:

To Whom It May Concern:


I have donated many times to your organization, and I firmly believe in cancer prevention and research. However, I have recently made the decision to end all donation to your organization until such time that I can be certain that my donations will be used specifically for that purpose, and that no portion of my donations will be used for other purposes, particularly by Planned Parenthood. I will urge others to do the same.

I have a deep disagreement with the practices of Planned Parenthood. It is not a matter of being or pro-life or pro-choice. I ask that you consider that it is not simply pro-life groups and individuals that oppose Susan G. Komen providing funding to Planned Parenthood. The morality of the practice of abortion aside, I believe Planned Parenthood preys on vulnerable and impressionable young women, coaxing them into abortions with the skill of used car salesmen. I have heard firsthand accounts of young, conflicted women being frightened by Planned Parenthood employees about the loss of social freedom a child brings, limited career opportunities, cost of diapers, shoes, etc. This is manipulative and unethical, especially given the nature of the emotional and personal choice each of these young women is facing.

Statistics show that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's revenue generation is created by a business model of selling/providing abortions. The revenue funding this business is not segregated from Planned Parenthood's general account, which is why the group is under federal investigation- accused of using federal dollars from the Treasury to provide for abortions. To demand that all Americans provide, even in the slightest capacity, funding for the controversial practice is unethical, and currently, there is a clear question as to whether it is lawful.

Furthermore, a founding figure of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger. Now, despite the ignorance of your average advocate of Planned Parenthood about this misunderstood figure, I have read much of her work. I know that she advanced the notion of eugenics, supported the sterilization of the racially and genetically "unfit," and the abortion of their children when contraception failed. These are the very ideas that, when put into strict practice, led to the ethnic cleansing of Europe under Nazi Germany. You might be apt to call this hyperbole, as this is all forgotten when one tries to paint Sanger as a "women's rights" figure, but should you feel compelled to do this, I suggest you pick up some copies of her work, and I would challenge anyone to refute the claim. As a women's advocacy group, you should be compelled to educate women about the origins of Planned Parenthood rather than propagating the group for the political benefit it affords you.

That said, I do believe in all Americans' right to donate to Planned Parenthood. Charitable donations are a matter of personal choice. I intend to exercise mine by seeing to it that I do not donate a dime to your organization until you can guarantee donors that funds will be used for specifically the purposes of cancer treatment and prevention.

With the utmost sincerity,

William J. Sullivan II