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.