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