<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I am concerned and confused by the long statement that Justin wrote.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I do not know who the "we" represents, just that it does not represent my thinking and others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Reference is made to Dr Mauer and other leadership political positions, were these people contacted or these "manifestos" interviewed or investigated prior to including them in such a grandiose point of view statement?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have learned to keep things simple. Perhaps if the following questions were answered in a sentence or two, I might have some clue.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The NFB should not get involved in a humane effort to improve the quality of a baby's life, due to the resources the U.S. has available because…..<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>How are the efforts to communicate the message of the NFB regarding the mission of individual independence and society's consciousness raising been reduced significantly because of a humane desire to publicize the plight of a baby by involving a dedicated political representative?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>How does brining this situation into an internal NFB controversy benefit anyone in any way?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I applaud and am proud to be associated with Beth Rival's and immediate team's efforts!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>