Is it still safe to defend marriage using your real name?

A Facebook friend is in hot water from his left-leaning classmates for a short essay that he wrote defending marriage. It was published in his college newspaper. In it, he makes a case that society has an interest in promoting marriage because the state has an interest in the development of children.

He writes (in part):

Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. It is a private union with a public purpose.

Private in that comprehensive union exemplifies the love of the spouses. Public in that their comprehensive union is intrinsically directed toward a purpose beyond the love of the spouses: children.

The state regulates marriage because it has an interest in children. Marriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. The state incentivizes marriage both because it recognizes child-rearing to be a difficult task and because it wants to encourage men and women to form family units. Not all marriages have children; some are infertile. Nevertheless, all marriages between men and women are still capable of engaging in the kind of unitive act that is intrinsically directed toward children.

The essay is a 500-word version of a longer essay that he posted before.

Scary comments

I wanted to bring this up because if you read some of the comments on his post, you will find that most of them seem to be unable to even understand the case that he was trying to make in his small, short 500-word version of the longer essay. Yet, even though these people could not understand what he was saying, they nevertheless went ahead and insulted him personally, over and over and over again.

Take a look at some of these comments, and ask yourself – are they trying to engage with his arguments? Are they bringing new research to bear on the problem? Or are they just offering personal attacks and emotional outbursts?

Look:

The argument in the letter has been debunked time and time again. Ultimately, it implies gay couples aren’t human. At the very least, it implies that gay people aren’t already parents, which is false. I’m absolutely disgusted at your discretion in publishing this trash. You have stooped to an unbelievable low this time. As a side note, I’m embarrassed for [the academic department you belong to].

If it’s been debunked so many times, then we can’t he explain what’s wrong with it instead of becoming insulting?

Here’s another from that same person, right after the first one:

You don’t like gay people. How original. As a side note, I did offer arguments against the ridiculous fallacies in logic that you presented. But it’s not like you’re here to have a discussion. I’m sure you’ve made up your mind re: profile pictures and such.

Um, he never did post any arguments. He just posted about his feelings “disgusted” “embarassed”. That’s not an argument.

And here’s the same person again:

Your article is an insult to anyone who’s LGBT– yes, even your “friends.” It’s an affront to humanity. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger for an obliteration of your argument. I can’t even bother when the facts are all there in Supreme Court records for your easy consumption.

And the funny thing is – people keep clicking like on his comments. Why is that? Why do they think that he has said anything of value?

My advice

And here is the point I want to make about this. I do not recommend to people, and especially to students, that you write about social issues under your real name. I also recommend that even if you use an alias, that you do not make it widely known what your real name is to people who you meet casually online. You do not want to be in a situation where someone can just do a web search for your name before a job interview or a school admission. People who are on the left on these issues are not exposed to other points of view, so they do not tolerate other points of view. Often, they are coming from a position where they already have made lifestyle choices (I mean straight people, too) where they cannot allow themselves to consider the possibility that they would have to regulate their sexuality for the good of children or society.

Filed under: News, Alias, Censor, Censorship, Coercion, Gay Activists, Gay Marriage, Insults, Intolerance, Marriage, Personal Attacks, Same-Sex Marriage, Tolerance, Vandalism

Pro-life conservative shouted down by pro-abortion thugs at University of Waterloo

WARNING: Video contains very vulgar pro-abortion language. 

From the National Post. (H/T Blazing Cat Fur)

Full text:

The University of Waterloo is investigating after an anti-abortion Conservative MP was blocked from delivering a lecture Wednesday night by protesters led by a man dressed as a giant vagina.

Ethan Jackson, 21, an art student at nearby Wilfrid Laurier University, said he calls his pink costume Vulveta, and that Stephen Woodworth’s talk about the universality of human rights came from an oppressive western discourse that ignores the rights of indigenous people.

“That kind of speech, that kind of facts, are not acceptable,” he said. “We decided to go by the route of using satire instead of intimidation…. We decided to make Stephen Woodworth feel as uncomfortable as he makes us feel.”

Ellen Rethore, associate vice-president of communications and public affairs, said the disruptive behaviour was “unacceptable,” and that a joint inquiry of the school’s secretariat, police, and student success office was underway.

“Our goal is to ensure an environment of tolerance and uphold the right of individuals to advance their views openly,” she said.

Mr. Woodworth — who gave a third of his talk before a woman in a red dress commandeered the podium to award him a trophy as “Kitchener-Waterloo’s Nastiest Misogynist” — said it is “a mark of extremism to take disrespect of others as a virtue.”

“I couldn’t outshout the shouters. I’m not there to engage in a shouting match,” he said.

After the talk was cancelled and the protesters left, Mr. Woodworth said he was able to stay and have a discussion with a few people.

He was speaking about the section of Canada’s Criminal Code that, in the context of defining homicide, says a child “becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”

His legislative effort to have Parliament study the definition of “human being” failed in a House of Commons vote last year, despite support from eight cabinet ministers, including Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. It cannot be revived in this Parliament.

Listen to the hate and intolerance from those brainwashed leftists in that video. This is why it’s important to have an alias when writing online, because these students are brainwashed by public education to hate those who are different from them, and they are only too happy to use violence and intimidation against anyone who disagrees with them. Many of these students are probably growing up in broken homes where they are never exposed to fathers and the relationship between husband and wife. Fatherlessness is a serious social problem.

Fascism is and always has been a phenomena of the political left. Mussolini was a socialist, Hitler was a socialist, Stalin was a socialist, Mao was a socialist, and so on. To be a socialist is to on the same continuum that leads to totalitarianism and fascism. People on the left do not believe in natural rights like freedom of speech and the right to life. They are nihilists, and anything is permitted on nihilism. If they are willing to kill innocent children in order to escape the consequences of recreational sex, they could do anything. Abortion is the rock-bottom of immorality.

Related posts

• Video of armed police arresting pro-life students at Carleton University
• Carleton University orders peaceful pro-life students arrested
• University of Calgary convicts eight pro-life students
• University of Calgary denies legal counsel to accused accused students
• University of Calgary students face expulsion for pro-life display
• McGill University and University of Calgary censor pro-life students
• University of Ottawa cancels Ann Coulter appearance
• Ann Coulter files hate speech claim against Canadian university
• Canadian student union leader says pro-lifers are all potential murderers
• Lakehead University bans pro-life club
• Pro-life debater shouted down at McGill University
• Pro-life debater shouted down at St. Mary’s University
• Pro-life club at McGill University banned
• University of Calgary uses police to threaten pro-life students(More from Ezra Levant)
• Canadian pro-life student quarantined by public school principal

Filed under: News, Abortion, Campus, Canada, Censor, Censorship, College, Fascism, Indoctrination, Intimidation, Left, Leftism, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Rhetoric, Secularism, Socialism, Stephen Woodworth, University, University of Waterloo

DePaul University punishes pro-life student who was victim of pro-abortion vandals

This is a scary story from Todd Starnes, posted on Townhall.

Excerpt:

The head of a conservative student organization at DePaul University has been sanctioned by the university and could be expelled after he released the names of vandals who destroyed a pro-life flag display.

Kristopher Del Campo, the chairman of the Young Americans for Freedom chapter, was found guilty by the university on two counts – “Disorderly, Violent, Intimidating or Dangerous Behavior to Self or Others” and “Judicial Process Compliance.”

DePaul University did not return calls seeking comment.

Last January Del Campo and other pro-life students received permission from the university to erect a pro-life display featuring 500 flags. Vandals later destroyed the display – stuffing a number of the flags into trash cans.

The university’s public safety department launched an investigation and eventually identified 13 students who confessed to the crime. Those names were then released by the university to Del Campo.

On Feb. 5 the national Young Americans for Freedom organization posted the names of the vandals on their website. The posting generated negative comments directed at the vandals – and the university held Del Campo responsible.

Three days later, Del Campo was informed that he had violated DePaul’s Code of Student Responsibility. He was formally charged ten days later.

“Instead of supporting a student whose free speech rights were violated, DePaul University bullied Kristopher Del Campo for daring to expose the 13 vandals,” said Young America’s Foundation President Ron Robinson. “They put him through a Soviet-style show trial.”

Free speech and conservative groups said they are shocked that the university is punishing the victim of a crime.

[...]Del Campo said he is speaking out because he doesn’t want other conservatives to suffer through the ordeal he’s been subjected to.

“The dean told me not to fight,” he said. “He told me it wasn’t worth it – that I just have 13 weeks left at the university. But I’m going to fight this. This is wrong. This university has a problem with free speech rights and this time they met a challenger who is not backing down.” Kate Edwards, of YAF, said they are demanding that DePaul University drop all charges against Del Campo.

“His free speech rights were completely violated,” she told me. “They intimidated him. They threatened him. They placed a gag order on him.”

Edwards said the university even forbade Del Campo from contacting YAF and was not allowed to have any counsel during his tribunal.

“He couldn’t get a lawyer – he was completely intimidated,” Edwards said.

This story reminds me of Ari Mendelsohn’s book “Bias Incident”. I had to go through this as a student as well. Not only was our Christian club banned, but our pro-life club, too. It’s very important to understand what you are getting before you hand leftists your money. They have no qualms at all about using your money to impose their views on you, and hold you hostage by threatening you with expulsion or grading down.

Filed under: News, Abortion, Censor, Censorship, Conservative, DePaul, DePaul University, Fascism, Leftism, Pro-Life

Journalist Bob Woodward gets e-mail threat from senior person in the White House

That video is from left-leaning CNN.

Here is Newsbusters with the transcript.

Excerpt:

Tonight, Washington Post’s Bob Woodward alleged that because he is sticking to his guns in insisting that sequestration was the brainchild of the Obama White House, that it was personally approved by Obama, and that bringing up tax increases now to try to resolve the current sequestration impasse is “moving the goalposts,” he has been threatened by “a very senior person” in the White House. Woodward said so on CNN’s Situation Room earlier today. What’s even more troubling is that Woodward told two Politico reporters the same thing yesterday, and that they appear to have sat on the revelation until this evening when the CNN interview forced their hand. Relevant portions of the CNN transcript and Politico column follow the jump.

This is from a rush transcript at CNN. Woodward was interviewed by the network’s Wolf Blitzer and Kate Bolduan (I checked the first portion of it against the video; there was no supporting video for the last line quoted below; bolds are mine throughout this post):

BOLDUAN: What do you make of the White House’s response to your article?

WOODWARD: Well, I think they’re confused. I think they’ve got this idea. I mean, they put out these long talking points and said, see, even Woodward’s book reports that Speaker Boehner said, let’s get $600 billion over ten years in revenue in the super committee. That’s exactly right. That’s not the sequester. And they’ve said – they have,as you know, I said, get somebody from the White House here, and we’ll debate.

BLITZER: We invited the White House to send someone here, to debate this issue with you, and they declined.

WOODWARD: Why? Why? Because it’s irrefutable; that’s exactly what happened. I’m not saying this is a moving of the goalposts that was some criminal act or something like that, I’m just saying, that’s –

… BLITZER: You’re used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what’s going on between you and the White House.

WOODWARD: Well, they’re not happy at all, and some people kind of, you know, said, look, we don’t see eye to eye on this. They never really said, though – afterwards, they’ve said that this is factually wrong, and they – and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top –

BLITZER: What was said? Yes.

WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I’m not going to say.

BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter – I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in. And even though we don’t look at it that way, you do look at it that way. And I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication’s strategy – let’s hope it’s not a strategy, but it’s a tactic that somebody’s employed, and said, look, we don’t go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don’t like, that, you know, you’re going to regret this. And just – it’s Mickey Mouse.

… BOLDUAN: That line clearly has touched a nerve with folks at the White House. There’s no question about that.

Why would anyone think that the tactics of this socialist, big-government regime would be any different than other socialist, big-government regimes? They don’t like criticism. They don’t like questions. They don’t like being held accountable.

You can find a list of some of the previous acts of thuggish intimidation against journalists here:

Hey, Bob, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.  We knew this White House was capable of attacking even the great Bob Woodward for telling the truth.

You could have listened to Michael Barone.  He saw it coming even before Barack Obama was elected. In October 2008, he penned “The Coming Obama Thugocracy.”

I experienced it when DOJ press harpy Tracy Schmaler yelled at a half dozen reporters, as the White House official did to you, about my under-oath testimony involving the New Black Panther dismissal.  Her victims included Pete Williams, Quin Hillyer, and Shayrl Attkisson.  After Schmaler’s thug tendencies were well known, she was nurtured and promoted within the Thugocracy instead of being canned as any administration before this one would have done to her — Republican or Democrat.

Schmaler has since been appointed a Made Man of sorts, entering the rarefied private sector air of David Axelrod’s shop.

Schmaler’s story is typical of this gang.  Her shouting, threats, and rants at reporters would have rendered her unqualified to serve in the press shop of a state department of agriculture.

Leftists have always been like this – the sense of moral superiority, and the dismissal of critics as immoral. The thuggishness is natural because they believe that their plans can never fail because of their innate moral superiority. If their plans do fail, (e.g. – high minimum wage produces higher unemployment), it must be because some group of people is undermining them, and those people must be purged. It can never be that their plans are wrong and don’t produce the results they want. They have good intentions, and how could that not produce good results? Leftists are the same everywhere.

Filed under: News, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Bob Woodward, Censor, Censorship, Coercion, Communism, Democrat Party, Fascism, Fifth Estate, Freedom of the Press, Journalism, Journalist, Left, Leftism, Mainstream Media, Marxism, News Media, Newspaper, Persecution, Purge, Socialism, State Coercion, Totalitarianism

Black-listed “2016″ grossed more than all 15 “Best Documentary” Oscar nominees combined

The Daily Caller reports.

Excerpt:

“2016: Obama’s America,” a conservative documentary, raked in more money than all the 15 films being considered for the Best Documentary Academy Award combined. But the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on Monday announced “2016″ won’t even get a shot to win a nomination for the award.

Gerald Molen, the Oscar-winning producer of “Schindler’s List” and “2016,” blames Hollywood’s “bias against anything from a conservative point of view” for the Academy Award snub, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The film, directed by conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, earned $33.4 million nationwide, making it the highest-grossing documentary of the year.

The Independent Journal explains who is responsible.

Excerpt:

The left-wing media keep pretending there is no “gray-list” in Hollywood, but it’s crystal clear that there is a kind of reverse McCarthyism in the ranks of the entertainment elite. D’Souza’s smash-hit biographical film about Barack Obama is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all time, taking backseat only to Michael Moore’s anti-Bush conspiracy film Fahrenheit 9/11. But forget about that being enough to qualify 2016 for nomination at the upcoming Oscars.

Professed communist and multi-millionaire Michael Moore is currently the Academy Award Governor for documentaries, just for a bit of perspective (can anyone imagine a conservative like Dinesh D’Souza in that role?). Since D’Souza’s film is a fact-driven critique of Barack Obama’s past, rather than a herald of the ‘triumphant’ Obama narrative (complete with soaring gospel hymnals), no one expected 2016 to make the Oscar short-list for documentaries. But its erasure from history at the February 26th Oscars will be merely another confirmation of Hollywood’s left-wing bias.

[...]Today’s left-wing bias can easily be seen regarding 2016 by the wide gulf in reviews between the critics and the audience on the popular film review site Rotten Tomatoes. While critics gave 2016a dismal 27% review, the audience mostly enjoyed the film at 75%. This is one of the widest disparities this user has ever seen on the website. By comparison, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was liked by 83% of critics and 69% of audiences; while Al Gore’s discredited Oscar-winning flick An Inconvenient Truth garnered 93% positive critical review to an audience approval clip of 75%.

Had you heard about 2016? I blogged about it several times, and Reformed Seth sent me this interview with Dinesh D’Souza, where you can learn more. He’s being interviewed by Stanley Fish in that interview.

Should you be giving a dime of your money to Hollywood? I almost never go to the movie theater, except to see movies like Expelled, the Great Raid, Bella and 2016. You can purchase a DVD of 2016 from Amazon.com.

Related posts

• Dinesh D’Souza draws inept response from Obama for his 2016 documentary
• 2016 movie reveals some of the radical influences on Barack Obama
• 2016 is the top conservative political documentary of all time
• Looking for a good movie this weekend? Try Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016″

Filed under: News, 2016, Anti-Colonialism, Appeasement, Best Documentary, Bill Ayers, Black List, Blacklist, Censor, Censorship, Colonialism, Communism, Dinesh D'Souza, Disarmament, Equality, Hollywood, Jeremiah Wright, Leftism, Marxism, McCarthyism, Michael Moore, Obama's America, Occupy Wall Street, Oscars, Radical, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialism, Unilateral Disarmament, Wealth Redistribution