Dustin Hartl Speaks

I am a conservative college student on a path to becoming a political opinion blogger.


Leave a comment

The Return of Milo Yiannopoulos

The profit, otherwise known as Milo Yiannopoulos, is returning. Yiannopoulos, who was accredited with the discovery of the black hole of free speech known as UC Berkeley, is starting a company called Milo Inc.

Image result for milo yiannopoulos

With a $12 million dollar start up, he is creating a company to recruit conservative writers, comedians, and a variety of other resources to make “progressive lives a ‘living Hell.'” He is starting this business with anonymous donors and partners and it will have to compete against other established organizations such as Breitbart, the Blaze, FOX, and more.

He also announced that his book will be released, even though his book deal was cancelled between him and Simon and Schuster. The activist lost his six figure book deal when a video surfaced of him satirically joking about a sexual misconduct experience of his.

The comments lead to his invitation to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to be revoked by the American Conservative Union. This didn’t stop him though, as he has new ideas of where the conservative movement is going.

“He said that Milo Inc. would be dedicated to ‘making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, and other professional victims a living hell.'”

As a conservative, free speech is often the forefront of my battles. Between the rioting at UC Berkeley and the latest tactics, and antics, by the left, it seems that nothing can be said today without offending one group or another.

Conservatives around the country are hailing Milo for his return to the spotlight. His rise was unprecedented, his success was unseen, and his voice resonated for weeks after he spoke.

With the current state of freedom of speech, it is nice to see that there is going to be another company dedicated to insuring that conservatives, from all backgrounds and paths to success, can find employment and a bright future. I commend Milo for his ability to rebound with, what seems like, not a single scar.

The predators of the left really chased him into a hole, but with the help of other tired conservatives, it seems that hole lifted him out and left behind the fear of falling. I believe that Milo can come back harder, better, and more vocal than ever before, but with a different approach.

He is going to create a new generation of conservatives behind him. If he couldn’t turn conservatives towards his way of thinking, he will create a new ideological brand.

I look forward to seeing what Milo accomplishes in the next few weeks, months and years. For him, there is only one way to go and that is straight to the top.


Leave a comment

Sunday Morning Nightclub Shooting: the solution to gun violence in America

Over the past few years, there has been one report after another of shootings in the United States. Every time one occurs, the President speaks on gun violence and their opinion of how to solve this epidemic.

After the speeches occur, nothing changes. Everyone goes back to their everyday lives, they change their Facebook profile picture back to their regular photos and the world just forgets.

The families of those affected are told that the government is doing everything they can to help ensure that this is resolved and a solution is designed. The problem with this process is that the government has yet to do anything to ensure attacks do not happen again.

There are a million ways to react when an attack is reported, but none thus far have been to prevent it from happening. All the solutions that are brought forth are reactionary and not preventative.

The solution is to prevent attacks before they happen and not panic to find a solution after such attacks happen. When the gunman at Sandy Hook took the lives of children, we watched as then President Obama pleaded with Congress and others to end gun violence.

When the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was attacked, then President Obama promised to help find a solution to gun violence and vowed resources to help the families of the victims. Time and time again, promises are made and no preventative action is taken.

Or, it is that the left’s actions just aren’t working? Is having fewer guns in America the answer or the problem?

I believe that the education of children on the proper uses and operations of guns is more important that a blanket ban on assault weapons or large magazines.

If we are able to teach children how to treat and act when a gun is present, then we can start eliminating one potential shooter at a time. This all starts at home, however.

It is the responsibility of the parent to keep their guns locked away and to teach their children how to properly treat a weapon such as a gun. I, also, believe that we should be arming our teachers/instructors in public high school.

As Sheriff Clarke once said, police can take a bit of time to get somewhere and sometimes it takes too long. There needs to be a sure-fire way that students are protected and that starts with training and arming teachers to respond in emergency situations.

Imagine if the teachers were armed in Sandy Hook, Virgina Tech or Columbine. Would the attackers take as many lives as they did that day?

These are the preventative actions that need to be taken to ensure everyone is protected and safe from foreign and domestic terror. Preventative actions are the most important actions one can take.

Reactive actions dismantle many rights and liberties at we enjoy in America. They are often fueled by anger or with revenge in sight.

To solve gun violence in America, we have to put our best foot forward and accept that not everything that is presented is a good idea. Some of the best ideas are simple, not complex, ideas that are often small changes that can be made to ensure everyone is protected equally and without breaking the Second Amendment.


1 Comment

Abortion is a Man’s Issue, too.

For the last forty years, since Roe v. Wade was upheld by the Supreme Court, abortion has been called a woman’s issue and only a woman’s issue. Men have been told that they have no claim in it and that they should not be allowed to decide what happens to a fetus within a woman’s body.

This is a false narrative perpetuated by third wave feminists that believe that men are inherently unequal to women. Although it is not directly cited as so, the narrative that a process, which men should have no say in, regardless of the fact they contributed to the production and gift of life, is how it should be.

When it comes to pregnancy and the decision to abort a child, men are given unequal roles and are often subject and forced to contribute to the decision of the woman. If the female wants to abort the child, the male has no say just as he would have no say if the female wanted to keep the child and he would be subject to paying child support.

Feminists claim that this is fair, as it is the female body that goes through the pregnancy. The topic that is ignored is that without the male, the female wouldn’t have to make the choice.

By this, I mean, that if the woman did not agree to have sex with the man, she wouldn’t be pregnant (excluding rape and incest). The moment that consent is made, the male should have a 50 percent stake in the outcome, regardless of the fact the female is carrying the child.

If a woman decides that she wants to keep the child, the man (if he is not in agreement) is forced to pay child support. This is not fair as it is the woman who is given the opportunity to make the sole choice that dictates the outcome of the pregnancy.

I have been told stories that revolve around a woman aborting a child when the man wanted to keep it. He is not given a say in the outcome of the consensual act and would have to leave the final outcome to the will of the woman.

This is just one example of how modern-day feminists do not want equality and they do not want men to be equal to women. If men and women were 100 percent equal, then the man would be given an automatic stake in the outcome of the sexual encounter.

Many feminists believe that this would open a gate to rapists forcing women to carry a child to term because they are given a 50 percent stake in the outcome of the sexual encounter. This, however, is a false statement that is often a way for feminists to neglect the facts of consensual sex and ignore the responsibility of their actions.

Growing up in a public high school, we were taught about abstinence. This has fueled my belief that only way to ensure you do not become pregnant is to abstain from sexual activity.

If you can not afford a child then do not engage is sex. My mother used to say “if you play like an adult, you pay like an adult.”

 

 


Leave a comment

Roe v. Wade: Revisited

It has been a little over three decades since the most controversial Supreme Court case was decided. Since then, many other decisions have arisen that offer women an easier path to obtaining abortions.

According to lawyers and professors, an unborn child is called a “fetus,” not a “baby.” According to the dictionary, a fetus is “an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.”

So, an unborn child is a fetus and a fetus is an unborn child. Ergo, aborting a fetus is still murdering a child.

While discussing this in my Constitutional and Civil Rights course, it was stated that the choice is left up to the mother on whether or not to have an abortion and they do not need the consent of the father. This is, once again, ironic.

I call it irony because the father in either situation is being told that although he contributed to creating life, he can not have any input on what happens to it. Thus, if the mother chooses to keep the child and he doesn’t want it, he is still stuck paying child support.

How is it that when there is consensual sex, the father, an equal contributor to the creation of the child is not allowed to have input on the outcome? What if the father wants to keep the child and the mother wants an abortion?

In these cases, the mother is allowed to have an abortion simply because she wants to. There is no need for a reason or explanation, the father is left in the dark and is left to wallow in his despair, while the mother chooses the easy way out of her own decisions.

Abortion is, with exceptions to sexual assault or health risks, the cowards way out of a decision one was not prepared to handle the outcome of. When a child is conceived, the moment the egg and the sperm are intertwined, life is created.

This, of course, would imply that abortion is murder and I’d say that implication is correct. The best way to approach this is to assume one doesn’t know how abortions are done, in which case, below is a diagram depicting one.

de.jpg
As one can see, the child is torn apart and pulled from the womb. Many have said that the child can feel this happening and often try to move away from the instruments trying to tear it apart.

I believe that abortion is wrong, but I know that it is up to the individual to decide what is right for them. That is why I will educate others in the hopes that one day, abortion practices are ended.

Within the coming weeks, I will be writing a post on the history of Planned Parenthood and why we should be creating an alternative healthcare provider for women.


Leave a comment

Re: My Thoughts on Fat Acceptance by Liz Houtz

A fellow blogger wrote a post today on the “fat acceptance movement” and her thoughts on it. It was meant to draw attention to the narrative of false labeling and the fear of expressing concern because of the possibility of being called things like “bigot” or “fat-shamer.”

Growing up as a big guy, I have had my fair share of debates about the fat acceptance movement. These mostly stem from my inability to accept that someone is healthy if they are 600 lbs and unable to walk without an oxygen tank.

I am not a bully and I believe you should do what makes you happy, but at the same time, it is expected that others can find you unattractive or express concern over your habits. In today’s world, we have doctors who are simply afraid to tell someone their health is in danger and they need to lose weight.

Houtz said, “I find it alarming that some people choose to ignore the health risks that obesity causes, and when friends or family tell them they should consider diet and exercise so they can be healthier call it fat shaming.” This concern is one that many doctors, physicians, and therapists have been struggling with and it is one that many fear will cause it to become harder to talk openly with patients.

Houtz also said, “Those are people who care about them telling them that they’re worried about their health. They’re giving them suggestions to make life changes so they can have a healthier, better quality of life. In the end, people have their lives and it’s their choice if they want to be healthy or not. It’s up to them. That’s all I have to say.” This is something that I actually disagree with.

When someone is overweight, they can cause other people’s lives to become harder. How can this be?

For example, you are on a plane and you paid for your ticket, imagine having someone who ought to have bought two seats sitting next to you and they only bought one.

This is a problem that a lot of airlines are facing and they can not address it. They are afraid that bringing this topic to light would cause a panic and an uproar from social justice warriors and those who are apart of the “fat acceptance movement.”

This movement should not be about making others accept who you are,  it should be about taking personal responsibility for your health, body, and environment. If a doctor says to lose weight, you probably should (he is the one with a Ph.D).

When someone says they are concerned about your health, take a serious look at it and think about if this is what you want with your life. This “movement” is not really a movement, it is a plague.

I believe that if you want to change, you can. If I wanted to go on a diet and lose weight, I could, I am taking personal responsibility for my actions, my body, and my environment. Those involved in the movement should be doing the same.

 

8c2

 

 


Leave a comment

The History of the Republican Party

The term ‘bigot’ is synonymous on the left as a way to perpetuate negative stereotypes against the right. These negative stereotypes, for the most part, are untrue or false within the realm of the Republican Party.

When you think of the left and the Democratic Party, you often think of people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, FDR, JFK, LBJ and the list goes on. However, the subject that most people miss are origins and foundations of the Republican Party and where we are today.

For example, the first seven black elected officials in congress were all Republican. The Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, that abolished slavery, had 100 percent, or 118 out of 118, Republican support, while only 19 out of 82 Democrats voted for it.

Ida B. Wells, an African American women who refused to give up her first class train ticket to a white man, was a Republican. She was a journalist and activist who fought against Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.  

There has been much debate over the founder of the Democratic Party, though many suggest it was Andrew Jackson who founded the modern party. Jackson was responsible for many horrid acts including the Trail of Tears.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This Act, formally titled ‘An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication,’ included ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and … like punishment, pains, and penalties…” Persons who denied these rights on account of race or previous enslavement were guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.’

Why wasn’t this Act passed? With almost 100 percent Republican support, it went to then Democratic President Andrew Jackson who vetoed it.

When it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1864, The Guardian said, 80 percent of Republicans supported in the House while only 63 percent of Democrats did. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans supported it while only 69% of Democrats did.

There is no doubt that people are not necessarily the thing that encompasses all of a party’s ideas and beliefs, but in my own personal opinion, you can not run from your past. The Democratic Party has a dark and almost unbelievable past.

Although these examples are a few of many, it is hard to imagine how the Republican Party started to succumb with negative animosities. After all, it was the Democratic Party who were the real threat, aren’t they?

There is age-old idea that the parties had an ideological flip, but did it? Many say that during the Civil Rights Movement, the Democratic Party became the party of the people, but did it?

It has been the consumer of hate and outward discrimination, while the Republican Party has been the party of the people. Whether that be Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Hosea Williams or even Ida B. Wells, Republicans have always been on the right side of history.

Today, there seems to be a bit of a struggle to see that side of the party once again, but there are people, like myself, who are fighting everyday to bring back our rightful ideals.


3 Comments

Universities and Diversity

Since coming to university, I have noticed that most of the events, programs or speakers that come here are here to promote the “diversity” agenda. Don’t get me wrong, diversity is great!

I, however, do not appreciate constant “cultural diversity” requirements or qualifications for classes or clubs. Cultural diversity, in my opinion, is just as, if not less, important as diversity of thought.

If, for example, someone is on the left and believes X and Y, while someone is on the right and believes Z, then would the “diversity” requirement suit someone who already believes in X and Y? Or would that just be pushing an agenda and covering it with the “diversity” cloak?

If someone on the left truly wants to promote diversity, then they should be going to speakers or events that are based around rightist ideas and beliefs. For example, why don’t they attend an event about why the Second Amendment should be protected instead of something they already agree with?

This is an interesting topic, as I have started working to uncover the origins and roots of it. The roots, in my belief, start with stacking a university administration with far left ideologies and then brainwashing young people to think they are contributing to diversity, when in reality they are merely playing into the left’s plan to convert everyone into liberal fascists.

That was a big jump, right? Well, it is not really far off.

If we look at Margaret Sanger, the mastermind for planned parenthood, we would see that she hired black priests, or community members, and got them to convince others that abortion and birth control are what is best for their community. This was of course wrong as she really just wanted to control the population of black Americans and maintain a “pure” society.

Universities across the country are starting to adopt this method of brainwashing and coercion. They are enlisting student organizations and insisting that X and Y are the right policies to follow.

The student organizations are the blindly following instead of thinking about Z. Those of us who do think about Z see that this method of making sheep is working.

Diversity of thought is one of the ways that we can ensure that everyone is not only accurately represented, but that they are also heard. Cultural diversity ensures that those in the culture are heard, or rather the general population of the culture, where diversity of thought ensures that everyone, including the non-general population, is heard.

It is important to note that the support of a few leaders of a group should not suggest that everyone in that group agrees with the ideas presented. That is where cultural diversity is failing.

The women’s march, for example, was a small portion of women who happened to agree on a few issues. This failed to represent the ideas of women who voted for Trump, who are pro-life, who carry guns, want an immigration halt and generally disagree with the social justice ideology.

I think it is high time that we start promoting the individual belief over the generalized ideas of the specific group. Diversity of thought is the only way this can happen and this is the only method that can actually yield results.

People on the left always want us to stop generalizing, so I suggest we tell them to stop generalizing and assuming everyone thinks the same way because guess what? No one does.