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

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.

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.


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.

1 Comment

Racism in Washington D.C.

On Feb. 21, six members of University of Wisconsin-Whitewater College Republicans departed the university to head to Chicago where we would eventually fly to Washington D.C. for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This conference is dedicated to raising more awareness about the conservative ideology as well as promoting the conservative agenda.

This was an amazing adventure and opportunity which was a great way to observe what life in Washington DC is really like from the political figures to everyday citizens. We stayed in a house, rented through Airbnb, an online travel group, off of Minnesota Ave on the northeast side of the city.


The house we stayed in.

When we got off the train, one of the first encounters we had was with a few African-American women who told me that I should take off my “Make America Great Again” hat because I would be “beaten up.” This was the first negative encounter I had ever had in regards to any political apparel I own, and I own a lot.

I quickly removed my cap and continued on my way with the other members of the group. We made sure that after this encounter, no one in our group wore anything that was related to our President or the Republican Party while out in public around the house.

We continued on with our own business, like going to the conference and exploring throughout the week, not bothering anyone and staying to ourselves. It was labeled as a “quiet community” on the site, which was not too far off besides the occasional cat call or attempts to sell us illicit drugs.

We had been greeted throughout the week by “hellos” and “good mornings” by older women heading home from church, or the occasion police officer, but a real shock came on the forth night of the trip when a car slowly drove by us and stopped.

At this moment, we had seen quiet a bit and really didn’t suspect anything odd about this action. Two windows rolled down and two men popped their heads out of the car.

The first thing one said was, “are those white people?” drawing me to look at them. The next one began and said, “ya’ll are brave. You [are] going to get murdered” and then they sped off.

Up until this point it was always said that only white people can be racist. It was assumed and seen in the media that when it came to discrimination, only white people can discriminate as it is impossible for a racial minority to be racist.

This first hand account of discrimination made me start to think; why can one group be racist towards another without being called out on it or it being looked at as a problem? How can we assume privilege when we have seen time and time again that privilege is not dependent on race?

It began to make me think of why we are consistently taught by others on the left about how we, the racial majority, can only be the ones who are inherently granted powers that no one else can have. Why can’t other groups be racist or openly discriminatory?

I, having the first hand experience of having someone only generalize and stereotype me because of my race, believe that racism is not just subject to minorities, or other marginalized groups, but everyone. I am sure I hate being called “white boy,” which happened on the metro on day five, just as much as someone else would hate being called “black boy” or “Asian boy.”

Racism is racism, there is no guidelines or exceptions. We have to start calling it like it is and admitting that no form of racism is appropriate.

If the left truly cares about the wellbeing of everyone, they would start to follow the ideas of the right and treat everyone with dignity and respect. We would teach that no one is better or worse than another and that we should all be treated the same.

This idea pertains to the idea that you should treat everyone like you would the boss or CEO. We should ignore the differences of our skin, but celebrate that we are all the same, at least, on a human level.