Commentary

Are secular leftists on campus interested in discussing different viewpoints?

4 Comments

A few stories that lead me to think that they are not.

First, Campus Reform writes:

A female student was threatened by feminist and LGBT organizations at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington after she invited them to attend a pro-life event.

Madison Marston sent personal email invitations to UNCW’s National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), PRIDE, and the Women’s and Gender Studies Student Association (WSSA), to extend an invitation to Ratio Christi’s “Abortion and Human Equality: A Pro Life Defense of the Unborn” discussion. The three organizations collectively declined while threatening Marston for sending the invitation.

“Each of the leaders of PRIDE, NARAL and WSSA ask that you no longer contact us directly,” the email, obtained by Campus Reform said. “As a student organization, your events are on the CAIC calendar, part of Hawk e-News, and disseminated in a variety of other ways, which is sufficient for us to be aware of them. We do not need, nor want, these invitations. If you continue to attempt to contact any of us, we will take further action.”

In the email, the organizations said they already had a separate event scheduled for that same date but also said they will not participate in any debates with the Christian apologetics organization as they do not share the same beliefs when it comes to abortion and LGBT issues.

“As such, we have no desire to debate them with you or your organization,” the organizations said in the email.

[…]“We have no desire to attend any event sponsored by your organization and its narrow beliefs steeped in religious bigotry and intolerance.”

[…]Ratio Christi’s event, scheduled for Feb., 26, will host Adams, an outspoken conservative professor at UNCW, “to present a scientific and philosophical argument on the topic of abortion,” according to the event’s press release obtained by Campus Reform.

The free event has a Q&A portion concluding Adams’ talk, during which Marston, a biology and chemistry major, was hoping the other student organizations could participate.

“I had naively thought UNCW’s pro-choice student organizations would jump at any and every opportunity to participate in events on the topic of abortion,” Marston told Campus Reform in an interview. “Or at least, I thought they would be somewhat interested in having a platform to defend their views. If they believe so strongly that abortion is a woman’s right—why are they afraid to defend their belief?”

[…]UNCW’s College Democrats also declined the invitation to attend the event as “our party’s views do not align with the views of the speaker.”

I think the pro-abortion folks, the LGBT folks and the Democrats are not so much interested in debate as they are in coercing anyone who disagrees with them.

Next article is from Fox News.

They write:

Students at Acalanes High School were given a handout with LGBT terminology – including words like pan-sexual, demi-boy and gray gender.

Teenagers at a California high school were publicly shamed for disagreeing with speakers allowed to push an LGBT agenda during an English class, according to several upset parents.

The Queer Straight Alliance at Acalanes High School, in Lafayette, lectured students in several ninth-grade English classes on Jan. 29 about LGBT issues, according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is representing the parents.

During the class, the students, ages 14 and 15, were instructed to stand in a circle. Then, they were grilled about their personal beliefs and their parents’ beliefs on homosexuality, PJI alleges.

“The QSA had students step forward to demonstrate whether they believed that being gay was a choice and whether their parents would be accepting if they came out as gay,” PJI attorney Matthew McReynolds said. “Students who did not step forward were ridiculed and humiliated.”

PJI is a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases. They are representing several families who had children in the freshman classes — some of whom also are angry because there was no parental notification of the LGBT lecture.

“Singling out students for ridicule based on their moral or political beliefs is a Marxist tactic that should have no place in the United States of America,” Dacus said.

Yes, and Christian parents are paying for it by force – there is no school choice. You are forced to pay for this, whether you use it or not.

And finally, an essay on the bullying of Christians and conservatives that happens in schools, from ISI Review.

Excerpt:

“The new intolerance” is shorthand for the chilled public atmosphere in which religious believers now operate. Many people of faith face unique burdens that would have been unthinkable even a couple of decades ago: burdens of ostracism, of losing the good opinion of their neighbors, of being trash-talked in the public square. Some even face the loss of livelihood or the constant threat and reality of litigation; for a primer, see the hounding last spring of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich for his donation years earlier on behalf of traditional marriage.

Although this new intolerance has begun to attract attention and debate, the connection between that phenomenon and the rise in unbelief among twenty-somethings remains to be explored. And the scrutiny is overdue. It is well known, and well documented by social science, that many students, not only in America but all over, lose their religion in college. The interesting question is why.

[…]Students, like any other human beings, cannot help being sensitive to atmospherics. Let’s think again of the new force that drives a CEO out of his post for having donated to defend traditional marriage. If the new intolerance can penalize an “alpha” like him so dramatically, how much more menacing must it be to people just starting out, whose futures and livelihoods depend so heavily on the opinion of their peers?

[…]It’s time to air the idea that college students do not stay out of church or synagogue because their education leads them to enlightened conclusions about the big questions. No, the more likely dynamic is that thanks to the new intolerance, the social and other costs of being a known believer in the public square mount by the year—and students take note. Hence intimidation on the quad, multiplied over many years and campuses, is an unseen engine of secularization.

This intimidation didn’t work on me, but I have met Christian women who were very sensitive to peer approval when they got to college. They went from Bible verse memorization to shacking up to abortion to divorce. They started to drift because of the peer-shaming and the professor-shaming, and then it is cemented by the repeated experiences of binge-drinking, hooking up and shacking up. The repeated experience of putting aside God and moral boundaries in order to have fun forms a new worldview at a deep level, and it continues as they age.

Even if they come back to the Christian faith at a superficial (emotional, devotional) level, the underlying worldview is hard to fix. Attempts to re-orient them towards an effective Christian life that addresses the real problems that Christians are facing today in the culture will not be accepted. The self-centered life-plan that was formed in college remains intact, with just a veneer of piety on top to justify it when it’s called into question.

News

For the fifth year in a row, Bobby Jindal’s state of Louisiana declared “most pro-life”

Leave a comment
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Here’s my other “first pick” in the GOP primary.

Life News reports:

In January, for the fifth year in a row, Louisiana was declared the most pro-life state in the nation by American’s United for Life (AUL). Since pro-life Governor Bobby Jindal has been in office for the past six years, it would be fair to say his leadership, at least in part, has created a more pro-life Louisiana.

After AUL made their announcement, Jindal said, “Louisiana was named the most pro-life state for the fifth year in a row. In Louisiana, we promote a culture of life and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us.”

During Jindal’s time in office he’s signed countless pieces of pro-life legislation as well as limited Obamacare by prohibiting the coverage of elective abortion in health care plans. This is exactly why many pro-life advocates and Republican voters would be thrilled if Jindal ran for president in 2016. In the Decatur Daily, journalist Cal Thomas reported that Jindal said he’d decide in “two to three months” whether to run for president.

The pro-life legislation Jindal’s signed include everything from bills that ban abortion at 20-weeks and stop coerced abortions— to legislation that requires abortion facilities to provide ultrasounds prior to an abortion and ensures that medical professionals don’t have to participate in abortion.

In 2014, Jindal signed Louisiana Right to Life’s flagship legislation, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (HB 388), which could close three of the five abortion clinics in the state. HB 388 requires that abortion providers have admitting privileges within 30 miles of a local hospital; clarifies that informed consent protections apply to both surgical abortion, as well as to RU-486 chemical abortions; and that facilities that perform more than five abortions maintain proper licensing. After the passage of the HB 388 through the Louisiana Legislation, Gov. Jindal said, “This bill will give women the health and safety protections they deserve.”

Earlier this year, The Washington Times reported that Jindal blasted U.S. House Republicans after they pulled a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. He said, “The American people elected a Republican majority to support the pro-life movement and champion conservative principles. I hope they reconsider.”

In January, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, which serves under Jindal’s administration, announced that they are blocking abortions at an abortion facility Planned Parenthood is building in New Orleans. Originally, their facility was supposed to open by the end of 2014; however, due to opposition from pro-life Louisianans, including Louisiana Right to Life, the Jindal administration and the Archdiocese of New Orleans, their efforts have been stalled.

The Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life, Benjamin Clapper, told the Washington Post more about Jindal’s commitment to protecting unborn life. He said, “He’s not just been pro-life behind closed doors. He’s also been proudly pro-life across our state.” American’s United for Life also told the Post that during Jindal’s time in office, Louisiana has been the most pro-life it has ever been.

Remarkably, Jindal has always been completely honest about his pro-life views.

In 2003, he said, “In my first race in 2003, at one of my first fundraisers, my first question was from a fairly liberal woman who asked me my position on abortion. I told her I was pro-life. I remember thinking I was going to have to return all the money I had raised! But amazingly, she became a financial supporter despite our differences over abortion. It turns out she already knew I was pro-life; she just wanted to see if I would be honest about my position or if I would waffle in order to get her money.”

According to the National Right to Life Committee, Jindal had a 100-percent voting record during three years as member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, Louisiana Right to Life has honored Gov. Jindal on numerous occasions for his pro-life stand in the Pelican State. In January, as Jindal left the stage after speaking at their annual pro-life rally Clapper said, “Bobby Jindal is the most pro-life governor in the history of Louisiana.”

My other “first pick” Scott Walker is now leading his competitors by 14% in the latest Iowa poll. He has 24% of the votes.

If I were going to compare the two of them, I would say that Walker is pro-life, was leader of a pro-life club in college, got some pro-life laws passed, and that those pro-life laws definitely reduced the number of abortions in his state. However, I think his focus is on taking on the big groups on the left like the public sector unions, the welfare collectors, the secular leftists at the public universities who go after conservatives. Walker is in a blue state, so he basically runs as a fiscal conservative, and then when he wins, which he always does, he brings his social conservatism with him, and does the best he can. But he wins because he is 1) a fighter and 2) competent at all things fiscal. The knock on Walker right now is his immigration plan – he is very vague about what he would do, and conservatives want to know where he stands.

Jindal is different. Not only is he better educated than Walker (Rhodes scholar at Oxford), but he is a policy expert in education and health care policy. He is also very outspoken on foreign policy and social issues. I think his ability to stick to his convictions no matter what is the same as Walker, but he is much more open about his full range of views, instead of just presenting himself as a policy expert and a guy who can get the job done. Jindal is heavily into consumer-driven health care and school choice. The knock on Jindal right now is his budget deficit and high disapproval rating in his home state – he hasn’t gotten together the fiscal record right now to stack up against Scott Walker. For a man like Bobby Jindal, though, every crisis is an opportunity. This is his chance to define himself by cutting spending and waste.

We should know by the end of February what Governor Jindal intends to do to close that $1.6 billion shortfall.

News

New study: EPA carbon emission regulations eliminate 586,000 manufacturing jobs

1 Comment

Why don’t we build anything in America any more?

Well, we do build many things, but if the question is changed to “why aren’t we building more?” then the answer is that the costs of building things in America are much higher than building them elsewhere. One reason is that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Another reason is that we pass regulations that make it expensive to make anything here.

Here is a report from the Daily Signal about a new study by the Heritage Foundation.

They write:

A new study predicts that more than a half million manufacturing jobs will be eliminated from the U.S. economy as a result of the Obama administration’s proposed regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

“Every state would experience overwhelming negative impacts as a result of these regulations, but especially those with higher-than-average employment in manufacturing and mining,” said Nick Loris, a co-author of study, which was completed by energy experts at The Heritage Foundation—the parent organization of The Daily Signal.

The researchers projected how many manufacturing jobs would be eliminated in each state and congressional district as a consequence of the carbon plan, which is the centerpiece of President Obama’s effort to combat climate change.

The results show that 34 states would lose three to four percent of manufacturing jobs by 2023, and nine other states would lose more.

In Ohio alone, 31,747 jobs would be lost.

The study predicts that the Midwest would be hit the hardest, with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin losing more than 20,000 jobs each.

[…]The analysis comes just months before the Environmental Protection Agency is set to finalize its carbon regulations covering new, existing and modified/reconstructed power plants by mid summer of 2015.

Heritage’s study looked at the totality of the Obama administration’s efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions—from motor vehicles and power plants, both new and existing.

The EPA’s plan forces states to cut power-industry emissions by 30 percent in 2030 from 2005 levels.

We have to save the planet!!!1!!

Meanwhile, in Boston:

It's global warming! The EPA must save us!
It’s global warming! The EPA must save us!

So, the next time anyone asks you why we don’t build anything anymore, tell them it’s because they voted for Democrats, and how this resulted in higher taxes and more burdensome regulations. Higher taxes and more regulation causes companies to close down here at home and move elsewhere, or they just scale back here and expand elsewhere. Democrats cause American jobs to go overseas, raising the unemployment rate. That’s why our labor force participation hasn’t been this low for decades. It’s basic economics.