One does have to wonder what the mindset is when a married woman would have an affair for whatever reason, get herself pregnant and just continues as usual knowing full well that the child was fathered by someone else. That constant reminder of that fling would be in that child's every movement and action, it's facial construction, even eye colour, speech, everything this child did would be a constant reminder. Yet women make the claim of being the self appointed arbitrators of public conscience, the feminist fake high horse claim(women should never be held accountable). An act demonstrated by their endless harping and scolding about issues they consider to be a negative representation on how things should be, it always appears to benefit them though. The tea totalers from the early 1930s come to mind as does the copious and unlimited organisation on the web today..

A great example of this attitude has been demonstrated clearly by Sotomayor..

Judging Sotomayor by Mike Adams..

Sotomayer is of the opinion that she is a higher level of being because it is a female and a "non-white". The ego here just does not get any bigger than this..

We have copious examples about the opposite sex, in the course of writing this blog, necessitated that I study, probe and expose the behavioral patterns and thinking processes of the opposite sex, which I have always stated was a pursuit that I wish I had never started or undertaken, as the more I uncovered, the worse it gets. It was the original intention of this blog to demonstrate to that same sex what it was like for man and boy to be abused on a constant daily basis for just being male as feminists and general society have now adopted as normal thatnks to feminist collusion and instigation..
In that pursuit of knowledge about the opposite sex, there is one major character flaw that they demand to be excluded, which they undertake and promote either maliciously, knowingly and specifically and that is that their actions should never be held up for inspection or explanation but always easily justified because they are who they are. Feminists having realised that this character flaw was prominent in the majority women, they demanded that they should never be held accountable for any of their actions at all. Feminists went so far as to ensure that to being the case by changing jurisprudence of every law that could somehow excuse that current reality. They have ensured that women are given a free ride, wherever possible and continue to this day to achieve that goal and aim. We have already witnessed that to be the case on a daily basis as women are never given the same punishment as men and it can be perceived it is for just that reason..

It has become an obvious fact that women require the same training in knowing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, just like everyone else and that they are not the arbitrators they make claim to be. They often behave as if they have zero conscience concerning any of their decisions, which in turn may call into question their justification or stance. This is the same topic covered by Joanna and I in regards to "what women want" as well as "What women offer". It is sadly the case that showing the worst that human beings are capable of is definitely a much more emotive argument and feminists have refined that; then showing how most people life in harmony and trust. It comes back to that wallowing in the pigpen with the charlatans, harridans and toxic beings that will change one's purview of the opposite or both sexes. An act and aim that feminists and feminism has concentrated on in their false pursuit of non-existent equality..

When listening to this video below, you will hear how a woman, split up for a month with her husband, had a fling, got pregnant and reunited with her husband even though she did not want to, just because she knew that he had the better income and could SUPPORT HER better than the guy who made her pregnant. The confession by this woman demonstrates my case clearly and entirely. No consideration is made whatsoever about the affect this would have on the husband, nothing matters more than HER living standards and ensuring HER lifestyle does not change. There is no visible level of regret, of conscience or living the lie. She even states that when approached by her husband about the child that she responded in a fake and forced reaction that was designed and ensured the topic was never broached again..
How dare he suggest that the child may possibly not be his, the damn cheek, the bastard..

Extremism in Defense of Equality

• Mike Adams

The more often liberals speak on the topic of same-sex marriage, the more illogical their arguments become. Of course, the worst arguments come from liberal professors because they talk about the subject to the point of obsession. And the worst of the worst come from English professors steeped in postmodern orthodoxy. A recent letter to the editor by North Carolina English professor Dick Veit is illustrative. Dick writes the following (in italics). I respond intermittently. Students considering a major in English at a secular university should read his words carefully:

If you can’t claim that your own marriage would be hurt by a gay couple getting married (and you can’t), and if you can’t point to anyone at all whose marriage would be harmed (and you can’t), then you can’t claim that marriage would be harmed.

Dick Veit shows the narrow-mindedness of same-sex marriage proponents in three ways. First, he falsely asserts that there are only two arguments against same-sex marriage. Next, he asserts that the burden of proof is on his opponents. Finally, he asserts that the arguments he selects cannot possibly be proved. He omits the best arguments against same-sex marriage. Fortunately, in the next line of his letter, he opens the door for one of those arguments:

If you would deny a right to others that you claim for yourself, you cannot say that you believe in liberty.

I hope this means that Dick will now support a man’s right to determine whether his child will be aborted. But that is not what he means. He means that proponents of traditional marriage must extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or, alternately, forfeit their right to say they believe in liberty. The argument is problematic because it knows no limitations. It falsely equates liberty with absolute liberty. Consider some extensions of Veit’s argument:
*If you support marriage between a man and another man, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and a woman or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.
*If you support marriage between a man and another man and a woman, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and two women or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.
The possibilities are endless. Eventually, one ends up supporting a marital union between two twin sisters, a dog, and a four-year old – just so he can say “I believe in liberty!”
The trouble all begins with Veit making the obvious error of asking “Is it free?” without asking the follow-up question “Is it good?” That is precisely how he winds up in the untenable position of promoting equality among unequal entities. In the final analysis, Veit is left with the dubious honor of joining a very small club I call the We Can Say We Believe in Equality So We Must Be Morally Superior Society.
Unfortunately, Dick has left the rest of society with an all-encompassing definition of family that simply does not work. For example, there can be no workable body of family law if there are no restrictions on what we call “family.” That it is unworkable is not an issue for Dick. He lives in a world of ideas, not in a world of reality. All ideas have consequences. But the worst ideas usually have consequences for someone else. That is why the worst ideas usually come from tenured professors who are shielded from consequences altogether. Keep reading:

If you would insist that others must be bound by the precepts of your religion, then you do not believe in religious freedom.

Christianity does not mandate marriage among its own adherents. It certainly does not mandate the practice among non-Christians. Of course, under the current definition of marriage, no one is forced to follow a religious practice. But some are choosing to follow a secular practice and call it a religious practice. They are also trying to force followers of a religious practice to call a secular practice a religious practice against their will.
The government seizure and redefinition of a religious practice – one that actually predates the government - cannot be seen as a step towards religious freedom. But that is Dick’s position. He thinks the government – by judicial fiat - can redefine a religious institution that predates its existence. If you disagree, “then you do not believe in religious freedom.” Does any of this make sense? Read on:

If you say that you oppose Sharia law because it forces religious rules on nonbelievers, then why are you doing the very same thing?

Translation: If you think the voters of North Carolina can retain the traditional definition of marriage by a vote you are wrong. This would block the judiciary from imposing same-sex marriage on the general population against its will. And that would destroy religious freedom.
Marriage is an institution that predates every constitution, every judicial body, and every legislative body in the world. Nonetheless, Veit thinks the government has a right to seize and redefine religious institutions such as marriage at will. If you disagree with Dick then he claims that you are just like Muslim extremists who want to set up a theocracy in America.
That is how the tenured Dick thinks. That is why the people of North Carolina must vote to preserve traditional marriage via constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we really will start looking like a Muslim theocracy. And prophets will be marrying six year olds in the name of sexual equality.

This particular article can and should go under the topic of "Feminism, screws Everyone" as you will read later on. The article covers the usual cognitive dissonance requirement one must install, ensure it prospers and then make typical dysfunctional arguments and comments, that a rational mind just cannot fathom..

It can only be compared with standing in the rain and wondering why you are getting wet. A feminist would argue that it is the fault of the Patriarchy, as the rain would only fall on a women because "Gravity" is a patriarchal concept designed to punish women..

If you have ever wallowed onto a feminist site and read the plethora of comments and wondered whether they were even discussing the topic, you'll know what I mean. I have not heard them complain about the patriarchal influences associated with the invention , installation and running of the internet, but that would be "illogical feminism" at work..

FEMINISTS DO NOT WANT MEN LOOKING AT CHEERLEADERS. THEY WANT THEM TO HAVE HEALTHIER SEX WITH PROSTITUTES!

Mike refers to the feminist inbuilt cognitive dissonance mentality, whenever they discuss anything concerning women and children. Apparently, according to feminists, clothed cheerleaders are out but naked pictures of underage children is well, you know, nothing wrong with it at all..

Save the World on Your Own Dime

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author ofFeminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus

Mike rightly laments the downfall of the USA and the increase in activities designed to install Socialism or Marxism as the standard religion which appears to be the same situation in most western countries. I can remember the words of a former commissar of the KGB, who was called upon by the American Government for consultation, admitted that the Soviet citizenry had more rights under the communist regime then Americans do under a democratic system..

He has obviously been proven correct too many times. Compare the rights of the individual religions and groups with the deterioration of rights against men and boys and you will know why this article presents an Orwellian reality to what should be a free country, home of the brave and hands on the chest for the flag. Feminists and feminism can be compared invariably as well as the group-think mentality as our daily life and assumed human rights are squashed under foot of the new improvised version of the goose-step..

How America Fell

Mike Adams.

Son, you sure ask tough questions, but I’ll try my best to answer. Having lived a long life (and seen America at both its highest and lowest points) I think I have some insights. Many of those insights came from my parents, rather than mere experience. My mother was the first one to tell me that America would fall from the inside as a result of moral decline – not from some outside threat. She first told me that during the Cold War. I didn’t believe her then, but time has shown just how prescient she was.
I suppose the fall of America could best be traced to a failure to grasp one simple idea; namely, that ideas have consequences. Of course, that also means that bad ideas have very bad consequences.
Most of America’s very bad ideas were born on our college campuses. In fact, they were nurtured during the time that America was strongest. That was some time after the fall of the Soviet Union when we were the world’s lone superpower. The ideas took a while to sink into the larger society. Few people realized what Lincoln knew in the mid-nineteenth century; namely, that one could look at our campuses at any time and see what the culture would look like in twenty years. The larger social consequences of ideas are often delayed by many years.
The first dangerous idea embraced by postmodern America was the idea that one has the right to negate other ideas simply because they cause discomfort. This idea gained acceptance on our college campuses right after the fall of the Soviet Union. It resulted in a weakening of the character of the average college student. In fact, it served a counter-evolutionary function in the sense that it guaranteed that the ideas of the weakest students would be the ones to survive in the intellectual marketplace. It also did much to extinguish humility as a character trait among educated people.
The idea that one has a right to negate ideas simply because one is uncomfortable is narcissistic. Our speech codes reinforced that bad trait while simultaneously reinforcing the bad ideas that accompany it. Unsurprisingly, civility in discourse began to decline in the age of speech codes. It was an Orwellian development. The Ministers of Peace were becoming the Ministers of the Cultural Wars.


It was not long before these students began to assert their “right to be unoffended” in a proactive way. Instead of waiting for speech that might offend them, they actively sought it out. They joined groups that held ideas contrary to their own - and did so knowingly. After joining these groups they asserted a right to lead the groups that were advancing the ideas they found to be objectionable. When the groups predictably sought to exclude them, they claimed to be victims of discrimination. The universities supported them in their efforts to ban belief requirements in all organizations, particularly religious organizations. Oddly, in the age of diversity, all the groups began to look the same. They believed in nothing. Their leaders believed in nothing. They had no common cause that required strength in numbers. There was no more need to associate.
Eventually, the students had to leave campus and fend for themselves in the real world. When they did so, they realized churches and other organizations operated by principles foreign to them. They relied on antiquated ideas that had not been taught on the campuses in years. The churches required adherence to core beliefs for membership. The requirements were even more restrictive for deacons, elders, and other positions of leadership. Many were excluded. Many were determined to bridge the gap between the academy and the society-at-large.
So they proceed on a theory they learned at the university. Whenever Christian organizations sought to receive student funding, the university would tell them to set aside the “discriminatory” practice of demanding that all members, or just officers, believe in something. This demand was made despite the fact that the university funding came in the form of the fees students had paid only because the administration made them. The process involved three steps:
1. Administration charges fees.
2. Religious groups ask for their money back.
3. Administration forces group to abandon beliefs in order to get back fees they were forced to pay.
If students refused to renounce their religious beliefs, the university kept the money. In other words, the “mandatory student fee” was a misnomer. It was actually a “tax on orthodox beliefs.”
This method was later modified in order to deal with churches that required belief statements for membership, or for church leadership positions. Since they were paying no taxes, they were seen as being “given something” by the government. So the government decided that tax breaks for churches must be contingent. If the church “discriminated” on the basis of belief, they would no longer be given a tax exemption. In other words, they would be taxed only if they believed in something.
Liberal churches, on the other hand, continued to get tax breaks because they believed in nothing. So they survived. This was also counter-evolutionary in the sense that they were doing poorly before the government interfered with the religious marketplace. They were also the churches populated by the easily offended. In this way, churches preaching Mere Christianity lost their ability to survive and to influence the culture.
After that, the notion of truth still survived. But it lacked an objective basis. It was seen as a mere struggle for power among warring factions. They learned their tactics in the Ivory Tower. Truth is not transcendent. It must be won at the edge of the sword or the point of a gun. And so they took to the streets.
The groups had but one thing in common: They knew the old ideas had to go. But they were not sure what would replace them. They had no exit strategy. And so they eventually consumed themselves.

Mike addresses the feminist penchant for murdering the unborn as just being an event like choosing an item on the menu or it just being some lifestyle choice without granting the slightest consideration to the fact that they are promoting a heinous and sadistic operation that not only destroys a life but can and does totally destroy the female who undertakes that action..Here..Here and Here..

significant abortion risks:

• Breast cancer
: This is considered as major risk in abortion. About 50% of women are affected by this type of cancer after abortion.

• Premature delivery:
 When you go through one or more induced abortion surgeries, there is a significantly increased risk of premature delivery in future. This kind of abortion risk is mainly associated with several complications like cerebral palsy, prematurity in brain, eye problems and several bowel diseases.

• Infertility:
 This is a very rare case in the risks of abortion, where a woman might not get pregnancy in future.

• Pelvic inflammatory diseases:
 This can be a life threatening risk for you after abortion, which can lead to infertility and ectopic pregnancy. About 5% of women suffer with pelvic inflammatory diseases.

Also this particular nasty side affect that is ignored as well..

Causes of Post-Abortion-Syndrome
The causes for this stress disorder are really quite simple. The thing that has made the very existence of Post-Abortion-Syndrome debatable is the fact that it often does not surface until many years after the abortion. It is very common for a woman to say that she is fine about the whole thing, but later in live she finds herself engulfed in feelings of guilt, confusion, and exploitation. The reason for the surfacing anxiety is partly a mystery, but is often associated with the birth of a wanted child, or during unrelated counseling. (Gentles 1990, 85-86) The very interesting phenomenon about this dis-order is that the synptoms seem repressible, at least for a time. Clinical research has shown that when women are in trusting sharing relationships they report deep seated feelings of guilt, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and exploitation over their abortion experience. The causes for the dis-order surfacing seems to be in many ways, time itself. (Allied Action Inc. 1996, 1).

Mike Adams  
Poverty, Rape and Abortion

Author’s Note: Every summer at Summit Ministries (seewww.Summit.org) I give a speech meant to equip young pro-life students with proper rebuttals to pro-abortion choice arguments. I have been asked to reprint the speech in my column (in condensed form). I am doing so in two parts. The first part can be accessed by clicking on this link. I hope you find this – the second of two installments – both beneficial and informative.Whenever I find myself in an extended argument about abortion I find that there are about six arguments I can expect to encounter before the argument has come to term, so to speak. But, fortunately, the six arguments all suffer from one fatal flaw, which makes them somewhat easy to rebut as long as the proponent of life stays focused on the central moral question of the abortion debate, which is “Are the unborn human?” I’ve dealt with four of the six arguments in the first installment of this series. I deal with arguments five and six below.
Argument #5: “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to give birth to a baby she cannot afford.”This argument is also remarkably calloused – so much so that it is difficult to understand how those who make it could describe themselves as “liberal.” Do we really need to start reassigning Jonathan Swift’sModest Proposal to understand how profoundly sick and distasteful this argument really is? Swift wrote (satirically, of course) a proposal that suggested people eat their babies in order to relieve hunger and poverty. Pro-abortion choice arguments often sound chillingly similar.
For those who have never read Swift, I like to use a more contemporary example. In the 80s, a punk rock band calling themselves “The Dead Kennedys” wrote a song called “Kill the Poor” in which they mockingly suggested that we kill poor people as a means of eliminating poverty. That would certainly eliminate poverty. But is that really an acceptable solution? Of course, it isn’t. That was their point.
Make sure to confront abortion choice advocates with the question of whether it is permissible to kill to eliminate poverty. When you do, they will say something like this: “No, I would never advocate killing the poor. I would advocate abortion to prevent them from becoming poor people in the first place.” They are trapped once again in the untenable position of denying the personhood of the unborn. (Please review argument #1 from the first installment in this series).
2. “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!
They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead. Please review argument #1.
3. “It is wrong to force a woman to bring an unwanted baby into the world.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an “unwanted baby.” If a baby is unwanted by its mother there is always, and I mean always, someone else who would want to adopt the baby. People cannot easily adopt in the country because so many children are unnecessarily aborted. But there is something even more sick and twisted about the “unwanted baby” excuse; namely that it insinuates that abortion prevents child abuse. But we have already established that abortion is child abuse. Please review argument #1 before reading further.
The very idea that we would murder children to prevent child abuse, which usually takes the form of simple battery, elevates intellectual laziness to a Zen art. It is the intellectual equivalent of promoting arson in order to prevent burglary. It is true that burglary will go down when we burn down everyone’s house but by now you get the point. And hopefully the pro-abortion choice advocate gets the point, too.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that abortion has not been an effective means of stopping child abuse (even if we exclude abortions). In 1973, there were 167,000 reported instances of child abuse. By 1982, reported instances of child abuse rose to 929,000. That is an increase of over 500 percent in less than a decade. When will so-called liberals take responsibility for this unmitigated disaster?
4. “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to bring a handicapped baby into the world.” It is frequently suggested that abortion is morally permissible when doctors discover, prior to birth, that a baby suffers from certain physical handicaps – such as Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy. My response usually goes something like this:
“I agree that there are far too many handicapped people in the world. Every summer I take busloads of people who are wheelchair-bound on a trip to the Grand Canyon. We enjoy the view for a few minutes before I roll them off the edge of the Canyon. They are usually dead long before they hit the bottom. That is a good thing for them and for society as a whole. It is better to be dead than to be handicapped. Their lives are not worth living whether they realize it or not”
This provokes a strong reaction – as it should. After all, I am accusing the abortion choice advocate of gross insensitivity. That is usually when they argue that they are not killing a handicapped person but rather preventing a handicapped person from ever being born. Please review argument #1. Your opponent is trapped once again.

This is what Obama and his feminised cronies was aiming at when they introduced different rules to prosecute young male college students, who according to common law are found to be not guilty but the feminised Universities decide under their own guidelines that it has decided otherwise, which goes to show that the new rules introduced are so biased that the law itself does not even recognise it..

If you are contemplating sending your SON to University or even College, I would suggest you find out how biased they are towards males and how feminised they are as Men at Universities are just regarded as access fodder for that male-hating cabal that is feminism..

Mike Adams
The Rape of Caleb Warner 

At the University of North Dakota (UND) the unthinkable has become a reality. A student has been found guilty of sexual assault despite the fact that local police refused to charge him with a crime – any crime. In fact, the police have charged his accuser with lying about the very incident that led to his campus conviction. And the punishment is not insignificant. Former student Caleb Warner has been banned by UND from setting foot on any North Dakota public campus for three years. Meanwhile, his accuser has been wanted by the Grand Forks Sheriff's Department for more than a year on the charge of making a false report to law enforcement.
This tragic incident raises two fundamental questions: 1) How much evidence must UND administrators see before they admit they have made a mistake? and 2) Why are campuses like UND adjudicating rape cases in the first place?
The alleged incident took place back in December of 2009. Sometime in early February of 2010, Warner's accuser reported an allegation of sexual assault to both the university and the Grand Forks Police Department. UND held a hearing for Warner on February 11, 2010. On February 16, he was informed that he had been found guilty of the broad charges of "Violations of Criminal or Civil Laws, Sexual Assault, and Interference.” In order to find Warner “guilty”, UND had to use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is the “probably” standard used in civil cases.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has been the national leader of the opposition to a federal Department of Education mandate, which is forcing more universities to adopt the preponderance of evidence standard in rape cases. Under this mandate, universities cannot receive federal funding, including financial aid for students, unless they adopt the lower standard of proof in rape cases. FIRE predicted it would result in more wrongful convictions. And FIRE was right.
In Warner's case, the police and the university arrived at completely different conclusions when analyzing the same incident. Evidence gathered by the professionals in the Grand Forks Police Department showed that Warner's accuser had not told the truth about being sexually assaulted by Warner. The deception was so clear that, on May 13, 2010, the Grand Forks County District Court formally charged Warner's accuser with filing "False information or report to law enforcement officers or security officials." A warrant for her arrest was issued on May 17, 2010. To date, she has failed to appear to answer the charges against her. In other words, she has been a fugitive from justice for more than a year.
Warner's attorney, Steven Light, wrote a letter to UND General Counsel Julie Ann Evans on July 28, 2010, asking for a rehearing in light of this unusual turn of events. UND's student code allows re-hearings with no time limit when substantial new information unavailable during a prior hearing is uncovered. Yet on August 26, then-UND Vice President for Student Affairs Robert H. Boyd denied the request, erroneously calling it an "appeal" – rather than a request for re-hearing - and disallowing it because more than five days had passed since the guilty finding. For the record, most of my eighteen year old “Introduction to Criminal Justice” students understand the different between a motion for retrial, based on new facts, and an appeal, based on old law.
On May 11, 2011, my good friends at FIRE wrote UND President Robert O. Kelley pointing out the university's serious procedural errors and its failure to reconsider the case. FIRE added an even more important point; namely, that Warner's name could not be cleared by the courts so long as his accuser persisted in her flight from the law. FIRE further noted that it was unfair for UND to deny Warner a rehearing simply because his accuser had not been convicted of lying to the police. That conviction is not likely so long as she is a fugitive from justice not meeting her legal obligations.
On May 20, University Counsel responded to FIRE - once again denying Warner's request for a rehearing. Evans admitted in the letter that the university used the very same evidence to find Caleb Warner guilty of sexual assault that the police and prosecutor used to charge his accuser with lying to law enforcement. Evans further insisted that the fact that Warner's accuser had not responded to the charge against her was meaningless and that she could not even assume that his accuser knew about the charge against her. Evans states in part: “Clearly, the only ‘new testimony’ would be that of the opinion of Officer Vigness, i.e. that the victim lied to the police. This would not be substantial new evidence. This would be an unproven allegation.”
But since there has been an arrest warrant issued there must, at minimum, be probable cause that Warner’s accuser lied. According to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution – made binding on North Dakota through the Fourteenth Amendment - no warrants can be issued on less than probable cause. But that is not enough for Evans. She wants the charges “proven” under the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The situation may be roughly summarized as follows: The justice system must abide by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” when dealing with accusers. But UND may use “preponderance of evidence” when dealing with the accused.
There is no indication whatsoever that Evans has contemplated the possibility that there is something very wrong with the UND judicial system – legally or morally speaking. Her smug arrogance and condescension provide little hope for a quick remedy to an obvious injustice. Nonetheless, I would strongly urge everyone reading this column to call President Kelley’s office and demand justice for Caleb Warner. And UND alumni should also write Kelley’s office and announce that they are ceasing all donations until Caleb Warner is both cleared and compensated for his mistreatment at the hands of the UND administration. Those interested in doing so may simply follow this link: http://und.edu/president/.