Tolerance Nazis Threaten Little Girl

A 14 year old girl testified in Maryland in support of traditional marriage. Read what she wrote and then read some of the vile and threatening things written to her or about her by the tolerance Nazis.
"Hi, I’m Sarah Crank. Today’s my 14th birthday, and it would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote ‘no’ on gay marriage. I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don't want more kids to get confused about what's right and okay. I really don't want to grow up in a world where marriage isn't such a special thing anymore.

"It's rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislature or the court can change the definition of any word they want. If they could change the definition of marriage then they could change the definition of any word. People have the choice to be gay, but I don't want to be affected by their choice. People say that they were born that way, but I've met really nice adults who did change. So please vote ‘no’ on gay marriage. Thank you.”

And the tolerance Nazis have pounced.

TFP Student Action has rounded up some of the nastier comments including:

“And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…” reads a comment posted on

“Her parents should be exterminated.”

“Parents like hers should be sterilized…”

It goes on and on like this. Tolerance is the new racist. Remember the meme that black people can't be racist because they don't have the power. I honestly don't even understand what that means but it seems to have been accepted as gospel by the left. And in the same vein, I guess, the left can't be intolerant because they're not the oppressors. You see, they're freeing the old constrained view of marriage to be open and accesible to all. And that's good. And therefore anything they do in pursuance of that goal is therefore good.

With abortion, they're freeing women to have better lives. The death of the child is simply a means to an end. It seems to me when you consider millions of human beings collateral damage, it's time to rethink your positions.

Check out TFP Student Action for more.


  1. “The [sic] is why abortion must stay legal – to prevent little bigots like this from being Born…”

    Uh huh. So she's a figment of our imaginations?

    Clearly, logic and reason are no longer taught, but have been consigned, with phonics and grammar, to the dustbin.

  2. Reason and logic are anathema to promoters of the killing of unborn children, promiscuity and homosexuality.

  3. “And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…” reads a comment posted on

    “Her parents should be exterminated.”

    “Parents like hers should be sterilized…” There are law against disturbing the peace and especially inciting to riot and enabling criminals to commit crimes. This is called complicity. May almighty God bless Sarah Crank and depose the evildoers.

  4. What a fine, wholesome, young woman. Imagine such hatred for simply expressing her opinion, at 14.

    If this vitriol does not frighten those who read it......


  5. The comments cited against this young lady (whom I lauded on my own blog) are deplorable - if they exist! What are the sources? What are the urls for these comments? Why aren't the sources cited? Until these claims can be substantiated, they remain in the realm of rumor and innuendo, be they ever so believable. I'd post this to my own blog, but I have standards that require me to cite first-hand sources. We risk sin if we pass along something that we cannot verify.

  6. I forgot to mention that I did my own search for the sources. Can't find a single one.

  7. Here's a correct link for one of the remarks, erroneously attributed to a commenter at LGBTNation.

  8. I agree they're nasty - but they don't rise to the level of "threat". The word "threat" has a specific meaning - it occurs when Person A makes clear his/her intention to inflict harm on Person B. Merely wishing harm upon Person B does not constitute a threat, as Person A does not state that he/she intends to bring about that harm. Let's be careful that we don't turn into "the little boy who cries wolf".

  9. Dear Restore DC - Get real. When a little girl merely expresses an opinion and people say her parents should be exterminated, that is threatening. To be told that your (admirable) ideas and willingness to stand up for them provoke violent impulses in others is threatening. It should not go unnoticed. And what's wrong with crying wolf, when there are wolves out there snarling at our little ones?

  10. No, no, Restore DC's right. Merely advocating genocide, forced abortion, or forced sterilization is in no way indicative of whether someone, or some group, actually would.

    Oh, no, wait, yes it is. It's a great indicator.

    Oh, and by the bye, Restore DC, I had not previously thought I would ever need to explain a fairy tale to an ostensible adult—but here we are. The boy who cried wolf does not refer to a boy who thought there was a wolf, and overreacted; it refers to a boy who was bored, and cried "wolf" to amuse himself. Since nobody involved in this characterized non-threatening speech as threatening, out of boredom, but rather correctly characterized froth-mouthed rabid hate speech as froth-mouthed rabid hate speech, no analogy whatsoever with the boy who cried wolf is appropriate. Maybe you should re-read Aesop's Fables—or get it on tape, since actually reading it appears to have been too challenging for you.


Post a Comment