Archive for the ‘Snowflakes’ category

Satire | WWII vets gather for solemn reminder to check their privilege

October 4, 2017

WWII vets gather for solemn reminder to check their privilege, Duffel Blog, October 4, 2017

BERKELEY, Calif. — The few remaining survivors of “The Greatest Generation”, who fought and bled in defense of democracy and freedom during World War II, were reminded to check their privilege today at a ceremony at The University of California at Berkeley.

The annual ceremony, sponsored by the Marginalized-Victims-of-Repressive-Oppression-by-White-Male-Capitalists-Over-Six-Feet-Tall-Student-Campus-Alliance (MVROWMCOSFTSCA), was intended to “send a message to all World War II veterans,” the group’s Facebook page said, “that no matter how many of your friends died right before your eyes, the fact that you were even there, only worried about dodging bullets and not violent speech, shows just how privileged you really were.”

Moonbeam Cinnamon Smith-Mustafa-Rodriguez-Gluten, the group’s organizer, shouted into a handheld loudspeaker at the dwindling crowd of aging veterans, noticeably smaller than last year’s group.

“You old, rich, privileged white men have no idea what the daily fight on the streets is like, what the struggle against an oppressive regime bent on domination is actually like,” she said.

 “You were too busy traveling abroad with all your friends. Going to Europe completely on the government’s dime. Visiting beautiful black sand beaches in the farthest corners of the vast Pacific ocean just to wave around the flag that is the ultimate symbol of oppression.”

Eugene Walsh, a rifleman who fought in the Battle of Okinawa and who, at the age of 18, held his best friend’s intestines with his own hands as he slowly died after his guts were shot out by a Japanese machine gun, turned his head to better hear the speakers.

“What’s she going on about again?” he asked. “Last year I think it was something about needing a ‘safe space,’ or some such thing. Boy, I hear that. I could’ve used one of those after the fifth human wave attack in one night. We ran out of ammunition and had to club our enemies to death.”

“I have never been more scared in my entire life. Human beings should never have to do that to each other.” Walsh said.

Walsh added that he couldn’t even imagine “what this poor young lady has to endure” in her life, sources said.

Who May Say what About Whom at Wellesley

April 18, 2017

Who May Say what About Whom at Wellesley, Front Page MagazineRichard L. Cravatts, April 18, 2017

(“All speech with which I disagree is hate speech, factually wrong or both, ipsi dixit.” — DM)

What is the solution to eliminating so-called hate speech at Wellesley? According to the editorial, it is a forced re-education, so that speech transgressors can be shown the light and taught, indeed coerced, to adopt acceptable views. If they cannot or refuse to learn the error of their thought, there will be potential censure and punishment; “if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted [emphasis added]” and “it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.”

*********************************

Something alarming is happening on campuses, fueled by tendentious and morally self-righteous progressive students, and some faculty, who have displayed a shocking disregard for the university’s cardinal virtue of free expression, deciding themselves who may say what about whom on their respective campuses—and purging from campuses those ideas they have deemed too hateful, too unsafe, too incendiary to tolerate or to allow to be heard.

Until now, these champions of the aggrieved have been less than transparent in both their motives and intentions, disingenuously asserting that their efforts to suppress the speech of those with opposing conservative views is done to protect perceived victim groups. Ideas which are contrary to these social justice warriors’ acceptable worldview are dismissed as contemptible—not even worthy of being debated—or are neutralized and debased by designations which characterize it as ‘hate speech’ because it is, depending on the victim groups attacked, racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, or homophobic. So sure of their righteousness and ideology are they that they do not even try to hide their preconceived notions and evident bias against ideas they have decided are beyond the pale or unworthy of being given voice.

Feelings, not ideas, are what count; emotionality now trumps rationality.

The defective rationale for the thuggish substitution of the suppression of other people’s speech for what is supposed to be two-sided academic dialogue was just revealed at Wellesley College, where both students and, unusually, faculty publicly articulated the shocking notion that only certain speech is to be permitted—namely, those ideas which promote and support progressive liberal views—and that opposing views, and the conservative speakers who utter them, are not even deemed worthy of being able to share their ideas on the Wellesley campus.

In an astoundingly facile editorial in the April 12th issue of the Wellesley News, the paper’s editors responded to recent debates over free speech on that campus, precipitated, somewhat ironically, by a series of lectures as part of Wellesley’s Censorship Awareness Week, during which one controversial speaker, Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis, critiqued the notion that American campuses are awash with sexual assault. In her book Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, in fact, Kripnis asserted the view that, “We seem to be breeding a generation of students, mostly female students, deploying Title IX to remedy sexual ambivalences or awkward sexual experiences, and to adjudicate relationship disputes post-breakup — and campus administrators are allowing it.”

That opinion was apparently intolerable to Wellesley’s students, and some faculty, who refused to acknowledge Kripnis’s notions, theories that contradict their preconceived worldview that men are predatory and women have to be protected from them, something she describes as “neo-sentimentality about female vulnerability.”

Alluding to the Kripnis visit, the editorial attempted to distinguish the difference between free speech and what they described as “hate speech,” mistakenly asserting that “Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech,” and that “our Wellesley community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.”

More ominously, the editors wrote, “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech.” Why is that? Because, the editorial contended, that “rhetoric” is not protected or allowable speech at all; “it is hate speech.”

Further, in language that would come as a surprise to constitutional scholars, the editorial finally revealed what this approach was all about: it embraced Marcuse’s idea of “repressive tolerance,” where weak, marginalized, victim groups are given access to expression at the expense of opposing thought. “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed,” the editorial fatuously asserted, “not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.” That, of course, is precisely what the First Amendment was not designed to do, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously observed when he said that speech protections are specifically for controversial, unpopular views, “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

What is the solution to eliminating so-called hate speech at Wellesley? According to the editorial, it is a forced re-education, so that speech transgressors can be shown the light and taught, indeed coerced, to adopt acceptable views. If they cannot or refuse to learn the error of their thought, there will be potential censure and punishment; “if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted [emphasis added]” and “it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions.”

It is one thing when intellectually-arrogant, morally-narcissistic students take it upon themselves to act as current-day Torquemadas and propose speech policies which are contradictory to what any university would normally seek to attain; namely, spirited intellectual debate from opposing views, with the hope that the truth will evidence itself, in Mill’s phrase, after “collision with error.” But this alarming editorial came on the heels of, and seems to have been inspired by, a March 20th email distributed to the Wellesley community by six self-righteous professors (members of the tellingly named Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity (CERE)) in which they rail against “several guest speakers with controversial and objectionable beliefs [who] have presented their ideas at Wellesley.”

According to these progressive professors, “There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley.” How does this imposition show itself? For one thing, they contended, “dozens of students tell us they are in distress as a result of a speaker’s words.” More absurdly, they continued, it is hurtful to students to expect them to confront opposing views with ideas of their own, and this necessity (which, one would think, is the reason a student even attends college) means that students will actually have to engage in dialogue and debate and waste time by countering what these professors have audaciously proclaimed are less than worthy ideas. Students “often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the [controversial] speakers’ arguments,” the professors wrote.

The notion that bringing speakers to campus with diverse views can actually lead to a more complete worldview and diversity of thought apparently is foreign to the professors, who are so concerned with protecting the sensibilities of perceived campus victim groups that they condemned those who invited controversial speakers in the first place, who “in their zeal for promoting debate . . . might, in fact, stifle productive debate by enabling the bullying of disempowered groups.”

Most egregious is the suggestion by this group of faculty that speakers be vetted prior to being invited to Wellesley, and that only those with progressive ideologies, acceptable views, be invited to speak. “This is not a matter of ideological bias,” the faculty contended, and then immediately revealed that ideological bias on their part is precisely what will influence who should speak and who should not. “Pseudoscience suggesting that men are more naturally equipped to excel in STEM fields than women, for example,” they declare without the benefit of being neuroscientists themselves, “has no place at Wellesley.”  “Similar arguments pertaining to race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and other identity markers are equally inappropriate,” meaning that any ideas challenging preconceived progressive notions of social justice and oppression will not be welcome at Wellesley.

And in case students are not comfortable with screening offensive speakers “whose ideas would be painful,” the six professors thoughtfully offer themselves as a thought tribunal, writing that, “We in CERE are happy to serve as a sounding board when hosts are considering inviting controversial speakers, to help sponsors think through the various implications of extending an invitation.”

This is, of course, a breathtaking display of pretentiousness and audacity, by both the professors and the Wellesley News editors, who have taken it upon themselves to decide which ideas can be heard and which can, and should, be suppressed—all in the name of protecting the sensibilities of victim groups on campus. That is a dangerous notion, and one that contradicts the primary goal of the university, which is the unfettered exchange of many views in the “marketplace of ideas.”

More importantly, it is not the role of universities to create “safe spaces” in which students are sheltered from any ideas that might challenge their pre-conceived notions; it is not the business of universities to insure that no one’s feelings are hurt. Yale University’s insightful 1974 Woodward Report on free speech affirmed this very point, suggesting that “. . . [a university] cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, civility, or mutual respect . . . It will never let these values, important as they are, override its central purpose. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox.”

Unfortunately, many on the left believe that their progressive views are virtuous and moral, and those of conservatives are regressive, cruel, and unjust. The moral rectitude of these academics is not only ill-conceived, but startling and offensive. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive,” observed literary critic C.S. Lewis, who bemoaned exactly this type of individual, “omnipotent moral busybodies . . .  who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Cartoons and Videos of the Day

December 17, 2016

 

Via Media Research Center

 

Via LATMA-TV

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

donkey

 

flacks-kg

 

travel-trunk

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

alleged

 

H/t Power Line

trump-salve

 

alien-dems

 

notmyfault

 

obama-putin

 

nbc-fake

 

161212-pajama-boy

 

pollster-end

 

H/t Tom Fernandez’s Blog

notbuying

 

Cartoons of the Day

December 7, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

homeschool

 

snowflake

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

chinashop

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

obscene

 

RIGHT ANGLE: Patriotic Video of the Year?

December 2, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Patriotic Video of the Year? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, December 1, 2016

GW Student Groups Denounce Campus Security Protection As “Act of Violence”

November 28, 2016

GW Student Groups Denounce Campus Security Protection As “Act of Violence” Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, November 28, 2016

(George Washington could not be reached for comment. — DM)

gwu

George Washington (where I teach at the law school) has become the focus of national attention due to a letter sent out by a collection of student groups that declared the security supplied by campus police to be an “act of violence” because police are viewed as supporting President-elect Donald Trump. It is an absurd and insulting position — part of a tirade by the groups calling for everything from providing sanctuary to undocumented immigrants to breaking down patriarchy, Islamophobia, and a myriad of other social ills.

The letter reflects the contributions of a wide array of groups, including Young Progressives Demanding Action GW, the Feminist Student Union, the Roosevelt Institute, Progressive Student Union, Students for Justice in Palestine, Green GW, Fossil Free GW, GroW Community, Casa Blanca, the Theta Chapter of Latinas Promoviendo Comunidad/Lambda Pi Chi Sorority, inc., Asian Pacific Islander Student Alliance Advocacy Committee, and the Association of Queer Women and Allies.

As for GW campus police, the groups tied all officers to the organization support of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for Donald Trump. Accordingly, the groups insists that “placing us in these officers’ care is an act of violence, especially for Black students.” Not only do the students demand that they be protected from campus security but that the university respond to this problem by increasing financial aid, discretionary funds, and other support for minority and low income students.

The connection drawn between the FOP and the campus security is facially ridiculous. These students are seeking to isolate officers based on their perceived support for a democratically elected president. The “act of violence” is the simple maintenance of a security staff for the university. None of these organizations appear to recognize the implications of barring employees from supplying services based on their presumed political leanings. These are the same groups that later in the letter demand that the university guarantee the rights of campus workers to organize and make demands. Yet, due to their perceived political beliefs, these workers are to be treated as objectified vehicles of oppression and violence:

“safety must not depend on the University’s police. The Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union in the United States, has formally endorsed President-Elect Donald Trump. The FOP includes over 10,000 members in Washington D.C., many of which have jurisdiction over GW’s campus. Placing us in these officers’ care is an act of violence, especially for Black students.”

In addition to demanding that the university become a sanctuary for undocumented persons, the letter demands other commitments like the university recognizing “white supremacy” and how “The 2016 presidential election has emboldened the structures of oppression that are embedded in our country at all social, political, and economic levels.”

The demands also include greater protections and admissions for Palestinian students” to prevent their genocide at the hands of Israel” and the university supplying job training and community centers in Washington, D.C. as well as facilities for the homeless.

The tragic irony is that we have long had one of the most responsive and supportive security forces in the country. I have worked with campus security in a volunteer program teaching elementary students about the law. These officers operate in a high crime area and try hard to protect the faculty and students from harm. They deserve better than this unhinged tirade from those who are some of the beneficiaries of their work. I am confident that the professionals working for the university will not be affected by this letter. They will continue to do their jobs and protect all students and faculty. However, they should know that many of us appreciate their hard work and dedication.

The call for the university to subsidize various social programs for the homeless, undocumented, and other groups ignores our primary educational mission. We remain one of the most expensive schools in the country. In addition to the demand for more financial aid and discretionary funds, the supply of housing, training, and shelter services would impose tremendous costs of students who already face towering tuition debt. GW has a long history of community outreach and activism. Yet, we remain at our core an educational institutional with a duty to our students to supply an education at an affordable cost.

I am glad to see activism and passion from our students. These are issues worthy of debate. However, this letter seems more visceral and sensational than constructive in my opinion.

What do you think?

Here is the letter:

gw-letter-page-1

 

gw-letter-page-2

Cartoons of the Day

November 26, 2016

H/t Power Line

wambulance

 

obama-star

 

demthanksgiving

 

clinton-black-friday

 

trump-baby-bottles

 

trump-islam

 

H/t Power Line article about Fidel Castro

Fidel's last cigar

Fidel’s last cigar

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

angered

 

card

 

racist

 

H/t Joop

soros2

 

What Should Americans Be Talking About?

October 17, 2016

What Should Americans Be Talking About? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, October 17, 2016

Should Americans uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “It is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also an acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” — Muslim Brotherhood, 1991.

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

For the American voter, issues of immense urgency to the survival of the free world — such as individual freedom, dispassionate enquiry and freedom of speech and thought, which we dangerously have come to take for granted — are being derailed by crude language and behavior, when Americans need to be paying attention to serious threats to the United States, its allies and to the values of the West.

Internationally, these threats come from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and countless terrorist groups.

Domestically, they appear in the form of massive corruption — financial and otherwise — that is visibly hollowing out American institutions, such as the FBI (the failure to follow investigative procedure, followed by calls for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation); the Department of Justice (the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and the Attorney General meeting with a former president whose wife is under investigation); the State Department (email leaks are still yielding up evidence of collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the State Department under Hillary Clinton); the IRS (targeting conservative non-profits, and raiding the businesses of private citizens, who disagree with policy); the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to acquire power over every puddle in America) and the Executive branch in the “I have a pen and I have a phone” president’s dealings with Iran.

There have also been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos.

1952There have been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

Instead of helping Americans to create a safer, more prosperous way of life, the Ferguson events destroyed a community, devastated small business owners, and eroded security, the rule of law, and any hope for a better future. Who benefits? Creating chaos embeds a political dependency: rather than helping people to climb out of poverty, it keeps them voting for politicians to “rescue” them.

Jews and Israel are also targeted — often, regrettably, by other Jews, who appear naïvely to hope that they will thereby “immunize” themselves from attacks on Jews. Recently, for example, an article accused the U.S. Republican presidential election campaign of “significantly enhancing the presence of antisemitism in the public arena.”

Seriously?

While “conservative” radicals, such as white supremacists do exist, they are not even close to overtaking the mainstream discourse. That space, rather, seems to have been filled in the last decades by self-described “liberals” who now seem to dominate it to such a degree that the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, John Ellison, felt obliged to write a letter warning prospective applicants not to expect a “safe space.” “Conservative” radicals are not the ones hunting down Jews — “liberals” and Islamists are victimizing and shutting them out.

Ironically of course, the liberals have not yet figured out that the agendas of these two groups are incompatible (as in gender equality); perhaps they are trying to “immunize” themselves, too.

Public debate in the US, particularly in the next few weeks, really needs to be about choosing what policies would actually improve the lives of Americans. Should they uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

American university campuses, which should proudly be championing debate of all ideas, have instead been rife with antisemitism for years, mostly because a “thought police” obsessed with identity politics — another way of saying my race, religion, skin color or sexual proclivity is good, yours is not — has overtaken campuses and turned them into embittered war-zones. It is postmodern Stalinism.

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “it is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also and acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

The glue that brings “liberals” and Islamists, such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in the US (a front[1] for the Muslim Brotherhood), together in a common cause is the goal of eradicating Israel — of course always only under the euphemisms of “helping Palestinians” and “Peace,” even though Jihadi camps for children were organized first by Palestinians.

A 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood outlines its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America. It depicts the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in the United States stating:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers… [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

________________-

[1] In a 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, outlining its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America, the Muslim Students Association was mentioned as “one of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”, that is, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.

 

‘The Chalkening’ Continues: DePaul Accuses ‘Trump 2016’ Conservatives of Hate Crime

April 7, 2016

‘The Chalkening’ Continues: DePaul Accuses ‘Trump 2016’ Conservatives of Hate Crime, Truth RevoltMark Tapson, April 6, 2016

depaul

The College Republicans group apparently chalked the praises of conservative values, the nation of Israel, all candidates in the GOP primary, and the pro-law enforcement Blue Lives Matter movement.

******************

It’s becoming too cumbersome to list all the schools across the country at which students have recently had panic attacks over pro-Trump chalkings on campus. Let’s just say that the left considers these domestic terror attacks — now known as #TheChalkening — to be an epidemic.

DePaul College is the latest school to be victimized, and a Republican group responsible has been accused of a hate crime, according to Hypeline.

The College Republicans group apparently chalked the praises of conservative values, the nation of Israel, all candidates in the GOP primary, and the pro-law enforcement Blue Lives Matter movement. Outraged students who felt “attacked” want the group to be held responsible, and the Black Student Union at DePaul accused the Republican group of a hate crime. They released this statement:

DePaul statement

“I’m disgusted but not surprised, because these thing happen all the time on campus,” said a student involved with the Black Student Union. He added: “Trump’s racist comments do not need to be included in the conversation and have no place on campus.”

“It’s sad that even at a school as diverse and accepting as DePaul, I still feel attacked,” wrote another student in a DePaul Facebook group. “Diverse and accepting,” that is, except for unacceptable ideas, and we can’t have those at our institutions of higher indoctrination.

College Republicans President Nicole Been said that she met with the administration, which told her that the name “Trump” triggers people, to which she responded:

“So you want to censor a word that is everywhere, who is the last name of the Republican frontrunner? You can’t do that.”

About the chalkings constituting a hate crime, Been said:

“I would just say that nothing we wrote was out of guidelines with University policy. Also, any [College Republican] chapter member, member of conservative group, or frankly any one right of center would most likely write something extremely similar. We just wrote in support of all Republican candidates and basic conservative values. If conservative/ Republican values are hate crimes then we have a much bigger issue in this country than students using sidewalk chalk to voice their opinion.”

Sounds like she’s too smart for this school. How did DePaul even let her in?

Been told Hypeline what she would tell others facing a similar leftist backlash:

“The conservative people in your club, school, local community, family, friends, have your back. They will fight with and for you. You are not in the wrong as long as you are following the rules, people are hypocrites. Don’t back down, don’t let it get to you, and don’t let it silence you. You know you’re doing something right when the far left is speaking out against you.”

According to the University, chalking is allowed on campus. Until it’s not.