In another great video (below) from Campus Reform, Cabot Phillips traveled to Georgia, specifically to Savannah College of Art and Design, where there exists a building named after conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
At this college, a number of students have signed a petition to rename the building and remove Clarence Thomas from any association with the building and/or the school.
Cabot Phillips wanted to understand just why the students were signing the petition and just why they felt compelled to rename the building to something that is not associated with Justice Clarence Thomas. And if you think any one of them came up with even a remotely decent explanation, you’d be horribly wrong.
You see, none of them could really come up with a solid answer. Many simply shrugged their shoulders, saying “I don’t know” or “I haven’t done enough research.” So they can’t even clumsily point to Thomas’ sexual assault allegations that came up very similarly to Kavanaugh’s allegations back when Thomas was a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Of course, even pointing that out brings with it a share of problems, but not even one of them even thought of it. They literally would say or signify that they simply don’t know why they are against him, they just are.
Cabot went further, asking them if there was anything the students could point to as the biggest reason for wanting to remove Thomas’ name from the building. Once again, they could not come up with anything… except for one particular student who gave perhaps the single stupidest answer I’ve heard in a long time.
A student wearing a New Orleans Saints beanie said the following: “[Thomas] is a historical figure… so is Hitler.”
No, there was nothing in between the things I quoted. There was nothing else that he said. That ellipsis was not to cut out unimportant bits and focus on the important ones, that ellipsis was to signify the time spent from one part of the quote to the other, similar to dialogue.
The kid’s literal argument was that Clarence Thomas is a historical figure, and because Hitler was also a historical figure, Thomas should have his name removed.
Now, I will cut the kid some slack. He does appear to be smiling when he said that, as if to know he just said some seriously dumb crap, but still. That is hardly an argument.
I’ve heard some ludicrous comparisons to Hitler before. Comparisons between, say, Trump and Hitler. And the reasons given are wrong and ignorant. People will say “they are both white supremacists” or other ridiculous things. But those kinds of comparisons, though erroneous, are pretty subjectively understandable. People consider the concept of a wall to be racist, even though it’s only meant to protect the border and the rule of law, without interjecting race. However, this comparison, though not directed at Trump, has to be the dumbest one I’ve ever heard.
People can say Trump is a Nazi all they want; they’d be wrong. But that gives them some subjective reason to not like him. This answer does not even touch on similarities of ideology (of which there are none because Hitler was a socialist and Thomas is a conservative). It does not even touch on similarities of policy (again, of which there are none). The argument is: Thomas is a historical figure. So is Hitler. Therefore, Thomas bad man.
There is literally no logical steps taken to go from not liking Thomas to comparing him to Hitler in this instance.
There is this little analogy I use sometimes: A farmer has to wake up very early every day, and he’s tired of it. He notices that whenever his rooster starts clucking in the morning, the sun would rise. As a result, he kills the rooster so that the sun will stop rising. Of course, the sun still rises anyway.
You see, there was no direct relationship between the rooster clucking and the sun rising. It’s just that the rooster clucks to signify the sun is about to rise, but the rooster does not make the sun rise.
But the farmer in that analogy at least noticed some sort of pattern, even if he was ultimately wrong. No cause-effect relationship. The student here draws no pattern. His line of thinking is: Thomas is a historical figure, as was Hitler, so that CLEARLY means Thomas must be like Hitler.
Never mind the fact that OBAMA is also a historical figure. Never mind that Bill and Hillary Clinton are historical figures (Bill more than Hillary, I’d say). Don’t pay attention to any of that.
Now, again, the kid was smiling, almost laughing, when he said that. I take that as he knows what he just said is super dumb, so I will try to cut him some slack, but I hope he at least learns the meaning of constructing an argument.
Of course, we could also argue about Thomas being a historical figure, but that’s not the point of my rebuking of the Saints fan.
That argument can hardly be called an argument. And that is where I will leave that since that is mostly a tangent for the main purpose of this article.
Returning to the overall video, there wasn’t a single person who could come up with a reason at all to remove Thomas’ name. One of the students tried to make it about politics, saying that the campus is liberal and that Thomas “degrades” that, which can also hardly be considered an argument. Cabot makes sure to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism, saying that liberals are supposed to be “open-minded and tolerant”. The student replies: “I guess, but I think that’s just a way to twist the concept of liberalism.”
Sweetheart (the student is a girl), what does the Left tend to do to appeal to people? Aside from trying to be hipster and cool to appeal to millennials, they point to the “racism” of the Republicans and the “inclusive” nature of the Left. The Left is the ones who say they are “open-minded and tolerant”. Cabot isn’t twisting it, the Left is.
We know very well that the Left is not tolerant and open-minded (as evidenced by the fact that this student herself essentially argues against Thomas’ name for the building because the college is liberal and he is conservative), so if anyone is twisting the concept of liberalism, it’s the Left.
Now, thankfully, not every single student interviewed by Cabot said they should rename it. One of the students brought up that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify their accomplishments. So not every student there is being completely indoctrinated, but there are a good number of them who are.
And make no mistake, this is prototypical indoctrination. Those students believe the things they believe not because they arrived at those conclusions by themselves, but because other people have taught them to believe those things.
This much is clear when they sign a petition to remove Clarence Thomas’ name from a school building but cannot come up with any particular reason as to why, apart from that’s just the way they feel.
This is what comes out of indoctrination. Mindless pawns useful to the Left. Clarence Thomas, to these kids, is bad. Not because they know anything about him, but because other people told them he’s bad and they have no sense for wishing to learn more about him to verify the claims made against him.
Then, these kids grow up to “believe all women” whenever a Leftist woman accuses a conservative man of something, whether or not it’s proven he did it.
But in this case, I arrive at a dilemma. What is better? Being uninformed or being misinformed? I, for one, believe it’s better to be uninformed. These kids, given their answers, are largely uninformed about Clarence Thomas. Again, they didn’t point to the sexual assault allegations, and the one kid that compared him to Hitler made a very stupid comparison that is not even up for debate as to why it’s wrong.
So I think these kids are in a better situation than someone who would bring up the aforementioned things or would make a more common comparison to Hitler (which is largely becoming stale, regardless of who you direct the comparison to), because such a person would be largely misinformed and remain grounded in their beliefs, whereas someone who is uninformed can be properly informed and could perhaps be persuaded to our side.
However much this may be the case here, I don’t know. But there is at least some level of hope for these kids to be properly informed and help them understand why it makes no sense to wish to rename the building currently named after Justice Thomas.
Here’s hoping that is the case, because it could just as easily go the other way, unfortunately. This is academia, after all. It’s long ceased to be a place of higher education. It’s now a place for higher indoctrination.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Recently, CampusReform’s Cabot Phillips went to the University of Georgia, offering students $100 if they could answer this simple question: “Can you offer an example of a liberal speaker being shouted down by conservative students?”
Of course, this is coming from the fact that there have been multiple cases of college speakers getting shouted down and events being cancelled. And it really should come as no surprise to anyone that every speaker that was shouted down was either conservative (Ben Shapiro and others) or simply said things that the Leftist students disagreed with.
So for $100, Cabot challenged a number of students to see if any of them could think of even one example of conservative students shouting down a liberal event in any way. As you could imagine, not one student was $100 richer that day.
No student could recall such an event happening either because they were not necessarily paying attention (not that there even is an example even if you were paying attention) or simply because they legitimately could not picture even one time when conservative students shouted down a liberal speaker.
One of the students admitted: “No, I don’t think I can name any. I wish I could, but no…”
I won’t get too much into that particular answer, since seeing the video, I take that to mean “I wish I could tell you so I could get that $100” and not “I wish I could tell you so that I can own conservatives.”
His demeanor was not one of someone who was frustrated at not being able to come up with an example.
Another student said: “I honestly would believe that that hasn’t happened before.” Which is quite an interesting answer, all things considered.
Now, unsurprisingly, pretty much all of them still tried to say that the Left was more tolerant and open-minded. One of them said: “I just think people are a bit more open on the liberal side.” The interesting thing is that Cabot tried to reason with him, saying that, knowing conservatives don’t shut down liberal speakers, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider the conservatives to be more open-minded? The student briefly agreed with Cabot, but ultimately went with: “… I think it’s both sides.”
It really isn’t.
Another student, when faced by the same question of who is more tolerant, said: “I think so. I think if they (conservatives) did it, they’d know there’d be more backlash.”
A very fascinating point he makes. If it were conservatives shouting down liberal speakers, there would absolutely be more backlash. And deservedly so, because conservatives believe in freedom of speech. But then, this raises another question: “why don’t the liberals face the kind of backlash this student believes would go to conservatives if they did the exact same thing?”
Why is it that when liberal students threaten violence or actually perpetrate violence against a speaker they disagree with, they do not receive much if any backlash at all? Of course, we all know the answer to this. Academia and the media are both owned by the Left. The media won’t report on it, and when they do, they usually back the students who threatened violence.
Anyway, back to the students. Some of them still tried to make the case that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. Emphasis on the word “tried”. The ones that argued in favor of liberals being more open-minded either eventually came to an agreement or concession of their point, like the student I mentioned some paragraphs ago, or they simply had their tongues-tied and could not properly make an argument.
It’s because of those things that I titled this article like I did. The proof is in the pudding.
The overlords at Google define tolerance as: “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
Going by this definition owned by Leftists themselves, we can see that liberal students do not express tolerance towards conservative speakers. They have neither the ability nor the willingness to tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
Much like the Nazi brown shirts or the Fascist black shirts, liberal college students try to suppress and deny other people’s opinions. Beyond not wanting to hear those opinions, they do not want those opinions even uttered.
It is one thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and choosing not to go to the event. It is an entirely different thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and organize a mob to shut down the event altogether and keep Shapiro from speaking at all.
You have the right to not hear someone’s opinion, but you do not have the right to bully and threaten and keep someone from expressing their opinion. Like the student said, if conservatives were to do it to liberals, there would be a lot of backlash, even from the Right, as well there should be. No real conservative would shut down the speech of another person just because they disagree with them.
But those are not the rules the Left lives by. Knowing this, and the fact that they are the only ones who do this to anyone, then one cannot realistically argue that liberals are at least equally as tolerant or even more tolerant than conservatives. That is simply the opposite of reality.
Not one of these students got $100 because not one of these students could come up with an example of conservatives shutting down liberal events. That’s because that sort of thing does not happen. We may attend liberal events and challenge the ideas of the speakers, much like some liberals attend conservative events and challenge the speaker, but we never adamantly keep someone from expressing their beliefs, as erroneous and messed up as they might be.
This is all because conservatives are truly tolerant, while the Left is not. Now, one thing needs to be clarified: it is okay to be intolerant sometimes. Definitely not when your desire is to shut down someone else’s opinion and keep them from uttering it. But definitely when someone is doing something wrong.
What do I mean by this? Well, this all comes down to right and wrong. For example, we should not be tolerant of terrorism. While sissy countries like the U.K. and France seemingly tolerate terrorism (see London Mayor Sadiq Khan saying it’s part and parcel of living in a big city), no one should really tolerate such a despicable act. No country should lay down and accept that as part of life. No one should tolerate radical Islamic extremists killing people in the name of Allah or Sharia Law or sex with goats or whatever.
At that point, tolerating terrorism is not tolerance, it’s surrender. And doing this is extremely dangerous in multiple levels.
So it’s okay to not be tolerant of everything. If we had to tolerate everything, then we would have had to tolerate Nazism. It’s good to tolerate things, so long as those things are not adamantly evil and a horrible thing in this world.
Regardless, I hope this experience leaves some of those kids with something to think about. If they are logical, they should come to the conclusion that liberals are really the ones who don’t tolerate things and that conservatives are the ones who tolerate others.
2 Peter 3:18
“But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles delivered straight into your inbox. And as the name suggests, it comes completely free of charge. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Is there anything anyone ever does that is inoffensive to someone nowadays? You literally can’t go outside without being called a racist, apparently. And one student from Pitzer College, Malcolm McCann, makes known his beliefs that outdoor clubs in schools are fundamentally racist.
According to Campus Reform: “In a recent op-ed for the school paper, a white Pitzer student frets that the colleges’ outdoor programs, though open to all students and well-funded, are ‘predominantly white spaces’ that deny people of color ‘access to the outdoors.’”
That statement reaches levels of stupidity close to the whole “a banana peel in a tree made people cry” incident a few months back.
McCann writes in his op-ed: “[The Pitzer Outdoor Adventure and ‘On the Loose’ outdoor clubs] claim to be accessible: while trips are open to any student wanting to go, not everyone feels the same ease in entering the outdoors. This discomfort is unfortunately caused by existing racial boundaries.”
I feel as though it’s necessary to remind you that McCann is white himself, so I have no idea how he would know how minorities feel when going outdoors. I’ve been offered to go hiking with some friends before. I turned down those offers not because I felt that my friends would automatically become racists the minute we got there but because I’m not really into hiking.
Likewise, I seriously doubt minorities’ concerns about joining an outdoor club center on how “white” the club is.
Regardless, McCann’s ridiculous sense of social justice is in full display for all to see. He continues his op-ed with: “Historically, white people in imperialist conquests have appropriated land as their own. North America rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet it has been taken away from them by force. Consequently, a false sense of ownership of nature permeates white America.”
I just love the way ignorant liberals often phrase things. He writes that the whole country rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet, I highly doubt he’d give up his house to some random Indian tribe. He believes the land belongs to the natives, yet he lives and thrives in land that is supposedly not his. Would that not make him a hypocrite?
What land would be his then? Some place in Europe that maybe his family owned before they moved to the colonies? Should he go there since the land his family now owns technically belongs to the natives?
But he’s not done. Not by a longshot. He continues with: “Similarly, the image of a modern outdoor enthusiast is white, as is the historical image of a naturalist. The great icons of nature – John Muir, Walt Whitman, Henry David Thoreau – are all white men. At present, most famous rock climbers are also disproportionately white.”
To which I must reply with: “so what?” What does it matter that those people he named are all white? I can make you a list of the 10 greatest basketball players of all time and I can easily say that only 1 of them is white. Does that mean the NBA is racist because of the disproportionate black to white ratio? OF COURSE NOT!
So why is it racist that there’s a disproportionate white to black ratio in outdoor activities? Often times, these things are about PERSONAL PREFERENCE!
Take me, for example. I’m from Latin America, where soccer (or futbol, as it’s called there) is the most popular sport there (and given the multiple countries with socialist governments, the best chance people have to escape poverty). I like it, but not nearly as passionately as fellow Latin Americans. My favorite sport (in case you couldn’t tell from the numerous references I’ve made over time) is basketball.
A sport that is most famous in 2 places: America and China. Off the top of my head, I can name 2 All-Star Latin American players (one of them retired and the other very close to retirement), so you can see that basketball isn’t nearly as popular for Latin Americans as soccer is. Yet, I love it with a passion.
I don’t care much for outdoor activities not because of the white people there, but because I’m just not into it. I’d rather be shooting some hoops than walking up a mountain carrying a 50 lbs. backpack or kicking a soccer ball.
And if I WERE into outdoor activities, I couldn’t care less about what skin color the other people around me are.
Still, I doubt one minority writer would convince an airhead such as McCann that most people aren’t so fixed about the color of people’s skin. Honestly, for someone to write an op-ed about how outdoor clubs are racist, they really have to be SEARCHING for a problem where none really lies.
And perhaps the funniest point he seriously makes (though that’s up for debate) is that aside from racial barriers, there are also financial barriers… which are also racial barriers, to this guy.
“Many National Parks are hundreds of miles from large cities. Consequently, only those with access to a vehicle and money for gas will be able to enjoy them. Similarly, only students with economic privilege have the resources to attend summer programs that teach wilderness skills.”
Does this guy not realize that he’s talking about COLLEGE CLUBS?! Chances are that the minorities attending such schools have the money to do so. Financial troubles are not something they have to worry about all that much. Granted, a student here and there might say “I can’t afford to go hiking”, which is fair enough. But that’s not a problem every single minority student runs into.
If I were attending college and had the chance to join an outdoor club, I wouldn’t join not because I don’t think I can afford to go to these National Parks but because I’m just not interested in those things.
And even if I WERE interested, my financial ability to go is not something I’d be worried about. Even if I couldn’t afford it, these kind of clubs are usually well-funded. According to Campus Reform: “At Pitzer College, the ‘Pitzer Outdoor Adventure’ club of which McCann is a member began this school year with over $7,500 of funding.”
So even the very club he’s A MEMBER OF is more than capable of funding any student who wishes to participate in the club’s activities. So McCann has exactly zero valid points to make.
Worst of all, not only does he come across as an absolute ignoramus, he’s also coming across as racist. I imagine the reason he wrote the op-ed is because he took one look at his fellow members’ skin tone and felt disgusted at the lack of diversity. He couldn’t get past their skin tone and thus concluded that outdoor clubs are racist and predominantly white.
While the white to black ratio may sway to the white side, that’s by no means a problem. It becomes a problem if the club’s main goal is to attract more minorities rather than focusing on the nature trips. It becomes a problem if the club becomes more focused on the skin color of its members. It becomes a problem if the leader of the school’s club denies entry to a white person wanting to join so that they can have open spots for minorities.
McCann’s op-ed solves no problems and only seeks to incite them. He looked for a problem in his club and decided to create one.
It’s similar to what some people think Congress has. They don’t think there are enough minorities in Congress. They don’t think they have enough women in Congress. Not enough Hispanics or Asians. My big concern isn’t about what a Congressman looks like. My big concern is about what a Congressman BELIEVES! How he works and what he wants done.
I’d happily vote for an African-American woman if she’s a Christian conservative. Same as I would a while man. Or a Hispanic man. Or Hispanic woman. Or Asian man. Or Asian woman.
The point is that I couldn’t care less about the way people look. But it’s clear that the Left does. I can assure you no conservative looks at Congress and thinks “it’s too white and masculine.”
On contraire, I challenge you to find much masculinity, especially from Republicans.
Jokes aside, these are things only the Left worries about. That’s how shallow they are. That’s how shallow they always have been. They’ve always looked at black people as slaves. Either literally or financially. It’s no different today.
They claim they’re not racist, yet they use people’s skin color as an argument. Remember how people called you racist if you didn’t vote for Obama? If the fact Obama was black was the only reason some people voted for him, that makes those people racist.
They portrayed Obama (among other things) as “the cool black guy”… both times. And both times, he ran against a supposedly “racist” candidate just because they were white (I won’t defend either Establishment scumbag, but I remember the way people felt throughout the elections, mostly through 2012).
Race is a major issue for which the Left seemingly "wants" to rectify but never really will. The concept of “white guilt” is entirely created by the Left and entirely ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to further drive a wedge between people using race.
No white person has to feel guilty about things they had nothing to do with (but Democrats should feel guilty about supporting and fighting for slavery). Likewise, no black person should victimize themselves for things that never happened to them. Cotton shouldn’t be something that offends them. They never had to pick any for their “white masters”.
Still, the Left can’t help themselves. They simply MUST divide people in any way they can. And so, stupid op-ed pieces like these surface. There was no racial problem in Pitzer’s outdoor club, but this guy wants there to be.
“Whoever diligently seeks good seeks favor; but evil comes to him who searches for it.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
I believe there’s a bit of conservatism within all of us who are not in the Establishment. I remember seeing a tweet by basketball superstar LeBron James that came off as rather conservative, saying that the Golden State Warriors (who are worth roughly $2.6 billion, according to Forbes) should be able to use however amount of money they want in the NBA’s free agency period BECAUSE they’re worth so much. Unfortunately, the NBA only allows teams to use a certain amount of “cap space” to sign players and their worth as teams don’t matter.
I’d say that’s a rather conservative tweet coming from a largely Leftist athlete. Why? Because conservatism involves COMMON SENSE! However, LeBron’s tweet isn’t the topic of today’s article. The topic of the article is what was discovered by a journalist working for CampusReform.org. The journalist went to George Washington University to ask some students how they felt about Trump’s tax plan.
Initially, they were all against it. None of them knew what was in it, but because it has Trump’s name attached to it, they think it’s a heartless, cold tax plan that will benefit the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The students said things along the lines of: “It’s better for the upper class than for anyone else.” As well as: “It’s probably not the most efficient nor beneficial to the general populous.” They all felt negative towards Trump’s plan, having never heard it… then, they heard it just not the way they thought they would.
The journalist then told the students: “So, Bernie Sanders came out with his plan. Some people are calling it a ‘compassionate alternative’”, and then, he told them the details of TRUMP’S plan. “First, one of ‘Bernie Sanders’ plans is to increase the Child Tax Credits, which is tax money given back to families when they have children.” That was just the FIRST part of the plan.
When asked how they felt about that part, the students all felt POSITIVE about it. One said: “Parents who have children go through a lot… getting money back really helps the children.” And another saying: “I think that’s great.”
Then, the journalist detailed the second part of the plan, which is to eliminate the Death Tax, a tax that takes some money from those who die by taxing their estate and such things, while the rest would go to the family. This way, the family keeps ALL of the benefits during their time of grief. When asked about this particular point, the students reacted the same as with the previous one. They loved it.
“I think that’s definitely something that we should be doing.”, said one of the students. “I think that’s a good idea because I’m from New Jersey and we used to have like a really heavy inheritance tax.”, said another.
Then, the journalist reveals part 3 of the plan, which is to lower small business rates to a maximum of 25%. This means that small businesses can’t be taxed more than 25% on what they make. And THIS ONE is really the one that students should’ve realized that this was not Bernie’s plan. Bernie would NEVER try to lower taxes for any sort of business because he’s a communist lunatic who thinks capitalism and competition are evil and bad for people.
And yet, the students also reacted positively to that part as well. With one of them saying: “My family has a small business, so I would definitely think that’s a positive.” And, perhaps my favorite comment: “Taxing them less makes more sense.” What did I tell you? There’s a bit of conservatism within all of us simply because it involves common sense.
Finally, he asks the students if they think “Bernie” did a good job with this tax plan, and they all think he did, indeed, do a good job, with one of them saying: “I think it’s pretty good. Definitely better than whatever Trump is proposing.” … and then, comes the reveal. He says “What if I told you that this is actually Trump’s tax plan, not Bernie’s”. And that simply leaves them stunned.
With one of them saying: “I am shocked that I do agree with Trump on certain things.” And another saying: “I’m definitely happily surprised that it sounds a lot better than I would’ve expected it to.”
They were all shocked to see it, with another one saying: “I would’ve imagined he would be a little more stupid than that.” And then the same student says that she doesn’t think it’s a stupid plan.
Then the students reflect back on their initial feelings towards Trump’s plan, now knowing what it is. They realize that, because Trump’s name is attached to it, they would’ve expected it to be some sort of evil scheme to screw everyone in America except for the 1%. To their credit, they realize they were simply being biased against Trump for it, believing the plan was good when they thought it was Bernie’s.
And, surprisingly, one of the students said that because people tend to go to one source of media, and they don’t go to others, it’s “tough to get other points of views”. Kudos to that particular student, realizing (at least for that particular moment) that getting news from only one source is not going to get you the whole truth (or any part of the truth at all).
Now, I say “at least for that particular moment” because it’s entirely possible that some of them will simply go back to being how they were about everything Trump does and proposes. Some of them might learn to do their research on something before immediately believing the MSM and what other people think of it, but it’s also possible that they will be biased against future Trump proposals simply because of the negative connotation they believe there is with Trump’s name.
I certainly do hope that all of these students learn that just because Trump’s name is attached to something it doesn’t mean that it will be a plot for world domination. But it’s refreshing to see at least some shred of conservatism (even if they claim to be hardcore Leftists) within these college students. They know a good tax plan when they see one, but first they actually have to SEE IT as opposed to being told by their favorite politician what is in it.
If everyone did research, learned history and found out what exactly the Left proposes, no one would ever vote Democrat. The reason why Democrats win in the first place is because they deceive people into believing that something bad for them will be good and something good for them will be bad.
Deceit is the only way the Left can ever win. They can’t win in the realm of ideas because no one would ever back their ideas if people knew what they were. People were deceived into loving Obamacare, when it’s insanely unaffordable and covers things people simply don’t need. It’s a terrible piece of legislation, but people were deceived by the Left into thinking it was great and affordable.
If people actually knew what was in the bill, they would want it repealed immediately. It’s the whole issue about wicked people vs. weak people. The wicked lie to the weak. But when told the truth, the weak don’t fall to the wicked and become strong.
But that’s a topic for another time. As of now, I will simply delight in the fact that, when people use common sense, they tend to be more conservative, even if they think they’re being liberal.
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
It’s neither shocking nor surprising to know that college students tend to be liberal. After all, they’ve been indoctrinated by liberal teachers for years and become even more influenced as they attend college. But one particular university has INSANELY liberal students, it seems.
According to Campus Reform: “Members of the University of Pittsburgh’s Fossil-Free Coalition and United Students Against Sweatshops presented a list of 15 demands to Chancellor Patrick Gallagher during a Friday protest.”
According to the demand list addressed to the Chancellor: “Chancellor Gallagher, in the political climate we’re forced to inhabit, our University cannot stay silent on issues that affect our community. To do so would be to stand in opposition to those of us in the Pittsburgh community that are vulnerable to classism, racism, gender-related violence. We demand you take action by the 2018-2019 school year.”
Yeah, I’m gonna have a hard time taking these kids seriously when they say they are “vulnerable to classism, racism, gender-related violence.” If you can’t take the fact that someone has more money than you do, I suggest you grow a pair and learn to deal with it. About racism, isn’t it interesting that they say they have to deal with racism? Isn’t a college campus usually very liberal? Or at least somewhat liberal? I thought liberals weren’t racist. But they are saying they still have to deal with it, so what gives? And finally, let’s address the “gender-related violence”. If you’re talking about a guy hitting a girl, then yes, that should be addressed because no man can call himself a man if he hits a woman.
But if you classify “mean words” as “violence”, then I suggest you follow my advice about dealing with classism: DEAL WITH IT! People can be jerks and insanely ignorant. Don’t let them get to you. If someone says something mean to you, then that just tells you more about the character of the other person than that of yourself. Mean words don’t constitute violence. Violent people cause violence, but words don’t constitute violence on their own.
Boy, I’m already going at them without even reading the demands! Ok, let’s see what the irrational snowflakes want.
Here’s the list of demands the students made to Chancellor Gallagher:
I don’t think this is a list of demands. I think this is “How To Completely Destroy A University In 15 Easy Steps”. Seriously, I don’t think any of the students in those activist groups are a Finance Major. If any of them knew how economics actually worked, they’d know why the combination of all of their financial demands would absolutely bankrupt the university.
But that’s precisely what I mean when I say that college students have kicked liberalism into overdrive. Aside from the issue of abortion and free healthcare, that’s basically everything liberals have been wanting for ages. It’s a list of Leftist ideals!
I honestly think these students want to bankrupt the University of Pittsburgh. None of their financial demands would work out. What does that say about the University's curricula? What a complete failure!
But even beyond the financial demands, there’s also the flat-out INSANE demands. “Gender neutral bathrooms”. I think we all know exactly why that wouldn’t work. If you thought the amount of rape stories in college campuses is bad, gender-neutral bathrooms would simply increase the amount of rape happening there.
“Diversifying the student body, investing in cultural organizations” Oh, you mean like Black Lives Matter and Antifa? You want the University of Pittsburgh to help fund those organizations? Don’t get me wrong, if the University of Pittsburgh is liberal, then I think they’re already helping, in one way or another, to fund those organizations with tax payer dollars. But they want the University to do this directly?
And perhaps the most INSANE demand of them all: “That all campus cops are disarmed and that city cops are banned from campus.” Ok, at this point I think they don’t just want the college to go bankrupt, I think they want people to die as well.
Did they forget the fact that cops are pretty much the only people there with guns? If there’s a shooter, the college cops are unarmed and city cops are banned, the University of Pittsburgh would be a graveyard!
Do you remember the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon in 2015? I remember that particular instance because of the fact that people had to LOOK FOR COPS TO HELP THEM! They needed good guys with guns because a bad guy with a gun was killing people (hunting Christians, according to Wikipedia) and no one else around had a gun.
So what do you think would happen if there’s a similar shooter, college cops aren’t armed and city cops are banned? It would be a blood bath. But, at that, the chances of a shooting at any particular school aren’t that high. So let’s, for now, ignore the fact that they would become an easy target for any madman with a gun. Instead, let’s focus on more regular violence.
By disarming cops, you’re limiting their abilities to do their jobs to uphold the peace and employ justice. If they have their hands tied behind their backs, violence in the campus will naturally go up. Remember Charlottesville? The violence could’ve almost completely been avoided if cops had been allowed to do their jobs.
But they were given orders to stand down and it led to violence erupting in the once-peaceful streets of Charlottesville, presented to you by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and the eventual death of a person. No one had to die that day. No one had to be hurt.
The same could very well happen in the University of Pittsburgh. I just hope these kids learn that everything they demand cannot happen, and some simply SHOULDN’T happen. And I certainly hope they learn just why the things they demand would never work out.
“Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Is there anything anyone ever says or does that WON’T offend someone else? Apparently, the answer is no. A story on CampusReform.org tells of the tragic tale of what happened when a college student discovered a banana peel hanging from a tree… no really, stop laughing. That actually happened.
According to the story: “A Greek Life retreat at the University of Mississippi was promptly cancelled this weekend after a banana peel was found hanging in a tree.” You know, reasons to cancel an event may vary. They could be cancelled because of bad weather, or because of an active shooter in the area, or because of the threat of terrorism. A banana peel found hanging on a tree, apparently, can now be placed under the same category as those things for causes to cancel an event.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! But wait, it gets better. According to the story: “’To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset by what occurred at IMPACT,’ Interim Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life Alexa Lee Arndt remarked in an email between Greek leaders, according to The Daily Mississippian. ‘Because of the underlying reality many students of color endure on a daily basis, the conversation manifested into a larger conversation about race relations today at the University of Mississippi.’”
You know, I’d like to be a fly on the wall at that event so I could hear just exactly how the conversation went from “Hey, we found a banana peel hanging from a tree” to “you know, this could seriously harm people of color… BLACK LIVES MATTER! BLACK LIVES MATTER!” I mean, c’mon! How? Exactly how do you go from talking about a banana peel hanging from a tree (which apparently is now a big topic of conversation in the University of Mississippi) to talking about race relations in our society?
I just hope we, as a nation, will be able to get over this nightmare which will henceforth be known as “The Banana Peel From Hell of 2017”. Give me a break. Are we Millennials so insanely sensitive that a banana peel hanging from a tree will give us nightmares for weeks? That a banana peel can make us feel “hurt, frightened and upset”?
But let me tell you how this “nightmare” of a situation began. According to the CampusReform.org story: “Apparently, student Ryan Swanson admitted to discarding the banana peel in a tree after he was unable to locate a garbage can, and it was later spotted by Alpha Kappa Alpha President Makala McNeil, who leads one of the campuses[‘s] historically black sororities.”
Oh, so it was that 'jerk' Ryan Swanson who caused this huh? I just hope he knows the extent of the 'damage' he caused to the people of his community. Discarding a banana peel in a tree? Who does that? Psychopaths and Trump supporters, that’s who...apparently...
And you know what’s interesting? The poor guy actually APOLOGIZED for that. “Although unintentional, there is no excuse for the pain that was caused to members of our community,” Swanson wrote in his apology. “I have much to learn and look forward to doing such and encourage all members of our community to do the same.”
He’s writing as though he was a bully and caused some serious damage to people around him. And, to those other students, they might legitimately see Swanson as a bully. A bully to them, a bully to the planet, a bully to that tree, a bully to that banana peel and a bully to all of society.
And according to Makala McNeil, the person who found the banana peel: “The overall tone was heavy. I mean, we were talking about race in Mississippi and in the Greek community so there’s a lot involved.” (Yeah, a lot of b.s.) McNeil then recalled that she and her friend were “all just sort of paranoid for a second” after spotting the banana.
There are a lot of sentences in this article I thought I’d never say. This girl felt “paranoid” after spotting the banana. This guy was sorry for discarding the banana peel on the tree. The event was canceled due to students finding a banana peel hanging from a tree… Just what in the world is wrong with our society? Or better yet, my generation?
And the worst part might be this: according to The Daily Mississippian, some students left the retreat in tears, with McNeil saying that they “didn’t feel welcome” and “didn’t feel safe”.
So a banana peel hanging from a tree caused an entire event to be cancelled, students to leave the event in tears and in need to find safe spaces, and made them feel that they weren’t welcome and didn’t feel safe.
Well of course they didn’t feel welcome and safe. This could only mean one thing: the rise of the planet of the apes! It’s no longer just a movie!
I can’t recall the amount of times I had to face palm while writing this article. I typically write articles with passion to defend Christ, defend Trump or attack the Left. And I think that this one was the most sarcasm-filled article to date. But can you blame me? STUDENTS FELT UNSAFE AND UNWELCOMED BY A BANANA PEEL!
I seriously hope that the generation that comes after mine sees the stupidity of this generation and works to make society less ignorant and maybe just a little bit more abundant in the “guts” department.
If my generation is getting scared by a banana peel hanging from a tree, I would honestly not have much hope for our country. I legitimately hope that the next Democrat president won’t be a Millennial. Because at that point, the POTUS will be a BOTUS, the Baby of the United States.
However, knowing that this article itself was WRITTEN by a Millennial, I do have SOME hope for my generation and the future of this country. If there are more Millennials out there that are simply Millennials because of the year they were born in and not because of their quite literal insane liberal views, then the future doesn’t look so bleak, after all.
“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own”
Although, that one is mostly for me and those worried about this generation, not the subjects of this article.
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...