Wisconsin Dairy Queen owner Kevin Scheunemann has created quite the stir on social media and it was not for his delicious frozen treats. Scheunemann posted on his door a sign that the left would deem as politically incorrect, and in all reality, it isn’t. The simple sign consists of a list of sayings and core values that the majority of Americans in our country hold dear, but leave it a liberal to find that offensive.
“I felt the sign was appropriate to hang in terms of being transparent about the views of the owner and staff supporting God and country,” Scheunemann explained to CBS 58.
“It just seems that those kinds of values and principles are becoming controversial in society,” he added.
The sign has hung there for the last four years without a problem, but that streak ended about a week ago when one snowflake saw the sign and took to social media to complain. Ashley Coleman saw the sign hanging outside the door and was triggered by the sentiment and needed to take a snapshot of the sign.
“I find this extremely offensive,” whined an Oregon woman who goes by the name Ashley Coleman on Facebook. “Please speak with the franchise owner,” she added.
The post quickly picked up steam on Facebook as over a thousand people shared it and over two people commented, but if Coleman thought the town would get behind her she would be sorely mistaken. In fact, the community in this small town has rallied around the Dairy Queen seemingly in agreement with sign’s views.
Daily Wire reported:
“Business is good,” noted local CBS reporter Julie Parise, “thanks in part to a sign that’s hanging on the front door.”
Business owners in the area also came to Scheunemann’s defense.
“He posted it on the door so you see it before you walk in,” said local store owner April Serwe. “You don’t have to walk in if you don’t agree with it.”
Some Kewaskum residents even said the sign is unnecessary since most all of them “share the same values,” notes CBS 58.
“In this small community, I don’t think it’s a problem,” said local Liz Torrison. “We’re all just liking each other and having fun.”
Dairy Queen has not dictated the owner take down the sign, but they did distance themselves from the poster in a statement:
American Dairy Queen Corporation does not encourage our independently owned and operated franchisees to post non-business related messages in their locations or on their external reader boards. This sign expresses the views of this independent owner only and does not speak for ADQ Corporation or any of our other independent franchise owners. We expect our franchisees and employees to treat every person who walks through our doors with the utmost dignity and respect. Nothing less is acceptable.
Scheunemann said he’d be willing to make accommodations for anyone uncomfortable with the declarations made by the poster.
There is nothing wrong with anything that was said on this sign but leave it to a liberal to be triggered by it. America is a melting pot but that does not mean we need to abandon our customs for others people’s feelings. If they do not like that this place says Merry Christmas then are free to go to a place that says Happy Holidays and so forth. Being offended by something does not mean they get to force other people to see it their way it just simply means that is their views. To many people that seem simple enough but thanks to the liberal indoctrination, these entitled leftists believe everyone must bend to them. It will take time to fix this mess, but until then we cannot bend to these liberal idiots and we must continue forging on.
H/T [Daily Wire]
It snowed all night long, so the morning went like this:
8:00 I made a snowman
8:10 A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn’t make a snow woman.
8:15 So, I made a snow woman.
8:17 The neighbors’ nanny complained about the snow woman’s voluptuous chest.
8:20 The gay couple living nearby grumbled that it could have been two snowmen instead.
8:25 The vegans at No. 12 complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 I was called a racist because the snow couple is white.
8:31 The Muslim gent across the road wanted the snow woman to wear a headscarf.
8:40 Someone called the cops who showed up to see what was going on.
8:42 I was told that the broomstick of the snowman needs to be removed because it could be used as a deadly weapon. Things got worse after I mutter : “Yeah, if it’s up your a**”
8:45 Local TV news crew showed up. I was asked if I knew the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I reply, “Snowballs” and am called a sexist.
8:52 My phone was seized and thoroughly checked while I was blindfolded and flown to the police station in a helicopter.
9:00 I was in the news as a suspected terrorist bent on stirring up trouble during this difficult weather.
9:10 I was asked if I have any accomplices.
9:29 A little known jihadist group has claimed it was their plot.
There is no moral to this story. It’s just the America we live in today!
Ever a touchstone for controversy on racial issues, the justice-related a story from a recent trip to Kansas, where a black college student told him she was primarily interested in school work, and less interested in the political tumult gripping college campuses.
“At some point we’re going to be fatigued with everybody being a victim,” he said.
Thomas has struck similar cords throughout his public life.
He appeared on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News program in November 2017, and suggested contemporary activists could learn would benefit from the example of his grandparents, who exhibited quiet fortitude during the heady days of white supremacy.
He made his Thursday remark in the context of a broader discussion about his childhood. Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah-speakers and spent his childhood working his grandfather’s farm. He likened his upbringing to Kathryn Stockett’s 2009 novel “The Help” as most of the women in his life, including his mother, were domestics in white households.
Given the few options open to blacks in the Jim Crow south, Thomas’ family felt they had no choice but to do the best with what they had. The justice detects the hand of providence in those select opportunities open to him, like parochial education and Savannah’s Carnegie library, which served the black population.
“You always have to play the hand you’re dealt,” he said. “If you’re dealt a bad hand, you still have to play it.”
As detailed in his 2008 memoir, he inherited these sensibilities from his grandfather. Thomas was sent to live with his grandparents after a fire ravaged his mother’s home during his childhood. By Thomas’ telling, his grandfather was the defining figure of his life. When he joined the Supreme Court in 1991, his wife commissioned a bust featuring his grandfather’s favorite quote.
“His favorite quote was ‘Old Man Can’t is dead. I helped bury him,’” Thomas said.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.
Rectenwald’s suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Friday, alleges that current and former NYU faculty members used official email distribution lists to defame him in May of 2017, calling him a “right-wing misogynist,” an “asshole” and “Satan” in messages sent to over 100 NYU faculty and administrators.
When contacted by The Daily Caller, John Beckman, New York University’s chief spokesman, brusquely dismissed the allegations. “The suit is without merit,” Beckman stated.
If Professor Rectenwald is a villain, he is a surprisingly personable one. Having readily agreed to an interview to discuss the state of campus politics, the 58-year-old instructor and author cracked a few jokes before spending nearly two hours reflecting on the smear campaign he says he endured when he spoke out against PC obsession on campus. [Disclaimer: the author of this article is a senior at New York University]
“The thing that is interesting here is that they were saying that because I don’t think like them, I am sick and mentally ill,” Rectenwald said. “So you have to be crazy to not believe what they do. Now, it may be true that you have to be crazy to say it, because look what happened!”So what inspired Rectenwald, a former self-declared “longtime communist” and “ex-leftist,” to crusade against the screeching menace of campus leftism?
“In the fall of 2016,” the NYU professor recounted, “I was noting an increase of this social justice ideology on campuses, and it started to really alarm me. I saw it coming home to roost here at NYU, with the creation of the bias reporting hotline, and with the cancellation of the Milo Yiannopoulos talk because someone might walk past it and hear something which might ‘trigger’ them.”
Rectenwald, an ardent free speech advocate, took great issue with the proliferation of “no platforming” activism across college campuses. But he became especially concerned with the prevalence of what he calls “pure indoctrination” in the classroom:
It says so much to me that Stanford admitted a student who [submitted] one ‘essay’ for admission that said #BlackLivesMatter 100 times. That was one of his ‘essays.’ They admitted him to Stanford in a year during which they had the smallest ever freshman class in the history of the university; furthermore, they said they had an extremely rich field intellectually and diversity-wise. So here is a major top-flight university in the United States that is essentially saying that it is extremely important that universities have social justice sloganeering on campus, and that they have these acolytes who will repeat, ad nauseam, certain phrases.
Rectenwald stated that on Facebook, one former friend of his (a Marxist feminist) bragged that by the end of her course, “every student was now an avowed Marxist feminist.”
“I was the only person that demurred,” he remarked of the post. “I said, ‘I have to beg to differ that this is the objective of any course.’ If you have a teleological model of pedagogy in which you are trying to steer students to a particular end, that is not teaching. That is actually indoctrination. You can do that if you have a political party, but this is absolutely not the role of education, at all. This is absolutely anti-education and anti-intellectual.”
Rectenwald also articulated fears that turning campuses into surveillance states will only exacerbate the anti-individualism and cult-like tribalism he is already witnessing:
Harvard has a social justice activist student extension of their administration. Several other universities as well… They’re even calling them ‘Social Justice Aides,’ et cetera, and they’re paying them really good money – like $15 an hour – to surveil the rest of the student body, to be the extra eyes and ears for microaggression detection. And then they have apps for the phone. Instead of having to go open up a website and click on a link to report a bias incident, you can just open up an app on the phone and report the bias right there on the spot.
Rectenwald expressed concern that such a system makes it even easier for campus collectivists, postmodernist professors and activist administrators to exercise power over those who refuse to conform to the progressive orthodoxy. In essence, the campus becomes a miniature Stasi state, in which every student is a potential informant and every action is a potentially actionable microaggression – regardless of intent.
“And these infractions are never defined, by the way,” Rectenwald added. “There is no definition of ‘bias’ on many university websites … There is no definition of what a ‘microaggression’ is, and there is no definition of what constitutes a bias infraction… And, as far as we know, most administrations won’t answer any questions about anything. There is no transparency.”
The professor explained that as he grew increasingly frustrated with the illiberal agenda he witnessed taking root, social media played a key role in bringing about his “social justice tipping point.” That arrived when he shared a news article on Facebook. The article focused on a student from the University of Michigan who, when he was offered the chance to claim any pronoun he wished, chose to be referred to as “His Majesty.”
“All I did was post the link to the article,” Rectenwald recounted, with an expression of bemused disbelief. “Then, I went to teach two classes in a row. When I came back after that, there were hundreds of scathing posts marked by vile vituperation against me for being a transphobe, for committing discursive violence, and for betraying the trans community.”
Shortly thereafter, the deplorable professor made the decision that solidified his status as an outsider within his own university. He took up Twitter, and pulled no punches.
“That was the root of all evil,” he said with a chuckle. In an interview with the Washington Square News in October of 2016, he outed himself as the operator of the controversial Twitter account. According to Rectenwald, this was the moment that “all hell broke loose.”
Virtually overnight, he became a social pariah, losing hundreds of Facebook friends and being shunned by colleagues. When asked how his colleagues responded to his newfound celebrity — or infamy —
Rectenwald indicated that although he had previously assumed that most of his colleagues liked him, many must have harbored animosity stemming from his publishing success. After the unmasking, they had no qualms about openly displaying their disgust.
“For the first semester,” he recalled, “[it was] 100 percent shunning. Since the first semester, I’ve had a peeling off of about three to five people out of 100 and something. There was a peeling off of a few people who would actually say hello… That was very rare. Everyone else averts their gaze, or gives me this look like I’m a moral leper, or they try to avoid me. One person refused to get on an elevator with me, because I suppose moral leprosy is contagious. They really are quite histrionic.”
Rectenwald claimed that mere days after he violated safe space orthodoxy by daring to “come out,” he was accosted in an open letter written by several colleagues from his department in the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group.
“We fully support Professor Rectenwald’s right to speak his mind and we welcome civil discourse on the issues that concern him,” the letter concluded. “But as long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas. The cause of Professor Rectenwald’s guilt is certainly not, in our view, his identity as a cis, white, straight male. The cause of his guilt is the content and structure of his thinking.” (Emphasis added by TheDC)
Rectenwald stated that being found guilty of committing thought crime only reinforced his convictions regarding the illiberal state of campus leftism. According to the professor, the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group’s authoritarian response — and the university’s seeming support of it — reflected the worst tendencies of Maoist struggle sessions and autocritique.
Additionally, according to Rectenwald, NYU’s lukewarm response to left-wing political violence at events featuring conservative speakers Gavin McInnes and Milo Yiannopoulos provided evidence that the administration is being cowed by radical leftists – or, at the very least, is turning a blind eye to their activities.
“I like to call it the ‘Conformity, Inequity and Exclusion Group,’” Rectenwald responded. “I call it that because their enforced orthodoxy is to conform to this prescribed ideology, be deemed a lesser being if you don’t, and then hopefully be excluded from the university – which is what they tried to do with this letter. This letter was a response to my interview, which was given to the Washington Square News, and this letter represents an official NYU committee. That means that that letter carried the force of the dean of our program.”
Rectenwald, a free speech advocate, said that he considers this caustic letter problematic not because it criticized him, but because it represented the official position of the dean – and, by extension, the university.
“That letter was official,” he explained. “That was official. That’s, like, ex cathedra right there. In other words, that came from an official committee. … That means the university took a particular position on this issue and also made extremely inaccurate responses to what I said. They accused me of ad hominem remarks, and they must not know the definition of ad hominem. I spoke of no individuals at all. I never mentioned a single person!”
Rectenwald minced no words when describing the colleagues who lambasted him.
“The people who headed that committee at the time were largely writing factory people, and they’re very anti-intellectual,” he told me. “I remember in early meetings of the writing faculty committees, I would talk about things like having an argument in your paper, and I was given a cross look like I was Satan because I mentioned a thesis statement. That was a verboten idea, because you’re supposed to be gushing some impressionistic horse sh*t all day, I suppose.”
Rectenwald’s unmasking brought him even more fame and infamy, and he was summoned to the dean’s office within days of going public.
“So the dean comes up to me,” he recounted, “about four inches away while I’m walking in and we’re shaking hands, and whispers to me, ‘this has nothing to do with your Twitter account or the publicity you’re receiving. I just want you to know that.’ Whispered it. I said, ‘Oh, okay.’ But I’m thinking, why then did you do it like this? If it had nothing to do with that, why did you say that first? Usually when people make statements like that, it means exactly the opposite. And that’s exactly what it meant.”
After the awkward handshake, Rectenwald said he was informed that several colleagues were worried about his mental state due to the views he expressed, and he was pressured to take a leave of absence.
The NYU professor added that he had been waiting for news on a promotion for six months, and that although he had agreed to take the leave, it was in no way voluntary, because he felt that he had no real choice.
NYU, on the other hand, has maintained that Rectenwald voluntarily took the leave of absence. In response to his statements to the press, the university released an email exchange between Rectenwald and the Dean of Liberal Studies.
“The fact of the matter,” Liberal Studies Dean Fred Schwarzbach stated in an email to Rectenwald on November 11, 2016, “is that this leave has nothing to do with your opinions or your take on the academy and was not involuntary; rather, the truth is, the leave is something you said you wanted and needed.”
Rectenwald returned from his leave of absence last year, and was granted the promotion he had been waiting on. This was a major relief because the meeting had left him worried that he might well lose his job, and the raise was necessary for him to be able to afford to live and work in Manhattan. According to Rectenwald, the welcome pay bump and promotion may well have been a result of the university’s instincts for self-preservation, not any true belief in the importance of free thought and diverse viewpoints. By keeping him around, Rectenwald argued, NYU shielded itself from one potential lawsuit for discrimination or retaliation.
But Rectenwald maintains that the university never adequately addressed the smear campaign and ostracism. Once he returned from his leave, he was asked if he wanted to move offices to get away from his liberal studies colleagues, an offer he accepted.
Now, seeking refuge from his leftist colleagues’ supposed witch-hunt, he remains “holed up” in the Russian department. Given the left’s obsession with the Russian collusion narrative, Rectenwald finds this development particularly amusing.
Looking ahead to the future of academia, the polarizing professor is optimistic. He is of the opinion that identity politics and social justice movements, especially on campuses, have morphed into a sort of religion with cult-like recruitment. But, as frustrated as he is by the current trend, he thinks it can be reversed.
Rectenwald is by no means alone in his skepticism of PC culture and its collectivist tendencies. He has a friendly relationship with the University of Toronto’s Professor Jordan Peterson, as well as fellow NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt, the founder of Heterodox Academy, which encourages diversity of thought on college campuses.
Rectenwald believes that young people are especially hungry for Peterson’s and Haidt’s ideas, yearning to think critically after having to sit through classes marked by “mindless indoctrination.” Professor Rectenwald believes that the proponents of safe spaces and trigger warnings will one day wake up, venture out into the world and find it to be very different from the pipe dream of the intersectional left. It will be a rude awakening, but Rectenwald believes that sanity will prevail in the fight against campus orthodoxy, ideological enslavement and totalitarian impulses.
As the interview concluded, Rectenwald was deep in thought. “We’re gonna win,” he said in a measured tone, nodding his head. “It’s gonna be tough, but we’re gonna win.”
In a stunning report published Wednesday, The Guardian revealed that “the number of people arrested for terrorism-linked offences (in the U.K.) rose by more than two-thirds to a record 379 in the 12 months to June — one of the most intense periods for terrorist attacks in recent history.”
Of those 379 suspects, nearly a third were eventually charged with terrorism offenses, while nearly 18 percent still face further investigation.
The publication of this report occurred on the same day that Trump retweeted three video posts from British activist Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of British First, a reportedly “far-right” political party that opposes mass migration.
One of the video posts showed radical Muslims pushing a teenage boy off a roof and then beating him to death, while the second video showed Muslims destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary. According to The Daily Wire, the first video was shot in Egypt five years ago, while the second video was shot in Syria one year later. In a third video retweet, a Dutch boy could be seen beating up another Dutch boy, though Fransen mistakenly claimed one of the boys was Muslim.
Following the U.S. president’s retweets, a number of prominent British officials condemned Trump, including Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London.
British Prime Minister Theresa May chimed in as well, decrying Britain First as “a hateful organization” that “seeks to sow division and hate and mistrust in our communities,” according to ABC News. “It stands in opposition to our fundamental values we hold as a country.”
But as noted by Robert Spencer, a Fox News contributor known for his criticisms of Islam, those castigating Trump seemed more focused on whom he retweeted versus the actual content of the tweets.
“I have not seen any Muslim spokesmen say, ‘There is a problem (in Islam) we need to deal with,’” he said in a statement to Breitbart. “They are all just criticizing Trump. … (Former President Barack) Obama did everything he could to whitewash the image of Islam — Trump is calling attention to atrocities that are committed in the name of name of Islam.”
As well as the rise of radicalism across the world, but especially so in the U.K.