College Corruption Federal Debt Truth

Biden Will Eventually Cancel College Debt, And So Enrich The Squad

By Rod Thomson

Tax-sucking Congressional socialists continue to pressure kinda sorta President Biden to cancel at least $50,000 in student debt via executive order. Despite the enormous strain other Democrat policies have had on hard-working American families, this bailout to college grads will almost assuredly happen because this presidential anomaly’s handlers cannot or do not want to stand up to the radical left for long.

There are endless problems with this, which were well hashed out when Sen. Bernie Sanders made this college grad bailout a hallmark of his campaign. 

First, the fairness issue. Millions of Americans over many generations, myself and wife included, paid off student debt from college over the years. And now this crop of entitled college kids want a bailout, even as a college degree has diminishing value — and no real value in several degree areas. 

Second, the $1.6 trillion price tag is just another completely irresponsible load of national debt on a system that may not be far from buckling from already existing astronomical debt.

But there is also a little known element: Many of the most outspoken proponents of canceling student debt themselves have substantial college debt. They would directly benefit financially from their vote. If there was such a thing as a conflict of interest in Congress, this would be at the top of the list. But such unabashed corruption is simply accepted in D.C.

Make no mistake, every dollar of this debt will fall to the federal government, which is eventually paid by American taxpayers.

As members of Congress, these folks pull down $174,000 in taxpayer money, plus gold-plated benefits that literally no other Americans get. And now they also want taxpayers such as coal miners, convenience store clerks, maids, lawn service guys, roofers, road workers, pavers, pool installers, along with bankers, lawyers, doctors and business owners, to pay off their college debt. In fact, they want to force them to.

Like on Instagram

It’s all pretty unconscionable on a moral level, but also the sheer chutzpah of socialists who supposedly want to help the little guys by spreading the wealth, demanding the little guys help pay off debts they can clearly afford to pay off themselves. A $174,000 annual salary makes them 5 percenters, making more than 95 percent of Americans — who they want to pay off their debt. This puts the lie to the whole schtick. Like every socialist ever in power, they simply want more for themselves.

And it’s right out there in plain sight. For instance, Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib owes $70,000 in college debt for her law degree and is one of the biggest proponents for Biden to sign away $50,000 with an executive order, as many, such as Senate President Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren along with a bundle of others, say he has the authority to do so. (Obviously Constitutional authority is not what they are referring to.)

To blunt the obvious corruption in her position, Tlaib struggles up onto her self-righteous high horse and claims she didn’t become a lawyer to make money or buy “bougie cars,” but she went into the nonprofit world and worked as a lawyer for the good of the community. For that oh-so noble reason, her debts should be forgiven. (Probably should point out that many non-profits make more than most business owners or average lawyers, so, ah, no.)

Like Rod’s new Youtube channel

But it is classic socialist philosophy: Individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their actions, which parenthetically is why they favor releasing criminals based on skin color and not actions. They want the communal whole, via government, to pay for their consequences.

It’s not just Tlaib. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar both have substantial college debt and are vocal proponents of wiping out all college debt. There may be others. Since that is not going to happen in Congress, they favor Biden’s pen. 

Two-face socialist authoritarians just being true to themselves.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host and ABC TV commentator and Founder of The Revolutionary Act and The Thomson Group. Twice banned on TikTok. Follow him on Instagram. Like Rod on Facebook.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

College Politics Truth

College Debt Forgiveness Is Immoral

Rod Thomson

The college debt “crisis” is a moral question, but it is the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and most of the Democratic presidential field are claiming.

An individual forgiving a debt they voluntarily entered into with a friend or family is noble and Christian and laudable. This sort of debt forgiveness happens routinely. I’ve done it. I’ve had it done.

Government eliminating debt is immoral. Here’s why. 

If I loan someone money, and for whatever reason I choose to forgive that debt, that is my right and it is supported in the Bible. It is certainly part of American tradition, and actually may be far broader than that. It is a good and noble act, if I judge it is not enabling bad behavior. It is my choice because it is both my money and I voluntarily made the loan to the person.

But that is not at all what is being contemplated in this debate over forgiveness of student debt by Democratic politicians. First, of course, there is the need to label it a “crisis.” That is always step one for the next terrible government intervention idea.

What causes the confusion, however, is that the language is misleading when politicians say “we” should forgive this huge student debt issue. If they meant themselves as individuals, then terrific. But they most certainly do not. In truth, they intend to benefit and perhaps profit off this, not sacrifice.

Of course the concept is alluring if you are a college student with a lot of debt and know very little of the real world. Most all of us have debt and at times struggle with it. Who would not like their debt wiped out?

But when the “we” is the government, it means that the government will forcibly take one person’s money, to pay off the debt of another person. This is egregious behavior. The person whose money is being taken did not make the loan, consent to the loan, or necessarily even think the loan was a good idea.

The students and their parents voluntarily entered into those debts in return for the college degrees they obtained. They signed on the bottom line to take money to pay for something of value to them, and promised to pay it back. They knew at each step the cost they were incurring.

They were then loaned the money — with the promise they would pay it back — obtained the thing of value with that money, and now they and some politicians want Americans unrelated to the decision to take out the loan and getting value from the product to pay off the debt…while the students keep the thing of value.

This is egregious. But all the media will ever do is interview students with high debt loads and low-paying jobs. That paints a distorted picture, which of course is what it is intended to do.

I have sons who are plumbers. These young men chose not to go to college and take on debt. They work very hard, often in the Florida heat, and they actually make pretty decent money. They have no debt. I have another son working up the management ranks at Publix grocery stores, and he works long and odd hours. And another son who went to college and has nearly paid off his debt, again with a lot of hard work and now runs his own company — as one of my plumber sons does.

They have friends who are working to get nursing degrees and law enforcement training without taking on debt.

Now the politicians looking to make political hay on college debt forgiveness need to explain how it is moral that these people, and the millions like them, should be forced to pay off the debts of those who voluntarily went to college, and voluntarily took on the debt and now have a degree.

They need to explain the morality that nurses, police, firefighters, plumbers, electricians, A/C repairers, roadworkers, carpenters, roofers, block-layers, secretaries, etc. should be forced to pay off strangers’ college debts that they have no association with.

They need to explain how it is moral to force all who went to college ahead of this current crop, who all either paid off their loans or are getting close, to be forced to also pay off the loans of someone else. My wife and I paid off our loans. Sure the debts were smaller, as were the incomes. But it took a few years — while both my wife and I worked nearly full-time during college to keep them low.

If individuals want to forgive loans, that is their right and it is laudable. If banks and creditors want to, that is their right and their choice. But for the government to step in and do it — meaning all working Americans have to chip in — then we have a very different but clear-cut moral issue.

It’s wrong.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

College Truth

Florida’s Honors College Moves to “Cognitive Diversity”

Rod Thomson

Florida’s honors college for the state system may have twisted itself into a verbal knot because it does what apparently is common practice among colleges — adding a layer of review to applying students who had reported mental issues.

This makes eminent sense for college campuses who have been dealing with some tragic violence issues, not to mention the obvious academic reasons where mental issues could impact a student’s ability to be successful. Further, because colleges are legally required to treat students with mental issues, it seems almost imperative they have such policies.

However, in the hyper-diversosphere piloted by college campuses, even this cannot be tolerated.

So New College of Florida, the small, elite liberal honors college, got outed for this second layer of review, and accused of perhaps the worst possible charge for the PC community — discrimination. Once public, the college melted like an ice cream cone in Florida’s August heat and publicly committed to “cognitive diversity.” That phrase has been used to talk about how people think differently and solve problems differently. But that’s not what this seems to be.

Cognitive diversity seems like an awfully large loophole when it comes to admissions. By definition, an honors college is supposed to allow only the most cognitively advanced. It’s for really smart kids. And the kids at New College are really smart, at least book-smart. But with a phrase such as “cognitive diversity,” how fair is that to only have the more cognitively advanced?

New College is this idyllic college campus in Sarasota, Florida, near the Gulf of Mexico, that attracts some of the brightest students in the state for liberal arts education. It is well-known in the conservative region as a hotbed of liberal thinking, but only mild levels of activism — perhaps owing to its small size and academic rigours.

College leadership has generally been proud of the politically liberal students, but they also have a school to run and so the admissions office required students who disclose a mental health issue in their application essay to go through a second review — even if the students’ scores meet the criteria for automatic acceptance.

Some New College alumni thought this unfair and blew the whistle, which sparked the internal investigation. And then the whistleblowers went to the ideologically-friendly newspaper.

“It’s the definition of bias or discrimination to go through an extra barrier to get where someone else is,” Eugenia Quintanilla, one of the former admissions office staffers who exposed the practice, told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Once the story went public, New College President Donal O’Shea issued a statement, in which he announced the college’s commitment to “cognitive diversity.”

“We are aware of complaints about the admissions process and the climate in the admissions office,” said O’Shea, who is generally considered a strong college president. “We take these VERY seriously,” he told the newspaper.

Here’s the catch. This is not only legal, it is apparently common practice at colleges.

That’s because universities are legally required to ensure they can provide mental health services to any students they admit. So it is just responsible to ensure they understand and can help with any potential student who discloses mental health issues.

It’s actually standard practice, according to Michael A. Olivas, a professor of higher education law at the University of Houston. He said he saw no discrimination in New College’s policies.

“This sounds to me like garden-variety decision making,” Olivas said.

But because of the rapid back-down, and turn to a potentially loaded phrase of “cognitive diversity,” this may portend problems for other colleges that also must provide mental health services and so further review the applications of students who have known mental issues.

Rod Thomson is an author, radio and TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

College Truth

The Cultural Failure Of Free College

Rod Thomson

Economist Ludwig von Mises observed the reality that virtually every government action creates unintended consequences that cause problems greater than the ones that were meant to be solved.

But the Democratic Party that is now apparently fully onboard with free college for everyone is clearly unaware of this truism. That’s not too surprising as it has to do with economics, history and rational thought — all areas largely abandoned by the modern Democratic Party.

So here are the almost assured consequences that will stem from such a policy (beyond the $7 trillion price tag) and each ends up conflicting directly with the goals of free college for everyone.

→ Most people will not graduate. Right now, according the National Digest of Education Statistics, fewer than one in three enrollees in four-year institutions of higher learning with open enrollment policies graduate — even after six years. So even if it is free, statistically it is reasonable to predict that two-thirds of those who enter will not come out with a degree. That means it becomes both an enormous misallocation of resources and it squanders years in pursuit of a fruitless endeavor for most. Further, for all these young people, there will be no increase in salary because there is no college degree — only lost time and likely some college-related expenses.

→ It will create skyrocketing costs. Is everyone accepted who wants to go? If it is guaranteed tuition payment to universities without academic requirements — which has been the Bernie Sanders’ rhetoric — it will mean that these institutions will have even less incentive to control costs. Right now, only health care costs have soared as fast as college costs over the past 30 years. Not coincidentally, both markets are deeply impacted by government. In the case of colleges, it is easily obtainable student loans backed by the federal government, along with Pell grants and other fundings. This guaranteed flow of federal money and the ongoing cultural push for kids to go to college regardless of the need for them to, has driven up college costs and created the debt issue. Making it ”free” would make it much more expensive for taxpayers.

→ Government will further screw up the college market. The obvious hike in costs would force the political reality of having to control costs by limiting or even lowering tuition. (This is all very akin to the dynamics in the health care debate, except the option of rationing is the opposite of what free tuition is for, so that likely would not be an alternative.) How would universities hire more professors, instructors and add classroom buildings and dorms along with administrators if the government is capping or cutting tuition? Obviously the quality and value of a college degree would plummet.

→ It wouldn’t accomplish the goal of everyone making more money. Assuming, however, that it does increase the number of college graduates, what does that accomplish? In the big picture, it would mean that a Bachelor’s Degree becomes the equivalent of a high school degree within about a half of a generation, except that the B.A. comes with a lot of debt while a high school degree does not. So the result is that the American people generationally are saddled with trillions more in debt without a discernible increase in the actual value of what the new wave of college graduates have.

Help the fight for truth

And finally, this is becoming even more of a big deal for Democrats at the very time that the labor market is historically tight. Right now, the unemployment rate is about 3.8 percent — below what economists consider full employment.

Further, there are about six million unemployed Americans, while there are seven million job openings — the majority of which do not require a college degree. In truth, the nation and the economy actually do not need more college graduates, particularly in all the wrong fields, i.e. the soft sciences, the arts, literature, ethnic and cultural studies, communications and media.

Evidence? There are 13 million Americans with at least a four-year college degree working in jobs that do not require any college degree.

The push for free college for everyone is much worse than just being a $7 trillion budget buster. It also destroys the value of a college degree, high school degree and years in a young person’s life, all while not accomplishing its primary goals.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


College Progressives Truth

Colleges Are Turning Red Students Radically Blue

Rod Thomson

A good friend of mine recently attended his daughter’s high school graduation and was amazed at the high number of students attending prestigious universities around the nation. That includes his daughter, who is traveling across the continent to attend Stanford University.

The high school is located in a very conservative part of Southwest Florida just littered with churches, Republican Clubs and Trump supporters. Most of the transplants are from Midwest states. In other words, this is very red America, and presumably a high number of those graduating students reflect their parents’ values. Certainly my friend’s daughter does.

At this moment. And that’s the rub.

Our university systems are increasingly focused on turning red students radically blue. This is not a stated goal, of course. It’s simply the reality on the ground — taking generally conservative, pro-America Christian students and indoctrinating them over four years into progressive, anti-America non-Christian students. While there are certainly exceptions, the numbers depressingly bear out the effectiveness of this indoctrination.

According to Campus Renewal, more than 70 percent of teens who confess Christianity when they enter college reject Christianity by the time they leave four years later. Previous studies have placed it between 65 and 80 percent. So roughly three out of every four.

Of course some percentage of young people will leave the faith when they leave home anyway. That has always been the case, as William Wilberforce explained more than 200 years ago. But the percentages are significantly lower in that group. So if you have a youth group with 20 kids that go to college, the odds are only five or six will still be Christians four years later. Those are just the facts, and that should be deeply sobering for parents, pastors and priests.

There are virtually no studies on the shift in political views of people before and after college, perhaps because so many are still so young they have not formed firm enough worldviews yet to create a data set. But considering the dominance of liberal professors and the monolithically progressive environment that young, impressionable students are thrown into for four years, it is only reasonably to expect a similar level of influence and “flipping” among them.

Join Our Fight Against Poisonous Anti-American Values

This picture is partially painted just from faculty political affiliations. In an article published by the National Association of Scholars, entitled “Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty,” Brooklyn College professor Mitchell Langbert shows this in pure, dominating numbers. Langbert examined the political affiliations of doctorate-holding faculty members at 51 of the top 66 liberal arts colleges listed by U.S. News & World Report.

His findings are astonishing. Fully 39 percent of the colleges in his sample have no Republican doctorate faculty on staff. Not one.

Langbert also looked at the total Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios at the most elite colleges. At Williams College, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is 132-to-1; Amherst College, 34-to-1; Wellesley College, 136-to-1; Davidson College, 10-to-1; Swarthmore College, 120-to-1. Only two colleges of the top 66 are even close to having an even faculty: the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) with a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 1.3-to-1, and the U.S. Naval Academy, with a ratio 2.3-to-1.

Many on the left and in the media have dismissed such studies by claiming that the GOP has moved far right and so actually it left academia. That doesn’t really pass the smell test, but Sam Abrams, writing at Heterodox Academy, plotted graphs comparing where university faculty stand on the political spectrum and where the American people stand. What he demonstrates is that as liberal as universities were as recently as the 1990s, they are dramatically more so now.

“Professors were more liberal than the country in 1990, but only by about 11 percentage points. By 2013, the gap had tripled; it is now more than 30 points. It seems reasonable to conclude that it is academics who shifted, as there is no equivalent movement among the masses whatsoever.”

This dominance, and the obsequiousness of college administrators, reveals itself in the shift in curriculum.

In 64 of the top 76 universities in the country, students can get a history degree without any American history. Wisconsin is entirely dropping history as a major. So is California. Less than 3 percent of colleges require history or civics to get a degree. This all explains why 75 percent of students support socialism, but can neither define it or give one successful example of it. Ignorance of history is foundational to indoctrination. It’s a form of Orwell’s Memory Hole in “1984.”

Like Our Facebook Page

This is about as objective as is available right now: Comparing the polling on Christian students, the smothering monolithically Democratic faculty, the leftward lurch compared to the rest of the country and the dramatic shift in curriculum, and the outcome becomes not only obvious, but predictable.

In “What’s So Great About Christianity,” Dinesh D’Souza, makes the broader point about public schools through universities:

“Children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education and entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. Isn’t it wonderful that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of their own undoing? Isn’t it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values? Who said atheists aren’t clever?”

The same holds true about Democrats and political radicalization.

An indicator of the veracity of this truth is that the most liberal of media outlets, such as The New York Times and Vox have been working hard to show that while all these facts may be true, college is not making students more liberal, or professors aren’t doing so, or maybe colleges are just opening students’ eyes — depending on the publication.

In other words, they’re providing cover for the indoctrinators.

The students with the best ability to weather the storm of the politically progressive, theologically anti-Christian college years are those whose parents and churches equip them with strong defenses for their beliefs. Without that they walk into a four-year, sustained assault on everything they believe and the statistics are clear what happens.

There is one silver lining. The small percentage that survive the fires of liberal programming over four years, are some of the most stalwart young conservatives out there and are far more adept at defending their views than their peers on the left who were seldom, if ever, challenged in their worldviews. (See: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.)

Even this small percentage worries the progressive gatekeepers such as the New York Times. And that, at least, is a good thing.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Christianity College Culture Feminism Islam Progressives Truth

St. Ambrose College’s Segregated Muslim Prayer Room Is A Chilling Reality

by Rod Thomson

That St. Ambrose College in Davenport, Iowa has opened a sex-segregated prayer room for Muslim students requires an explanation. On the surface, it seems totally bizarre. Why exactly do Muslims want to go to an explicitly Catholic college and why is that now-progressive Catholic college proudly violating normative standards of equal treatment for men and women?

The answer is found in why feminists have turned into crickets on select overt sexism when they howl outrages over only perceived slights against women. Muslims, feminists and most American progressives have a common enemy: America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, which they have been working to dismantle for generations.

This is the only way to make sense of the otherwise head-scratching alliance of religiously antagonistic progressives, feminists and devout Muslims. Their stated beliefs and goals should make them natural foes — and they are in Muslim run countries. But they are not in America. However, if you identify a common enemy, the reason for their alliance comes into focus. It also explains why these groups are so disdainful of American exceptionalism, of America’s heritage and specifically of the founding fathers and the Constitution they produced.

The hrumphing at this proposition will be loud. But it is undeniably a part of today’s Islam around the world. It is pretty easily a part of modern feminism that focuses on the demon of the patriarchy, denies differences in the genders and celebrates whatever the Bible decries. And it is patently manifest in pretty much all of the actions of modern progressives.

Judeo-Christian America is what modern feminism and progressives find to be an archaic, backward, gun-toting, Bible-clinging threat to the march of civilization — as they perceive it. And the Muslim march of civilization is basically all Muslim.

And what this decision by St. Ambrose College shows is that the college makes policy based on being progressive before being Catholic. That, it would seem, is unarguable.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

Just listen to the very-pleased-with-himself college senior who designed the prayer room, in conjunction with the Saudi Student Association — because every Catholic college needs to have an association of the women-crushing, hand-cleaving, civil-rights-denying ruling House of Saud.

“It’s uniquely Ambrosian, and it just sort of shows our commitment to all different faiths,” Matt Mahoney said of the sex-segregated worship room he designed. “It is really outstanding.”

What might the early church father St. Ambrose think of this “commitment to all different faiths” — which rather sounds like a commitment to no faiths? Let’s look at who Ambrose was.

“A zealous preacher and valiant defender of the Christian Faith, Saint Ambrose received particular renown as a Church writer. In dogmatic compositions he set forth the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the Sacraments, and Repentance,” according to Orthodox Church in America. “Saint Ambrose, defending the unity of the Church, energetically opposed the spread of heresy.” [Emphasis added.]

Like Us On Facebook

Ambrose converted many pagans to Christianity, from Germany to Persia (he lived before Mohammed founded Islam) and most famously, he showed a wayward young man named Augustine the way to God through Christ. Ambrose would most certainly have considered Muslims as pagans in need of conversion — not celebration.

It’s safe to say that Ambrose would be aghast at what was being done at a college named after him. And it’s further safe to say that when the young man said the sex-segregated Muslim prayer room is “uniquely Ambrosian” he was not referring to Ambrose the man, but the culture of the progressive college that appears to have turned its back on the legacy of St. Ambrose — and made alliance with those who actively seek to destroy the actual legacy of Ambrose.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


College Journalism Race relations Racism Truth

Racist Poison Is Being Injected Into Journalism Students

Rod Thomson

While we were working as a nation to cleanse the American body of the poison of racism against blacks — a long, painful endeavor that was finally finding considerable success in the latter half of the 20th century — a different poison was being introduced into the body: racism against whites. Full out, white people are inherently, genetically evil racism.

That statement may have sounded extreme a few years ago. No more. It is mainstreaming now right under our noses and, like so many damaging ideas of recent years, it is flowering among the leftists that oppress our nation’s college campuses.

And few schools on our college campuses are as open to radicalism as the schools of mass communication, which still churn out journalists by the tens of thousands under faculty imprinted groupthink.

So it was no surprise that the University of California’s USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism recently displayed a large banner entitled “Dismantle Whiteness and Misogyny.” Make no mistake. This is supported by the faculty radicals — radicals by normal American standards, but not by university standards.

Communications Professor Alison Trope told The College Fix that the mural’s wildly racist content is designed to spark a dialogue — a favorite euphemism of the left for attacking those who disagree — as though there has been no dialogue on the topic in this country.

Further, Trope, who teaches the next generation of journalists, said: “To that end, the signage is meant to offer grounding of terms and ideas.”

Support Our Fight For Traditional American Values

Grounding. So for Trope and the rest, the grounding for this idea is not the high ideals that all people are created in the image of God, and all people have inalienable rights granted by God which cannot be destroyed by man. No, the “grounding” is that whiteness is a blot on America and whites by dint of being white institutionalized organizing principles of racial oppression.

Further, it is supported by journo students, too.

Here’s an example. Students told the Daily Trojan that the mural should have been in a much more visible part of campus. “It wasn’t disruptive enough in my environment,” senior communication major Claire Porter told the paper. She’ll be fairly and objectively reporting your news next year.

The artists, When Women Disrupt, who did the mural do these all over the country. This is from the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism Facebook page:

When Women Disrupt (WWD) is an art collective, who in collaboration with students from the USC Annenberg class “Women: Designing Media for Social Change,” presented their pieces, led workshops and became part of a larger conversation about race, intersectionality and misogyny. Other keywords and topics discussed the subjectivity of “whiteness,” a term discussed among WWD –– which refers to an organizing principle that shapes institutions, policies and social relations.

One of the lasting highlights was a body of art work they created in dialogue with students which is featured on the walls of the entrance of the east lobby of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. The intent was to spark conversation and dialogue – and encourage reflection and critical thinking.

The work was sponsored by the Institute for Diversity and Empowerment (IDEA) and USC Visions and Voices.

Like Us On Facebook

They pretty clearly state that whiteness is an organizing principle shaping life — for white people. If they mean the tribalism that is easy to fall into for many groups of people, including but not limited to race, then sure. But they don’t. They mean white people, specifically. This is openly racist. Here is more from a flyer the group hands out:

“WWD’s intention is to provoke greater discussion and thinking about the institutionalized and everyday systems of power and representation that reinforce racism, patriarchy, and inequality.”

Remember, on the Facebook page they posit that whiteness “refers to an organizing principle that shapes institutions” and then on their flyer they talk about “institutionalized” racism. This is not hard. Whiteness, inherent obviously among white people, institutionalizes racism. The fact that such institutions are not named — except sometimes “the police,” but then never with specificity beyond an individual incident, which by definition is not institutional — and no evidence is offered, does not stop the continued repetition of this falsity as truth.

The clear meaning is that white people are genetically racist. This actually aligns with what Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has been saying for decades — that white people are “devils.” He is one of the worst people in terms of spewing hatred while continually being given a platform among the left, including the Congressional Black Caucus, not to mention, Facebook and Youtube.

Join Our Revolutionary Channel

The artists that are part of When Women Disrupt portray their clearly racist work around the country and are comfortable on college campuses. Are they just extremists? Less all the time. They have been featured in such major media publications as New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR, New York Magazine, MSNBC, Time magazine, Fast Company and more. That’s a lot of mostly glowing coverage.

It’s not really surprising that these people and their overt racism would be welcome not just on college campuses, but in schools of journalism. Because journalists are increasingly leftist activists. They are being trained to be just that as they exit with their degrees and head to newspapers, networks and online media sites nationwide. They imbibe, absorb and promulgate this racist poison. It’s hard to see how that changes since they are birthed into the system this way. They equate all of this leftist racism with good journalism.

This is unbelievably dangerous territory, and definitively explains the attraction for too many to the return to tribalism that animates the alt right. There was no alt right to speak of 10 to 15 years ago. They are a reactionary grouping. And if they fade, others more dangerous will rise in this environment.

Because racism inevitably begets more racism. It is a vicious, bloody, hateful cycle that we were breaking in this country, and that the left is re-inserting.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


College Culture Liberalism Race relations Truth

Well, Identity Politics Has Ruined Halloween

Rod Thomson

Halloween has gone from being a time for kids to dress up — and a kind of creepy and uncomfortable time for adults to dress up and drink and act like kids — to a minefield of political correctness that would require a team of Army sappers to navigate without politically incorrect explosions ending careers.

This year’s increased round of dizzying intersectional dogma for Halloween came as Redbook and Cosmopolitan responded to an article by Sachi Feris in (a wonderful site, surely.) Feris wrote that her five-year-old daughter wanted to be Moana. But well-indoctrinated mommy fretted that would be “cultural appropriation.”

Her five-year-old’s second choice was just a problematic: Queen Elsa from the movie “Frozen.” Mom Feris wrote “I had some reservations regarding both costume choices…about cultural appropriation and the power/privilege carried by Whiteness, and about Whiteness and standards of beauty,” she wrote. This went viral on liberal mommy Facebook groups, where white moms everywhere realized with terror they couldn’t find a way out of the racist maze.

I’m sure that somehow makes sense in Feris’ mind, or she is just regurgitating what has been forced down her throat until she believes that two plus two sometimes equals five. (Read 1984!) But the obvious conundrum was that her white daughter would be racist if she wore Moana because it would be cultural appropriation. But the girl would also be racist if she wore Else because of her white privilege and oppressive history.

So Redbook and Cosmopolitan magazines gave some very lectury advice to moms of white girls (everyone else is apparently fine) that offered such head-spinning contradictory expectations that it would be better to just stay home.

The uberfeminist magazines helpfully explained to ignorant, privileged white moms how to properly dress their girls this halloween regarding Disney princesses — those dangerous Disney princesses! — without: 1) being racist; 2) appropriating minority cultures; or 3) perpetuating white supremacy.

So yeah, like Feris realized, it’s a very small window.


Intersectional dress Gestapo provides guidelines for Halloween

Here’s how it works.

The magazines tell white moms to avoid costumes outside their race. That’s the first one. So Moana is super-duper popular right now with little girls. But the dress nazis say, don’t do it! Why? It’s cultural appropriation. Duh. What’s wrong with you?

OK, for the unwashed outside our superiors on the Coasts and campuses, cultural appropriation is where, say, a white person wears dreadlocks. They can rightly get bullied and beat up by people of color because they are appropriating a non-white cultural appearance. Yes. It happens. Check YouTube. But the definition is as expansive as a non-white deems it to be because they have moral authority, according to the deep-fried insanity known as intersectionality.

Now some major confusion occurs on this point because we have been lectured by the same lefty elites for decades about the glories of multiculturalism, that all cultures are equally fantastic and that we should appreciate and enjoy other cultures. Under that rubric, one would have thought that honoring a Polynesian princess (even a fictional one where an island comes to life) would be a very good thing for people of other races to do— imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

But no, you racist!

It seems according to the dress cops, that we cannot truly appreciate the Polynesian culture (failure of the tourism industry) and pretending we can for a few hours just belittles that culture. It’s offensive. If you’re white, you wouldn’t understand because you are the oppressor.

The Exorcist girl’s head didn’t spin this badly. Please understand, this is not some exception. This is the growing rule.


College campuses hotbeds of intersectionality

It really blew up two years ago nationally — but had been driving its weedy roots into campuses for years — when longtime Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis and his wife, Erika, were forced out of their faculty-in-residence positions because they thought students should be treated as adults during Halloween — and, gulp, either not take offense or discuss the issue like civilized people.

Erika, an early childhood education expert, opposes adults “over-policing” children’s behavior. She is a card-carrying liberal, as is her husband. Yale administrators for intercultural affairs sent a campus-wide email telling Yale students to avoid “culturally unaware or insensitive choices” for Halloween costumes. Erika responded with an email of her own, agreeing with “genuine concerns about cultural” appropriation and applauding the “spirit” of trying to avoid hurting others. But she asked whether students were well-served by administrators over-policing student norms.

“Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity — in your capacity — to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?” she asked. “Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”

Pretty reasonable…well, not today when reason has left the room. But Erika added this from her husband: “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

Well that seems like pretty darn good advice. So naturally, there were riots. The pitchforks and torches out to storm the castle. This was in the petition signed by endless students and jelly faculty:

“You ask students to ‘look away’ if costumes are offensive, as if the degradation of our cultures and people, and the violence that grows out of it is something that we can ignore…we were told to meet the offensive parties head on, without suggesting any modes or means to facilitate these discussions to promote understanding.”

How can we talk with people who disagree with us without someone to lead us?!? These students seem beautifully molded to be either tyrants or slaves, but hardly free people.

Campuses everywhere are being proactive to “protect” their students in this minefield.

It is so complicated, a magazine published by Ohio State University created an entire flowchart called “Is Your Costume Racist?” to help students dress without offense. They key question through the chart is: “Are you white?” If yes, that changes everything. In the chart, the only costume where there is no issue on race is “Does it make fun of Donald Trump?” Flow part arrow points to: “Do it!”

Just a one-off? I keep saying, this thinking is a contagion on college campuses. The University of Texas created a 29-point checklist for dressing for Halloween without offending. The University’s Bias Response Team  — I am not kidding, this is rampant — urges students to report any “party with a racist theme.” Of course, as we can see, determining what is not racist according to the dress cops is all but impossible.

Bottom line, best to just stay home and eat broccoli.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

College Culture Gender Liberalism Politics Transgender Truth

The Democratic Party’s Intersectional Path to Destruction

(Part II in a series on intersectionality.)

by Rod Thomson

The psychosis of intersectional theory creates a terribly destructive pathway, and one that is duty-bound to ensnare those who participate in it and those who try to politically benefit from it. This will lead us directly to what may be a tributary in the river that could actually drown the Democratic Party as we know it today.

Intersectionality is the delusion positing that in the daily operation of life, there are only the innocent oppressed and the evil oppressor. The always-oppressor is white males. All other categories are varying degrees of oppressed, and derive grievance authority depending on the intensity of the oppression according to intersectionality.

In Part I on intersectionality last week, we explained the myth that endures that America is crammed full of oppressed groups — from gays to women to blacks and Hispanics — and pointed out how that simply is not true.

For gays and women, they are demonstrably thriving like no time in history and like almost nowhere else in the world. The data is irrefutable and the conclusion means, by definition, they are not oppressed. Thriving people are not oppressed people. Blacks and Hispanics in the middle and top of the socioeconomic scale are also doing better than anywhere. Those suffering at the bottom are simply succumbing to the reality of three choices: not graduating high school, not waiting to have children until marriage and/or not getting a job. Those choices impact the same across races.

So in conclusion, among the Big Three on the intersectionality chart (there are many smaller ones) there is definitively no oppression by the only group deemed to be oppressors: white males. In fact, white males as a group, are doing relatively poorer than 50 years ago. Not very good at oppressing.

However, the intersectionalists persist. And they resist. And…etc.

This has taken hold more deeply in academia than most Americans may realize. Traditionally, the cause célèbre on college campuses today, becomes the policies of tomorrow. However, there have generally been truths to those in the past. During the anti-War protests in the 60s that led to the military dismantling of the 90s, the underlying truth was that war is indeed terrible. What the protests missed was that sometimes it is necessary in pursuit of good. War is horrible but war to defeat Nazism is necessary.

Democrats try to ride the intersectionality beast as it is the ultimate outcome of the identity politics the party has disingenuously cultivated for decades to win votes, pitting “aggrieved” Americans against each other. Democrats have been setting blacks against whites, Hispanics against whites, women against men, the poor against the rich, gays against straights, for a long time as a way to get the support of the aggrieved groups.

That the radicals have expanded it to include disabled against abled-bodied, fat against slim, Muslims against Christians and so many other categories, should hardly be a surprise. And that they want to fortify it as some sort of natural law is also not surprising. Radicals — particularly those surrounded in an insulated environment with other radicals, such as college campuses — don’t always think straight.

This is the thinking behind “white privilege.” Not choices, skin color. In fact, if intersectionality were honest — and it is just about as opposite of that as possible — the real oppressors would be Asians and “Asian privilege” would be a thing. But it’s not — nor should it be!


The impossible allies

Intersectionality grew out of Marxist-feminist critical theory concepts — both of which have comfortable homes in the identity politics-driven Democratic Party. But it ends up clumping together some of the most impossibly opposed views as though they should be allies.

This theory requires LGBT activists to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with Muslim advocates of Sharia Law — the very law that would have them executed for being gay — in opposition to white males, who (in America anyway) are largely in favor of live and let live towards gays.

Blacks must stand in solidarity with African Muslims who openly promote and practice slavery today — demanding that whites who did not ever own a slave apologize and pay reparations to blacks who never were slaves.

Low-income working class Hispanic women stand with President Obama’s daughters against the white patriarchy — even though the Obama’s girls represent the very opposite of oppressed with opportunities few one-percenters could even dream of, and really have nothing systemically in common with the working class Hispanic women.

It gets a little head-spinning at times.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a renowned liberal, sees intersectionality as a platform for the growing anti-semitism of the Left. It makes sense as Jews in this country (for this purpose, usually considered white by intersectionalists) do exceptionally well. That cannot be because of personal choices, only oppression can account for it, therefore they are oppressors. Dershowitz also calls intersectionality the “phoniest academic doctrine I’ve encountered in 53 years.” That covers a lot of specious academic doctrine.

But, you see, he has no standing — even no right — to voice such opinions to the aggrieved group of intersectionality because Dershowitz is Jewish.


Intersectional death of a party?

But phony doesn’t mean harmless. What it means practically is that individuals in aggrieved groups need take no responsibility for poor decisions in life. The resulting consequences are always blamed on the oppressors.

However, before this cancer runs its course, intersectionality could turn out to be a fatally destructive force to those trying to harness it. It is a cancer in the country, but more specifically in the body politic of the Left, encompassed most formally in the Democratic Party, because it is an insatiable beast, eating away at its host.

Although intersectionality is built upon, and aggressively uses identity politics, the ultimate practical problem is that society, culture and relationships have never been improved through identity divisions. In fact, they are all generally made worse. Consider that under intersectionality, a white person and a black person cannot truly be friends, because the theory itself assumes at bedrock that the white person is an oppressor and the black person is oppressed. And that is true without exceptions because it is based on unchangeable genetic skin color. Oppressor and oppressed cannot be true friends.

Further, there is no way to ever fix this dynamic of the powerful oppressor crushing the weak, under the theory. It is genetic. White. Males. Genetics. So the prescribed course of action is to “be aware” of it — whatever that may mean, and whatever “it” is — and then the oppressor must censor himself in the presence of an oppressed.

So a white male must shut up at all times, supposedly unless it is with only other white males. If a woman or a black or a gay or a Latino — or definitely a black lesbian — is present, by dint of genetics she holds the high moral ground and cannot be disagreed with. But even the black lesbian may need to shut up in the presence of a disabled, overweight Native American lesbian. That person scores higher on the oppression scale.

Seriously, this is exactly what is taught on more and more campuses.

Do you wonder sometimes why certain people tell others to shut up during actual discourse on an issue? Just shut up! What kind of debate is that? Well in intersectionality there is no debate, just right based on genetics. They simply make no pretense of an argument. So the infamous gay coffee shop owner in Seattle that made the pro-life Christians leave continually told them to shut up when they were asking questions. Non-stop shut up. Antifa tells everyone to shut up — verbally and physically.

The longer this poisonous theory persists, the more a certain type of college-educated American will believe they have a natural right to shut up people who disagree with them — the exact opposite of the First Amendment and the founding concept that all men are created equal. Everyone not a white male, who has imbibed this theory (which is a minority but growing) feels entitled to shut down anyone lower in the hierarchy, particularly if they use wrong-speak.

Given this, the political party that embraces intersectionality (as it has identity politics for decades) is almost destined to ruination. The longer the Democratic Party has insisted on splitting and pitting Americans against ourselves, the overall worse they have done at the ballot box. It reached a critical point in 2008 and the Democrats have since been decimated in Congress, in the White House, in state legislatures and in governorships across the land. It wasn’t just that Obama was a bad president, but that he was the first totally identity-driven president. Americans liked electing a black man. They didn’t like what he stood for in office.

Intersectionality makes their fall in elected officials problem even worse. In fact, impossible. Because it involves Democrat against Democrat in the intersectional hierarchy. Democrat demographics dominate in these aggrieved groups. Meaning there becomes a genetic hierarchy within the Democratic Party.

The more popular intersectionality has become, elevating identity politics to an ever uglier level, the more race-baiting and bigotry we see. And, the natural ugly responsive rise of white supremacy. Seems obvious that the natural result of that original ugliness of telling all whites they are bad because they are white would lead to an ugly backlash?

In this situation, Republicans can own the mantle of Martin Luther King and his vision for a colorblind society where people are judged on their character and not the color of their skin. That would send the identitarians into shrieking apoplectic fits of rage. But it would be true, it would be powerful and it would be American.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

College Liberalism Truth

Your Son is Not as Safe as You Think at College

By Pensar Juntos

Fall’s arrival brings students — America’s future — streaming into the hallowed halls of higher education.

For those of you directly engaged in funding one of these institutions, much of your thought is focused on classes, dorms, books, computers, software and trying to remove that stunned look from your face brought about by today’s tuition and dorm price tags. But there is undoubtedly some fear for the safety of your daughters, who will be exposed to binge parties, sexual peer pressure and some wild fraternities.

You should expand that to your sons as well.

Sexual assault on our campuses have greatly increased. Even the elite liberal-leaning Chronicle of Higher Education states, “The number of reported forcible sex crimes on campus increased from 2,200 in 2001 to 5,000 in 2013 (a 126 percent increase).”  

I have worked with administration in higher education for more than 27 years. Campus sexual assaults have long been a fixture in campus life. Universities are never thrilled to talk about it, for good reason. They compete viciously for your son or daughter’s enrollment. Colleges and universities do their level best to lower the numbers of sexual assaults on their campuses. Both by encouraging reporting…and by hiding it.


College administrators play with the numbers

For example, many will consider any attack that takes place outside their strict ‘campus’ perimeters as not a campus assault. Even if it is one of their students walking back from classes to their dorm. Some fraternities and sororities are also placed off campus to lower on-campus sexual assault numbers. A perpetrator committing a crime on campus may even be passively allowed to walk off campus to make the arrest off campus.

And as we have seen with some of the more publicized sports figure arrests, institutions have many standards and protocols for different students accused of crimes — despite supposed ‘zero tolerance’ policies on sexual assault. They all do it to some degree. The argument is, if they didn’t, their campus would seem less safe than those who report student sexual assaults in a more selective way. All of this is hardly new, and we could make a great case that sexual assault awareness and reporting on campus is higher than it ever has been.

However, some groups — men, including gay men — seem to be discouraged from reporting.

Liberal/progressive ideology has taken over most administrations of higher education. Contrary to what many people believe, the real ideological power broker isn’t that gray-haired, pony-tailed, sandal-wearing professor. It’s an administration that holds the purse-strings and sets curriculum. With that ideology has come many changes in sexual behavior and identification on campus.

LGBT centers have sprung up on nearly every campus, bathrooms are sometimes open to both biological genders to cater to transgender persons, and students are openly encouraged to question their sexual identification. Women’s Gender Studies classes do a fantastic job of vilifying men, and in many cases encouraging alternative sexual identification and experimentation. Fresh off their successes activating students around gay marriage, sex on campus in all its different forms can seem not an issue, but rather the issue.

Young people have never been as sexualized as they are today on campuses. That brings issues of its own.


Tilting justice against white men

Liberalism/progressivism thrive on the collectivist notion of an oppressor and an oppressed. That view seems to be binary and set in stone, the oppressed can never be the oppressor and vice versa.

Your male son, especially your white male son, is viewed as the oppressor in every circumstance when the issue is against an ‘oppressed female’. His word simply does not carry the equal weight of his female counterparts. Any accusation against him by a female will almost certainly be treated as the truth.

That accusation can be a real problem for your son’s future. A quick look through Michigan State University’s Sexual Assault Program, for one example, shows not a single male staff member. However, this is the norm on sites I checked and not unique to MSU. A search of your Alma Mater will most likely show the same thing.

Imagine a large city police force that only has male sexual assault on-site councilors. Probably wouldn’t go over well. While campuses would argue that women are assaulted far more than men, that shouldn’t deny men from getting the help they need and deserve. That help should include the right to counsel with someone of your own gender. Yet many campuses view that as a non-issue.

We are a nation that should provide equal justice to any sexual assault victim. Especially on campus. But we don’t.

This issue has also manifests itself in a way that may not immediately jump to mind: the LGBT community itself.

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 46.4% lesbians, 74.9% bisexual women and 43.3% heterosexual women reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes. On the flip side, 40.2% gay men, 47.4% bisexual men and 20.8% heterosexual men reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes. That means that if your gay son, who has a more than 4 in 10 chances of being sexually assaulted in his life needs help, he must confide in a woman….or not report. Many do not.

On top of that, because he is a man in a center staffed by women advocates, he will most likely be viewed as the perpetrator in his time of trauma, at least until he establishes his case. He’s assumed guilty — as the victim. Even the liberal Huffington Post has posted opinion columns by gay advocates demanding more men, particularly gay men, to be on the staff of the sexual assault crisis centers.

Yet for now, that seems to fall on deaf ears. Students will continue to be oversexualized to promote agendas. Men, especially white men, will continue to be viewed as the default perpetrator on liberal campuses — which is most campuses. Gay people reporting sexual assaults doesn’t fit the agenda and reporting is not as encouraged as it should be.

Interracial couple assaults are also something that they do not want ‘over reported’. Those groups are to be portrayed in their group identity as better than the normal population and not as suffering the plagues of the rest of us. Statistics be damned. Sexual crisis centers are viewed by the administration, as being for women. Almost exclusively. Sadly, that leaves many victims in the cold.

Many of your sons are one accusation away from having their lives ruined. Many gay men will not receive the justice and counseling they deserve. Your son, gay or straight, is not as safe as you may think in a liberal institution. Something to think about when a university is courting your child.

Pensar Juntos, a pseudonym meaning “think together” in Spanish, has spent nearly three decades working in the administration of a major American university.

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.