Categories
Democrats Gender Race Race relations Truth

Dear Esther: Chicago Does Not Need A Black Woman Mayor

Rod Thomson

What Chicago needs is an honest, non-corrupt, economically literate, competent mayor that can lift the once-great city out of the tragic farce it has become. That might be a black woman. It might not.

Esther Cepeda, in one of the most insipidly stupid takes on politics I’ve read in quite awhile — and that’s saying something — believes that the gender and skin color of the next Chicago mayor is all that is needed to miraculously turn the city around, heal racial wounds, lower crime rates, improve economics and, perhaps, bring unicorns prancing on rainbows!

It’s so bad one has to ask, even in these times, how in the world do some people get nationally syndicated columns through the Washington Post Group? Let’s start at the beginning of the nonsense. Probably best not to be eating while I quote from Cepeda.

“Finally, a spot of good news for a beleaguered city that has long been known as a hotbed of racism and government-sanctioned segregation: the promise of Chicago’s first black, female mayor.

In a dogpile of a mayoral race, 14 candidates fought it out to connect to voters who had long ago given into a nasty case of learned helplessness. The two top winners — both black women — beat out a rich scion of a Chicago political dynasty, a Latina state official, the city’s former top cop and a bevy of other local luminaries.

The two finalists are former assistant U.S. attorney Lori Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. And no matter which one of them wins the April 2 runoff Chicago’s inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim.”

Set aside the overt racialism and bigotry over assuming based on skin color and gender alone that the next mayor will be better, what is she even factually talking about? “Inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim?” Um…Baltimore is on it’s third straight black woman mayor. And look how great Baltimore is doing! OK, actually it’s racked by racial strife, incompetence, a skyrocketing murder rate and a so-so economy despite being right next door to D.C.

Let’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Washington, D.C. elected a black female mayor; San Francisco elected a black female mayor; Atlanta elected a black female mayor; New Orleans elected a black female mayor; Charlotte, N.C. elected a black female mayor. Oh heck, here’s a full list here.

Support truth

So what in the world is she talking about? And does she have an editor? When she says “top cities” is she saying New York and L.A.? That’s cherry-picking at its worst. Pretty sure most rational people could consider San Fran and D.C. among America’s top cities. But it is the sort of dishonesty we come to expect from the media. Even opinion writers should be held to a standard of some sort. But I dream.

More Cepeda” “And it’s a relief, indicating that there are still strides people of color can hope for…”

Because again, not the quality of the candidate, the issues, the plans, dare I say even, the content of their character, is what is important. Black. Female. Better. That’s the entire measuring stick. Nothing racist or bigoted here at all, folks.

More Cepeda:

So, yeah, the city could use good news in the form of a historic change of leadership from Rahm Emanuel, a big-interests-focused political operator. Either one of these two women could, in theory, address the neglect of the African-American community, which has caused what some experts consider to be a mass migration of black people out of the city and into the suburbs, neighboring Indiana or the Southern states where the original Great Migration began.”

I believe “address the neglect” translates to: A black female mayor will give blacks more stuff. If it meant reforming the school system, attacking the total decimation of the black family, changing the attitude towards education and jobs among young, black men specifically, and maybe even creative opportunity zones for investment,  then that could really be something. But given Cepeda’s level of thought and insight, pretty sure she just means more stuff.

And finally, which of these two candidate finalists will win? Let’s look at one last note in Cepeda’s description to get a clue:

“At least it won’t be a boring race. As evidenced by her campaign thus far, Lightfoot — a self-proclaimed out and proud black lesbian — has seemingly never even heard of the “be nice” political playbook that’s expected of women politicians — perhaps a winning formula for other, future female high-office candidates?”

Straw man alert! Who exactly is expecting women to be “be nice” in politics? Not exactly what we’ve been seeing. And of course in another context, Cepeda would be bemoaning the state of our mean politics. What is really at work here is just the tired retread thinking of liberalism’s past quarter century.

Now, based on intersectional hierarchy, the black female lesbian candidate beats the black female candidate 3-2 in intersectional scoring. (Content of ideas need not apply.) But Chicago is well-known as a corrupt Democratic city and the non-lesbian black female candidate is part of that power structure. So it is entrenched power versus intersectional power.

Despite Cepeda’s fact-free, knee-jerk, stuck-in-a-rut thinking, it’s all but impossible to see how the city improves either way. Not, of course, because they are black women, but because they are shades of Chicago Democratic progressivism, which has proven itself a deep failure already. Changing faces won’t change the outcome.

Unfortunately, Cepeda and her fellow travellers will think the election itself means the city wins. That wasn’t the case with Barack Obama’s election as president. And it won’t be the case with Chicago’s choice.

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


 

Categories
Gender Government Schools Truth

Florida Schools: Transgender Children’s Choice Must Be Hid From Parents

Rod Thomson

A Florida school superintendent in very conservative coastal Sarasota County is implementing a radically leftist transgender policy without public input or a vote of the School Board, a policy that among other things strips parents of their right to know what their child is doing in school and turns over a fundamental right of parenting to the government.

At the recommendation of the Sarasota County School District’s LGBTQI Task Force, School Superintendent Todd Bowden is issuing “guidelines” today to govern how the district’s more than 50 public schools handle transgender and gender questioning students — starting as young as kindergarten.

This surreptitious radicalization of local policy comes at the very moment that the Trump administration is considering rolling back the Obama administration’s baseless, un-scientific and lawless expansion of Title IX, the federal civil-rights statute that bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Obama also did that very quietly in 2014, on his own, after Congress failed to get it changed to Obama’s satisfaction.

These are called “guidelines” presumably because an actual policy would have to go through the School Board and be subject to public hearings and public input. (The tactic is akin to when President Obama created a treaty with Iran over nuclear weapons, but called it an “agreement” to bypass the need for Senate ratification.)

Superintendent Bowden appears to be using the Obama playbook on the issue.

But while called guidelines in practice it is a policy, and it implements a full-blown transgender protocol allowing students to use whichever bathroom and locker room corresponds with the gender they “identify” as, forces everyone else to use the pronoun of the students’ choice — including “their” if they are just not sure— and checks the box of everything LGBTQI activists want.

The policy also says that parents must not be informed of their child’s decision to identify as a different gender. The student’s gender identity will be accommodated entirely in the school, which activists and some school leaders claim is a “safer” environment than the home.

If John wants to be known as Sue, his teachers and all staff must call him that. But the parents cannot be informed. John/Sue can use the girls’ bathroom, the girls’ locker room, and participate as a girl in extracurricular activities. But the parents cannot be informed. It’s all up to the child and school.

More Original Content On Patreon

The just-released document obtained by The Revolutionary Act, entitled “Creating Safe Schools for All Students:  Gender Diverse Student Guidelines,” reads: “It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity.” No parents allowed.

This policy was intended to be quietly rolled out Friday to principals overseeing 43,000 students, until one courageous School Board member was so outraged that she went public with it.

“That is completely stripping the rights of families, parents and/or guardians to be a part of this discussion,” said School Board Chairman Bridget Ziegler. “The district has no place in cutting out parents.”

If a student needs an aspirin, they need parental permission. If they want to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance, they need written permission of the parents. But if their son wants to change his gender and identify as a girl at school and use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, then the parent must not even be told.

Remember, there was no vote or discussion by the elected Board, and no public or community input — in a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats 130,000 to 93,000 as of the 2016 election and that Trump won in a landslide. It was meant to be such a quiet rollout that many parents would not even be aware of it. (Part of this is due to the peculiar breakdown of the so-called “non-partisan” Board, which is 4-1 Republican, but 3-2 puppet-like supporters of the superintendent.)

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

Here are the core controversial parts of the new policy. Read the language. These are not guidelines, they are policy rules.

PRONOUNS: “A transgender student shall be addressed by the name and gender requested. All relevant teachers and administrators and staff shall be informed of a transgender student’s name and gender pronoun. The student’s name and gender pronoun does not need to correspond to the student’s birth certificate and other official records. It is up to the student, and the student alone, to share her/his/their identity. In the case of elementary-age students often the student and parent are involved, however, this is on a case by case basis.”

At the elementary level, the parents are involved only if the child informs them. School leaders are blocked from doing so.

BATHROOMS: “All students, who want to use the restroom in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.”

Of course, this is a serious problem all on its own. But implementation will also be problematic, because in the open-ended forms of gender identity allowed in the guidelines there is “non-binary,” which “refers to anyone who does not exclusively identify as male or female. This term can include multiple gender identities, not limited to gender fluid.”

So apparently any bathroom can be used, based on the feelings of the moment?

LOCKER ROOMS:All students, who want to use the locker room in accordance with their consistently asserted gender identity, will be provided the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns.

FIELD TRIPS: “Day field trips and overnight field trips are opportunities for educational endeavors and social engagements and it is important to make sure that transgender students have both components. This can require some planning to ensure affirmed name, gender pronouns, room assignments, chaperones and showers are accurate and aligned with the student’s core gender identity. School administration will directly guide the process. Administration will review case by case to determine how to work with all parties involved.”

Because the School Board elections were just completed in the Florida primary, there is little that can be done to overturn this superintendent-driven policy. But expect a strong reaction from the conservative community on the loss of parental rights with their own children.

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


 

Categories
Feminism Gender Truth

Feminism Is Winning; Destroying Boys, Gender, Family and Society

Rod Thomson

There is a dirty little secret that the information gatekeepers of the Left block from Americans: modern feminism is slicing a path of destruction through the lives of men, women, families and society.

This is not the equal pay for equal work feminism. That has long been resolved legally and culturally. This is the anti-patriarchy modern feminism. But there is essentially no patriarchy left in America. CEOs and most other leadership-count disparities are a function of women’s individual choices — countercultural choices, at that — and even then may be temporary as women are pressured by the increasingly feminized culture to battle against their innate natures that lead toward motherhood and child nurturing.

By most studies and polls, women living the lives of the major tenets of modern feminism are distinctively less happy and less fulfilled. And they live in more danger. But where we see the real destructive success of the modern, radical feminist movement — which has worked to tilt the field in favor of women while supporting the government replacing the father in the home — is in the increasingly dire plight of the American male.

Consider the following:

American men fail and drop out of school at much higher rates than American women;

American men are far more likely to die of a drug overdose than American women;

American men are far more likely to drop out of the workforce because of addiction;

American men commit suicide at a rate several times higher than American women;

American men live on average six years shorter than American women.

American men are incarcerated at far higher proportions and are more likely to commit a felony and go to prison (although this has always been the case)

American men have lost out on tens of thousands of college scholarships because the federal law called Title IX demanded equality of all sports in universities, which resulted in the elimination of many male-only sports and the accompanying scholarships.

Please Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

None of this exactly paints a picture of a patriarchal society where women are oppressed and men are triumphant as the angry feminists on or recently out of college campuses keep telling us. Not at all. The only “oppression” is nature, for which oppression is the wrong word.

“There isn’t a shred of hard evidence to support that Western society is pathologically patriarchal; that the prime lesson of history is that men, rather than nature, were the primary source of oppression of women,” writes Jordan Peterson in his blockbuster book, 12 Rules for Life.

American women, particularly professionals with college degrees, are putting off marriage and finding fewer eligible men when they are ready to settle down and get married in their 30s. This is being written about frequently now as many of these women lament that lack of marriable men at that age.

American women are having fewer children (a feminist and leftist goal) and having them later in life. Sadly, many are finding that when they finally decide they want to start a family, they either cannot find any quality men of husband potential or their biological clock has run out.

But as horrible as that may be, it is hardly the end game. Let a feminist leader put it in her own words.

“Feminism means dismantling society’s toxic ideas about what fatherhood looks like,” Emma Roller recently wrote in Splinter. “Ultimately, it means dismantling gender completely.”

Exactly. Credit Roller with honesty, although with ongoing radicalization of feminism, the activists and leaders of the modern feminist movement are pretty open about their intent to destroy, or “dismantle,” as Roller puts it.

Like Us On Facebook

The no-commitment sexual revolution pushed by earlier feminism combined with the “rape culture” sham and gender fluidity poison from modern feminism has virtually killed romance and the potential for healthy, monogamous relationships between husbands and wives along a wide swath of America.

Destroying the joys of motherhood and loosing the restraints on men through marriage and fatherhood, has made no one happy or fulfilled. Actually, it has increased anger and depression in both sexes.

Dennis Prager recently wrote: “The left has made innumerable women unhappy, even depressed, with its decades of lying about how female sexual nature and male sexual nature are identical — leading to a “hookup” culture that leaves vast numbers of young women depressed — and its indoctrinating of generations of young women into believing they will be happier through career success than marital success.”

Interestingly, and in line with the actual natures of men and women — natures the left and modern feminists deny or blame on the largely non-existent patriarchy — multiple studies from the European Union Eurostat arm to Australia’s Cowan University to numerous American studies have found that women (and men) who have large families are the most happy.

Harry Wallop, recently wrote in the London Telegraph about the Eurostat report on happiness among European nations, but found one element of the research to be a surprise: “… one of the most intriguing details to emerge is that families with three or more children are far more likely to be very happy than families with just one or two children, than single parents and also spinsters and bachelors.”

Wallop, who has four children and in the U.K. that is considered scandalously big, went on: “My only serious theory as to why large families may be happier is because instances of selfishness should be lower. Me, me, me can not flourish in such a crowded environment. Sharing is a daily activity you just have to get used to.”

He’s right. Selfishness does not bring about happiness. It just breeds more selfishness. Sharing, giving and sacrificing for others does produce happiness. But modern feminism is the promotion of selfishness uber alles. It’s what the woman wants, when the woman wants it and all must bend to her will — including the convenience of unborn babies.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

At bottom, feminism is determined to both prove men and women are the exact same and can do all the exact same things while at the same time insisting gender is just a patriarchal cultural construct that must be abolished. It is a movement that is as inconsistent as most of modern liberalism, but perhaps more destructive, because men and women are different. And no amount of feminist theory college degrees can change that.

Despite this growing disaster for men and society as a whole, feminists, the Left, Democrats and the media continue to play the hysterically false “war on women” card. For the ideologues, it’s their identity. For the politicians, it’s a power card. For America and the West, it’s a long-term funeral procession.

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. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.

Categories
Culture Feminism Gender Liberalism Truth

Bra-Less Florida High School Girl Goes Full Protest Over Gender ‘Discrimination’

Rod Thomson

A Florida high school student is charging that she was wrongly humiliated by school administrators over going bra-less to class, just because she is a girl, going the full discrimination protest route. And she’s getting a lot of help in her gender-ized victimhood from her mother.

The incident came about when the 17-year-old female Braden River High School student, in Bradenton, Fla., went to school in a loose top without a bra. Her teacher notified school administrators that the revealing outfit was being a distraction in class and administrators told her to put a T-shirt on under her loose shirt. But the female administrator thought the girl’s nipples remained too prominent. The administrator sent the girl to the nurse’s office to put four band-aids on to “X out her nipples.”

This was a moment of understandable humiliation and consternation for the student, but did not result in a self-reflection on personal choices. It quickly turned to self-righteous indignation and, of course, victimhood. She was trained well along the way that her actions did not result in consequences, but that she was the victim of the patriarchy.

“I felt very attacked because of my gender,” the girl told the local newspaper.

Naturally.

It’s not like she was a teen girl in a class with hormone-raging teen boys making a clear display of herself in a way guaranteed to…distract boys in the class. At that age, she probably distracted girls, too, albeit in a different way.

The girl comes by her gender victimhood honestly. A lot of the response seems driven by her mother, who has been all over school officials for their actions, rather than helping her daughter learn how to function in society.

Please Consider Supporting Our Efforts

Her mother told the local newspaper that the district’s policy is sexist and administrators need to prove intent when determining if a student’s outfit is vulgar. Intent? So if a student showed up naked to school but with no intent to be vulgar — maybe it’s art or maybe its a protest — then they should not be in violation of dress code?

“We should not treat a girl like this because of where her fat cells decided to distribute genetically,” the mother said. Fat cells have decision-making powers?

There’s not a lot of clear thinking going on here. But don’t think the district is not worried. Because these are the times in which we live.

Like Us On Facebook

The school district’s lawyer, Mitch Teitelbaum, said the incident should have been handled better — without saying how exactly — but that the decision to ask the girl to adjust her clothing was correct. “It is undisputed that this matter should have been handled differently at the school level, and corrective measures have been taken to prevent a re-occurrence in the way these matters will be addressed in the future,” Teitelbaum said.

Teitelbaum said the girl was in violation of the dress code in the student code of conduct prohibiting students from “wearing clothes that expose underwear or body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner or attire that disrupts the orderly learning environment.”

There is nothing specific about girls wearing bras. But then, it was probably written at a time when a certain amount of common sense and decency prevailed. Again, not these times.

“You would not ask this kind of stuff of a male,” the girl’s mother protested. “If a male was wearing basketball shorts, and somebody thought they could see his package, you would never ask him to stand up and move around.”

Join Our Revolutionary Channel

Actually, I seriously doubt that. Quite sure that student would be asked to adjust his clothing. That’s actually indecent exposure, which is against the law. But again, thoughtful common sense is not at the forefront here.

The aggrieved girl is now going full-scale protest by — you guessed — not wearing bras to school anymore. She tweeted out her intent with “Stop sexualizing my body @piratenationhs.” That was after she tweeted “…My school basically told me that boys’ education is far more important than mine and I should be ashamed of my body.” And, importantly, that was after she re-tweeted in March a tweet stating: “i f**king hate this country.”

Sigh.

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. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
Abortion Gender Planned Parenthood Transgender Truth

Planned Parenthood Targets Minors For Transgender Treatment

Rod Thomson

In a virtually ignored development, Planned Parenthood has found another way to make a buck on the backs of mostly impressionable young people.

On top of its massive abortion industry, and the more recent discovery that it was selling baby parts, the nation’s largest abortion provider is now offering transgender hormone therapy for women who want to become men and men who want to become women.

Planned Parenthood’s abortion business model is threatened as the U.S. abortion rate continues to decline, new regulations are put in place on the horrific and unpopular practice of late-term abortions and the American public becomes more inclined towards curtailing abortions as science reveals more of what is going on in the womb.

Further, there is substantial momentum toward defunding Planned Parenthood at the federal level, which would be another blow to the abortion giant’s revenue stream. Congress can’t quite get its act together on this, but the Trump Administration is actively helping states in the fight for unborn babies. The Health and Human Services administration, working with the Alliance Defending Freedom legal team, is telling states they no longer have to comply with Obama regulations that threw up roadblocks for states trying to exclude Planned Parenthood from their state Medicaid programs.

Declining abortions and reducing tax funding is putting a crimp in Planned Parenthood’s money flowing style. So it is not surprising that the organization turned to transgender hormone — or sex change — treatments in 2016. But it is quickly going for the younger, more impressionable teens who are in vulnerable years of life.

The Revolutionary Youtube Channel

Until literally the last few years, gender dysphoria was understood to be a psychological disorder, and very treatable. Importantly, most young people who experience this condition of gender confusion outgrow it as adults and no longer suffer from the dysphoria. Somewhere between 75 percent and 95 percent of children experiencing gender dysphoria will outgrow it as adults. The majority grow up to be gay adults. The minority are traditional adults.

But the LGBTQ activist community continues to undermine every scientific reality with its powerful political machine and a sympathetic media. Just off their successful dissolution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, the LGBTQ activists immediately turned to mucking up the differences between the two sexes. Boys can be girls and girls can be boys, whatever they feel like, science and biology and known reality be damned.

One of the earliest Planned Parenthood groups to begin selling hormone therapy drugs is based in Sarasota, Florida, where it is now dishing out the irreversible body-altering drugs to about 250 people on a regular basis. The Guardian newspaper reported that “Planned Parenthood is one of the largest sources in the U.S. of transgender healthcare.”

And now, it will be “offering” its drugs for sale to minors with parental consent. But anyone paying attention knows that the parental consent portion will be under attack almost instantly.

This is abominable considering most of these minors will outgrow their gender confusion as adults, but with these drugs, they will be unalterably changed. Many of their lives will be severely degraded because of the drug regiment they chose to buy from Planned Parenthood as teens. But the LGBTQ community will further its destructive agenda and Planned Parenthood will play its part while making its millions.

Most transgender hormone treatment clinics require a therapist’s letter for giving out the irreversible, body-altering drugs — providing some tiny level of protection from compulsive acts — something teens are famous for. But Planned Parenthood does not. In fact, all the group’s policy requires is to simply inform confused young people of the risks of treatment. The patient signs the form, the treatments begin, and the money flows in.

The hormonal ‘sex-change’ treatments are not supposed to be funded by tax dollars, but they are when it is deemed “medically necessary,” according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Thus a brand new revenue stream is spawned for Planned Parenthood, and more lives will be unnecessarily devastated.

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. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
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.

Categories
Abortion Gender Immigration Truth

COUNTDOWN: The Top 5 Lies of the Left

Rod Thomson

American political liberaldom relies heavily on empty canards, name-calling and scare tactics to stay alive and shut down opposition.

There are few if any deep and penetrating debates on major topics that drive the politics of the left. They simply will not allow it. So they create fictitious arguments (the nice way of saying lies.)

With that in mind, here are a few major shibboleths of at least the activist left which verge on the incredulous, but which are used regularly and magnified by the sympathetic media megaphone.

 

No. 5 Lie: Border security is racist

If you believe that America should act like most every other country in the world and protect its borders, you’re a racist.

If you believe that America should have the authority to let in who it wants to and keep out who it wants to like most every other country, you’re a racist.

If you believe America should know who is here and who is coming and going like most every other country, you’re a racist.

This stems from candidate Donald Trump running on a campaign to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to stop the millions of illegal aliens (that is the actual, legal term) from crossing back and forth like it was a state border.

This quasi-open border is the result of an unholy alliance between businesses that want cheap labor and Democrat political interests that see future Democratic voters and a play to current Hispanic voters. And it is the issue that Trump claimed in order to peel away blue-collar Democratic voters.

The left rarely tries to argue the merits of open borders, because most Americans oppose that. So they devolve to the thought-free name-calling of racism because, you know, Mexicans are brown and therefore opposing them, or anyone else, breaking into our country illegally is racist.

 

No. 4 Lie: Asking questions is science denying

Speaking of science and politics, the inquisitive, independent thinkers among us are now considered anti-science — if they are asking questions about the degree and causes of climate change today.

Yes, while it is obviously the antithesis of actual science, which involves continually asking questions, forming hypotheses, testing, re-testing based on results and so on, this tactic now is employed to shut up any opposition to the climate change political agenda.

The data seems to suggest modest warming since the mid 1800s and there seems to be a connection between carbon in the atmosphere, trapped greenhouse gases, and global warming.

But if you question the data because of a series of scandals revealing how leading climatologists have conspired to alter older data creating cooler temperatures to suggest more rapid warming now, you are a denier.

If you question the degree to which human activity is impacting climate change by pointing out a nearly two-decade pause while carbon emissions continued to increase, you are a denier.

But these and many others are reasonable questions. That we are not allowed to ask them without being labeled flat-earthers suggests this is a lot more about politics than about science.

 

No. 3 Lie: Men can be women can be men, or whatever

One of the most mind-boggling absurdities foisted on us by the modern liberal is that a person’s sex is dependent on what they think it is. Any “assignment at birth” is an arbitrary constraint to who that person really is.

So, if a person has one Y chromosome and one X chromosome and they have the full package of penis and scrotum, it is not arbitrary to call them male. That person is a man. That is actual science.

But the left — in true full science denial — says those physical realities can be trumped by a person’s feeling. If that person feels like a woman, then they are a woman trapped in a man’s body and they should be allowed and encouraged to dress like a woman or have full-blown surgery to become a woman. And they should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers — even though they are a man.

Until just the past few years this was considered a psychological condition that should be treated. But now, the left celebrates children as young as four years old being encouraged to be the sex they are not.

One could reasonably call that child abuse.

 

No. 2 Lie: Hate speech is not free speech

No less a luminary than former Vermont governor, DNC chairman and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean tweeted out this past week that “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.”

The internet blew up over such a ridiculous statement. Even PolitiFact and media organs called him to task. But the thing is, his tweet got 700 retweets and 1,400 likes. Dean actually doesn’t have that big a Twitter following, meaning the tweet got strong traction among those following him.

Too many on the left, most particularly those on college campuses, view hate speech practically as any speech with which they disagree. Of course, many of these same campuses actually have speech codes and “free speech zones” with the overt meaning that outside the zone is not for free speech.

The unfortunate truth is that many college liberals, trained by professorial liberals, think that they should be able to shut down speech they do not appreciate or agree with. They have safe spaces and mainstream American views can be shouted down and pushed out with threats and actions.

These people leave the campuses today and in a generation will be leaders in the nation. It matters. The radicals running campuses know this.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel!

 

No. 1 Lie: It’s not about innocent life, but reproductive freedom

And coming in at number one in our countdown is the oldie but definitely not goodie, the abortion non-debate.

Increasingly, science (which worldview seems to be anti-science here?) is showing that by every objective definition the baby in the womb is indeed a human, with the inherent rights of a human, within a few weeks of conception. From brainwaves to heartbeats to pain reaction, a person. Science continually pushes this obvious definition earlier and earlier.

But the left forces the debate to revolve around women’s rights. Not the 50 percent of female babies aborted — not those would-be women — but adult women who should have the right to kill their unborn baby at any point in a pregnancy for any reason they deem. Period. This is the classic Planned Parenthood position on choice.

Because abortion is conflated with birth control, it is called a reproductive “right” on the order of getting a contraceptive device or even pap smears and mammograms — anything except actually talking about whether we should condone the often wanton taking of an innocent human life. Any restrictions on abortion therefore are restrictions on a woman’s access to healthcare. See how much you can get away with when you refuse to call something what it is.

Oh and coat hangers. Don’t forget coat hangers.

But there is an encouraging side to this falderal. All of this avoidance on major issues means that conservatives actually have the stronger cases. Otherwise, liberals would not avoid the debate. We just need to be courageous enough to make those cases over and over and over.

Categories
Gender Truth

IRONY: Twaddle About the Gender Pay Gap Actually About Women’s Choice

Rod Thomson

You can find this particular slice of ironic baloney everywhere in liberal ideology. It always raises its fraudulent head during a political campaign because that is when it is most valuable.

Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Or 79 cents. Or 80 cents. It moves about a little. This is cited as evidence of the ongoing patriarchal oppression that American women suffer under. That’s the claim and that’s the cudgel with which to bash opponents and raise money.

Naturally, running as the XX-chromosome candidate, Hillary Clinton droned on about the gender pay gap on the campaign trail. President Obama, speaking at the 2016 Equal Pay Day, said, “Today, the typical woman who works full-time earns 79 cents for every dollar that a typical man makes.” Of course everything with Obama was about systemic discrimination, even when neither the specific system nor the specific discrimination could be identified.

The media duly “reports” the gender pay gap myth, and it is repeated with great dramatic flair by  endless streams of intellectually isolated celebrities. The picture with this article represents hundreds of such memes playing on the uninformed and not the reality.

Equal Pay Day is a part of this great political theater. It is in early April and is meant to symbolize how long a woman must work into the next year to make as much as a man from the previous year. Every April, Democrats crank up their reliable demonstration/protest mode to call attention to this terrible injustice in which the American patriarchal system oppresses women.

Democrats even push annually for the Paycheck Fairness Act because, of course, women making personal choices that may result in them making less money is “unfair.” There oughta be a law! (The Democrat solution for every problem.)

The real pudding proof on this fib is that if it were true, money-grubbing capitalists everywhere would be hiring women to save 21 percent on their labor costs. Duh. But of course, that is not happening. Because this is not true.

 

Why it’s mythological bunk

The thing is, there is actually no evidence of discrimination here. Even liberal economists cannot find it. It is simply rendered as true, and millions of people swallow it and react angrily at the wrongdoing. But there’s nothing wrong.

Here’s how this hokum is produced:

Using the most generalized data set from the Census Bureau, you take full-time working men’s median annual earnings and full-time working women’s median annual earnings and you find that, on the broadest of averages, there is a pay differential of 20 to 21 cents. That’s it. No glaringly obvious variables. No common sense applications. Just the two rawest data points because part of every feminist assumption is that men and women are exactly the same.

And then conclude discrimination.

But without an ounce of research from smart folks — who we’ll get to in a minute — anyone giving it actual thought knows that men and women approach jobs and careers differently when marriage and children are in the equation. A mother is likely to take time off from work, oftentimes months or even years. She will frequently seek out part-time work or jobs with flexible hours because her maternal drive prioritizes the time needs of her children. The man’s paternal drive prioritizes providing for the entire family.

Obviously, that puts those women — in the millions — at a slower career growth pace and therefore earning less than men. That pulls down the average woman’s pay and that is all the gender gap looks at. That is one huge variable that falls under the category of freedom.

We also know from observation that women tend to choose lower wage careers such as teachers and nurses while men tend to choose higher wage careers such as engineering and MBAs. That too drags down women’s salaries compared to men’s and as we will see, these variables explain almost the entire difference. And all of them fall under what one might call “a woman’s right to choose.”

Not discrimination.

It could be argued in the broadest terms that women’s career choices are more noble than men’s — if they must be compared — because they often involve serving others while men’s often involve building things. But the liberal feminist ideology clings to the pay gap myth because every movement needs an enemy, and for the feminist, that enemy is men.

 

Women choose children over careers

The first obvious variable is most women do double-duty as moms, and this impacts their careers and long-term earnings. Most women also find this an acceptable trade-off, hence they choose it. Secondary to this one is that women tend to be the primary caregivers when elderly parents need it. Both obviously affect careers and earnings.

Instead of going deeply into the numbers that back up all this common sense, and they are legion, let’s use the conclusions from those numbers of two liberal, feminist, Ivy League academics.

Claudia Goldin was the first tenured professor of economics at Harvard University in 1990. Goldin has done extensive research on the issue of women in the workforce and concludes almost the entire gap deals with women’s choices.

“Some of the best studies that we have of the gender pay gap, following individuals longitudinally, show that when they show up right out of college, or out of law school, or after they get their MBA — all the studies that we have indicate that wages are pretty similar then,” she said on the Freakonomics podcast. “But further down the pike in their lives, by 10-15 years out, we see very large differences in their pay. But we also see large differences in where they are, in their job titles. And a lot of that occurs a year or two after a kid is born, and it occurs for women and not for men. If anything, men tend to work somewhat harder.”

So it is the choices women freely make.

Princeton public-policy scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote in “Unfinished Business” about what she called the “care penalty” as the primary driver of gender pay inequity. Understand, she does not like this or even think it right, but she also does not find gender pay discrimination in the workforce. Slaughter wrote:

“If you take women who don’t have caregiving obligations, they’re almost equal with men. It’s somewhere in the 95 percent range. But when women then have children, or again are caring for their own parents or other sick family members who need care, then they need to work differently. They need to work flexibly, and often go part-time. They often get less-good assignments because their bosses think that they’re not going to want work that allows them to travel, or they’re not going to be able to stay up all night, or whatever it is. And so then you start — if you’re working part-time, you don’t get the same raises. And if you’re working flexibly your boss very typically thinks that you’re not that committed to your career, so you don’t get promoted.”

I’m purposely choosing liberals and feminists who have studied this, but are approaching it academically, not for its raw political value. Neither Goldin or Slaughter necessarily approve of this reality in women’s choices, and encourage women to change their decisions and even believe in programs directing them to. But their conclusions are rock solid.

It’s not discrimination. It’s women’s choices.

 

Women’s choose serving careers

Looking at the spread of career choices, something becomes obvious. Women tend to take lower-wage jobs that often involve serving others while men tend toward higher paying jobs that involve creating things.

A Georgetown University study on the income values of different college majors showed that nine of the 10 most lucrative majors  — such as petroleum engineering, naval architecture and aerospace engineering — were dominated by men. At the same time, nine of the 10 least lucrative majors  — such as education, social work and early childhood education — were dominated by women.

Well this is a sticky wicket, because women are not choosing rightly for the feminist social engineers. American Progress, a large, influential liberal think tank, suggests women aren’t really making these career choices but that the patriarchy “trains” them to think certain ways. American Progress writes:

“…there are several factors that lead women to traditionally female-dominated roles, including the gendered socialization that trains girls from childhood to embody the sorts of traits that translate well into traditionally feminine jobs centered on nurturing, service, and supporting other people in their jobs.”

This seems particularly insulting to women as it suggests they really are not making good choices — by the tens of millions. They are being tricked by wily men. And it further suggests that there is no natural nurturing in a woman, only what a patriarchal society inculcates in them.

This reflects a total detachment from reality that continues the thread that most women are not naturally more nurturing and caring of others but that that is a societal construct. 

The reality is that women are different from men inside and out and they therefore frequently make different choices. In fact, for a culture to be strong, that is a necessity.

But the feminists despise that reality and will always work to change it. And because that is reality, there will always be a “gender pay gap” for Democrats to exploit come election time.

And really, that mixed with social engineering is the whole point of it.