Washington State University's 'Fat Studies' program just bit the dust... (and probably some cake as well)

The patriarchy strikes again! Washington State University has canceled its Fat Studies class. Fat activists are furious. The moment they finish their second plate of refried tofu, they’re going to waddle out into the street and scream at the sky.

Throughout the country, campus feminists are quivering, terrified that fat-shaming will only get worse. Let’s talk about the fact that a Fat Studies class exists to begin with.

First, take a guess which program the class is under? If you said, “Women’s Studies,” you win a Diet Coke and a cheeseburger. The course is an “examination of weight-based oppression as a social justice issue with other systems of oppression based on gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation, and ability.” ANTIFA mask and DRUMPF t-shirt not included.

Our country is in the throes of an obesity epidemic and academics are concerned about fat-inclusive bikinis and anti-male gaze --- yes, that’s right, the fat-studies folks have flipped the feminist concept of “the male gaze,” which claims that the patriarchy is triggered by white, cisgender men, whose oppressive gaze vilifies women and worsens misogyny.

In a gasping contradiction and inadvertent counterexample to the original theory, fat-studies feminists claim that anytime white, cis-gender men don’t find overweight women attractive, it’s because they are misogynistic. Which one is it? Don’t wait for the campus feminists to answer that. They’re too busy fighting for the rights of oppressed communities, often without invitation.

Tuition at Washington State runs about $5,000 per class, by the way.

The course is run by Dr. Deborah Christel, who has applied her Ph.D. in Sports Psychology, Women's Studies and Apparel Design to help students understand "fat stigma, weight bias, and thin privilege" and "weight-based oppression."

Her writings have been featured in the (peer-reviewed?) journal Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society. She uses “critical feminist theory and narrative pedagogies” to fight “fat stigma by promoting activism to erode the thin-centric orientation' among students.”

The word 'critical' is academic lingo for neo-Marxist.

The word “critical” is academic lingo for neo-Marxist, by the way. Any time you hear a professor or an academic rattle on about “critical theory,” they’re basing what they say on the principles of the Frankfurt School, also known as neo-Marxism.

And “narrative pedagogy” is academic code for a form of teaching based on relativism, in which students and teachers use their subjective experiences to learn, because any idea can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. So there cannot be an objective truth. Post-Modernism. Meaning, the fat-studies movement --- like much of campus anti-logic, modern feminism, and social justice leftism --- is based on the objective statement that there are no objective statements.

And --- since feelings are facts --- concepts like “fatphobia,” “microaggression” and “cis-gender white privilege” are all considered not just legitimate, but indisputably true. So, it’s the food’s fault. No, actually, it’s the patriarchy’s fault. The patriarchy forced them to eat that second tub of cinnamon-laced cupcake batter.

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?