Author name: Josh Slocum

Gun-Grabbin’ Kam Kam Claims It Is Trump Who’s Going to Take Your Guns
Democrats

Gun-Grabbin’ Kam Kam Claims It Is Trump Who’s Going to Take Your Guns

/

If you’re a black American, especially a black American male, you’re probably used to being lectured by your “betters” about who you vote for. Prominent Democrats have a history of believing they own the black vote. President Joe Biden famously said that if you didn’t vote for him, you “ain’t black.”

Earlier this month, Barack Obama was caught on tape lecturing young black men and implying that they were sexists for being reluctant to vote for Kamala Harris. (Check out this report where black men push back against Obama’s paternal patronization). 

It doesn’t look like the pushback is making much difference for the Dems. Down to the electoral wire, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris—she’s actually talking to the media!—is saying she just can’t understand why any black person wouldn’t vote for her. As the current headmistress of what’s informally known among conservative blacks as the “Democrat Plantation,” Harris wants to convince black voters that a vote for Trump is a vote to have their constitutional freedoms taken away. 

Podcast host Shannon Sharpe put the question to Harris: why do some blacks “revere” Donald Trump? Harris affected to be perplexed (or maybe it was not an act) at how any African American could cast their ballot for a man she says, without evidence, will “terminate your constitutional rights.”

She really does say that Trump has claimed, in his own words, that he will “terminate the constitution.” That is a lie. Trump has never said any such thing. It’s also a good example of the phenomenon of projection and reversal, where the evil-doer accuses her targets of the very things she herself is doing. 

And she said, without a hint of irony, “But the First Amendment [will be gone]. The Second Amendment. I’m in favor of the Second Amendment. I don’t believe we should be taking anybody’s guns away.

It’s hard to explain or understand. Shannon Sharpe vigorously agrees with Harris’ claims, jumping in to say he’s worried that a Trump victory would take away the first amendment’s freedom of speech protections. How is it possible for any conscious adult to fail to see that it’s the Democrats who are cracking down on political expression and freedom? 

The irony of Harris portraying herself as a second-amendment hero couldn’t be funnier. As the NRA documented:

At a September 2019 campaign event, Harris told reporters that confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, Harris added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

She also supports gun confiscation via buybacks;

On the September 16, 2019 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?” She responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.”

On October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC “gun safety forum.” During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin. She told him; We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets.

On October 31, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation at a public television candidates forum in Ankeny, Iowa. Responding to a question about gun control, Harris answered, “I support buybacks.” 

Lots of people on Twitter are asking the same question. 

Adam Coleman asks another very obvious question. 

Some people remember Kamala’s past gun-grabbing rhetoric:

Ouch:

Democrat Strategist Thinks Kamala Harris Talks Like a “Nuanced Intellectual”
Democrats

Democrat Strategist Thinks Kamala Harris Talks Like a “Nuanced Intellectual”

/

What would you do if we were having lunch and talking about immigration policy, and I said to you, “Let me be very clear. I’m aware of what we need to do in order to do the things we need to do around the important issue of immigration, in America, which is to listen to the American people about their hopes, and dreams, and aspirations, and ambitions, around what we need to do to fix the broken border”?

Or, try this. Say we were riding on a commuter train together talking about mortgage rates, and you asked me what interest rate I paid on my first mortgage. In response, pretend I said, “Look. I grew up in a middle class family. I know small businesses and their hopes and dreams. My mother worked very hard–we knew all the small businesses and how much they meant.”

You might pick up your phone and search out the signs of a stroke and ask me to tell you what day and year it was. Or, you might wonder if I’d been spiking my Diet Coke from a flask of Smirnoff. 

But no! I wouldn’t be having a stroke, and I wouldn’t have been nipping vodka on the train. Instead, I was speaking to you in a new language called “Kamalese.” It’s the native tongue of the current vice president and the Democrat party’s nominee for the White House. Kamalese is a modern creole language that one woman has fashioned from the PowerPoint decks in San Francisco office towers (and, some say, with a little chemical help). 

It’s a variation on corporate and academic-speak. Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing, Kamalese is composed mainly of filler words that do not refer to specific subjects. Instead, the speaker aims to leave the listener somewhere between confused and uncomfortable so they won’t ask any too-specific questions. 

For a gourmand’s sampling of Kamalese, check out this collection from The Conservateur. 

We all know academic and policy-wonk-speak. You don’t say, “Children are going hungry,” you say, “Youth in the United States of America don’t have access to nutritional resources.” You don’t talk about homeless people who die of exposure from sleeping on the streets in winter, you speak of “Unfortunate outcomes of those experiencing homelessness and lack of weather-abatement resources.”

The thing about corporate-speak and Kamalese is that everyone knows it’s a bunch of bullshit. Except Ally Sammarco.

Sammarco is a Democrat strategist and political consultant at ARS Media. And according to her, Miss Kam-Kam actually sounds like a super-smart lady, and we’re all just stupid for hearing word salad.

No. Really:

Oh, dear. Let’s see what other X users had to say. Here’s Mollie Hemmingway:

Aaaaaand here comes Miss Sammarco face-planting even harder:

Carmelita here is just straight-trolling. 

Ha!

Surrounded by Fools: Bearded Lady Tells Ben Shapiro She’s a Man
Left-wing extremism

Surrounded by Fools: Bearded Lady Tells Ben Shapiro She’s a Man

/

It’s hard to say whether the fever of “gender ideology” may finally be breaking. Ever since Time Magazine declared in 2014 on its cover that America is reaching a “Transgender tipping point,” Americans have been bombarded with gender ideology. It seems there may be some cracks forming in this lunatic consensus, but if so, it’s going to take a while for the left to abandon the ideas. More on this below. 

But what is “gender ideology?” It is a constellation of ideas about sex, sexuality, humans, and “identities”, including:

  • The belief that biological sex is not real, but an arbitrary “choice.” No, it does not make sense, but yes, people do claim this. 
  • The belief that every person has a “gender identity,” and that “gender identity” is completely separate from their actual sexed body. For example, a man will be said to have a “female” “gender identity.” That means that he asserts that he believes he is a woman despite the factual reality. 
  • That a person’s “gender identity” controls whether they are male or female, with no regard to the person’s actual anatomy. 
  • Worst, the belief that children who do not conform to sex-role expectations (e.g., “boys play rough” and “girls like pretty things”) are born in the wrong body. Therefore, a little boy who likes sparkly princess stories is “really” a girl, and he should be chemically castrated and perhaps surgically, too. 

You can see what major medical institutions like the Cleveland Clinic say about “gender identity,” but be warned that allegedly scientific medical organizations are all completely captured by these magical beliefs. 

Until very recently, it has been socially forbidden to observe the obvious: a person who believes they were born in the wrong body and is actually the opposite sex has mental difficulties. Refusing to call men who claim to be women “she” has resulted in countless people being fired from their jobs and called bigots, and worse. 

But conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has  never been afraid to speak the truth. He walked right into the lion’s den recently, participating in a Youtube show called “Surrounded.” The conceit is that a speaker sits in the middle of a room surrounded by a circle of people who get a few minutes each to debate him on issues. 

That’s when this happened. 

The person on the right is not a man. She very much wants you to believe she is. She’s angry that Ben Shapiro won’t tell her that she’s a man. (It’s not clear from the video what her name is). But in reality, she is a woman on testosterone who has been “living as a man.” The picture above? That’s her swaggering over and turning the chair around to plunk down in a “manly” way (note the “manspread” sitting posture). 

In this short clip below, Shapiro and “Barb” debate the idea that someone can change their sex. Barb acts like a caricature of a macho bro-dude, hamming up the “masculine” mannerisms and speaking to Shapiro in a tone that sounds like she wants a fist fight. 

Here’s a sample of the dialogue:

Barb: First question-can men get pregnant? 

Ben: Men cannot get pregnant. 

Barb: So, I’m a transgender man, I’ve experienced SA (sexual abuse), and abortion rights affect me directly. So, if we’re talking about the American dream you live, why don’t I have access to that? Because there’s no legislation in the history of America that legislates a man’s body, so why does mine have to be legislated? I have a vagina.”

No, there isn’t more context that makes the above suddenly make sense. Here’s the whole clip. 

Barb wasn’t the only debate opponent who seemed, to put it generously, naïve. Here’s Ben speaking with a woman who asks, “Why does the definition of abortion have to include the death of a fetus?” Looking momentarily confused, Ben shoots back, “Because that’s literally the definition of ‘abortion’.”

You won’t be surprised to learn that his opponent does not agree. 

Click below to watch the entire hour-and-forty-minute-long video, if you’re so inclined. But be prepared, the liberal stupidity truly is off the charts.

Let’s see how X users reacted to Barb-n-Ben. 

Gender Ideology Doctors Cover Up Damning Data to Ensure More Kids Get Transed
News

Gender Ideology Doctors Cover Up Damning Data to Ensure More Kids Get Transed

/

We’ve been told that “gender affirming care” is lifesaving. We’ve been told it’s “medically necessary.” We’ve been emotionally blackmailed into accepting that loving parents should consent to the chemical and surgical mutilation of their children, lest those same children kill themselves (this is an abuse tactic commonly used by those with borderline personality disorder). 

But how many people know exactly what “gender-affirming care” actually means? It sounds nice, doesn’t it? Safe. Warm. Compassionate. But is it? 

“Gender-affirming care” is, in fact:

  • Lying to a child and telling that child that he or she can become the other sex
  • Validating this delusion in a child, and concretizing their mental distress into permanent illness
  • Blocking natural puberty with the same drugs used to chemically castrate rapists
  • Amputating breasts, removing testicles and penises, and much more

Would the millions of adult Americans who tell pollsters that they “support” “gender-affirming care” for children maintain that position if they really knew exactly what it was? It’s impossible to know. But what’s worse is the fact that the mainstream, establishment media has been actively covering up the truth, and actively campaigning for this child abuse to continue. 

It is impossible for any sane, skeptical people, including pediatricians, to get a hearing in the legacy media without being called “transphobes” who want children so distressed that they kill themselves. If that sounds insane to you, reader, that’s because it is insane. Remember, we now live in a country where it is considered a  prestige opinion  that there are children “born in the wrong body” who “need” sex-mutilating medical treatments.

That may be starting to change, just a smidge. Surprisingly, one of the worst purveyors of transgender nonsense, The New York Times, has published a story about the reluctance of gender medicine researchers to tell the truth. Doctor Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a big advocate for child sex changes, told the Times that she has not published her own study on the effects of puberty blockers on the mental health of children who take them. 

Why? Because she’s worried that her results will be “weaponized” against trans people.

According to the Washington Examiner:

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” Olson-Kennedy told the publication.

The nearly $10 million study followed the development of 95 children from across the country to see if their mental health improved following treatment with puberty blockers.

Olson-Kennedy said that treatment with puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements. The unpublished findings contradict preliminary research released by Olson-Kennedy and colleagues in 2022, which found approximately a quarter of adolescents were depressed or suicidal before starting either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

It also contradicts the seminal Dutch study that has become the foundation for most gender clinics worldwide, which concluded that puberty blockers significantly improve the mental well-being of children with gender dysphoria.

In plain, honest terms, she decided not to tell the world that she found that puberty blockers did not improve “trans” children’s mental health because she’s politically committed to gender medicine, the harm to children be damned. She explicitly told the paper that she worries her findings would help more states ban “gender affirming care” for children. It appears that she wants children mutilated, and she wants no legal barriers that would save them. 

Here’s how X/Twitter reacted. 

Atlantic Magazine Absurdly Accuses Trump of Deranged Racist Insult to Murdered Army Specialist
Media, National Affairs

Atlantic Magazine Absurdly Accuses Trump of Deranged Racist Insult to Murdered Army Specialist

/

Sane people like to joke about Trump Derangement Syndrome, but the laughter always seems a bit like whistling past the graveyard. TDS is real. It may not show up in the official psychiatric literature, but there is no doubt that the fear and loathing of Donald Trump is so extreme for so much of the country that it can’t be described as anything but a mental delusion. 

How many families have been torn apart by the liberal wing calling the conservative wing fascist Hitler lovers? It’s impossible to tell, but it’s happening all over America. We’ve already seen several Americans pridefully recount to the media how they turned their own family members in for being at the Capitol on January 6. In quieter ways, desperate spouses are blogging anonymously about how their own wives and husbands allow others to insult their spouse for having conservative politics. 

The legacy liberal media, of course, is so far gone it seems impossible that we can ever sanity, let alone truth, from such institutions again. This week The Atlantic has published a story shocking—even by modern standards for liberal magazines—in its petty ugliness. 

Yes. The Atlantic is saying in effect “Trump is Hitler.” That’s nothing new for the media, of course, but it does raise the question: is there any limit at all to the level of hysteria and lying? Does anyone at any of these outlets pause for a moment to ask themselves if they’re contributing to the social atmosphere that provoked two assassination attempts on Donald Trump? Or, do they know they’re participating in that, and that’s why they’re doing it? 

Mind you, this is the same Jeffrey Goldberg who lied about Al Qaeda working with Saddam Hussein to drum up support for the Iraq War, pushed the hoax that Trump referred to dead servicemembers as “suckers and losers,” and helped hype the Russian collusion myth.

But it wasn’t Goldberg’s low blow at Trump that sparked the biggest debate; it was the magazine’s words about the aftermath and funeral of murdered US Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen. Guillen was murdered in 2020 after disappearing from Fort Hood where she was stationed. 

According to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Donald Trump, while president, questioned the cost of Guillen’s funeral and disparaged her by saying “it doesn’t cost $60,000 to bury a f—ing Mexican!” Obviously, it is simply not believable. But it’s also damned cruel. Vanessa Guillen’s sister immediately chimed in to refute the story, and added that she had voted for Trump earlier in the day.

It gets worse. The Atlantic’s article claims that Trump ordered his then chief of staff,  Mark Meadows, not to pay for Vanessa Guillen’s funeral. Meadows is denying this. 

Mark Esper also denied the story:

And practically everyone who could confirm or deny this story is doing the latter.

The above-mentioned lawyer, Natalie Khawam, excoriated Goldberg for deliberately lying about his conversation with her. “not only did he misrepresent our conversation but he outright LIED in HIS sensational story. More importantly, he used and exploited my clients, and Vanessa Guillen’s murder… for cheap political gain,” she wrote.

So, how could such shoddy journalism get published, and how does Goldberg never face consequences for his garbage reporting? Consider who is funding him:

Let’s sample the reaction to the story on X/Twitter. These posts are taken from a X thread started by Mayra Guillen, Vanessa’s sister. There are plenty of leftists there who appear to be taking pleasure in making Mayra’s grief worse. What these tweets represent is not “differing political opinions,” but leftist sadism. 

You can read the whole thread here. 

Millionaire California Transplant Cyclist Plays Victim Against Car, Gets Ticket
crime

Millionaire California Transplant Cyclist Plays Victim Against Car, Gets Ticket

/

Remember your Schwinn, your Huffy, your banana seat? Bikes used to be just ordinary objects that most people enjoyed, especially kids. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the streets were filled with packs of boys and girls on small bicycles delivering papers, going to the second-run movie house, or having adventures on the trails in the woods. 

But today, they’re a status symbol. Bicycles are also, sadly, politically coded as “left.” As the neurotic left-leaning safetyists and enviro-freaks took up biking, children have been strapped into expensive helmets and knee pads. Gone are the days of feral preteens wheeling around. You’re lucky today if you see a kid on a bike, and if you do, they’re following behind their sedately pedaling parents like they’re lined up for lunch in first grade. 

In blue cities like the one I live in (Burlington, Vermont), the bicyclists are a minor political mafia. They cry oppression at city council meetings, characterizing motorists as “dangerous people” with “car brain” who maraud through the city in “metal death boxes.” Most of this melodrama is simply in service of making the bicyclist appear to be more refined, compassionate, and “gentle” on the environment. In a word, it’s just peacocking. 

In its maternal wisdom, Burlington and similar cities have made traffic more dangerous by “protecting” bicyclists with so-called “protected bike lanes.” These are the extra right-hand lanes cities make by taking away parking and driving lanes from cars. You end up with not just a right-hand lane, but a right-hand-right-hand lane with bicycles to the right of cars. It’s easy to see how a car turning right can easily plow into a bicyclist who is continuing straight. 

The actual goal behind all of this that no one mentions is to “de-normalize” driving cars by characterizing cars as “death boxes” and motorists as sociopaths. All the better to burnish your image as a fierce—BUT SUPER COMPASSIONATE—warrior for Mother Earth. 

All that smugness has to come out somewhere, and Californian 73-year-old bicyclist Gary Peacock thought he could bamboozle a Utah cop into treating him as a victim when it was he, Gary on the bike, who broke the rules against a motorist. In the linked video, you can even hear Gary whining, “Oh come on, man! I’m the victim here!” Then you hear the cop say, “We can go a different way and you can get arrested.” So satisfying. 

Watch below:

As Rugg’s tweet explains:

NEW: Millionaire cyclist who went viral for harassing a man for “driving too close,” nearly has a panic attack after police tell him *he* will be receiving a citation. 73-year-old cyclist Gary Peacock harassed and detained a young man for driving “too close” to him. Dashcam footage however shows that the young man, 22-year-old Pierce Kempton, actually moved his car to the left to avoid Peacock. The incident happened in Park City, Utah. When the police arrived, Peacock was adamant on having the police cite Kempton but tried backtracking after they told him that *he* would also be getting a citation for disorderly conduct. The police officer told him it was too late. “He doesn’t have to get out of his car for you, he doesn’t have to identify for you, you are not law enforcement.” “You were adamant that you asked for a ticket, and now, because you’re getting one, you want him to get out of it.” Kempton’s charge was dismissed after he presented his dashcam footage. Peacock was charged with disorderly conduct. FAFO.

Let’s see what people on X thought. 

Not going so well for Gary so far, is it?

This one is too good. 

Former Bachelorette Contestant Josh Seiter Gives Gender Reveal!
Trans

Former Bachelorette Contestant Josh Seiter Gives Gender Reveal!

/

Remember that old commercial for cassette tapes? “Is it real, or is it Memorex?” The ad played on the idea that Memorex cassette tapes recorded sound with such high fidelity that you couldn’t tell if you were hearing a live performance or listening to a recording. As anyone from the days of the Sony WalkMan knows, no matter how good the cassette, there was always a tell-tale hiss that gave it away.

Similarly, there was just something about this lovely lady that seemed a bit off. 

It’s hard to say just what it is. She’s poised, confident and sitting pretty, no? Maybe it’s the way she applies her lipstick? Is it the shade of nail polish? It’s hard to put your finger on the problem, but maybe it’s the fact that she’s a he. 

If this guy looks familiar to you, you may know him as Josh Seiter, a former contestant on the reality show The Bachelorette. The show’s conceit is that a single woman chooses from a variety of male suitors to find her one true love. 

In recent months, the hunky Seiter traded in his button-downs and blue jeans for a more feminine look. 

All this time, Josh Seiter has been taking social media users on a gender journey. Slapping on some hasty makeup and a sundress, Seiter strolled along the streets talking into his camera in a ridiculous falsetto. Here he is talking about the gender price gap, which is the phenomenon of groceries costing double if you’re “a woman” like Josh compared to being a man. 

Social media has been asking: Is he for real? Is he really claiming to be a transgender woman? Is this all a joke? Even though you’re reading this and looking at the pictures and saying to yourself, “this is obviously a joke,” I’m afraid it’s not obvious. There is, literally, no way to separate satire from reality in a world where men like mediocre swimmer Will Thomas can transform himself into “Lia” and compete (and win) against actual female swimmers. The entire world took this seriously, and the mainstream press still refer to this dude as “she” when reporting on his legal loss that prevents him from competing in the Olympics as a woman. 

After keeping everyone on tenterhooks for months, Josh Seiter went on Alex Stein’s podcast to reveal that it’s all been a big hoax. But according to Seiter, it’s a hoax with a point. He says, correctly, that it’s ridiculous and insulting for society to treat these men-any of them-as if they were actual women. 

Let’s see how X/Twitter reacted!

Wait, what is a “trans verification service?” How can you verify that a man is a woman? 

Josh has at least one fan in the UK. 

Politico Very Concerned JD Vance Expected to Get Paid for Book Tour
Democrats

Politico Very Concerned JD Vance Expected to Get Paid for Book Tour

/

Uh-oh! That greedy fat cat rich boy JD Vance, Republican Senator from Ohio, is asking for speaker’s fees. Speakers’ fees. Can you imagine? What in tarnation does that boy think he’s doing? More on the speaker’s fees below. 

Vance is not, of course, a fat cat, although he’s certainly wealthier today than he was growing up. Vance’s book Hillbilly Elegy, published in 2016, tells Vance’s story of growing up in dirt-poor Appalachia among a family of drug addicts and abusers. It’s a story of one form of the American dream: small-town hick boy goes to university and makes good. After serving in the Marines, Vance went to college and finished with a law degree from Yale. 

Of course, the Democrats don’t like to see people pull themselves up by their bootstraps because their narrative depends on their constituents believing that it’s not possible. Numerous lefties bashed Vance in recent months, laughably, calling him an elitist because he managed to go to Yale. 

To the extent that the party even nods to working class people any longer, it concentrates on positioning itself as the big government savior for black people. The Dems encourage blacks and other minorities to see themselves as victims who can’t get ahead and must rely on the government to give them special (and sometimes illegal) handouts. The press goes right along with, as seen in this Associated Press headline about a wacky unconstitutional Harris proposal: “Harris announces a new plan to empower Black men.”

Back to those speaker’s fees. Politico believes it has uncovered a major scandal after it “discovered” that Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy publisher drove a hard bargain when negotiating author fees for an in-person program. They wanted $40,000 for Vance, but the University of Wisconsin-Madison backed out, saying the price tag was too high for them. 

Politico seems to think this is out of the ordinary in business negotiations. Without coming right out and saying it, the publication wants the reader to think “that rich snooty JD Vance is just takin’ advantage!” How else do you explain sentences like this?

“Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Vance defended Vance’s speaking fees.”

“Defended?” What law or rule was broken by insisting on a fee commensurate with a best-selling author’s drawing power? 

X/Twitter user John Hasson also found Politico’s concern amusing, which means other people online did too. After all, take a look at what Politico’s “Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnist” is charging.

Isn’t that interesting? One of Politico’s own charges up to $35,000 to speak himself.

Bizarrely, this didn’t manage to cause an internal scandal.

Social media users are not sympathetic to Politico’s view. 

So does Barack Obama. Guess how much? 

And then there are the Clintons, but that’s somehow different. 

User “some infidel” brings us all back to reality. 

Hoaxer Jussie Smollett Wastes Million Defending Good Name He Doesn’t Have
News

Hoaxer Jussie Smollett Wastes $3 Million Defending Good Name He Doesn’t Have

/

Poor Jussie Smollett. The b-list actor (I’m being generous) who had a few minutes of fame playing a musician on the Fox network’s drama “Empire,” seems as determined to lose his fortune as he was to lose the public’s respect. 

To recap: In 2019, Smollett made up a hoax for attention. He claimed to be walking at about 2 am in Chicago in the dead of winter to a Subway fast food outlet for a sandwich. Along the way, he claimed, two men approached him and asked if he was that gay guy (using a slur) from the show Empire. Then, Smollett claims, they informed him that Chicago was “MAGA country,” put a noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him. 

A tearful Smollett appeared before cameras soaking up the attention from having been apparently “gay-bashed,” and all the media and most black people and leftists immediately believed him. 

How believable is it that two “homophobes” in Chicago would walk up to a guy at 2 am and proclaim that one of the blackest and most Democrat-ridden cities in America is “MAGA country?” It’s not believable at all, but leftists uncritically accept obvious nonsense if it props up a victimhood narrative they need to sell their politics. 

Smollett was arrested, then the charges were dropped, then they were refiled in 2021. He was convicted of five felony counts in relation to the hoax, though leftist media continues to insist on calling it an “alleged” hoax. It is not alleged; the courts convicted him. In every other situation, media drops the “alleged” when the court has ruled. This is a special carve-out because Smollett is black, gay, and leftist. 

Now, he’s moaning that he’s spent $3 million trying to clear his name, and he regrets sitting for a 2019 interview about his fake gay-bashing. “I don’t want to have a felony on my record for something I didn’t do,” he told Entertainment Tonight. He then goes on about how he’s doing this “as a gay man” and as a (capital B) black man. Well, you can’t say he’s not persistent. As per The Hollywood Reporter:

Smollett: “I want to have all of these things in my life, and I don’t want to have a felony on my record for something that I didn’t do,” Smollett said in part. “That’s what we’re fighting for. I know that on the surface it probably seems like why doesn’t he just serve the time, why doesn’t he just let this go. It would be easier if I had in fact done this to say that I did it. I wouldn’t have spent almost $3 million of my own money. I wouldn’t have had a trial.”

…..

Smollett: “But as a human being and as a man, as a Black man and as an openly gay Black man, I have a problem with letting them win on something they shouldn’t be able to,” Smollett said. “I’m a grown man and something happened. I can’t tell exactly what did happen, but I can tell you what did not happen. That’s what I have to sit on. No matter how much people are yelling in my face, saying ‘You’re a liar, you’re a liar.’ No, I’m not. No, I’m not. I don’t want them to believe that, but if that is what they believe, that’s on you.”

He admitted that his greatest mistake was his infamous interview on Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts, where even her softball questions and framing couldn’t sanitize his obvious lies.

But what does the public on social media think of the fact that Smollett is still claiming this thing that never happened totally did happen? 

Gives a little hope for the American people being on the ball, eh?

Tampon Timmy Attacks Trump for Helping a Mom Pay for Her Groceries
Screenshot
Democrats

Tampon Timmy Attacks Trump for Helping a Mom Pay for Her Groceries

/

Ah, Tim Walz. Timmy, Timmy, Timmy. Tampon Timmy. Whatever will you do next, you lovable “knucklehead?” 

First, let’s compare Walz to his counterpart on the right. Do you remember a few weeks to a month ago when the thing to say about Republican JD Vance was that he’s “weird?” Vance, Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, is, if anything, assertively normal. He speaks calmly and authoritatively on common sense economic and policy issues that matter to regular people. He schooled ABC New schoolmarm in chief Martha Raddatz when she poo-pooed the danger to Americans when “just a handful” of apartment complexes in Colorado were. . .taken over by Venezuelan street gangs. 

That’s right. She actually said it was “only a handful.” With obvious incredulity, Vance shot back, “Martha, do you hear yourself?” Watch it for yourself. 

What about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz? Is he normal, or might it be that he is the weird one? He regularly flounces across the stage like the character Jack Tripper from Three’s Company and seems to go spastic with waving and jumping around whenever there’s a crowd and a camera. One of his students characterized his teaching style as “perspiring and hand gestures.”

Walz has a drunk driving conviction from 1996 that he falsely blamed on his non-existent deafness, and he lied about it. He also lied about being in Tiananmen Square in China in 1989, apparently to make himself look more important and well-traveled than he is. 

In the final run-up to the November 5 elections, Walz has been marketing himself as a folksy, down-home, hunting dad. When he’s not wearing a cap that falsely proclaims him to be a retired Command Sergeant Major, he’s wearing a duck hunting cap and a plaid flannel jacket. 

Here he is in said ensemble ridiculing Donald Trump for paying for a woman’s groceries during a campaign stop at a supermarket. Why did he get out that $100 bill and give it to the woman, Walz asked? Why, because “Any woman he sees he just pays off cuz he did something on there (sic).” 

Let’s take Twitter’s temperature:


Scroll to Top