Author name: Shay Bottomley

crime

New York Rep. Who Called For Daniel Penny To Be Prosecuted Slammed For Response To Subway Fire Attack

/

Democrat Rep. Ritchie Torres has been slammed following his response to the horrific killing of a woman who was burned alive on the New York City Subway, allegedly by an illegal alien previously deported under the Trump administration.

Footage of the mortifying clip has spread across social media, with millions, including Torres condemning the heinous attack. We’ve chosen not to share the horrifying video, but it can easily be found with a quick Google search.

“In the F Train at Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, a demented man lit a sleeping woman on fire with a match, causing the victim to burn alive and die at the scene,” the New York Rep. wrote on Sunday. “In New York, dangerous people are allowed to freely roam the subway. Yet the political establishment insists on gaslighting the public with deceptive headlines: ‘crime is down’ and ‘the subways are safe.’”

Now this is a pretty reasonable statement – but there’s just one obvious problem that attracted widespread criticism.

Many conservatives noted his remark that that “dangerous people are allowed to freely roam the subway” was incredibly hypocritical given his reaction to the Daniel Penny case.

“There was no justification for choking Jordan Neely for 15 minutes — and ultimately choking him to death,” Torres wrote at the time in a tweet that was deleted immediately after people began posting it in response to the condemnation of the “alleged” illegal alien attack to expose his hypocrisy.

In other words, Torres is horrified by dangerous people on the subway – and also the people who stop them.

Neely’s death was highly polarizing, with conservatives hailing Penny as a protector of public safety and ideologically possessed leftists denouncing the killing as unnecessary and inhumane. Torres was among those who criticized Penny’s actions at the time, writing that Penny “should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Others were confused by the horrifying footage, particularly as no one intervened to help.

crime

Shoplifters Face Wrath Of The Law As California’s Proposition 36 Comes Into Force

/

A trio of shoplifters discovered the hard way that California had finally introduced harsher punishments for shoplifting in the state.

In a viral video posted by the Seal Beach Police Department on Sunday, Dec. 22, the three women could be seen walking into an Ulta Beauty store before leaving with what police said was around $650 of stolen goods. It then shows them entering a Kohls store and stealing almost $1,000 in products.

The clip comes just days after Proposition 36 took effect in the state, which increased punishments for some retail theft and drug possession offenses.

Bodycam footage from Seal Beach officers showed a pursuit for the women, who were ultimately arrested and placed into the back of a patrol car.

“It’s a felony?” one woman asked her acquaintance in the clip.

“Bitch, new laws,” she replies. “Stealing is a felony and this Orange County bitch. They don’t play.”

The three women were identified as Destiny Bender, 24, and Deanna Hines, 24, both from Long Beach, and Michelle Pitts, 26, of Signal Hill. All three were booked into Orange County Jail, charged with Grand Theft, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime and Resisting Arrest.

Many on social media were pleased to see the new laws taking effect.

Others were critical of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s reluctance to support the proposition.

In November, nearly 70% of California voters voted in favor of Proposition 36, officially known as “Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes.” It undoes most of the changes that California voters approved in 2014 that turned certain nonviolent crimes into misdemeanors – which was immediately followed by a spike in crime. 

Proposition 36 does the following: which does the following:

  • Increases the penalty for repeat shoplifters (two or more past convictions) of $950 in value or less from a misdemeanor to a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison.
  • Allowing felony sentences for certain crimes such as theft or damage to property to be lengthened if the crime is committed by a group of three or more people.
  • Requiring that sentences for certain felonies such as drug dealing be served in prison.
  • Allowing people convicted of possession of illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamines or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” instead of a misdemeanor in some cases. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. Upon failure to complete treatment, charges stand and include up to three years in state prison.
  • Requiring courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs (such as methamphetamines, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine) that kill someone. This could allow for murder charges in the future if they later sell or provide illegal drugs to someone who dies.
Congress

Rand Paul Backs Elon Musk For House Speaker Amid Funding Row

/

Republican Sen. Rand Paul has suggested Elon Musk to become Speaker of the House of Representatives amid an ongoing battle over federal funding.

The Kentucky Sen. voiced his support for electing the business magnate as House Speaker. He noted that the Speaker does not need to be elected to the House – invoking memories of Matt Gaetz’s proposal for Donald Trump to assume the role in 2023. On X, Paul wrote:

The Speaker of the House need not be a member of Congress . . .   Nothing would disrupt the swamp more than electing Elon Musk . . . think about it .  . . nothing’s impossible. (not to mention the joy at seeing the collective establishment, aka ‘uniparty,’ lose their ever-lovin’ minds).

Musk could theoretically become House Speaker, although questions remain as to whether he would amass support from the GOP’s 2019 Representatives. Nevertheless, as calls grow – including Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene – for Speaker Mike Johnson’s removal, some on social media pondered the idea.

Others called for Vivek Ramaswamy instead.

Some, meanwhile, were skeptical of the legality.

National Affairs

Trump Jokes Once Again About Canada Becoming 51st State… But Could It Happen?

/

Donald Trump once again raised the prospect of Canada joining the United States just weeks after he jokingly suggested the idea to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The President-elect has stood firm on America’s neighbors, calling on both Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to address illegal immigration on their respective sides of the border. Earlier in December, he threatened both with a 25% tariff, prompting in swift action by the Mexican Government while Trudeau personally visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago in the immediate aftermath.

In the early hours of Wednesday, Dec. 18, Trump hinted at the idea publicly following a previous private jibe to Trudeau. On Truth Social, Trump wrote: “No one can answer why we subsidize Canada to the tune of over $100,000,000 a year? Makes no sense! Many Canadians want Canada to become the 51st State. They would save massively on taxes and military protection. I think it is a great idea. 51st State!!!”

Although Trump’s remarks were made in jest, the idea has gained intrigued as to whether Canada joining the United States would be possible. There would, of course, be constitutional matters at hand. Canada would require a significant constitutional amendment, requiring approval from the country’s House of Commons, Senate, and all provincial legislatures. The U.S., meanwhile, would require Congressional approval once Canada had applied for statehood.

Politically, however, the prospect obviously remains unlikely. Trump’s unlikely to admit a territory which overwhelmingly supported Kamala Harris in a hypothetical poll. Plus, who wants to fund their socialized medical system?

Economically, there’s little reason to unify the two nations. Both are members the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, meaning it’s unnecessary to pursue a further degree of economic cooperation.

Nevertheless, the concept is interesting, and intrigued many on social media.  

Canadians were less than supportive of the idea.

National Affairs

Trump Staffer Slams “Pocahontas” After Chief Warren Complains About Elon Musk’s Role in Transition

/

Donald Trump’s administration is going to be a humorous one.

Trump transition spokeswoman and future press secretary responded to an Elizabeth Warren letter to the President-elect by calling her “Pocahontas” – Trump’s nickname for the Senator that boasts 1/1024 Cherokee heritage.

The Massachusetts Sen. queried the rules regarding conflicts of interest in a letter to Trump, specifically Elon Musk’s role in the transition team. She called for further transparency, and wrote:

Putting Mr. Musk in a position to influence billions of dollars of government contracts and regulatory enforcement without a stringent conflict of interest agreement in place is an invitation for corruption on a scale not seen in our lifetimes. As your Transition Team Ethics Plan makes clear, the role of government is not to line the pockets of the wealthiest Americans; a strong, enforceable ethics plan for the world’s richest man is a necessary first step for delivering on that promise.

In response, transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt accused the Democrat of playing politics while referring to Warren’s historic claims of Native American heritage. Adding that Trump had “assembled the most impressive and qualified team of innovators, entrepreneurs, and geniuses to advise and staff our government”, Leavitt said:

Pocahontas can play political games and send toothless letters, but the Trump-Vance transition will continue to be held to the highest ethical and legal standards possible – a standard unfamiliar to a career politician whose societal impact is 1/1024th of Elon Musk’s.

Last month, Musk blasted Warren for criticizing his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The subject of Warren’s suspicious heritage featured across social media in response to the story.

Others loved the remark against Warren.

Polling

Donald Trump Sues Pollster Who Said He’d Lose Iowa Just Days Before 13-Point Victory

/

Donald Trump is suing the publication and pollster which infamously predicted he would lose Iowa by three points just days before last month’s presidential election.

Des Moines Register published the findings of renowned pollster J. Ann Selzer just three days before the election, which projected Democrat Kamala Harris to win Iowa – now a safe Republican state – and subsequently the election. Her poll was the only one in the entire nation predicting this result, and given that Selzer actually has a pretty accurate record in forecasting how Iowa will vote, it was nothing short of a shock poll.

But we all know how things turned out – Trump won Iowa by over 13 points, meaning Selzer was off by over 16 points.

Nevertheless, Trump will pursue legal action against Selzer, the Des Moines Register and its owner for “brazen election interference”.

At a press conference on Monday, Dec. 16, the President-elect said the poll and its publication was “fraud”, expressing a desire to “straighten out the press.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Selzer poll was “an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential election,” accusing leftist pollsters of failing to use “widely accepted polling methodologies.”

Des Moines has denied the allegations, noting that the poll did not reflect Trump’s 13-point victory in the state. It believed a lawsuit “would be without merit” in a statement to CBS News.

Many on social media commented how the lawsuit came just days after Trump’s successful $15 million settlement against ABC News.

Others disputed the impact of the Selzer poll.

Media

NBC’s Chuck Todd says ABC “Abandoned” George Stephanopoulos in Settling with Trump – “A Gut Punch”

/

NBC’s Chuck Todd is accusing ABC of “abandoning” George Stephanopoulos for settling their lawsuit with Donald Trump instead of trying to defend his lies in court.

ABC was sued by Donald Trump following comments by George Stephanopoulos on March 10, 2024, who alleged the President-elect was “liable for rape” following a 2023 civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Anyone familiar with the details of the case knows that Trump was not found “liable for rape” in that case.

ABC decided to reach a settlement instead of go to trial, and will pay $15 million towards Trump’s future presidential library, and another $1 million towards his legal fees. It will also post an editor’s note under the corresponding article, which will read:

ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024.

Despite the lawsuit, some liberal commentators have jumped to the defense of ABC and Stephanopoulos, who refused to acknowledge the settlement in his show on Sunday, Dec. 15.

In an interview with former CNN pundit Chris Cillizza, Chuck said there was “precedent” for Trump filing lawsuits against the press, and believed the ABC case would have been thrown out if it appeared before a court. Clearly ABC disagreed.

Chuck Todd: This was stunning to me and absolutely a gut punch to anybody that works at a major media company, because I think it does set a precedent that is going to be very difficult to get out from under potentially. this was a decision to buy off bad PR. “All I will say is, if I were in the situation that George was in, I would feel like my network abandoned me.”

Cillizza posted a clip of the interview on X, arguing that the error made with Stephanopoulos’ choice of words set an “incredibly dangerous precedent”. Some, however, were bamboozled by the claims.

Others argued that ABC had not told the truth with Stephanopoulos’ remarks, with Trump therefore correct to pursue legal action.

Media

MSNBC Host Praises Trump Despite Declining Interview Post-MSG Rally

/

MSNBC broadcaster Stephanie Ruhle praised the ease of access to Donald Trump during the election campaign despite the President-elect effectively telling her to pound sand when trying to arrange an interview.

Ruhle contacted the Republican in the wake of his epic Madison Square Garden rally just days before November’s election. During Lukas Thimm’s live variety stage show “So Many Issues,” Ruhle called Trump to discuss the fallout after Tony Hinchliffe’s “floating island of garbage” joke about Puerto Rico.

She said:

I wasn’t calling to chit-chat. I said, ‘Mr. President, this is Stephanie Ruhle, you made a lot of comments last night,’ blah-blah-blah. It was not an on-the-record conversation, so I’m not going to get into what he said. But I called for one reason. I said, ‘You just said a whole bunch of public things. I’d like to sit down for an interview with you. We’ve got five days before the election.’ So we didn’t get anything, there’s nothing for me to report. I called, I said I want an interview. Obviously, he said no.

Ruhle noted the differences between Trump and then-presidential rival Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden, suggesting “there’s 50 people” in the way of a potential interview.

“And I called DJT to say, ‘Yo, can I get an interview?’ And he told me to go f*** myself, but I still was able to connect with him,” she jokingly concluded.

Throughout the campaign, Harris largely avoided the media until a last-minute media spree as election day drew closer. The owner of Time magazine slammed the Democrat for ignoring interview requests back in October, while podcaster Joe Rogan – who interviewed and later endorsed Trump – detailed the strict conditions for any interview he conducted with the Vice President.

Social media commentors noted the differences between the two candidates.

Others noted how Ruhle received a response from Trump, even if it was not one she was looking for.

Democrats

Democrats Push To Abolish The Electoral College Despite Donald Trump’s Popular Vote Victory

/

Senate Democrats have proposed a bill to abolish the Electoral College in their latest bid to upend the Constitution.

The bill, introduced just over a month after Donald Trump won the presidential election, was proposed by three progressive Senators, namely Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont.

The trio said removing the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote would “restore democracy,” with Sen. Schatz claiming the current system is “outdated and undemocratic.” Durbin, meanwhile, said the bill echoed a pre-2000 to abolish the Electoral College, adding that it was “time to retire this 18th century invention.” The United States was also an “18th century invention,” mind you.

Sen. Welch also waded in. He said:

“Our democracy is at its strongest when everyone’s voice is heard – and right now our elections aren’t as representative as they should be because of the outdated and flawed Electoral College.”

The popular vote has largely favored Democrats in recent years. Prior to Trump’s victory in November, George W. Bush was the only Republican in the 21st century to win the popular vote (in 2004).

Trump joined the list of GOP popular vote winners last month, with the Republican beating his Democrat rival by 2.3 million votes. Even under a popular vote system, which would require a constitutional amendment to introduce, Trump obviously would still have won the election.

A post on X by the Senate Judiciary Committee about the bill was largely ridiculed by social media commenters.

Others questioned whether “restoring democracy” was the main driver of the bill.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Appears In Woke Broadway Musical

/

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a short break from her SCOTUS duties to appear in a Broadway musical over the weekend.

Jackson appeared in the Swedish musical “& Juliet”, which is described as a “modern” take on the William Shakespeare classic. In the adaptation, Juliet decides against killing herself, discovering Romeo’s affairs with both men and women while introducing the audience to her non-binary friend, May.

The liberal Justice previously wrote in her memoir that she wanted to “to fulfill my fantasy of becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage” – something she has now achieved after her appearance on Saturday, Dec. 14.

She added in an interview with CBS that it was a chance to “remind people that justices are human beings” following the performance, emphasizing her desire to appear on Broadway.

You can see part of her performance below:

Some Americans, however, were less convinced, and were more concerned by whether the Supreme Court Justices should be more focused on their day jobs given delays in decision-making over the past year.

As cringey as it is, we’d still prefer her as an actress over her current profession – and many agreed, encouraging Jackson to pursue a career on Broadway in a bid to keep her as far away from the SCOTUS as possible.


Subscribe Form

© 2025 WokeSpy All Rights Reserved

Scroll to Top