Author name: Josh Slocum

Celebrities

Whoopi Goldberg Promises to Withhold Relations; American Men Rejoice

/

Remember the dock workers’ strike from earlier this year? The International Longshoreman’s Association (the union of dock workers) demanded a huge increase in wages along with other benefits, and they got most of what they wanted pretty quickly. In the end, the union ended up with a 62 percent pay raise over the next several years. 

Why did it work? Because the east coast and gulf ports involved in the strike handled about half the goods imported into the U.S. The strike threatened to slow down business to a crawl and to put prices through the roof in the middle of some of the worst inflation in U.S. history. 

It worked because the dock workers provided something Americans valued: abundant goods at affordable prices. No person in the United States would have been unaffected by a long-term strike. 

In plain terms, strikes work when they withhold something that other people want. 

Given that, one wonders what comedian and co-host of ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg, may be thinking. See, she’s going on a sex strike. Why? On account of a vulgar comment by Jew-hating weirdo Nick Fuentes.

Fuentes stirred up female anger during his election-night livestream by mocking the feminist pro-abortion slogan, “My body, my choice.” Fuentes turned it around, stating, “Your body, my choice.” It’s understandable that women would find this objectionable, but feminists have a difficult time keeping things in perspective. Fuentes cannot, of course, control anyone’s body but his own, and the comment was clearly trolling to get a rise out of them.

But whenever there’s an opportunity for hysterical shrieking, feminists take it and run for the end zone. It wasn’t just online screeching; one pissed-off woman insanely showed up at Fuentes’ door and rang the bell only to be pepper-sprayed.

What does any of this have to do with Whoopi Goldberg?

It was Fuentes’ crass remark that prompted her announcement of support for a “sex strike.” Goldberg said, “If we don’t let you, you don’t get any.”

Who is she talking to? Who, specifically, will now be prevented from “getting” “any?” So far as is ascertainable, Goldberg does not normally provide marital relations to the general public. It is unclear why she believes she is withholding something that no one has been asking for.

Making matters even more bizarre is the fact that Goldberg is not capable of getting pregnant.

Do admit:

Wokespy did not find any evidence online of dispirited men who might be moved by Goldberg’s strike, but we did find these reactions:

LGBTQ+

Canadian Trans Activists Want to Scuttle Name-Change Law That Outs Criminals

/

Consider the alias. Writers throughout history have used aliases that we call “pen names.” Stephen King wrote books under the name “Richard Bachman.” Joanne Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, has launched a successful string of novels for adults under the name Robert Galbraith. 

On the everyday level, normal people frequently use pseudonyms to post their thoughts online. Some just want privacy, some want to avoid being publicly chastised for thinking politically incorrect things. 

But what of the other reasons to use an assumed name? What other category of people do we think of when we imagine someone going through life under a series of different names? Criminals, naturally. If you want to avoid detection for your crimes, changing your name is one way to throw a roadblock between you and the cops pursuing you. In the modern digital age, it’s harder to change your identity and stay hidden, of course. But a disguise does not have to be perfect. Like a lock on a door, it only needs to slow down your pursuers enough to give you time to escape. 

In all these cases  the motivation to use a pseudonym is the need or desire to hide something. And few classes of people want to hide something more than the so-called “transgendered.” Oh, sure, they claim that it’s “harmful” to their mental health to be called by their “dead name” (the name they were given at birth that corresponds to their actual sex), but this is a feint. If it does indeed “hurt” to hear your real name, that’s a personal problem, not a responsibility of others in society. 

Why, then, are transgender activists in Canada demanding that the province of British Columbia reverse a law that bans dangerous criminals from changing their name? Independent outlet Reduxx:

Social justice legal group West Coast LEAF issued a press release, signed by numerous trans activist groups and organizations, demanding the change on November 7. In their letter, the groups claim that the province’s legislation ‘harms those most in need of legal name changes, including transgender people, Indigenous people, and survivors of gender-based violence.’

The activists claim, contrary to reality, that “transgender” people are at constant risk of being murdered for “being trans.” But in all of 2023, only 35 “trans” people were murdered  in the U.S. by the official count, and mostly because they were working as prostitutes and/or associating with a criminal element. Thirty-five homicides annually is so small as to be a lower rate of homicide than the general population – but don’t expect to hear that from a trans activist anytime soon.

Here are the other possible motivations the activists don’t want you to contemplate:

  • Escaping the criminal record earned under the correctly sexed birth name
  • Using a different name so that a potential employer who screens candidates against the sex offender registry cannot detect a sex offender

It should be very easy to see why a person with nefarious motivations, say, a pedophile who wants a job as a preschool teacher, would want to claim it’s a human rights violation to be prevented from changing his name. 

The Reduxx article above cites the horrific case of Alan Schoenborn in BC that led to the law banning violent criminals from changing their names. Schoenborn killed his three young children in 2008, and then campaigned to be allowed to keep his new legal pseudonym secret from the public. 

Will British Columbia cave to these demands and put the public in danger once again by scuttling the law? It’s impossible to say, but the public is getting fed up to the back teeth with these demands from mentally unstable perverts, and the social media response shows it. Here’s a sampling. 

This is hardly the first story of this genre. As we reported earlier this year at Wokespy, a Tennessee bill to allow for the death penalty for child rapists was also excoriated by the LGBTQ+ “community.”

This kind of depraved thinking isn’t just relegated to the left’s alphabet faction either. Just last September, most Democrats in the House voted against a bill to deport illegal aliens who rape women, and to refuse any convicted sex offenders into the country. 

It should serve as just the latest reminder to never give the left the benefit of the doubt.

They really just are depraved.

Media

CNN to Fire Hundreds: Which On-Air Talent Will Get Axed?

/

Who’s next out the door at CNN? No one knows, but word on the street is that the beleaguered cable network will be slashing hundreds of jobs, and some of those might be faces familiar to viewers. 

According to the Daily Mail, the original cable news network—it was founded by Ted Turner and went on the air in 1980—is hemorrhaging money and that means costs need to be cut. Anchor Chris Wallace (son of the late 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace) has already left the network, believing he’ll find success in the podcast world (likely too late for you, Chris). 

‘In the next few months, I’m told, CNN will implement another round of layoffs that will impact hundreds of employees across the organization,’ reporter Dylan Byers wrote Friday, referencing CNN’s recent 100-person layoff seen over the summer.   

The man behind it, they said, is none other than new CEO Mark Thompson – the former New York Times boss brought in to overhaul the network under its Warner Bros. Discovery parent. The old BBC boss filled the position left by then-languishing leader Chris Licht this past August, and since then, ratings have fallen more than 20 percent.

While everything at this point is coming from unnamed sources, the gossip is that even big names like Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer were not given raises recently. Will their highest-paid talent survive the layoffs? Anderson Cooper (scion of the Vanderbilt family) makes $20 million, and Kaitlan Collins $3 million. 

It looks like mainstream/legacy media may be finally reaching its final stage of life. From the days when the three on-air networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, to the explosion of cable news and entertainment channels in the 80s, to today’s streaming “television” beamed to phones and computers, the mainstream institutions have seemed untouchable. 

But they’re not solidly positioned. CNN, for example, lost half its viewers during the 2024 election cycle compared to 2020. On election night itself, the network brought in only 3.3 million viewers, which is almost half as much as they had during the 2020 presidential race. 

Why are the media old guard having such a hard time? Because they lie constantly and no one trusts anything they say. Filled with hard-left liberals who no longer even pretend to care about objectivity, every old-school outlet worked overtime to try to scupper another Trump election, but it didn’t work. 

It’s also unclear whether outfits like CNN will be able to get a firm footing in the digital and podcast worlds. So many erstwhile viewers want nothing to do with the major news brands that their parents trusted and had on the TV set while they were growing up. 

A sampling of social media reaction to the news:

Ouch, Kaitlan!

Big Government

Trump Goes After “Marxist Maniacs” Who Accredit Colleges

/

We modern Westerners have a famously short memory whose span has become even smaller since the internet became a part of most people’s daily lives about 30 years ago. That probably surprised a few people reading (there’s that short memory). Yes, indeed, the internet is blink-of-an-eye-recent. 

We forget news stories in about a day, irrespective of how momentous an event may be. Leftist media hatred for Donald Trump and for half the country’s citizenry accounts for most of this, but the shortened attention and memory span somehow managed to make an assassination attempt on live television seem like something that “maybe happened?” Did you notice that? How a former president was shot on live TV and by the next week it was like it never happened? 

Our cultural memory problem doesn’t just lead to us forgetting consequential events. We also very quickly adapt to new creations of government and policy with precious little pushback, then we promptly forget that these new government agencies have not existed since Moses ascended Mt. Sinai to receive the stone tablets. 

So it is with the U.S. Department of Education. Many of you reading this were alive before it was created; that means many of you were in school and getting an education long before anyone believed the federal government had to be involved in every classroom across the country. In only 100 years, we went from a 15-year-old Laura Ingalls teaching farm boys the three R’s (and doing it well) to a nation that requires teachers to have college degrees (more on that below). 

It was President Jimmy Carter who created the Department of Education in 1979, and we can all see the depths to which “education” has plummeted for U.S. students. The DOE seems unconcerned with the extraordinary rate of illiteracy and innumeracy among American students, but very concerned with “helping” confused and abused children realize that they were born into the wrong sex’s body. 

Why do we have this department? Does it do a better job than states and towns did before 1979? President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t think so, and he’s vowed to tear down the DOE on several occasions. Whether he will get this far remains to be seen, and the opposition from the credentialed class (liberals) will be histrionic and fierce. 

But Trump is already making a start on reforming education by taking aim at the obviously broken college accreditation system. In a new video, Trump laid out his plan to target the left’s influence in higher education.

Trump’s plan to dismantle the U.S. indoctrination system (college) by seizing funds from schools that refuse to comply with his accreditation system.

  1. “Our secret weapon will be the college accreditation system.”
  2. “Fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.”
  3. “We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again.” “These standards will include defending the American tradition and Western civilization, protecting free speech, and eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs.”
  4. “Remove all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats, offering options for accelerated at low-cost degrees, providing meaningful job placement and career services, and implementing college entrance and exit exams to prove that students are actually learning and getting their money’s worth.”
  5. “Direct the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination.”
  6. “Schools that persist in explicit unlawful discrimination under the guise of equity will not only have their endowments taxed, but through budget reconciliation, I will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.”
  7. “The seized funds will then be used as restitution for victims of these illegal and unjust policies.”

Here’s a sampling of online reaction to Trump’s promise to rout “Marxist maniacs and lunatics” who prop up colleges that indoctrinate young people. 

But there’s always one, isn’t there? 

Democrats, Media

CNN’s Scott Jennings Ruffles Feathers in Televised Chicken Coop

/

You could be forgiven for thinking that you’re hearing audio recorded from inside a chicken coop.

Former George W. Bush advisor Scott Jennings, now a contributor to CNN, has an uncanny ability to ruffle feathers and elicit frustrated clucking from his co-panelists by simply stating the plain truth in a calm voice. 

Jennings remarked that it only made sense for Donald Trump to pick cabinet members and staff who had the ability to carry out his policy objectives. This was just too much for the liberals (every other person at the table). In the now-typical teenage-girl fashion that allegedly grown-up professional women use to communicate to the public, the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell squeaked out, “He literally said he was going to exact vengeance!”

They just don’t get that Democrats are not the only people who are allowed to hold political power. Jennings responded with, “You still don’t understand how you lost.” Rampell? She did the head-swivel and snarked, “Don’t say ‘me’. I’m not a Democrat. I’m a journalist.” 

No, Miss Rampell, you are not a journalist. You are a teenage girl in an adult woman’s body playing journalist in a costume at the Democrat Community Playhouse known as The Washington Post. To be fair, it’s only a few days since the election, and the Democrats have not completed the grieving process yet. But the Catherine Rampells of the world are going to soon learn that girl-boss sassery is over. Indignant clapbacks are not going to keep the left in business much longer. 

Maybe Rampell thinks we don’t remember, but she was one of the WaPo employees who signed a letter condemning the paper for not endorsing Harris. She sure seems like a Democrat to me.

The other women on the panel couldn’t take it either. “Scott! Scott!” was a common verbal ejaculation. Host Abby Phillips jumped in to say, “He [Trump] did run on vengeance.”

One suspects Democrats and media will soon learn another lesson: “consequences” is not a synonym for “vengeance.” Right now, they’re still in shock. The news has had a liberal tilt for decades, but it has been so out of control for the past ten years that most leftists now believe they are entitled to do anything they want—anything at all—with no pushback. They treat any criticism of their actions, or any refusal to go along with them, as an act of abuse against them. 

Let’s see how X/Twitter users reacted to the clip. 

LGBTQ+

Kamala Harris Snags Most of Coveted Non-Binary Vote

/

There was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, about a race of aliens called the Binars. They were a genetically enhanced race with computer processors in their heads, and they were androgynous and apparently sexless, with bald heads and indeterminate body shapes. Their non-threatening appearance was key to their success at stealing the Enterprise from space dock. 

Have they been with us here on Earth, and have they been participating in the election? Or, have they been altering certain leftist humans slowly, replacing our usual friends with weirder and less sexy versions? 

Something strange is going on, if this tweet from prominent commentator James Lindsay is any indication. 

I know, it’s confusing. How is it possible to have categories of voters other than “male” and “female,” first of all? It is not possible, of course, but America has been playing in the land of make-believe for at least 10 years about human anatomy. We’re supposed to believe that there are “transgender women,” but those are just men who call themselves women (and vice-versa for “transgender men”). Apparently all you need to do to fundamentally change reality today is slap on the opposite sex’s clothing and throw tantrums whenever someone recognizes that you’re wearing a costume. 

But wait, there’s more! Have you heard of the “non-binaries?” These are an even more special subset of the alleged transgender community. Usually, but not always, “non-binary” people are women (who look just like yesterday’s plain old lesbians) who claim to be neither male nor female.

Reader, don’t sweat this too hard. You can’t make it make sense. Just roll with me. 

So apparently the non–binaries are 1 percent of the population. Of that tiny sliver, 73 percent voted for Kamala Harris, while 21 percent chose Donald Trump, which admittedly is surprising.  

Let’s see whether X/Twitter users are playing along with this fun insane asylum game!

Tee-hee.

LGBTQ+

Trump Announces Plans to End Worst Child Abuse in History

/

President-elect Donald Trump made a historically unique and profound statement earlier this year that got overlooked. It’s about one of the worst abuses of children in American history, perhaps world history. He looked directly at the camera and told the truth—no other politician has done so—about what “gender-affirming care” for children really is: mutilation and child abuse. 

Trump promised:

  • No more federal dollars to any institution that abuses children this way
  • No participation in the process of transing children by any federal agency
  • A ban on this barbaric cruelty in all 50 states

Wokespy readers, I’m going to get a little more personal with you today than is normal for a news article; I want you to truly understand this on a human level. I was born in 1974, and grew up before it occurred to any sane person that a child could have a “sex change.” I was a stereotypical sensitive sissy boy, and took the chiding and the fights that came with that. Had I been born 25 years later, I would almost certainly have been taken to a gender clinic where my mind and body would have been permanently ruined. 

Unfortunately, mental derangement runs in my family, and child abuse shows up in every generation. I had to personally intervene in my own family to save a young boy from having his health and his manhood taken from him by abusive adults who wanted to turn him into a girl. I assure you, what sounds like a fictional nightmare is very real.

That’s what “gender-affirming care” is. It’s psychological, chemical, and physical mutilation of perfectly healthy children simply because they don’t conform to every stereotype of what “boys are” and “girls are.” The vast majority of children who end up in gender clinics have been abused at home or in other ways. They need help, not brutality. 

Many of you reading this won’t know what “gender-affirming care” really is. You can’t, because the media lies. Try it. Type that into Google. You get nothing but search results that characterize not cutting a child’s genitals off as “abuse.” I will repeat that so that you’re sure you read it right. Yes. Proponents claim that not surgically castrating children is an act of abuse. 

This comprehensive report on the problem from the UK has a summary that will help you understand the issue more clearly. 

It’s a moral reversal. 

Children who are put on “puberty blockers” are being put on the same chemicals used to chemically castrate rapists. They will never grow a natural, normal body, and their brains will not develop normally. Once they are put on cross-sex hormones, they will be permanently sterilized. Most of these children will have the ability to enjoy sexual pleasure as adults permanently taken by these nightmare interventions. 

And parents who are desperately trying to save their children from wicked social services agencies and doctors who can’t wait to perform Mengele-esque procedures are having their children taken away from them by family courts. 

Some of you reading this are shocked. You had no idea. That’s because the leftist media, and the leftist government, have lied. We should all be shocked that it took so many years for any politician to stand up and say “stop mutilating children.”

That’s what Donald Trump did, and it’s going to save innocent lives.

Let’s sample the reaction on X/Twitter. 

.

Democrats, Entertainment

All In The Family’s Rob Reiner Still a Meathead 50 Years Later

/

If you’re of a certain age, you remember watching All in the Family when it aired on primetime. The show featured a working class white family living in Queens. Archie and Edith Bunker were the parents, and their daughter Gloria and her husband Mike lived in the townhouse with them. 

When I was a kid growing up in a Democrat household (don’t worry, I got better), loudmouthed and blunt Archie was the hero we loved to hate. He was conservative and crotchety. He had little time for complaints from racial minorities about mistreatment; for Archie, it was a lot of whining from people who didn’t have it nearly as bad as they claimed they did. 

He didn’t like his son-in-law Mike, either, a long-haired, mustachioed, long-in-the-tooth hippie who banged on about vegetarianism, social justice, and those bad capitalist fat cats. There was a reason Archie called him “meathead.”

Show creator Normal Lear was, though very talented, your standard-issue Hollywood liberal. Middle-aged, working class, white Archie Bunker was supposed to be the scapegoat of the show. We were supposed to laugh at him with pity, never with him. Instead, daughter Gloria and her meathead husband were positioned as the “truly caring” people that normal and good Americans could identify with. 

I used to watch the show the way I was “supposed to.” And then I grew up and got into middle age and I’ll tell you, I can’t stand meathead either. To me, Archie Bunker was the real hero of the show. It may even be true that Archie Bunker was the inaugural character who launched 50 years of insult and degradation by liberals against white conservative American men. You’re hard pressed to find a single father figure or major male character in a comedy show who isn’t portrayed as a selfish, stupid oaf who can’t figure out how to run a washing machine. No, it’s his “better half,” his much more clever and with-it wife, who makes all good things happen. 

All of that is a long wind-up to point out that it looks like Normal Lear wrote Mike Stivic/Meathead to mirror the actor Rob Reiner who played him. Reiner has become one of the most deranged uber-progressive-liberals in Hollywood, and at his advanced age he continues to bedevil social media users with pious stupidity like this: 

The reader will pardon me while I steel myself against picking up the bourbon. 

What’s he on about? Democrats literally cannot and will not tell you what a woman is if you ask. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh proved that with his wildly successful documentary, “What is a Woman.”

And what does Reiner or any other liberal in Hollywood care about birthing babies? The only babies they like are those that get aborted before they have a chance at life. It’s really just too much. There are words for men like Rob Reiner—and they’re accurate—but those are too colorful for Wokespy.

Let’s see how X/Twitter reacted to Reiner’s bathos:

This one’s extra funny even if it takes a minute to get it:

https://twitter.com/TheOnlyDSC/status/1853583778486030562
Race, Race Baiting

Bombshell in Daniel Penny Subway Case: Police Detected Pulse on Jordan Neely and Refused to Provide CPR

/

No reasonable person can help but strongly suspect that the prosecution of Daniel Penny is what the Brits call a “stitch-up.”

Penny, the young former Marine with an Errol Flynn look, tried to protect NYC subway passengers from an erratic man who was threatening to hurt people on the train. In May of 2023, Jordan Neely, 30 (black), was acting erratically on the subway. According to witnesses, Neely was behaving in a threatening fashion, saying things like, “I don’t care if I die. I don’t care if I go to jail.” 

According to Penny and witnesses, Neely lunged at passengers and convinced people he was a threat to their safety (Neely was threatening to kill train riders). Penny jumped into action and subdued Neely with a chokehold. Neely later died, and the media immediately went into racism overdrive.

CNN described Neely, who was homeless and who had a rap sheet with 42 arrests, as simply a “homeless black man” who was a beloved “Michael Jackson impersonator.” All the photos used to depict him were chosen to present Neely as unthreatening. The narrative was set: Penny was a White Devil who Murdered a Poor Innocent Oppressed Black Man. 

But worse, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (famous for prosecuting Donald Trump over “hush money” payments), also black and with a chip on his shoulder, slapped Penny with manslaughter charges. Prosecutors claim Penny “went way too far,” and should have stopped trying to restrain the aggressive man.  The implication is clear: prosecutors want to convince a jury and the public that Penny was not a hero, but a racist murderer. 

And we wonder why Americans are increasingly unwilling to come to each other’s aide when in distress. Careful–if you protect your own life or someone else’s against a black person you may end up imprisoned for having the gall to want to survive.

But my, how the worm turned in court on November 1. Thank God for the Daily Mail, or most of us wouldn’t know that, lo and behold, Jordan Neely still had a pulse after police and medics arrived on the scene. Despite their efforts at CPR, Neely died later in the hospital. 

Take a look at Google’s news page: Would you have had any idea that such a crucial fact had come out in public if not for the single Daily Mail story? 

It gets worse for the prosecution when you read the testimony of the cops on scene. One unnamed NYPD Sergeant said his cops did not perform “mouth to mouth” on Neely because “he seemed to be a drug user. . .he was an apparent drug user. He was very dirty. I didn’t want [my officers] to get hepatitis.”

To quote Rugg’s commentary in full:

NEW: Jordan Neely had a pulse after being put in a chokehold by Marine veteran Daniel Penny but NYPD declined mouth-to-mouth because they were afraid of getting hepatitis.

Neely was so dirty that officers didn’t feel safe performing CPR.

Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after he defended Subway riders from Neely who was threatening to kill them.

An NYPD Sergeant said no one wanted to give mouth-to-mouth because they didn’t want to get hepatitis and Neely was very dirty. “He seemed to be a drug user… he was an apparent drug user. He was very dirty. I didn’t want them to get hepatitis.” “If he did wake up he would have been vomiting. I didn’t want my officers to do that.” “He was filthy. He looked like a homeless individual. You have to protect your officer.” “I wouldn’t want my officer to get sick if the person throws up.”

Does any of this make sense? Who can look at this and see Daniel Penny as anything other than a sacrifice to racial narcissism and untouchability in 21st century America. No honest person believes Penny would be in the dock if he were not white, and Neely were not black. 

Here’s a sampling of the reaction from X (Twitter) users:

Democrats, Media

NYT Writer Spins False Sob Story About Woman Who Induced Own Miscarriage

/

Let me tell you a tragic story about a woman who lost her baby due to a miscarriage. It’s every mother’s worst nightmare, the thought of losing her precious baby before it’s even born. Making it so much worse, the grieving mother was set upon by vicious right wing police who arrested her on manslaughter charges. The final insult was a prison sentence. 

Thank God for the kind heart of one lawyer who offered to help this woman for free. Her conviction was overturned, and she was released to go back to mothering her living children. 

At least – this is the kind of nightmare that Democrat voters want to prevent.

Except it didn’t happen that way. But New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, from whom I cribbed this story, thinks that it did. 

So does the Washington Post.

And so does Esquire Magazine, which used the Washington Post story about Patience Frazier, the woman in question.

If those were the only articles you read, you would think that’s what happened, too. And millions of Americans will see only these headlines and conclude that, yes, evil Republicans really do want to punish women for innocent miscarriages. How could they not think this, when the most popular news aggregator serves them this? 

But X (Twitter) has something different: community notes. Community notes is a feature added to X after Elon Musk bought the company. It allows X users to challenge the premises of a post and actually correct incorrect information with facts. Let’s take another look at Nicholas Kristof’s post with the community note included. 

That’s a horse of a different color. Not only did this “miscarriage” occur six years ago, well before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but Miss Frazier deliberately induced a miscarriage by taking illicit drugs, among other activities. When she got the stillbirth she wanted, she buried the baby in her backyard quietly. 

Reasonable people can still disagree over whether what Frazier did rises to the level of manslaughter, and over whether it’s a good idea to allow the state this much leeway to investigate circumstances like this. But facts are facts: Frazier was not “oppressed” by Republicans, or by anyone. Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with the death of her baby; Miss Frazier did it. 

Let’s sample the social media reaction. 

Nathaniel asks a question that clearly could never occur to a liberal. 


Subscribe Form

© 2025 WokeSpy All Rights Reserved

Scroll to Top