Author name: Josh Slocum

Left-wing extremism

NYC Legalizes Jaywalking for Exact Reason You’re Expecting

/

To live in 21st century America is to be pushed to believe in lies and to watch the societal infrastructure get pulled down by do-gooders. One of the biggest lies we’re expected to swallow is the idea that America is “systemically racist” against black people. Since the mid 2010s, and exacerbated by the death of George Floyd and the rise of Black Lives Matter, media and Democrat politicians have shouted at the top of their lungs that white people have their fellow black Americans under a crushing boot. 

It’s outrageous because it’s so obviously backward. Black Americans have been raised to the status of an untouchable sacred caste while white Americans have to suffer being called racists and oppressors simply for noticing or saying “ouch” when they get mugged.

Open any social media platform, and you’ll be treated to countless videos of black mobs holding up stores, engaging in organized robbery and shoplifting, and assaulting white people with zero consequences. 

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in colleges, but evidence suggest universities are still admitting black students who are demonstrably less qualified than white applicants. As predicted, Ivies like Cornell are getting around the ban by renaming the practice. 

Somehow, the country fell asleep at the wheel and forgot everything it claimed to learn from civil rights leader Martin Luther King, who said character, not color, was what mattered. Today, our politicians and policy wonks follow the prescription of low-brow-but-popular “thinkers” like woke black radical Ibram X. Kendi, who says “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”

Police departments have been gutted in cities across the country, and states like California have essentially legalized shoplifting unless it gets up to about $1,000 in value. 

New York City appears to be giving up on civic law and order completely. I can barely believe I’m writing this, but I am: New York City just legalized jaywalking. Why? Because of “racial disparities.” What does that mean? It means that because black people got caught jaywalking more than other groups, that New York was “doing a racism” to them. 

It’s necessary to spell it right out: you are not allowed to notice or react to black people displaying disproportionate criminality. If you do, you’re a racist. Black people are not allowed to be thought of as criminals, called criminals, or punished for criminal behavior.

The standards get lowered until they’re gone. 

You read that right. As per CBS:

Your average New Yorker is no stranger to jaywalking, which has been illegal since 1958. That’s about to change.  Starting in February, New Yorkers will no longer be breaking the law when crossing the street in between traffic, and will no longer receive a fine for jaywalking. 

The City Council has been working to decriminalize jaywalking, which is something nearly every New Yorker does. 

“In 2023, over 92% of jaywalking citations went to Black and Latino New Yorkers, highlighting an unacceptable disparity. The bill changes that by removing criminal penalties, ensuring everyone is treated fairly, regardless of race or backgroud,” said Councilmember Mercedes Narcisse, who sponsored the legislation. “Police officers have shared with me they prefer to focus on true public safety efforts, not issuing tickets for crossing the street.” 

Let’s see the reaction from X users. First up, Elon Musk himself. 

Woke

Researchers Find Dumb Fake Word “Latinx” Makes Hispanics Vote Republican

/

Remember, it’s “intellectually challenged,” not “retarded.” It’s “unhoused,” not “homeless.” It’s “person experiencing homelessness,” not “homeless person.” It’s “person of color,” not “black man.” It’s “food insecurity,” not “hunger.” It’s “person of transgender experience” not “sex-change freak.” It’s “person experiencing diabetes,” not “a diabetic.” It’s “mental health challenges,” not “insane.” 

Are you irritated at being lectured to about language for a paragraph? You’re in good company with Hispanics and Latinos, then; more on that below. The euphemism treadmill is an endless cycle of substituting newer and vaguer words for old and well-known things. Or, “old wine in new bottles.” Linguist Steven Pinker first pointed out how terms go through phases, and as soon as the unpleasant meaning behind the term catches up with the word, we throw out the word and insert a new one for the same damned thing. 

Most people find the ever-shifting linguistic carousel impossible to keep up with and annoying. But while it’s bad enough to risk social and professional censure for using the wrong word to describe hungry people, it’s entirely another to have the word for your own ethnicity doctored and replaced by woke liberals. 

That’s what the sainted left has been trying to do for years with the word “Latino.” Woke blue hairs are convinced that men are bad, and that we in the west live in a “patriarchy.” For anyone who can believe that nonsense, it’s a short step to re-engineering the very names of ethnic groups, whether they like it or not. And they do not. 

Have you heard the term “Latinx”? No one is sure how it’s pronounced (“la-tinks”? “la-teen-ex”?) because it’s not a real word. But the woke left has been trying to make it one for years. Why? Because Spanish is a gendered language, and they really-super-don’t-like that the collective noun for a group of Spanish speakers has a masculine “o” ending. It’s the same henpecking that took away “waitress” and gave us “server,” and that insists on calling women in show business “actors” instead of “actresses.”

Did any of the societal saviors think to ask actual Spanish speakers what they thought? Nope. But they’re telling us what they think through their votes, according to this paper co-written by scholars from Georgetown University and Harvard titled “The X Factor: How Group Labels Shape Politics.”

To quote from the study’s abstract:

We present an Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory and posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members. Latinos’ relationship with “Latinx,” a gender-inclusive label, is a theoretical test case. 

Using several datasets, we find: Latinos are less likely to support politicians who use “Latinx”; Latinos who oppose “Latinx” are less likely to support politicians who used or are associated with “Latinx”; Latinos in areas where “Latinx” is more salient are more likely to switch their vote toward Trump between 2016-2020.

While Republican Latinos were the most likely to be turned off by the woke language, even Democrat Latinos were less likely to support candidates who used it:

Isn’t it amazing? The researchers correctly noted that Hispanics don’t like “Latinx,” and that it seems to push them to vote Trump (Republican). But they still recommend trying to indoctrinate Latinos further to force them to accept this ugly neologism being applied to themselves. 

Let’s see what X users had to say. 

Kamala Harris
Big Government, 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:

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!

Left-wing extremism, LGBTQ+, Uncategorized

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. 

LGBTQ+

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. 

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. 

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. 

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:

Democrats

Obama Affects Ghetto Accent to Insult Black Men Over Lack of Kam-Kam Enthusiasm

/

“Racism” and “misogyny” are funny things these days. We’re told by the left that they go on everywhere all the time. Criticize a black person for bad or criminal behavior? Racist. Notice black on black crime? Racist. Criticize women for lying and  making up stories about rape and harassment for personal gain? Misogynist. Prefer a male candidate to a female candidate for office because you like his policies better? Misogynist. 

You’ll notice the emotional inflation of small, or perceived, or non-existent, slights into alarm-clanging “hate.” Whereas 15 years ago you might have heard people discuss sexist policies in an office, those same policies today are “misogyny.” Same with race. It’s not possible in Liberal Land to have different preferences, or to disagree with a black person or a woman, without being guilty of smoldering, dangerous “hate.”

This is a tactic used by abusive and manipulative people—they’re the ones actually mistreating others—to get a leg up on others who have done nothing wrong but to disagree with them. 

What’s bizarre is how far they will go to insist that “racism” or “misogyny” explains everything and anything. Take the case of conservative black politician Larry Elder, who ran in an unsuccessful recall campaign against California liberal governor Gavin Newsom in 2021. So enraged was the leftist political class that a columnist at the Los Angeles Times called Elder (remember, he’s black) “the black face of white supremacy” who was “hurting Californians.”

It is astonishing that a mainstream leading newspaper would allow or publish such an extreme and near-libelous column, but it’s even more astonishing that three years later, it’s still proudly published. 

But we’re through the looking glass entirely, so what’s coming next won’t surprise you. Barack Obama, former (and according to many, current) President of the United States, has put on his best stentorian condescension to tell fellow black men that they’re misogynists if they don’t vote for Kamala Harris. 

Check out this 1 and a half-minute video. Speaking to a group of black male voters, Obama puts on an affected “black” accent. All of a sudden, he’s from da hood. “I’m gonna speak to y’all,” he says, adding in a “speak widchoo.” While he never explicitly calls the men misogynist, the implication drips off this patronizing tongue as he lectures them for not turning out to vote for Harris. After all, he says, she’s just like them. She grew up like them. She “went to college” with them. 

The looks on their faces do not indicate that the men agree that Kamala Harris is “one of us.”

And then CNN. Contributor Scott Jennings called it like it is, tearing into Obama’s condescending treatment of a bunch of guys he’s trying to convince to vote for his gal. Jennings is right: this party actually has a problem with men, with men voting their minds. They can’t speak to men like people, because they don’t think men are fully moral humans the way women are. 

Collin Rugg comments on this on X/Twitter. 

Let’s see what the crowd had to say. 

Not going well for Barack so far. Let’s keep looking. 

Sad trombone for Obama. 


Subscribe Form

© 2025 WokeSpy All Rights Reserved

Scroll to Top