Author name: Stephen Phelps

Main Story

First Openly Gay Federal Judge Threatens to Block Executive Order on Transgender Troops, Claims Two Genders “Not Biologically Correct”

/

The first openly gay U.S. District Judge, Ana Reyes, spent hours questioning the Trump administration to determine how its military transgender policy would affect trans service members.

Shortly after taking office on January 21, President Trump signed an executive order outlining “trans-identifying medical standards for military service” and rescinding policies that undermined the military’s readiness. 

Trump’s “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” executive order required that the “radical gender ideology” be expunged from all branches of the military. On November 25, 2024, the Times reported that Trump would sign an executive order that would declare 15,000 transgender service members unfit to serve on medical grounds. The order would also remove transgender military leaders from various ranks.

Subsequently, a civil rights group sued the Trump administration over the executive order alleging discrimination. It also claims that the order threatened national security and obliterated years of defense training investment. 

Thus, Biden appointed Judge Reyes questioned the Trump administration to determine whether the executive order amounted to transgender ban and whether the administration perceived transgenderism as an ideology. She also wanted to know if transgender people, including the plaintiffs, would be removed from the military or their units.

“Can we agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than 1% of soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them,” she asked Justice Department attorneys.

She also suggested transgenderism does not impact a soldier’s war-fighting abilities as pronoun use did not impact other service members.

“If you can find someone who will tell me we’re less prepared because we have to use pronouns for a few thousand people,” she said. 

However, pronoun use can affect team spirit by causing conflicts over misgendering and wrong pronoun use. Additionally, transitioning individuals undergo months of intensive chemical treatment and surgeries that render them unable to deploy at a moment’s notice.

Trump’s executive order categorically states that our heroes should be “free of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization,” adding that “many mental and physical health conditions are incompatible with active duty” as they require “require substantial medication or medical treatment” and hospitalization.

Nonetheless, the Uruguayan-born American judge wanted to know how Trump’s executive order would be implemented. She threatened to grant a temporary restraining order if the Trump administration failed to guarantee that the plaintiffs would not be affected.

Claiming that “smarter people on the D.C. Circuit would have to tell me I’m wrong,” Reyes also added that the executive order’s assertion that only two genders exist is “not biologically correct.”

Meanwhile, when Trump announced he would issue the executive order, the Left claimed it would undermine enrolment when the military was struggling to meet its recruitment targets. 

“It would also lead to a ban on trans people joining the military and would come at a time when almost all branches of the American armed forces are failing to meet recruitment targets.”

However, then Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth blamed wokeism for falling recruitment numbers, stating that the core military demographic took a wide berth at the military to avoid being subjected to the radical gender ideology.

“There aren’t enough lesbians in San Fransisco to man the 82nd Airborne Division,” Hegseth said.

“…if I wanted to do the woke cr*p, I could go to the local community college or local college. I don’t need it here.”

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s non-woke military has already shattered a 15-year recruitment record less than a month into his second presidency.

Britain

British Liberals Vote Against National Inquiry Into Grooming Gangs

/

British members of parliament (MPs) voted against an amendment to launch a national inquiry into Muslim grooming gangs on Wednesday.

A major political row has swelled over the past month, following a refused Freedom of Information request to the Government by Oldham Council. Since then, calls for a national inquiry have grown as further details about child sexual exploitation across parts of Northern England have emerged.

On Wednesday, the scandal dominated the day’s proceedings in Parliament, commencing with a fiery Prime Minister’s Questions. Later in the afternoon, the Conservatives added an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, demanding a national inquiry into grooming gangs.

Labour said the amendment would effectively kill off the bill, arguing that it would delay the Government’s ability to implement crucial safeguarding measures. The Conservatives, meanwhile, echoed calls from Elon Musk to prioritize a national inquiry.

A national inquiry was completed in 2022. However, none of the report’s 20 recommendations have been implemented by either a Labour or Conservative Government.

Shortly after 7pm GMT, MPs voted 364 to 111 against the Tories’ amendment. A three-line whip meant all Labour MPs either voted against the amendment or abstained, while the Conservatives were joined by Reform UK’s 5 MPs, as well as Northern Irish Unionists.

The Labor Party has 402 seats in the House of Commons, while the Conservative Party has 121, and the rest of the 650 seats are held by other parties (seven of which are held by Northern Ireland’s Sinn Fein, which doesn’t take their 7 seats in protest).

Many on social media were stunned by the decision of MPs.

Others had differing views on the reasons for the amendment and subsequent vote.

National Affairs

Biden Administration Targets Smokers As His Presidency Enters Its Final Days

/

As it enters its final days, Joe Biden’s administration is targeting millions of Americans with a ridiculous regulatory rule.

As per Fox News, the federal government is seeking to implement tough restrictions on smokers by limiting the amount of nicotine in each cigarette. The theory behind the proposal would be that a lower amount of nicotine would lower the addictiveness of smoking for new smokers, but raises questions as to whether smokers would merely light up more often throughout the day to compensate. After all, if the amount of nicotine per cigarette were cut in half, why wouldn’t smokers just smoke twice as much? Which budget constraints wouldn’t allow every smoker to do that, it’s still an obvious unintended consequence.

Of note, nicotine itself is the least harmful part of cigarettes.

“The proposed rule, ‘Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Certain Tobacco Products,’ is displaying in the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Reducing Outdoor Contaminants in Indoor Spaces (ROCIS) system as having completed regulatory review on January 3,” a spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told Fox News. “As the FDA has previously said, a proposed product standard to establish a maximum nicotine level to reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes and certain other combusted tobacco products, when finalized, is estimated to be among the most impactful population-level actions in the history of U.S. tobacco product regulation.”

Given the administration is set to be dissolved in a matter of days, concerns have been raised that the proposal is rushed, without scientific analysis and a restriction on civil liberties. Such a move could also open up a black market as smokers seek stronger cigarettes for a lower cost.

Some on social media also questioned whether the administration had its priorities right.

It’s not the first time that the Biden administration has targeted smokers. In 2024, the federal government scrapped an attempt to ban menthol cigarettes outright, citing “feedback” as a reason for the policy shift – though other credible sources such as Barron’s reported that it was out of fear that it would reduce his share of the black vote.

crime

Stabbing Victim Claims Witnesses “Just Froze” In Response To New York City

/

A harrowing Christmas Eve attack at Grand Central Terminal in New York has sparked outrage as bystanders reportedly failed to assist a young woman after she was brutally stabbed – and not a single one called the police.

The victim, 26-year-old Imani-Ciara Pizarro, detailed her traumatic experience in an interview with the New York Post. She was on her way to a night shift at the Roosevelt Hotel when she was struck from behind. The attacker, identified by police as 28-year-old Jason Sargeant, then lunged at Pizarro with a small knife while repeatedly yelling, “What’s your problem?” and slashing her in the next.

Police were reportedly absent in Grand Central, while bystanders simply “just froze” during the attack – provoking memories of an attack the week prior on the city’s metro where a woman was torched to death by an attacker. “No one called 911. No one in Grand Central called 911. It was my neighbor. I called my neighbor. I was on the phone with my neighbor when it happened and she called 911”

In the case of the aforementioned woman burned to death, no one intervened there either, as seems to be the standard when you live among liberals.

The Post reported that witnesses later identified Sargeant to law enforcement officials. He’s charged with assault, reckless endangerment, menacing, criminal possession of a weapon, harassment and disorderly conduct, according to police.

Some on social media were critical of the bystanders.

Others, however, believed that the lack of intervention was due to concerns over a similar scenario to Daniel Penny, who was recently acquitted for the death of a man he restrained on the subway in 2023.

Florida

Florida State Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Political Flags From Government Buildings

/

Florida State Sen. Randy Fine (R-Melbourne Beach) has introduced a bill aimed at banning the display of political and ideological flags in government buildings. It’s increasingly common for political flags to be flown on government buildings, such as Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ+ flags – and never any representing right-wing beliefs.

The legislation, SB 100, seeks to prohibit flags representing political candidates, movements, or organizations deemed ideological in government buildings including schools.

“The first flag that should be flown in a government building is the American flag,” Fine stated in a press release on Monday. “Flags that promote Muslim terror or the mutilation of children have no place in taxpayer-funded buildings – whether that government building is our state capital or a public school classroom.”

Tallahassee, FL (December 16, 2024) – Today, Senator Randy Fine (R-Melbourne Beach) filed SB 100 to ban the flying of political flags in government buildings. Among others, SB 100 would ban the use of fictional country flags like “Palestine,” pro-violence “Black Lives Matter” flags, woke and pro-grooming ideological flags, and the flags of any political candidates in government buildings. Fine previously sponsored the same legislation in the Florida House during the 2024 Legislative Session.  

“The first flag that should be flown in a government building is the American flag,” said Fine. “Flags that promote Muslim terror or the mutilation of children have no place in taxpayer-funded buildings – whether that government building is our state capital or a public school classroom.”  

Political flags flown in government buildings have been the source of controversy, even becoming the subject of a lawsuit against the Palm Beach School District for an ideological flag flown at Emerald Cove Middle School in Wellington, Florida.  

“Supporters of Muslim terror, child mutilators, and groomers have no right to taxpayer sponsorship of their repugnant messages.  As I prepare to leave the Senate, I look forward to ensuring the only official place in a government building that you will find their flags is in a garbage can.”

If passed, the legislation would permit only official government flags in taxpayer-funded spaces. This includes the U.S. flag, Florida’s state flag, and flags representing other recognized jurisdictions, while flags for ideologies such as Pride or Black Lives Matter would be excluded.

Fine introduced similar legislation earlier this year while he sat in Florida’s House of Representatives, although his efforts died in the State Affairs Committee.

Fine’s efforts were widely praised on social media.

Others called for similar efforts elsewhere in the country.

DEI

Judge Rules Target Must Face Lawsuit Following Pride 2023 Backlash for Deceiving Shareholders

/

A Florida judge has denied Target’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the retailer misled shareholders about the risks associated with its LGBTQ-themed Pride Month merchandise, which faced backlash and a customer boycott.

Publicly traded corporations are required to disclose all potential risk factors in their financial reports, regardless of how unlikely or minuscule they may be.

U.S. District Judge John Badalamenti in Fort Myers ruled that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient information to proceed with claims that Target failed to properly account for social and political risks in its public disclosures.

The lawsuit, filed by investor Brian Craig, accuses Target’s board of prioritizing calls for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from activist groups while neglecting the potential for negative reactions to its 2023 Pride campaign.

The controversy arose after Target introduced LGBTQ-themed merchandise for Pride Month in May 2023, which led to confrontations between shoppers and employees, as well as incidents of products being vandalized or thrown to the floor. In response, the retailer removed some items from stores, citing safety concerns amid a nationwide boycott.

Target had urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the allegations were unsupported, that it had warned investors about possible backlash related to its DEI policies, and that the lawsuit stemmed from the plaintiff’s disagreement with Target’s business choices.

However, in a ruling on Wednesday, Dec. 4, Judge Badalamenti noted that the plaintiffs had alleged “numerous Federal securities law violations”, and that the case should be heard in court.

Many on social media highlighted that Target was facing the adage of “go woke, go broke”.

Others noted a shift in the social discourse following last month’s presidential election.

Media

Newsweek Reporter Falls For Obvious Parody Twitter Account, Reports on It

/

In the wake of the Hunter Biden pardon scandal, Newsweek reported insight and analysis from… a parody account.

The publication fell for the Dr Parik Patel – a fictional internet personality which is popular within the financial world. The fake account claims to be the father of Kash Patel, nominee to become Director of the FBI. The account also claims to be both a medical doctor and a certified financial accountant, which naturally should’ve been a sign the account is satirical.

“A surprising voice to weigh in on the pardon is Dr. Parik, father of FBI Director nominee Kash Patel,” wrote Newsweek in their reaction to the President’s decision to pardon his son. “The elder Patel wrote on X that Biden made the decision to pardon Hunter because he was “so worried about MY SON Kashu becoming director of the FBI that he decided to pardon his son… of all crimes.”

It goes without saying that the parody account, which is clearly marked as “parody” on X, has no connection to Kash Patel. Nevertheless, Newsweek were forced to amend their article following publication, simply writing, “Corrected 12/2/24 at 8:57 p.m. ET: Corrects to move incorrect reference to Parik Patel.”

While the article acknowledges removing reference to the satirical account, it doesn’t explain why they had to make the humiliating correction in an attempt to save themselves from embarassment.

Many were stunned that the error had actually happened!

Others were less surprised, citing concerns over Newsweek’s credibility.

Britain

Ellen DeGeneres’ New Home In England Floods Just Weeks After Leaving U.S. Following Election

/

Ellen DeGeneres home in England has reportedly flooded just weeks after moving abroad following the presidential election.

The former television personality moved to the U.K. in November after Donald Trump’s landslide victory over Kamala Harris. Both DeGeneres and her wife Portia de Rossi were reportedly “very disillusioned” with American politics by Trump’s win, and immediately decided “to get the hell out.”

If only more Hollywood liberals would follow her lead.

Since moving to the Cotswolds, the couple had to bare the brunt of Storm Bert, which saw much of England subject to heavy rain and 80mph winds. The River Thames, upon which the couple’s 43-acre property is situated on, burst its banks as a result, causing their home to be flooded right after their move.

Many noted the irony of DeGeneres’ home going underwater.

Another commenter referenced her role in Finding Dory.

Others, meanwhile, highlighted the impact of flooding on residents in her home country.

LGBTQ+

Ontario Town Fined For Refusing To Celebrate Pride Month

/

An Ontario town has been fined CA$10,000 (About $7,100 USD) for refusing to declare June as “Pride Month.”

The town of Emo, Ontario, was ruled to have violated the Ontario Human Rights Code in a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Two councilors and the town’s mayor were also found to have violated the code.

Bizarrely, the town of 1,300 was found guilty of failing to fly “an LGBTQ2 rainbow flag,” even though Emo does not have an official flagpole.

The dispute has been running for some time between Emo and a group called Borderland Pride. In 2020, a draft proclamation by the latter was defeated 3-2 in a town council meeting, during which Mayor Harold McQuaker said, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”

McQuaker’s remark was found to be “demeaning and disparaging” by Human Rights Tribunal vice-chair Karen Dawson, who fined the township $10,000 with McQuaker issued a $5,000 fine. Both the mayor and Emo’s chief administrative officer were also ordered to complete an online course known as “Human Rights 101” as part of the ruling.

Adding insult to injury, Borderland Pride said it would donate one third of the extorted money to the town’s local library, but only if the library hosted a drag queen grooming hour. You can read their full extortion letter below to see that this is nothing more than ideological motivated lawfare, the same sort that Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips has been the target of for over a decade.

Borderland Pride later replied to allegations that they bully towns and cities to bend to their will by stating that they love having that reputation.

Some on social media added additional insight into the bizarre case.

Others were stunned by the decision, with one user likening it to the North Korean regime.

Democrats

Kamala Harris Looks Burdened By What Has Been In Bizarre New Video

/

Kamala Harris released a bizarre 30-second video on Tuesday in her first public appearance in 20 days.

The Vice President has kept largely out of the limelight in recent weeks, with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defending her vacation to Hawaii. Her absence came amid an internal meltdown within the Democratic Party over the decision-making which led to a historic second Donald Trump presidency.

“Don’t let anyone take your power,” she told supporters in the clip.

“You have the same power that you did before November 5. And you have the same purpose that you did, and you have the same ability to engage and inspire. So don’t ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you” she said in the post which was shared on the party’s official account.

The video had many questioning if she was drunk – which many had already questioned during countless prior public appearences.

Give it a watch and decide for yourself below:

However, many noticed Harris’ appearance in the video, specifically that she did not look well at all.

Others thought she was drunk following speculation over her drinking habits throughout the election campaign.


Subscribe Form

© 2025 WokeSpy All Rights Reserved

Scroll to Top