News

AOC Offers Bizarre Excuse for Scrubbing Pronouns From Social Media Profile, And It’s Not Adding Up
News

AOC Offers Bizarre Excuse for Scrubbing Pronouns From Social Media Profile, And It’s Not Adding Up

/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York deleted her preferred pronouns from her profile following President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory, and now she’s denying the decision was motivated by politics.

The popular Libs of TikTok account was the first to point out the change, posting a screenshot of her account of AOC’s account with the “she/her” designation and a later screenshot without them.

Some interpreted Ocasio-Cortez’s removal of her pronouns to be pulling back from supporting the extremist LGBTQ+ agenda.

Riley Gaines wrote on X: “They’ll pretend they never embraced (or even celebrated) the insanity. Don’t forget who the compliant, virtue-signaling sheep were.”

Days later, she denied the allegations in a post on social media and offered a bizarre explanation.

“The whole ‘story’ of removing pronouns after the election is fake,” AOC wrote.

“It happened a long time ago after the SCOTUS Twitter ruling meant I had to add the ‘personal acct’ disclosure. There weren’t enough chars so I had to swap the end. You can run the timeline to see for yourself,” she added.

What she means is that she had to disclose that her X account with the handle “AOC” is different from her Representative account, which has the handle @RepAOC.

But this makes no sense, as the RepAOC account also doesn’t have pronouns listed, and her bio reads “This account is maintained by federal staff to share services and legislation relevant to constituents of NY-14.” This is far fewer words than the maximum allowed for a bio on X, meaning she could fit pronouns on that account.

Similarly, she could’ve continued keeping the pronouns on her personal account simply by shortening her bio. She only needs to remove seven letters from her bio to fit pronouns – and it’s not a tough bio to shorten. 

Many on the left accused Ocasio-Cortez of slowly moving away from wokeism and trying to join the party’s centrist establishment to retain her influence.

We really couldn’t blame her. In a few years, her entire X profile could be used as an historic artefact to show how deeply embedded those on the left where to an absurd ideology.

AOC likely knows this, and she’s quietly getting ahead before her political career ends up in ruins.

We’ll soon find out.

Read More at the Daily Fetched

Michigan Democrats Look to Remove Competence Exam Requirement to Become a Social Worker
News

Michigan Democrats Look to Remove Competence Exam Requirement to Become a Social Worker

/

Proposed legislation sponsored by Democratic House legislators seeks to remove the competence examination requirement to become a licensed social worker. If passed, Michigan House Bills 5184 and 5185 would amend the Public Health Code to eliminate the exam requirement for social workers at all license levels. Both bills were passed Thursday by the House Subcommittee on Behavioral Health.

Opponents say such a drastic change would place Michigan outside the standards observed by nearly every other state in the nation. Michigan officially passed the social work licensing law in 2004, becoming the 50th, and final, state to create a path to licensure. “Sacrificing standards and quality to increase quantity is not what vulnerable individuals in Michigan need or deserve,” according to the authors of Protect Public Health and Safety in Michigan: Reject The Social Work Licensure Modernization Act. “These ‘problematic barriers’ are safeguards and controls to decrease the likelihood of doing harm or re-traumatizing individuals, and to promote public health and safety.”

In order to become fully licensed, individuals with a degree in social work from an accredited university must take and pass a social work licensure exam. In Michigan, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs oversees the licensure and regulation of social workers. A critical part of the licensure process is the requirement to pass an objective, standardized exam. “Like other licensed professionals — doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers or barbers — social workers must demonstrate knowledge and skills to ensure they can deliver quality services. Anything less puts the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities at risk.”

Read the Full Story at The Midwesterner

Investigation Finds Harris Campaign Paid Oprah Twice as Much than Initially Reported
News

Investigation Finds Harris Campaign Paid Oprah Twice as Much than Initially Reported

/

Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign spending was much more extravagant than initially reported. New details emerged that Oprah Winfrey was paid more than double the amount for her single town hall event.

Last week it was reported that Oprah’s production company, Harpo Productions, denied being paid a $1 million fee despite records from Federal Election Commission filings.

Oprah herself was also confronted by a reporter about the fee paid by the Harris campaign.

“Not true,” Oprah quipped when confronted by the reporter.

“I was paid nothing, ever.”

Watch:

However, not only was Oprah paid a fee, but it’s now reported to have been doubled.

According to the New York Times, Winfrey’s company was paid approximately $2.5 million for a single town hall event, far exceeding the $1 million figure.

Oprah defended the payment, arguing that the funds covered production costs, including “set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers and every other item necessary.”

However, his high-profile endorsements made little difference as Donald Trump took victory in a historic defeat against Harris.

As The Daily Mail reported, the campaign even allocated $900,000 for advertising space on Las Vegas’ Sphere in the final week of the election alone.

In October, the campaign also spent $2.6 million on private jet travel while touring battleground states.

The Harris campaign also spent $15,000 in food delivery services and $9,000 at premium ice cream establishments

The spending rates eventually left the Harris campaign in a $20 million debt despite having access to a $1.6 billion campaign budget.

In contrast to Harris’s costly approach, the Trump campaign used more cost-effective methods, gaining significant exposure through free podcast appearances.

Read More at The Daily Fetched

Adam Schiff Fears Trump Will Use Military Against Him the Moment He Sets Foot in White House
News

Adam Schiff Fears Trump Will Use Military Against Him the Moment He Sets Foot in White House

/

Russian collusion hoaxer and serial liar Adam Schiff is worried that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to use the military against him after he is inaugurated in January next year.

Schiff was recently interviewed on CNN with Jake Tapper about Trump’s comments concerning the radical left.

“I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said recently. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they’re the and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary, by the military because they can’t let that happen.”

Tapper asked Schiff of the comments; “Do you think that he was talking about using the military against you, and how concerned are you about retribution?”

Schiff replied: “Clearly, that’s what he was talking about. Would he go to that link with the military and essentially fulfill some kind of an unconstitutional order? I would hope the military would have more independence than that.”

“Historically, the military has stood up to civilian authority where civilian authority has suggested, as in his first administration, unconstitutional acts. Um, look, I’m not going to be intimidated by anything he says by anything he does. If I was, I wouldn’t be on your show,” he added.

“I’m going to do my responsibility in the Senate. Californians are expecting me, first and foremost, to try to work and get things done, work across the aisle where the president wants to fight prices,” Schiff continued.

“I will work with him. Where the president wants to engage in unconstitutional abuses of power, just as he did in the first administration, I will defend our state. I will defend the rights and freedom of the American people.”

“So, yeah, that’s what he said. That’s what he may try to do. But I’m not going to be intimidated.

Watch:

Read More at The Daily Fetched

Whoopi Goldberg Promises to Withhold Relations; American Men Rejoice
Whoopi Goldberg speaks about her bookk, "Bits and Pieces," with Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden during a special presentation, May 10, 2024. Photo by Shawn Miller/Library of Congress. Note: Privacy and publicity rights for individuals depicted may apply.
News

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:

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

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.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Deletes Her X/Twitter Account Following Post-Election Meltdowns
News

MSNBC’s Joy Reid Deletes Her X/Twitter Account Following Post-Election Meltdowns

/

MSNBC host Joy Reid announced her departure from X, formerly known as Twitter, by posting a video on social media in which she detailed her decision to delete her account.

Reid, who had 1.9 million followers on the platform, cited her lack of recent activity and ownership concerns as reasons for leaving the platform, which is now under Elon Musk’s control.

“Today, I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for a while,” Reid stated, showing screenshots of the account deletion process. “The reason for doing it and kissing goodbye my 1.9 million followers over there is because I haven’t been posting for a long time. I just didn’t want to contribute content once it was purchased by its present owner.”

Reid went on to say that she had initially kept the account to prevent someone else from taking her username and “using it for nefarious purposes.”

Her exit from X sparked questions about potential future issues, given that she had previously faced controversy over past blog posts on her personal blog, which contained allegedly antisemitic and homophobic content.

At the time, Reid claimed her blog was hacked, an investigation that reportedly did not yield a definitive culprit.

The move to delete her account comes just days after former Fox News host Megyn Kelly speculated that MSNBC might consider letting Reid go.

In her podcast, Kelly stated that “MSNBC is allowing her [Reid] to spew this racist hate on their channel,” adding, “It’s a tick-tock situation until her a– is fired.”

Kelly’s remarks follow Reid’s recent controversial commentary, where she suggested that Black and Hispanic Trump voters were “identifying with whiteness” by supporting the former president.

Ratings for MSNBC have shown a notable decline since Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

Since Election Day, the network has experienced a 53% drop in prime-time viewership, while Fox News has reported a 21% increase in prime-time viewership.

Read More at LifeZette

FEC Chairman Accuses DOJ Of Breaking Federal Policies With Letter To Elon Musk
News

FEC Chairman Accuses DOJ Of Breaking Federal Policies With Letter To Elon Musk

/

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Sean Cooksey has publicly criticized the Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging that it violated federal policies by targeting Elon Musk’s pro-Trump political action committee (PAC) just weeks before the 2024 presidential election.

Cooksey accused the DOJ of attempting to “intimidate and chill private citizens and organizations from campaigning on behalf of President Trump” and urged DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to launch an investigation into the matter.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Horowitz and the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Cooksey expressed concerns over the DOJ’s actions, specifically a letter the department had issued to Musk’s political committee, America PAC.

The DOJ letter, first reported by The New York Times, warned that a $1 million giveaway Musk’s PAC offered to individuals signing a petition supporting constitutional freedom could potentially violate federal election laws.

Cooksey’s letter to Horowitz marks the FEC’s official response, and he argued that the DOJ’s actions were intended to sway the election outcome by targeting perceived political opponents.

Cooksey called on the DOJ to “hold accountable any individuals responsible for any violations of federal law or department policies.”

The FEC chairman also likened the DOJ’s warning letter to past politically charged actions, comparing it specifically to the Watergate scandal of 1972. “The underlying motivation behind this stunt is obvious,” Cooksey said. “Employees of President Biden’s Department of Justice wanted to stop an independent political committee from campaigning for President Trump in crucial swing states just prior to election day.”

The DOJ’s letter to Musk’s America PAC raised questions about whether the $1 million incentive could be seen as improperly influencing voter actions, despite Musk’s defense that participants were not required to register as Republicans or vote in the November 5 election.

Nevertheless, the DOJ’s letter quickly gained media attention, with some Democratic figures criticizing Musk’s actions as undermining democratic processes.

Cooksey also alleged that the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section had violated the department’s own policies by leaking the letter to The New York Times.

According to Cooksey, this move contravened established DOJ media guidelines, which discourage public disclosures regarding uncharged individuals or prejudicial information in ongoing matters. “Writing such a letter and then leaking it also violates the department’s long-standing policy against the identification of uncharged parties and the disclosure of prejudicial information,” Cooksey stated.

Cooksey’s comments reflect an ongoing tension between Musk and certain political and governmental figures. Musk, a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates, notably endorsed Trump after an assassination attempt on the president-elect in July.

Following the endorsement, Trump named Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, part of Trump’s incoming administration.

President-elect Trump praised Musk and Ramaswamy, stating, “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies – Essential to the ‘Save America’ Movement.”

The FEC’s criticism of the DOJ is expected to draw attention to questions about the department’s role in political processes and its handling of election-related activities.

With investigations potentially on the horizon, the episode underscores ongoing scrutiny over governmental transparency and accountability as the Trump administration prepares for its next term.

Read More at RVM News

Far-Left Race Baiting Publication Thinks Trump Is Bringing Slavery Back
News

Far-Left Race Baiting Publication Thinks Trump Is Bringing Slavery Back

/

You knew it was coming. 

“The Root” is a radical leftist magazine by and for blacks. But it’s not like black magazines from the mainstream, like Jet or Ebony. It’s as woke as woke can get. For the staff of The Root, there is no such thing as a morally honorable white person, and there is no such thing as a white person who is not racist. 

You are already picture the exact kind of ideological drivel they peddle.

Though they would never say it candidly and would scream and protest if someone pushed them on it, the magazine thinks white people are born devils. Call it WDS-”White Derangement Syndrome.” They especially hate competent conservative white women such as former Fox News journalist-turned-podcaster Megyn Kelly: 

“Karen,” when used by radical black activists, means “white woman we don’t like.” Why don’t they like Megyn Kelly? Because Kelly recognizes that nightly MSNBC ranter in chief Joy Reid is a narcissistic, dishonest blowhard who can’t seem to figure out who she is judging by the parade of wigs featured weekly on her show. Just take a look at one of them….

That’s enough. 

So, what’s The Root on about today? The return of slavery under Donald Trump!

Yes. Really.

They write:

“It’s a question Black Americans have been asking for a while, and now that former President Donald Trump has won back the Oval Office, it’s on everyone’s mind: Can slavery make an official comeback?”

Notice carefully: official comeback. This is an actual “dog whistle,” a coded bit of language that signals to radical black readers, “Slavery is still happening in America, we just don’t call it slavery for some reason.”

Here’s more:

“Reflexively, the answer to this seemingly crazy question should be “hell no,” but if you take just five minutes to Google it, you’d be surprised to know we’re not too far from that reality. In 2022, slavery was on the ballot in five states, according to AP News. Talk show host and author Tavis Smiley expressed growing fears of slavery right before the 2016 election. Going back to the 13th Amendment, legal loopholes still allow for slavery today.”

Wow. The Associated Press? It must be true. But is it? When you click on the link, you find out otherwise (emphasis added):

“More than 150 years after slaves were freed in the U.S., voters in five states will soon decide whether to close loopholes that led to the proliferation of a different form of slavery — forced labor by people convicted of certain crimes.”

That’s right. The practice of forcing convicted criminals to do hard labor is now “slavery.” And what’s more, Donald Trump is gonna bring it back. Therefore, Trump is bringing back slavery in the minds of The Root.

I’d say this kind of reasoning is “unbelievable,” but really, is anything unbelievable from the radical identity politics left? 

Let’s see what X/Twitter users had to say on The Root’s thread about the article. 

SNL’s Chloe Fineman Says Elon Musk Made Her Cry In Since-Deleted TikTok
News

SNL’s Chloe Fineman Says Elon Musk Made Her Cry In Since-Deleted TikTok

/

Saturday Night Live (SNL) star Chloe Fineman slammed Elon Musk in a since-deleted TikTok video, accusing the billionaire businessman of making her cry.

Fineman’s video came amid Musk’s criticism of the show in which he was parodied last week The skit saw Dana Carvey appear as the Tesla owner and supporter of Donald Trump – a clip which prompted Musk to say SNL had been “dying slowly.”

In response to Musk’s backlash, Fineman said she had seen “some news article about Elon Musk being butt hurt about ‘SNL’ and his impression” on the show. Referring to the X owner’s criticism, Fineman added, “I’m like, ‘You’re clearly watching the show. Like, what are you talking about?’”

Musk hosted the show in May 2021, and Fineman accused him of being the “awful” SNL host who made “multiple cast members cry”.

“And I’m like, you know what? I’m gonna come out and say at long last that I’m the cast member that he made cry. And he’s the host that made someone cry. Maybe there’s others,” Fineman continued. “But I’m like, no, if you’re gonna go on your platform and be rude, like, guess what? You made I, Chloe Fineman, burst into tears because I stayed up all night writing the sketch.”

Musk was reportedly unimpressed with Fineman’s sketch at the time, although it would later make it to the airwaves.

Musk has since weighed in to state that he didn’t find any of the sketches he read funny.

Needless to say, her attempts for sympathy were dismissed on social media.

Others said they had little time for Fineman’s complaints.

And Elon didn’t have any to offer her either.


Scroll to Top