Trump’s Iowa landslide sees him win 98 out of 99 counties in drubbing that leaves rivals DeSantis and Haley trailing: So what does this mean for next week’s New Hampshire primary?
See PJ-MEDIA’s post titled: “Nikki Haley Is the Candidate Who Lost Iowa”
Another interesting note is the following CNN poll:
Here is some excellent commentary on IOWA and the upcoming New Hampshire Caucus.
Tucker Carlson (EP.65) –What The Results In Iowa Mean
Jesse Watters | Iowa hit a nerve with the press so beware- mass censorship is next. And the censorship campaign is only one leg of the stool: the deep state disinformation campaign’s already begun. The third leg of the stool? Obama’s going to make it rain.
Jesse Watters: “Derek Chauvin was shivved 22 times in the library by another inmate, and now we know who the other inmate was. His name is John Turscak… Turscak is also a member of the Mexican mafia and are you ready? An FBI informant.”
“Now things may be changing thanks to the left’s Great Satan, Elon Musk creating community notes. A kid’s life won’t be destroyed. See, Musk created a way to prevent small false smears from taking root. He disabled the one weapon that the left so desperately embraced. Taking something out of context, sharing it with like minded creeps and letting it spread. Musk killed that. No wonder they hate his guts. They should.”
I tried to post this video on Facebook, and it will not allow it — in comments or on a wall. In other words, Facebook is banning a Native-American from dressing and representing his ancestors. They are doing it either to say this is cultural appropriation, and so, Facebook is acting like a SAVIORof people’s [possible hurt] feelings. Or they are the arbiters of what a Native-American can do publicly. They are the judge in saying an American Indian cannot dress like their ancestors at a football game, but they will allow videos from a dance on a reservation.
[Mmm. Maybe Facebook is trying to minimize their exposure to a defamation lawsuit by the kid?]
‘Outnumbered’ panel discuss a young Chiefs fan attacked for dressing in support of his team
Bubba Armenta and his son Holden join ‘Jesse Watters Primetime’ to discuss a Deadspin reporter smearing the 9-year-old as racist for wearing a Native headdress and ‘blackface’ to a Kansas City Chiefs game.
BONUS!
Essentially, CNN Is Years Behind FOX NEWS’ Reporting
OOPS! CNN sent a reporter to the border, accidentally proved Trump was RIGHT all along after reporter left in SHOCK over open-border:
Jesse Watters: The Democrats Are Laughing At The Republicans Now
“Matt Gaetz doesn’t want to be speaker and he has no idea who else should be speaker. He just knows Kevin McCarthy shouldn’t be speaker.”
This is going to be a post that doesn’t completely side fully with one side of the GOP aisle or the other. I am going to present some articles and media that I have seen in this short period since House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was vacated. Again, I am not fully committed to one side as I sympathize with arguments from both sides of the GOP aisle.
What are my thoughts at the outset? Well, while I sympathize with Gaetz’s qualms with McCarthy breaking his promise on the bills coming to the floor, and some other issues. BUT! Was right now the best time to remove him? I say no. The bill that most upset Gaetz was one that would have cut spending in government by 8%, with substantial increases in border security. Some say this is a reducing of the size of government, however, I view reduction of government as striking regulation or the closing of Federal Departments… something many past Republican’s promised, but never happens.
Until Trump’s “if you pass regulation you have to strike two.”
Here I am thinking of a quote by Thomas Sowell speaking of government/political debates (to the right – click to watch short video). YES, we need to get our fiscal house in order — something I say is impossible, especially with the coming de-dollarization. Even with that last statement, do you throw all economic soundness to the wind? No, you reign in government.
I think Gaetz ruined quite a few avenues… even if Jim Jordan gets the Speakership — can he be as ecumenical as McCarthy? I don’t know. And I love Rep. Jordan!
I may be wrong, as often in the case in politics, the best case scenario could come from this. However, as a friend roughly noted on my Facebook, “Gaetz is a douchebag attention whore with no answers.”Here is an excellent interview I heard this morning:
Rep. Mike Lawler On Matt Gaetz And His Recent Actions The House Republican Majority
(BTW, the news that McCarthy would not seek the position again… he may stick with this, but Hugh Hewitt seemed not to be privy to this bit of information.)
After sharing this story from RED STATE with my boys, a bit of conversation ensued:
…. But, from where I sit, if anything were to blow back on Gaetz, it would be the fact that he cozied up with Democrats to remove a Republican. He did more than simply engage in some bipartisanship; he actively collaborated with Democrats to remove McCarthy knowing he would never get enough support from Republicans to accomplish this feat. Regardless of how one feels about McCarthy, this is sure to leave a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
Now, let’s put the shoe on the other foot.
It is also possible that Gaetz’s unholy alliance with Team Blue might not matter as much as it seems. Among those who do not hold McCarthy in high regard, this pragmatic, even Machiavellian, move might just boost Gaetz’s popularity with the base, many of whom are disenchanted with the GOP. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Republican lawmakers voted against the motion might further solidify their dissatisfaction with the GOP. If they view McCarthy as ineffective, then how will they view those who voted to keep him in his position?
However, those who might feel this way likely do not represent most Republican voters. When McCarthy was first installed as speaker, an Economist/YouGov poll showed that 59 percent of Republicans approved of him while only 21 percent disapproved. …..
Here are the texts between myself and my oldest. (Left to right, click to enlarge)
And according to Gaetz, who now are RINO? (Republican in Name Only). When a majority of Trump supporters backed McCarthy, even those that initially challenged McCarthy’s original Speakership:
So… the bomb has been dropped by “Baby Gaetz,” let’s let the chips fall over the next couple of weeks and maybe revisit the topic then. But let’s not forget until then the damage the GOP need to overcome — PJ-MEDIA:
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) successfully led a coup against now-former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday. He managed to eke out a “win” by rallying the entire Democratic caucus and eight Republicans to oust him. It’s the first time that has happened in U.S. history.
And it’s a total clown show.
Not only does it distract from the already tense budget negotiations, but it makes a laughingstock of the GOP—and the U.S.—and gives Democrats even more leverage to push through their radical policies.
Gaetz got a win, but at what cost? Sure, he’ll raise a lot of campaign money from this—he’s already sending out emails and asking for money on Fox News— but is there a plan going forward? Of course not. The two congressmen whose names have been bandied about as potential House speakers—Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Steve Scalise (La.)—both spoke on behalf of McCarthy ahead of the vote and then voted to keep him as speaker. McCarthy announced tonight that he will not seek reelection as speaker. Gaetz stated emphatically that he doesn’t want the job. At publishing time, Scalise had sort of thrown his hat into the ring, and some are floating Trump as the next speaker, but none of that will be sorted out quickly.
House Democrats and Republicans have been at a stalemate over budget negotiations. The continuing resolution will expire on Nov. 17. There will be another showdown and possible shutdown as the country races toward the proverbial fiscal cliff. Instead of working on that problem, Republicans will be squabbling over the speakership. How does that help the country?
Gaetz, whether intentionally or ignorantly, overplayed his hand. He’s being celebrated in some circles as the brave defender of all that’s good, but not everyone is on board.
Asked about former president Trump’s support for his plan to oust McCarthy—whom Trump had endorsed and supported throughout his tenure—Gaetz equivocated and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
Trump took to Truth Social to berate Republicans for their disunity, writing, “Why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves, why aren’t they fighting the Radical Left Democrats who are destroying our Country?
Hardly a ringing endorsement of Gaetz’s strategy (if he even had one)……
So, this coming Tuesday [next week, October 10th] we will see Congress meet again to start the process of choosing another Speaker. Hugh Hewitt asks Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI),
Generally speaking, it is widely believed that social media is free to censor people as they see fit. We believe there might be some legal arguments that can be made against that, but that is a common belief. ‘They’re just private companies making their own decisions’ is the argument offered by people defending this censorship. For instance, here’s uber-weenie David French making that argument:
This is just shamelessly wrong. A private political campaign is not the government. A political party is not the government. A private company is not the government. This isn’t a “systematic violation of the First Amendment.” The First Amendment isn’t implicated at all. https://t.co/V0iDkkFe8s
We have suspected for years that this was French just running interference, and that, in fact, he likes Internet censorship. Recently, he confirmed our suspicions:
Antisemitism speech is free speech, however vile it can be. So French is upset that Twitter/X is allowing for free speech. We would rather have people feel free to say vile things then have someone decide what kind of speech is allowed.
But the other retort to the French view is presented in Missouri v. Biden, because the argument in that case is that the social media companies were not simply acting on their own. Private action can become government action, under the right circumstances—the most obvious being when the government coerces the private action. The lower court found that various social media companies—like Twitter/X, Meta/Facebook and Google/YouTube were—were not censoring based on their own desires, but because of illegal government pressure. As a result, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting a broad range of communication by the government, and it applied nationwide. If you have been on social media since then, this order protected your right to free speech.
The Biden administration appealed and tonight they largely lost. The Fifth Circuit largely upheld that order, explaining that this was the standard for when private action became state action.
The government cannot abridge free speech. U.S. Const. amend. I. A private party, on the other hand, bears no such burden—it is ‘not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment.’ Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019). That changes, though, when a private party is coerced or significantly encouraged by the government to such a degree that its ‘choice’—which if made by the government would be unconstitutional, Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465 (1973)—’must in law be deemed to be that of the State.’ Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); Barnes v. Lehman, 861 F.2d 1383, 1385–36 (5th Cir. 1988). This is known as the close nexus test.
They also found that the Plaintiffs, including many doctors, state officials and even the Gateway Pundit had met the requirement that there be a sufficient threat of irreparable harm:
We agree that the Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to suffer an irreparable injury. Deprivation of First Amendment rights, even for a short period, is sufficient to establish irreparable injury.
So, they largely upheld the lower court’s order. They did tighten up the list of officials being enjoined and they clarified the language so it clearly prevented both coercion and ‘significant encouragement’ as the law prohibits. This means that the Biden administration can ask nicely for censorship but can’t engage in the kind of pressure campaigns it has in the past…..
LEGAL INSURRECTION has this perfectly times story to throw in the face of the world Western “do-gooders.”
A new study from Europe suggests those paper straws may contain “forever chemicals” that are harmful to both humans and the environment and were observed more often than in a sample of plastic straws.
Belgian researchers tested 39 straw brands from restaurants and retailers for synthetic chemicals known as poly and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The study found that the majority of straws contained those chemicals, but they were most common in those made from paper and bamboo.
The chemicals are referred to as “forever chemicals” as they can remain for thousands of years in the environment. The chemicals have been associated with health issues including thyroid disease, increased cholesterol, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer and can harm the environment as well.
Of the brands tested, 90% of the paper straws contained PFAS, compared to 80% of bamboo straws, 75% of plastic straws and 40% of glass straws. None of the steel straws contained the chemicals.
I had a perfectly lovely “Lava Flow” cocktail ruined by a paper straw that disintegrated on me during my last vacation. I, for one, will encourage a return to sanity and plastic straws.
Next, a new study suggests substituting single-use plastic cups with their paper counterparts is not the environmentally friendly solution that was once believed.
Findings from the University of Gothenburg published in Environmental Pollution reveal that paper cups, once discarded in the environment, can cause harm due to toxic chemicals. In their study, researchers examined the impact of disposable cups crafted from various materials on butterfly mosquito larvae, discovering that paper and plastic cups exhibited comparable levels of toxic damage.
…The researchers explained that paper used in food packaging lacks resistance to fats and water, requiring the application of a surface coating to enhance its performance. This coating, typically made of plastic material, safeguards the paper from contact with substances like coffee.
In contemporary packaging, this plastic film is frequently composed of a bioplastic known as polylactide (PLA). Unlike conventional plastics derived from fossil fuels, bioplastics like PLA are sourced from renewable materials, such as corn, cassava, or sugarcane. While PLA is often considered biodegradable, indicating its ability to break down more rapidly than traditional oil-based plastics under specific conditions, recent research suggests that it can still possess toxic properties.
“Bioplastics do not break down effectively when they end up in the environment, in water. There may be a risk that the plastic remains in nature, and resulting microplastics can be ingested by animals and humans, just as other plastics do. Bioplastics contain at least as many chemicals as conventional plastic,” said lead researcher Bethanie Carney Almroth, professor of Environmental Science at the Department of Biology and Environmental Science at the University of Gothenburg.
Personally, I find plastics greatly contribute to my quality of life. I am very skeptical of the dangers associated with “microplastics,” especially when such analysis fails to consider the benefits of plastic…..
…Scientists and environmental advocates expressed alarm about this tsunami of waste from the jump. They foresaw the dire ecological ramifications of our mask waste — especially once those masks made their inevitable way into the earth’s waterways. Elastic loops pose entanglement hazards for turtles, birds, and other animals. Fish could eat the plastic-fiber ribbons that unfurl from a discarded mask’s body. Then, there is the untold menace to human health that would likely present, at the microscopic level, once masks began to disintegrate.
Now, two years into the pandemic, governments have had ample time to grapple with this serious conundrum: How do we keep people safe from a highly communicable pathogen without unleashing an environmental catastrophe? But instead of heeding the chorus of expert warnings and pouring money into biodegradable and reusable alternatives, world leaders have ignored the problem. And once the immediate public-health emergency superseded ecological concerns — the heads of Big Plastic made sure it stayed that way.
“The plastics industry saw COVID as an opportunity,” John Hocevar, the oceans campaign director at Greenpeace USA, told me from his office in Washington, D.C. “They worked hard to convince policymakers and the general public that reusables were dirty and dangerous, and that single-use plastic is necessary to keep us safe.”
Stateside, Big Plastic’s PR campaign may have hit its apex in July 2020, when the president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association testified before Congress to argue that single-use plastic was a pandemic health necessity, stating that “plastic saves lives.”
The fear-mongering worked. The global consumption of single-use plastics has increased by up to 300% since the pandemic began, according to a 2021 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report. The plastic industry’s canny COVID strategy also provided a plausible cover for government inertia in funding sustainable solutions to disposable masks.
[….]
The need to address the growing pile of discarded masks has only grown over the course of the pandemic. A December 2021 study reported a 9,000% rise in mask litter in the UK during the first seven months of the pandemic. And as more transmissible variants like Delta and Omicron led public-health officials to promote the use of heavy-duty disposable masks and respirators like KN95s and nonsurgical N95s — instead of the less-protective reusable cloth models that were encouraged earlier in the outbreak — it is clear that companies will be cranking out disposable masks for months to come.
As we enter our third year of COVID-19, research not only supports environmentalists’ early fears surrounding mask pollution in waterways but has introduced new concerns. Sarper Sarp, a professor of chemical engineering at Swansea University in Wales, led a contamination study that tested nine readily available single-use masks. After submerging the masks in water and letting them sit, Sarp and his team discovered both micro- and nanoplastic particles released from every single one. The leachate from those masks — that is, the particles they emitted into fluid — amounted to a sort of toxic tea.
The masks were also found to expel nanoparticles of silicon and heavy metals like lead, cadmium, copper, and even arsenic. Sarp says that he was astonished by what he and the team found after a relatively brief period of submersion, and by the quantity of particles released by each mask. The masks released hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of toxic particles — particles that can potentially disrupt entire marine food chains and contaminate drinking water.
The presence of silicon nanoparticles was of particular concern. Silicon is a common material in healthcare products, easy to sterilize and maintain. “But when it comes to nano size,” said Sarp, “it’s a whole different story.”
Microplastic particles are shed by all sorts of single-use plastics, from water bottles to grocery bags. While hardly ideal for marine ecosystems, Sarp explains that these particles can be filtered to a significant extent by our digestive systems and lungs. But nanoparticles — of plastic, silicon, or other materials — are so minute in size that they can breach cell walls and damage DNA, affecting both human and nonhuman life-forms at the cellular level. Recent research on silicon nanoparticles, in particular, has shown that if a particle is very small in nano scale, it can act almost as a tiny, carcinogenic bomb. Multiply that by a minimum of several hundred per mask, at a rate of 50,000 masks disposed per second, and the scope of the dilemma grows vivid.
“I think this is a bit of an urgent situation, as both a scientist and as an environmental expert,” Sarp said….
On my Facebook I linked a story from LIFE SITE quoting a DAILY MAIL article about harmful chemicals from masks worn to “combat” covid.
Here is the gist of my Facebook post:
New study finds extended use of ‘best’ COVID masks may cause cancer, liver damage
South Korean researchers found that KFAD and KF94 disposable masks, South Korea’s equivalent of N95 masks made out of the same material, release eight times the EPA’s recommended safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds.
As some institutions in the United States begin to reimpose COVID-19 mask mandates, a new study suggests that the types of masks billed as most effective may actually contain dangerous and potentially even cancer-inducing chemicals.
The Daily Mailreports that according to a study by researchers from South Korea’s Jeonbuk National University, published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) website, KFAD and KF94 disposable masks release eight times the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recommended safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOCs).
It was immediately “fact-checked“, and this is the reason for this post.
The study also wasn’t published by the NIH, but by a scientific journal unaffiliated with the NIH.
[….]
In the wake of this news, a Daily Mail article published on 27 August 2023 claimed that a “mask study published by NIH suggests N95 Covid masks may expose wearers to dangerous level of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer”.
[….]
Finally, the study was published in the journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, not by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), as the Mail claimed. The journal is part of the MEDLINE database, which is maintained by the U.S. Library of Medicine. That the study is made available on the NIH website doesn’t mean the NIH published it, just as a book being part of a lending library’s collection doesn’t mean it’s published by the library.
Firstly, all the articles I have seen clearly state the NIH wasn’t the author of the study, but merely shared it. Here is this portion of the “fact-check”
But a study quietly re-shared by the National Institutes of Health in spring
[….]
The study was published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the NIH’s website.
[….]
The NIH said: ‘Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.’
N o w h e r ein the Daily Mail article do they say the NIH was the origin of the study, nor did they even hint at it. Everything the “fact check” said the Daily Mail article said. On to the next part. No matter the link you post on Facebook, you get the same dumb “check”:
But a study quietly re-shared by the National Institutes of Health in spring [….] The study was published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the NIH’s website, but the NIH pointed out that didn’t mean they accepted its conclusions: The NIH said: “Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.” — RED STATE
…published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) website [….] The NIH website contains a disclaimer that it does not necessarily endorse studies it publishes… —LIFE SITE
So the “fact-check” misses the truth embedded in all these articles.
Another point they note is this regarding the study the “check” says:
While KF94 and N95 masks are considered to be functionally comparable, it’s important to note that the study’s results suggest that VOC levels differ depending on the material used to make the mask. Based on the study’s Table 5, the KF94 masks tested in the study were composed primarily of polypropylene and polyurethane nylon. Most N95 masks use polypropylene, according to Meedan’s Health Desk. The study didn’t test any N95 mask, so it doesn’t offer data about N95 masks that allows us to objectively compare VOC levels between N95 and KF94 masks.
What is laughable is that the “check” acts like this is a big difference. That is between the materials used in KF94 (polypropylene and polyurethane nylon) and the N95 (polypropylene). NEW YORK MAGAZINEbelow that both “are made of the same synthetic material and [also] filter out and capture 95 percent of particles in the air”. And REUTERSalso likewise says, “[t]hese masks and their international counterparts known as KN95s and KF94s are often made of multiple layers of polypropylene, a synthetic fiber.”
KF94
N95
They are essentially the same exact mask, one has an extra layer, almost like a second mask, across the front. It is disingenuous for this “fact check” to say “we don’t know because this exact mask “model number” wasn’t tested.
At any rate, the conclusion of study everyone is talking about has this… I will emphasize the part that caught my eye:
As the number of problems that require mask wearing (including air pollution and COVID-19) grows, masks are increasingly important. Now that masks are all but required, the harmful chemicals that can be released from them must be evaluated. In this study, VOCs generated from various types of masks, including commonly used KF94 disposable masks, were assessed. The types and concentrations of VOCs that humans are likely to be exposed to from these masks under various conditions (i.e., emission time, temperature, and mask types) were calculated and compared. This study demonstrated that disposable masks (KF94) released higher concentrations of TVOCs in comparison to cotton masks, with values of 3730 ± 1331 µg m–3 for KF94 and 268 ± 51.6 µg m–3 for cotton masks. The concentrations of TVOCs in KF94 masks are high enough to pose a concern based on indoor air quality guidelines established by the German Federal Environment Agency. However, when KF94 masks were opened and left undisturbed for 30 min at room temperature, TVOC concentrations significantly decreased to 724 ± 5.86 µg m–3 (a 78.2 ± 9.45% reduction from levels measured immediately upon opening). It is clear that particular attention must be paid to the VOCs associated with the use of KF94 masks their effects on human health. Based on our findings, we suggest that prior to wearing a KF94 mask, each product should be opened and not worn for at least 30 min, thereby reducing TVOC concentrations to levels that will not impair human health.
FLASHBACK | Old Posts
August 2nd, 2018
In light of the moonbat jihad against drinking straws (see here, here, and here) having reached the point that providing customers with straws is now punishable with jail time in Santa Barbara, see if you can guess whether this is a legitimate story or fake news from the Babylon Bee…. (MOONBATTERY)
MOONBATTERY has more on the origin of this “500-million” number:
You may have heard that Starbucks — ever at the vanguard of moonbattery — has proclaimed that it will eliminate all single-use plastic straws by 2020. You may also have heard that the lids it will use that allow drinking without a straw require more plastic than if they just stuck with the straws. You may be aware that the liberal jihad against plastic straws is reaching critical mass:
In July, Seattle imposed America’s first ban on plastic straws. Vancouver, British Columbia, passed a similar ban a few months earlier. There are active attempts to prohibit straws in New York City, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco. A-list celebrities from Calvin Harris to Tom Brady have lectured us on giving up straws. Both National Geographic and The Atlantic have run long profiles on the history and environmental effects of the straw. Viceis now treating their consumption as a dirty, hedonistic excess.
It began with a 9-year-old boy named Milo Cress and his 2011 campaign, “Be Straw Free,” which launched to raise awareness about plastic waste.
His big finding? Americans use more than 500 million drinking straws daily, enough to fill 125 school buses. That figure has become highly touted since, referenced in straw ban coverage from The New York Times and National Geographic to reports from the National Park Service (and USA TODAY).
Young Milo came up with the outlandishly improbable 500 million straws per day stat himself. Adult moonbats ran with it…..
August 26, 2018
I combine two different segments of John and Ken discussing California’s #FakeNews regarding straws and the environment. (The first segment is from Thursday’s show, the second is from Wednesday’s show [starts at the 7:15 mark]) Some funny and frustrating stuff.
FLASHBACK… w/update:
During the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Lil Pump endorsed Trump and was even brought on stage by Trump at his rally in Michigan. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
Throwback to one of the best moments of the 2020 campaign:
Just two commentaries I enjoyed and wanted to share.
Nauseating Woke Lectures Are Masquerading As Ads: Gutfeld
Gutfeld mentions Gillette (see my past posts on that topic HERE and HERE)… to wit I use Jeremy’s Razors now. I have tried both the 6-blade and the 5-blade versions. I suggest the 6-blade for face people (it is a unique design that stays sharp)… I like the 5-blade because I shave my head as well as my face (less space between the blades for the bumpy head.
“So how did this happen? Well, all these nauseating lectures are now masquerading as ads, are the colleges churning out too many useless women’s study grads, so they end up in companies demanding tampons in men’s rooms and jockstraps in the women’s? Hmm. They view buyers as insects: stupid, gross, easily manipulated, someone to be punished, not celebrated.”
TRANS Sports Illustrated Model? Kim Petras Cover | Pseudo-Intellectual with Lauren Chen | 5/17/23 (Video: BLAZETV)
Woke Sports Illustrated Gets SLAMMED For Putting Transgender Model On Cover Of Swimsuit Edition (Video: SPORTS WARS)
Sports Illustrated DESTROYED For Using Trans Woman On Cover Of Swimsuit Edition! (Video: THE QUARTERING)
Watters: Elon Musk Speaks For All Of Us
“Now, everybody won’t be able to make enough money to speak freely. Okay, I accept that. So, we need to take the mob out, get our voices back and Elon speaks for all of us”
This week the left is trying to cancel Elon Musk for anti-semitism. In a tweet, Musk compared George Soros to supervillain Magneto. Apparently, this isn’t allowed because Soros is a Holocaust survivor.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, joins ‘The Evening Edit’ to discuss the ‘hard deadline’ he has given the IRS to turn over documents and communications pertaining to ‘Twitter Files’ journalist Matt Taibbi.
‘The Five’ co-hosts react to Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi’s ‘unannounced’ timed run-in with the IRS just before his testimony before Congress.
