Some people, most famously Sir Mix-A-Lot and Lt. Vincent Hanna from Heat (played by Al Pacino) like their women with callipygian butts, while others like our friends at Flappr, prefer women with huge tracts of land. Me, I prefer the happy medium: a gal with a nice rack and a decent butt – everything in moderation, and nothing to excess. Like, for example, this young lady posted earlier this week by kbdabear an X. Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley et Hamas delendam sunt.
It’s two! Two!! TWO!!! awesome posts in one! Since it is the actual Columbus Day (as opposed to the fake & gay Federal Columbus Day on Monday) today we’ll not only celebrate the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus (and link to some excellent books on the topic, previously covered here) but also do the usual FMJRA stuff. Ceterum autem censeo Silicon Valley et Hamas delendam sunt.
Last week, MRC researchers found that Google buried US-based right-leaning news outlets on the 14th page of search results. It appears that the tech giant is still at it, as it continues to hide right-leaning outlets in the depths of search results.
On Oct. 8, MRC researchers once again used AllSides “right” and “left” bias classifications and found that Google search results for “kamala harris presidential race 2024” and “donald trump presidential race 2024” were stuffed with leftist, legacy media sources. The results featured outlets like CNN and The New York Times as well as publications of leftist billionaires like Jeff Bezos’s The Washington Post and Marc Benioff’s Time. When searching for the aforementioned Harris search prompt, researchers did not find any U.S.-based media outlets that AllSides rates as “lean-right” or “right” until Fox News appeared as the first result on page 11 of Google search results. Likewise, Google buried the first U.S.-based “lean right” or “right” result for the aforementioned Trump prompt as the sixth result on the 23rd page, as Google featured a Fox News video in this spot.
Google is running a Democratic Party propaganda operation, deliberately suppressing access to any information source that might contradict the preferred political narrative. Some stories — the ones most damaging to Democrats — are literally impossible to find using Google, and the only way anyone knows about these stories is because they go directly to the source (e.g., the UK Daily Mail, Gateway Pundit, etc.) or because they see it via social media. What does Google’s search-result suppression do? It divides the country into two groups — those who only know what Google wants them to know, and those who, for whatever reason, actively seek out alternative media sources. And this is a bad thing for democracy, because it breeds contempt and hostility between the two groups. Those who passively cooperate with this censorship regime (liberals, in general) look at the rest of us and think we’re a bunch of dangerous dimwits — “How can they possibly believe this stuff?” — while, at the same time, many on the right side of the digital divide become paranoid, or fall victim to genuinely dangerous peddlers of falsehood.
It’s the little boy who cried “wolf,” you see. When the self-appointed arbiters of truth — including Google — promote a one-sided narrative, and hurl accusations of “conspiracy theory” at anyone who disputes the narrative, why should anyone trust warnings about “misinformation” even if the warnings are valid? You can point to the “Russian collusion” hoax and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and if the thing you’re excited about now happens to be false, who can you trust to warn you against it? The media have forfeited their credibility, and the consequences are that we don’t know who to trust anymore.
Kamala Harris got caught using a teleprompter during Thursday night’s Univision town hall in Las Vegas.
Harris pandered to Latina voters by participating in a town hall hosted by Univision.
The internal polls for Harris must be horrific.
Of course, Kamala Harris had to use a teleprompter because she has no clue what she’s talking about.
Univision panicked after they realized they showed Kamala Harris’s teleprompter live on air. As soon as the camera panned behind Kamala Harris, the teleprompter went black.
? BREAKING: Univision accidentally broadcast proof that Kamala used a teleprompter at her town hall
Watch them panic when they realized they were showing the prompter live on-air pic.twitter.com/fiUFcfN2Kx
There clearly is a teleprompter in front of Kamala as she’s speaking, and the screen does go black shortly after it appears on camera. Univision claims that the words on the teleprompter were actually for the introduction by the host of the town hall, Enrique Acevedo.
However, if you listen to what Kamala was saying during that segment, it is word-for-word the same stump-speech line included in her TV ads about how, when she was a prosecutor in Californiam, she never asked the victim of crime if they were Republican or Democrat: “The only question I ever asked is, ‘Are you OK?'” So if she’s not reading a script off a teleprompted, why does she sound completely scripted? (Just incidentally, not to get off on a sidetrack, that’s a dumb line. A prosecutor’s job isn’t to give crime victims sympathy, it’s to get criminals convicted in court.) Another video clip from the same event shows an audience member simultaneously mouthing the same words Kamala was speaking (about how Trump “filed for bankruptcy six times”):
?KAMALA PLANT EXPOSED: How did a random audience member at Kamala’s town hall last night repeat her *exact* script lines in real time!?
Watch the woman on the LEFT closely…
How is this possible? Did the Kamala Campaign demand staffers, script writers get planted in the crowd? pic.twitter.com/Mf7KdwEgi6
Quite obviously, the audience was a fake as Kamala herself — the Harris campaign brought in “plants” for what was supposed to be a town hall with regular voters and, whether or not Kamala was actually reading from a teleprompter, her message was sufficiently scripted that some of her listeners already knew it by heart. So what the media are doing, by accusing “right-wing influencers” of promoting a “crazy” and “debunked” narrative is . . . Well, for lack of a better word, it’s misinformation.
In conclusion, consider what Hillary Clinton said a week ago in a CNN interview about social media platforms, “if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.” This seems like a confession that Democrats want “total control” of what we’re allowed to say, what we’re allowed to read, what we’re allowed to watch. One of the ways that in which that control is exercised is by Democrats (and the media, but I repeat themselves) arrogating to themselves the authority to decide what constitutes truth, and what counts as “misinformation.”
Democrats, who control more than 90% of U.S. media, are throwing a temper tantrum because they don't control EVERYTHING. https://t.co/tvImv3WNrr
So after I’d started working on another post about “misinformation,” I saw this story (via Twitchy via Stephen Green at Instapundit) and decided that it was obviously relevant to the topic I was discussing:
As many of you know, Jimmy Kimmel’s writer, Jacob Reed, directed an ad for the Kamala Harris campaign titled ‘Men for Kamala.’ The ad features what are presented as everyday male voters explaining why supporting Kamala Harris is the masculine thing to do. However, none of the men in the ad are actually regular voters—they are paid actors.
Moreover, their real-life circumstances differ significantly from the individuals they portray in the ad. Here are their stories:
– Wayland McQueen is a far-left, pro-Antifa comedian and actor who has, until now, found limited success. He does improv gigs at the Upright Citizens Brigade in Los Angeles. In a Twitter post from 2022, he explains what white privilege is and tells you why you need to acknowledge your white privilege. As of 2024 he is single.
– Lanre Idewu is an immigrant from Nigeria. He is also an actor who works at the D.C.-based OCTET Productions. He has many intimate pictures with the Obamas and the Bidens. Idewu, who is bisexual, has done gay-for-pay movies and nude solo shoots. In the “Men for Kamala” ad, he says he is “man enough to f-ing braid his daughter’s hair,” but the only problem is that he doesn’t have a daughter. Idewu isn’t braiding anyone’s hair.
– Mike Leffingwell, a gay man, also works at the Upright Citizens Brigade, where McQueen works. He is an acting coach, cartoon writer for Netflix and DreamWorks, and an actor in TV commercials. On his public Instagram page, he showcases his participation in his latest project—the “Men for Kamala” ad.
– Winston Carter, the heavyset fellow in the ad who claims to be a mechanic and rancher, lives in Los Angeles signed with Taft Broadcasting Company. He has found limited success in the acting world, mainly as an extra in films and as a character in the low-budget superhero film Spaghettiman.
– Tony Ketcham, the tough, rugged, bearded grandpa in his garage in the “Men for Kamala” ad, is also an actor. He now mainly does low-budget independent films like Car Botz, where he played the role of PePaw. Tony is unmarried in real life. In 2001, he played the extra role of “alcoholic consumer” in the movie Ghost World.
So, 100% of them are actors, at least 40% are gay, and none of them are mainstream middle-class “swing state” voters, which is who the ad was probably supposed to be persuading. Right?
What this reminds me of is the MTV series Catfish. In case you don’t know it, to “catfish” someone is to use a fake Internet persona to lure them into a romantic encounter under false pretenses. A few years ago, I binge-watched several episodes of Catfish and noticed a pattern — in what seemed like 90% of the cases they investigated, the perpetrators were either (a) fat, (b) gay or (c) black, but sometimes all three. Why was this? The gay factor usually involved a lesbian pretending to be a heterosexual male in order to attract the interest of a heterosexual female. The fat factor in catfishing, I suppose, stems from the general unpopularity of fat people, who engage in online impersonation — using a skinny person’s picture as their avatar — to get romantic attention that would otherwise be out of their reach. As for the disproportionate number of black perpetrators in catfishing, usually they were also either fat or gay (or both), and so they were impersonating a much-more-attractive white person in an effort to expand their options.
Anyway, the fakery of “Men for Kamala” is a sort of political catfishing scheme, with actors pretending to be Regular Manly Men, in a desperate bid to get Regular Man Men to vote for Kamala Harris. But some clever person was clever enough to do what Nev Schulman always did in the Catfish series, namely use Google image searches to identify these “Men for Kamala” fakers, thereby exposing the fraud. And yet it is supposedly us right-wingers who are promoting “misinformation” — but that’s the subject of another post, which I’ll now get back to writing.
Remember what I told you in mid-September? “Kamala Is Underperforming” was the headline, at a time when the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee was still riding her post-convention “bounce.” A careful comparison of Harris’s poll numbers to Joe Biden’s numbers in 2020 and Hillary Clinton’s numbers in 2016 showed that she was weaker against Trump than either Joe or Hillary.
Democratic strategist Anthony Coley, who served in the Biden administration, acknowledged the trepidation, pointing to the stagnant poll numbers in the weeks following the Democratic National Convention, when Democrats were making comparisons between Harris’s campaign and former President Obama’s run in 2008.
“Now that the sugar high is gone, people have realized what Kamala Harris has said from the start, which is that she is the underdog,” Coley said. “This is going to be a fight. … These numbers are just so stubborn.”
What he means by those “stubborn” numbers is that Kamala got to a certain level in the polls, and can’t get past it. She’s reached her ceiling, and it’s not high enough to give Democrats confidence that she can win. Trump’s numbers are solid — his voters aren’t going anywhere, and the number of “undecided” voters is very small. And then you start looking at polls for the battleground states and . . . Uh, oh. Internal polling by Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s campaign shows Harris losing by three points to Trump there, and Democrats are also starting to worry about Michigan. If both of those Midwest “blue wall” states are shaky for Harris, we could be looking at 300+ Electoral College votes for Trump. And the signs of trouble multiply from there.
It’s a simple arithmetic problem: How does she get to 270 Electoral College voters if, for example, Trump wins Pennsylvania. Do the math and you realize that, if Trump wins Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina, that’s the whole ballgame — Wisconsin and Michigan become irrelevant. As matters stand now, Georgia looks pretty solid for Trump, Harris has no better than a 50-50 chance in Pennsylvania, and whatever’s going on in North Carolina, it’s a state that Trump won twice, so that flipping it to Harris would appear to be a rather desperate hope.
What, therefore, are we to make of this headline from NBC News? “Harris and Democratic allies descend on Arizona in all-hands push before early voting.” The obvious inference is that Team Harris is worried enough about some other state (or combination of states) that they find it necessary to expend resources trying to get 11 Electoral College votes from Arizona, a state where practically every poll shows Trump leading. If you are a Democrat worried about Kamala’s chances, this ought to be a flashing red light, the trigger that turns your headache into a full-blown migraine. Look, if CNN’s aggregation of public polls has Harris +1 in Pennsylvania, that almost certainly means Trump is winning Pennsylvania, and perhaps by as much as 4 or 5 points.
Consider the long-time friendship between Kamala Harris and billionaire donor Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs. The New York Times described the women as being so close that they’ve gone on vacation together and consider each other family. Powell Jobs sat in Harris’ exclusive friends and family suite at the DNC last month. She was also instrumental in getting Biden to step down to clear the way for Harris; one of her top aides circulated a polling memo to other key influential donors that allegedly showed Biden’s inability to win.
It was another example of a megadonor overcoming the will of the people — and making things worse for voters. Now that the Kool-Aid from the DNC is wearing off, people are waking up to the realities of an untested candidate. Harris is barely beating Biden in key swing state polls, dodges questions from the press, and continually gaffes answers on significant policy issues. She can barely answer basic questions about her plans for regular people in friendly encounters with people like Oprah. This is what happens when a candidate is anointed by donors and not selected by voters.
Exactly. Harris was never as popular as Biden. She flopped in the 2020 primaries, exiting the race in 2019 before a single vote was cast. If Biden had announced in 2019 that he would not seek a second term, that would have allowed Democrats to choose their candidate in an open primary, and how likely is it that Harris would have won such a primary against, e.g., Gavin Newsome, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, et al.? What happened instead was that Biden decided to run again, despite his increasingly obvious cognitive impairment and then, after his debate meltdown in June, was forced off the ticket, with Harris anointed as the nominee.
Kamala didn’t win the nomination, it was handed to her, gift-wrapped on a silver platter, and many voters who might not be eager to see another Trump presidency are neverthless reluctant to vote for this ill-qualified woman who reminds us that “DEI” stands for Didn’t Earn It. With 26 days until November 5, the Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this unforced error. The party’s billionaire donors got what they paid for, but voters won’t endorse this corrupt bargain.
