TUESDAY: Daring to struggle, daring to win?

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026

The attempt to win seats in the South: No one knows what's going to happen in this year's mid-term elections. That said, a fascinating possibility is lurking in a new report from the Washington Post.   

According to the Post's report, Blue America seems inclined to push back hard against the Supreme Court's recent redistricting decisions. In particular, Black citizens within the Blue American realm are said to be extremely unhappy with what the Court did.

According to the Post report, Black voters have decided to fight back the old-fashioned way against President Trump's redistricting demands and against the Supreme Court's redistricting rulings. Anger has led to the decision to fight back at the polls:

Why resisting Trump has galvanized Black Democrats as the midterms approach

Black voters in South Carolina and other southern states are turning out in defiance of what many see as President Donald Trump’s efforts to suppress their political power, fueling Democratic hopes of clinching upset wins in the region in this fall’s midterm elections.

A surge in Black voter engagement is energizing close Senate races in North Carolina and Georgia, where Democrats go into the summer with leads in many polls. Some Democrats see a chance of long-shot victories in South Carolina, such as ousting longtime incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) and flipping the congressional seat vacated by Rep. Nancy Mace (R).

“No matter what obstacles are in our way, we’re gonna just walk over those obstacles, and we’re voting,” said Beatrice Brown, 78, a retired public school teacher who drove other Black voters to the polls this month in primaries in the Lowcountry town of St. Stephen. “A voteless people is a hopeless people. And we’re not hopeless.”

Early voting in that round of South Carolina balloting surged to almost presidential-election levels. In the district represented by the state’s lone Black congressman, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D), turnout jumped by more than 50 percent.

Could Democrats score upset wins, especially in House races, as a result of increased turnout fueled by anger against President Trump and against the Court?  

In theory, almost everything is possible. Also, many such things don't work out. 

That said, the notions being pushed in this news report remind us of the complex history of (deliberate) "majority minority" districting in many Southern states in the wake of additions to the Voting Rights Act in 1982. 

Some of those majority Black districts have now been disassembled, moving Black voters into a wider array of districts. If anger at the Court decisions (and at Trump's demands for redistricting) leads to a larger Black turnout, is it possible that Democrats could win more House seats, in the wake of the Court decisions, than they would have won if the safe majority Black / majority Democrat districts were never threatened or actually cracked apart?   

Earlier this year, Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) said Republicans could end up losing three House seats in South Carolina if his own majority Black district was broken up. He said Democrats could win three House races in the state, not just the one race he had always won.

It could be that he didn't mean it, but that's what he said. 

As the Post article notes, a Republican honcho in South Carolina said the GOP could lose two House seats, not just one, if Clyburn's district got broken up and Black voters were spread around more widely.

He too may not have really believed it. But that's what the Republican said.  

In the end, Rep. Clyburn's majority Black district was left intact. But according to the Post report, South Carolina Dems are eyeing Nancy Mace's abandoned House seat as a possible pick-up, in part due to the anger among Black voters about the mid-census redistricting hubbub.

Dare to struggle, dare to win? Is it possible that the president's mid-census redistricting jihad, along with those recent Supreme Court decisions, could produce additional wins by Southern Dems, Black and white together? 

We don't expect any miracle wins, but once they've been disassembled, those safe "majority minority" seats won't be coming back. Can Blue America, Black and white, find ways to win some other seats?

Dare to struggle, dare to win? Given the districting decisions in question, how do Blacks and how do Blues and how do Dems proceed?

REVERSIONS: Two nutcases spotted three godless Communists!

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026

No ridiculous claim left behind: The sitting president was deeply concerned about the return of the Communists.   

Plainly, his fear was well founded. Two members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) had won the Democratic Party's nomination for seats in the United States House of Representatives. 

A third candidate—the comptroller of the city of New York from 2021 through 2025—had also won the Democratic Party's nomination for a seat in the House!  

If the two DSA members win their elections this fall, they will become members of the House. They will be two members, out of a total of 435! 

As we noted yesterday, this led the president to say the following in a public address last Friday. He was speaking about the two nominees who belong to the DSA, along with the one who doesn't:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/26/26): These are not Social Democrats. These are hardcore godless Communists. They’re godless Communists. 

All Communists are godless. They don’t believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. This is a major threat to our country.  

It was the most serious threat in the nation's history, the president thoughtfully said. On Thursday evening, he had already offered this reassuring Truth Social post:   

Truth Details  

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump  

The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time. It’s easy to be a Communist—All you have to do is say, “I’ll give you everything,” but that means you’re taking it away from others that have earned it. Over thousands of years, that Ideology has not worked once. The game is on. Enjoy watching! President DONALD J. TRUMP   

He's been preparing for a long time—preparing himself for the day when Assemblywoman Claire Valdez (D-NY) might show up in the House of Representatives, scarily saying—among other things—that she supports Medicare for All.  

Who the Joe Hill is Claire Valdez? The leading authority on that subject offers this overview:  

Claire Valdez  

Claire Valdez (born October 12, 1989) is an American politician and union organizer who has served as a member of the New York State Assembly for the 37th District since 2025, representing part of the Borough of Queens. A member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, she is the Democratic nominee for New York's 7th congressional district in the 2026 election. 

Originally from Lubbock, Texas, Valdez moved to New York City in 2015 and lives in Ridgewood, Queens...

Valdez received her Bachelor of Fine Arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, studying painting and art history. She worked a series of service jobs...before moving to New York City to pursue a career in art.

[...] 

After graduating from college, Valdez worked as a program assistant in the visual arts department at Columbia University before beginning her term as an assembly member. While working at Columbia, she became an active member of United Auto Workers Local 2110 and was elected unit chair in the local.

Such information as that. Meanwhile, whether wisely or not, something in the range of 55-65% of Americans join Valdez in supporting Medicare for All. Polling results seem to turn on the way the survey question is asked.

As to what else Valdez might think, believe or support, we haven't seen anyone make a major attempt to ask. Despite that fact, and as we noted yesterday, her nomination triggered this reaction from the most watched individual in all of "cable news:"  

WATTERS (6/24/26): This is a Third World takeover. This is what happens when you import the Third World. 

Did you know that New York City is 70% nonwhite? 40% foreign-born? 50% of the apartments, they don't even speak English! Not even their first language! 

These three women [sic] who Mamdani endorsed, weren't even born in New York City, weren't even raised in New York City. They're carpetbaggers. Carpetbaggers, Jessica! 

...Communism is going to take over the Democratic Party, and then we're going to have to beat it, because you can't—

You can't do anything else besides beat it to a pulp.   

In a series of agitprop manifestos last week, this corporate messenger boy almost seemed to be getting his brownshirt out. 

"These people want to hurt us," the unusual fellow also said, speaking of Valdez and the two others. "The way we're going to react is going to make Trump look like a kitten."  

(For the record, Watters said these things to Red America only. If you read the New York Times—if you subscribe to The Atlantic; if you watch MS NOW—you will not be told that this remarkable reversion is currently taking place.) 

It may be time to name the (two or) three "godless Communists" who have been cast as such in this marketing play.

Two of the three nominees are members of DSA; the third nominee is not.. Only two of the three are women, though Watters, as you can see in the text above, seemed to think something different.

The three nominees are these: 

Brad Lander. Member, New York City Council, 2010-2022. New York City Comptroller, 2022-2026. 

As noted by the leading authority, "On June 12, 2025, The New York Times Opinion panel chose Lander as its top choice for the Democratic primary for mayor." 

This is one of three godless Communists the president has been warning the nation about.  

Claire Valdez: Member, New York State Assembly, 2025 to present. For more information, see above.

Darializa Avila Chevalier: According to the New York Times, "she is a Ph.D. student and an investigator in a public defender office." 

According to that same profile, Avila Chevalier is "a relative political newcomer who emerged from the world of far-left activism...Some of Ms. Avila Chevalier’s views may be considered too extreme for mainstream politics, and should she be chosen to represent Upper Manhattan in Congress, her views could pose a challenge for the greater Democratic Party." 

Those are the three nominees who have triggered the increasingly fevered remarks by performers on the Fox News Channel and by the sitting president. Ever vigilant, the sitting president has bizarrely said that the nomination of these three candidates constitutes "the most serious threat to our country" in the full sweep of its existence.  

(As best we can tell, you don't know that the president has made that extremely strange claim if you read the New York Times. For whatever reason, the Times is strongly inclined to disappear the president's strangest remarks and posts.)   

Of the three nominees, Lander was the Times editorial board's top choice for mayor! At this time, little is known about Valdez. 

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that there are very few unusual statements which Avila Chevalier hasn't made, at some point, in the past several years. 

We tend to agree with what Jessica Tarlov said about Avila Chevalier last Tuesday, on The Five. As for Assemblywoman Valdez, we saw her interviewed last Wednesday night by CNN's Erin Burnett.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what Tarlov said about Avila Chevalier, and we'll show you what was said when Valdez visited CNN. Also, we'll continue to show you what Watters is saying as he lays his brown shirts out for his mommy to iron.

A major reversion is underway as troupers like Watters keep making their claims. He's been beaming his scripts to Red America. 

Over here, in Blue America, we simply don't get told.   

Tomorrow: No Ridiculous Claim Left Behind

MONDAY: We return to results on last year's Naep!

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026

On the Long-Term Trend version, that is: Friend, did you know there are two different versions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the NAEP)?  

The Naep is a widely praised federal testing program in such subjects as reading and math. But did you know that the venerable program comes in two different flavors?

The so-called "Main Naep" is administered to students in Grades 4, 8 and 12, without respect to the age of the various students. This version of the Naep has been given more frequently in recent decades. Results from this version have routinely been reported in the mainstream press over that stretch of time.

That said, please hold on:

There's another version of the Naep called The Long-Term Trend Naep. That version of the Naep is administered to students who are 9, 13 and 17 years old, no matter what grade the students may be in. 

That version of the Naep was administered just last year. It was that version of the Naep to which the New York Times referred in the news report which started this way, headline included:

Younger Students’ Test Scores Bounce Back After the Pandemic   

After years of dire test scores coming out of the pandemic, new national test results released on Wednesday offered a glimmer of hope—at least for younger students.

The nation’s 9-year-olds, who were in preschool when the pandemic hit, have made a significant recovery in reading since 2022, and are now caught up to where 9-year-olds were immediately before the pandemic, according to a key federal exam. They are getting closer to being caught up in math.  

But for American 13-year-olds, whose elementary school years were disrupted by the pandemic, there has been no recovery.

 And so on from there. 

That report appeared on June 10. We told you it would generate zero discussion. If you took that prediction to the betting markets, you're a wealthy person today. 

Attention to such topics has been surrendered to the tsunami of distractions which has constituted the second-term Trump years. But kids continue to go to school, and national samples of such kids continue to participate in this federal testing program.

No, the test items aren't the same on these different versions of the Naep. In effect, the Main Naep and the Long-Term Trend Naep  serve as rough estimates of overall accuracy, the one version paired off against the other.   

There's more to know about the two Naeps. The leading authority on the widely praised program goes on at some length right here.

That said:

How well did 9- and 13-year-old students perform in reading and math last year? Along the way in the next few weeks, we'll provide the basic results the best way we can, thereby filling a void in this Era of Cosmic Distraction.

Having said that, we leave you today with a key observation:   

Assessments of how well the students performed may turn on a basic point. It all depends on how far back you choose to go in making your year-to-year comparisons.   

We'll return to this topic before too long. We'll start our comparisons all the way back around 1980. With that as our starting point, you may be quite impressed with the amount of progress you see...

REVERSIONS: In this dumbest of all possible worlds...

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026

...an old war cry was employed: On balance, we're inclined to agree with what Jessica Tarlov said last Tuesday, on the day when the city and the state of New York conducted primary elections.

Mayor Mamdani had endorsed congressional candidates from three different congressional districts. Two were members of the DSA—the Democratic Socialists of America. The third was a former member of that organization.

That very day, each candidate won the Democratic Party's nomination to serve in the House. As a general matter, we're inclined to agree with what Tarlov said that day.

We now jump ahead to Wednesday—to the day after The Mamdani 3 won those nominations:

On Wednesday's episode of The Five, a segment began with videotape of the sitting president calling these candidates Communists. A full reversion was underway within the American discourse. 

The three nominees were Communists, the exercised president said. As the segment began on The Five, the chyron at the bottom of the screen said this:

COMMIE CRUSADERS
MAMDANI ENDORSES SOCIALIST CANDIDATES IN NYC PRIMARIES

Sad! According to producers of The Five, Mayor Mamdani had endorsed a trio of "Commie Crusaders." 

On balance, we agree with what Tarlov had said, the previous day, about the trio of Commies. First, though, you ought to see what Jesse Watters now said.  

On Wednesday's edition of The Five, Watters was plainly upset. Occasionally turning to address Tarlov, he started by saying this:  

WATTERS (6/24/26): This is dangerous. You don't think these people can springboard to become governor, senator, AG? This is how it happens. You guys run your little power centers in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York. All of a sudden, you guys just populated all the higher offices in those states. And you guys are just going to sit back and do nothing with that power? 

You're coming for us. You're coming for our money, you're coming for our people. You're coming for our way of life. 

It's not socialism, guys. This is Communism.

You can't reason with these guys. You have to crush them. And we will, because we're not going to let our greatest city get destroyed. We're not going to let our civilization get destroyed. These people are going to steal from us. These people want to hurt us. 

This isn't like your regular Democrat...One of the ladies said she wants to destroy western civilization. I don't know about you, I take that as a threat. Another woman says she wants to empty prisons. That sounds like a violent threat. 

Abolish ICE. That means you can break into the country, rape, and stay. 

I don't like that. I'm not going to go for it. And no one's going to go for it. And the way we're going to react is going to be a lot tougher than the way Trump is reacting. The way we're going to react is going to make Trump look like a kitten.   

To our ear, it was Watters' assessment—and his pledge—which sounded a bit like a threat! That said, the gentleman wasn't finished. He continued along, eventually saying this:  

WATTERS: These people don't believe in borders, capitalism, our founding fathers. They're here to steal, punish us, and then throw around welfare. This is a Third World takeover. This is what happens when you import the Third World. 

Did you know that New York City is 70% nonwhite? 40% foreign-born? 50% of the apartments, they don't even speak English! Not even their first language! 

These three women [sic] who Mamdani endorsed, weren't even born in New York City, weren't even raised in New York City. They're carpetbaggers. Carpetbaggers, Jessica! 

...Communism is going to take over the Democratic Party, and then we're going to have to beat it, because you can't—

 You can't do anything else besides beat it to a pulp.   

Watters was ready for a fight—for what sounded almost like a street fight. He said his cadre was going to make President Trump look like a kitten. 

He said his cadre was going to beat the Democratic Party to a pulp.

Meanwhile, Watters was, as usual, utterly clueless. He was so clueless that he seemed to think that Mamdani had endorsed three women for the House—and yes, that's what this cable star said. 

For the record, Watters is the most-watched person in American "cable news," thanks to his dual role as co-host of The Five and host of Jesse Watters Primetime. 

They're the two most watched shows in the entire realm of American "cable news." Watters is the driving force on each of these ludicrous programs.

Just to establish the record, we'll cite a few basic facts:  

One of the three nominees, Brad Lander, is, in fact, a man. As is perfectly typical, Watters didn't seem to be aware of this remarkably well-known fact.

Lander was elected to citywide office in New York—to the office of New York City Comptroller—back in 2021, long before Mamdani was part of the story.  Lander was raised in St. Louis. Of the two women Mamdani did endorse, one was raised in Lubbock, Texas. The other was raised in Florida.

We now move on to this:

As of last week, Watters seemed to be shocked to have recently learned that New York City isn't majority white.  For the record, these were the basic numbers in 2024, according to Census Reporter (Census QuickFacts is down):   

New York City race / ethnicity:   
White:  31%
Hispanic: 29%  
Black: 20% 
Asian: 15%

There's nothing especially new about that. Watters recited his disturbing data on several occasions last week.  

Meanwhile, Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Commies:

A familiar cry was bruited last week as the reversion was on. 

On Friday, President Trump droned about the problem at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event. For Mediaite's report, just click here. But here's part of what the president said about the godless trio in question:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/26/26): As you saw with the Communists elected in New York City recently—they're Communists, they're not Social Democrats—they want to completely destroy the traditional American way of life...

It’s happening right now in New York and California. But you’ll start living in squalor. You’ll live in squalor. There will be no food. There will be no housing. There will be no military. There will be no law and order. There will be no nothing. There will be no nothing. You will be a third-world inhabitant in every way, and everyone will suffer or die. 

You’ll suffer or die. That’s what happens.

[...]

These are not Social Democrats. These are hardcore godless Communists. They’re godless Communists. 

All Communists are godless. They don’t believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. This is a major threat to our country.  

People don’t look at that— "Three people were elected!" No, no. It's many more than three people. And the other people are being swayed because they don’t have the sense to see what’s happening.   

The nomination of the three candidates in New York City? It constitutes "the most serious threat" in this country's existence, the sitting president actually said.   

For the record, are these three nominees actually Communists? We'll discuss that matter as the week proceeds. For now, we'll offer an obvious no.   

That said, the old battle cry was widely bruited last week. For example, it was bruited by the most-watched person in "cable news" on Friday evening's edition of Jesse Watters Primetime. 

The most-watched person played tape of the president's dire warning at the Faith and Family event. He then launched a lengthy jihad of his own about the greatest threat in history, the threat posed by the three "godless Communists."   

We won't quote the various things our most-watched cable newsperson said. As a substitute, we'll start by offering a word count from that evening's opening segment:

Word count: Jesse Watters Primetime, 6/26/26
"Communist:" 24
"Communism:" 7
"Commie:" 5 

Sad! To borrow from Joyce, the C-words were general over the pseudo-discussion. 

And not only that! As this very strange fellow proceeded, some of the chyrons blared thusly:

Chyrons: Jesse Watters Primetime, 6/26/26
TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON COMMUNISM
COMMUNISTS INFILTRATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
COMMIE PIRATE: HAKEEM IS WEAK
"HARDCORE, GODLESS COMMUNISTS"
DEM: "WE AGREE WITH COMMUNISTS"
COMMIE WAVE CRASHES INTO AMERICA   

You can add those six additional usages onto the prior word count! But a "Commie wave" had crashed into America! Sadly, that's what the chyrons said. 

Now for the rest of the story:   

Fellow citizens, is it true? Godless or otherwise, had Mamdani endorsed three "Communists" to serve in the House of Representatives?   

We'll examine that question as the week proceeds. Be prepared to encounter a "no."

Finally, what did Jessica Tarlov say, on Tuesday's edition of The Five, about the three "monsters" in question? (We're quoting Emily Compagno's choice of words on that same day's program. Inevitably, this star of stage and cable news scream also went with "psychopaths.")

What did Tarlov say about the three "psychopaths" in question? We'll show you that first thing tomorrow--but as a general matter, we'd be inclined to agree with what she said, especially about Darializa Avila Chevalier, one of the three nominees.

Communism Communists but also Commie Crusaders! In this, the dumbest of all possible worlds, an old battle cry was out.

That said, who was actually worse last week as the reversion began? The stars who clowned for Red America, or the stars over here in Blue America who averted their gaze once again?

Tomorrow: We wouldn't have chosen that word

SATURDAY: Trump never fails to say "Hussein!"

SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 2026

A tool pretends to explain: The meltdown came from various directions in the course of this past week. 

In one venue, the meltdown started with a set of video clips. The clips were aired at the start of a segment on Thursday's edition of The Five.  

As you know, The Five is the most-watched program in American "cable news." As you can see by clicking this link, the segment to which we refer started with these video clips:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/22/26): Barack Hussein Obama. Have you ever heard of him?   

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/4/26): Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP (7/22/25): Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP (1/27/26): Barack Hussein Obama. Have you—have you heard of him?   

The dates were included as the four clips played. The point of this otherwise pointless presentation was obvious.  

President Trump can't seem to stop talking about Barack Obama. During the segment in question, Jesse Watters was the first messaging agent to state his view about this situation. 

He quickly offered an explanation for President Trump's behavior:

WATTERS (6/25/26): Trump talks a lot. He says a lot of things. So yeah, he’s gonna mention Barack Hussein Obama. 

Part of that is just, he likes to say "Hussein."  

President Trump just likes to say "Hussein," this simpering man boy said!

Let's state what's blindingly obvious. There's a reason why the sitting president always includes the former president's middle name.  Also, everyone knows what that reason is. 

In reality, everyone knows why Trump always says "Hussein."  As Watters tried to move to his next point, Jessica Tarlov interrupted and asked an obvious question:

WATTERS (continuing directly): But the other part of it—

TARLOV:  Why does he like to say "Hussein?"

Why does he like to say "Hussein?" With that, the die had been cast.  

In the past, we've described the programming of the Fox News Channel as an assault on the very possibility of continuing the American project, such as that project has been.  The idiocy of Watters and his towel-snapping partner, Greg Gutfeld, is a major part of the frontal assault waged by this corporate entity.

What shape will that practiced idiocy take at a moment like this? Below, you see the way Watters responded to Tarlov's question:

WATTERS (continuing directly): Cause it’s funny that the president’s middle name was Hussein. You don’t think that’s hysterical?

TARLOV: No, I don’t. 

WATTERS: OK, OK! It was the name of the dictator—

TARLOV: I think it’s interesting in the context of saying that he’s a Muslim. Which is why he says it, so that people still think that he’s a Muslim.  

GUTFELD: It's so problematic.   

Stating the obvious, everyone knows that's why Trump keeps saying Obama's middle name. Everyone except the corporate tool Watters, who's paid fantastic sums, by the Murdoch empire, to recite the corporation's agitprop and to play the fool in this way.   

Jesse Watters stepped forward this day to play the fool again! In his view, why does President Trump keep saying "Hussein" whenever he mentions President Obama?   

According to the corporate messaging agent, President Trump likes to say "Hussein" just because it's funny! It's just funny that President Obama shares a name with Saddam Hussein, this simpering idiot said. 

Needless to say, that isn't what Watters actually thinks. Surprised by the rare interruption from Tarlov, he struggled to keep his practiced idiocy on the winning side of the street.   

We're sorry, but Barack Obama isn't a Muslim! (As everyone knows, millions of good, decent American citizens actually are.)  

Still, the sitting president wants to float that possibly scary suggestion. Everyone, including Watters, knows that's why the sitting president does what he constantly does.

Stating the obvious, Watters knows why President Trump does what he constantly does. He also knows that that is why the "news channel" which employs and scripts him opened that grisly segment with four ululations of "Hussein" by the sitting president.   

As Thursday's segment proceeded, Watters attempted to recover, in a way we won't describe. It ended with the little mutt Gutfeld extending his twice-daily practice of undermining the possibility of the American project, such as it has been:   

WATTERS: I don’t know what he is. I don’t care what he is. He’s probably an atheist.

TARLOV: You know what he is!

WATTERS: He is, I know. He’s retired.  

GUTFELD: No god-fearing person would eat a dog.  

That's what the second mutt said!   

Watters and Gutfeld are the two leading players at today's Fox News Channel. They co-host (and dominate) The Five, the nation's most-watched cable news program.  

Jesse Watters Primetime (8 p.m.) is the nation's second most-watched "cable news" show. Gutfeld!, which airs at 10 p.m. (that's 7 p.m. out on the coast), is #4 on the national list.  

Regarding Watters himself, let us briefly say this. It's amazing to see how far the clown-adjacent propagandist has fallen, distinguished ancestry-wise:

Jesse Watters   

Jesse Bailey Watters (born July 9, 1978) is an American conservative political commentator and television program host on the Fox News cable television network. He frequently appeared earlier in his media career on The O'Reilly Factor, the political talk show hosted by commentator/moderator Bill O'Reilly... 

[...] 

Watters was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is the son of Stephen Hapgood Watters, a teacher, and child psychologist Anne Purvis, daughter of Morton Bailey Jr., publisher of Better Homes and Gardens magazine. His maternal great-grandfather was another Morton Bailey, publisher of the prominent longtime magazine The Saturday Evening Post; his maternal great-great-grandfather was Morton Shelley Bailey (1855–1922), a lawyer, politician, state senator, and district judge in Colorado, later serving as an Associate Justice on the Colorado Supreme Court.

Watters' paternal grandfather, Franklin Benjamin Watters, was a cardiologist at the Veterans Administration Hospital at Newington, Connecticut, and a professor at the University of Connecticut Medical Dental School...

Watters has Irish ancestry on his father's side. Watters is named after his mother's great-grandfather, Jesse Andrew Burnett, an associate chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court in their state capital of Topeka, Kansas. 

Reversion to (well below) the mean has taken place with remarkable speed within this particular family. The leading authority also includes a lengthy section concerning this peculiar fellow's peculiar views regarding the various ways boys and girls should correctly behave:   

Comments on masculinity

Watters criticized former President Joe Biden for licking ice cream in public as "a grown man." He has instructed men on how they should wave and belittled those who grocery shop with their wives. In September 2024, Jesse Watters was criticized for comments he made on The Five regarding Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota and a running mate of the US Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who had shared a photo of himself drinking a milkshake with a paper straw. Watters mocked the image as an example of Walz's lack of masculinity because he used a straw, which he claimed made women not like Walz, because women like masculinity. He said that asking for a "vanilla shake" instead of a "vanilla ice cream shake" also makes men look weak...

In March 2025, Watters listed his "five rules for men" on The Five – don't be that serious, just be funny; don't eat soup in public; don't cross your legs; don't drink from a straw, and don't wave simultaneously with two hands because men wave with one hand, not both hands at the same time. He added that one of the reasons you don't drink from a straw is the way your lips purse, which is very effeminate... 

And on and on from there. Gender rules without end, amen. This idiocy never stops.

In fairness, full disclosure:

Sometimes, Watters seems to be lapsing into his "I'm just a silly dimwit" comedic persona when he makes these inane observations. On balance, though, we get the impression that he really believes this idiocy, which he routinely traffics.   

Returning to Thursday's segment:   

Everyone knows why President Trump never fails to say "Hussein." Also, everyone knows why the Fox News Channel opened Thursday's segment with those video clips.   

Like President Trump, the bosses believe their audience is dumb enough to be swayed by such messaging. We know of no sign that this belief is wrong. 

A downfall started in earnest this week. Starting on Monday, we'll be discussing that latest menacing assault on the American project.  

For today, one final point:   

Who is most at fault as this latest assault takes shape? Their names are legion, and their names are Blue. 

They're the overpaid stars who work for the New York Times, for MS NOW, and also for the Atlantic. They refuse to report or discuss the potent behavior which occurs on the Fox News Channel. 

Their own corporate checks are spending real good. To a man, to a woman, they have agreed to avert their gaze. They have agreed not to speak.

Also this: For a report on that segment by Mediaite, you can just click here.

RACE: The termagants say she's really a man!

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2026

They slime the first lady—of France! Is the UFC's Josh Hokit a racist? 

Asking a slightly different question, was his pitiful statement on June 14 a racist act? 

We don't know much about Josh Holit. For that reason, we aren't sure how to answer your questions.  

Who the heck is this person, Josh Hokit? We direct you to these elements from the thumbnail account offered by the leading authority on the person in question:  

Josh Hokit   

Joshua Seth Hokit (born November 12, 1997) is an American professional mixed martial artist who currently competes in the Heavyweight division of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). He formerly competed in Bellator MMA. As of June 20, 2026, he is #5 in the Meta UFC heavyweight rankings.

Prior to competing in MMA, Hokit was an All-American wrestler, and played American football as a tight end and fullback in college football, at Fresno State. 

[...]  

Hokit has a history of controversial remarks during post-fight interviews, dating back to his tenure in Legacy Fighting Alliance (LFA). Following wins in LFA, Hokit made several controversial remarks, including labeling former first lady Michelle Obama "a man" and criticizing the participation of transgender women in sports, stating that they "belong" in the octagon with him "because you need to get your ass whooped."

This pattern continued following his TKO victory at UFC 324—the first UFC event to be streamed live on Paramount+—where Hokit responded to the idea of "losing in a fist fight" by stating, "N-word, please." During the same interview, he called out Waldo Cortes-Acosta, labeling him a "deadbeat father not to one kid, but to nine," and concluded by stating, "And P.S., Brittney Griner is a man."

The UFC 324 remarks drew laughter and cheers from the live crowd; post-fight interviewer Joe Rogan responded while laughing, "Brittney Griner catching strays. She doesn't deserve that." However, the interview was widely criticized by media outlets, and Dana White, CEO of the UFC, later expressed disapproval...

In a post-fight interview with Joe Rogan following Hokit's win at UFC Freedom 250, [Hokit] commented, "Now listen, Alex Pereira, I'm going to chama on your mama, and lastly, Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?" Dana White later condemned the remarks.

Somehow, Rogan always seems to be on hand when this conduct occurs. Rogan, an influential podcaster, can be numbered among the many strange fruits which have emerged from the ongoing "democratization of media."   

At any rate, the leading authority thereby offers a first draft of history regarding Hokit's attitudes and behaviors. As a source, the authority links to an opinion piece by Brian Bell at the OutSports site:

Even UFC’s Dana White didn’t like Josh Hokit’s transphobia at ‘UFC 324.’

The UFC’s debut on Paramount+ Saturday night gave the MMA promotion’s new broadcasting partner a speedrun of the peaks and valleys inherent to the UFC experience.

“UFC 324” saw a major fight pulled due to injury, a prelim fight pulled due to betting irregularities, another prelim fight cancelled after a fighter collapsed after weigh-ins, an action-packed main event that saved a fairly lackluster main card, UFC CEO Dana White seemingly throw his injured heavyweight champion under the bus during the post-show presser and the emergence of the UFC’s latest up-and-comer who substitutes try-hard transphobia and racism for having a personality.

[...] 

Hokit the fighter put forth an exciting fighting style infused with a level of brashness that is like catnip to fight fans, capping things by giving Freeman the middle finger and walking away as the referee stopped the fight. It was just what the stagnant UFC heavyweight division needed: a younger, undefeated fighter with an edge in how he fights.

Then, Hokit threw all of that in the dumpster when Joe Rogan interviewed him after the fight.    

Bell continues from there. He accuses Hokit of racism, but Hokit also stands accused of a second form of bigotry. Right there in the headline atop this piece, he stands accused of transphobia. 

Full disclosure:  

At this site, we discussed Hokit's pitiful conduct on the White House lawn the next day, on Monday, June 15. For whatever reason, Nicolle Wallace skipped the topic in her two-hour Deadline: White House program that day.   

On Tuesday, June 16, Wallace discussed the UFC event with Maya Wiley and two other guests on Deadline. By then, it was clear that a consensus interpretation was forming within elite Blue America—a consensus which held that Hokit's behavior that night was an example of racism.   

We're prepared to admit that we were surprised to see that consensus take shape. If memory serves, that interpretation hadn't occurred to us until we saw it emerge.

That interpretation hadn't occurred to us. In large part, that's because we try to monitor the primetime, "cable news" Gutfeld! program on a regular basis.  Also, because we have a passing acquaintance with the lunacy of the MAGA underworld, as chronicled in this news report from last December:

‘Brigitte Macron Does NOT Have a Penis!’ Piers Morgan Gets Heated With Candace Owens Over Claim French First Lady ‘Pees Standing Up’   

Piers Morgan became heated with Candace Owens during an interview on Wednesday after Owens insisted that French First Lady Brigitte Macron was secretly a man with a penis who “pees standing up.”

After Morgan accused his guest of “weaponizing deliberate lies for money,” Owens claimed, “Brigitte Macron has a penis. I really want you to know that, Piers.”

“No, Brigitte Macron does not have a penis!” shouted Morgan.  

“Brigitte Macron has a penis. I’m sorry,” replied Owens.

Sad.

Pathetically, the discussion continued from there. Owens, a high-profile player, is also numbered among the strange fruits of the democratization of media.

If you watch the (heavily watched) Gutfeld! show, you know that the termagant host of that transgressive program routinely traffics in insinuations to this effect:   

Michelle Obama is secretly a man, and Barack Obama is gay.   

That said, you've also seen him trash the AFT's Randi Weingarten as a man with a great deal of frequency. It's one of the many plays in his long list of standard insults

Beyond that, you may have been watching on the night when the Fox News kingpin and his guests devoted an entire segment to Candace Owens's insistence that Mme. Macron is a man. In short, you're aware of the fact that, within the MAGA universe, a great many people, Hokit apparently included, are deeply invested in cries and whispers about the existence of people who are transgender. 

(In fairness to that Gutfeld! panel, they explicitly decided that night that Owens is mentally ill.) 

Within this flailing universe, the French first lady is said to be a man. So is our own (very popular) former first lady.   

In the disordered halls of the Gutfeld! show, Weingarten is also a man. Two of these women are white. One of these women is Black.   

In our view, the disorder displayed on the Gutfeld! program is relentless and never-ending. It's astounding to see Blue America's journalistic elites refuse to report the highly unusual conduct which is the lifeblood of this influential "cable news" program.

We try to stay away from standard verbal bombs at this site, but any sane person could see that the very strange host of this disordered program seems to be misogyny-adjacent.  As with much of incel and manosphere culture, an undisguised contempt for women seems to animate his show.

That said, there's nothing which seems to disturb the show's host more than the idea that transgender people really exist. 

At this site, we rarely see the host behave in ways which suggest a racist orientation. His contempt for women is unmistakable—but more than anything else, he's enraged by current Blue American views concerning transgender issues.  

We're saddened by the strange behavior of this furious, 61-year-old man. But largely because we monitor his show, it had never occurred to us that his persistent jibes at Michelle and Barack Obama should be regarded as racist: 

To appearances, it's contemporary gender issues which trigger the ugly fury to which he gives voice each night. He suggests that a lot of people are gay, and that several women are men.

After Hokit's stupid performance, the power elite in Blue America turned to "racism" as its instant interpretation. Provisionally, we think of what Shakespeare once jotted:  

 There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

We also think of the somewhat younger Dylan, on one of the albums where major parts of his earlier attitude had plainly seemed to darken. We don't recommend the contempt which was voiced in this song, but we do recommend the larger suggestion:   

Ballad of a Thin Man

[...]   

You’ve been with the professors
And they’ve all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You’ve been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books
You’re very well read, it’s well known

But something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is 
Do you, Mr. Jones? 

We don't recommend the fury. We do recommend the idea that lurks all through that song.

Is it possible? Is something happening in MAGA America that our Blue elites don't understand? Do they fail to understand what's happening here because they haven't been willing to pay attention to what's actually goin' on?

We'd say that's a real possibility, and we'd say it's politically dangerous.  

When Hokit staged his pathetic performance, Blue elites turned to racism as the explanation. Is it possible that we're enabling our own tribal demise when we insist on familiar themes which may no longer capture what's happening?   

In our view, we Blues were possibly failing to keep up with the times when we insisted on the "racism" explanation. We've had a similar reaction to the way official Blue America has reacted to those recent Supreme Court decisions about congressional districting procedures.

Next week, we'll return to those decisions. In closing today, we'll say this:  

In his final interviews, the late Barney Frank seemed to suggest that Blue America has moved in ways which haven't been politically wise concerning transgender issues—in ways which the larger society wasn't prepared to understand or accept.

Transgender panic—transgender loathing—lies at the heart of a great deal of MAGA fury. So does "masculinism," the latest form of pushback against modern feminism.

Is there something happening here which Blue elites may not understand? And when we fall back on familiar theories which may not be accurate, is it true that thousands of wavering MAGA adherents decide to hang onto their wings?

THURSDAY: Navarro wants to lock him up!

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026

Every know-nothing a king: Where did Covid-19 come from? What was the origin of the virus?  

On Tuesday night, the Fox News Channel assembled a group of specialists to discuss such matters on Gutfeld!   

Except wait a minute—actually, no! This was the gaggle of experts which loudmouthed on the first segment of that evening's show:  

Gutfeld!: June 23, 2026
Joe DeVito: comedian
Kat Timpf: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Brian Kilmeade: co-host, Fox & Friends
Tom Shillue: comedian

Three comedians, plus one Fox "friend!" With an expert panel like that on hand, how could the analysis go wrong?   

In yesterday afternoon's report, we suggested that the analysis had perhaps gone very wrong. The following morning, on Fox Business, Peter Navarro discussed the same topic, seeming to channel the various points the comedian/experts had elucidated the night before.

For David Gilmour's report, click here. Here's part of what Navarro said on Mornings with Maria:   

NAVARRO (6/24/26): The American people need to de-canonize "Saint Fauci." 

What we know very clearly is that Fauci played God. He basically gave money to the Wuhan lab for the express purpose of using gain-of-function research to create a deadly virus for the purpose of then creating vaccines to kill the virus. 

How did that go, Anthony?   

And then, when that thing leaked from the lab, he conducted a misinformation campaign, using some of the most prestigious academics in the world, to insist that it wasn’t from the lab, it was the zoonotic theory – from nature. And the biggest lie of omission was the fact that he funded the virus to begin with.

One million Americans died, millions worldwide! He needs to be held accountable.  

It almost seems like Navarro is getting his stuff from comedian Tom Shillue!

Full disclosure! We know of no reason to believe that any of Navarro's accusations are accurate. According to the leading authority, Navarro's performance with respect to Covid in real time proceeded along like this:  

Peter Navarro

[...]  

On March 27, 2020, [President] Trump appointed Navarro to coordinate the federal government's Defense Production Act policy response during the coronavirus pandemic. In this position, Navarro promoted domestic production of coronavirus-related supplies in addition to a general nationalist agenda...

In February 2020, biologist Steven Hatfill became Navarro's advisor with regard to the coronavirus pandemic. Hatfill was a strong promoter of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID, even though the drug's effectiveness was unproven. By April, Navarro, and the president himself, were touting the drug as a lifesaver. Navarro clashed with Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, over whether the administration should promote the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat the virus. In July 2020, Navarro touted a widely criticized study as showing that hydroxychloroquine was an effective coronavirus treatment; public health experts pointed to limitations with the study and to the fact that multiple randomized controlled trials failed to conclude that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment.

In May 2020, Navarro criticized stay-at-home orders, arguing that the COVID-19 lockdowns would kill "many more" people than the coronavirus. He frequently referred to the virus as the "China virus" or the "CCP virus" and, in May 2020, accused the Chinese government of sending Chinese citizens to other countries to "seed" the virus. In July 2020, USA Today published an editorial by Navarro under the headline "Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on," after which White House officials disavowed Navarro's attacks. Under criticism for the editorial, the newspaper later published an apologetic statement that read, in part, "several of Navarro's criticisms of Fauci – on the China travel restrictions, the risk from the coronavirus and falling mortality rates – were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarro's op-ed did not meet USA Today's fact-checking standards."   

You know—basic stuff like that! On a topic which may be easier to assess, Navarro soon moved on to such brilliance as this:  

In October 2020, two weeks before the presidential elections, Navarro's office in the White House had begun preparing allegations of election fraud. In December 2020, Navarro published a report alleging widespread election fraud. The report repeated discredited conspiracy theories claiming election fraud, including allegations that had been dismissed by the courts and Trump's own election security task force...

On January 2, 2021, Navarro, along with Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, participated in a call with Georgia election officials in which Trump urged them to overturn the results of the election. During a January 2, 2021, appearance on Jeanine Pirro's Fox News program, Navarro asserted, "[t]hey stole this and we can prove it," and falsely asserted Joe Biden's inauguration could be postponed to allow for an investigation.  

"We can prove it," the firebrand said. More than five years later, no one has even tried to present evidence in support of this never-ending inflammatory claim.   

For ourselves, we'd be very slow to assume that Navarro is right about anything regarding Covid. We can think of zero reason to assume that Gutfeld's panelists knew what they were talking about in their astonishing presentation on Tuesday night.

Three comedians, plus one "friend!" It never seemed to occur to Gutfeld that it might be a little bit strange to drag a group of comedians out to issue inflammatory claims about such a difficult technical matter. He made no attempt to examine a basic question:  

Do these mutts have ANY idea what they're talking about? Why should anyone think that they do?

On the one hand, this is a description of the present-day Fox News Channel at work, operating in a world where they get a total pass from Blue America's high-end mainstream news orgs.   

Also, this is the "democratization of media" in full flower, with every potty-mouthed non-specialist nitwit now fashioned as a king.   

What happened on Gutfeld! was simply astounding. Also, did you hear the one about the way the women of The View resemble a bunch of whales?

RACE: Our nation's dead souls have been pimping this swill...

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026

...for a very long time: In our own view, Greg Gutfeld, 61 years old, is a person who needs some help.  

We'd even say the fellow deserves some help, along with all members of struggling / suffering humanity.   

We'd say the fellow needs some help because we watch his primetime imitation of a "cable news" program on the Fox News Channel. With apologies for posting his words again, we'd say a grubby little mutt like this could plainly use some help:   

GUTFELD (6/23/26): In economic news, Nancy Pelosi's net worth is down $8 million. 

Worse, her boobs are down nine inches.  

PHOTO: [Pelosi in bathing suit]   

Remarkable! When a 61-year-old fellow offers such jokes, we'd say he's badly in need of help, as are the corporate cretins who pay him $9 million per year to go on TV and behave like that.  

(Blue America's stars refuse to discuss this behavior—Rachel and Lawrence and all the rest. This is the nation-devouring garbage they too have apparently chosen.)   

We'd say he could use some help. We'd also make that assessment based on Neal Gabler's report.

Gabler's report appeared in The Nation—in October 2012! The squalor of an ailing person like Gutfeld has been with us for a long time:

What’s Behind the Right’s ‘Obama Is Gay’ Conspiracy

You probably know by now that President Obama is a Muslim who professes socialism and that he was born in Africa, which makes him ineligible to occupy our highest office. But here is something you may not know: Obama is gay. Not only is he gay; he frequented gay bath houses in Chicago along with his former chief of staff and current Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel. And not only did he frequent those bath houses; he was under the influence of a “transgender nanny” when he lived as a boy in Indonesia... 

And on and on from there. 

The sickness was already quite widespread as of 2012. Gabler's third paragraph went like this:

Citing a remark by Fox News host Greg Gutfeld that “Obama is now out of the closet” after the president announced his support for gay marriage, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum blogged at the Daily Beast, “You cannot ‘get’ Gutfeld’s joke unless you ‘get’ that a large part of his audience ardently believes that Obama is in fact gay, that his marriage is a sham, and that Mrs. Obama leads a life of Marie Antoinette–like extravagance to compensate for her husband’s neglect while he disports himself with his personal aides.”  

In the minds of many under-developed souls, Barack Obama, the sitting American president, was already gay! On the brighter side:

Based on Frum's remarks about Gutfeld's "joke," it may be that Michelle Obama wasn't yet being scored as a man.   

(As we noted yesterday, that second soul-draining theme may have started with Joan Rivers in 2014. At the very least, it got a wide airing there.)

Was Gutfeld just kidding—was he just speaking metaphorically—when he made the quoted remark? If so, he's truly come a long way! Here he was, sharing his marvelous humor, on his primetime "cable news" show in April of last year:   

GUTFELD (4/10/25): And finally, Michelle Obama openly admitted that she and Barack sleep in separate bedrooms. 

Here's how it works. She sleeps downstairs, and he likes men.   

The former president likes men! Surrounded by panels of defectives—knowing that no Blue American star will ever say boo about his behavior—the creepy crawler sustains this messaging on a regular basis. 

He messages millions of people each night. Along the way, a second bit of messaging had already been folded in, and his audience knew what it was: 

GUTFELD (2/21/25): Divorce rumors continue to escalate for the Obamas.  

Hopefully, they can settle it like men. 

AUDIENCE: [Laughter, applause]  

GUTFELD: Terrible! It's terrible that you would applaud that!

The studio audience knew what the termagant was saying. Hiding behind one of his several beards, the cowardly fellow pretended to scold them for applauding his pitiful slime.  

In our view, this cable star could use some help, as could our failing nation. On our third most-watched "cable news" program—his ratings dwarf those of MS NOW—the creeper continues to toy with this bit of twinned messaging:

 Barack Obama is secretly gay. Michelle Obama's a man.

This deeply strange man and his cast of defectives routinely traffic those messages, along with a long, extremely ugly list of other themes. 

As a manifest nutcase, he can't stop talking about the way [NAME WITHHELD] likes to shove gerbils up his asp. He pictures Joe Biden in his grave. And several women, not Michelle Obama alone, are said to be secretly men.

Absent help, this seems to be the best this manifest nutcase can do. Suzanne Scott makes money off this. Rachel and Lawrence and David French all refuse to report and discuss it. 

(Bret Stephens doesn't seem to watch Fox. Nicolle Wallace keeps her mouth shut too.)

Two Sundays ago, on June 14, a UFC fighter blurted it out, right there on the White House lawn. We'll guess that he doesn't know any better, but here's what he happily screamed:

"Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?"

No, you can't get dumber than that. But waste meat like Gutfeld will try, enabled by willing panelists.

"Michelle Obama is a man," the hapless UFC fighter screamed. Perhaps because of the venue in question, Blue Americans finally complained. 

On Monday evening, June 15, Senator Warnock went on The Last Word and said the conduct was racist.  

"This is bigotry," the senator said. "This is evil come alive in the world."  

Senator Warnock is a good, decent person. So is Maya Wiley.  

On Tuesday, June 16, Wiley appeared on Deadline: White House. "Let me start by saying this," she told Nicolle Wallace. "This is racist."

"It's bigotry," she later said. "And it must be called out for that."   

The moral and intellectual squalor in question has been underway for a long time. But is it clear that it's mainly racist? Is it clear that it's racist at all? 

Is it clear that this squalor is based upon race? And is it possible that we Blues may be hurting Blue prospects—in this and perhaps in other circumstances—by insisting on that potent theme?   

Something's happening here, Dylan famously said. Are we sure that we know what it is?

Tomorrow: At the tender age of 13, she was described as a dog    

WEDNESDAY: Gabbard performed her last document dump!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2026

Suzanne Scott took over from there: Just when you think you've seen it all, it turns out that you actually haven't. We refer to the remarkable claims made in the opening segment of last night's Gutfeld! program.   

The program started in typical fashion, with a handful of jokes on the standard smut-rich themes. One joke compared the women of The View to whales. 

Then too, viewers were handed the standard critique of Nancy Pelosi: 

GUTFELD (6/23/26): In economic news, Nancy Pelosi's net worth is down $8 million. 

Worse, her boobs are down nine inches.  

PHOTO: Pelosi in bathing suit 

Yes, that was one of the jokes. The studio audience laughed. 

This is the garbage can CEO Suzanne Scott opens each night on the Fox News Channel. Given the uniform silence of Blue America's major news orgs, this is also the garbage can our morally vacant Blue elites have uniformly chosen.   

Mercifully, this swill was concluded by 10:03. At that point, the host of the show started his "issue monologue" for the program's opening segment. 

For reasons which may seem weirdly obvious, Fox producers dropped all but the last two minutes from the videotape of the monologue which they posted on YouTube. As you can see by clicking here, that monologue started at 10:03, and it started like this:   

GUTFELD (6/23/26): All right. So on her way out the door, Tulsi Gabbard drops a nuclear document dump exposing Anthony Fauci's filthy legacy. And the mainstream press, those gutless, ball-less, nut-less, tit-less traitors, treat it like two points on a driver's license.   

That's what this nutcase said. 

Sounding a bit like a North Korean propaganda writer, the cable star said that Gabbard had exposed Dr. Fauci's "filthy legacy." But the tit-less traitors in the mainstream press were refusing to report what she'd done!

That's the way the cable star talks, and that's the way he started. Once again, it was time for Gutfeld and his all-star panel to brand Dr. Fauci as a mass murderer who needs to be shipped off to prison.  

The discussion had been triggered by Gabbard's latest, and mercifully last, document dump as DNI—a document dump which Fox News Digital has largely ignored, perhaps for obvious reasons, along with their nut-less associates in the treasonous mainstream press.

For the record, Gabbard's latest document dump, and her accompanying accusations, have been fact-checked by CNN's Daniel Dale (just click here) and, in greater detail, by Lawfare's Renée DiResta (click this). On the other hand, Gutfeld had comedian Joe DeVito on hand, and DeVito told the world this: 

DIPAOLO: I think, look—we were all locked down all this time [during Covid]. He should be locked down for a while too. 

He should be put in jail. I just wish I had faith that would happen, but when it comes to serial killers, seven million is a pretty good score—way better than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. That's the company Anthony Fauci is in.  

Yes, that's what he said. We know of no reason to believe that DeVito, or anyone else on Gutfeld's panel, had any idea what they were talking about—had any realistic way of offering a serious analysis of the complex subject matter involved in this endless hunt.  

For the record Gutfeld's panel was composed of three comedians, plus Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade. As is the requirement on this imitation of life, all four voiced agreement with the indictment voiced by the program's host in the opening monologue==the monologue the Fox News Channel didn't seem to want to post.

Having said these things, we'll now strongly suggest that you should watch the presentation by comedian Tom Shillue, the panelist to whom Gutfeld turned first. You can do so by clicking here, then by continuing to click as Shillue's astounding indictment of Fauci proceeds. 

We know of no reason to believe that Shillue knows what he's talking about in any serious way. As for Gabbard herself, let us offer this excerpt from DiResta's fact check for Lawfare:  

DIRESTA (6/23/26): Gabbard’s “Fauci Files" follow the same playbook as her past document drops: Put the desired conclusion in the headline. Use “declassification” as a credibility signal. Present a large, mixed dump of documents as if they were a prosecutor’s exhibit. Convert ordinary government processes—expert consultation, grant oversight, whistleblower routing, intelligence disagreement—into evidence of conspiracy. Then push the accusation on social media, where few people will read the underlying documents closely enough to notice the gulf between the documents and the claims. 

Gabbard played this game of innuendo and accusation with her so-called “Russiagate” declassifications, accusing President Barack Obama of a "treasonous conspiracy” and “coup” (he has yet to be charged). A few weeks ago she followed the playbook with a document dump on biolabs, reframing biological threat reduction work, much of which was already public, as nefarious. In each case, the underlying materials contain some facts, but they are often decontextualized, and the framing asks readers to take a much larger conspiratorial leap.   

And so on, at length, from there. Needless to say, Gabbard's earlier claim—her dramatic claim that President Obama engaged in treason—still hasn't been acted on. We're going to guess that this latest effort is headed for the dumpster too, except on the truly deranged imitation of "cable news" performed on the Fox News Channel.    

We'll close by stating the obvious. The issues here are too complex to be accessible to all but a handful of citizens. In such circumstances, analysis becomes a game of "Who Do You Trust?"   

Gutfeld tells millions of people that they shouldn't trust the work of the tit-less traitors found in the mainstream press. Also, Rep. Pelosi's boobs have fallen nine inches, and the women of The Views are so fat they resemble whales. 

Suzanne Scott puts this swill on the air. Rachek Maddow won't say a word, Neither will the New York Times, or the Atlantic, or any of the opinion writers at those citadels of the Blue press.

Seriously—go watch what Tom Shillue said! This is the "democratization of media" at its craziest and most dangerous.  

We leave you today with a question. Has a nation which tolerates this gong-show conduct already become a failed state?

RACE: The pitiful fighter's pitiful claim...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2026

...dates all the way back to Joan Rivers: On Sunday evening, June 14, a UFC fighter made a strange, inane remark right there on the White House lawn. 

As we noted yesterday, the news report in the Washington Post started off like this:

After White House bout, UFC fighter disparages Michelle Obama as ‘a man’

UFC fighter Josh Hokit used his post-bout interview Sunday night at the White House to disparage former first lady Michelle Obama.

In a post-fight interview, the heavyweight fighter praised President Donald Trump for hosting the event, which was intended to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

He then insulted the mother of one of his rivals, thanked Jesus and ended by shouting: “And lastly—Michelle Obama is a man! Am I right, America?”   

Some in the audience laughed at Hokit’s remark, which is rooted in a baseless far-right conspiracy theory. Right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan, who was conducting the post-fight interview, did not follow up with Hokit on the comment.

Searching for the appropriate term, Amy Wang initially said that the nitwit Hokit had "disparaged" the former first lady. Much later in her report, she explicitly described Hokit's screeching statement as an "insult." 

In some ways, Hokit screaming statement can almost seem like a strange sort of insult. We say that for this reason:

Presumably, there's nothing "wrong" with being a man. Similarly, it's routinely believed, within the broad expanse of modern American culture, that there's also nothing "wrong" with being a woman. 

On the other hand, gender identity has always tended to play an important role in the vast sweep of the planet's human societies. It almost automatically seems like an insult for a woman to be called a man, or for a man to be called a woman.  

Then too, there's the burgeoning throwback movement known as "masculinism"—the throwback movement currently sweeping substantial portions of the Red American male world. Within this realm, the claim that the former first lady was really a man would be recognized, by one and all, as an attempt at an ugly disparagement—as an ugly (if dimwitted) insult. 

So it probably seemed to those who laughed that night. Hokit had insulted the former first lady, or at least he had "owned the libs."

In her report, Wang somewhat oddly said that Hokit's idiotic behavior was "rooted in a baseless far-right conspiracy theory." It's unfortunate that Wang had to dignify Hokit's inanity that way, but she was trying to describe disordered behavior, her somewhat peculiar statement can almost be said to be right.   

The inane remark by the UFC performer does, in fact, enjoy a type of privileged status within the contemporary far-right "manosphere." On the far-right "cable news" TV show Gutfeld!, the notion that Michelle Obama is really a ma is frequently floated by the program's 61-year-old misogyny-adjacent host. 

On that show, the notion that Mrs. Obama is a man is typically accompanied by a second disparaging claim, this time about the former president. Is this "the baseless conspiracy theory" to which Wang somewhat awkwardly referred?   

Wang never explained what she meant by that statement, but the pair of disparagements / insults date back at least to the increasingly sour work of Joan Rivers in the year 2014.    

If memory serves, it seemed to us that Rivers, who had always been an insult/shock comedian, grew a bit less pleasant with age. In a news report filed on July 4, 2014, CNN reported her latest attempt at mirth. 

For whatever it may be worth, Rivers had just turned 81. Way back on July 4, 2014, pithy headline included, CNN's instructive report started off like this:

Joan Rivers jokes Obama is gay, first lady is transgender

Who needs Fourth of July fireworks when you have Joan Rivers around?

The comedian known for her lack of self-censoring recently officiated a same-sex wedding and was asked by a photographer if she believed the United States would ever see the first gay or female president. Her response was typical Rivers.

“We already have it with Obama, so let’s just calm down,” she said. “You know Michelle (Obama) is a trans.”

When asked to further explain Rivers said, “A transgender. We all know it.”

Those are the things Rivers said.

Barack Obama is gay, we the people were stupidly told. In this formulation, Michelle Obama wasn't exactly a man. Instead, she was "trans"—"a transgender," River said.

"We all know it," she added.  

Pathetic? Pitiful? Hapless? Sad? What exactly is the word for such dimwitted conduct? Whatever the answer might be, we can tell you this:

To this day, this twinned pair of disparagements is routinely floated by the mutt who hosts the Gutfeld! program. He's sent out to do so by the Fox News Channel's Suzanne Scott. Perhaps for the obvious reason, the major organs of Blue America refuse to report or discuss such facts.   

Blue stars speak up when Hokit does it. Fox News is given a pass.

At any rate, is this the "conspiracy theory" to which Wang referred in last week's report in the Post? We don't know, but as she spoke with CNN back in 2014, Rivers concocted this braindead explanation for her twin disparagement:   

[continuing directly from above]
A representative for Rivers released the following statement to CNN from the comic about her remarks to the photographer:

“I think it’s a compliment. She’s so attractive, tall, with a beautiful body, great face, does great makeup. Take a look and go back to La Cage Au Follies (sic). The most gorgeous women are transgender. Stop it already … and if you want to talk about ‘politically correct,’ I think this is a ‘politically incorrect’ attack on me because I’m old, Jewish, a woman and a ‘hetty’—a heterosexual … and I plan to sue the reporter who, when he turned off his camera, tried to touch me inappropriately on the a**—luckily he hit my ankle. Read the book … if you think that’s silly, wait to (sic) you see what I say about FDR and Eleanor!”  

[...]  

Of course, this latest dust-up coincides with Rivers’ book, “Diary of a Mad Diva,” which was released on July 1. Rivers’ representative told CNN, “These are all funny jokes. The book is hysterical. The prologue says if anyone takes anything in the book seriously (he or she) is an idiot. And (Rivers) says if anyone has a problem with that, they can feel free to call her lawyer Clarence Darrow.”

Truly, that statement by Rivers was completely pathetic.   

That statement was pathetic. But is that where this "conspiracy theory" got its start? We have no idea.  

That said, many people in the world are insecure and angry, and this "theory" has never died. Sadly, PolitiFact has posted at least three reports in recent years debunking claims within our poisonous social media—debunking posts in which people claimed that Mrs. Obama is transgender and/or a man. 

(These claims were scored as Pants On Fire. As a starting point for your walk on the wild and profoundly stupid side, you can just click here.) 

Joan Rivers, who had a book to sell, peddled her dimwitted claims in The Summer of 14. She was frequently reported to be a registered Republican. Did she mean for her claims to be directed at the Obamas as political targets?  

We can't answer that question—but she told CNN that "we all know it." On that basis, we'll guess that, in the American underground, the kinds of angry people who can't quite adjust were already pimping this garbage around. 

If so, why were they doing it?  

Within the halls of Blue America, an explanation quickly formed concerning what Hokit did. On last Tuesday's Deadline: White House, Maya Wiley assigned the motive.  

As we noted yesterday, she started by saying this:   

Well, let me start by saying this. This is racist.  

Later, she added this:  

It is bigotry...and it must be called out for that.    

Earlier, Nicolle Wallace had played tape of Senator Warnock, speaking on The Last Word the night before. This is what Senator Warnock had said: 

This is bigotry. This is evil come alive in the world.   

On Deadline, Wiley mentioned Joan Rivers. She also mentioned the fact that, inevitably, the public madman Alex Jones had been involved in the promulgation of this pathetic claim about the former first lady.

Wiley joined Senator Warnock in advancing a fairly obvious possible claim about the idiot Hokit's motive. It's a claim we Blues are strongly inclined to make, in a wide array of situations. 

It's a claim which is often correct. It's a claim which has been accurate down through the annals of our nation's brutal racial history.

But is the claim accurate in this case? In this case, because we monitor the Gutfeld! program, we weren't even slightly sure.

Tomorrow: Also the French first lady!

TUESDAY: Bernie Moreno's a red state senator!

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026

He agrees with Elizabeth Warren: The madness of the current rulers keeps us focused on topics like this:    

Karoline Leavitt Returns to Blast ‘Deranged’ Algae Protesters at Reflecting Pool   

For the full report, just click here. "Only the Democrats could hate beautifying our nation’s capital," the press sec thoughtfully said upon her return from maternity leave.

Karoline Leavitt is back at her post—and childbirth hasn't tamed her! That said, the distractions never cease at this point. That would include the current tussle concerning algae and its discontents.   

(If you stand it on its end, the Reflecting Pool would be taller than major skyscrapers, the president has thoughtfully said on several occasions. On this campus, one youthful analyst quickly retorted: If you stand Interstate 95 on its end, it would reach even higher than that!)

Algae growth is in the news. Topics like the one discussed below almost never are at this point. Guest essay headline included:   

Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social Security

One of us is a Republican from Ohio who built a business that generated hundreds of jobs. The other is a Democrat from Massachusetts who built a career protecting consumers from financial tricks and traps.

We don’t agree on everything, but here’s one thing we do agree on: Congress must act now to save Social Security for generations of Americans to come.

Social Security is a core component of our nation’s promise—a covenant between the federal government and Americans who pay into it throughout their working years so they can retire with dignity.

That promise is at risk of unraveling. For years, seniors in Ohio and Massachusetts have told us how concerned they are about the future of Social Security. A new report from the trustees who oversee the Social Security Trust Funds shows they are right to worry: Unless Congress acts, the fund from which most Social Security beneficiaries are paid will be significantly depleted by late 2032. After that, Social Security benefits could be cut by more than 20 percent.

That promise of Social Security is at risk of unraveling? Within living memory, claims like that were routinely dismissed, often correctly so, as a scare tactic from some on the right, or were scorned as a bit of hyperbole from centrist budget hawks.   

Within living memory, that's how it was! Today, along comes this guest essay—and a proposal—from Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), but also from Elizabeth Warren.

(We pause to let Jesse Watters and Greg Gutfeld issue their extremely tired Pocahontas jokes.)   

We may return to their proposal at a later date. It arrives in the New York Times two weeks after this guest essay by Jason Furman, which we cited when it appeared:

I Worked in the White House. We Never Imagined This Problem Would Get This Bad.  

The first major public policy issue I worked on in the White House, almost 30 years ago, was President Bill Clinton’s call to “save Social Security first.” Though the fund wasn’t projected to run dry for another three decades, the country seemed gripped by the issue. A few years later, George W. Bush felt strongly enough about the looming crisis that he spent much of his political capital pushing a strategy to resolve it.

This week the Social Security trustees announced that the trust fund for retirees and survivors will be exhausted in just six years. That’s six years before tens of millions of Americans could see their benefits cut by 22 percent. The crisis is closer than anyone in the Clinton or Bush years ever imagined we might let it get...

Furman was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama. We never thought it would get this bad, the headline on his guest essay said.   

How do Furman's representations fit with the claims and suggestions of Moreno and Warren? How do his representations fit with their proposal?

That's a conversation you're unlikely to see! Inept as such discussions often were, there was a time, within living memory, when budget discussions were commonly spotted, even in major newspapers. Given the madness of the age, such discussions are near extinction and such sightings have become very rare.   

Also this:   

We continue to peruse the (improved) results among 9-year-old students from last year's NAEP testing. Those results came from the Long-Term Trend version of the NAEP, not from the so-called "Main NAEP."

There are various ways to present those new data, depending on where you decide to start your comparison. Having said that, we'll also say this:

Below, you see the start of the news report in the New York Times about those new test scores. In our initial mention of those new scores, we said you'd see no further discussion of this matter, and our pledge to you was correct:

Younger Students’ Test Scores Bounce Back After the Pandemic

After years of dire test scores coming out of the pandemic, new national test results released on Wednesday offered a glimmer of hope—at least for younger students.

The nation’s 9-year-olds, who were in preschool when the pandemic hit, have made a significant recovery in reading since 2022, and are now caught up to where 9-year-olds were immediately before the pandemic, according to a key federal exam. They are getting closer to being caught up in math.

The Times report continued from there. In the near future, we'll show you several ways to think about these new test scores. In the face of the fight against the killer algae, the discussion will end right there!

Meanwhile, two solons have agreed on a cure. One is a D and one is an R. Who ever heard of that?