Tag: race

INSANE: “Fat Queer” Communist Activist Declares GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs “Fascistic” — Claims Society Is “Genociding Fat People”

The radical left has apparently discovered its latest form of “fascism”: Americans using medication to lose weight and improve their health.

During the four-day Socialism 2026 conference in Chicago, self-described Black, fat, queer anarcho-communist activist Da’Shaun L. Harrison launched a bizarre attack on popular GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic, claiming the drugs represent a new phase of so-called “body fascism” while delivering the remarks in a face mask.

Harrison made the remarks during a September 5 panel titled “Health Fascism, Body Politics, and the Anti-State State.”

Harrison: “The political deployment of GLP-1s is fascistic, not because individuals take them, but because the conditions under which they become necessary are shaped by a world fixated on genociding fat people.

A shot that helps diabetics, heart patients, and obese Americans lose dangerous weight is, in this worldview, a tool of genocide.

Harrison did not stop there. The author of Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness, a self-described Afropessimist, anarcho-communist, and trans theorist who uses they/them pronouns, tied the entire obesity debate to race, slavery, and “colonial surveillance.”

“This is a structural critique that asks what happens when the conditions produced by capitalism, by public health, by the state apparatus, and by anti-black desire align around a single bodily ideal that leaves little to no room for divergence and punishes any body that does.”

And then the academic name-drop:

“But to understand why the deployment of GLP-1s is fascistic requires turning to Frantz Fanon’s account of black flesh under colonial surveillance.”

BMI charts. Diet culture. Doctors telling patients they are overweight. All of it, according to Harrison, is “body fascism” built on the policing of “Black fat flesh.”

Keep reading

Federal prosecutors defend job posting that placed white, heterosexual applicants last

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada is defending an internal hiring process that gave priority to applicants from selected racial, disability, Indigenous and LGBTQ groups.

According to reporting by Blacklock’s Reporter, an internal call letter for an $81,000-a-year recordkeeping position at the Nunavut Regional Office said candidates who self-identified as members of specified groups would be considered “before others.”

The position involved supporting complex and high-priority cases, including homicide prosecutions and dangerous-offender applications within Nunavut’s circuit court system.

“We will consider employees who self-declare as being a Black person, a racialized person, a person living with a disability, a First Nation, an Inuit, a Métis or a member of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community for this opportunity before others,” the notice reportedly stated.

Applicants were instructed to include their self-declared identity in their résumés.

Prosecution Service spokesperson Alessia Bongiovanni denied that the preferential process violated anti-discrimination provisions in federal collective agreements.

Bongiovanni said the Employment Equity Act permits measures intended to address historical disadvantage and under-representation. She argued that workplace equality may require proactive hiring measures in addition to equal treatment.

The policy effectively placed white, heterosexual applicants without disabilities behind candidates belonging to one or more of the preferred groups.

The Treasury Board reported in July that representation of all federally designated employment-equity groups increased between 2010 and 2025.

Women now account for 59 percent of employees in the federal government’s core administration. Visible minorities comprise 24 percent, employees with disabilities nine percent and Indigenous employees 5.5 percent.

Ottawa maintains that preferential employment measures are necessary to create what it calls a “diverse and representative public service.”

Keep reading

St. Louis Sheriff’s Office reaches settlement over firing of white, older employees

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Tuesday that it had entered an agreement with the St. Louis Sheriff’s Office to resolve 13 charges of race- and age-related discrimination.

EEOC investigated the Sheriff’s Office and found that former Sheriff Alfred Montgomery used his position to terminate nearly a dozen white employees and two black employees for reasons other than their job performance. Before he was sworn in, Montgomery publicly announced that he “could not wait to get rid of these white officers” and “top-heavy” employees, a reference to older workers, the EEOC found.

Montgomery also allegedly referred to the white employees he terminated as a “racist gang.” After firing the white officers, Montgomery allegedly told his former deputy that “he needed to fire a black guy” to buck a lawsuit for discrimination against white employees.

“The EEOC is firmly committed to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws evenhandedly, without favor or prejudice, to ensure all workers are protected,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a press release. “Race discrimination is unlawful no matter who the target is, and employers must ensure their decisions are not based on bias or stereotype.”

The sheriff’s office denied the allegations but agreed to enter the pre-litigation conciliation process, resulting in a settlement that requires the sheriff’s office to “electronically post and distribute all newly created and/or revised employment policies in compliance with Title VII and the ADEA; provide training to its employees about their rights under Title VII and the ADEA; train human resources personnel and management who exercise decision-making authority; post a notice to employees about the resolution of the case and their rights under the laws enforced by EEOC; and report to the EEOC about its compliance with the terms of the 13 conciliation agreements” for the next five years.

The agreement is part of a Trump administration crackdown on racism against white people. In July, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a white male employee at the New York Times who was allegedly targeted because of his race and sex. The media outlet has publicly stated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and in 2021, the outlet stated that it had enacted goals to increase non-white and female representation in leadership positions. 

As Just the News reported at the time, a white senior staff editor who had been working at the Times for more than a decade applied for a position as deputy real estate editor. The white employee had extensive experience in real estate journalism, but was left out of its final panel interviews for the position in early 2025. All candidates who were interviewed as part of the final process were non-white. Ultimately, the Times hired a non-white woman with little to no experience in real estate journalism even though the experience was a requirement for the position. The woman didn’t go through the standard interview process for the position and was rated less favorably for the position than the other two final candidates by the final interview panel.

“No one is above the law — including ‘elite’ institutions. There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles. The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head. No matter the size or power of the employer, the EEOC under my leadership will not pull punches in ensuring evenhanded, colorblind enforcement of Title VII to protect America’s workers, including white males,” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. “Federal law is clear: making hiring or promotion decisions motivated in whole or in part by race or sex violates federal law. There is no diversity exception to this rule.”

A spokesperson for the Times told Politico in July that “the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.”

Keep reading

JD Vance’s Mom Blasts Abdul El-Sayed Over Racial Smears About Her Family: ‘That Man’s an Idiot’

Egyptian-American Muslim and Democrat Michigan Senate nominee Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed (aka Abdul El-Sayed) has been running around for months smearing Vice President JD Vance’s family as racist. Earlier this week, Vance himself struck back. On Wednesday, Vance’s mother, Beverly Vance Adkins, shared her own blunt thoughts.

“I think that man’s an idiot,” she said during an interview on OutKick’s Tomi Lahren is Fearless.

Of her grandkids, she added: “Those are my babies. I love those babies and would do anything for any of them. And I love Usha as if she were my own daughter. She’s one of the best, most genuine people I’ve ever met. And she loves my son, and she’s a good mother. And I don’t pay attention to people like [El-Sayed].”

“I think they’re jealous, honestly. I mean, JD is 42 years old. He’s handsome. He’s the vice president of the United States. He’s got a beautiful wife, four beautiful children, and jealousy is the only thing I can think of,” she added. “Yeah. So, I mean, he can take all the shots he wants. It’s going to go, you know, it’s going to get no merit from any of us.”

“I mean, it makes me mad, honestly, because he doesn’t know JD and he doesn’t know, you know, what type of person he is, and I do,” she continued, “but in the long run, I’m not going to do anything about it. I mean, you know, I’d probably punch the guy if I ever seen him, and then that would get me in trouble. So, I’ll just go with the flow.”

What El-Sayed has said these past few months with his relentless attacks on Vance’s family is simply beyond the pale.

“So do we think JD is taking Usha with him back in time to meet Papaw, or no?” El-Sayed asked rhetorically, insinuating Vance’s grandfather would reject Usha Vance because of her Indian heritage.

El-Sayed also urged Usha to dump her husband, saying the vice president has the “charisma of a doorknob” and the “aura of a toad.”

El-Sayed has gone so far as to say Vance looks at his mixed-race kids as something “less American.”

Keep reading

Maxine Waters Claims the ‘White Media’ is Trying to Divide Democrats for Ratings

Rep. Maxine Waters recently told followers that the Democrats are doing ‘pretty good’ with regards to the midterms, before warning people that when it comes to Democrats vs. DSA leftists, that the ‘white media’ is trying to divide Democrats in a quest for ratings.

How is this woman a member of Congress? Every time she opens her mouth, something incredibly stupid and offensive comes out.

Which media outlet do you suppose she is referring to here? CNN? MSNOW? They’re talking about this subject.

From the Western Lensman:

Maxine Waters claims something called “white media” wants a Dem establishment vs Democrat Socialist fight.

“Some of the media, mostly the white media, are interested in a fight in order to get their ratings up.”

What?

This race-grifting clown just managed to concoct one of the most brain-wormed takes imaginable.

Keep reading

James Clyburn Basically Says Clarence Thomas ‘Ain’t Black’

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) sat down with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press Sunday, and the segment on the Supreme Court went about as you’d expect from a Democrat these days. He’s on board with Kamala Harris’s push to expand the Court to 13 justices, because of course he is. I don’t care how many times Democrats swear this isn’t about seizing permanent power. Packing the bench only becomes a priority whenever they’re the ones stuck losing decisions, and something tells me Clyburn’s enthusiasm for a bigger bench is entirely dependent on which party gets to fill those seats.

But that’s not even the part of the interview that made me sit up.

Welker brought up something I had no idea about: Clyburn testified in favor of Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation back in 1991.

Welker even played the tape.

“It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend, Clarence Thomas,” Clyburn said in the old clip. “I have known Clarence for ten years and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.”

I looked up his entire testimony, and I was floored. Clyburn praised him as “zealous in his pursuit of the facts and intellectually honest and objective.”

Most significantly, Clyburn said civil-rights officials who worked with Thomas found him “highly compassionate, sensitive, judicious” and possessed of the “intellectual honesty that is required in this field.” Despite their disagreements, Clyburn said he had “never found anything in his philosophy of a nature to deny him this Supreme Court confirmation.” He concluded that Thomas was “deeply committed to an even-handed system of justice” and possessed “the integrity, the conscientious spirit, and the basic sense of fairness” required of a Supreme Court justice.

Keep reading

ADL, Jewish Groups Lobby California to Classify Jews as a Race, ‘Not Just a Faith’

The Anti-Defamation League and a host of major Jewish groups are lobbying California to pass a bill to classify Jews as a race/ethnicity and “not just a faith.”

They’re hoping the reclassification will be implemented nationwide.

From The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “California could become the first state to list ‘Jewish’ as an ethnicity”:

California could become the first state in the nation to consider “Jewish” an ethnic and racial identity, rather than just a religious affiliation.

A groundbreaking bill, which was recently approved by the State Senate and is awaiting a vote in the Assembly, would expand California’s legal definition of ethnicity “to include Jewish identity” in demographic data collection. In other words, state agency forms would need to include a “Jewish” category in questions that allow for voluntary disclosures of ethnicity or race.

If the bill, SB 1387, goes on to become law, this requirement would also apply to public entities ranging from public schools to unemployment offices to prisons. But the clock is ticking, as Monday, Aug. 31, is the final day of the year that California lawmakers can pass legislation. The governor then has until Sept. 30 to sign bills into laws or veto them.

The ethnicity legislation has been a priority among many Jewish groups across the Gold Rush state, who believe that Jewish peoplehood should be tied to far more than just religion — and that the law should reflect this unique relationship.

Democratic state assemblyman Josh Lowenthal told the Jewish News Syndicate in April that he co-sponsored SB 1387 to improve Jewish communities’ “ability to access public resources” and “protection within the judicial system.”

“Lowenthal said the state relies on demographic data to ‘fairly allocate public health and educational resources, as well as monitor the effectiveness of its programs for represented communities,'” JNS reported.

“We know that good data creates good policy, so this will allow us to be able to inform better policy in the future,” Jewish California CEO David Bocarsly told The Forward. “The goal of this isn’t to get more resources for our community; it’s to get the right amount of resources for our community.”

“If the California bill does become law, Bocarsly expressed hope ‘that other states and hopefully the federal government would also follow suit,'” JTA noted.

These groups for decades have been insisting that race doesn’t exist and is just a social construct, but now they’re leading the charge for Jews to be classified as a race to secure “the right amount of resources” for their people.

Much of the Jewish community as a whole, with the ADL leading the charge, shifted hard to the right after October 7th, and their support helped propel Trump into office.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s shift from an anti-racist liberal to a hardcore Jewish nationalist and MAGA conservative perfectly encapsulates their changing priorities.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Racial Grievances Are Just A Cynical Grift

n November 2012, then Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared of the newly elected Congress: “They [Republicans] got whiter and more male, and we now have a majority minority and female caucus for the first time in history.” Fourteen years later, Wasserman Schultz, currently a representative for Florida’s 25th congressional district — a district whose boundaries were shifted earlier this year — has shifted to campaign in another, neighboring Florida district. In the supremest of ironies, it is not only majority-minority (49 percent black), but has been represented by black Democrats since the 1990s.

Wasserman Schultz’s decision to change districts to increase her chances of staying in Congress — soundly defeating the competition, including scandal-ridden Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick on Aug. 18 — not only presents a remarkably blatant example of the former DNC Chair’s hypocrisy, but proof positive that leftist propaganda about racial ideology will always take a backseat to politics. Whether the grifting is of a racial or gender bent, the woke objective has never been about justice, but the cynical exploitation of the language of “diversity” to secure political dominance.

Even Democrats Sniffed A Florida Scam

The hypocrisy of Wasserman Schultz shifting districts to represent a majority-minority district was not lost upon black Democrats there, especially given analysts expect the number of black lawmakers will decrease after the midterm election.

“She’s been an ally, but suddenly it’s feeling more like she’s using the familiarity she’s built against us,” Corey Shearer, president of Broward County’s Black Democratic Caucus recently told the Washington Post.

Of Florida’s fifteen elected DNC members, ten of them signed a statement declaring that Wasserman Schultz was “treating one of Florida’s few remaining majority-Black districts as a political opportunity.” The statement added: “We cannot claim to defend voting rights, racial justice, and representation while undermining Black political power when it becomes politically convenient.”

Wasserman Schultz’s opportunistic political play even elicited criticism from national party leaders. House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to endorse her, describing “the sensitivities of the moment in terms of an unprecedented Jim Crow-like assault on Black political representation.”

Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Yvette D. Clarke in turn explained: “We had a conversation …. Encouragement was not a part of that conversation.” The liberal American Prospect described Wasserman Schultz as “lily-white” and attacked her for “parachut[ing] into a race alongside four viable Black candidates.”

The Left Attacks ‘Structural Racism’ … Until It’s Inconvenient

Wasserman Schultz will probably win the heavily Democratic FL-20 in November — her Republican opponent Brent Anderson has raised far less money than her, and of the district’s registered voters, more than 55 percent of them are Democrats. That her likely victory is in direct contradiction with her own remarks on the racial composition of Congress (let alone the broader platform of her party) obviously illuminates Wasserman Schultz’s hypocrisy. But it also demonstrates that for as much as the left foregrounds race as the most important political issue of our time, the reality is that even the woke ideologues will always prioritize political power over ideological consistency.

During the 2020 presidential election, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden asserted: “we must dismantle systemic racism;” his running mate Kamala Harris condemned the “structural racism” of the United States. In 2022, Hakeem Jeffries, who is a potential contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, demanded the nation “address the poison of white supremacy,” a poison that supposedly affected “the whole country.” Earlier, this year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the short list for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, opined: “If you are in this country and you are not Black, you benefit from a system of white supremacy.”

Obviously, the left is beholden to grievance narratives antithetical to American history, identity, and our constitutional order. As much as offering obeisance to those narratives rallies the base or presents a means of tarring conservatives as racist, fascist defenders of the patriarchy, liberals exploit them for political advantage. But when they don’t, or even undermine their grasp on power… well, that’s how we get Debbie “Downer” Wasserman Schultz claiming: “We don’t want to lose the power and experience I have for Broward.” (Or Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, who, despite complaints about “400 years worth of institutionalized racism” and demanding “massive structural change” to American cities, was last year elected to a third term.)

Keep reading

Race Hustlers Redux: How Low Can the Grievance Grifters Go?

One would think that the liberal race fizzgigs would look at the soon-to-be smoldering ruins of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and want to avoid the humiliation that goes hand-in-hand with lying about racism and funding it when there isn’t enough to go around, but no.

The SPLC is accused of paying millions of dollars to so-called “white supremacists,” including helping to fund and plan the now-infamous Charlottesville riot on Aug. 11, 2017, where a woman was murdered.

A Klan-hugger at the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, also got busted for paying Nazis to be more “Nazi,” including the goose-stepper she was sleeping with. 

The SPLC allegedly bribed white supremacy-types to remain in their bigoted battalions even when they wanted to leave. It also paid Beirich $190,000 per year, not counting the mad stacks she funneled into a joint account with her Klan-man cicisbeo. After all, if the truth were revealed that white supremacists are harder to find than Nancy Pelosi’s keys after a five-martini lunch, the donations would stop, Beirich would have to get a real job, and, even worse, racism might actually die in the United States. And without a racist boogeyman to scare black people, how can the Democratic Party trick black folks into voting for them?

Despite the SPLC’s shameful obloquy, the original attention-starved cockalorum bumboy himself, Don Lemon, couldn’t wait to beclown himself for clicks by joining the mayor of Gary, Ind., Eddie Melton, to blame “racism” for the reason Gary residents were still without power 13 days after a massive storm blew in.

What neither of these delusional tools discussed was that power linemen were being attacked by Gary residents as they tried to restore power.

Keep reading

SICK! Don Lemon Whines After Judge Refuses to Give Convicted Killer Karmelo Anthony a Do-Over — “He Was 17!”

Fired CNN host Don Lemon is back again wringing his hands over convicted murderer Karmelo Anthony, and he wants you to feel sorry for the teenager who stabbed 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the heart at a high school track meet.

A Texas judge on Saturday denied Anthony’s motion for a new trial, leaving his murder conviction and 35-year prison sentence intact.

Anthony was convicted in June of murdering 17-year-old Austin during a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas, on April 2, 2025.

Austin died in the arms of his twin brother, Hunter.

But Lemon appears far more troubled by the consequences facing the convicted killer than by the permanent sentence Anthony imposed on Austin and his devastated family.

Lemon said:

“Breaking—and it is complicated, so make sure you pay attention. Karmelo Anthony is not getting a new trial, and after what came out in court last week, I have questions.

“We learned there was a private, off-the-record agreement to keep the troubled youths’ backgrounds—both teenagers—away from the jury.

“Austin Metcalf had allegations involving racial slurs, bullying, and assault. Karmelo had allegations involving threatening texts, stalking, and assault. None of that came in.

“And Karmelo’s former lawyer says that they had planned to put him on the stand, but all of this helped change that decision.

“So now the defense says the first trial was too controlled, too secretive, and unfair. The judge said no. Thirty-five years still stands.

“And I’m still stuck on one thing: He was 17. Seventeen years old. And now he could spend most of his life in prison. That is a hell of a sentence for a teenager.”

Keep reading