WARNING: Offensive violence and pictures - Cincinnati city councilor proves she is unfit for elective office.

In yet another portrait of leftist hate and racial bigotry, A Cincinnati city councilor has proven she is unfit for elective office.

Imagine a role-reversal here. Imagine Cincinnati City Councilmember Victoria Parks was the victim. Imagine her attackers being a gang of white thugs.

Imagine if any white elected official of any major elected position... even a Donald Trump... came out and said that Parks had "begged for that beat down."

Riots would have overtaken the entire country, not that leftists and racists need an excuse to riot, burn, loot, murder and rob.

This is a video of the horrific attack on a couple who are white. Nearly beaten to death while cell phones recorded it but no one intervened.

Because... 2025. Because racism. Because savagery. Because entitlement. Because inculcated racist animus. Because blacks killing each other or whites is merely an accepted major part of life in the United States today.

Plainly, the Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett disease is not just a localized case. Victoria Parks is infested with the same variety of hatred Crockett shows on a daily basis.

A total and complete breakdown of the dregs of black society.

One can only wonder what Parks' thoughts might be, her despicable racist bigotry aside, if someone, or some group of someones who happen to be Caucasian, treated her the way she suggests Holly, the woman in this beat down, deserved to be treated?

Like all leftists, she runs on hatred. While I don't wish any such injury on anyone for any reason, it is clear she's unfit for public office.

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS VIOLENCE AND RACISM THAT IS OFFENSIVE.

Wads of panties are in a bunch over Colbert's cancellation.

Even Seattle's fringe-left toad, Rep. Payapal had to get involved, whining, “People deserve to know if this is a politically motivated attack on free speech,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) wrote on X."

Nonsense, of course. Payapal has no say and is, of course, politically irrelevant. CBS does not have to explain their business decisions to anyone, not least of all a fringe-left back bencher.

The article, being from the leftist WaPo, naturally neglects to mention at any point that Greg Gutfeld's "Gutfeld" show became number one in late night over a year ago.

Here's the reality: a hack like Colbert automatically results in at least half the viewership of US television ignoring his show. His attacks show a deep-seated hatred of Trump, which is an accurate reflection of the typical leftists in this country today, as they've been dutifully programmed to thrive on hatred.

Here's the truth of it:

As of the second quarter of 2025, Greg Gutfeld's show leads in ratings with an average of 3.289 million viewers, while Stephen Colbert's show averages 2.417 million viewers.

Current Ratings Overview

Greg Gutfeld (Gutfeld!):

Total Viewers: Averaged 3.289 million viewers in the second quarter of 2025.

Key Demographic (25-54): Approximately 238,000 viewers.

Year-on-Year Growth: Gutfeld's show saw a 31.5% increase in total viewers compared to the previous year, although it was down 9% from the first quarter of 2025.

Stephen Colbert (The Late Show):

Total Viewers: Averaged 2.417 million viewers in the same period.

Key Demographic (25-54): Approximately 219,000 viewers.

Performance: Colbert's show was the only one to show a slight increase of 1% over the first quarter of 2025.

Comparative Insights

Gutfeld! has established itself as the dominant force in late-night television, significantly outperforming Colbert in total viewership. This trend reflects a broader shift in audience preferences towards Gutfeld's style of satirical commentary and humor.

Colbert, while trailing in total viewers, remains a strong competitor, particularly in the 18-49 demographic, where he has shown resilience against other late-night shows.

Conclusion

The ratings battle between Gutfeld and Colbert highlights the evolving landscape of late-night television, with Gutfeld currently leading the pack. As viewer preferences continue to shift, both shows will likely adapt their content to maintain and grow their audiences.

(Source: Microsoft Bing summary provided for the question "Colbert ratings vs Gutfeld)

Article:

How the Colbert-Trump relationship tracked the downfall of late-night TV

My polider (political+spider) senses are beginning to tingle.

 Promises are being ignored in the name of political expediency. The last administration used the same "justification."

During the campaign, a variety of pledges were made. Among those were the release of the Epstein List (which certainly does exist) the removal of all illegal aliens (which the majority of the entirety of this country supports) and ending military aid to Ukraine (which I have vociferously opposed on these very pages)

Among other promises.

Here's the reality as I see it: on the matter of illegal aliens, we either want to end the problem, or not.

Like pregnancy, one either is, or one isn't. There's zero middle ground.

There cannot successfully be a carve out for illegal farm workers.

We cannot, as a country, begin to classify illegals based on the illegal hirings by companies breaking federal law to reduce prices.


Hiring an illegal for any job violates federal law. 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens and 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens is specific in that regard.

If the United States is to ever end, or at least severely curtail the illegal alien issue, then the elimination of the illegal alien destination resort we've built must be Job 2 after Job 1, locking down the Border.

That resort includes the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars spent by government and paid for by US, that continues to draw illegals like flies to honey.

To permanently control the influx of illegals, every effort should be made to eliminate any reason they would come here to begin with. At the top of this list, second only to the massive waste of billions on illegal alien welfare programs, is a "job." or any variety of employment.

Trump's development of a carve out is a "camel's nose under the tent flap" approach to governance. Any such program, rule or law will always, ALWAYS result in a gradual mission creep as OTHER illegals are added to some sort of "critical" job set.

It will become a justification for the left to defend ALL illegal alien/open border policies as the merely point to what appears to be an exception for "some," but not for all. It's a matter of time before an increasing number of job classifications would be added to such a list of illegal alien employers to justify their continued exploitation of those who have zero legal right to have ever set foot in to this country.

And yes, I have noticed the reality that to date, illegals are arrested/deported while those hiring them suffer no apparent ill-consequence of any kind.

What kind of message is that sending to employers who's business model depends on the illegal hiring of illegal aliens?

Ending the issue of open borders, illegal aliens and criminal activities they engage in was one of the biggest platform planks Trump used to get elected. As were the release of Epstein List, which this nation's attorney general claimed at one point was "sitting on her desk", as well as the ending of aid to Ukraine (which, I reiterate, I STRONGLY oppose)

Tap dancing on this issue for ANY reason is unacceptable. It's handing the left a major wedge issue, it's short sighted and while Trump abhors the "amnesty" term in reference to this select group, at base, it appears that no other noun seems to cover the root action.

Amnesty: the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

What other term applies? People are watching. And people are noticing. And many are getting pissed.

Immigration, Epstein, Ukraine: Trump’s moves roil MAGA base

House GOP Leadership flipped the needed "no" vote to keep Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" alive.

EARLY this morning, one of the GOP no votes on Trump's BBBA flipped. the bill then passed when that one vote was enough to push it past the tie threshold that would have defeated the bill and enabled passage with a vote of 219 to 213.

When it pushed past the tie vote threshold, all of the GOP no votes then flipped to yes, save for one GOP hold out who likely ended his career yesterday with a surprise "no" vote, (Caucuses, by tradition, are typically supposed to lock up on what's called "procedural votes.") and who then fled the Capitol and failed to return any of Speaker Johnson's phone calls, leaving leadership hanging.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), the surprise "no" vote, immediately left the Capitol while the vote was ongoing. The political equivalent of a "dine and dash" moment, Fitzpatrick was in no mood to defend his vote nor to take the heat for it. He remained the only GOP no vote.

MAGA is, of course, furious. That said, Johnson likely needs to tread lightly based on the reality that Fitzpatrick, now considered a full-blown RINO, could switch parties, reducing the number of votes required to derail any GOP bill to what would then be effectively a 3-vote majority. (There is no tie-breaking mechanism in the House, unlike the Senate.)

I had declared the bill dead with the 4.... then 5... "no" votes and 8 GOP reps not voting to that point. That may also have been done strategically, as anyone voting on the prevailing side of any vote can then request immediate reconsideration.... and the House leadership (GOP) could then determine exactly what "immediate" means, which would have resulted in more time for GOP Leadership to do, what ultimately was done regardless-get more time for leadership to do what they did: flip the "no" votes.

Now the bill moves on to final passage.

Will the GOP continue to hold the needed votes? That's the question. They can count on Fitzpatrick to continue to be a no, and others like Rep. Tom Massie (R-KY) who has been claiming to be a rather militant "no" on this bill but who, in the end, voted yes on the procedural vote, may once again vote "no."

This is riveting drama for political junkies. Otto von Bismarck is credited with a saying that applies here: "There are two things people don't want to see being made: sausage and legislation," or words to that effect.

As I'm writing this, the democrat leader is engaging in the House version of a filibuster by whining on the House floor. As a caucus leader, by tradition, he's allowed to speak as long as he wants... aka "the Magic Minute."

He's been at it for 3 hours or so.

Isn't politics "fun?" (Polymarket, a renown political betting site, indicates an 84% chance the bill will now pass and pass today.)