Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Two MEN Compete In Finals For Women’s Event by Anastasia Boushee April 8, 2025;In what conservatives are calling a “real life South Park episode,” a women’s pool championship ended with two men competing in the finals.

 Staff Picks

Two MEN Compete In Finals For Women’s Event


In what conservatives are calling a “real life South Park episode,” a women’s pool championship ended with two men competing in the finals.

The Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series Event 2 in the United Kingdom on April 6 ended with two men masquerading as women competing in the final showdown: “Harriet” Haynes and “Lucy” Smith.

Each of these men defeated four different female opponents to make it to the finals, and Haynes ultimately won the competition, defeating Smith 8-6.

The news prompted widespread mockery on social media, though many were also angry over the fact that yet another trophy has been taken away from women by mediocre men claiming to be “transgender.”

Former college swimmer Riley Gaines, who became an advocate for protecting women’s sports after losing a trophy to male swimmer William “Lia” Thomas, deemed the news a “real life South Park episode” in a post on X.


Neither of the men have publicly commented on the backlash from the pool competition, though Haynes previously claimed in a statement to The Independent that pool “isn’t a gender-affected sport” and falsely asserting that he had “no advantage” over his female opponents based on being a man.“We’re not talking about boxing or golf—we’re talking about pool,” he said at the time.

Meanwhile, his claims are objectively false. According to The Daily Wire, “Some factors which critics say can affect a woman’s ability to compete against a man in pool include a man’s greater upper body strength, greater height, larger hand size, and longer reach. Professional level pool competitions are generally split between men and women.”

There was also another controversy during Sunday’s pool competition, as competitive pool player Lynne Pinches — who was observing the event as a spectator — was reportedly told to leave after Haynes’ partner complained about her being there and demanded that she be thrown out.

In 2023, Pinches famously dropped out of the Women’s Champion of Champions final competition against Haynes, leading to him winning the women’s tournament by default.

Afterwards, Pinches gave an interview with TalkTV about the unfair practice of allowing men to compete in women’s sports.

“Whenever you play a transgender player, even if you win, it doesn’t make any difference because, in your heart, you know it’s unfair,” she said at the time. “This is a category advantage. Being biologically male and playing against females gives you a clear category advantage.”

“Every time I play a transgender player, I think about it before, during and after the match, about how unfair it is and how this is a level I can’t reach,” Pinches added. “I watch some of the shots they play, and I think females don’t play these shots down the rails like this and they don’t clear up like this. They [trans women] have a longer reach and a lot of them are taller than us.”

“Women have been silenced because of fear of being transphobic,” she continued. “That is why people don’t speak out about this subject. It’s not a gender issue. This is a fairness issue.”

Vance Drops Ukraine Big News! by Anastasia Boushee April 8, 2025;“President Trump has said clearly and consistently the door is open — so long as Zelenskyy is willing to seriously talk peace,” the vice president explained.

 

Vance Drops Ukraine Big News!

Vice President JD Vance has stated that the “door is open” if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy actually “seriously” wants peace.

His comments come following the disastrous meeting between President Donald Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy, where the Ukrainian president repeatedly disrespected the president, the vice president, and the White House.

After that meeting, Vance appeared on Fox News with host Sean Hannity, where they discussed the fact that Zelenskyy is more concerned about continuing the war and demanding more American taxpayer dollars than he is about preventing more Ukrainian deaths in an unwinnable war.

“President Trump has said clearly and consistently the door is open — so long as Zelenskyy is willing to seriously talk peace,” the vice president explained.

“You can’t come into the Oval Office or anywhere else and refuse to even discuss the details of a peace deal,” Vance continued. “Look, this is not going to make anybody happy. The Russians are going to have to give up stuff, the Ukrainians are going to have to give up stuff. You can’t come to the Oval Office and say ‘give us security guarantees, we won’t even engage with you about what we are willing to give up.’ That’s been the Ukrainian posture.”


He went on to point out that the Biden administration effectively stated behind closed doors that their plan for the Russia-Ukraine war was to continue sending billions of dollars to Ukraine and “hope to eventually turn the tide.”

“Hope is not a strategy,” Vance noted. “Throwing money and ammunition at a terrible conflict — that is not a strategy.”



Vance also pointed out that the mineral deal that Zelenskyy was supposed to sign with the U.S. during the meeting would have provided actual security guarantees — as it would have put Americans in Ukraine, deterring Russia from continuing the war. Instead, Zelenskyy would rather have American or European troops on the ground, which would more than likely cause an all-out world war.

“If you want real security guarantees, if you want to actually ensure that Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine,” he said.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years,” Vance added.

Vance also highlighted the fact that Zelenskyy’s actions during the meeting were so abhorrent that he lost the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a warmonger who has essentially expressed more support for Ukraine than for his own country.

“My message to Ukrainians, by the way, to President Zelensky is: when you’ve lost Lindsey Graham, that means you need to come to the negotiating table and recognize Donald Trump is the only game in town,” Vance pointed out.

Oyer: “I Won’t Be Bullied” — Testifies On DOJ Corruption Despite Threats;Liz Oyer - who was fired as US Pardon Attorney allegedly for rejecting instruction to help restore Mel Gibson's gun rights - received this letter from Justice Dept before her appearance at Senate hearing

 Oyer: “I Won’t Be Bullied” — Testifies On DOJ Corruption Despite Threats

The Trump Justice Department has escalated tensions in Washington by sending U.S. Marshals to warn former Biden-era Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer against testifying at a Democrat-organized “shadow hearing.” The dramatic confrontation highlights growing concerns about the administration’s approach to gun rights for domestic abusers and raises questions about executive power. What role did Mel Gibson’s gun rights play in Oyer’s dismissal?

Dramatic Confrontation Over Testimony

Elizabeth Oyer, the former Pardon Attorney under Biden, found herself at the center of an unusual legal confrontation when U.S. Marshals arrived at her home to deliver a warning letter from the Trump Justice Department. The letter cautioned Oyer against testifying at a hearing organized by congressional Democrats, citing executive privilege concerns that supposedly barred her from discussing her work at the Department of Justice.

Despite the intimidating nature of the warning, Oyer ultimately decided to defy the order and appear at the hearing. “I’m here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and the abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer declared during her testimony, making it clear that she viewed the situation as a matter of principle rather than politics.

Gun Rights and Domestic Violence Concerns

At the heart of Oyer’s testimony was her claim that she was fired by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche due to her refusal to recommend the restoration of actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights. Oyer maintained that her position was based on serious concerns about the dangers of returning firearms to individuals with a history of domestic violence, a stance that put her at odds with the current administration’s priorities.

The former Pardon Attorney expressed her professional judgment in clear terms during the hearing. “Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter that, in my view, is not something that I could recommend lightly because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms,” Oyer stated, highlighting the public safety considerations that informed her decision.


Unusual Enforcement Tactics Raise Concerns

The Justice Department’s decision to use U.S. Marshals to deliver the warning letter has drawn criticism from legal experts and Democrats alike. Michael Bromwich, Oyer’s attorney, characterized the approach as “both unprecedented and completely inappropriate,” questioning why armed law enforcement officers would be dispatched to deliver a letter to a former government employee who had engaged in no misconduct.

Representative Jamie Raskin, who led the Democratic hearing where Oyer testified, framed the situation as an abuse of power by the Trump administration. The incident has raised broader questions about the administration’s approach to internal dissent and whistleblowing, with critics suggesting that the dramatic delivery method was intended to intimidate not just Oyer but anyone else considering speaking out against departmental decisions.

Oyer’s testimony emphasized that the Department of Justice has a fundamental responsibility to uphold the rule of law and protect civil rights. Her willingness to testify despite potential legal repercussions has been portrayed by supporters as a defense of these principles, while critics view her actions as politically motivated defiance of legitimate executive authority.

The controversy surrounding Oyer’s dismissal and subsequent testimony highlights ongoing tensions between different visions of the Justice Department’s proper role. Democrats have seized on the incident as evidence of what they characterize as the politicization of justice under Trump, while administration supporters maintain that executive privilege protections are necessary to ensure the department can function effectively.

Sources:

Trump Era Changes Already Bringing Needed Relief To 2nd Amendment Advocates… Here’s 3 Examples Leftist gun-grabbers maximized every chokepoint they could to squeeze lawful gun owners Wes Walker April 9, 2025

 

Trump Era Changes Already Bringing Needed Relief To 2nd Amendment Advocates… Here’s 3 Examples

Leftist gun-grabbers maximized every chokepoint they could to squeeze lawful gun owners

When you see the 2nd amendment as a protected right and not a hurdle to party policy, it’s amazing how much can change with a single election.

Personnel are policy, and while Biden’s appointees looked for every possible way to make life for difficult for the ordinary gun owner, Bondi, Patel and Bongino are looking for every possible way to remove barriers that would stand in the way of the Second Amendment.

Do you remember the Biden-Era harassment of every gun dealer? The smallest little clerical error on a form could be enough to endanger or lose your licence to sell guns under Biden.

This ‘zero tolerance’ policy was part of an intentional campaign to choke out supply of sources from which a gun could be lawfully purchased. The Trump administration is ending that ‘zero tolerance’ policy.

Here’s a summary of what those other two policies look like:

Pistol braces, accessories that stabilize firearms, are not banned outright, but the ATF’s 2023 rule classified many braced firearms as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the National Firearms Act, requiring registration; federal courts in 2024 deemed this rule likely illegal, prompting Patel’s review.

The “engaged in the business” rule, expanded by the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, broadened the definition of who must register as a firearms dealer, but a May 2024 Texas court injunction halted its enforcement, aligning with Patel’s review to potentially ease restrictions on private gun sellers.

‘Depraved Illegal Alien’ Facing Death Penalty For Murder, Plus Assault Of Multiple Minors Wes Walker April 9, 2025;In a story featuring two of Biden’s policy failures, one of the Illegals that came through the ‘secure’ border will now face the death penalty Biden tried to eliminate through pardons.

 

‘Depraved Illegal Alien’ Facing Death Penalty For Murder, Plus Assault Of Multiple Minors

In a story featuring two of Biden’s policy failures, one of the Illegals that came through the ‘secure’ border will now face the death penalty Biden tried to eliminate through pardons.

It began when a young boy went to see his soccer coach, but never returned. Two days later, his body was discovered.

But, as they say, the man accused of the murder was already ‘known to police’, after a 2024 complaint in which another child accused him of sexual assault. Those allegations have been included in the current charges, but until now, nothing had been done about it.

Police have put out a call, suspecting there may be other victims.

That total has now risen to three.

At some point we will want to know why those 2024 charges that are worth charging him for NOW where not brought against him sooner.

Could the life of 13yo Oscar “Omar” Hernandez have been spared, had they pressed charges sooner?

Did his status as an illegal alien influence the decision NOT to press charges sooner?

These are questions the family deserves to hear answers for… and the rest of America should want them too.

Trump Admin Has Some Bad News For Anyone Overstaying Their Deportation We dug around in the lawbooks, and found one that's perfect for getting the job done Wes Walker April 9, 2025

 

Trump Admin Has Some Bad News For Anyone Overstaying Their Deportation

We dug around in the lawbooks, and found one that's perfect for getting the job done

If you thought you could stay here without any consequences, guess again. There’s a law on the books, and it’s going to be enforced.

What drew people to the United States in the first place had nothing to do with ‘amnesty’ and everything to do with perverse incentive structures.

America offered them things (often, at taxpayer expense!) that they might never be able to have at home. In reality, what most people came for was earning potential.

Of course, the cartels made sure they got a massive cut of those earnings (Or else!) as payment for crossing ‘their’ border on ‘their’ terms. (Not without being robbed and raped, in many instances.)

Team Trump came in with a deliberate plan to reverse those perverse incentive structures, and make illegals WANT to go home again, rather than stay here.

Those incentives have already flipped, as evidence by the fact that our borders are no longer being swarmed. But we’re seeing change for people already here, too. They money is drying up, and that’s incentivizing many who were sucking off the government teat to turn back home.

We’re rounding up criminals. Making a very public display about exactly what conditions the criminal cartels can find themselves reduced to. That’s having an effect as well.

But this latest one will add some urgency to any decisions being made by the illegals who have overstayed a deportation order. There’s a law on the books where someone can be fined $998 every day they overstay their deportation. Failure to PAY that fine can result in the seizure of property.

Fines like that will quickly drain a bank account, and cost you a vehicle or a home. If the goal is to come here to earn wealth you can’t get at home, doing it illegally just got a whole lot riskier.

And it’s not a new law. That means the Never Trump lawfare machine would have a tough time organizing against it.

In case that doesn’t light a fire under their backsides, how about this?

We know who they are, and we know enough about their financial information to freeze their bank accounts.

How many do you think are going to stick around to find out if Tom Homan is serious about making them leave and soaking them for everything their worth in the process?

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *