Tag Archives: Jimmy Kimmel

Jimmy Kimmel says good riddance to losing 30% of Republican viewers

Definition of “good riddance” or “riddance”: Relief or deliverance from being rid of something undesirable.

Attention, Republicans!

Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t care if you watch his ABC late-night talk show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”. In fact, he’s glad to be rid of you.

So you’d be a fool to watch his show.

Naomi Lim reports for Washington Examiner, Oct. 15, 2017, that Kimmel told CBS’ Sunday Morning that because of his on-air rants about healthcare and gun control, his show is losing Republican viewers. He said:

“Three years ago, I was equally liked by Republicans and Democrats. And then Republican numbers went way down, like 30 percent, or whatever. And you know, as a talk show host, that’s not ideal but I would do it again in a heartbeat.

When conservative critics like Ben Shapiro slam him for parading as a “moral arbiter,” Kimmel told CBS:

“I’m not. I mean, I agree with him. I’m nobody’s moral arbiter. You don’t have to watch the show. You don’t have to listen to what I say.”

Then Kimmel defiantly added that while he preferred that everyone with a television watch his show:

“But if they’re so turned off by my opinion on healthcare and gun violence then, I don’t know, I probably wouldn’t want to have a conversation with them anyway. Not good riddance, but riddance.

Kimmel earned both high praise and sharp rebukes for his foray into the healthcare debate in September, an issue that he insists is important to him because his six-month-old son Billy was born with a rare congenital heart defect. Kimmel’s portrayal of his son as a victim of President Trump’s efforts to reform/repeal Obamacare is puzzling, given the fact that with an annual salary of $10 million and an estimated net worth of $35 million, Kimmel easily can afford his son’s healthcare costs under whatever health care system.

Kimmel also garnered similarly polarized reactions when he choked up during a monologue imploring Congress to act on gun control in the wake of the October 1 Las Vegas shooting massacre.

See also “Jimmy Kimmel to woman: Put your mouth to what’s in my pants”:



Jimmy Kimmel to woman: Put your mouth to what’s in my pants

Over the past month, ABC late-night TV talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has forcefully spoken out on the need for gun control and against President Trump’s efforts to reform/repeal Obamacare.

The Daily Beast points out that Kimmel, however, was noticeably silent on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual molestation and rape of women. Although the New York Times‘ Weinstein exposé was published on Oct. 5, Kimmel and his late-night counterparts Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon and James Corden did not cover it until four days later on Oct. 9.

Kimmel defended himself on Good Morning America, saying that “the Harvey Weinstein thing, people like this false equivalence of that’s somehow equivalent to what happened in Las Vegas,” arguing that Weinstein’s alleged assault of dozens of women does not deserve the same attention as the killing of nearly 60 people in Las Vegas. In so doing, Kimmel presented a false either/or choice, because there’s no reason why Kimmel couldn’t have spoken out on both Weinstein and Las Vegas.

Kimmel then said that Weinstein is “not a friend of mine” because “I’m not in the movie business,” which is absurd on its face because of Kimmel’s hosting of the Academy Awards and his friendship with many of the movie stars in Weinstein’s orbit.

The video below of a so-called “comedy sketch” explains Kimmel’s reticence on the subject of Harvey Weinstein.


Kimmel to woman: “I’ve stuffed something in my pants, and you’re allowed to feel around on the outside of the pants. You have 10 seconds to then guess what is in my pants.”

The woman bends down to feel Kimmel’s crotch.

Kimmel: “You should use two hands, two hands.”

To another woman squatting down and groping his crotch: “Maybe it would be easier if you put your mouth on it.”

Later, Kimmel reveals what was in his pants — a zucchini with a rubber band around the top, to simulate a penis.

This is what passes as comedy in America today. What a commentary on “feminism” that there are women so desperate to be on TV that they willingly degrade themselves — and right in the open, on a public street.


Tom Hanks’ disturbing Toddlers & Tiaras skit with 6-year-old ‘sexy baby’

I don’t watch late-night TV talk shows. In fact, I hardly watch network TV, period.

So I wasn’t aware of this so-called “skit” by Tom Hanks that was broadcast on Jimmy Kimmel Live 4 years ago.

Tom Hanks and fake daughter SophieIt’s a 6½-minute skit called “Toddlers and Tiaras,” in which a child actress pretends to be Hanks’ 6-year-old daughter Sophie, whom Hanks has groomed to be “sexy” since she was 3 months old to compete in the “Sexy Baby – Nevada” beauty pageant.

Note: Hanks has 4 children — 2 sons with his second and current wife Rita Wilson, and a son and a daughter with his first wife whom he divorced in 1987. Tom’s real-life daughter, Elizabeth Hanks, was born in 1982 and will be 32 years old this May.

Hanks looks downright creepy, his eyes pulled tight by plastic surgery.

Tom HanksThe skit is presented as a satire of girl beauty pageants — but is it?

A 3-month-old baby is “sexy”? A 6-year-old girl is “sexy”? Only to pedophiles!

Ask yourself: Why would a mega-star like Tom Hanks devote his time and effort to make this long, supposedly-funny (which it isn’t) skit for a late-night talk show?

Or is it an effort to normalize pedophilia?

Watch it, then let’s hear from you!

H/t YouTuber pocketsofthefuture

See also:

Update (May 26, 2016):

In the last week, this post was discovered and passed around on Facebook, evidently by fans of Hanks, many of whom insist that his skit was well-meaning, intended to satirize child beauty pageants and to draw attention to the scourge of pedophilia.


If that was Hanks’ purpose, he really should have looked closer to home — to Hollywood, where child actors/actresses routinely are preys for pedophiles. See the new documentary about Hollywood pedophiles, An Open Secret.


This is how the Commander In Chief works out in the gym

Last week, the POS was in Europe.

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, he went to a hotel gym in Warsaw, Poland to work out, accompanied by his Secret Service.

Members of the media weren’t there, but some enterprising person managed to take a video of the girly man working out.

Pay special attention to the girly man doing the reverse fly beginning at the 1:06 mark.

Seriously, gals in my aerobic class were more athletic and masculine than this POS.

We also know how to properly perform the reverse fly: Only one’s arms move, NOT the torso, and no little sissy squats.


We’re the laughing stock of Europe and the world.

H/t FOTM’s Lola


Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of Obama’s girly workout:

H/t FOTM’s swampygirl


More evidence that Americans are scary stupid

These Americans don’t know the (un)Affordable Care Act *is* ObamaCare LuciferCare




As described by the Daily Caller, last Monday, Sept. 30, 2013, ABC’s late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel trolled the streets of Los Angeles to ask people to choose which health plan they preferred: Obamcare or the Affordable Care Act. These are, of course, the exact same thing. But that didn’t stop people in L.A. from pontificating on the various pros and cons of “two” policies that are the SAME THING.

One guy called Obamacare “un-American,” but the Affordable Care Act is “more American.” Another thinks that Obamacare is “socialist,” but the Affordable Care Act is not.

From their asinine responses, however, I think I now know why the POS has told the lapdog media *not* to call the (un)Affordable Care Act by the more commonly-known name of Obamacare.

The Obama brand name is now soiled, but the Orwellian Newspeak of “Affordable Care Act” isn’t. The stupids in this Kimmel video actually think just because it’s called “Affordable Care Act,” that means LuciferCare actually is affordable!

God help us.

H/t FOTM’s Miss May

See also:


More evidence that Americans are stupid

Remember this evidence that I posted on February 1, 2013, demonstrating that the problem with America is stupidity?

letter to editor

This self-identified Democrat who wrote the letter to the editor of Morehead City, NC’s Carteret County News-Times, thinks the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution means someone who wasn’t delivered via a C-section. God help us.

How about this video that I posted on March 5, 2013, about how Americans have no idea what “sequester” is, and are too stupid to even ask what is?

And this video that Trail Dust posted on March 28, 2013, of Americans so stupid as to think Jesus Christ, crucified two thousand years ago, had been killed by a gun?

Here’s more evidence of American stupidity.

Infowars’ Lee Ann McAdoo went around asking passersby to sign a (fake) petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which is an unfamiliar name for H2O or water.

Watch as one person after another happily signs the petition — to ban water.

See also DCG’s companion post today, “A nation of low-information voters.”

We’re doomed. 😦


Americans are lazy and willfully ignorant

Remember this?

I had posted the video in my post of Mar. 5, 2013, “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.” Here’s Richard Winchester saying the same, but more eloquently, in The American Thinker.

While the MSM should be faulted, I blame the low no information voter more. In this day and age of the Internet and Alternate Media, there really is no excuse for why so many Americans remain so woefully and willingly uninformed, thereby making themselves into perfect dupes of liars and manipulators.

H/t FOTM’s StephanieO


Democrat voters

The American Ignoramus

By Richard Winchester

If democracy requires an informed citizenry to function well, the United States is in serious trouble. Many Americans are political ignoramuses.

It doesn’t take much effort to describe the typical citizen’s political ignorance. The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, for example, has plumbed random samples of the public’s public affairs knowledge about twice a year since 2007. The questions have varied in substance and format, but the results have been uniformly dismal. The average correct score is usually just above 50% which, if judged by the usual academic standard –90+% = A, 80-89% = B, 70-79% = C, 60-69% = D, <60% = F — would be F.

Since people who cannot be contacted or refuse to take part in polls are more politically ignorant than those who do, these are generous estimates of the public’s political knowledge. It’s estimated that 25% to 33% or more of the adult populace is “missing in action” when poll results are reported. Were these people’s ignorance added to poll results, pollsters tell us that the public’s grade would be F-.

One particular Pew Research Center poll illustrates the average citizen’s paltry stock of political information. Between July 26-29, 2012, the Pew Research Center asked a random sample of adults twelve questions tapping knowledge of the presidential election. Some questions probed knowledge of where the candidates stood on key issues; others plumbed information about the candidates’ background. The average score was 6.5 questions right, or 54% of the total. Forty-nine percent got six or fewer questions correct.

If you think a poll from late July is too early in an election year to provide evidence of what people know on Election Day, history tells us not to expect much learning during a campaign. Moreover, partisans pay heed mostly to stories about their preferred candidate; they generally ignore, or largely discount, information about the other candidate(s). Even when information concerns one’s preferred candidate, all too often it’s “in one ear, out the other.”

People need “old” information to help process and retain “new” information. This is known as “the Matthew principle,” after the passage in Matthew 25: 29, which asserts, in effect, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

Many individuals cast ballots knowing virtually nothing about candidates and where they stand on major issues, their country’s history and political institutions, the ideals that have motivated earlier generations, and the likely consequences of their vote. These “low-information voters” cast ballots mostly on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, partisanship, and/or class envy.

Ignorance is not just a problem on Election Day. Many individuals have only the dimmest awareness of important aspects of their locality, state, or nation. People know virtually nothing about important issues confronting their governing officials. Many can’t even name their local, state, or national leaders. Finally, “dark areas of ignorance” aptly characterizes the public mind when it comes to foreign affairs.

What are the consequences of widespread political ignorance? Manipulation of ordinary people by what Angelo Codevilla calls the “ruling class,” which includes political leaders, the news and entertainment media, and special interest groups. Instead of public opinion shaping public policy, most of the time Jane or John Q. Public has no political influence, because she/he knows little, if anything, about what is going on in the corridors of power.

Unless someone can find a way to stimulate greater grassroots political attentiveness — the more interested people are in public affairs, the better informed they are — expecting a substantially better-informed citizenry is wishful thinking. There are just too many spheres of life, such as family, friends, work, health, faith, recreation, entertainment, etc., that people believe are more pressing than public affairs. In the main, politics is a matter of tertiary concern.

Since almost all American adults rely on the mass media for the news, patterns of media dependence and styles of media coverage of politics also preclude the possibility of a much better informed public.

A Rasmussen poll in late February, 2013 found that 56% of “likely voters” said they got most of their news from either cable TV outlets (32%) or traditional network telecasts (24%). Another 25% claimed to rely most on the Internet for the news, 10% said print newspapers were their main news source, and 7% picked radio.

That mix of news sources helps understand the public’s low levels of political knowledge, since electronic outlets (TV and radio) provide less information than print news. The internet’s efficacy as a source of the news is less understood, although some claim the internet “makes us dumb” because it conveys information less effectively than traditional print outlets.

In addition, the substance and style of media coverage of public affairs has shifted in recent decades from “hard” to “soft” news. Hard news refers to media accounts of serious topics such as politics, business, or international events. These accounts are normally longer and convey more detailed information than soft news stories. Soft news stories typically focus on entertainment, the arts, and lifestyles, and tend to be aimed at tugging at the audience’s heartstrings.

In summary, most people, most of the time, aren’t very interested in public affairs, and consequently don’t know a lot. Moreover, given patterns of media exposure and a larger amount of soft news, it’s unlikely that things will change much.

What does it mean? At best, the U.S. will have bad political leaders, chosen by low information voters. At worst, American democracy will slowly shrivel due to widespread ignorance.

Ignorance seldom leads to happy endings.

%d bloggers like this: