Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Yale Psychiatrist Bandy Lee Returns to Diagnose Trump as a Racist

Yale Psychiatrist Bandy Lee Returns to Diagnose Trump as a Racist

“Surely he is racist, but that is not all. When he says, ‘I am the least racist person you have ever met,’ he tells me that he is surely the most racist person I have ever met.”

https://youtu.be/ghg4-1rEZzk

Yale psychiatry professor Bandy Lee has been trotted out by Democrats repeatedly to declare President Donald Trump mentally unfit for office. She has never even met the president, which makes her diagnosis ethically and professionally unsound, and now she is being consulted once again.

This time, she is being used to claim that Trump is a racist.

Genesis Sanchez and Rob Shimshock report at Campus Reform:

Yale psychiatrist: When Trump calls himself ‘the least racist person,’ ‘he tells me that he is surely the most racist person’

A Yale University professor and forensic psychiatrist gave a rather peculiar analysis Monday of why she deems President Donald Trump racist.

Dr. Bandy X. Lee, whose Yale faculty bio describes her as an “internationally recognized expert on violence,” made the comments in an interview with Raw Story, adding on to ones she made to the outlet on Wednesday…

The professor ascribed “pathological racism,” or the transformation of “racism into reason,” as the force animating those defending the president from allegations of racism.

Lee made these remarks after previously telling Raw Story that Trump “is deteriorating rapidly. He attacks as a maladaptive means of coping with stress, and he won’t stop.”

Tana Ganeva wrote the original report for the progressive outlet Raw Story:

Yale psychiatrist explains the root of Trump’s ‘pathological racism’

On Monday morning, President Donald Trump once again escalated his conflict with “the Squad,” the group of freshman Congresswomen of color he told to go back to their own countries. Although moderate Republicans had hoped last week that the President would tone down his remarks, on Monday he once again doubled down on Twitter…

Raw Story spoke with Yale psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee about why the president can’t stop himself from attacking the young women. Lee is a forensic psychiatrist and an expert on violence at Yale School of Medicine…

Raw Story: So you believe Mr. Trump is racist?

Dr. Bandy X. Lee: Surely he is racist, but that is not all. When he says, “I am the least racist person you have ever met,” he tells me that he is surely the most racist person I have ever met. In psychiatry, we are trained not simply to believe a person’s words at face value but to evaluate the person’s reliability, whether there are consistent patterns of defense, and whether it is the person or the disease that is speaking, before we believe.

Mr. Trump’s patterns indicate that when he says others are “hate-filled extremists who are constantly trying to tear our country down,” he actually means, “I am a hate-filled extremist constantly trying to tear this country down.”

Earlier this month, Lee and her “associates” did a psychiatric analysis of Trump and the Mueller Report. This woman is a partisan hack who deserves to lose her credentials. I defy you to make it through this without laughing:

It’s a shame that Charles Krauthammer is no longer with us. As a psychiatrist, It would be fascinating to hear his opinion of Lee and her abuse of her position to advance Trump Derangement Syndrome.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yale professor = leftist bias

He opinion and $2.50 will get you a crappy cup of hotel coffee.

    MattMusson in reply to Tsquared. | July 25, 2019 at 6:26 am

    Why isn’t publicly diagnosing someone a HIPPA violation?
    There is no exception in the Act for releasing personal information of public figures?

      Jackie in reply to MattMusson. | July 25, 2019 at 9:43 am

      Does she really have any personal information? She didn’t examine him and has no access to his medical records. Then again, she is using her license as a Psychiatrist to diagnose someone she has never met. That has to be at least a violation of the code of ethics and possibly criminal.

        stevewhitemd in reply to Jackie. | July 25, 2019 at 11:01 am

        It is not criminal. However, it is a clear and flagrant violation of the APA code that prohibits psychiatrists from offering a medical diagnosis of a person whom they’ve not personally examined. That has not stopped Dr. Lee in the past and won’t stop her in the future.

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2019 at 1:44 am

          But is she a member? If she isn’t then its rules don’t affect her.

          goodspkr in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2019 at 2:00 pm

          She also said, “Dr. Bandy X. Lee: Surely he is racist, but that is not all. When he says, “I am the least racist person you have ever met,” he tells me that he is surely the most racist person I have ever met.”

          Now when did she meet him?

          Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 28, 2019 at 2:08 am

          She didn’t say she’d met him. He was the one who introduced the phrase “you’ve ever met”. She merely reflected his phrase.

        MattMusson in reply to Jackie. | July 26, 2019 at 9:00 am

        Wrong. Having worked in a hospital setting and gone through numerous HIPPA information training classes:

        A Diagnosis is ALWAYS personal information.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MattMusson. | July 26, 2019 at 1:32 pm

          Bandy must have swallowed too much Brandy.

          Always a danger I guess when taking big buck$ of Communist Chinese money, no??????

          Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | July 28, 2019 at 2:10 am

          A remote diagnosis, based entirely on publicly available information, is not private information.

When Bandy says Trump is the most racist person, we know that means he is the least racist person. Two can play that game!

“Dr. Bandy X. Lee, whose Yale faculty bio describes her as an “internationally recognized expert on violence“…”
So is Mike Tyson.

    malclave in reply to MTED. | July 24, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    So was Stalin.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MTED. | July 24, 2019 at 9:54 pm

    Clearly a self promoter, and that is here only real skill.

    puhiawa in reply to MTED. | July 25, 2019 at 12:55 am

    Is she Cherokee? Can she make a crab omelet with Mayo? …
    Truthfully, this searching woman is a mental wreck. She is just trying to reclaim the glory and press she initially received, and had her license suspended for. She hangs at Yale because they have no idea how to run a college and are scared to fire her. Only a fool would even be alone with this professional victim.

      stevewhitemd in reply to puhiawa. | July 25, 2019 at 11:03 am

      I’ve looked at Dr. Lee’s licensing history in available public records and am not aware of a suspension. Do you have a link?

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2019 at 1:45 am

        There was no suspension. It was a stupid stupid rumor that someone made up out of nothing and a lot of stupid people repeated as if it were true.

        She is licensed in NY.

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 26, 2019 at 2:02 am

        cf the ridiculous rumor about the 0bamas having lost their IL law licenses. There’s not a shred of truth to it, it’s a complete fabrication, but thousands of people believe it, including some commenters here. The truth, as is very easy to discover, is that they put their licenses in inactive status, as every IL lawyer does who is not planning to use it again, or at least for a long time. Inactive lawyers pay a much lower annual fee, and are exempt from CLE requirements. If either of them should ever take it into their heads to go back into practice, they can reactivate their licenses simply by paying the difference between the inactive and active fees and taking some catch-up CLE classes.

It’s all NewSpeak.

“Racist” means “opposed to the black/gay/trans/criminal/Muslim-supremacist and socialist/mind-control agendas”, and DJT is obviously guilty.

I’d say we need a lot more of that kind of “racist”.

Any licensed physician who uses his/her professional credentials for nakedly political purposes, to slander people, is unfit to practice medicine and should have his/her license promptly revoked.

This isn’t innocuously voicing a personal political opinion — this is using one’s professional status and claimed expertise for the self-serving and self-aggrandizing purpose of attacking people based on their political affiliation.

I think it’s a legitimate question whether this doctor would render the appropriate level of care to a Trump-supporter or a conservative, based on her infantile political zealotry.

    And they most assuredly should not be teaching others.

    nebel in reply to guyjones. | July 24, 2019 at 7:56 pm

    Could it be argued that her public analyses of Trump constitute providing care to Trump? What if Trump sees what she says and takes action based on her statements?

      Milhouse in reply to nebel. | July 24, 2019 at 11:45 pm

      No, it could not be argued. Public pontificating is not treatment; it’s first-amendment protected speech. That’s why investment experts can say whatever they like on talk shows and in public columns, and the regulators can’t do anything about it. Nor does one need a law license to discuss about legal questions, or an engineering license to discuss engineering issues. (Some western state licensing board, I think Oregon, tried to go after a qualified but unlicensed engineer for commenting on a matter of public interest based on his unique knowledge, claiming he was practicing engineering; that attempt got slapped down in court PDQ.)

        Interesting. I don’t know what the state of Oregon was thinking. This sounds like an interesting case for the basic engineering class that I teach each semester.

        Most engineers are not licensed professional engineers (PEs) simply because they perform jobs that do not require it.

        Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | July 25, 2019 at 1:15 am

        “Public pontificating is not treatment; it’s first-amendment protected speech.”

        Where, as here, it is a purported diagnosis by a psychological professional, where said professional has not examined the subject, it is an ethical breach, and may be actionable slander.

          dystopia in reply to Valerie. | July 25, 2019 at 6:49 am

          You may be a licensed attorney. But Mihouse thinks he knows more about law than you do. That despite his long list of wrong prognostications. For example Federal Courts did not have jurisdiction of the Florida 2018 elections. He pontificated that the statement “Gibson’s is racist” was not defamatory. But the trial court ruled it (in this instance absence any evidence) per-se defamatory.

          By the way, since you have a background in IP Law, Is Milhouses use of the copyrighted character Milhouse “fair use” or “de-minimus” use? He will scream it is.

          Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | July 25, 2019 at 8:03 am

          Whether it’s an ethical breach depends on whether the person happens to be a member of a professional association that happens to have a rule against it. In this case the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association do have such rules, but the American Psychoanalytic Association doesn’t. I have not seen any information on whether Dr Lee is a member of any such group/s, let alone which one/s.

          And yes, public pontificating may indeed be actionable defamation. The first amendment protects opinions but not objectively false statements of fact, so someone making pronouncements such as Dr Lee’s has to be very careful how they word them. Barry Goldwater successfully sued in a very similar case, overcoming the (then-new) Sullivan barrier.

          However, the question was whether such pontificating can be considered the practice of medicine (or some other professional service) and the answer is that it cannot.

          Tom Servo in reply to Valerie. | July 25, 2019 at 10:42 am

          to add a slight bit to what Milhouse has already written – yes, what she did is an ethical breach according to the APA, the penalty for violating the APA’s code is that the receptionist looks in the general direction of the violater, shakes her finger, and says “nanny nanny boo boo”.

          You think I’m joking, but I’m really not. There is no enforcement mechanism for any of their code, it’s like the “Pirate’s Code” in Pirates of the Caribbean, “it’s more like guidelines than a code.”

          So let’s cut to the REAL issue, which is that this code was enacted to try to keep people from noticing that modern Psychiatry is a garbage profession based on pseudo-science where practitioners can get away with saying whatever they want, even when they’re crazier than their patients are. That’s the reality of what’s really going on here. Don’t question why she said such things; question why anyone gives any money or attention at all to anyone who claims to be a part of that fraud of a “profession”.

          Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | July 28, 2019 at 2:12 am

          He pontificated that the statement “Gibson’s is racist” was not defamatory. But the trial court ruled it (in this instance absence any evidence) per-se defamatory.

          You lie again. This is quite a habit of yours.

    The only reason she can make these false claims is because she is not licensed in CT. Otherwise, she’d definitely be a candidate to have her license yanked.
    However, she is violating ethics (Goldwater Rule) and should be called out by whatever regulatory board is in charge.

    alaskabob in reply to guyjones. | July 24, 2019 at 11:36 pm

    Practicing medicine without a brain. Physician …heal thy self.

Serious questions: had Dr. Lee ever done an exam of President Trump? Has she ever met and talked with him at even a casual level?

Something tells me Dr. Lee would have felt at home in the Soviet Union.

    No, she has never even met him. Therefore she is not qualified to diagnose him. But she can speak in generalities about what a certain pattern of behavior might typically mean.

      I think the key word is “might”. Without an actual unbiased diagnosis how would she know for sure in Trump’s case?

      Regardless, I wonder if Dr. Lee realizes the potential damage she is doing to her chosen profession. If I were a psychiatrist I would be livid at how Dr. Lee is making a mess that other psychiatrists will have to deal with. I don’t see anything in the article in which she is quoted where she she makes it clear this is an opinion rather than an actual diagnosis, and while this may be constitutionally protected free speech it is still rather sleazy and unprofessional. There is no caution on her part, just flying off the cliff at warp speed.

        I’m sure she does realize it, but the cause of bringing Trump down is so important that it justifies the collateral damage. In any case, all competent psychiatrists agree with her, of course, and hate Trump as much as she does, because any that don’t are by definition incompetent and shouldn’t be practicing, so they deserve whatever damage she’s doing to them. (You may think I’m exaggerating, and I am a bit, but a very similar attitude now pervades social work schools; holding conservative political views is officially considered to disqualify someone from becoming a social worker, so conservative students have to hide their views until after they’re graduated and licensed.)

          Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | July 25, 2019 at 10:48 am

          I agree with you completely on your assessment; in fact a very similar viewpoint was always used by the USSR against their ideological opponents. The Logic was that, We, the Government stand for the Good of All People, and Truth, and Justice; you would have to be mentally ill to oppose those goals; therefore anyone who opposes the Government is by definition mentally ill and can be locked up for psychiatric treatment and given mind altering drugs until they agree that the Government is Good and Kind and Loves Them.

          the Chinese do it, too.

      neurodoc in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2019 at 11:56 pm

      Milhouse, you were doing great until this point, then you say, “she has never even met him. Therefore she is not qualified to diagnose him.” That maybe the APA’s party line meant to bolster their dubious ethics code position, but for those who are not APA members or are willing to break ranks with this professional organization and do not fear discipline by a state licensing authority, they have more than enough data to pronounce a diagnosis on Trump. And I say that as a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, as is Dr. Lee, she in psychiatry, me in neurology.

      As far as we know, Trump has never submitted to anything like a formal psychiatric evaluation, and we can be supremely confident that he never will. So does that protect him for all time from having a psychiatric diagnosis pronounced on him, even though there is such an incredible superabundance of psychiatric data on him going back more an a half-century, compiled by a huge number of observers of all sorts, reflected in the press and court records, with so much speechifying and tweets by him, etc. Nonsense.

      As for Charles Krauthammer, who completed a psychiatry residence, but never practiced afterwards, he assessed Trump as grossly unfit to serve as POTUS.

      Too much nonsense in the comment’s here, to take it all on. Milhouse’s comments are the closest to sane medically and legally (e.g., no HIPPA violations; no legal or medical malpractice; no libel or slander; etc.)

Fun fact:

Marxist revolutionaries liquidated the left-intelligentsia during the initial class based sweeps of Russian and China.

    rabidfox in reply to Tiki. | July 24, 2019 at 7:29 pm

    The didn’t fare all that well under Pol Pot either.

    If the swamp/left/islamic axis every gained absolute power in the US, we know they’d go to war between themselves – after they’ve done us in.

    The likes of romney and mconnell would be liquidated quickly, (though one can imagine the likes of boehner begging for their lives, and volunteering to work the gas chambers), leaving the left’s browshirts to battle the islamics.

    The islamics would likely win.

The Friendly Grizzly | July 24, 2019 at 6:54 pm

If I had the ability, I’d adapt cuckoo clocks. I’d remove the birdie, and replace it with a tiny figure of Naxibe Waters, or a generic black reverend. The “KOO-koo” sounder would be replaced with a voice chip shouting “RAY-cist…. RAY…cist”.

texansamurai | July 24, 2019 at 6:55 pm

isn’t what this woman doing actionable?–my god, never to have even met the ” patient ” face-to-face and spouting all this bent diagnostic nonsense as if it is fact–all i can say is she’s fortunate to be a woman as otherwise, spouting this kind of crap and playing doctor would land her arrogant ass in the hospital

    nebel in reply to texansamurai. | July 24, 2019 at 7:52 pm

    She made a factual assertion that she met Trump. This likely false statement has material significance because it creates the perception that she is basing her medical opinions on personal interactions with Trump that never happened.

    One would think that there are medical ethics standards which she might be violating, or that her medical proclamations created a duty of care that she has breached. After all, she should be at fault if Trump takes action on her diagnoses.

      lc in reply to nebel. | July 24, 2019 at 8:18 pm

      Yes, she is violating the GOldwater Rule.

        Milhouse in reply to lc. | July 24, 2019 at 11:58 pm

        That is a rule in the American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics. If she is a member of that organization, then she is violating its ethics, and might in theory be subject to some sort of internal discipline or censure. But I don’t know whether she is a member, and if she isn’t then she has no reason to care about its rules. Even if she is a member, the worst they could possibly do to her would be to cancel her membership, and I doubt they’d go that far.

      Milhouse in reply to nebel. | July 25, 2019 at 12:00 am

      She made a factual assertion that she met Trump.

      When did she say that? I must have missed it. Not that I’ve been paying much attention to her blathering.

If she didn’t know me, which she doesn’t, then she’d know I am the least racist person ever, and therefore the most racist person ever.

Psychiatric Studies is the course isn’t it?

“In psychiatry, we are trained not simply to believe a person’s words at face value but to evaluate the person’s reliability, whether there are consistent patterns of defense, and whether it is the person or the disease that is speaking, before we believe.”

In medicine, we are trained to not make it up as we go along. Is “pathological racism” in the DSM-5?
Consistent patterns of defense might just mean he’s actually telling the truth.. Just saying..

In her case, I think it’s the disease that’s speaking. What’s the ICD-10 code for Trump derangement syndrome?

    What’s the ICD-10 code for Trump derangement syndrome?

    Same as for useless end users of technology: ID10T (pronounced “eye-dee-ten-tee”).

    😉

Bandy X. Lee: “Surely he is racist, but that is not all. When he says, ‘I am the least racist person you have ever met,’ he tells me that he is surely the most racist person I have ever met.”

Who says Leftists aren’t aware that “psychological projection” is a thing?

    Also, nothing she said is couched in qualifying statements such as, “In my opinion….” She’s presenting everything as fact.

    Thus, we have statements that are:
    1. Published;
    2. Probably false (she can’t know, having never met DJT), but at the very least showing a reckless disregard for truth;
    3. Intentional; and
    4. Injurious.

    And we can argue persuasively that they are spoken/published with “actual malice”.

    IANAL, but I believe that meets all the criteria for a solid defamation case.

      walls in reply to Archer. | July 24, 2019 at 8:30 pm

      Unfortunately defamation rules are different for private persons and public persons … much, much harder to win with a public person.

      Milhouse in reply to Archer. | July 25, 2019 at 12:12 am

      Goldwater did collect from those who defamed him, so there is some precedent. But Goldwater wasn’t president when he sued, so he had time to pursue it. Maybe Trump will sue her after he’s out of office.

      I wish Mitt Romney had sued Harry Reid once he lost the election and had plenty of time. I think he’d have had a slam-dunk case, unless Reid was careful not to repeat his lies off the senate floor. (I don’t remember whether he did.)

        Romney doens’t have the guts to battle anyone that could actually hurt him. Which is why he only stabs conservatives in the back.

        Paul in reply to Milhouse. | July 25, 2019 at 6:45 am

        Maybe it was Romney who bashed that lying pig’s eye out. That would have been just rewards. On second thought, nah, Romney is a pussy… He proved that when he rolled over and piddled the rug during the debates with Jugears.

          Tom Servo in reply to Paul. | July 25, 2019 at 10:54 am

          I have never believed that ridiculous story about how Harry Reid’s face got punched in, and he then decided to retire.

          It wasn’t widely reported, but Reid’s family sued the supposed manufacturer of the malicious exercise equipment, mainly to “prove” that it happened the way they said. The case got thrown out of court when they could not provide one single piece of physical evidence to corroborate their story. Even when it came to the supposed exercise equipment that they said harmed him, and which they were suing in court about – they actually said, in court, that they were so upset in the days after the “accident” that they threw it away and never realized they would need any actual evidence if they wanted to make a case about it.

          Like I said, this is about as far as they got when the Court said “okay, that’s it, you’re outta here.”

Define “racist”. Then point out actual words or actions that fit that definition. Otherwise, STFU.

Racism? Color judgment? Diversity breeds adversity.

Gremlin1974 | July 24, 2019 at 9:19 pm

I have been a Nurse for 25 years and I am sure that there is a word for offering professional opinions on a patient without proper testing, records, or complete information.

I just looked it up its called; “Malpractice”.

Don’t medical ethics prevent a physician from rendering a diagnosis without examination of the patient?

And don’t they also prevent the Doctor from speaking publicly about that diagnosis without the patients permission?

Only with a Fake News Media would any doctor be allowed to make the comments/statements she makes. It borders on treason and is slanderous/libelous. She and the publishers of her statements could and should be sued.

    Tom Servo in reply to jakee308. | July 25, 2019 at 11:01 am

    Here’s the “big secret” about “ethics codes” for any of the professions – they are all toothless platitudes that have no value whatsoever, they are only designed to make the gullible public think there are some “rules”, when in fact the only rule is say whatever you want and milk the public for as much as you can get.

    The Bar Associations are the worst at this. When you read accounts of disbarment’s due to “ethical violations” they always read like this: “Attorney Joe D. Blow was disbarred by the State Board last week because he stole $5 million from his client’s trust fund account and turned it to his own purposes. The Bar felt it had to take action because this was the 7th time he had done this in the last 5 years, and we had previously sent him several very stern warnings to him about stealing from his clients.”

    You may think I’m exaggerating – I’m not.

Discovered as new field: Remote Psychobabble.

Actions like “Dr” Lee pseudo diagnosis should be soundly rejected by her peers but I don’t expect any pushback.

The “doctor” is a quack. She’s a very sick quack.

the white jacket she is wearing should have buttons on the back.

She’s a narcissistic hack, looking desperately to get on MSNBC.

Just remember, folks, if your state has a “red flag” law, she and others like her can legally deprive you of your Constitutional rights under the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and the first you will learn of it is when the SWAT team shoots you.

    Milhouse in reply to SDN. | July 25, 2019 at 8:10 am

    Yup. In principle “red flag” laws sound so reasonable. But in practice they’re a disaster.

Yale … again.

Yale University professor claimed on Twitter that all of the people she surveyed in Eastern Europe and Central Asia insisted that “life was better under the Soviets.”

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13431

“An op-ed was published in Yale University’s student newspaper on Thursday, suggesting that students collect and store evidence on white male classmates, so that it can be used to ruin political careers in the future.
“I’m watching you, white boy,” says author Isis Davis-Marks in an op-ed published in the Yale Daily News, who claims that she will save any evidence that she finds of white male classmates behaving badly — even if it’s “unintentional” — just in case she needs it to end a political career in the future.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/09/yale-university-student-newspaper-im-watching-you-white-boy/

My, my, Yale is developing quite the reputation.
You mean the same place where Yale ‘Law School’ students don’t understand basic due process 101? Or was it that their warped ideology based knee jerk hysteria overcame simple reason? Sorry alumni, this is now recorded history.
Yale Law students canceled classes over Kavanaugh assault …
https://qz.com/1400132/yale-law-students-cancelled-classes-over-kavanau

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/12/yale-made-me-racist/

felixrigidus | July 25, 2019 at 8:02 am

Good grief. She “assessed” the report’s sanity, but fails to pronounce it (the report) sane or insane but someone, she did – according to her propaganda video – not examine at all?
She seems to be too dense to begin to comprehend that the “Mueller report” (before yesterday more appropriately called the “Mueller dossier” but after that performance it now should probably be referenced as the “Weissmann dossier”) contains not facts but factual allegations made by the Mueller team that deceptively left out fats not fitting their attack on the President.
It boggles the mind that this woman styles herself a forensic psychiatrist if even these most obvious red flags don’t seem to register with her. Why a supposedly reputable university suffers the humiliation to be associated with that is a mystery.

JackinSilverSpring | July 25, 2019 at 11:20 am

Has anyone ever diagnosed Dr. Lee for terminal TDS?

2smartforlibs | July 25, 2019 at 11:27 am

Seems you could have made much more hay when Obama hated his white half. or when he called half the country bitter clinger hanging on to their guns and bibles.

So, by Ms Lee’s logic. Because Hillary Clinton claimed to be the most qualified US Presidential candidate in history, Ms Clinton was actually the least qualified US Presidential candidate in history. In addition, since Obama said he was the one we’ve been waiting for, he really wasn’t the one we were waiting for.

We can all have fun with words just like this nutjob.

Yeah, but what is a raceless person?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend