Tag Archives: Andrew Sullivan

Joan Rivers: "We all know" Obama is gay and Michelle is a tranny

Yesterday, after officiating at a wedding of two sodomites in New York, comedienne Joan Rivers outed the president and first lady of the United States as a homosexual and transgender, respectively. (See Steve’s post here.)
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et38_Ufv-Jw]
Rivers was asked by an off-camera reporter: “Do you think the country … United States will see the first gay president or first woman president?”
This is what Joan Rivers said, sounding weary and definitely not in a joking mood:

“We already have [the first gay president] with Obama, so let’s just calm down. You know Michelle is a tranny… a transgender. We all know.

We all know.

Of course, by “we,” Joan Rivers wasn’t referring to ordinary American people, aka the sheeple who pay the taxes that (barely) holds the U.S. government together, who pay the movie tickets that maintain the Hollyweirdos in their extravagant and debauched “lifestyle”.
So who are those “we” who “all know” all along that Obama is “gay” and his “wife” Michael — oops, Michelle — is really a man?

Clue No. 1

Remember that Newsweek cover of May 21, 2012, proclaiming Obama to be “The First Gay President”?
newsweek-obama-gay-president
Newsweek‘s orgasmic cover was prompted by Obama’s reversal of the military’s long-standing “don’t ask don’t tell” policy and his open support of “gay marriage.”
The weekly magazine’s accompanying cover story was written by the political pundit Andrew Sullivan, a public (i.e., outed) homosexual who wrote that Obama’s support of gay marriage had brought him to tears. (Lest you get all misty-eyed sentimental, he’s the same Andrew Sullivan who once said “gay marriage” does NOT mean monogamy. As he put it oh so delicately: “there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”)
At the time, we the sheeple thought Newsweek didn’t literally mean Obama is “the first gay president”.
Think again.
Homosexuals pride themselves on their gaydar. They have to, in order to find each other because homosexuals constitute only 3% of the U.S. population, according to the Williams Institute, UCLA’s LGBT research think tank. That means Andrew Sullivan already knew Barack Hussein Obama is a homosexual, just as another public homosexual — conservative blogger Kevin Dujan of HillBuzz — has known all along.

Clue No. 2

7 months after the Newsweek cover, Candy — the first transexual style magazine — caused a brief publicity stir when it chose for its cover a transgender model, Connie Fleming, bearing a decided resemblance to Michelle Obama. (See DCG’s post about this here.)
hahahaha
In the words of Daily Mail: “A striking transgender model made up to look like Michelle Obama being sworn into office has been put on the front cover of a  U.S. magazine….  Fleming is dressed in typical First Lady fashion, down to the pearl necklace. Even the hair style is reminiscent of President Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle.
For Candy to do a cover story on a transgender U.S. president is bold enough, why pick a BLACK male-to-female transgender for its cover? And not just any black MtF transgender but one who resembles Michelle? Then have the model wear a wig just like Michelle’s and a sleeveless dress just like Michelle’s, exposing Fleming’s toned muscular arms, of which Michael Obama is so proud and for which he is celebrated by all the Obama idolators in the MSM?

Clue No. 3

Fast forward 1½ years to Time magazine’s cover of June 9, 2014, proclaiming that we’re at a “Transgender Tipping Point: America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier.” (See my post, “Transgender surgery now covered by bankrupt Medicare“.)
Time transgender cover
For its cover picture, Time could have chosen any number of transgenders — male-to-female or female-to-male; white, black, yellow, brown.
But the magazine chose a BLACK male-to-female transgender, an obscure actor named Laverne Cox who also bears an uncanny resemblance to Michelle Obama. As observant FOTM commenter motherbarbarian noted: “Looking at that Time cover photo, I am reminded of Michael Obama. Same sculpted arms and muscled legs.”
Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Friends, we’ve been played.
“We all know.” They all know.
Joan Rivers, Andrew Sullivan, Newsweek, Candy, Time, and all the denizens of the “liberal” media and Hollywood have known all along.
See our posts:

UPDATE (Sept. 5, 2014):

Two months to the day of Joan Rivers’ outing of the Obamas, she was declared dead after she had stopped breathing during a routine endoscopy in a clinic. See Trail Dust’s post “RIP – Joan Rivers.”
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Romney won, POS lost – The Left in meltdown

The consensus is that Mitt Romney won last night’s first presidential debate in Denver.

Here are the post-debate polling data, followed by the Left’s weeping and gnashing of teeth.

CNN: According to a nationwide CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, two-thirds (67%) said that Romney won the faceoff, with one in four saying that the POS won.

NewsMax: According to Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Flash Poll conducted immediately after the debate of 373 likely voters, 52% said Romney won; 45% said the POS won. 3% were undecided/neither. Pollster Matt Towery says “the results largely followed party lines, but independents broke in favor of Romney, moving the dial in his favor.”

The morbidly obese leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted: “If Romney keeps this up…Obama is going to vote for him!” “Romney is channeling the look and sound of Reagan. Obama is giving a professor’s lecture.” Moore’s last tweet of the evening was to blame it all on John Kerry: “This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”

MSNBC’s Chris “Tingles” Matthews: “I don’t know what he [Obama] was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. … Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively…” Matthews bemoaned to a somber Rachel Maddow, “Mitty beat the ever-loving snot out of him. Obama looked like a retard.” Matthews’ recommendation to the POS is that he should start watching cable TV news, specifically Matthews’ program. LOL

National Journal’s Ron Fournier blamed it on “the curse of incumbency”: “Like many of his predecessors, President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger. If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn’t win the first of three presidential debates outright, he more than covered the spread. He was personable, funny, and relentlessly on the attack against a heavily favored Obama. The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong.”

Former Clinton campaign adviser James Carville blamed it on Romney not having”a conversation” with the POS: “Let’s be real. They have run a very good campaign thus far. I don’t think that President Obama did what this campaign wanted him to do. I think he was off his game tonight. But let’s don’t go overboard here. It will be like a big sort of pushback. … My point is this — President Obama came in, he wanted to have a conversation. It takes two people to have a conversation. Mitt Romney came in with a chainsaw. He’s trying to talk to a chainsaw.”

Homosexual “gay marriage doesn’t mean monogamy” pundit Andrew Sullivan: “Look: you know how much I love the guy [Obama] … and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look. Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. … The person with authority on that stage was Romney – offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It’s beyond depressing. But it’s true.”

Like the other leftists, Obama’s spokesperson Stephanie Cutter also scapegoated moderator Jim Lehrer, blaming the PBS news anchor for being passive and allowing Mitt Romney to act as the moderator instead. “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”

Well done, Governor Romney!

You thoroughly knew America’s economic problems; was in command of the economic data and statistics, but also presented the human side of our present economic misery; effectively conveyed and explained your proposed solutions (especially why the individual tax rate should be lowered because unlike big corporations, small businesses don’t qualify for the corporate tax rate because they are considered as “individual” taxpayers); firmly disagreed with the POS and explained why; and promptly corrected the POS whenever he mischaracterized your policies.

You were persuasive because you can point to your record of successful governorship of Massachusetts, whereas the POS has only 3+ years of abject failure.

I especially appreciate your resounding reminder to all Americans that the proper role of government, above all, is to uphold America’s Constitution and our founding document, the Declaration of Independence’s promise and commitment to the preciousness of life and liberty, and its affirmation of our Creator.

You did all that without being rude or condescending. On the contrary, throughout the debate, not only did you show respect for B.S. Obama because he holds the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America, you looked at him with a smile and with eyes brimming with kindness. (Romney’s kindness is borne out by his donation of one-third – over $4 million – of his income to charities in 2011.)

The eyes are windows into our souls. It’s your kind eyes that have completely won my heart.

Governor Romney, I will be so proud to have you be my president — the 45th President of the United States of America (2013-2020)!

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Same-sex marriage: It’s not about monogamy

A booth at a San Francisco gay-themed street fair. If you don’t know what’s a butt plug, go here. You are forewarned!

Homosexuals’ insistence on same sex” marriage is puzzling.

If legal rights, such as property and inheritance, are their concern, those rights are achieved via civil unions, which gays now enjoy in many states in America.

So that couldn’t be the reason why.

Do homosexuals want the commitment symbolized by marriage?

That’s not it, either, because homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous, especially gay men. In fact, we have outspoken public homosexuals such as Andrew Sullivan, who admit that gay marriage does NOT mean monogamy. As Sullivan puts it: “there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

A January 28, 2010 article by Scott James in the New York Times said as much:

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. […] Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. […]

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. […] New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

There are homosexuals who are honest enough to admit that promiscuity is inherent in being a gay man. John Blair Linn, who describes himself as “an active member of the Washington, DC, gay scene for 25 years” who is now “disillusioned with the ‘homosexual lifestyle’,” is the latest example.

In a searingly candid article for HenryMakow.com, “Insider: Gay Marriage is a ‘Total Farce’,” Sept. 5, 2012, Linn writes:

All that most homosexuals really care about is sex.  Very few are in actual committed relationships, and those that are almost always have open relationships, and these are widely accepted in the gay community. 

The gay bar is really the center of life for most homosexuals. They classify themselves as either “tops” (the one who screws) or “bottoms” (the one who gets screwed) and that is how they have structured their entire culture.

Unlike a man and a woman, two men need to know who plays the role of male, and who plays the role of female – set sexual positions – and homosexual relations are truly a hooking up arrangement.  The public is so brainwashed to blindly accept gay relationships. 

There is generally no stigma about any sexual behavior and those who belong to the S&M crowd are widely accepted by the general community. 

Sexual perversions are widespread among gay men and involve urine, feces, and painful sex.  Most gays are empty voids and fill their lives with sex and drugs.  There is also a lot of anger among gay men. They are angry at their disorder, and display their anger by lashing out at normal healthy society. […]

I believe that homosexuality is almost always a birth defect.  Some people are born crippled or with mental illness; the same goes for most homosexuals.

Homosexuality revolves totally around sex, pure and simple.  Few homosexual men ever form relationships, and nearly all homosexual men are attracted to much younger men.  Homosexuality is truly a compulsive disorder.

[…] homosexuals really love straight men.  They would do anything to get at an attractive straight man.

Otherwise, most homosexual men prefer younger homosexual men by about 20 years and after about age 45, they start to get depressed and end up hiring young male prostitutes and risking their lives for sexual thrills.

Read the rest of Linn’s confessional here.

“All that most homosexuals really care about is sex” and “homosexuals really love straight men”.

That is the real truth about gays, which is readily evidenced by reading Michael K’s blog, Dlisted, in which the openly-gay penis-obsessed blogger openly lusts after straight men such as Prince Harry and the actor Jon Hamm.

Back to Scott James of the New York Times. James writes that “gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that” — which is to “rewrite” the traditional institution of marriage into a meaningless institution of open promiscuity, devoid of the emotional commitment of fidelity.

Writing for OUT magazine, Michelangelo Signorile admits as much:

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to…radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

See also my posts:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Newsweek calls Obama "first gay president"

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” -Isaiah 5:20

In Liberal Newspeak, words have no fixed meaning. They mean what you want them to mean, and to hell with what the dictionary says.
During the Clinton administration, the Liberal Establishment Media were so infatuated with Billy, they called him America’s “first black president” even though Billy was and remains pasty white.
Now, the cover of the latest issue of Newsweek to hit the newstand orgasmically proclaims that Obama, his head topped with a rainbow halo, is America’s “first gay president”.

The accompanying cover story was written by openly homosexual sodomite political pundit Andrew Sullivan. The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama’s support of gay marriage brought him to tears.

Obama, Sullivan writes, “had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family.”

Although Newsweek’s cover calling Obama “first gay President” is a reference to his recent declaration of support for “same-sex” marriage, the appellation may also be the liberal media’s tacit “wink-wink” acknowledgment that all the rumors about Obama being gay (or bisexual) are true. See, for example,

The New Yorker, too, is orgasmic over Obama’s support of homosexual marriage. Its May 21 issue has this cover:

Bob Staake, the artist who drew the New Yorker cover, said:

“It’s a celebratory moment for our country, and that’s what I tried to capture. […] I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President’s statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in this political year. We are on the right side of history.”

The same Andrew Sullivan who commends Obama for his support of gay marriage candidly admits, in “Virtually Normal” (pp. 202-203), that homosexuals’ push for same-sex marriage does not mean they either want or are prepared to be monogamous:
there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”

Given that homosexuals want marriage but not the monogamy of those boring heterosexuals, the inquiring mind asks why then do they want “same sex” marriage?

Here’s why:
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
And they deride Conservatives as paranoiac when we’ve said there’s a homosexual agenda!
H/t FOTM reader Wade.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0