This proves you can make jokes about Gay’s and stay in Hollywood.
Comedian and A-list actor Kevin Hart announced early Friday morning that he “made the choice to step down” from hosting the 91st Academy Awards amid a backlash over the resurfacing of previous gay jokes and tweets.
“I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists,” Kevin Hart tweeted. “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.”
I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.
“I’m sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love & appreciation to the Academy,” the Night School star added. “I hope we can meet again.”
I’m sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart.Much love & appreciation to the Academy.I hope we can meet again.
Hart’s response to criticism over earlier tweets deemed homophobic by some on Thursday further inflamed a backlash to the comedian two days after he was named host of the upcoming Academy Awards.
On Thursday, Hart wrote on Instagram that critics should “stop being negative” after years-old tweets surfaced in which he used gay slurs. In an accompanying video, a shirtless Hart lounging in bed warily said he wasn’t going to “let the craziness frustrate me.”
“I’m almost 40 years old. If you don’t believe that people change, grow, evolve? I don’t know what to tell you,” said Hart, who added, in all-caps: “I love everybody.”
Hart has since deleted some of the anti-gay tweets, mostly dated from 2009-2011. But they had already been screen-captured and been shared online. In 2011, he wrote in a since-deleted tweet: “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ’stop that’s gay.”
Hart’s attitudes about homosexuality were also a well-known part of his stand-up act. In the 2010 special Seriously Funny, he said “one of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay.”
“Keep in mind, I’m not homophobic, I have nothing against gay people, do what you want to do, but me, being a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will,” Hart said.
GLAAD, the advocacy group for LGBTQ rights, said Thursday that it has reached out to Oscars broadcaster ABC, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts, and Sciences and Hart’s management to “discuss Kevin’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and record.”
Comedian and actor Billy Eichner was among those on social media who were disappointed with Hart’s response.
“This is not good. A simple, authentic apology showing any bit of understanding or remorse would have been so simple,” Eichner said. “Like I tweeted a few weeks ago, Hollywood still has a real problem with gay men. On the surface it may not look like it. Underneath, it’s far more complicated.”
This is not good. A simple, authentic apology showing any bit of understanding or remorse would have been so simple. Like I tweeted a few weeks ago, Hollywood still has a real problem with gay men. On the surface it may not look like it. Underneath, it’s far more complicated.
The film academy on Tuesday announced Hart as host to its February ceremony. Representatives for the academy and for ABC didn’t respond to messages Thursday.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to issue an unusually quick ruling on the Pentagon’s policy of restricting military service by transgender people. It’s the fourth time in recent months the administration has sought to bypass lower courts that have blocked some of its more controversial proposals and push the high court, with a conservative majority, to weigh in quickly on a divisive issue.
Earlier this month, the administration asked the high court to fast-track cases on the president’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields young immigrants from deportation. Administration officials also recently asked the high court to intervene to stop a trial in a climate change lawsuit and in a lawsuit over the administration’s decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a frequent target of criticism by President Donald Trump, is involved in three of the cases. Trump’s recent salvo against the “Obama judge” who ruled against his asylum policy — not one of the issues currently before the Supreme Court — prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to fire back at the president for the first time for feeding perceptions of a biased judiciary.
Joshua Matz, publisher of the liberal Take Care blog, said the timing of the administration’s effort to get the Supreme Court involved in the issues at an early stage could hardly be worse for Roberts and other justices who have sought to dispel perceptions that the court is merely a political institution, especially since the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. At an especially sensitive moment for the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is “forcing it into a minefield that many justices would almost surely prefer to avoid,” Matz said.
The Supreme Court almost always waits to get involved in a case until both a trial and appeals court have ruled in it. Often, the justices wait until courts in different areas of the country have weighed in and come to different conclusions about the same legal question.
So it’s rare for the justices to intervene early as the Trump administration has been pressing them to do. One famous past example is when the Nixon administration went to court to try to prohibit the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
In the immigration case, the administration told the high court that it should step in and decide the fate of DACA ahead of an appeals court’s ruling because the policy otherwise could be in place until the middle of 2020 before the justices might otherwise rule. The appeals court has since ruled, but the administration’s request that the court hear the case stands.
In the military case, the administration argued that the Supreme Court should step in before an appeals court rules because the case “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces.”
In a statement, Peter Renn, an attorney for Lambda Legal, which brought one of the challenges to the transgender military policy, called the Trump administration’s action Friday a “highly unusual step” that is “wildly premature and inappropriate.”
The Pentagon initially lifted its ban on transgender troops serving openly in the military in 2016, under President Barack Obama’s administration. But the Trump administration revisited that policy, with Trump ultimately issuing an order banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under limited circumstances. Several lawsuits were filed over the administration’s policy change, with lower courts all ruling against the Trump administration.
Still ongoing in lower courts are the census and climate change cases. The Supreme Court for now has refused to block the climate change trial. In the census question case, the court has agreed to decide what kind of evidence a trial judge can consider and indefinitely put off questioning of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. But it rejected an administration request to delay the trial and allowed other depositions to take place.
The court will hear arguments in the census question case in February. It’s unclear when it will act on the administration’s other requests.
Justice Department Fast-Tracks Military Transgender Cases to Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to bypass two federal appeals courts and render a final decision on President Donald Trump’s military transgender policy by summer 2019.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been litigating several cases regarding that policy since 2017. Transgender individuals had never been able to serve in the U.S. military, but Barack Obama attempted to change that policy shortly during his final term, and President Trump inherited that attempted policy change shortly after taking office.
“To assemble a military of qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons, the Department of Defense [DOD] has traditionally set demanding standards for military service,” the “cert petitions” explain. “Given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service, a history of most mental health conditions and disorders is automatically disqualifying.”
The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has long categorized transsexuality as such a condition, first calling it “transsexualism,” then “gender identity disorder,” and most recently, “gender dysphoria.” But with the 2013 change to the latest label, the association shifted its stance to say that it no longer considered nonacceptance of a person’s biological sex to be a disorder, unless accompanied by certain symptoms.
The Obama administration decided to allow transgender individuals to serve in uniform, sparking a debate among military policy experts, though the new policy stance was not set to take effect until July 2017, six months after the end of Obama’s tenure in office.
On July 26, 2017, President Trump settled the debate by announcing that the U.S. military would not include transgender individuals. DOD subsequently formulated a policy allowing some transgender individuals but not others. On December 2017, a federal district judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking DOD’s policy across the country.
Pursuant to later, more detailed instructions from the commander-in-chief, Defense Secretary James Mattis conducted a study, modifying the original assessment and recommending that some transgender individuals can serve, but those with a history of gender dysphoria that results in expensive gender-reassignment surgery and others therapies that render them unable to serve for significant lengths of time should not be able to serve in uniform. The specific military need is that those serving in uniform must be “free of medical conditions or physical defects that may require excessive time lost from duty.”
In March 2018, President Trump adopted that recommended policy. On April 13, 2018, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington [State] refused to lift the preliminary injunction blocking the first version of the policy. The District of Columbia federal court likewise refused to lift its identical injunction on August 6 and the Central District of California did the same on September 18.
DOJ appealed all three of those decisions. On November 23, Francisco took the extraordinarily rare step of asking the Supreme Court to take each of those cases now, rather than wait for perhaps another year for the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and D.C. Circuit to issue decisions. Those two appellate courts are currently two of the most liberal courts in the nation, and widely expected to affirm the lower courts’ blocking of the policy.
“This Court has long accorded a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments in the area of military affairs,” explains the first petition. It adds:
That deference reflects the recognition not only that courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have, but also that military authorities have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out the Nation’s military policy. The Mattis policy would thus warrant deferential review even if an analogous policy in the civilian context would call for closer scrutiny.
Although the Supreme Court almost always waits for a federal appeals court to render a final decision on a case before the justices will review it, federal law and Supreme Court rule 11 give the justices jurisdiction over a case at any point after it is first docketed with the appellate court. The Trump administration has asked for the High Court to exercise that rule a couple times, most recently in the legal challenges to the DACA amnesty program for illegal aliens.
This upsurge in petitions for certiorari before final judgment is attributed to the rapid increase of district judges with liberal judicial philosophies issuing nationwide injunctions over the past two years, essentially blocking entire federal policies. Historically, district courts would render relief only for the parties in the case before them, or at minimum would often stay broad decisions while the government takes the case up on appeal.
The cases are Trump v. Karnoski, Trump v. Jane Doe 2, and Trump v. Stockman, and have not yet been assigned docket numbers in the Supreme Court of the United States.
A biological male who identifies as a transgender woman won a women’s world championship cycling event on Sunday.
Rachel McKinnon, a professor at the College of Charleston, won the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles.
McKinnon, representing Canada, bested Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen of the Netherlands and American cyclist Jennifer Wagner to take home the gold.
McKinnon celebrated the victory on Twitter, writing: “First transgender woman world champion…ever.”
“We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports,” McKinnon told USA Today.
“Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn’t be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.”
McKinnon also compared restrictions on biological males competing in women’s events to racial segregation.
“This is bigger than sports, and it’s about human rights,” McKinnon said to USA Today.
“By catering to cisgender people’s views, that furthers transgender people’s oppression. When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority? I bet a lot of white people were pissed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”
A recent Washington Post column tells of an almost-three-year-old Naya, whose parents have taken the wonderfully enlightened approach of letting the child decide her own sex.
The foolishness coming forth from the gender theory folks is like the endless parade of clowns coming out of that tiny car at the circus. How many more can there be? When will it stop?
A recent Washington Post column from Monica Hesse tells the tale of an almost-three-year-old Naya and her/his/their parents who’ve taken the wonderfully enlightened approach of letting her/him/they decide her/his/they’s own gender. Like the clowns, we lose count of how many times we’ve heard of such parents.
But those stories are usually presented as novelty. This one is presented as a completely sensible thing to do from a seemingly rational and thoughtful writer from a major national newspaper.
Hesse, an award-winning journalist, tells this story as if it’s not only reasonable, but commendable and forward-thinking. A serious editor at a major paper of record—not The Onion—deemed it worthy of their precious real estate. Both assumed their readers would find it enlightening for their own parenting. Three strikes.
Even a 4 year-old knows this damit.
Let me break the story down for you. Naya is almost three years old. She/he/them is being raised by two guys, Jeremy and Bryan. The adults know the sex on Naya’s birth certificate, but that’s their secret. Not even Naya will know. They believe her real gender exists in her mind, not on a major medical and government document. Jeremy and Bryan are presented as wise and brave parents, the kind any child would be fortunate to have.
Please Admire Our Descent Into Insanity
Hesse explains Naya’s two dads “didn’t publicly share Naya’s birth-certificate sex.” You see, sometimes parents and medical staff just look for a penis or vagina on the baby and mindlessly sign the kid up as male or female based on this cursory assessment. Gender theory tells us this method, which has served all cultures at all times in all places pretty well since the beginning of man, can be simplistic and deceptive.
So Jeremy and Bryan posted the following announcement on their Facebook page: “If you interact with our kid, please make an effort to use Naya’s name, rather than a gendered pronoun.” This is because “much of our culture and many of our traditions are based on telling people (directly and indirectly) what they can and can’t do, or should and shouldn’t do, based on their gender rather than their capabilities.”
Why does this matter? Well, Jeremy explains, with equal parts compassion and insight, “And we know this has tremendously negative consequences for both kids and adults.” It makes one wonder how many of Hesse’s readers will see Jeremy and Bryan with the admiration she does. How many will find this parenting approach admirable or asinine?
Thus, do such stories help or hurt the gender redefinition cause? It’s one thing for “progressives” to support the cause in theory. It’s wholly another when they see how it actually presents itself in the real lives of children. Gender theorists and their media enablers don’t seem to appreciate just how wacky their basic assumptions sound to everyday people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
Remember that Thing About Being the Party of Science?
These gender gadflies live in a make-believe world that is not only at odds with reality, it often stands against it. One of the most brilliant and celebrated neuropsychiatrists in the world is Allan Schore, a member of the clinical faculty at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. He doesn’t suffer fools lightly.
In a major 2017 article in the Infant Mental Health Journal on how boys’ neurobiology and neuroendocrinology is very distinct from that of their sisters, Schore laments how gender studies in developmental psychology have “remained divorced from and frequently antithetical to biology.” In other words, the downy stay-puffed softness of gender theory is proudly unattached from the rock-hard sciences of biology, and often directly contrary to it.
He is absolutely right. Contemporary gender theory is pure ideology. It is not informed by any biological science. It’s never been close enough to science to catch a cold. Science is here. Gender theory is over there. These are two very different things that are not on speaking terms.
Gender Theory Is Hilariously Self-Contradicting
We see some of the glaring contradictions of gender theory in Hesse’s article. This happens when one tries to redefine what is real. Let me point out just a few.
If gender theory had a Nicene Creed, the first line its faithful must confess is that there are more than two genders. The wonderfully diverse spectrum of the rainbow and all that. Let’s see how this works itself out in Naya’s story.
Early in her life, her legal guardians came upon an idea. What if, Hesse tells us, Jeremy and Bryan “didn’t tell Naya whether Naya was a boy or girl? What if they just let their kid decide?” So the men “gave Naya clothing from both sides of the Target aisle, and boy dolls and girl dolls…”
Are you catching the glaring inconsistency here? Why confine Naya to only boy and girl clothes and toys? Why should Naya be kept from exploring and sampling the accoutrements of all the other supposed genders, especially by two forward-thinking men who have moved beyond the flat-earth binary?
Why didn’t the critical-thinking Hesse challenge Bryan and Jeremy on confining the child in such a repressive way? Who is there to speak up for poor Naya and her right to all the different options? When you spin reality, you’d better have a good memory. Hesse and these men don’t.
That’s Not the Only Glaring Contradiction
The next fundamental tenet of gender theory is that male and female don’t really exist. They are merely social and artificial constructs. We’re all just people, and it’s only society that dictates we become this or that as male or female.
Pay no attention to the fact that she just gendered the poor children in her question.
Hesse asks the question these brave parents are pressing all of us to consider: “What would it look like to become your true self, if the only constraints were your own happiness?” Elsewhere she asks “How do you raise boys and girls to be whatever they truly actually are” (emphasis in original)?
Pay no attention to the fact that she just gendered the poor children in her question about letting them discover what they actually are before they informed her. Note some key words Hesse employs here: “true self” and “actually are.” Do you see another stunning contradiction?
If you assume you are naturally male or female from the womb, you are deceived. You are sadly assuming an artificial construct is actual. But if you choose to be male or female, well that’s your “true self,” the thing you actually are! Everyone else mustnot only see it the way you do, but respect it. Woe to anyone who refuses.
It’s exactly what we saw with Bruce Jenner. He is only his true authentic self as Caitlyn. In gender theory, subjective self-perception always tells the truth while our objective, physical bodies can lie. Psychology and biology both strongly disagree, from their very foundation. Even more curiously, these are people who almost certainly believe there is no god, and material reality is all there is. If that’s the case, however, then how can a purely physical mind detach itself from its organically, biologically connected body and genetics?
Pressure towards Sex Stereotypes Is Highly Overrated
These two men wanted desperately to protect Naya from one threat: “Would Naya … feel pressured to conform to the stereotype of a birth certificate’s sex designation?” First, Hesse wants us to agree that Naya’s medically determined sex designation is as thin as a piece of paper. Not only can the information our birth certificates provide be mistaken, it can actually be harmful!
Second, she most certainly would not be pressured in that way, unless they are going to adopt her out to the Little House on the Prairie. Who thinks Jeremy and Bryan would allow anyone else to pressure her toward gender stereotypes? Let’s get ahold of ourselves for a moment. Is this even a fear in the first place? How many of us would judge a parent as good if he demanded his boy or girl squeeze into supposed gender stereotypes? They’re called “stereotypes” for a reason and it’s what makes them so distasteful: oversimplified caricatures that contradict the everyday.
I don’t know of anyone here, among my friends or at my church, who forces his kids into rigid gender roles.
I work at Focus on the Family, and have for 25 years. We are as traditional about male and female as anyone. But we have parents here with kids who do all kinds of things, and proudly. I don’t know of anyone here, among my friends or at my church, who forces his kids into rigid gender roles. They encourage their kids to be what God made them to be.
One of our leading partners is a man with a long and distinguished military career. His adult son is a hard-core ballet dancer and that raises concern for no one here. Why should it? That son works here and has for more than a decade. He’s a very good man, no less of one than his father.
An executive assistant for many years proudly featured on her desk a picture of her daughter standing in front of the C-17 military cargo plane she pilots. Not one of her co-workers here believe her daughter, or any woman, would do much better in the kitchen. We all think she’s awesome and would be similarly proud of our daughters, be they pilots, astronauts, surgeons, police officers, army generals, martial artists, senators, or full-time mothers.
Think about Sarah Palin, yesterday’s darling of the religious right. She loves shooting, can handle any-size gun with gusto, and can field dress a moose. Not even the most right-leaning person thought her place was in the laundry room. No one in our camp wishes Margaret Thatcher had been just a little more dainty and domestic. Same with Condoleezza Rice. For all the talk of the dangers of repressive gender stereotypes, they ironically exist primarily in the worried imaginations of the gender theory folks.
Parents Freak Out Over Basic Reality
Deciding her sex was not the big deal to Naya as it was to her two dads. The resolve of Hesse’s story is really quite anticlimactic. Naya was routinely settling down for naptime. She unceremoniously announced to Jeremy that her stuffed animal, “Doggy,” was a boy and should be referred to as he.
Well and good, Jeremy thought. Then he asked, “What do you want me to call you?” Let’s pause on this a moment. It’s one of the most important questions of her life, so big that these guys had to make a huge deal about it, publically instructing every friend, family member, and acquaintance to avoid the subject at every turn.
Never mind that Naya is not yet even three years old. Never mind that Bryan, still at work, would miss her monumental declaration of self-actualization. Did Jeremy consider that Naya might possibly have felt unduly pressured by the suddenness of the question? And just before naptime! Well, what did she say?
She answered simply, as if she were choosing a cookie or the shoes she wanted to wear. Naya said she wanted to be called “she and her and a girl.” Jeremy asked her if that was just for today or for always. Naya said, “Today, tomorrow and when I get to be grown-up, I want to be most a girl.”
It Would Be Funny If It Weren’t So Serious
Now get this grand finale. For all the drama, Jeremy said he would have been happy with any choice, because “there is no right answer.” Really? If I’ve been paying attention, it seems as if there is indeed a right answer. It’s the gender Naya supposedly is in her mind. Wasn’t that what this whole thing was about? None of the adults in this story seem to appreciate the irony-rich soil they are digging in here. It’s clear they haven’t thought this through.
So, it must be said and said crisply without apology. These two men raising Naya are seriously deceived. They are creating an alternate reality, not for make-believe fun, but for the very foundation of how this poor child will understand herself at her most basic level.
If I’ve been paying attention, it seems as if there is indeed a right answer. It’s the gender Naya supposedly is in her mind.
Yes, one’s sex doesn’t exist only in one’s genitalia. But it doesn’t exist solely in the mind either. It is present in every last piece of DNA in every cell of our very complex bodies. No dogma can wish this fact away. Our bodies don’t tell lies. Gender theory does, and we would say they are authentically silly ones if the consequences were not so serious.
Hesse and her editors, while all putting themselves out there as intelligent people, are completely taken by mere ideology. It does not exist under any microscope, in any laboratory or medical imaging machine. It is not only at odds with basic biological science, but as Schore explained, antithetical to it.
Live in that make-believe world if you choose, but the moment you bring children into it, your work as a parent and standing as a responsible adult must be called into serious question. A sane society must adopt that position. The moment you virtue-shame anyone who refuses to play along with your delusion, you’ve become one of the most extreme types of fundamentalist. It’s not what reasonable people do. This madness needs to stop.
Why Is It That Gay Men Like Don Lemon Gets Butt (pun intended) Go To The Ghetto And Take A Knee Don, Because You Do It For Your Many Boyfriends.
CNN anchor Don Lemon believes standing for the national anthem at NFL games and the pageantry surrounding it are examples of “fake patriotism.”
While discussing President Donald Trump’s decision to cancel the White House celebration for the Philadelphia Eagles on Tuesday evening, Lemon also accused Trump of not understanding what “real patriotism” is.
“This isn’t about some fake patriotism, about standing or some pageantry. Real patriotism is understanding what the Constitution means for all Americans and abiding by the Constitution, not doing some false presentation that you pretend to be a patriot while other people are around you going to the concession stands, getting beer, or fights in the stands or talking to each other with their baseball caps on,” Lemon said Tuesday evening on CNN. “That is not real patriotism. Real patriotism is understanding that all of us are created equal and we have the choice to stand, kneel or sit, or even attend a football game if we choose to.”
Lemon said Trump and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders “have it all wrong” about patriotism, and he highlighted the White House press secretary’s remarks about America being a great nation because “we stand during the national anthem.”
“What makes this country great is that we have the choice to stand or not to stand during the national anthem. This is not a dictatorship,” Lemon continued. “We don’t have to do anything in this country.”
During a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell expressed a similar claim, saying the NFL’s “hypocrisy is so profound” on the issue.
“Take a look at any NFL stadium, and people are getting hot dogs, people are getting beers. They’re not standing and saluting the anthem, for a large part. They’re not. They’re distracted. They’re fans at an event,” Mitchell said last month. “And the fact that the players do not have this freedom of speech and that no one is even thinking about Colin Kaepernick … who’s been basically blackballed and can’t be hired — it’s just outrageous.”
Lemon added that Trump knows that asking athletes to stand for the national anthem “animates his base,” and “he is going to continue on with it.”
“He cannot be a unifier. He cannot be the unifier in chief. I don’t know what it is about him that he can’t do it,” Lemon said. “It seems that this is an issue where he could actually bring the country together, bring the team and talk to team owners and players, and try to get them to come to some sort of consensus about this.”
Do I Looked Worried That The Gay Mafia, Race-baiters, Muslim Zealots, And Liberal Scum Are Attacking Me? Hell To The No! I Say Bring IT BITCHES.
As many of you now that I was banned off Youtube (https://commonsensenation.net/?s=Doctor+Of+Common+Sense+Banned) for speaking the truth, and please don’t believe any other story because that is the Gospel. The Gay Mafia, Muslim Terrorist Supporters, and liberal communist bastards are upset because I refuse to be politically correct. I was banned off Communist Vimeo also even though my platform was a pay-site and you had to pay to view the videos. I was also kicked off 2 more sites that I will not even give their names, but 1 of these allows porn to be played. It is mostly the Queers, Butt Hurt Muslims, and the Worthless Race-baiters that think I can be controlled. But I have news for all the Fudge-Packers, Muslim sympathizers, and phony race-baiting idiots. I will never be silent and when I’m attacked I always attack back. The latest attack is even more outrageous and proves what I have been saying on my Radio Show all year. (Radio Show: https://www.spreaker.com/user/commonsensenation)
Hell Yes The Gay Mafia Runs This Country.
We have no Free Speech in this country because we have allowed the Fags, Communist, Muslims, Race-baiting Morons, Fake News Reporters, Sell-out Politicians, and Social Media to tell us what we can and can not say. I added videos to my website using a pay-wall from Cleeng. They get a percentage from everyone that pays for the monthly subscription. They don’t place my videos on their site but I use Cleeng because I’m not able to do a paywall yet. All the material is on my website and everyone knows I have strong opinions and I always back them up with facts. However I get and email from a POS from Cleeng who said they would not host my videos anymore because they were too offensive. Offensive On my site! Unfreaking believable!!!!! My material on my Website and these BASTARDS let the Gay Mafia and to PC Crowd influence them not to host my material even though it is on my Website.
This is what this country has been reduced to. You see people complaining that they were attacked and their voice not heard. A judge order Donald Trump the Freaking President not to block vile leftwing nuts on His Twitter count. The Abortion demons say it is a woman’s right to kill her baby and we as taxpayers help pay for that. They allow Illegal Aliens to come to this country ILLEGALLY and get Food Stamps while breaking the law. You have rapist and child molesters that go free and no one is upset. You can see filth all over Youtube Vimeo and Social Media and no one gets banned. But these DEMONS are so upset that I refuse to not go along to get along.
The Gay Mafia is the main protester against me and I don’t give a damn if they don’t like me because I will not be silent. If you don’t like the damn truth don’t listen. I don’t tell you not to stick things up your rear end so stop telling me who I can make fun of and report on. Don’t worry we will be back up running real soon and you will be able to get my videos again. The more they attack to more I know I’m telling the truth. They thought I would stop once I left you tube but I made me want to expose fake politician, liberals, race-baiters, jackasses, muslims, and homosexuals for the evil demons they are.
