Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


HuffPost Announces ‘Trump Is Not Homosexual,’ Labels Him With Totally New Orientation [OPINION]

He seriously just went there?



When a story comes out that announces President Trump might not be a homosexual, but then labels him as a homo-something else, then you know you’re either reading a satirical piece from the Babylon Bee, or it might be written by a soy-drinking weak-skinned liberal. This story turned out to be HuffPost’s editor-at-large, Michelangelo Signorile, who casually talked about Trump and his lust for hanging with the guys over spending time with, or mentioning his connections to, the women in his life or the female leaders.

Signorile talked about Trump and goes into the “homosocial” aspect, but the whole thing is laughable at best. Laughing at the article, not with it. There’s a huge difference.

Trump may not be a homosexual, but writing an article announcing it and then turning it into a personal rant about a guy being homosocial serves what purpose? Was it a slow news day? I think not. On a day where Roseanne bats a home run with her explanation of the Valerie Jarrett Tweet and Whoopi Goldberg clashing heads with Jeanine Pirro, then there’s certainly a handful of stories to keep things moving. Top that off with Maxine Waters supporters burning flags near her office and there are at least three stories that would easily top this. It seems like Mr. “editor-at-large” wanted to toot his own horn, but I’m pretty sure I know what end that horn is sticking out of. He writes well, but his points are pointless.

Let’s dissect his little ranty piece about Trump hanging with the fellas. His parts are in bold and mine are just under it, in plain text, where anything he says is easily picked to pieces with a little more logic, common sense, and much less beta boy soy.

Trending: In Historic 9-0 Decision, Supreme Court Just Shredded Democrats – YUGE!!!!

Since the 2016 election and even before, there has been a persistent meme, sometimes in the form of protest art or jokes by comedians, posing President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as gay lovers. As HuffPost’s James Michael Nichols noted in criticizing a New York Times animated comic earlier this week, these depictions often depend solely on homophobia to get a laugh.

“There is no larger message, no big-picture takeaway,” Nichols wrote. “Just the supposed humor embedded within the idea that tenderness between two men is in some way mockable.”

He’s absolutely right.

There are gay memes about Barack Obama, The Bushes, and it’s just one of those things that always seem to appear on the Internet via social media, message boards, and emails. People make gay memes out of anyone and everyone. Making them about Trump and Putin only happened because of all the people who said there was collusion with Russia. Had someone said there was collusion with the Queen of England, then there would be memes made of Trump and her. In fact, there already are. Anyone who Trump comes in contact with is fair game to end up on a meme. That’s the way the Internet works. As soon as there’s the slightest bit of conspiracy, then someone will make a meme of it. If it’s a funny gay meme, then that’s just what happens. Some memes are offensive, some are hilarious, and again – that’s just how it goes. They don’t have any other meaning other than to make people laugh or sometimes get a point across. Mostly, they’re just for laughs. Memes aren’t exactly Encylopedia Britannica, so let’s not act like they’re full of information and start writing a thesis over them.

There is, however, something going on with Trump and his affection for certain types of men. Well-meaning liberals either aren’t able to discern that it’s not a gay thing, or they’re not interested in aiming higher than the laziest, most offensive joke available.

Trump isn’t homosexual or bisexual ― at least, not based on any information we have. He likes having s*x with women and has bragged about his sexual conquests in his books. A Playboy playmate has alleged an affair with him, as has a female porn star. And then there are his three wives, and, according to Trump, lots of other women before. There haven’t been any rumors of s*x with men. But there have been allegations of leering at teenage girls at beauty pageants, and, of course, sexual harassment and assault against women, which he’s bragged about on tape and brushed off when asked about it.

Lots of people have multiple wives. Not every relationship works out. Alleged affairs don’t count until they’re proven. If by “teenage girls” you mean 18 and 19-year-olds, then what American male isn’t checking out the ladies in a beauty pageant? If the college-aged girls prance around in a bikini on stage, then tell me what male in the audience isn’t looking? They all are, even the gay men will look because they’ll criticize the outfits with the women. It’s not much different than going to a public beach where college girls are wearing a bikini. When people bring up Trump’s recorded tape about grabbing women by the p-ssy then that’s laughable as well. That’s locker room talk and only people looking for a reason to be angry would ever complain about it. Most people with a logical way of thinking would realize that’s just a generic way that some men talk. Women talk like that too when they’re among their peers, so let’s stop acting like Trump saying a comment about ladies, to other men, is a big deal. It’s not.

Trump is, however, staunchly homosocial. That is, he appears to almost exclusively prefer men for intimate, meaningful (nonsexual) relationships, while he thinks of women as pretty much just for s*x, as decorative accessories, or in traditional roles that do not put them on equal footing.

How do you know what Trump thinks about women? A woman as smart as Melania Trump had money before she met him, didn’t need to mother a child with him and had no idea she would end up as the first lady. She could have done well without Donald, but there must have been something that kept her with him. Just because Trump doesn’t announce his entire intimate life on Twitter or Facebook like some people do, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a very good and intimate relationship with her.

Trump shows a consistent pattern of viewing women as far beneath him, which makes him incapable of the kind of relationship in which he and a woman are intellectual equals. Whenever a woman rises to challenge him as an equal, he appears threatened and tries to slap her down ― from Hillary Clinton (who Trump said doesn’t have “stamina” or a presidential “look”) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (whom he demeans with a racial slur) to Rep. Maxine Waters (whom he’s attacked as a “low IQ person”) and, pathetically, grieving gold star mothers who’ve had the courage to criticize him.

That’s nothing more than your skewed view on it because you seem to dislike Trump. Other people see Trump holding many women in high regards. What Trump said about Hillary, Warren, and Waters all seem to be relatively true. Does Hillary really have the stamina to keep up with the fast-paced Trump? That’s doubtful. When she’s not having coughing fits, then she’s falling down steps in other countries. Is it really a racial slur to call Warren ‘Pocahontas’ and ask her to prove her ancestry with a DNA test? No, that’s calling her out for possibly telling lies and each time she crawls into a cave and denies to prove herself. Maxine Waters is another story altogether. The poverty pimp lives in what most people might consider a mansion outside of her pathetically disgusting 43rd Congressional District. How many achievements does she have over the course of her career? Her biggest accomplishment is running her bass-sized mouth. She offers nothing for the people in her district who sleep on the streets in feces.

Sociologists and psychologists have long discussed homosociality as distinct from homosexuality. One can be homosexual, for example, but heterosocial or bisocial ― having intimate, nonsexual relationships only with the opposite gender or people of both genders, respectively. And there are definitely homosexuals who are mostly homosocial ― only hanging out with other gay (or even straight) dudes, period. The world of gay men has its share of misogyny, too.

What is the point other than grabbing information from Wikipedia to sound smart?

While sexual orientation today is considered an innate characteristic by most medical professionals and social scientists, social preference is learned within culture ― it’s literally about how people are socialized. Feminists have written about homosociality in societies: how it privileges men in the workplace and in familial and social settings where men and women have often been segregated. There are entire societies that are homosocial to the extreme, such as Saudi Arabia, and they are societies in which women are often brutally oppressed.

So basically, Islam. Aren’t they oppressive to women and gays? I don’t see many feminists fighting those guys, do you?

Trump often seems to connect more with the leaders of those countries ― he was wowed by the Saudi royal treatment, bonding with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud on his first foreign trip ― than by those of Western countries where women are heads of state. He recently humiliated U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, trashing her in an interview, then falsely calling it “fake news” when asked about it in front of her. And he has repeatedly dismissed, mistreated and attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel in ways that seem more personal than political.

Trump also trashed Kim Jong-un, who is male. Trump doesn’t have to like everyone and it’s acceptable for him to voice his opinion on people he doesn’t like. If he wants to throw Merkel under the bus, then go ahead. Her own people do it as well since she’s ruined Germany with her lust for migrants and their r**e parties.  London looks terrible right now as well. A once romantic city where people traveled to get iconic pictures and even get engaged looks more like a third-world sh-thole, kinda like Maxine Waters’ district in California. Why should Trump be forced to praise or get along with everyone when it’s obvious some people are doing a terrible job?

The term “homosocial” has been around for long a time, but the influential scholar Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick popularized its use in the ’80s, writing on “male homosocial desire” and specifically about how anxiety around masculinity and around homosexuality influence it.

A 2007 Australian study documented “the homosocial organization of men’s heterosexual relations,” noting that among some men:

Male-male friendships take priority over male-female relations, and platonic friendships with women are dangerously feminizing. Sexual activity is a key path to masculine status, and other men are the audience, always imagined and sometimes real, for one’s sexual activities. Heterosexual s*x itself can be the medium through which male bonding is enacted. Last, men’s sexual storytelling is shaped by homosocial masculine cultures.

Sound like a certain misogynist-in-chief? The last two lines are a perfect description of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape.

At this point, it seems like HuffPost’s editor-at-large, Michelangelo Signorile, might be a beta male feminist. There’s a different bond between male friends and male/female friendships. It’s different and always will be. There’s nothing wrong with that. Men do different things with other guys than they often do with women. It’s the same thing for women as well. There is literally no point to the entire article that Signorile wrote other than to hear himself talk or get some “likes” on social media.

Men used to tell of their sexual conquests all the time. Women do it too. Ever watch an episode of just about any show that women like? It goes both ways and there’s nothing wrong with men or women telling of their “sexual conquests” if that’s what they feel like talking about.

It’s articles like this, published on sites like HuffPost, that really just make nothing into something.

Then people read it and realize it’s nothing.

What a waste of time that was, right?

Thanks for nothing, Michelangelo Signorile.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!



A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:


“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.


“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading


Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!



Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend