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

Connect with us

Funny

Trump Gets Last Laugh After City Of West Hollywood Votes To Remove His Star From Walk Of Fame

Excuse me, Hollywood – you forgot this!

Published

on

The people seem to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome over at the West Hollywood City Council have voted unanimously to request that President Donald Trump’s star is removed from the Walk of Fame. This was reported by numerous outlets and has traveled around Twitter a bit. The resolution will ask that the LA City Council and Hollywood Chamber of Commerce do something about the star, and that means they want it removed permanently.

However, there’s something funny about all the crybabies who want to remove a star. Well, there are a few funny things about it. The first is that Trump will ultimately get the last laugh because the mentally bizarre people who voted on this nonsense don’t even have jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame, so they can’t touch it anyway. They are literally voting on something that they are not allowed to touch. If that doesn’t tell you how absurd and delusional that these people are, then what will? I know exactly what will. Hollywood is filled with alleged sexual predators, pedophiles, and absolutely deranged people. Are they removing Bill Cosby’s star? Nah. He only allegedly r***d people in their sleep. He’s not a big deal. What about Kevin Spacey? Nah, his star is right next to Trump’s star. He only possibly touched boys, no big deal there either. Trump worked on the economy and gave people tax cuts and he doesn’t like people breaking the law to gain unlawful entry into the country and steal millions in benefits from taxpayers! That’s it, get his star outta here! Trump is a horrible guy, how could they ever do a star for Trump? The people in the West Hollywood City Council are demented, right?

Here are the facts from People:
“According to CBS Los Angeles, the council’s resolution asks the Los Angeles City Council and Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to take the action regarding the star, which Trump received for his time on The Apprentice in 2007. The decision, CNN reported, is not legally binding because the West Hollywood City Council has no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame.

In a statement to CNN, West Hollywood Mayor John Duran said, “The West Hollywood City Council did not pass the resolution because Donald Trump is a conservative or a Republican. Earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is an honor. When one belittles and attacks minorities, immigrants, Muslims, people with disabilities or women — the honor no longer exists.”

Trending: Rapper ‘50 Cent’ Had Enough Of Joy Behar’s Race-Baiting And Dismantles Her On Live TV

Duran added to the outlet that such a request has never been made before, “But the circumstances compelled us to make an exception to the rule.”

Neither the West Hollywood City Council nor the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce immediately responded to PEOPLE’s requests for comment.

This resolution comes just after Trump’s star was destroyed by a man — identified as Austin Clay, 24 — wielding a pickaxe on July 25. Clay was charged with a felony on Monday for the alleged vandalization, according to CBS Los Angeles.

The star has also been messed with in the past: In October 2016, James Otis attacked the star with a sledgehammer and pickaxe. He received three years probation, 20 community service days, and a $4,400 fine for the vandalism.

In July 2016, Plastic Jesus, a street artist, built a wall around the star to make a political statement. And last month, comedian George Lopez pretended to pee on the star.

Leron Gubler, the president of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, told PEOPLE in 2016 that a star has “never” been removed from the walk.

“Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame.”

Good luck getting a star removed that you’re not allowed to touch. Good job having anyone take you serious when you won’t remove sexual predators, but you want to remove a president.

No one will ever take Hollywood serious if they even consider approving this nonsense on any sense of realistic approach.

Their little sappy vote doesn’t matter when they don’t have jurisdiction in the first place.

 

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.

Culture

Melania Just Broke Her Silence On Trump-Trashing Omarosa And Drops The Hammer Hard!

Here comes the Boom!

Published

on

From the first time I saw President Trump hit the campaign trail, I never doubted that he adored Melania and she felt nothing but love and admiration for him. The left has constantly tried to allege that their marriage is in disarray and that Melania is getting ready to leave Trump at any moment. President Trump’s former aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, became one of the left’s minions in her new book “Unhinged,” where she claimed that the Trumps were on the verge of divorce.

At first, Melania seemed to have nothing much to say about the accusation. Her silence is now over and she’s dropping the hammer hard on the allegations by Omarosa. Melania’s office has issued a statement that solidly refutes claims by Omarosa that she is seeking a divorce from Trump. The statement suggests that Omarosa should be more grateful for the opportunities afforded to her by President Trump. There’s no arguing with that. Not only did Trump have her repeatedly on The Apprentice, he brought her on his White House team when her qualifications certainly didn’t merit it. He gave her a chance to serve her country and instead, she is serving herself.

Omarosa is a TV celebrity, not a marriage counselor. But that doesn’t stop her from trying to play one in real life. Evidently, the book insinuates that due to Trump’s alleged affairs, Melania can’t wait to dump him. That’s just laughable. “In my opinion, Melania is counting every minute until he is out of office and she can divorce him,” the former aide wrote. Then she really stepped over the line by suggesting that if the first lady were to divorce Trump while he was in office, he might counter by negating her citizenship. He can’t do that and anyone who knows anything about the law and the Constitution would tell you that. She’s just making stuff up and it’s not only entirely false, it’s disgusting.

Omarosa was obviously furious that Kelly fired her and that Trump let it happen. She’s being childish and petulant about it. Frankly, Kelly did the right thing. She thinks very highly of herself and because she feels she was slighted, she is turning on someone who was a very good friend to her. Way to bite the hand that feeds you.

Omarosa went on to address Melania’s fashion choices, which far outclass the TV reality star’s own fashion sense. She went after the “I really don’t care, do you?” jacket incident and had the nerve to claim it was meant to punish President Trump. Again, there is nothing to back that up and it doesn’t even make sense. I believe that happened after she left the White House so how would she even know? “I believe Melania uses style to punish her husband,” Omarosa writes. “At any time, if she so desired, she could humiliate him in public with small, ambiguous gestures, just as he’d openly humiliated her with his affairs and lascivious behavior for years.” Omarosa has no idea what Melania thinks and she has no right to pretend she does. She claims that she had a great connection with Melania. I highly doubt that assertion.

It didn’t take long for Melania to shoot down those claims. Her office indicated that they never really interacted with each other at all. Melania’s Communication Director Stephanie Grisham made that crystal clear by saying that the first lady “rarely, if ever, interacted” with Manigault Newman. Why would she? Their paths would not cross as Omarosa was an aide to Trump, not Melania. They certainly weren’t close friends. Grisham continued speaking for Melania, “It’s disappointing to her that she is lashing out and retaliating in such a self-serving way, especially after all the opportunities given to her by the president.” Very, very true.

Omarosa signed a non-disclosure agreement when she went to work in the White House. She has obviously broken the terms of that agreement and I would wager she is going to have legal troubles over all of this. And she should. This is not reality TV, this is the presidency and your actions have consequences. But her legal woes may not end there. A number of people that Omarosa has claimed were involved in incidents with the president are claiming that she is not telling the truth. She is making accusations with no proof to back them up and that will not end well for Omarosa. Her recording White House officials in the Situation Room is also something that will get her in legal hot water.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, is nixing a story about President Trump using racial epithets in addressing him. Pollster Frank Luntz also stated that Omarosa did not tell the truth when he was named as an individual who had heard President Trump use the n-word. “I’m in [Omarosa’s] book on page 149,” Lutz tweeted. “She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word. Not only is this flat-out false (I’ve never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn’t even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work.”

I haven’t heard anyone from the White House, that has left or is there presently, that backs up Omarosa’s claims. Not one bit. A furious President Trump tweeted praise for General John Kelly firing her, “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” Melania probably seconds that sentiment wholeheartedly. I know I do.

Continue Reading

Funny

Viewers Floored By What Happened After Fox News Host Ate Steak In Front Of Ultra-Liberal Vegan

The look in her eyes was pure evil!!

Published

on

Jesse Watters had some fun when he invited a doctoral candidate on his show to debate her about the effects of eating meat. His guest was Anne Delassio-Parson and she’s a candidate for getting her Ph.D candidate at Penn State. Her big thing? She thought that eating meat reinforced gender stereotypes. Sounds pretty stupid, right? Don’t worry, it gets better. The thought was that eating meat supports a “hegemonic masculinity” or a “meat-centric culture” but that’s also fairly unintelligent, right? It is because men and women both enjoy eating meat products and no one really looks at another man or woman and thinks anything different of them, of course, unless you’re a liberal with some strange identity problem.

Usually what happens is a man and woman decide what they want to eat and no one else really cares unless they’re eating monkey brains or something totally exotic that’s out of the norm. If a girl wants a double cheeseburger or a salad, then more power to them. If a guy wants to chomp a steak or have a milkshake, then more power to him. No one cares.

Either way, eating meat somehow became the topic of this bizarre woman who doesn’t seem to be the best product of Penn State. She’s certainly a better representative than Jerry Sandusky, but that’s not very hard to do.

They then talked about “doing vegetarianism” and “de-linking” meat from gender hegemony and all I could think of was “who cares?” Not me. I’m pretty sure no one living their life in any state of normalcy would care about the nonsense that this lady is spewing.

Here’s where it gets even better. Jesse Watters ate a steak right in front of her. BOOM! Absolutely hilarious and if it’s cooked any more than medium rare, then he better send it back. What’s better than that? The fact that it was recorded. Watch the Jesse Watters steak video below, then tilt your head back and laugh. Just remember folks – eat whatever you want. No one cares. It’s your life and your belly. Eat whatever makes you happy, but not so much that it makes you an obese Trump hating complainer like Michael Moore.

Fox News: “Jesse Watters on Saturday debated a doctoral candidate from Penn State University, who contended that eating meat reinforces gender stereotypes.

As FoxNews.com reported, Anne DeLessio-Parson published an article in the “Journal of Feminist Geography” after studying Argentina’s “meat-centric culture.”

An academic journal has published an article by a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University that argues eating meat maintains a society where “hegemonic masculinity” is the norm.

“I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender,’” Anne DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”

DeLessio-Parson theorizes that being a vegetarian in the South American nation is a political act that contributes to the destabilization of the gender binary, or the view that there are only two sexes, masculine and feminine.

“[V]egetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations,” she wrote. “Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism.”

On “Watters’ World,” Watters challenged her on the claim, and enjoyed a late-night snack during the debate.

DeLessio-Parson said Watters was slightly incorrect when he said consuming meat “creates toxic masculinity” because the phenomenon is “already there.”

She said it “reinforces certain social structures, including patriarchy” through its “symbolism.”

Watters then produced some symbolism of his own, as a producer laid a plate of steak — “medium rare” — in front of him.

“Is this bad — that I’m eating meat?” he asked.

DeLessio-Parson said it would be more acceptable if he hunted or procured the meat himself, rather than “enjoying the benefit [with] the blood on someone else’s hands.”

“What if you’re just hungry, and the animals are there for us to enjoy?” he asked.”

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