Connect with us

News

Roseanne Is SICK Of It! Can’t Keep Her Silence Anymore And Just Exposed Them All On Live TV

WOW! She goes OFF!

Published

on

The new hero of the American Trump right wing, Roseanne Barr took the time to sit down with late-night talk show host Jimmy Fallon last night in order to address the backlash she has received after coming out as a Donald Trump supporter. And as always, Roseanne was Roseanne.

After touting the incredible success of the continuation of her tv show Roseanne after 21 years Fallon asked the Barr how she deals with those who criticize her pro-Trump positions. To which she replied “Oh, yeah. Some people are mad about that, but, you know, I don’t give a f***.”

Barr went on to explain that since this is American she would never put someone down for the way they voted and she expects the same courtesy in return.

“Well, everybody had to choose for themselves according to their own conscience who they thought was the lesser of two evils,” she explained. “You know, everybody chose that. So, I’m not gonna put anybody down who didn’t vote like me. This is America. It’s a free country. And, you know, when you weigh it all together, you know, I think — I just felt like we needed a whole new thing, all the way, bottom to top.”

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

In a separate interview with Vox, Barr completely confirmed that a big reason she couldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton had to do with Haiti. When the Clintons and their “foundation” raised millions of dollars for a hospital in there after the devastating earthquake that was never built. She also said she was glad that black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in years, crediting Trump for those jobs, then concluded by saying that we need to end “hate-riotism” in America and learn how to talk to each other again.

When she was asked if she agrees with everything President Trump has said she replied, “I’m not a Trump apologist. There are a lot of things he’s done and said that I don’t agree with in the same way there are probably a lot of things Hillary Clinton has done and said you don’t agree with.”

It’s incredible how Hollywood is so out of touch that they just can’t seem to fathom the fact that a sitcom which doesn’t insult over half the United States population would do well. In fact, it has done so well that it even beat out a series which was thought to be unbeatable till now, The Walking D**d!

Here is Barr’s interview with The New York Times:

“It’s been 21 years since “Roseanne” went off the air. Did you miss being Roseanne Conner?

No. I did a lot of other things.

You ran for president in 2012. What was that about?

To bring up questions and conversation that I wasn’t hearing anywhere. Specifically, how the public’s money never ends up going to the public.

Why play Roseanne again?

Everybody seemed to be into it and, you know, the conditions that I wanted were right.

What conditions?

I wanted somebody else to do the work that I wasn’t good at, and to let me do the work that I was good at. I don’t like arguing with people. I just am over it and I don’t like fighting. So I got — Sara Gilbert stepped into that role nicely.

The last time around, you were the star and the idea engine for the show, but you threatened to quit over creative conflicts.

Thirty years ago when “Roseanne” started, what were you treated like?

I was just not respected as a woman artist, but you know I think I paid my dues and some time passed and the world changed.

Do you think women have more opportunities today in Hollywood to tell the stories they want to tell?

I don’t know. There’s a lot more women who are featured, but I don’t know if they are doing what they really want to do.

Did you have any worries about coming back to the role?

No. I was excited to do it because I realized that was going to be the only opportunity I would get to act, because I’m kind of typecast as me. But I loved acting. And everybody really got a lot better in their acting chops, so that was great.

How are you different than during the last run of “Roseanne”?

Well, I’m older, and I’ve been through menopause, so that was great. I’m a grandma now. I’m older and wiser. I appreciate things better, and appreciate having an opportunity at age 65 to come back and do what I love to do.

What kind of stories did you want to tell on the new “Roseanne”?

How families are still struggling and what they do about it. There’s an arc in this season, and it’s the closest I’ve been to doing what I want to do. It’s about everything in our country. It’s about opioids and health care. How we deal with whole new issues that we didn’t even have before, like gender-fluid kids. How working class people — how and why they elected Trump.

Roseanne Conner has become a Trump supporter. How did that happen?

I just wanted to have that dialogue about families torn apart by the election and their political differences of opinion and how we handle it. I thought that this was an important thing to say at this time.

Was it your idea for Roseanne to back Trump?

Yes. Because it’s an accurate portrayal of these people and people like them. In terms of what they think, and how they feel when they are the ones who send their kids over to fight. We’ve been in wars for a long, long time, which everybody seems to forget — but working class people don’t forget it because their kids are in it.

Trump has had tough words for ABC. Did you get any pushback from ABC about making Roseanne a Trump supporter?

Not from ABC, no.

From who?

Everyone else in the world.

Why do you think?

You know, people only want to see — they want to stick to their narrative and they don’t want it shaken up. But, you know, I was like, ‘Oh, here we go. I’m just the person for this job.’

Considering that Trump opposes many of the principles that you and Roseanne Conner have stood for, how can you support him?

No, he doesn’t, I don’t think he does. I don’t think so at all. I think he voices them quite well.

I’m thinking of abortion rights, same-*** marriage rights, labor protections —

He doesn’t oppose same-*** marriage.

He doesn’t favor it. He has not come out in favor of it.

He does. Yes, he does. He has said it several times, you know, that he’s not homophobic at all.

What about labor union protections and blue collar workers, and

What do you mean, the — oh, let’s not get into this.

[A representative for Ms. Barr interjected: “You don’t have to get into it. We can move on.”]

Well, you know, it’s —

A question people wonder about.

Well, I think working-class people were pissed off about Clinton and NAFTA, so let’s start there. That’s what broke all the unions and we lost all our jobs, so I think that’s a large part of why they voted for Trump because they didn’t want to see it continue, where our jobs are shipped away. So, it’s more, why did people support shipping our jobs away?

Why is Trump O.K. but Pence is objectionable, by your lights?

I think Pence is not as good as Trump, not as accepting, and not as, you know — I think that he’s way more radical.

O.K. Let’s talk about the impact “Roseanne” had as a show. I remember your same-*** kiss with Mariel Hemingway in 1994 and all the queer characters on her show. Do you think that paved the way for the L.G.B.T. characters that followed?

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask somebody else. It’s not up to me to say those things.

But you thought those were important stories at the time, right?

I wouldn’t have taken the heat that I took if I didn’t think it was an important thing to do. Just like now. I’m taking a lot of heat, and if I didn’t think that I was right and that it was important, by God, I wouldn’t be doing it.

How has America changed since the first incarnation of “Roseanne”? How has that affected the current show’s humor?

Same jokes, same kind of thing. Just trying to get through paycheck to paycheck and handle it. Having no jobs and people losing their homes and you know that never, ever being talked about on television.

How did you guys address whether to have John come back since his character Dan is ****?

I always knew how I would do it, and I wrote it. Once John was in, I thought, well, I’m going to get a chance to continue the story that I always wanted to tell.

A lot of fans are wondering, how should we regard Dan’s *****?

Well, I can’t tip it. You’ll see in the first show.

A lot of people thought the last season of “Roseanne” was pretty bad. In hindsight, do you?

No. I love it. I just watched a few of them and they were really funny. It was a departure though, but once you see why, you know I think it explains it all.

How many seasons do you think the new Roseanne will continue?

We all want to keep doing it so we just hope people like it and they watch it, and it gets renewed, you know, we all want that.

Is there a new character or story line you think is kind of a trailblazer, like the show was the last time around?

I like that Darlene’s a mom now because my kids are all parents. I thought that would ring a bell with most people, my age anyway. Like what are you doing with these kids? And it’s fun to have Darlene and her kids living in the house because we really get to dissect and discuss parenting.

Do you have an arc in mind for the next season if it comes to be?

Oh, yeah, of course I do. A family grows older.

Is Dan still alive?

Oh, yeah, hopefully. Hopefully we’re all going to be alive.”

H/T The Daily Wire

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.