Saturday, January 14, 2017


Broadway star Jennifer Holliday has decided not to perform at the Trump inaugural welcome concert, according to an exclusive report from The Wrap.

In a letter addressed to "my beloved LGBT community," Holliday explained why she initially accepted the invitation to perform at the inauguration, saying she wanted to perform for the people, not for Trump. 

But after a vocal backlash, Holliday has decided not to perform.

According to The Associated Press, Holliday was referred to as an "Uncle Tom" and her decision to participate would be a career-ending move.

Holliday, best known for her Tony-winning role in "Dreamgirls" on Broadway, said she voted for Hillary Clinton, and has performed for Republican and Democratic presidents.

In the open letter, Holliday apologized for her "lapse of judgement" and for "causing such dismay and heartbreak to my fans."

I guess racism and anti-straight sentiments win.

I just did a search, and could not find any good examples of anti-gay sentiment coming from Trump. 

Not that I did not trust Arlee Bird’s post earlier in the week, but I wanted to be sure for myself.

A page with an obvious agenda ( did their best to do a top ten list, but most of their rationale was a read in between the lines rather than anything from Trump's mouth or Twitter account.

For example, the site claims (I did not try to verify this but will assume they did) that Trump said that Arianna Huffington is “unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.” 

This made number 8 on their list, but where exactly is the anti-gay sentiment?

Is the comment in bad taste?


Is it immature and sophomoric?


But anti-gay?

I don’t see it.

All of their comments from Mr. Trump show the same lack of restraint and internal editing that I have criticized him for, but poor judgment does not a homophobe make.

My question is, why is Ms. Holliday less offended by the racist comments aimed at her (she was called “Uncle Tom” by her “beloved” fans) than by the unsubstantiated allegation that the president-elect is anti-gay?

Oh, right-it would have been “career suicide” to perform.

So rather than stand for what she felt was right, Ms. Holliday is really all about the fucking money.

And so, maybe the “Uncle Tom” comments are not that far from the mark.

In what may surprise regular readers, I am not familiar with Ms. Holliday’s work. Nor will I ever be. I am boycotting her work, not because she may be LGBT but because she is a hypocrite.

The LGBT agenda is supposed to be one of inclusion.

But this act shows, as we have seen so many times, the agenda is really "our way or the highway." 


  1. Absolutely. They think they show their tolerance with their idiot boycotts, but all they really show is hypocrisy. They aren't interested in making a better, "inclusive" world. They are interested in making THEIR world and theirs alone.

    1. I think what pisses me off most is that most of America does not see the agenda for what it is...they fall right into the trap.

      And specifically to Trump-I still maintain he is his own worst enemy and need to have Twitter privileges taken away, but while he's said enough that many have a right to object to, it's kind of unfair to be putting forth as gospel things he has not.

  2. All of this anti-Trump sentiment might come back to bite a lot of folks in the ass. On the other hand, if Trump's presidency turns out to be a big screw up then those folks can go around saying "I told you so". Either way none of these folks is doing much to bring disparate groups together and just solidifying blocs that already exist.

    As to what Trump says about Rosie or Huffington or whatever, I think he is just voicing what a lot of folks already think or say in private. I don't think he is his worst enemy and that has been exemplified by what has happened. His fans appreciate his willingness to be socially radical and un-PC. We'll see as time goes on.

    Arlee Bird
    Tossing It Out

    1. I'm not sure the other side making shit up about him gives them the right to an "I told you so," but I am sure they'll gloat.

      I think re: his tweets, we just view this differently-I do not see Trump's tweets as very "presidential," but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

      Guess I'm just not a fan. Although I do want him to succeed and feel that anyone who does not is misguided.

      Trump had the chance to try to be a unifying force from November 8 through January 20th. It was his choice not to do so.

      One thing, Lee-Trump is not a Fan Club president-he is president of the whole country.

      Not everyone who voted for him appreciates his willingness to be socially radical and un-PC.

      And maybe he'll never win over any of those who voted against him without trying to soften his approach.

      Maybe he wouldn't anyway-but I think it would be worth trying.

      It'll be an interesting four years in any case. I wonder what the odds on a second term are?

    2. When people judge him on being "presidential" they have nothing to relate to but past presidents. Trump is a product of the generation of today that doesn't seem to give a whit about precedent or tradition. Social media rules. We have either created a monster or a new way of communicating ideas and Trump is taking advantage of this. And I think he is doing so in an interesting manner even though it might seem boorish to you and others.

      AS for a second term, I'm thinking the odds are good that he will either go around again or Pence will should Trump decide he wants to move on. That is if our nation and the world lasts that long.

      Arlee Bird
      Tossing It Out

    3. Based on his Twitter-isms alone, he's lost my vote for a second term.

  3. >>... Trump had the chance to try to be a unifying force from November 8 through January 20th. It was his choice not to do so.

    Shame on him for making no attempt when the Democrats, the Millennials, and the RINOs were so obviously eager to mend fences and start out with a clean and hopeful slate. Bad Trump! Bad Trump!

    >>... I wonder what the odds on a second term are?

    My guess is that if he can manage to survive the assassination attempts, he's got the same dismal odds of winning reelection as he did of getting elected the first time: slim and none. ...And we saw how THAT turned out.

    ~ D-FensDogG
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. Actually Stephen, that is how I feel-shame on him.

      A true leader would take the high road.

      Do you really think the president should be tweeting about Hollywood actresses being overrated?

      Obviously we disagree in what we look for in a leader.


    2. LC ~

      >>... Based on his Twitter-isms alone, he's lost my vote for a second term.

      So, if he abolished the Federal Reserve and returned the country to a sound economy; if he re-established our country as a producer of products again and brought back thousands and thousands of jobs; if he defunded Planned Parenthood and other Federally-supported immoral agencies (which he's ALREADY working toward:, you wouldn't vote for him based on his Twitter-isms alone?

      You have a very, very peculiar obsession with Trump's tweets which utterly blinds you to the all-important "big picture".

      >>... Actually Stephen, that is how I feel -- shame on him.

      "Feel", huh? Have you checked for an "LS" chromosome?

      >>... Do you really think the president should be tweeting about Hollywood actresses being overrated?

      I don't have any problem with it at all. When someone hits you, you hit back. Unless you don't mind being some libtard's punching bag for the rest of your life.

      And other libtards, seeing that Trump will immediately counterpunch, might begin to think twice before highjacking an awards show in front of the entire country and turning it into a platform for their retarded liberal views.

      It's nice to finally have a "real man" in the White House. Until now, all our lives, all we've seen in the White House were a bunch tie-wearing, stuffed-shirt puppets shoving red hot pokers up our collective butt and driving our nation straight to the hell of their satanic New World Order. Finally we've got someone who knows how to fight back.

      You say you like a "presidential" demeanor, huh? What has that gotten you in the past? Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Obama -- and what have they given you? Take a look around at your country -- if you can even recognize it anymore -- and rejoice at the results of "presidential demeanor". THAT is what they have given you: the best third-world nation on the planet!

      I say: PISS ON "PRESIDENTIAL" DEMEANOR! I don't give a hoot about appearances and manners and playing "patty-cake nicely" with the friggin' Marxists of many stripes. I and the rest of us "Deplorables" only care about positive results! Nasty, unprofessional tweets? Who gives a crap?! We've got more important business to think about!

      >>... Obviously we disagree in what we look for in a leader.

      I think not. I think that's just what you like to tell yourself to achieve that homemade, fresh-squeezed, charcoal-roasted "holier than thou Deplorables" feeling.

      In case you didn't see it, I dissected that "fake view" (Link:] HERE.

      And lastly, you addressed me recently in a post of Lee's. I was a bit late in replying, so just in case you didn't catch my response to you, you can find it (Link:] HERE.

      All the best to you in 2017, LC.

      ~ D-FensDogG
      'Loyal American Underground'

    3. No, we definitely disagree-what I see from the Trump "fan base" (and Trump) is the same behavior I have oft blogged about from liberals.

      when someone hits you you hit back

      Maybe. But when the hitting back is with tweets that show the maturity of a high school student, has one hit back?

      And even if he accomplishes everything you cite-which it hard to see based on his cabinet choices that promise to be more of the same-I still wonder if the end justifies the means.