Claim: Obama hid 'gay life' to become president

I love WorldNutDaily. :loveu::loveu: :loveu: No RW site is better for exploiting the absolute stupidity of its readers. Looks like you took the bait again, Racist X.http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...wacky-conspiracy-theories-on-world-net-daily/

:rofl2:

That's the same thing you said about the National Enquirer story when they found Sen. John Edwards banging his videographer Rielle Hunter while he was running for the democrats choice for president, meanwhile his fat fuck of a wife lay dying of cancer in a hospital.
 
9
A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.
DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”

Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.
“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay” facility. But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,” where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity.

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.
In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.

“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.

“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.

‘Obama’s secrets’
DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”
He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.

DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”

“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.

He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.

DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.

Man’s Country
Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.

“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.


He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”

Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.

DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

Writing in HillBuzz.org Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”

DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”

“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/#tQ5YJj61bEQLwGe2.99

:rofl2:


LOLOLOLOLOLOL. This from WND, for one. And, two, by disgruntled right wingers who still cannot accept that Barack Obama won two terms, and no one gives a shit about allegations of him being gay. He and the First Lady, Michelle Obama, have brought back glamor and elegance to the White House, not seen since JFK and Jackie Kennedy. How you guys hate him.....to no avail. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
 
:rofl2:

I can hardly wait to read the papers and find out he has AIDS and dies.....

Hey, stupid. AIDS is not a gay disease. The fastest growing incidences of new cases is in the heterosexual community. And you hoping that, one, the President (or anyone, for that matter) would acquire a disease....and two, would die, is reprehensible and beyond the pale. What a POS lowlife you are. Karma dictates you'll be first.
 
You might have a point, although I have gay friends who are opposed to gay marriage, and they are not self loathing or hypocrites. They simply believe that marriage should only be defined as between men and women.

BS. And I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Find me a gay person who isn't down with gay marriage. They don't exist.
I never heard of anything more ridiculous.
 
:rofl2:

That's the same thing you said about the National Enquirer story when they found Sen. John Edwards banging his videographer Rielle Hunter while he was running for the democrats choice for president, meanwhile his fat fuck of a wife lay dying of cancer in a hospital.

"....fat fuck of a wife...."???????????
Is there any wonder why you haven't any friends, or that no one respects you?
 
BS. And I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Find me a gay person who isn't down with gay marriage. They don't exist.
I never heard of anything more ridiculous.

Well here is one at least.

Why I Oppose Gay Marriage


It’s clear to me that eventually men will be able to marry men and women will be able to marry women in all of the United States, it’s just not clear exactly when. It’s just that I am not very excited about the prospect. In fact, even being homosexual, I actually oppose gay marriage. Not only that — I oppose it as a gay person.

I am most annoyed by straight people’s calls for it. These people who postpone their own marriages until same-sex couples can be married are just being abysmally silly. Their gay friends must love the drama of it all. I have been noticing more discussion of this lately, and now with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and the lesser known Proposition 2 in Florida, both of which enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, the outrage has reached a crescendo. Finally, Keith Olbermann forced my hand — I can no longer keep silent on the issue of gay marriage and why it is stupid, awful, and undesirable.

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.

For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don’t deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.

Gays want to be accepted by society broadly. Usually they demand that they are accepted as they are, and that society’s expectations morph to accommodate their lifestyles. But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don’t just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexuals. Instead of being, to paraphrase from the last century, “different but equal,” they actually want to take part in the identical goofily baroque sacraments as the straights they often ridicule. Why in this instance would homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals? Are you loud and proud or not? You’re queer — get used to it.

A straight friend noted that gays insist on being married in courthouses, and not merely churches, many thousands of which will and do marry same-sex couples. After decades of fighting the state, it seems homosexuals have now made it their god.

The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership.

Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage — after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums getting free shit?

Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards. But I digress.

In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval.

I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex.

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-i-oppose-gay-marriage/
 
Last edited:
I would venture to say that IF any of this were true he is NOT a homosexual but a Bi person.


Being Bi I have always thought would be the best choice if it were indeed a choice (since its not a choice that's mute)



Being Bi would mean you could pick any human on earth to be with and could have the Best selection the world could offer.


You could pick that one person from all of the people who was a perfect intellectual and emotional match for the kind of person who could make you happy.


the Old joke goes Bi people ALWAYS have a date



I am hopelessly hetro so I will never know
 
BS. And I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Find me a gay person who isn't down with gay marriage. They don't exist.
I never heard of anything more ridiculous.


You are showing your ignorance.
 
Back
Top