Judge KK was not alone. Predictably, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had pooh-poohed the president, too.

Why “predictably”?

Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that kills.

LGBTQ is a political program why?

Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Z, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance.

In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Contra Judge Kollar-Kotelly, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?”

Girls: It was about their presence in the military that Gutmann was cautioning, circa 2000, not “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning.”

As trailblazing as Ms. Gutmann’s shoe-leather investigation was, back then, into the way women had transformed the military, its morale and readiness—never could this author have imagined that from gender neutrality, the military would move into the even Braver New World of gender fluidity.

Gutmann saddled “Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretaries of Defense Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Cohen, the Congresses who wrote and passed the bills they signed, and the Pentagon leadership who just grinned nervously and sat on their hands while all of this was going on.”What were the fatal conceits of these leaders and their legislation?

“[W]omen have been in the forces since … well … forever,” observed Gutmann. “But something new happened in the nineties in respect to the way the military handled ‘women’s issues.’ The goals “changed from making good use of the relatively small numbers of [superior] women the military had been attracting over the years, to achieving what President Clinton and Secretary of the Army Togo West [had] called ‘a force that looks like America.'”

The rest is history. The “New Army,” as it was openly termed, was created, “the warrior culture” obliterated, weepy sensitivity replaced it. What appalled Ms. Gutmann was, again, the utter disinterest expressed by “the big boys (and a few big girls)” “in the hearts and minds of soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in various ways during the last half of the nineties.”

This craven indifference is evinced in Kollar-Kotelly’s recent ruling and in leadership’s reaction to President Trump’s transgender-policy impetus. When Sen. Orrin Hatch, joined by GOP leaders, enjoined the president against his transgender ban—did he/they show any interest in “good-faith information” about how transsexualism “plays out at ground level,” to echo Gutmann’s charge against political and military leadership, in 2000?

Do these arch social-planners give a hoot about how flesh-and-blood men interact with a mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes at a buddy? And how do these layered dynamics affect life-and-death situations?

Still, LGBTQ in the military is inconsequential by now. It’s a minor matter in a spent force, shot through with punitive sexual politics, hobbled and demoralized by the needs of women, as interpreted by military and political leadership.

More money and materiel are not what America’s sclerotic military needs.

A court ruling, a coming-out party—these won’t change that LGBTQ is a fig leaf, camouflaging that the army was neutered by “recruiting nineties style,” where nothing less than “proportional representation” of women became the recruiting goal. The official line then became “something like, ‘We want you [ladies] to join us; we want you to stay with us. Tell us what you don’t feel ‘comfortable’ with so we can change it.”

And they did.

©2017 ILANA MERCER
WND.com, Storia.me
December 20

Democrats are frenetically trying to pass legislation that’ll make it impossible for anyone on the government’s terrorist list to legally purchase a firearm. Their renewed Brownian motion is due to the massacre, last Sunday, of 49 gay club-goers in Orlando, Florida. The Muslim American perpetrator wounded 53 others.

The premise of passing such a law, one would hope, is this: Had mass murderer Omar Saddiqui Mateen been in the “Terrorist Screening Database,” he would not have been authorized to purchase the long gun (AR-15 rifle) and handgun (a Glock) he used in the massacre. Both were bought legally.

Here’s the rub: But for a brief appearance, Mateen was not on the government’s terrorist watch list. He didn’t qualify. But boy, did he try. Mateen gave it his best. Government agents diligently kept him off The List. For Omar Mateen it was near impossible to get on the terrorist watch lists.

He may not have come out as a homosexual, but Mateen was loud and proud about his orientation as an aspiring Islamic terrorist. He did so while safely ensconced in law-enforcement. His career Mateen launched at the Florida Department of Corrections. His duties frequently took him to the St. Lucie County courthouse, in Fort Pierce. Mateen was serving as guardian of people and property when he committed the worst massacre since 9/11.

Since 2007, Mateen had worked at the Florida subsidiary of a multinational British security firm, the largest in the world, and, as we now know, likely one of the worst. Mateen’s (likely Kufar) coworkers described him as “racist, belligerent” and generally “toxic.” G4S responded by transferring the complaining coworkers rather than firing the menacing Mateen.

G4S Secure Solutions has contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. It would appear the company assists DHS in operating the taxpayer-funded, catch-and-release, illegal-alien racket. According to investigative journalist Paul Sperry, many of these offenders are “classified as OTMs—Other Than Mexican—and include … possibly also foreign border-crossers from the Middle East and Pakistan.” In addition, the company provides security in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. (In its dealings, G4S Secure Solutions conjures the fictitious Richard Roper’s cartel. Roper is the villain in The Night Manager, a John le Carré novel adapted for television. With the help of government agents as his conduits for corruption, Roper traffics in arms, drugs and human misery.)

Try as he might, no amount of offense Mateen gave could get him fired. Not even to boast about his alleged connections to al Qaeda, Hezbollah or his yearning for martyrdom. There were derogatory quips about gays and women, too. At the time, the FBI, like G4S, was unfazed. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are at odds with each other and with ISIS, noodled FBI Director James Comey, post massacre. That Mateen was clueless about the Shia-Sunni divide signaled to the FBI—to the exclusion of all other possibilities—that he wasn’t to be taken seriously as a threat. Comey seemed to think that to be considered a threat, a Muslim Millennial—the beneficiary of an American education—must know the ins-and-outs of Islam’s religious sects. It didn’t occur to Comey and his compadres that killing and said ignorance are not mutually exclusive. It did not occur to Comey that Islam unites all of its factions in hatred of the infidel.

In 2013, pursuant to bandying about his ties to terrorists and boasting of his martyr’s aspirations—Mateen was finally interviewed by the FBI, whereupon he blamed workplace bullying. To Barack Obama’s FBI, that settled it. The boy was a victim.

Twice did our martyr-in-the-making embark on purported pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia. The Hajj pilgrimage requires only one visit to the Saud. As far as we know, Mateen’s pilgrimages didn’t coincide with the annual Hajj. He was likely not circumambulating the Kaaba. To justify his 2011 and 2012 trips to that hellhole, Mateen came up with a lesser obligation, the Umrah, an open-ended Muslim mitzvah, which can easily cover for an aspiring Jihadi’s training schedule. Alas, to the sleuths of the FBI, such thinking would have amounted to conspiracy.

Besides sojourning to Saudi Arabia and talking smack to infidels, Mateen attempted to flag the FBI as follows: On Facebook, he shared an entry of an Imam calling for the death of homosexuals. He claimed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a soulmate; Osama bin Laden as a relative. He celebrated Sept. 11.

And he worshiped at the mosque that produced another American pioneer, our first exported homicide bomber, Moner Abu-Salha. The Palestinian Abu-Salha lived a stone’s throw from Mateen who knew him. To Comey, this was not a piece of a puzzle, but a discrete, disconnected tidbit to be dismissed as an artifact, a coincidence.

The government agency’s media front men and women insist that there’s nothing here to see. All are agreed that the FBI’s 35,000 agents can’t possibly be expected to surveil 1000 purported suspects. In the private, productive economy that state-of-affairs would portend subpar—make that abysmal—productivity. Try telling the clientele you cater to that the 35 workers in your employ can’t possibly be expected to carry a caseload of … one, for that’s the ratio of workers-to-work the FBI is kvetching about.

The malfunctioning media are not eager to broadcast news that redeems gun owners and damns government agencies tasked with stopping gun-toting terrorists. However, the owner of Lotus Gunworks, in Jensen Beach, had notified the FBI that Mateen sought to purchase “heavy-duty body armor” and bulk ammunition. He did so weeks before Mateen dispatched the 49 patrons of Pulse Orlando. The gun-store owner told the FBI Mateen was rattling into his phone (likely to his bride) in Arabic. The information had no takers.

Light a candle, say a prayer. Move on. That’s what your government and its agents expect you to do. If you are so suited to obedience, remember the following, at least:

The FBI missed the Tsarnaev Brothers of Boston Marathon fame. They missed The Fockers, I mean the Farooks, butchers of San Bernardino, and they missed Omar Saddiqui Mateen, whose actions media are now finessing as those of a latent homosexual-cum-homophobe, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.

The ban on the ban is unconstitutional.

This was the gist of broadcaster Mark Levin’s angry tirade against the humdrum, and certainly predicable, decision of a federal judge to strike down “Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban” on gay marriage.

At the center of conservative contretemps are similar decisions in California, New Mexico and Utah, following on which U.S. District Judge Terence Kern had “determined that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment” violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

It stipulates that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Broadly speaking, WND’s Alan Keyes concurred with Levin, alluding to the Constitution’s 10th and Ninth Amendments by which “the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to … deny the antecedent rights retained by the people.”

Indeed, “the prevailing view in 1791,” observed The Honorable Robert T. Donnelly, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, “was that the national government had only delegated powers and that reserved to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within which people may not be interfered with by government.”

But that was then.

In voiding “voter-approved law,” Justice Kern has resorted to perfectly proper 14th Amendment judicial activism. Deploying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Kern nullified the 10th. It specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment, the Constitution’s federal scheme has long since been obliterated by the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine.

What does this mean?

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.

In their love of Lincoln and the 14th, conservative constitutional originalists will disagree. They’ll say the 14th was meant to limit the power of the states and enlarge the power of Congress, not the Courts. “Congress, not the Court,” was to “implement the provisions of the 14th Amendment,” subject to judicial review.

And that’s somehow a good thing?

They “say tomato, I say tomahto.” As I see it, the 14th Amendment was a gargantuan grant of power to the federal government. That the judiciary has done what was left undone by Congress does nothing to alter the dismal outcome for liberty. The 14th spelt the demise of our Constitution’s decentralized dispensation. Either way, the freedoms afforded by federalism are no longer because American federalism is no longer.

“The natural progress of things [being] for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground,” this inevitable momentum, in the form of the invented legal doctrine of “selective incorporation,” soon progressed—regressed is the right word—to complete incorporation.

A précis of Incorporation-Doctrine jurisprudence in the legal dictionary admits that “most provisions of the Bill of Rights were eventually incorporated to apply to the states.” Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of the judiciary.

Among other legal decisions to have been implicated by Justice Donnelly in expunging federalism from the Constitution is Cooper v. Aaron. In 1958, “the United States Supreme Court asserted for the first time in its history and in the history of the nation that its interpretations of the written Constitution in a particular case in one State constitute the ‘supreme law of the land’ under Article VI of the Constitution and are of binding effect in all of the States.” “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” declared the Court. (See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958.)

So much for Alexander Hamilton’s promise, in Federalist No. 78 (May 28, 1788), that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of his proposed government. “Instead of protecting the legitimate interests of the states,” surmised Justice Donnelly (in “The Demise of Federalism: With Consent of the Governed?”), “the Supreme Court competes with Congress to dictate to the states their ‘legitimate’ interests.”

Commensurate with the power they’ve amassed, nine unaccountable, unelected, Supreme-Court judges now sit as “a Council of Revision over the states.”

Just as the interpretation of the 14 Amendment in Brown v. Board of Education became the supreme law of the land, so, too, will the states likely lose their (petty) marriage-licensing jurisdiction, once that coven of casuists, the Supreme Court, embroils itself in setting social policy for all the states.

Conservatives as astute as Mr. Levin, Esq., ought to quit misleading their readers and listeners about the restoration of a constitutional structure that has suffered death by a thousand cuts, long before the dreadful cur Obama appeared on the scene.

I managed to watch 10 torturous minutes of “Duck Dynasty” so as to catch up on the controversy.

In the tradition of American pop-theology—light on doctrine; heavy on hellfire and damnation—the ostensibly devout and “educated” Dynastic patriarch, Phil Robertson, phrased his abhorrence of homosexuality thus:

‘It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. ‘That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?

Easily the phoniest, most contrived of characters is Si Robertson. During the brief penance I served in front of the teli, Uncle Si voiced a Vietnam-era fondness for booster injections—Vitamin B he called this military mainlining. Si then proceeded to fondle and fall atop a mannequin in a clothing store. The lewd old man is, of course, a preacher too. Lovely.

Then again, this column was assailed when, in 2008, it judged Miley Cyrus to be a precocious, brassy, none-too-bright exhibitionist, singularly propelled by fame. Miley was “wholesome,” I was told—even as she nestled in the arms of father Billy Ray Cyrus in various states of undress.

Ditto the Duck detritus: they are the new wholesome in America. Give them a few months, and the Ducksters’ downmarket flourishes will include “Dancing With the Stars” and a teen pregnancy. The dynasty has already been conferred with the Barbara-Walters Mark of Cain. That dumbo added “Duck Dynasty” to her annual lineup of cretin, otherwise known as America’s most fascinating personalities.

“Duck Dynasty” represents “the best of America,” came the angry retort from readers on Facebook. Oy vey!

Somehow, I think H.L. Mencken would disagree. Southerners, to paraphrase that great American, had been drained of their best blood by the War of Northern Aggression. Although vestiges of good breeding, charm and civility remain in many a Southern man, the uncouth Duck hunters from down South are not it.

What would the Duck-Dynasty debate be without “lite-libertarian reductionism”? The Ducksters are capitalists, they scolded. As a capitalist yourself, a critique of this cultural product ought to be beyond the pale. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with making a good living catering to the base, voyeuristic demand created by many millions of Americans, as do the Ducksters. But are capitalists compelled to like their product because it makes money? No. It is perfectly productive, if far from lucrative, for me to criticize all aspects of the puerile Duck production.

The Ducksters are part of a debased culture—the right-wing answer to Kim Kardashian, whose deformed figure and ass elephantiasis you can ogle online and on late-night Leno (1.21 minutes in).

Then there is the matter of Duck-Dynasty religiosity.

“I think you’re missing an important point, Ilana,” said one perceptive Facebook Friend. “The [Ducksters] were selected for the show because they are how you describe them. Duck Dynasty was meant to be a redneck minstrel show. They were supposed to be objects of ridicule for cosmopolitan America. They are what blue-state America imagines religiosity to be.”

Delve more deeply, and you’ll discover that Christianity in our country is a lot like what the Ducksters profess. No longer doctrinaire or demanding, the mishmash of pop-religion practiced in churches across America is an extension of the therapeutic culture: festooned with feelings, mostly misdirected. Untempered by intelligent interpretation of scripture.

As for the Ducksters’ occupation. I’ll leave you with Proverbs 12:10:

Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Prosperity and penury do not turn on gyno-centric and gay matters. But leftist statists and libertarians of the left place these wedge issues at the forefront of the fight for freedom ~ilana

As analysts of the exit polls in the Virginia gubernatorial race have it, Robert Sarvis, the libertarian lite, third-party candidate is not to blame for “siphoning off” votes from conservative Ken Cuccinelli and spoiling an election in what was once a reliably red state.

“In a straight two-way matchup,” contended one such analyst at FoxNews.com, “voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the [race’s] final outcome.”

This is unconvincing. Is it not possible that without Sarvis, those energized “independents and moderates,” whose support Sarvis garnered might have turned out for Cuccinelli? There are those who are convinced that Sarvis cut into Cuccinelli’s support. The tea party’s Steve King, R-Iowa, for example.

Indeed, a jubilant CNN reporter—the nitwork could not conceal its collective glee over the victory, in Virginia, of Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe—conceded that “self-described independents broke for Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli.” Clearly, there was overlap between the Cuccinelli and Sarvis constituencies.

We all recall another Libertarian Party clown’s perennial struggle to get on the ballot as the party’s presidential nominee. Unlike wacky Gary Johnson, whose “ballot access” was impeded by “Republican operatives,” somebody greased the skids for Sarvis, helping place him on the Virginia ballot.

Good old-fashioned (and near-obsolete) shoe-leather journalism, conducted by The Blaze, revealed that Sarvis had help from “a major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler.” A software billionaire named Joe Liemandt, who acted as one of Barack Obama’s super fundraisers in 2012, galvanized on behalf of Sarvis.

Incriminating as this may appear, evidence of a dark, Democratic scheme it is not. In fairness to Sarvis’ sponsor—who hobnobs with Obama acolytes like Warren Buffet, Vogue editor Anna Wintour and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein—he was in the habit of splitting “political giving between libertarian third-party efforts and liberal Democrats.”

That a political contributor would have no compunction about supporting both the Democratic National Committee and the Libertarian Action Super PAC is not surprising. Politicking in America precludes staking out principled positions.

Besides, the gulf between establishment libertarians and left-liberals is not that wide. The Libertarian Party is a party of “isms,” not individualism. When it comes to playing manipulative politics with hot-button social issues—matters of “racism,” “sexism” (blah, blah)—there’s no daylight between left-libertarians and leftists.

True to type, Sarvis’ same-sex marriage sanctimony is not only pious, but specious. By Wikipedia’s telling, he “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.” (By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it, too, wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?)

True libertarians toil to keep the state out of marriage altogether. In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

Invariably deployed to encroach on private property and police subversives, the political construct that is “discrimination” (“sexism, racism, blah, blah”) ought to be opposed by the party of individualism. So long as the individual keeps his paws to himself, let him think, speak, associate and dissociate at will.

Unsurprisingly, the Libertarian-Party candidate is for open borders, framing the matter with yet more illogical, liberal argumentation. (Here: I know immigrants, therefore immigration should proceed unfettered.)

The immigration vexation has pitted governors like Arizona’s and attorneys general such as Cuccinelli against the Feds in a heroic fight for the right of state representatives to protect their statesmen from trespass. On immigration, left-libertarians come down foursquare on the side of the federales. (Rest assured that the latest, statist amnesty Bill is Sarvis’ dream come true.)

“Insane” is how Mr. libertarian himself, Ron Paul, characterized a vote for a candidate (Robert Sarvis) who was willing to consider a mileage tax on Virginians, complete with government-accessible, GPS surveillance in vehicles.

“Insane” is also an apt description of running a gubernatorial candidate against one of the most libertarian attorneys general a state has had. Ken Cuccinelli’s attempts to nullify federal health insurance mandates in Virginia go back to 2010, when he launched a legal challenge to “shield Virginians from paying any penalties for not purchasing federally-approved health care.

“Cuccinelli, attests Timothy Carney of The Examiner, “wants to cut the state income tax rate by 15 percent for individuals and 33 percent for corporations,” “has an A rating from the National Rifle Association—earned while representing Fairfax County in the state Senate,” contested “smoking bans as a senator,” is known to “choose government restraint over ‘law and order'”; has opposed expanding the death penalty, has criticized the drug war and crusaded to exonerate the wrongly convicted.

Also on target was Cuccinelli’s campaign against Northern Virginia’s consummate carpetbaggers and their land-development schemes. I’d hazard that because he vowed to stop taxpayer subsidies to these crony capitalists, Attorney General Cuccinelli lost the GOP’s financial backing and was, consequently, outspent by his rival.

Lamentably, Beltway libertarian Ed Crane and his Purple PAC backed the insignificant Sarvis partly because this lot is every bit as committed to superfluous social cause célèbresas the “theo-conservatives” they abhor.

Prosperity and penury do not turn on gyno-centric and gay matters. But leftist statists and libertarians of the left place these wedge issues at the forefront of the fight for freedom.

Every bit as bad as liberals, “libertarian” political operators are prepared to shed political blood over any imagined sign of bigotry.

Whereas American media has shed mostly darkness on the “apparently” mysterious motivation behind the ruthless, savage, April 15 attack on the Boston Marathon—a Chechen leader offered some valuable insights about these homegrown terrorists:

[The] Tsarnaevs … were raised in the United States, and their attitudes and beliefs were formed there. It is necessary to seek the roots of this evil in America.

The man makes a profound point. Here, and not in Chechnya, did the Tsarnaevs receive a liberal, lax, progressive education, emphasizing the wicked ways of the West and the righteousness of its “victims.” It is here in America that these invertebrates matured into aggrieved ignoramuses.

“If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family?,” prodded Patrick J. Buchanan, in a recent column.

“A common faith and moral code once held this country together. But if we no longer stand on the same moral ground, after we have made a conscious decision to become the most racially, ethnically, culturally diverse people on earth, what in the world holds us together? The Constitution, the Bill of Rights? How can they, when we bitterly disagree on what they say?”

As Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam discovered, reluctantly, diversity in fact immiserates. The greater the diversity in a county or country, the more distrustful and depressed are its inhabitants.

America’s practically pornographic rituals of public grief—what are they if not a neurotic symptom of this disconnect? A diverse and distrusting people, lacking in a shared national DNA, are thrust together by the crisis of the day. In the absence of any core value over which to unite, we Americans meet on the only common ground we share: the graveyard. We come together to bury or remember our dead. We unite to grieve over tragedy and misfortune that have befallen us for no other reason than that we exist in the same space in time.

 

As to America’s ingenious and inspired founding documents aforementioned: The vast majority of the people in this variegated land remain ignorant of them. Or, if familiar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (or better still, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers)—they’ll have been taught contempt for their framers and the philosophy these magnificent men espoused. When he hears parents, pedagogues, politicians and media sycophants pound on about the country’s Founding Fathers as the archetypical pale, patriarchal oppressors—a young man quickly learns to reject his adopted country’s heritage and look elsewhere for roots.Boys, especially, require strong, moral men in their lives—men who affirm their masculinity. American boys, however, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world where real men in authority are a threatened minority. The nation’s schools have been, for the most, drained of manliness. Almost to a man are they staffed by feminists (mostly bereft of the Y chromosome).

Newtown shooter Adam Lanza was a product of a freewheeling, fatherless household. The tele-experts have been mum about a mother who was weak and ineffectual. Nancy Lanza was filled with fear. She used a menacing gun collection to overcompensate for her parental inadequacies. A strong, caring male might have taught the troubled Lanza to handle firearms responsibly; might have helped diffuse the lad’s rage. A manifestly weak woman playing at make-believe manhood only added fuel to that fire.

Reflecting this warped reality are America’s revised history textbooks, which are short on heroic figures and long on “history from below.” Physicist Myron Pauli, a featured writer on BarelyABlog.com, recently recounted his surprise at learning from his daughter’s “history” book that “World War II was fought primarily by women, Navahos, Mexicans, blacks, and Japanese-Americans.” The next edition, presumably, will illuminate the “neglected” role of the homosexual, hermaphrodite, and transgendered community in winning that war.

Boyhood today means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes have a choice: undergo anger management and anti-bullying instruction or be chemically neutered by way of ADHD meds. Concomitantly, although your kids (boys and girls) desperately need discipline, the rare classroom disciplinarian risks litigation (from you!).

And, as his real nature craves heroic tales about yesteryear’s warriors and explorers, a little boy is required to hack his way through a page-turner like “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads.” The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as “The Dangerous Book for Boys” proves just how much little boys want to be boys again. The book reintroduced a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy (concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun—or so my husband tells me). In short, more of the stuff of Boy Scouts, before the organization was hounded and hogtied by politicized girls and gays.

This very sexual activism is practiced by the president of the United States. No other than Barack Obama tinkled basketball player Jason Collins to congratulate him on stepping out as the first openly gay player in NBA history. Imagine Vladimir Putin or the president of Chechnya doing the same. Impossible!”

A huge step forward for our country” is how a hugely hyperbolic (and frightfully masculine) First Lady tweeted out about Collins’ “accomplishment.” Small mercies, Michelle Obama did not call the festive affair a giant leap for mankind.

In the unmanly (because so undignified) mosaic described so far, pride-of-place must be reserved for the American president. To a boy from a Muslim culture, America’s man-in-chief has to represent a mass of contradictions. This president and those before him lead the lavish and licentious lifestyle of an emperor. This as they bomb and obliterate other people from afar. Hardly honorable, much less manly.

“Gay Paree” refers to Paris, the capital of France, after which socialite Paris Hilton must have been named—that is, unless her parents are even more provincial (and pretentious) than they appear, and named their ditz of a daughter for the Texas city, northeast of Dallas–Fort Worth.

A-Jad is American English—and the perfect nickname—for Ahmadinejad, first name: Mahmoud. Residence: Iran. Occupation: Iranian president, alleged dictator, and general fall guy for the West.

What do Paris Hilton and A-Jad have in common? OMG! Don’t tell me that Paris too has disrespected Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar—a dissing that has hardened into a handy political tool with which to whip any enemy of the neoconservative political faith.

Baying for the blood of Iran, the warbots are now bouncing off the walls. Why? Because the U.N.—whose moral and intellectual heft is on par with Hillary Clinton’s and that of Hollywood’s Idiocracy—invited A-Jad to speak on a day sacred to 13.4 million (count this writer among them) of the world’s population.

Mon ami’ Mahmoud is not. But neither does this (Jewish) writer imagine that the 7 billion (minus 13.4 million) people of the planet are obliged to respect Yom Kippur. Such an impossible standard would damn many a Jew to eternal punishment.

One tenet of the Jacobin orthodoxy concerns Iranian nuclear installations. These must be hit, and now. The neoconservative faction is unperturbed by the fact that Iran has been crippled economically. Consider, for example, its SWIFT eviction from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Consequently—and since Barack Obama’s reign of terror abroad began—the Iranian currency had lost 65 percent of its value.

But no. American men and matériel should be allowed to reach all corners of the world, so move in for the kill we must.

Back to the original question. The insufferably pompous Piers Morgan would have no problem answering it. Both Paris and A-Jad have been caught in flagrante delicto.  And no, Ms. Hilton is innocent of offending my eternally offended coreligionists. Nor has she produced a new sex tape, at least not that we know of. Kim Kardashian continues to hold her title as the most famously rear-ended reality star on TV (Obama is a confessed fan).

A-Jad and Hilton are guilty of expressing bad thoughts about what appears to be the defining issue of the day—at least to those who’ve taken it upon themselves to ferret out antipathy to homosexuality.

Hilton was overheard (and her words recorded, despite a reasonable expectation of privacy) expressing horror to a gay friend, at the frequency and ferocity with which homosexuals hook up for casual sex:

“Ewww! Gay guys are the horniest people in the world … They’re disgusting. Dude, most of them probably have AIDS. … I would be so scared if I were a gay guy. You’ll like, die of AIDS.”

A man-on-man culture, homosexuality, is more hypersexual than a lesbian or heterosexual culture. Didn’t gay playwright Tony Kushner, of “Angels in America” fame, bemoan the fact that gays were screwing themselves to death at the tragic peak of the AIDS epidemic? That, of course, was BPC (Before Political Correctness).

For giving voice to a biological, not a moral, reality, Paris was forced to engage in public flagellation and other mea culpa.

Similarly, A-Jad came under the scrutiny of the CNN super sleuth—Piers Morgan’s last journalistic scoop was the discovery that, as he put it, “George Zimmerman really has significant multiracial, multicultural roots.” (If you have forgotten, Zimmerman shot and killed a 17-year-old black youth, Trayvon Martin, in the course of patrolling a Florida gated community, as part of his neighborhood-watch duties. For its purposes, the “Racism Industrial Complex (RIC),” of which Morgan is a member, considered Zimmerman white, despite his manifestly Mestizo, Amerindian looks.)

Thus did Morgan rise on his hind legs because Ahmadinejad referred to homosexuality as “ugly behavior.”

Pleaded Piers: “Shouldn’t freedom and individuality and all those things also extend to people who just happen to be gay? Who were born gay? They weren’t made gay. Wouldn’t it be great for the President of Iran to say,’You know something, everyone’s entitled to be whatever sexuality they are born to be’? That would be a great symbol of freedom.”

Here’s an even better “symbol of freedom”: Members of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, Morgan included, should stop shaping opinion in politically pleasing ways, on pain of purgatory (stateside) or invasion (overseas).