Is Boortz a pseudo-intellectual weeny on "gay marriage" issue?

Good old Neal Boortz, God bless him! I finally got fed up with his obnoxious style and the boorish — ("BOORtz" = "BOORish", get it? Sorry!) — way he treats some callers who disagree with his positions on certain of his pet "buzz" issues. So I decided to deconstruct and expose his intellectually dishonest and manipulative lawyer B.S. for the whole world to see.

What follows is an essay I wrote titled "On Gay 'Marriage'" which is linked to the "How the 'gay marriage' movement is a threat to the 1st Amendment" button in the navigation column on the left. The text of the essay begins with the next paragraph.

The attempted manipulation via redefinition of common-usage and common-law words, including the spiritually and intellectually fraudulent so-called  "hate" speech and "hate" behavior laws, constitutes a threat of unprecedented magnitude against the freedoms of thought and speech. An exaggeration, people like radio talking head, Neal Boortz1, would say? Let's look at it.

The whole purpose and intent of the gay speech-Nazis' strategy behind their manipulations of language is to use the police powers of the state to force heterosexual people to gradually learn to think of, and accept, the homosexual lifestyle as normal, which, of course, it isn't. 

It's my view that the main reason for the success of the ridiculous and illogical gay "marriage" movement is the fact its proponents use rhetorical brinksmanship and so-called "political correctness" as calculated tactics with which to put on the defensive those individuals who dare to disagree with their authoritarian political agenda. They know full well that normal decent kind-hearted people of good will don't know how to respond to vicious ad hominem attacks like being called "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", etc. As a free speech absolutist, I find the rhetorical brinksmanship strategy and tactics unacceptable and anathema. Accordingly I will deconstruct it in an effort to fuel a political backlash against it.

Beginning with "my side" (the freedom of thought and speech side) of the issue, I repeat, I am a 1st Amendment absolutist who is a fan of William O. Douglas2, and was opposed to the Supremes' decision in the Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ) case on grounds of self-ownership and self-determination. Furthermore, I believe it is nobody's business what consenting adults do behind the close doors of a private home. Accordingly, any gay propaganda strategy leader who would call me names like "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", just to try to dilute the political effectiveness of my anti-speech-Nazi arguments I view as being intellectually reprobate scum. I am impervious to such demonization, in fact it only strengthens my determination and tenacity. In fact, per David Horowitz's "The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits", it can actually be rather enjoyable waging political war against adamantly reprobate sophist scum who hate free thought, free speech and the 1st Amendment, and, while projecting their own despicably dishonest and manipulative behavior onto their opponents, call everyone else "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", etc.

Moving on to the the gay propagandists' (aka "speech-Nazis" of the Adolf Hitler, Carl Schmitt, Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda strategy) side of the issue, sodomy is the both the Achilles heel and the elephant in the room of the so-called gay "marriage" debate. The best way to prove that is to resort to a little titl-for-tat rhetorical brinksmanship.

There is nothing whatsoever remotely illogical "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic", "homophobic", "hateful" or anti-1st-Amendment about sincerely believing that rectums were designed (or evolved if you prefer) for the expulsion of waste and not the expression of love. There is nothing whatsoever remotely illogical "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic", "homophobic", "hateful" or anti-1st-Amendment about sincerely believing that smearing feces on one's urethra is a repulsive and medically risky aberration. There is nothing whatsoever remotely illogical "racist", "bigoted", "misogynistic", "homophobic", "hateful" or anti-1st-Amendment about sincerely believing that sodomy is about Power Over the Other, about domination and submission, not about genuine romantic love. Every person has an absolute 1st Amendment right to think the above thoughts and speak the above sincerely held beliefs without being in danger or under threat of the gay propaganda leadership's manipulative wannabe-clever misuse of the police powers of the state to force everyone else into agreement and celebration of their self-evidently aberrant behavior choices.

Regarding our 1st Amendment freedoms of thought and speech, see any number of a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L. R. 1352, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 US 414 (1988) (unanimous court). See also the legal disclaimer on this website.

The recent trendy phenomenon known as “political correctness” poses a hideously dangerous threat to free thought, free speech, and individual freedom in general. In the words of comedian George Carlin, “Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict [authoritarian] codes and rules…Political correctness cripples discourse, creates ugly language and is generally stupid.” I couldn't agree more.

Furthermore the so-called "hate" laws are unconstitutional on their face because they punish thought in addition to punishing behavior. It is patently stupid and unfair to base the punishment for a crime on the race, gender, age or sexual preferences of the victim. For example, murder is by definition a crime involving hate. Obviously a murderer didn't love his victim. And where is the equal protection  of law that allows the statutory severity of punishment to be based on a victim's race, gender, age or sexual preferences? Is one person's life worth more than another's? So somehow it's supposed to be a worse crime to murder a black than a white, a woman than a man, a "gay" than a "straight", an elder person than a child? This kind of politically correct insanity is FAR worse than being merely stupid or unfair. It's deliberately evil — and unconstitutional (unequal protection of law) to boot.

No less a thinker than one of my favorite writers, openly lesbian Camille Paglia3, the University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, in an admirable exercise in intellectual honesty said the following:

“Surely the truth about human nature must be our ultimate goal. Intimidation of or violence against anyone, gay or straight, of course cannot be tolerated in civil society. But to make so direct a connection (as gay activists persistently did in the '90s) between free inquiry and homophobic oppression is worrisome.

“The decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was a major advance in civil liberties. But an unfortunate result, reinforced by the new trend of post-structuralism (which sees human beings as entirely shaped by covert political forces), was the waning of psychological insight into personality formation. There are a myriad of factors at work there that require a nearly novelistic aptitude to detect and dissect.

“I have said many times before that I do not believe homosexuality is inborn but that it is an adaptation to specific circumstances and possibilities. What many gay men are remembering as their innate gayness was in fact some other attribute (often an artistic gene) that may have led to a dislocation from roughhousing male bonding. The sex instinct, which comes later, is in my view heavily symbolic among human beings. (Post-structuralism, among its many pathetic flaws, is helpless with symbolism.)

“Once the symbolism of erotic attraction is deeply implanted in the brain, it is almost impossible to change it. And in a just society, sexual orientation would not be subject to such pressures anyhow. Everyone, in my strong opinion, has the potential for bisexual response and expression. Hence I think both exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality do need to be "explained." I understand the biological imperative of hormones, which drive male and female to mate and reproduce. But why is anyone entirely gay? It seems incontrovertible to me that at root there is indeed a dissatisfaction of some kind with the opposite sex, grounded in early experiences and reinforced in adolescence. There is not a single gay person whom I have known over the course of my life since high school for whom childhood factors played no role whatever in his or her adult choice. And yes, behavior is a choice, even if fantasy and imagination are uncontrollable.” (Emphasis added.)

That homosexuality is an abnormality, or an aberration if you will, is self-evident. The method by which the human species perpetuates its own existence is heterosexual propagation. To be courteous, I much prefer Paglia's kinder word "adaptation" to "aberrant" or "abnormal", but let's don't parse words before we even arrive at a place of scientific inquiry into the formation of personalities. And let's don't pretend real hate, intolerance, demonization and destruction — which the gay speech Nazis are prima facie guilty of — for merely speaking the obvious are acceptable.

Of course the whole idea of the heterophobic speech Nazis' wannabe-clever "pro-tolerance" and "anti-hate" propaganda strategy has been to stifle free inquiry with the Orwellian tactic of calling it "homophobic oppression" and "hate". The same tactic is used by socialist race hustlers and misandristic paleo gender feminists (I like Rush Limbaugh's word "feminazi") using words such as "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", etc to repress open debate over the wisdom of collectivist economic schemes such as steal-and-redistribute socialism. In other words, if you disagree with steal-and-redistribute socialism, you are by definition a "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", etc.

The truly evil unspoken premise of the politics of vicitimology is as follows: "I am gay (black, female), therefore I am automatically a victim, because straights (whites, males) are by definition perpetrators. Everything is Whitey's (straights', males') fault, so give me your money, Whitey (Breeder, Bubba) or you're a "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "homophobe", "hater", etc." (whichever most nearly applies).

Coming around full circle, let's return to the so-called gay "marriage" manipulation/fraud. It is merely a small part of the overall gay strategy of misusing langauge to "reeducate" the whole human race to think that rectums were designed (or evolved if you prefer) for romantic love and that smearing feces on one's urethra is a perfectly normal, sensible, even admirable thing to do.

It IS entirely possible, should that prove to be the collective political will of "the people", to grant all the same rights and privileges to monogamous homosexual partners in so-called "civil union" statutes that married heterosexual partners enjoy under marriage statutes. Therefore the desperate, even frenzied, insistence of militant homosexual propaganda con artists upon co-ownership of the word "marriage" can be for no other logical purpose than to abuse language for the sake of their personal propaganda agenda. Again, that is anathema to any sincere free speech absolutist.

In reality the whole argument of the gay speech Nazis, the race hustlers, and the feminazis is about steal-and-redistribute socialism versus individual freedom. In America ALL the aforementioned individuals can ALREADY vote, own property, own businesses, and hire and fire employees by law and our constitution. It is not "discrimination" just because you're too lazy to cultivate entrepreneurial skills or because your product isn't good enough to induce free-will customers to buy your product in a free marketplace consisting of willing sellers and willing buyers.

In a free country, employers should have the right to hire and fire whom they please. Employers should not be afraid to fire lazy or discourteous employees just because such employees might yell "discrimination" as a matter of manipulating "the system" into causing problems for the employer. I have never been offended by an Chinese restaurant hiring employees of Asian descent for purposes of ambiance. Ditto a Mexican restaurant hiring Latino employees for ambiance. Ditto a female-owned restaurant hiring female employees for ambiance, or a gay restaurant hiring gay employees for ambiance. Taking "offense" at the freedom of the free marketplace is self-defeating, anti-individualist, and just plain stupid.

As far as "discrimination" goes, society discriminates on a regular basis via their constitution and laws. Murderers, thieves, rapists and pedophiles are treated differently than non-murderers, non-thieves, non-rapists and non-pedophiles. Perpetrators are treated differently than their victims. In a free country there is a bright line between thought/speech and action which the police power of the state is not allowed to cross.

I am simultaneously amazed and offended that the gay speech Nazis are either too self-absorbed, too intellectually dishonest, or too stupid to control the urge to wage propaganda war against the very same 1st Amendment that gives them the legal freedom to be who they are. My attitude is that if they are going to wage politically correct propaganda war against my 1st Amendment freedoms of thought, speech, religion and association, then I'm going to stand up to them and give them tit-for-tat right back. Speech Nazis can go right straight to hell without passing "Go" and without collecting $200 (see Parker Bros. board game of "Monopoly")! Of course, professional wise ass Neal Boortz is more than welcome to go to hell right along with the "gay" speech Nazis so long as he insists on defending or otherwise facilitating their self-evident intellectually dishonest threats against the 1st Amendment!


Calif. high court weighs gay marriage ban - AP - "The mood was somber among gay rights supporters after a bruising, three-hour hearing before the justices of California's highest court, who expressed considerable skepticism at the idea of overturning the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage . . . 'If this court rules to uphold Proposition 8, there will be a million of us on the streets marching,' Tyler said. 'We are not going away. We will not be invisible. We have had it.'"

Let's Be Civil: Gay Marriage Isn't The End Of The Rainbow, by gay activist Mark Simpson (12/5/08) - "The re-banning of gay marriage in California earlier this month with the passage of Proposition 8 has been presented by gay marriage advocates as a vicious body-blow for gay rights." "Gay marriage is the touchstone of gay equality, apparently. Settling for anything less is a form of Jim Crow style gay segregation and second-class citizenship." "But not all gays agree. This one for instance sees gay marriage not so much as a touchstone as a fetish. A largely symbolic and emotional issue that in the US threatens to undermine real, non-symbolic same-sex couple protection: civil unions bestow in effect the same legal status as marriage in several US states - including California. As a result of the religious right’s mobilisation against gay marriage, civil unions have been rolled back in several US states."

Sir Elton John: I would not be anyone's wife - (11/14/08) - "Sir Elton, who entered into a civil partnership with the film maker David Furnish in 2005, believes that the homosexuals have only themselves to blame for the definition that they chose. 'I don't want to be married,' he says. 'David and I are not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off. It's the word marriage.' The 61-year-old pop star believes that same-sex couples should be happy with a civil partnership as it gives them the same legal rights and protection as straight couples. 'I'm very happy with a civil partnership,' he adds. 'If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership.'"

Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage, by Thomas Sowell - (11/5/08)

Our view on same-sex couples: Lessons on gay marriage emerge from Election Day - 11/11/08 USA Today

Opposing view: Don't tinker with matrimony, by Glen Lavy - 11/11/08 USA Today

Gay "marriage", by Thomas Sowell - (8/15/06)



1. Following is an email I sent radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, just for the fun of teasing an obviously smart person who, on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and God at least, frequently acts like a gutless pseudo-intellectual weeny hiding behind his "kill" button and the facade of a pompous ass. Let's see if he has the guts and humility to respond to it and/or post it on his website.

“Hi Neal,

In accordance with your policy of "Web Guy and Cristina will forward intelligent messages to me", this email should be forwarded to you.

I laugh at you, "not with ... AT" (as you say), because I'm fairly sure that, as a lawyer, you haven't got either the guts or intellectual honesty to post (word for word) an intelligent letter that makes you look less than as intelligent as you think you are.

See for an example of how it IS possible to handle the so-called “gay marriage” issue in an intelligent, philosophically comprehensive and intellectually honest way without being quite so obnoxious to certain individuals you love to hassle, and without creating the appearance of being a gutless control-freakish pseudo-intellectual weeny. Whether you like it or not, in my essay titled “On Gay ‘Marriage’”, I have dispositively proven to any intellectually honest mind how the gay speech Nazis behind the so-called “gay marriage” issue constitute a serious and highly manipulative threat to the 1st Amendment.

Of course I realize that being obnoxious, like the fights after school when we were kids, is more interesting and draws a bigger audience for you, which means higher ratings, which in turn means more money for you. But since I believe you're really a nice, quasi-traditional-values guy at heart and your obnoxiousness is due primarily to ignorance, I would love to see you try a more courteous genuinely educational approach with most of your "victims".

Of course it's your show and you can do with it as you please, including hiding behind the "kill" button, which is why there is no way for me to get enough time on your show to demonstrate for the whole world to see the intellectual shallowness of the way you handle "gay marriage" on your show.

Fortunately, internet technology makes it possible for the "little guys" like me to argue with the "big stars" like you. And, of course, my websites are mine to do with as I please.

Having teased you a little, and taken a few pokes at your considerable ego and false pride (I have the same), I will compliment you by saying your work on the FAIR TAX forgives all sins. I've also bought three of your books, thoroughly enjoyed them, and intend to buy more.

It's just that in the areas of "God", gay "marriage" and abortion, you manifest the behavior of a manipulative pseudo-intellectual weeny, and I wanted to take you to task.

Best wishes to you and your fine staff, and good luck on mustering up the guts and humility to post this letter on your fine (I mean that) website! I posted it on mine at the above URL! :-)


John Wilkenson”

2. I'm a William O. Douglas fan on the free speech issue, not necessarily his economics-related decisions or the subject of property rights.

3. From the webpage.

Neal Boortz 1 150 pixels.jpg42.72 KB