DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth

Talk about your jew jokes.  Dear Leader is nominating a lesbo to the Supreme Court.  

Well, where it puts its tongue is its business, but even worse than that, yes, you guessed it....Harvard AND Princeton.  As we have seen, the Dumbass Factory has presented us with some of the biggest moral reprobates in distance learning, so one can only imagine what kind of havoc this dunce could wreak on the nation from the Supreme Court.


Elena Kagan: Definitely out of the closet

Elena Kagan Gay Rumor: White House Upset Over CBS News Blog

Quote:The Obama administration charged CBS News with being out of line Thursday for suggesting that possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is out of the closet. She isn't, according to a White House official, suggesting that a rumor campaign was being waged to trip up a potential Court candidacy.

In a post for CBS written by Ben Domenech, who is also editor of The New Ledger, Kagan is described as President Barack Obama's most likely choice. She's also described as potentially the "first openly gay justice."

Domenech later added an addendum stating, "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles."

Then CBSNews.com added an editor's note confirming, "A White House spokesperson said that Domenech's reference to Ms. Kagan as gay is innaccurate."

The Washington Post reports:

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

Domenech has since issued a public apology to Kagen "if she is offended at all by my repetition of a Harvard rumor in a speculative blog post."

The Post also points out that, "Most major news organizations have policies against 'outing' gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties."

No such policies like that here.  Perverts rejoice, all hail the supreme carpetmuncher!

Quote:Lesbian Elena Kagan Will Be Nominated by Obama; Gayest SCOTUS Evah!
Tonight, I’m reaping the Google traffic bonanza from ”How Gay Is Elena Kagan?” (Short answer: Gayer than Rosie O’Donnell guest-hosting the Ellen DeGeneres show.) Now everybody’s Googling for America’s most famous stealth lesbian:

Quote:Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law Lesbian School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman lesbian to serve as solicitor general of the United States. . . .
Some liberal critics have said that Kagan’s views on executive power and the treatment of terrorist detainees are too conservative lesbian . . .

Obviously, some editing was required there. Does anyone care what I think of Elena Kagan’s judicial philosophy? No, but they’ll scour every corner of the Internet for “Elena Kagan lesbian” or “Elena Kagan gay,” and it’s been months since I’ve had a Google-bomb winner like that. (If you’re looking for “Elena Kagan nude” or “Elena Kagan sex video,” you’re pathetic and disgusting, but traffic is traffic.)

For some reason, while conservatives are mostly indifferent toward Kagan’s gayness, the Obama administration has acted as if it were a huge scandal, as conservative lesbian Cynthia Yockey explains:

Quote:Well, thank Gaia gays and lesbians can count on the left — the gay-lovin’, gay rights supportin’ left — to have their backs. So how are they taking the news? KA. FREAKING. BOOM! SHAME-A-PALOOZA! The White House announced that Kagan is straight and it is all Bush’s fault if anyone says otherwise. HuffPo has declared war on the “Republican whispering campaign.” Human Rights Campaign is decrying discussion of Kagan’s sexual orientation as being “straight out of the right-wing playbook.” . . .
Lesbians and gays are outnumbered on the left by other demographic groups that hate us and want us dead. . . . I believe it is these leftist anti-gay identity groups who are working hard to shift blame for a “whispering campaign” onto conservatives and Republicans.

The purpose of the Kagan “whispering campaign” blame game is the same as the Tea Party “racism” smears: To convince Americans (gay, straight, black, white, whatever) that conservatives are dangerous, irrational bigots. As it becomes starkly apparent that Democrats are incompetent to cope with the nation’s economic and national-security problems, the Left has increasingly resorted to defamation and demonization of their political opponents. It’s the only argument they’ve got.

Beyond that, if you want serious discussion of the Elena Kagan nomination, try Legal Insurrection, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, Weasel Zippers or The Lonely Conservative. Legal analysis isn’t my specialty. I’m just a blogger trying to make a buck.

ELENA KAGAN IS TOTALLY GAY!

Don’t hate me for being a capitalist.

If she's straight and making a fashion statement it doesn't work. While being queer is irrelevant to the job, why does the mere suggestion make liberals squirm?

Dennis Ruhl Wrote:While being queer is irrelevant to the job, why does the mere suggestion make liberals squirm?

No, it really is relevant.  Just like the pervert Contreras seeking out and trying to destroy Christian colleges and Christian students because of his anti-Christian bigotry.  

This lesbian already has shown that her perversion is not just a matter of how she gets her rocks off in her leisure time, it exemplifies her deviant outlook on life.  She is not just a judge or bureaucrat who has to have sex with women because no man would touch her.  She is a pervert who will be inflicting her anti-Christian views on a Christian nation.  She tried it at Harvard and got fly swatted by the Supreme Court.  She refuses to do her job and enforce the Defense of Marriage Act because of her own perverted lifestyle.

Quote:Kagan spit in the eye of America’s Armed Forces

Curt Levey, The Committee for Justice



Realizing that the retirement of Justice Stevens threatened to leave the Supreme Court without a military veteran, the Committee for Justice and others urged President Obama to replace Stevens with someone who has “the military experience necessary to understand and evaluate the government’s national security arguments.”  Most importantly, Justice Stevens himself talked recently about the importance of having “at least one person on the Court who had military experience.”  It was disappointing enough when the President showed no interest in this important concern.  But in selecting Elena Kagan, Obama has chosen to replace the Court’s last veteran with a nominee who essentially spit in the eye of America’s armed forces. Kagan banished military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war, after pronouncing our armed forces guilty of “a moral injustice of the first order” for carrying out the Clinton Administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Millions of Americans will be outraged when they learn that Obama has picked a Supreme Court nominee with a demonstrated hostility to the very armed forces that make our freedom and constitutional rights possible. But that’s just one reason why President Obama is in for a more difficult confirmation fight than he bargained for when he chose Kagan.

Kagan starts out with more than thirty votes against her confirmation to the High Court.  Only seven Republican senators voted to confirm her as Solicitor General 14 months ago.  Now she faces the less deferential standard applied to lifetime Supreme Court appointments, an emboldened Republican Party, nervous red state Democratic senators, and a public concerned about the nation’s leftward drift.

Added to that mix will be scrutiny of Kagan’s out-of-the-mainstream views on gay rights, which are sure to generate controversy and vigorous opposition. Kagan’s argument that “don’t ask, don’t tell” justifies kicking the military off campus was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006, placing her to the left of even the Court’s most liberal Justices on the issue of gay rights and the First Amendment.  Moreover, Kagan allowed her obviously strong feelings about gay rights to interfere with her duties as Solicitor General.  At least twice during the last year, in cases involving challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” Kagan failed to vigorously defend federal law despite her institutional obligation and promise to senators to do so.

At a time when the number one goal of the purveyors of judicial activism is the discovery of a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution, the American people should be worried about this nominee’s views on gay rights.  However, in light of speculation and White House denials concerning Kagan’s sexual orientation, let me be clear that it is Kagan’s constitutional orientation and not her sexual orientation that is a legitimate cause for concern.

President Obama’s selection of Kagan is particularly disappointing given that the potential nominees he considered included at least two highly respected judges with a proven track record of moderation – Merrick Garland and Leah Ward Sears.   Conservatives made it clear that they would have a hard time opposing either nominee. While no nominee would silence all the President’s critics, Garland or Sears would have been widely seen as a bipartisan, non-ideological choice and either would likely have been confirmed by an overwhelming margin in the Senate.  Instead, the President chose to pick a fight with Republicans.

Perhaps picking a fight is part of the President’s reported strategy of using the confirmation debate to portray Democrats and the judges they chose as protectors of the “little guy.”  If so, Elena Kagan is a strange choice because her background is far more elitist than humble.  In addition to heading Harvard Law School, one of the most elite schools in the world, and serving as a Clinton Administration politico, Kagan was a paid member of a Goldman Sachs board during the height of Wall Street’s excesses.

It’s not clear how the White House can portray Elena Kagan as a woman of the people, but it is apparent that the Administration plans to portray Kagan as a moderate by calling the press’s attention to the concerns of some on the Left that she is not a genuine liberal.  It is hard to know if concerns expressed on the Left are borne of disingenuousness or just a propensity to worry.  However, the bottom line is that it’s downright silly to imagine that a fervent supporter of gay rights who thrived on the Harvard Law School faculty and in the Clinton Administration and embraces Justice Thurgood Marshall’s approach to judging will turn out to be a closet conservative once on the High Court.

Specifically, Kagan described Justice Marshall’s view of the judiciary – that its primary mission is to “show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged” and “to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion” (Kagan’s words) – as “a thing of glory.”  The Kagan / Marshall judicial philosophy sounds an awful lot like President Obama’s promise to appoint judges with “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom [or] poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old,” a view of judging that even the very liberal Sonia Sotomayor rejected last summer.

Particularly because the American people are concerned like never before about unrestrained federal power, Elena Kagan’s view of a judge’s role is a real threat to her confirmation, as Judiciary Committee Ranking member Jeff Sessions has noted.  After all, a Supreme Court that is free to ignore the law in order to “show a special solicitude” for the interests of certain groups or to discover new rights in the Constitution – such as a right to gay marriage – is an insitution whose power is essentially limitless.

For example, when the constitutionality of ObamaCare comes before the Supreme Court, as is inevitable, will a Justice Kagan decide that “special solicitude” for the disadvantaged is served by okaying Obama’s federalization of health care or, instead, by protecting the rights of those who do not want to be coerced into purchasing health insurance? In other words, it is hard to see how the Kagan / Marshall standard puts any limits on a Justice’s indulgence of their personal policy preferences.

Kagan’s troubling statements about judicial philosophy will take on added significance given her thin record, which includes a puzzling dearth of academic scholarship after more than a decade in academia.  Her thin record also makes it vital that the White House release, in a timely manner, the documents Kagan produced while serving as President Clinton’s associate counsel and domestic policy advisor.

Finally, given her thin record, Kagan owes it to the American people to engage in an open and honest debate with senators about her judicial philosophy and other controversial views.  One hopes that Kagan agrees, given her assertion that “when the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.”

Nothing thin about her record.  I'd say it's pushing 300 lbs.

What is the guy behind her thinking?


Nice muumuu.  Wonder where I can get one like that?

Isn’t corduroy supposed to go vertical, so to make you look thinner?

That reminds me.  Ask George Gollin to send over a couple more of those cheap, fat hogs for the weekend cookout.

I was so desperate in high school I would have taken a shot at that.

I hope she doesn’t stumble and fall on me when she gets up.  God, I would be crushed like a pancake.  Then she might mistake me for a Grand Slam breakfast and devour me.

So this gay marriage thing, is it going to be mandatory like health care?  Will the IRS be enforcing it too?

I saw the forklift in the parking lot, I should have guessed she would be here today.

Nitschke or Butkus?  I go with Butkus.  Hacksaw Reynolds or Butkus?  Butkus.  Jack Lambert or Butkus?  Butkus…

But she sure doesn't sing like Mama Cass.

Gimme ten minutes in the sack with her, I'd straighten her out.  And a paper bag.  Better make that two paper bags...

Watch the Solicitor Genital getting thoroughly clobbered by Justices Scalia and Kennedy while it ineptly tries to argue the "Citizens United" case before the Supreme Court.  

Those who can't do, teach.  Dean Dumbass shows why it was so well-qualified to be a dean, because it didn't even understand the basic issues it was there to argue, let alone argue them effectively.

Quote:Kagan Botches Oral Argument In Supreme Court Appearance At Citizens United Lawsuit

[Video]

Hot Air explains how Solicitor General Elena Kagan muffed her argument in front of the Supreme Court on the Citizens United v. FEC case: In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions. Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent. Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.

Transcript below:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.

Number two -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.

Not just a pervert but an avowed socialist. Read its 1981 senior thesis for a BA in History from Princeton (aka the Dumbass Factory):

Quote:BREAKING: We Have Elena Kagan’s College Thesis

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Thursday, May 13th at 7:50PM EDT

This proves Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist. The woman declares that socialists must stick together instead of fracture in order to advance a socialist agenda, which Kagan advocates. 1

You can see for yourself right here (PDF).

Keep in mind that Kagan wrote her thesis at the height of the cold war praising a group that collaborated with our enemies

Quote:Keep in mind that Kagan wrote her thesis at the height of the cold war praising a group that collaborated with our enemies

Your who?
You mean the Soviets you made a gift of half Europe to? Your great war allies? Did your GED cover that part, too, or did it start from when the USA built the Parthenon?

Quote:This proves Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist. The woman declares that socialists must stick together instead of fracture in order to advance a socialist agenda

Oh really?
Do you have a nuclear bunker mr.Erick Erickson?
If they drop the antisemitism bomb on you, you'll need one...but not one you purchased for cheap after the cold war...

Hear, hear...mr. Erickson fell from the tree...'some people' and radical social-communist causes?
What is he smoking?

Kagan is a drunk and emotionally unstable.  Hoping for a "more leftist left."  Oh yeah, that's what America needs interpreting the Constitution.  Not just a leftist pervert, but a drunk, emotionally unstable leftist pervert.

Quote:Kagan Got Drunk After Reagan’s 1980 Win

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, admitted that she got drunk after hearing the results of the 1980 elections that swept Ronald Reagan and conservative Republican legislators into office.

At the time, Kagan was a student at Princeton and editorial committee chairwoman for the Daily Princetonian student newspaper.

In a Nov. 10, 1980 editorial for the paper, Kagan wrote that “a lot of people” got “kind of drunk” after the election, and called “Moral Majority-backed” Republican winners “avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber, these beneficiaries of a general turn to the right and a profound disorganization on the left.”

She also disclosed that she “sat down and cried” over the election defeat of ultra-liberal New York Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who was seeking a seat in the U.S. Senate.

And she expressed hope that “a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.”

The Princetonian reprinted the editorial after Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Don Dresden Wrote:Just like the pervert Contreras seeking out and trying to destroy Christian colleges and Christian students because of his anti-Christian bigotry.  

This is starting to look like another classic Contreras-type situation, where you have a pervert who got him, her or itself some small amount of bureaucratic power and decided to use it to screw over those who oppose their perverted lifestyle.  

Pervert Contreras attacked a female Christian teacher who was using a Bob Jones U degree, and wound up with a federal court judgment against him which declared him to be an anti-Christian bigot and civil rights violator.  

Pervert Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off campus because she didn't like the "don't ask don't tell" policy on perverts, and she wound up with a 9-0 spanking from the US Supreme Court.  

Nobody cared what either of these perverts did to get their jollies--until each of them made it an issue by their bizarre, inappropriate conduct which directly called into question their ability to do their jobs.  

Kagan is the one who made her lesbianism an issue, because she used it as an excuse to not follow the law.  As a judge, her job is.......to follow the law.  So by definition she can't do the job.  She is not qualified for any judgeship, not just a Supreme Court judgeship.

Quote:Former Gitmo Prosecutor: Kagan Did Not Follow the Law When She Barred Military Recruiters from Harvard Law

Friday, May 14, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor


President Barack Obama gives Solicitor General Elena Kagan a kiss after announcing he has nominated her to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 10, 2010. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) - A former Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer, who prosecuted terrorists in front of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, says Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan displayed poor judgment as dean of Harvard Law School.

“Her decision to keep JAG recruiters off of Harvard Law School grounds, and to not allow them to come to Harvard and talk to law students about joining the JAG Corps, was wrong,” said Prof. Kyndra Rotunda, author of the book “Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials.”

Kagan already has drawn fire from Senate Republicans because she decided in 2005 to reinstate a ban keeping military recruiters from the law school because, she said, the military policy discriminated against homosexuals.

But Rotunda, who is now a law professor at Chapman University Law School in Southern California, said Kagan did something more than simply disagree with the military over its policy regarding homosexuals -- she refused to follow the law, which required her to make room for the military recruiters.

“(I)t wasn’t just a policy – it was a federal law,” Rotunda said. “And when she disagreed with federal law, she just simply decided not to follow it. And the Supreme Court unanimously found that the law was constitutional, and there was no reason to keep recruiters off of law school grounds."

Kagan argued at the time that she was simply following the lead of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in 2004 that the government could not withhold federal funds from universities that ban military recruiters from campus because of the military prohibition against homosexuality.

The law, referred to as the Solomon amendment for its sponsor, the late New York congressman Gerald Solomon, says that any university that received federal money must allow campus access by ROTC or military recruiters “in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.”

But the Third Circuit decision went to the Supreme Court, where the justices placed a stay or hold on the appeals court order that had barred the law from being enforced.

Kagan, however, specifically acknowledged that she was deliberately ignoring the fact that the law was in effect..

“Although the Supreme Court’s action meant that no injunction applied against the Department of Defense, I reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS (Office of Career Services) assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season,” Kagan wrote in the 2005 “friend of the court brief” she and and 40 other professors signed.

Kagan said she was forced to readmit the military recruiters only by the prospect of losing federal tax dollars.

“My hope in taking this action was that the (Defense) Department would choose not to enforce its interpretation of the Solomon Amendment while the Third Circuit opinion stood. Over the summer, however, the Department of Defense notified the University that it would withhold all possible funds if the Law School continued to bar the military from receiving OCS services. As a result, I have decided (again, after appropriate consultation) that we should lift our ban and except the military from our general non-discrimination policy. This will mean that the military will receive OCS assistance during the fall 2005 recruiting season,” she wrote.

In Kagan's defense, Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod said that she was simply upholding a policy that was already in place when she became dean.

But Rotunda, a former Army major, doesn’t buy that argument. She said Kagan, the dean of one of the nation’s top law schools, clearly refused to comply with a law simply because she disagreed with it.

“I think it showed poor judgment, which is demonstrated by the fact that all nine justices disagreed with her decision in that matter,” Rotunda said.

In a unanimous, 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Solomon Amendment was constitutional, and was enforceable on universities that received federal funds.

“When you have all nine Supreme Court justices saying the decision she made was wrong, that really says something about her judgment,” Rotunda said.

The issue goes far beyond whether the liberal legal scholar should have barred military JAG officers from on campus, or even how she views the military, the law professor  said.

“The concern is that she’ll make decisions based upon the outcome that she wants to see, instead of whether or not the Constitution and the law actually support that decision,” Rotunda said.

“I don’t think that kind of judicial activism is good for the Supreme Court. It’s not staying true to the letter and spirit of the Constitution,” she said. “I think we need judges that are going to apply the Constitution as written, apply the law as written, and reach decisions based on that – and not to reach decisions based upon what they personally would like to have happen.”

At least the anti-Chritian bigot Contreras admits he is a pervert.  And we even have a federal court judgment stating that he is a civil rights violator.  This ugly little rat bag Kagan won't admit it, not that anyone with two eyes couldn't tell.  You wouldn't want a dyke ruling on family or religious issues any more than you want the pervert Contreras ruling on degrees from Christian schools.  


Barney Frank in a bustier?

Quote:Kagan a lesbian? Why it matters
Posted: May 20, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By J. Matt Barber

I don't see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their "reporting" is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it's one of their own – when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny – its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality – or a lack thereof – a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service – chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under "sexual immorality." Indeed, the majority of folks around the world – billions, actually – count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, "real or perceived." If we had a judicial nominee – widely believed a compulsive gambler – tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn't such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: "By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn't rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he's a black heterosexual male" – remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being "gay" is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare "black" or "heterosexual" to "gay" is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, "heterosexual" is the state of sexual normalcy. It's our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which imagines "survival of the fittest," would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan's "sexual orientation" remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some – including that very justice – while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of "don't ask don't tell," etc.)

In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan – should she be confirmed – as the "first openly gay justice." The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion "false charges." CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs, whimpered away and curled-up behind the rest of Obama's slobbering media lapdogs.

Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they've suddenly lost interest.

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping-up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: "In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it's cowardly not to tell."

But Kagan ain't tellin', and the media ain't askin'. Of course, even if they were inclined to ask, they'd have a difficult time doing so. The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.

The question is important for context. The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school. She did so in protest of the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, calling it "a profound wrong" and "a moral injustice of the first order."

As it turned out, Kagan's actions were illegal, and the very Supreme Court upon which she hopes to serve slapped her down with its 8-0 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed the Department of Defense to withhold federal funding to Harvard if it failed to reverse its discriminatory policy.

Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said of Kagan's activism: "At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."

Newt Gingrich took his criticism a step further. While addressing the controversy, he bluntly said of Kagan's nomination: "That is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning."

I agree.

Indeed, whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There's little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court.

So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are "totally not gay," as some of your friends and your president claim, then it's my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster. Believe me, it's a match made in heaven.