Error Theory

 What vaccinating the not-at-risk really did was squander the ability of the vaccines to protect grandma.

My first Substack post. Check it out.

 

With our communist Democratic party going full eliminationist totalitarian overnight, our great fighting president might be ready to embrace a new way to win:

A five step plan to save the republic in less than two weeks

2. He invokes the republican guarantee clause to invalidate all fruits of these unrepublican trees (such as Wednesday’s electoral vote count).

3. And he orders federally conducted re-runs of the tainted elections along with a corresponding delay in the presidential selection and inauguration process.

4. Somebody sues (either Biden or the tainted states), otherwise the order stands and Trump has a valid legal claim to the presidency until step 3 is completed, regardless of what competing claims to the presidency can be made by Joe Biden.

5. Faced with this dire ambiguity SCOTUS is forced to immediately take up the case. If the Court follows its established deference to the political branches on guarantee clause issues it should agree that new elections, conducted in impeccably open and honest fashion by the federal government, are a good and allowable remedy.

Half of America breathes a huge sigh of relief while three quarters accept this democratic resolution, keeping the Democrats’ vast infrastructure of election stealing mechanisms from being cemented in place, thereby saving our republic from ending on January 20th

Nobody ever let President Trump know that he can order all of this on his own authority under the guarantee clause

He has been looking to state courts and legislatures, to SCOTUS, to Congress, to Pence, urging everyone he can to step up and be brave enough to save our republic.  If he knew that he could directly order all that is needed it is obvious that he would have done so long ago.

We must let him know while there is still time! 

By Alec Rawls

At the constitutional debates in New York Alexander Hamilton asserted that: 

"The true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked."

Opposite to this republican democracy is the phony form of democracy preferred by Joseph Stalin where: “those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.” In this election-fraud based phony-democracy the will of the people is annihilated, creating a definitively unrepublican form.

This form must never be allowed a live birth. If election fraud ever succeeds even once in being the key determinant of one faction’s rise to majority control over the powers of American government then our republic will be lost forever. Not only will the election stealers will be far better placed to steal elections going forward but being a bunch of criminals they will inevitably also deploy multiplying other ways of abusing their authority and imposing tyranny.

We have only ever had two choices: republican liberty or tyranny, a fork which now reaches its crux as all evidence points to massive electoral fraud by our bottomlessly criminal Democratic Party (voting machines designed by communist dictators for the express purpose of stealing elections, not allowing observers, 4am 100K out-of-custody ballot dumps for Biden, etcetera ad nauseum.)  The definitively unrepublican form, where elections outcomes are determined by the vote counters, not the voters, is making a concerted bid across several states for control of the nation.

It is such assaults on our very form of government that the Article IV section 4 guarantee clause was written to defend against:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…”

This is our Constitution’s most direct protection against election fraud and it authorizes whatever actions are needed to fend off usurpation.  That is part of what the word “guarantee” means: that when it comes to preserving government of the people by the people and for the people the available remedies are whatever it takes. If any necessary means is ever barred then unrepublican government wins and the promised guarantee against it is not fulfilled.

Another meaning of “guarantee” is to try to eliminate or minimize risk. On this grounds the Supreme Court never should have allowed our Democrat-run states to enact their host of fraud-enabling election rules.

There is no incompatibility between election security and elections that are easily open to all legal voters. We put such an election process together in Iraq in very short order. It is a travesty that in the fraudulent name of protecting legal voters Democrats were allowed to burn our own election security to the ground.

When states implement election methods that are readily vulnerable to voter fraud and election fraud the only reason is because they want to enable election stealing. The Courts have a duty under the guarantee clause to weed out these planted vulnerabilities and the president now has a guarantee clause duty to overcome the Stalinist coup these vulnerabilities are enabling.

 

The guarantee clause places a check on the power that the Constitution gives to the states to run the nation’s elections

How can the republican guarantee provide a primary defense against election fraud at the federal level when it is written as a limit on the forms that state governments can take? Because it is paired in a check-and-balance arrangement with two other provisions of the Constitution (Article I section 4 and Article II section 1) that empower each state to establish its own election rules and conduct its own elections for federal as well as state officers. This allocation of election authority to the states is designed to maintain state sovereignty and provide a counter-balance to federal power but it also introduces a vulnerability.

The framers biggest concern was always to keep our republic from being usurped by a tyrant or a coalition of would-be tyrants (“a republic if you can keep it”). State control of elections are a possible point of entry for tyrannical unrepublican phony democracy, not just at the state level but in the election of federal officers, so the framers added two checks.

First the Article I section 4 “elections clause” includes an oversight role for Congress, which is empowered to “make or alter” state election regulations. This is a preventative measure. If some states were to intentionally introduce vulnerabilities into their election systems – say through mail-in voting schemes that basically helicopter-drop ballots all over the state then allow these ballots to be counted with almost no verification requirements under an “all votes must be counted” standard – then Congress could step in and shut down this invitation to mass vote fraud.

But Congress might do nothing, if as today one of its chambers is controlled by the party of vote fraud. Thus the founders wisely did not trust Congress either and added a second check on top of the first, one that is not just preventative but can be used to cut down any unrepublican form of government that succeeds in springing up, be it in the form of phony state-run elections for state offices or phony state-run elections for the state’s federal officeholders.

This is the guarantee clause, sitting like a bright red fire axe in a windowed frame with a sign that says “in case of unrepublican ignition break glass.” Judges, politicians and pundits all invoke the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The guarantee clause is the one provision of the Constitution that actually states this explicitly. When our republic itself is threatened there is a duty, and an allocation of power, to prevent its loss.

We are now in that emergency. In several states the people who count the votes are on the verge of getting away with stealing the 2020 elections from the electorates of those states and if they succeed they will in the process succeed in stealing the presidency and possibly even both houses of Congress.

Our Stalinist Democrats are on the verge of completing an election-stealing coup that will end our republic forever and our best tool for stopping them is the emergency power that the framers included for just this eventuality. Its first great advantage is that it authorizes whatever is needed to overcome an unrepublican phony democracy, otherwise the guarantee is not actually a guarantee. It’s second advantage is that there is no limit on what branch of the federal government may invoke it. The guarantee is issued by “The United States,” which touches all three federal branches.

Since the clause carries the whiff of grapeshot (confrontation with an unrepublican form of government) the obvious expectation is that primary enforcement responsibility would fall to the president, empowering him to initiate on his own authority whatever steps he deems necessary to restore real democracy, with no requirement that he first has to win any lawsuit or otherwise wait for judicial okay. Just as the president has inherent war powers so too he must have inherent guarantee clause powers.

For the other branches: the courts can also uphold the republican guarantee as a grounds for suit; Congress can call for it to be enforced; and ultimately We the People are also clearly invited, not just in the guarantee clause but in the Declaration of Independence, in the Second Amendment, and in many other places, to oppose an unrepublican form of government. We are all part of The United States.

 

Federal takeover of Georgia elections

Trump campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani has collected enough evidence of massive election fraud in Georgia to make it almost certain that candidate Trump received far more legal votes than candidate Biden, which provides more than enough grounds for President Trump to invoke the republican guarantee and order a federal takeover of the upcoming Georgia run-off elections. That candidate Trump is himself an aggrieved party does not in any way diminish President Trump’s constitutional duty to expunge the unrepublican phony-election form that has arisen in Georgia.

Under this federal takeover Georgia election law would no longer be in effect. The feds would make the election rules and, to fulfill the republican guarantee, would be obligated to put together the most open and honest elections in American history, clearly demonstrating that there is no actual conflict between an honest election process and a process that is easily open to all legal voters.

Use of the military makes sense because our armed forces have the manpower; they are the most respected institution in our society; and they follow orders. If we tell them to inspect every ballot in close concert with observers from all political parties who want to observe and with the press if they want to observe as well then our soldiers will follow every procedure just the way they are told, all the way up the line to the final vote tally.

They will check IDs, they will get signatures, they may ink fingers, if that is called for. Insecure recently added mail-in ballot procedures would be barred, reverting to a secure system of absentee balloting limited to cases of actual need. Other Democratic Party schemes for enabling vote fraud would also be rejected. In particular, there would be no use of purpose-built Dominion or Smartmatic election stealing software and machinery.

If this plan is implemented soon enough it might even be possible for the feds to hold the Georgia runoff elections on their already scheduled January 5^th date but that would not be necessary. It would be helpful though if the federal takeover could at least be announced by December 13, since early mail in voting in Georgia begins on the 14^th. It would be good not to have to invalidate any already submitted ballots.

Of course the Georgia state government is likely to sue over a federal takeover and the courts will at that point have to weigh in but the legitimacy of such federal action is straightforward. The massive evidence of election fraud in Georgia justifies the president’s assessment that Georgia’s election process is dishonest/unrepublican. Then there are the many intentional vulnerabilities to fraud that are built into the system. These add weight to the assessment that the constitutional guarantee of republican/honest elections is far from met.

In simplest terms, blatantly dishonest elections, full of documented criminal behavior, would be replaced with clearly honest elections. That is a huge net benefit in terms of constitutional values.

Under normal conditions federal takeover of any state’s elections would impose a huge cost in constitutional values since it would violate the Constitution’s allocation of electoral authority to the states, but once Georgia is seen to have adopted a definitively unrepublican form (a phony Stalinist “democracy” that is of by and for the vote counters) then any authority that the Georgia state government holds over the state’s elections becomes a negative, something the Constitution promises in the guarantee clause to expunge, not protect.

At that point the federal takeover of the state’s elections only produces benefits. The people get their votes honestly counted and no one is harmed. Election stealers are left crying because they can’t steal any more elections but in the eyes of the law it is a benefit, not a harm, when criminals stop getting away with crime.

In sum there is a strong and simple case to make under a very powerful constitutional provision. With a majority-honest Supreme Court, which we now seem to have, the Court shouldn’t be an obstacle to a federal takeover of Georgia’s runoff election, especially given the Court’s history with the guarantee clause.

 

How can the guarantee clause be powerful when SCOTUS has broadly described it as nonjusticiable?

If you have only ever learned one thing about the guarantee clause you probably know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found it to be “nonjusticiable”: they have decided that they cannot enforce it.

If it is not enforceable, doesn’t that make it weak? No.

SCOTUS has had trouble finding a way that the judiciary branch can enforce the republican guarantee, but with no imputation that the other branches of government cannot enforce it. Just the opposite: the reason the Court has declined to interpret the clause is because it keeps being raised in cases that involve conflicts that in the Court’s view can only be settled by the other branches of government.

If anything this enhances the president’s freedom to start enforcing the guarantee clause on his own authority. The courts are unlikely to interfere when the Supreme Court’s well established position is to stand back with its palms up saying: “don’t look at us, the courts can’t get involved in that guarantee clause stuff.”

As it turns out, the received wisdom about the guarantee clause being nonjusticiable under existing Court precedent is completely wrong, which is a very good thing. Here is what happened.

Every guarantee clause case that ever reached the Court ended up being declared nonjusticiable because it fell into one of two “political question problem” pitfalls, but each pitfall has also been avoided in some of the cases, showing that each type of political question problem can be gotten past. It is just a matter of bringing the right case, one that doesn’t raise either kind of political question problem.

I found this out twenty years ago when I sued the State of California pro se in a ballot access case that actually turned out to be just the kind of clean case that did not raise either kind of political question problem. If I could have gotten a judge to understand I could have brought the crucially important guarantee clause into active adjudication for the first time in our nation’s history, thus I appealed all the way to the Supreme Court thinking that maybe Justice Thomas would see the momentousness of the opportunity and grab it up. Alas, he is just one man.

And that is how I happen to know something about the republican guarantee. For details on the two kinds of political question problem and how they can both be avoided see my Supreme Court brief (the guarantee clause stuff is towards the end).

The viable path to adjudication that I discovered is important now because we want the Supreme Court to do more than stand back with its hands up. We need them in the fight, backing the effort to force honest elections. They should have been using the guarantee clause to weed out the Democrat’s intentionally planted election-fraud vulnerabilities for 50+ years now, but in the present moment the standard view of precedent is not all bad.

It is helpful that until the Supremes can be presented with the right case they at least are not likely to  block a well designed guarantee clause enforcement effort that President Trump undertakes on his own initiative. According to received wisdom the Court ought in this circumstance to be loathe to interfere.

 

Step two: announce federal re-runs of the tainted 2020 House and Senate races, which will in turn require that finalization of the presidential selection process be delayed (otherwise the party accused of cheating, if it wins the presidency, will terminate the re-runs)

Guarantee clause enforcement could also be used to require federally managed re-runs of the 2020 general elections in a host of states where outcomes were most likely flipped by what the evidence says is massive election fraud. Re-running of House and Senate seats in those states could well give Republicans a majority in the House and strengthen the Senate majority that honest runoff elections in Georgia will most likely secure.

In constitutional terms this would be a huge pile of benefits raked in by enforcement of the guarantee clause: election results that come out differently when elections are honest! Constitutional values don’t get any weightier than that. But the only way these benefits of honest elections can be secured, the only way they can be guaranteed, is if completion of the presidential selection and inauguration process that is set out in the Constitution gets delayed by at least a few months.

It will take that long to re-run the tainted elections. Then there is the fact that one of the presidential candidates is the beneficiary of the cheating that the evidence says took place. If he becomes president before the tainted House and Senate races are re-run he will almost certainly cancel the re-runs, so the only way to guarantee the re-runs is to delay the inauguration.

Note that provisions for the possibility of a delayed inauguration are already set out in the Constitution:

20^th Amendment, clause 3:

“… If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.”

Democrats will cry that any delay in completion of the presidential selection/inauguration process is an overthrow of our constitutional process but it is not true. The Constitution not only contemplates this possibility but has prepared for it.

 

Step 3: Delaying presidential selection/inauguration until down-ballot elections are re-run will afford time to also re-run the presidential election in the tainted states

Once a delay in the presidential selection and inauguration process is called for there is no reason that this delay should not also be used to re-run the tainted presidential contests, again conducted in maximally open and honest fashion by the federal government.

The constitutionally specified four year presidential term creates a timeliness issue for resolution of the presidential selection process but once a guarantee clause action is taken the timeliness issue flips. Instead of it being important to settle election disputes quickly it instead becomes important to not draw the schedule up short or the republican guarantee is not guaranteed, as it must be. Priority number one: guarantee that we still have a republic.

This would be the case whether delay was first called for in order to guarantee completed honest re-runs of tainted House and Senate races or whether it was first called for in order to guarantee completed honest re-runs of the presidential election in the tainted states. Either way the Supreme Court will end up having to weigh the competing sides of the constitutional conflict that is presented.

On one side is the importance of letting the republican guarantee be an actual guarantee, on the other is the significance of changing the dates on finalization of the presidential selection process by a couple of months this one time. Constitutional provisions give way to other constitutional provisions all the time and this one is pretty obvious: what is a couple months to make sure these decisive national elections are not stolen when the consequence if we do let them be stolen is that we lose our republic forever?

Thankfully that decision would be made by a majority-conservative Supreme Court. Given the chance to save the republic by making a sound legal decision they would likely take it. We just have to give them that chance.

When the Democrats lose the honest re-runs by a country mile they can throw whatever temper tantrums they want, and they will, but they will be exposed firstly as having tried and failed to steal the 2020 elections, then as a bunch of rioting criminals going forward.

As a result, this round of America’s long Civil War with the Democratic Party will be won with relatively little bloodshed, prayers be to God, and we’ll have a chance to clean up our election system going forward.

This post was originally published at Flopping Aces

Andrew McCarthy sets out to answer in today's Washington Post: "is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III running an impartial investigation?" But like everyone else Andrew is skipping past the original sin that establishes the entire enterprise as highly criminal and proves already that Rosenstein and Mueller are the founding criminal conspirators. That original sin is the wording of the investigatory charge that Rosenstein authored and Mueller accepted. It is an unconstitutional open warrant of precisely the kind that the Fourth Amendment was written to bar. It is Star Chamber. 

Nobody else seems to have noticed yet what was caught by the helicopter camera as it flew by the other side of the SUV from where Mr. Crutcher's is standing. Terence Crutcher's body is momentarily visible through the SUV's moonroof and right at that instant he can be clearly seen reaching inside the SUV.  His entire forearm is visible inside the SUV.

The clearest video seems to be from CNN. Here is a screenshot at the 47 second mark (click image for full resolution):


Surrounding video frames show the movement of Crutcher's arm inside the SUV. Once you know where to look you can watch the video at normal speed and be able to see Crutcher's arm pull out from inside the SUV as he falls away from being shot. No doubt about it. So it looks like Officer Betty Shelby will be cleared.

Tulsa police must already know that the window of Crutcher's SUV was down, since they would have pictures of the crime scene that have not been released yet, but Tulsa prosecutors must not have realized there is video that verifies Shelby's claim that Crutcher was reaching into the SUV when she shot him. Otherwise it is hard to see how they could possibly have charged her with anything, never mind manslaughter.

I hope D.A. Kunzweiler's reaction to this proof of her veracity is a glad one, instead of wishing it would go away, but given how fast he charged her I suspect the latter. It looks like prosecutors are hoping that throwing her to the mob will reduce racial tension but appeasement only whets the appetite of the appeased. Kunzweiler needs to listen to President Reagan. "No Danegeld":



Note that it is Crutcher's right arm that reaches in, not his left, so Officer Shelby's lawyer Scott Wood got that detail wrong (at the CNN link), but otherwise Shelby's story is borne out, and possibly the left-arm bit too. Video from several seconds earlier, when the helicopter is behind Crutcher, does seem to show him reaching in with his left arm, so maybe Shelby should have shot him then, but the actual shooting occurred when he reached in with his right arm, which makes sense, as that reach-in would have been more visible to Shelby.

Every category of anti-gun activist needs to be hit where its members are most vulnerable. I have gone after the Newtown Mothers group for angrily demanding that all of America's school children be just as thoroughly stripped of protectors as their own slaughtered children were. Last week Ted Nugent did the same for Jewish anti-gun leaders, who he slammed for betraying their own history.

Gun control enables genocide, so how can the group whose victimization gave rise to "never again" be so heavily represented among those who would let it happen again? That is a paraphrase. Nugent was less gentle, writing "Jews for gun control are nazis in disguise," but the substance is the same. These Jews are advocating the Nazi policy of civilian disarmament that enabled the slaughter of European Jewry.

It is fine to take issue with Nugent's execution. There is a reason I didn't call the Newtown Mothers "Adam Lanza in disguise." That hyperbole would just create more sympathy for these women whose moral perversity already gets a pass because everyone has so much sympathy for them.

But flawed execution does not alter the legitimacy and importance of Nugent's critique, so how about we edit the execution a little and see if we can find some common ground? Consider this an exercise in alternate history.


If Ted Nugent knew how to use Photoshop



The photo-collage of leading anti-gun Jews that Nugent used to illustrate his initial post (the center portion of the graphic above) contained elements that people familiar with anti-Semitic propaganda recognize as impugning the loyalty of American Jews. In particular, the little American flags were originally little Israeli flags with the Star of David in the middle.

Most people would only see those flags as an indicator of Jewishness and it is quite clear that Nugent did not intend any imputation of loyalty to a foreign power. His issue was strictly these people's anti-gun idiocy. So change the flags, do a little editing to the commentary on the individual anti-gun honchos (in red), and make the graphic self-contained by including a toned down version of Nugent's explanation for why and how anti-gun Jews warrant their own special critique (but not too toned down).

So how did I do? Is this about right?
Ted??
What do y'all think?

Nugent has angrily denied that he intended anything anti-Semitic and there is no reason to doubt him. A normal person does not see an Israeli flag as anti-Semitic and if you don't have Photoshop skills you have to go with what is available. Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer + 9 more? That's a pretty good start. Just really does need that little bit of editing.

Some critics think it is anti-Semitic to single out anti-gun Jews at all. No it isn't, any more than it is anti-mom to criticize anti-gun moms for wanting all children to be undefended, and it is important to single them out. It is important to go after each of these groups where they stand.

Moral error has no authority and no amount of victimization can change that. Point out the most personal and blatant moral perversity of our various anti-gun groups and their moral authority can be shattered. They want to impose on everyone exactly what got their own loved ones killed. How perverse is that?

Ted Nugent deserves credit for recognizing the validity of this response. There is a special critique that can be leveled anti-gun Jews and kudos to Nugent for stating it.


Turning the moral authority of the Newtown Mothers back against themselves

The reason I immediately recognized the validity of Nugent's attack on anti-gun Jews (while many others accused him of doubling down on anti-Semitism), is that I have already been down this road. When the Demanding Newtown Mothers put out a one-year anniversary video their ticking-clock motif powerfully evoked the pro-gun understanding that when seconds count it is doesn't help that the police are only minutes away (fifteen in the Newtown case), so I reversed it back onto them by adding a pro-gun voice over:



Finally the urgent dread on the Mothers' faces directs an obviously necessary course of action: get those children some armed defenders! Turning their story back onto them works.

So I'm right with you Ted (and glad to have the company). Now we just need a few thousand more. In the meantime I hope people can realize that jettisoning Nugent over THIS of all things, something he is insightfully right about, would be a disastrous and unpardonable mistake.

NYT's "modern man" is obviously gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he seems to think that everyone else should be gay too, or else they are not modern, or not a man? You have to be gay to be a man? Really?

But this is perfectly in line with the double-standard supremacism that the various groups who make phony claims of victim status are all demanding these days as their due redress. It is no longer enough to tolerate homosexual behavior. Now everyone must approve it (marriage being society's stamp of approval), and those who only tolerate without approving are not themselves tolerated, but are severely punished by the power of the state. The small tolerated minority hops directly into a new position as an intolerant power.

By this standard, then of course you have to be gay to be a man. Gays are no longer a minor group relying on and receiving the tolerance of the majority, they are an intolerant group, out to marginalize and destroy all who do not approve of them, and this has become the standard for all of the victim-cliamant groups. The suppression of disapproving but tolerant majorities is the payment that intolerant minorities are receiving for joining the Democrat's 51% tyranny of the majority.

I live in Palo Alto where the high school just ended its tradition of selecting a homecoming king and queen with male and female courts on the grounds that this tradition might be uncomfortable or offensive to transgender students or staff. You know, like when Morgan Hill banned American flags from school property on the grounds that it might offend the large percentage of students whose loyalty is to Mexico, not the United States.

But wait a minute. If anyone expresses discomfort about transgender students they are immediately subject to severe re-education demands if not expulsion, so why is discomfort about heterosexuality on the part of hypothetical transgenders not only presumed but validated and placed as a controlling interest? Again, majority views are not tolerated while minority views are not just tolerated but are imposed on all.

People of Mexican heritage are presumed to be offended by the American flag in the same school where any student to took offense at the Mexican flag would subject to extreme corrective measures by the state. Tolerance for majority views is denied and approval for minority views is required.

Same on race. The vast majority of interracial crime in America is black on white yet the only news stories in which race is raised as an issue are the rare man-bites-dog cases where a white attacks a black. Brutal intolerance by blacks is swept under the rug while tolerant disapproval of the manifest perversities of black American culture are not tolerated.

This monstrous inversion of the necessary priority of tolerance over approval is virtually total within every institution that Democrats control: the news media, entertainment, academia, K-12, the professional societies, most philanthropies, most social media and the Democratic Party. To the extent that this ideology is enforced it is the absolute destruction of liberty to the very last brick, a complete totalitarianism.

The only saving grace is that Democrats only have partial power. They control all of our information industries but they have not achieved a secure majority of political power, so we are not done yet, but we are very close, and the K-12 brainwashing of the next generation will make the identity-group left's destruction of liberty hard to stop.

The NYT's gay "modern man" is a ludicrously bad joke, but it is also a very dangerous joke, like finding a single Lionfish where invasive species had not been previously found. It tells us, oh no, the infection has spread all the way to this far corner of the globe,  which means it is everywhere, and as idiotic as this Lionfish looks it will be hard to push back.

These perverts are raising YOUR kids, six hours a day, plus television time, plus social media time. They are very close to winning/destroying everything.


UPDATE: It is obviously not necessary to the theme of this post that Brian Lombardi, the author of the NYT's "modern man" lunacy, actually be gay instead of just a pajama-boy type anti-man. Either way, the theme of the NYT piece is that to be a "modern man" you have to be at extreme odds with the majority view of manliness. And yes, the NYT piece is written very much in a bossy, "this is how it's done guys," way, ridiculously so, as in Lombardi's "way to be a modern man" #7:

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.

That's a caricature of a spoiled eight year old. Did Lombardi come up with his examples of manhood by using George Costanza's "opposite" method? Whatever you think an actual man would do, say the opposite?

Writer In Black offers a full fisking where 25 out of Lombardi's 27 are seen to be pretty much the polar opposite from manliness. Black's non-opposite response to #7:

The modern man drinks whatever he wants. If it's Diet Cherry Mountain Dew, it's Diet Cherry Mountain Dew. The modern man does not apologize for his choice of beverage. 

If a guest asks for something the modern man does not stock the modern man says something like "I'm sorry but I don't have that. Would you perhaps like..." and then offers a selection of what the modern man does have. If a modern man knows in advance that a guest has a particular preference, the modern man will insure that he has a supply of it.  See "courteous" above. 

The modern man's guests never leave hungry or thirsty unless it's by their own choice. 

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

It isn't just that no heterosexual man would deprive his wife or girlfriend of her favorite shopping activity by buying shoes for her (unless it be with the express idea that they won't fit, so she can return them and get what she wants). It's that revealing bit about knowing which brands run big or small. To know that a man would have to be trying on his own feet the same styles and brands as he is looking to buy for his spouse, which means the spouse must also be a man.

Then it makes sense. They both have girl brains, they both love shoe shopping and they can think of sharing what they know about how certain brands fit, but that is only even possible for homosexuals.

Yeah yeah, Lombardi says he has a wife named "Linda" and that they have three children, but that is what the gays are doing now, right? They are calling themselves husband and wife and adopting children. I just hope the kids come out okay.

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

Can you say "that's so gay"? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's gayer than Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco.

Okay, here's one that isn't gay, unless a person wants to put a nasty negative spin on gayness:

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

That is a wussified, pantywaist, icky-ew type flaming, which is really an unfair caricature of homosexuality. Homosexuals are not morons.

But that's the only contra-indication to Mr. Lombardi being gay. His list finishes strong on the female-brained theme:

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

Like, at that time of the month?

27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.

Dancing is neither gay nor straight, but if ever there was a sentence that reads with a lisp...

At the very least, Brian Lombardi is a definite putths.