Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood

Not only should Perez read this particular book, but so should Obama and his male entitlement mooks. Maybe Adam Lambert should give it a gander—and all the rest of the American Idol males, too, for that matter. I’m also certain that it would be advantageous for 99% of evangelical men and all the current boys who make up the Republican Party’s leadership to peruse its contents.

So, what’s the book that’ll cure Perez’s paranormalities and shore up BHO’s sell out mentality? Well, it is not Liberace’s biography or Dr. I. Blow’s new book, How Guys Can Get in Touch with Their Inner Diva, or my 2006 book, 10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People, or another one of Alinsky’s rags.

The book that could possibly (maybe) cure Hilton’s heinously deep weirdness, the effete bent of our culture, the wuss tick in churches, Obama’s many ills, as well as the pusillanimity of GOP politicos is Frank Miniter’s new destined-to-be-bestselling tome, The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide: Recovering the Lost Art of Manhood.

As most of my regular readers know, one of my favorite whipping posts is the metrosexual male imago the man-haters are successfully saddling our sons with. This Puss-in-Boots culture detests men who would be men. That’s why parents and grandparents who loathe what the media and various institutions are trying to do to our boys need Miniter’s new book more than Pelosi needs Jesus and a straight jacket. Frank has penned a manifesto for manhood, a veritable tour de force for testosterone that decisively rebels against the gush of this sassy society.

So what’s so great about Miniter’s book on the lost art of manhood? Here are four things that flick my switch:

• It’s not 400 pages long. Frank cuts to the chase. No long, drawn-out blah, blah, blah fluff trying to fill pages so his publisher won’t sue him for not hitting his contractual word count. As a man, I appreciate that. I’ve got stuff to do. Don’t go wafty on me. Get to the point. And Frank does just that.

• It’s insanely practical. In TUMSG, not only will Miniter hit you with some heavies regarding the philosophic aspects of classic male virtues, but he’ll also lay out: 5 ways to purify water; which survival knife is best; how to survive if you get lost; how to rescue a capsized boater; how to fend off a bear, cougar and alligator attack; how to spot poisonous snakes; how to control arterial bleeding; 10 rules of gun safety; Marine Corps sniper tactics; 10 steps to field dress a deer; fishing strategies for stream, lake and ocean; how to throw a fastball, curve and a change-up; how to run with the bulls of Pamplona; how to choose the perfect candy, flowers and jewelry for your lady; how to judge, cut and smoke a cigar; the differences between certain whiskeys, wines and beers; how to win at poker; the importance of the 10 Commandments; 100 movies and 100 books every dude should see and read; and the 10 most manly deaths—from Davy Crockett to Jesus Christ. And that’s just a fraction of the useful stuff Frank cranks in this politically incorrect, metrosexual maligning manuscript.

• It lauds classic male traits of yesteryear, things like: self confidence, precision, wisdom, humility, bravery, strength, honor, sacrifice and knowledge. You remember those masculine traits, don’t you? Not only does Frank float these old school assets but he also profiles many men who embodied these goodies while here on planet earth.

• He walks his talk. Believe it or not, Frank lives this stuff . . . at least as much as a sinner can. Miniter has floated the Amazon (the river, not the online superstore), run with the bulls of Pamplona, and hunted everything from bear in Russia to elk with the Apache to kudu in the Kalahari. Along the way Frank learned boxing from Floyd Patterson, spelunked into Pompey’s cave, and I hear he can make a wicked martini. FM’s a graduate of the oldest private military academy in the US, a place that still teaches honor and old school gentlemanly conduct and believes, obviously, “that men need this book because the US has lost its code of honor as enumerated by its Founding Fathers.”

Hey parent and/or grandparent, give me your good ear for a sec. The MSM, public schools, pop culture, effeminate branches of evangelicalism and liberal politics have made being a man, in the classic sense of the word, a bad thing. If you want to make certain your son or grandson morphs into a dandy dilatory dipstick then allow him to ogle pop culture, admire our current political clime, and send him to a church that’s filled with dancing wood fairies, a lot of “hugging and sharing,” and more floral displays than an FTD warehouse. They will wring out of him any and all vestiges of that which makes him a man. You might as well stock up on eye-liner, fingernail polish, glitter, James Blunt CDs, and some skinny stretch jeans right now because he’s gonna need ‘em.

However, should you desire that your son become a William Wallace, you must do the following:

Buy Miniter’s book!

In addition, buy my audio books, Raising Boys That Feminists Will Hate and God’s Warriors & Wild Men (www.clashradio.com), and Doug Wilson’s book, Future Men. The aforementioned will provide you and your Y chromosome with all the information and inspiration needed for him to be the provider, protector, hunter and hero God intended him to become.

Also, single ladies, if you have some 21st century metro guy begging to take you out on a date or wanting your hand in marriage, before you plow forward with Mr. Sassy Pants you might want to have him digest Frank’s book as a good acid test to verify whether or not you’re saddling up to a man or a hamster. Let him read it. See if it gives him a tummy ache. If it doesn’t make him run screaming to mommy and he actually cowboys up and begins to embody what this survivor guide espouses—for, let’s say, five years—then go out with him. Unless, of course, you like dating hamsters who weep while watching the movie Twilight.

Great stuff, Frank.

Congrats!

WRITTEN by Doug Giles as "Here's a Book Perez Hilton and Barrack Obama Should Read" at TownHall.com on May 23rd, 2009

Tolerance Is Becoming Intolerance

Modern America preaches the value of tolerance. This says you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. We can agree to disagree. While this level of tolerance for all viewpoints has never been completely achieved, those on the left certainly preach it when they are vilifying those who hold traditional values, and attempt to label them as intolerant. In recent years, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new era where you have only the right to agree with the modern liberal view, or else be ostracized as an extremist.

Upon Obama's election, he promised to usher in a new era of post-partisan politics. No more conservative and liberal -- just hope. On abortion, he said he wanted to move past the tired old politics. Translation: he wants to repeal all restrictions on abortion, but expects pro-life supporters to drop their disagreements and support him. Obama said it's no longer about whether government is too big or too small, it's about how effective it is. In reality, Obama has ushered in the largest expansion of federal government in any 100-day period in United States history. This period of censorship of disagreement goes well beyond Obama to many of the liberal elites.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano joined the thought police by allowing her department to issue a report labeling any person holding a conservative political viewpoint a potential terrorist. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that said from now on, terrorism will be called man-caused disasters. Napolitano will tolerate Islamic terrorists, yet she has no tolerance for pro-life individuals. People who favor a smaller federal government are considered dangerous enemies of the state. This type of discrimination against opposing viewpoints is becoming rampant in our society.

American "enemies of the state" took to the streets to show their support for fiscal responsibility by attending tea parties. Because this view was not approved by the liberal elites, these protesters were mocked incessantly on CNN, NBC and CBS. The worst case of disdain for tea party participants came from Janeane Garofalo. Speaking on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," she said, "Let's be very honest about what this is about. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House.This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that." Garofalo proceeded to claim that conservatives suffer from a mental disorder. None of this was refuted in any way by host Keith Olbermann. Evidently, hate speech is only allowed when it is against Christians or conservatives. There are allegations that the FBI was spying on these very peaceful demonstrations.

Another example of this suppression of traditional thought occurred at the Miss USA pageant. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a famous gay blogger, asked Miss California if she supported gay marriage. She very politely and graciously said that is up to the different states but she personally opposes it. The Miss USA contest strongly disagreed with Miss California's position, and after the show Perez Hilton launched a diatribe calling the young lady a "dumb B" and later called her the C-word. These hateful attacks would certainly be repudiated if it were a conservative saying them. However, Perez Hilton and his far-left cohorts are free to say whatever they want as long as they are attacking conservatives.

This same principle applies as the left pushes the fairness doctrine and attempts to pass hate-speech laws that will silence Bible-believing Christians. If you disagree with them, then you have no right to speak your beliefs.

America is founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. These rights and protections are what separate our free society from authoritarian governments that have no constraints on government power. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville warned about coercion of thought in his classic book, "Democracy of America." He cautions us, saying that democracies can become even more oppressive than other forms of government when conformity is pushed in the culture. This conformity is being shoved on our society at an alarming rate. Christians and people who hold conservative viewpoints are demonized and mocked in schools, in the media and now by the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Those who hold traditional viewpoints had better speak out; otherwise, in the near future they may be forced to keep their lips zipped.

WRITTEN by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown and published by Townhall.com on May 1st, 2009 and viewable by clicking on the title of this posting.

What a Hateful Liberal Bigot Looks Like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction. I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred. You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as 'normal' or at least 'acceptable'. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them. Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title. She wasn't looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic. In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of 'Perez Hilton'. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported 'gay marriage', and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue. Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that basically this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed. In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a 'cunt', and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was "a dumb bitch." So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it. But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well? How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn't just Perez Hilton, but also most of the 'gay rights' movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against. This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity. It isn't as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn't say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn't like gay people in general, and didn't call them any names. In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should. Not an opinion, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it's radical views on the vast mainstream 'straight' majority just a few decades ago. Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community. We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work. There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean. For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton's response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night's question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a 'Comments' button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

Miss California Gives Straight Answer

What was very obvious early on in the Miss USA pageant held this past Sunday night was that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a beautiful young woman on the outside. She was the typical stereotype of what we all would expect from a 'California Girl': blond, long legs, gorgeous face. And when it came time for the bikini/swimsuit competition she displayed the great body that you would expect to come strolling down the beach in Malibu. But what did not become apparent until right near the end was just how beautiful Carrie Prejean is on the inside. It took an incredibly controversial question under those circumstances from an incredibly outrageous, over-rated, quasi-celebrity judge in the pageant named Perez Hilton who demonstrated his own internal ugliness to bring out Miss California's inner beauty. Hilton, an openly gay male and celebrity gossip blogger, had the task of asking a question of Ms. Prejean during the final portion of the contest. All of the other finalists had to give their opinions on the somewhat difficult questions asked by a particular judge when their own turns came, but none got a more outrageous judge with a more sensational question than Ms. Prejean. Hilton asked his question with wide-eyed enthusiasm, quite obviously expecting a different response: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" With the relative softballs that the other finalists were being tossed in comparison to this bomb shell of a question, Miss California looked momentarily lost as she searched her mind and her heart for an answer. She quite obviously knew that this was her make-or-break moment. Many people thought that she was the odds-on favorite to win, and the results of later voting showed that was indeed the case heading in to this question period. A politically correct answer, even some non-committal answer, very likely would have resulted in her being crowned as Miss USA. But fortunately for everyone in attendance and for everyone searching for good examples in these increasingly amoral days, Carrie Prejean is a Christian, and she simply could not sell out here true beliefs for a pageant crown. She stumbled through her answer as she tried hard to balance those beliefs with an answer that might still salvage the title. Some of her reply included "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Well hallelujah! First, a young woman with integrity enough to answer a controversial question with honesty. She very well could have gone another way with her public answer, won the crown, kept her personal beliefs to herself for now, and perhaps revealed them down the road as a 'change of heart'. But that's not how Carrie Prejean rolls. This beautiful young girl just a few short years out of high school stood on that stage in front of thousands watching her live, and millions more on television, and spoke from her heart and soul. And secondly, big kudos go out to the parents and family that raised this young woman to also be beautiful on the inside, and to understand at such a young age that truth cannot be compromised for expediency. She later would comment that she now believed that God had placed her in that position intentionally, and I would have to agree with her. Immediately, the exasperated Hilton was taken aback, and he along with numerous gays in the audience and later on the internet and in other forums had negative, hurtful, and profane comments to make about this wonderful young lady. There is only one word that comes to mind: typical. The fact is that God instituted marriage as a sacrament to be between a man and a woman. That is in no way a hurtful or sexist or demeaning statement towards gays. It is simply the truth. Though there were a smattering of boos, the large majority in the audience cheered and applauded when Ms. Prejean gave her answer, one that she had to know once she was finished would derail her Miss USA hopes. As it turns out, it was still very close. She finished as a very close 1st Runner-Up in the judges voting. In the aftermath, the Miss California Organization denounced her answer and said that they did not agree with it. Shame on them for not standing up for their girl. California, one of the most liberal states in the American union, has already turned thumbs down on gay marriage when it was put to the public for a vote, which only shows that even many people with generally liberal political and social viewpoints understand basic, fundamental truths. In response, Hilton commented that she lost the pageant because of her answer, and then later video-blogged that she did not lose because of the answer, but because she was a "dumb bitch". This one should not even be considered in any way controversial on Prejean's part, but the controversy should be squarely on Perez, who showed with his attitude and his words that he is a total and complete horses ass. Perez Hilton is a perfect representation of all that is ugly in the world today, while Carrie Prejean represents all that is right and true. After his outrageous attacks on her simple honest answer, Prejean said simply that she would pray for Hilton. Thankfully, she stood up and showed all of us her beauty on Sunday night, both inside and out. Congratulations to Carrie Prejean for her high finish in the pageant, but more importantly for her, for taking the higher ground that night and ever since. NOTE: As always, the title of this entry takes you to more information on the topic, this time to a news story that shows the Miss USA question-answer, and the controversial internet response.