The gay rights movement gained significant momentum by the early 2000s. Civil rights laws were interpreted to shelter "sexual minorities" and their regulations often held that equality demanded proportionate representation of homosexuals throughout society. These laws facilitated the creation of countless homosexual nests in state and federal governments.

Christine Jorgensen underwent the first "sex change" operations in 1952. By the 1990s, these procedures were being adopted by ever more cross-dressing gays and more than a few children and straights. By giving doctors and therapists a significant income stream from those wanting to pretend to be the opposite sex, the gay movement slowly created social space for a new kind of human (and victim of sexual oppression) that might enable double-dipping on civil rights. The UN added T to LGB in 2015 which quickly became standard.

LGBTs saw nothing but endless opportunities when Biden issued a Presidential Memorandum in February 2021: “Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World.” Money and power poured into the gay movement. LGBTs got separate "credit" for Ts and LGBs in "balancing the workforce, numbers of supervisors," etc. Ts diverted tax dollars to allies in medicine and academia. As I previously documented, Biden turned over substantial swaths of society to homosexuals’ influence.

But trans might have been a bridge too far. Trump’s campaign targeted trans as hurting girls’ sports and privacy. Musk found at least $4 billion in taxes going to fund the homosexualization of other countries. These agenda-driven projects – as U.S. taxpayers establishing the first trans facility in India or housing African LGBT homeless – bothered not only Trump but most Americans. On March 14 Trump revoked Biden's "all-in for gay rights" order. By the 25th, LGBT leaders complained “at least 68 grants to 46 institutions were terminated last week alone!”

Diverting tax dollars toward homosexualization suggests homosexual nests were involved in these destructive grants (my last column enumerated some of them). But all homosexual advances don’t require a nest – they only need a homosexual in a position of power. Those who engage in homosexuality are, as drug addicts, usually dominated by it. But unlike drug addicts, they cannot just "do it" discreetly. Indeed, one of the most annoying things about homosexuals is their compulsive need to talk, write, perform, parade, and have sex in public – whatever it takes to get everyone to think about them and their sexual activities.

Homosexuality was once quieted

Eighty years ago, homosexuality was rarely discussed. Table 1 summarizes the number and tone (anti, neutral, or pro) of articles about homosexuality or homosexuals indexed in the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, 1922–1971. The search engine of its day, the Guide revealed the frequency & attitude of the major newspapers and magazines toward homosexuality. During the 1920s and 1930s, German homosexuals made Germany’s news, but you would have had to read the U.S. press almost exhaustively to run into pieces about homosexuality. Table 1 suggests President Eisenhower’s 1953 opinion that homosexuals in federal employ constituted “wickedness in government” was more strongly anti than his contemporary commentariat.

With the growth of mental health theories and treatments, the commentariat grew more neutral and pro-homosexual in the 1960s. The Guide listed 363 relevant articles for 1972-81 during this period of "gay liberation" (we didn’t rate them, but they were disproportionately pro).

Major events involving homosexuality from 1922-1981 included:

• 1948: Kinsey claims "37% of American men had engaged in homosexuality"

• 1969: Homosexuals noisily protest being arrested at NYCity’s Stonewall Bar

• 1973-75: Mental health professionals declare homosexuality "normal and healthy"

• 1981: The AIDS epidemic began, "normal and healthy" gays were the first to succumb

Today, five decades after the period Table 1 covers, a third of U.S. high school girls and 23% of female Armed Forces members claim to be sexual minorities. Additionally, marriage and birth rates are declining; negative commentary about homosexuality is largely forbidden; and homosexuality is ubiquitous in schools, politics, entertainment, advertising, etc.

Judges compromised by their homosexual tastes.

President Trump ordered transgenders excluded from the military. He asserted the whole transition was a “falsehood” [indeed] and incompatible with military standards of “troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” A group of trans appealed to the first openly LGBT U.S. District Judge in Washington, D.C., Ana Reyes. She overruled Trump as having violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

There are about 700 Federal District Judges. About 25 (or 3%) are LGBT – mostly appointed by Obama and Biden. As the law/political custom stands, each of these Judges could command the nation on just about any topic.

Homosexuality is associated with substantial social costs: reduced fertility; disease spreading; molestation of children; ignoring merit-based advancement in favor of homosexual nests; demanding constant attention (e.g., parades, demonstrations), attempting homosexual saturation of screens, schools, government surveys, etc.; increasing both violent and property-related crimes; diminished health and lifespan; creating trans via mutilation (including mutilation of children); and distancing the sexes. Traditionalists cite these as reasons homosexuals should not have oversight of children (as teachers or social workers) or be involved in the creation or enforcement of social policy.

Federal District Courts may possess the greatest power in the U.S. While an appeals court or the Supreme Court can overturn their decision, so much money and time are involved that few decisions are appealed. The Constitution places no limits on their powers, nor has the Supreme Court. One judge has managed to override the elected Commander-in-Chief regarding trans in the military. She is elevating her view of fairness above the military’s primary mission of lethality. As the President is involved the cost of appeal will be borne, but the longer the time spent on the case, the longer his preferred policy is stymied.

Because federal judges are selected by partisan politicians, both sides of any dispute know which judges are likely to render the decision they seek. Until and unless federal judges are bound in some way, they can follow the Supreme Court when in 2015 it invented gay marriage because it felt sorry for a plaintiff, and a Federal District Judge can decree anything if his ruling alludes to the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments offer almost unbounded opportunities). In short, they effectively operate as a gaggle of dictators.

In Trump's action against trans in the military, the homosexual District Judge stands a good chance of success unless the Supreme Court enumerates where a federal judge cannot make policy for the whole nation. Political entities seldom relinquish their power. That is why our nation reveres George Washington so highly for declining a third (perhaps permanent) term and allowing the voters to decide his successor. Chief Justice Roberts has already complained that Trump threatened impeachment (the only remedy to check a federal judge within the Constitution). So, Trump’s initial progress toward reducing the size of the bureaucracy, deficit, foreign aid, and his military policies are in danger. Will the Supreme Court act in favor of the executive being able to make the Armed Services free of trans or will it have the military act as a mental health preserve?

On March 24, the Wall Street Journal noted that “more than 100 lawsuits from states, organizations and individuals” say that Trump policies harm them and are unlawful. The administration has had a mixed record in the lower courts, and officials have called out judges who ruled against them. Last week, the president demanded that a judge be impeached. Chief Justice John Roberts responded “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

But, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804, Federal District Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed in 1803 for making decisions viewed as improper and politically motivated; and Federal District Judge West Humphreys was removed in 1862 for political reasons. Chief Justice Robert’s reasoning puts himself and the judiciary in charge of everything. The slow pace of litigation will almost assure that Trump will be unable to accomplish anything significant (and put the country at ever greater risk of defeat, default, and homosexualization).

If China attacks, will a Federal District Judge require Trump to come to court to plead leave to exact retribution? Justice Samuel Alito was “stunned” by his colleagues’ decision to reject the Trump administration’s request to cancel the judiciary’s restoration of foreign aid Trump had canceled. “Does a single district-court judge, who likely lacks jurisdiction, have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) two billion taxpayer dollars?”