A Tea Party gay guy’s message to a young man.

This is an email I sent to the man who runs www.izzoiz.com — (yes, it’s safe for heteros) from whom I get much inspiration, and information, and who does a fine job, but sometimes, well, sometimes I wonder.  I commented on various posts of his this morning — and particularly about Obama’s LGBT website.

Hello Izzo,

I was funnin’ with you this morning — but for a serious reason. You are all happy about Obama’s LGBT website — well, I wonder — in 1994 he was “for gay marriage” and now he’s “for” both enforcing DOMA and “not defending” only Section 3 of it. What is that? To  be for and against something? I’m either “for” or “against” — not both. He’s “Evolving” I’m told by the man. What does that mean? To go from “for gay marriage” to some wishy washy mush of today? I’d say the word is “devolving” but I’m a radical for liberty. And too, what gives with him not saying a word about Ruben Diaz? Or any of the African-American preachers who preach against us? They are all Democrats. Blacks vote 95% Dem, and gays only about 70% — so are Dems more “for” me or “against” me? Or are R’s more for or against me? Not an easy question to answer.
Why has he not had you and I and a few preachers in for a beer to discuss this matter — two such implacable forces in the same political party — which side are they on? And why didn’t he, Pelosi & Reid, if they’re so “for” us, immediately pass repeal of DOMA and DADT? They had the majorities, they didn’t even bring it up. In fact, in the years Obama was in the Senate he never tried to repeal them, either. On DADT they waited for a lame duck session, to give it the taint of desperation and somehow shamefulness, or at the least “and oh yah, by the way…”  Exactly what I didn’t need.
And attaching it to the Defense Authorization bill — as if it is some budget item to be considered like how many pancakes to order for the Marines. I disliked that intensely. And in the previous two years there were Defense Authorization bills where repeal of DADT didn’t seem to matter at all to the Democrats.
You say you are for Obama — and I wonder, why? Because he’s “pro-gay” you think? And yet Gary Johnson, John Huntsman, Fred Karger — are all on the Republican hustings and are for gay marriage — Hell, Fred is gay himself. Isn’t that weird? Doesn’t that not fit the meme?
And then I think of say, Libya – we seem to be in a “one week kinetic action” — as it was termed by the administration —
now into it’s third month — what is the “gay” position on that? And the Federal Reserve Board is pumping trillions into the economy and inflation is sure to come — what is the “gay”  position on rising prices? Is there a “gay” position on $4 gas which was Bush’s fault when he was president, but is somehow Bush’s fault still, and not yet Obama’s even though he campaigned on higher energy prices? What is the “gay”  position on whether we should drill for oil here? Or spend billions on wind farms that blot the horizon with 30 story towers that need to be operated with gasoline when the wind is not blowing? What’s the “gay”  position on anything really? I don’t think there is one. There is no such thing as “gays” are Democrats, and not Republicans – -or more accurately now, socialists and not libertarians. No policy by the government has a “gay”  position so much as it has an affect on hetero/gays.
Liberty is ugly — and I tell this to heteros on sites that would curl your hair. I argue tooth and nail that the Republican party must chuck the religious fundamentalists — for those people aren’t on the “right” – they are statists of an almost North Korean sort — demanding that I “cure” myself — they are absurd, I know this — and many on the “right” are beginning to see this. The “Right is liberty — the “Left” is statism –that’s the political divide — you either want this huge behemoth spending $ 4 Trillion a year forever while only ‘earning’ in taxes $2.4 Trillion — or you don’t. And the “rich” don’t have $1.6 trillion to cover the difference — not every dime of the richest 10,000,000 Americans would cover it for more than a year or so – -and then what? They’d have nothing left to tax. Then they’d be like you and me — and we’d still have that deficit.
Let me put it in much more common terms — say you earned $24,000 a year and you spent $40,000 a year. For how many years can you do that? Oh, sure you can borrow and credit card yourself through Rodeo Drive for quite a while — but eventually someone is going to say “no more credit.” And that’s what’s happening in the Euro Zone, and that’s what’s going to happen here.
And so when you say you are “for” Obama, is that because he’s said a kind word in an offhand manner to you? Or is it because he’s bankrupting the nation? I don’t know what you understand of economics — but “stimulus” and most of government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. Here’s how it works: I get Obama’s ear, and tell him I got this great project that needs government funds, perhaps a bank, or a business, or a new idea, who knows — and so he gets Congress to authorize the funds – and Congress sends the IRS out to get the tax — from you, my friend, to give to me. Or Congress borrows it from the Feds who borrow it from someone else, to give to me. But you will pay back the borrowed money — in either taxes or inflated money, one or the other, it will be paid back.
And so I get the $20 I need to go have fun with whatever it is I do — and you don’t have the $20 — you gave it to me. How is this helpful to you? Are your projects not as worthy as mine? Perhaps you want to buy shoes, and I propose shirts? But now you can’t get shoes, but I can get shirts — with your money, because I convinced Congress that shirts are a better thing than shoes. Alas, I don’t get $20, however. I get $17. Because $3 went to cover the cost of taxing you out of your $20, and in making sure I comply with whatever rules of shirt making I might be subject to because I accepted “federal” (Izzo) dollars. I get izzo dollars, oh yes, but less of them than izzo gives up to the gov’t.
And then, because you’re out the $20, you need perhaps some mortgage assistance, or food stamps, or some other “benefit” like “free” health care — so you get the ear of Obama, and he comes to me, and takes my $20 — and gives it to you, only you only get $17, because of the FOC — the Federal Overhead Charge — the price of the IRS, Fed Reserve and the Bureaucracy which manages your spending of the $17 you get. Which allows for a nice living for people I don’t know in the DC suburbs where I never go. You and I pay them to help us, yep.
And this is good? This is rational? Oh, I simplify it, but the principle is the same, which is exactly why it can be simplified.
And gayness, weirdly, has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. For there are gay socialists, who believe in taking $20 from me and you, and giving $17 to you and me, while keeping $6 for themselves, and telling us how to spend it, and there are anti-gay socialists — oh, say, like Cuba, Russia, etc. And there are people who don’t like me because I’m gay, but want me to keep my money, and people who do like me even if I am gay — not because I’m gay, but even though — and want me to keep my money.
There are gay Democrats, and gay Republicans, and gay Socialists and gay Libertarians, and there are anti-gay of those four too — because gayness has nothing to do with it.
I don’t know what political party gay boys in Indonesia belong to, or in Peru, or in China, or any where else for that matter, but somehow, I don’t think their problem in those countries is because Obama did or did not put up an LGBT website to get a few votes from people who aren’t seeing that there’s a “spend $40, earn $24” problem going on.
And so I’m wondering if you ponder those greater things?
I didn’t really need a White House LGBT website, I’m pretty confident I can navigate the gay world myself. Only, alas, now I must give Obama $20 to operate his website for me, which I will never go to and don’t need, and I don’t have $20 for some cocktails and an extra dollar to put down a dancer’s undies. Damn. And he has helped me indeed, he tells me. Eh? Yah. Think about it.
Cheers,
your friendly gay radical for liberty and less government
Jim
the daily mush.
PS, this email is my blog post for the AM — you are such an inspiration.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: