I am about to reboot this blog. I have finally worked out how to make the unique contribution to the conservative cause that I’ve been passionate about from the moment I decided to found this blog in January 2009. I’ve also finally figured out how to make money while I’m doing it. And I’ve just found the tools and mentors to teach me how to do it.
I’ve worked hard over the last few months to get my father’s and my financial affairs in order. (I’ll explain how they got out of order in a future post.) The new clarity feels wonderful! We now have an agreement with the IRS for paying my father’s taxes. While the levy of all my father’s income for October has put us two months behind on the mortgage, as long as we don’t fall behind another month, we won’t be in default. I am juggling the other bills — so far, so good. Our current situation is precarious but with hard work and a little luck, I feel certain we’ll pull through.
I can earn my way out of our financial challenges. But to do it I need some financial angels willing to invest in me. I must generate $1500 for my reboot. One of the things I’ll be doing is teaching the fundamental principles of conservatism along with practical solutions to prove to liberals that money comes from ideas, not a black box. I’ll also be featuring experts in wellness and personal transformation, since the heart of the conservative message is about achieving your full potential to enjoy a life of health, abundance and spiritual development.
Here is my offer: I will consider any amount contributed through the “Donate” button in this post to be a loan. I don’t know when I will be able to pay it back, but when I do, I will pay double the amount sent and match it as a donation to the blogger who referred you and recommended me. However, I need an escape clause: God forbid any disaster befalls my father or me, but if one does, I may never be able to pay you back. Please consider that most investments carry that same risk.
The benefit I am planning for the conservative cause is to answer the fundamental objections to conservatism that liberals have. They believe money comes from a black box and the only sure way to get it is to take it from people who have it. They don’t see the “how.” They don’t see the source. Well, I plan to feature experts in the “how” and the source. I’ll also feature success stories. My ambition is to make this a place of education, inspiration, laughter and certainty in my gentle readers in their ability to create a brighter future for themselves and for America. And I will do so in a way that generates money for me so that I will be able to support myself now and in the future without constant fundraising appeals.
If there are at least 40 people who can spare $40, I estimate that I can have my reboot up and running in about nine weeks. I thank all my gentle readers in advance for the treasure of your time in reading my blog. For the dear gentle readers who are unable to spare any money at this time, your prayers and positive thoughts also are a valuable contribution for which I am very grateful. I wish all my dear gentle readers prosperity, health and every blessing always.
Dan Savage, the “It Gets Better” project’s co-founder, has been just as vicious toward gay conservatives as schoolyard bullies have been toward their gay classmates. In an MSNBC interview, Savage referred to the members of GOProud, an organization of gay conservatives, as “gay Quislings and useful idiots.” He said they were just “window dressing” for bigoted Republicans. Like a schoolyard bully, Savage ridicules people who are different from him.
In 2007, the Human Rights Campaign congratulated Joe Jervis, the creator of the Joe My God blog, for an award he received for having the best LGBT blog. In 2011, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) awarded Jervis with its “Blogger of the Year” award. At the time, GOProud Chairman Emeritus Chris Barron wrote in The Daily Caller:
GLAAD’s tag line is “Words and images matter.”… Jervis goes as far as allowing calls for actual violence against gay conservatives to stand on his site. On two separate occasions, Jervis has openly ridiculed incidents of violent anti-gay hate crimes against gay conservatives. Apparently, words and images don’t matter to GLAAD’s members as long as the subject of those attacks is someone they disagree with politically.
I’m still working on establishing the order necessary for turning things around for us financially and going forward, but I couldn’t resist writing the following comment:
The Left works very hard to make sure its followers do not understand the full implications of the planned economy that they advocate. It also works hard to ensure its followers do not understand the Right and its ideological diversity. Unfortunately for the Right, its social conservatives preach family values, liberty and fiscal conservatism while practicing destruction of any family with a gay member, religion-based totalitarianism and big government redistribution of wealth for their own pet causes. Their saying one thing and doing another while conducting purges goes a long way toward confusing people about the conservative brand. Speaking to the Right, what we have to do as fiscal conservative/social liberals is to do a better job of holding members of our own party to account for behavior that violates our stated ideals.
Speaking to the Left, we have to work to educate the Left about how destructive their beliefs in planned economies are. This is especially true for the gay community, which thrives due to free market principles because gays as a minority must be entrepreneurs in order to cope with job discrimination. In fact, the gay community is a model of fiscal conservatism and self-reliance because gays can never depend on the government for help. That is why the gay community has so many charities, non-profits and clubs for practically every cause, hobby, sport, affinity and interest. Embracing the Left’s economic principles is suicide for the gay community because a planned economy would never duplicate or support the kind of diversity we have because, for the time being, the government doesn’t take so much money that we don’t have enough left over to spend on what we value.
My observation of Ann Coulter is that she is a woman with a good heart who stands by her friends in good times and bad. She also has many gay friends whom she loves and who love her. I wish I were one of them. The gay Left does not understand what an enormous act of love and courage it is for her to stand by GOProud. Single-handedly Ann makes it impossible for social conservatives to claim that gays can’t truly be fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives. Single-handedly Ann makes it impossible for social conservatives to purge the conservative movement of gays. When social conservatives can’t purge the movement of gay conservatives, that means we get to work with other conservatives for the causes we have in common and through the friendships we develop prove that our equality will make America stronger and more prosperous.
Lisa De Pasquale also is a woman of enormous courage and executive ability. Anyone who objects to her leadership role at GOProud is not a strategic thinker. Lisa was executive director of CPAC for many years. This means that she knows everyone who is anyone in the conservative movement as well as where all the bodies are buried. And that means she is well-connected and people take her calls and read e-mails she sends. She began her public support of GOProud while she was CPAC’s executive director and GOProud is fortunate to have her.
However, I do wish that GOProud would show some leadership in the civility wars and adopt a policy that forbids name-calling. Name-calling does nothing to persuade or educate or inspire people to see the merits of any point-of-view. Instead, it causes hurt and anger and closes minds and hearts. It is time to apologize for past errors and pledge to take the high road from now on.
Note: I will resume blogging as soon as I’ve finished creating order in our finances and my work environment. It is an emotionally demanding process and is requiring all my attention. I appreciate all good thoughts, prayers and practical support in the form of donations (see the “Donate” button in the sidebar) that any of my dear gentle readers wish to share to inspire me and help me through my current challenges. I’m really looking forward to finishing this project and returning to blogging.
I wish for all my dear gentle readers a happy new year and progress, prosperity, perfect health, enlightenment, wisdom, love, friends, divine protection, divine guidance, good luck and every blessing always.
The tax levy in October has presented me with a number of challenges that I’m still sorting out. That’s what I’ve been focusing on instead of blogging. I hope that I will have things in hand enough by the weekend to start posting regularly again. In the meantime, I will appreciate any prayers and positive thoughts for my success.
My essay making the case for outing members of Congress and their staffers who are gay and engage in anti-gay activism posted this morning at PJ Media. I’m finding that straight people are having a hard time understanding that there’s no such thing as privacy when it comes to anyone’s sexual orientation. Since there is no such thing as privacy about sexual orientation, there is no such thing as a “right to privacy” about sexual orientation. After your gender, it is the main thing people want to know about you in order to know how to relate to you. Therefore they figure it out for themselves, regardless of how many obstacles you may put in their path. You can’t stop people from doing this. Therefore there is no such thing as a “right to privacy” about sexual orientation.
UPDATE, 12/21/11, Wed.:
The small number of commenters here and pretty much all the commenters at PJ Media seem to me to be putting words in my mouth in order to disagree with me. I’m fine with disagreement, but have to draw the line at misrepresenting what I wrote. The primary confusion is about my point that when someone wants to know your sexual orientation, you can say anything you want but they are going to observe you and make up their own minds — that’s what makes sexual orientation not private. I focused my article specifically on members of Congress and their staffers who meet two additional conditions:
They are gay.
They are engaging in anti-gay activism.
Frankly, I am already being accused of engaging in anti-gay activism for supporting practically any Republican, since so few support gay equality. I think it is a threat to America that so many Republicans are intent on shredding the Constitution in order to impose their religious beliefs through the state and on destroying the power of the judiciary in our traditional constitutional balance-of-powers because it is the most effective obstacle to achieving this goal. These are definitely poison pills. However, Obama and the Democrats do as little as they can toward gay equality to keep gays in the fold, which also is bad. But what is infinitely worse is that they want to destroy free enterprise and impose socialism. I believe I have a better shot at gaining my equality under free enterprise than under socialism. Therefore I will support an anti-gay Republican candidate who understands the policies required to get the economy thriving again — just as gay Democrats voted for Obama, who is still “evolving” on marriage equality and has savagely fought against gays in federal lawsuits on gay equality. (Note: one of those lawsuits, by the Log Cabin Republicans, forced Obama to support the repeal of DADT, but he gets no credit since he didn’t get in front of the parade until it nearly passed him by.)
I’m not going to out the average closeted lesbian or gay man who is minding her or his own business. But I am telling them they do not have control over what other people see and think, so without their permission, a lot of people in their lives have figured out their sexual orientation without being told.
However, I will grant that some people are harder to discern than others. I had to be told that financial advisor Suze Orman, Iron Chef Cat Cora and country singer Chely Wright are lesbians. But I believe if I were in a position to observe them in daily life, I’d have figured it out.
The truth that sexual orientation is virtually impossible to keep secret particularly seems to bother closeted gays, perhaps because they didn’t realize that this information about their life is not and never has been totally subject to their control. This thought frightens them and makes them go through the list of everyone in their life trying to figure out who might know without having been told. This also is embarrassing. I still cringe when I think of all the people who tried to reach out to me to let me know they were OK with my being a lesbian when I thought I’d pulled off being an ex-lesbian in my 20′s.
It also alarms people who do not have well-developed powers of observation because they can’t imagine what observant people are doing in order to read other people better than they can. This may frighten or shame them. That was not my intention, but few people react well to those emotions.
Others are terribly concerned about what would happen to closeted gay members of Congress and their staffers who have married a straight person, especially those with children, if they are outed for anti-gay activism. They seem to feel these people are entitled to enjoy all the perks of heterosexuality while exploiting the gay community — for men this typically means seeing gay prostitutes, or having one-nighters or brief flings. Lesbians tend to have longer affairs. But for both lesbians and gay men, they are involved with someone who will never commit to them. This creates despair and instability in the gay and lesbian community. Gay lives are ruined and no one cares. The sympathy has been entirely for the liar and cheat, never for the gays they exploit — and not even for the straight spouses and the children who have a legitimate entitlement to honesty. Funnily enough, the sympathy never seems to go to a straight liar who is cheating on a spouse, so Mark Sanford and Anthony Weiner were widely reviled when their affairs were exposed and the destruction to their careers was considered their just desserts.
Enough gays and lesbians are openly gay that we have reached the tipping point where it is assumed that if you are out and about in the gay community, you are out, period. Part of gay equality is that it is just as dangerous to your career and family life to lead a double life, or to say one thing (anti-gay!) and do another (gay!), as it is for any straight person because of the unpredictability of scorned lovers. I am not saying that everyone in the gay community who is leading a double life should be outed. If you are a private person, people should mind their own business. But if you are a gay member of Congress, or staffer — or any public figure, including celebrities — and you engage in anti-gay activism by demonizing gays and opposing gay equality — then the fact that you are secretly gay IS legitimate news. It is fair to bring your true sexual orientation to the public’s attention and ask for an explanation because of the destruction you are causing in the lives of an untold number of people both in the present and for many years to come.
UPDATE, 1/6/12, Fri.: HA! I was very specific about outing only gay members of Congress and staffers who ALSO engage in anti-gay activism. Both things have to be true to deserve outing. Everyone else who is not in a position of power can make his or her own decision about the closet. And Lily Tomlin said it first:
Lisa De Pasquale and Cynthia Yockey at BlogCon 2010 in Virginia in September 2010.
GOProud announced yesterday that co-founder Christopher Barron is stepping down as chairman of the board. Lisa De Pasquale, former executive director of CPAC from June 2006 to April 2011 has been elected interim chairman of the board. Chris will continue as GOProud’s chief strategist and serve on the board as chairman emeritus.
I’m overjoyed to see Lisa take on this role. She is the perfect person to lead this re-structuring:
“I am truly honored to be elected interim chairman of the GOProud board,” said De Pasquale. “The next several months will be important for their growth. Along with the GOProud staff, the Board will help refine the organization’s mission, develop a strategy for making Obama a one-term president, do substantive activities across the country, and build coalitions with conservative organizations, lawmakers and activists.”
“One of the first steps the new GOProud Board will be taking is to expand,” continued De Pasquale. “We will be inviting many of our Advisory Council members to join the Board of Directors. We need their support, their talents and their advice in a more formal capacity to continue to be able to build on the successes of the last two and a half years.”
“The day to day management of the organization will remain the same. The board has 100% faith in the leadership of Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia,” concluded De Pasquale.
I have been repenting this week that I have started writing this blog again before my bliss, compassion and sense of humor have entirely returned or surpassed what they were in my jolly fat days before I started my diet in June 2010. I’ve lost over 65 pounds now and I’m getting close to my goal. But I have let myself become a bit short with social conservatives and have put out a little more heat than light. The provocations have been far from trivial but still, I have not been as empathic as I would like to be so that social conservatives would feel entirely heard and understood before I say anything to get them to see the ways in which their zeal actually is in an almost complete disconnect with their intentions to create the conditions for an honorable, well-behaved and prosperous society.
However, Robert Laurie is up to the job and today has this compassionate “Open Letter to Conservatives” in the Daily Caller that says everything I have been saying and more. It concludes as follows:
If you don’t like a person, for whatever reason, that’s fine. That’s your right as an American. If you’re a Christian and you feel that it’s wrong to live a certain way, by all means, live by that creed and pass those morals on to your children. Just remember, your religion also features free will as a central truth. You’re not supposed to control your neighbor’s life, and it isn’t your job to judge everyone else. Your desire to do so has drawn the political spotlight away from provable issues and drawn attention to nebulous moral debates.
The bad news for the moral majority is that there’s a younger breed of conservative headed their way. It’s the future of the movement they claim to cherish, and it’s far, far less concerned with social issues than the old guard. If we’re going to maintain the United States as a constitutionally limited republic, and roll back the transgressions of past decades, social conservatives are going to have let go of a few sacred cows.
It’s time to make a choice: fight for a truly limited government or lose that battle in a failing attempt to present morality as government business.
This is why I constantly draw the distinction between government as the realm of coercion and religion as the realm of persuasion. What is most chilling about religion when it leaves the realm of persuasion to take over the realm of coercion is that it would never do so if it were succeeding on its merits in the realm of persuasion.
Consider the paradoxes in the following sequence of events:
Presidential candidate and Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, releases a TV ad attacking the honor of lesbian and gay service members, saying, ““I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” which means Perry supports and would re-institute DADT, a program for outing lesbian and gay service members and destroying their careers …
But when GOProud’s leaders, Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron, publicly object to the fact that Perry’s chief campaign strategist, Tony Fabrizio, is gay and did not resign to protest Perry’s decision to release this ad, they are subjected to a maelstrom of criticism for outing him …
Even though Jimmy and Chris have known Fabrizio to be openly gay for so many years it never occurred to them anyone considered him to be in the closet …
But while Fabrizio neither resigns the Perry campaign to protest the anti-gay TV ad nor is fired for having his already considerable outness outed up several notches …
Andrew Breitbart does resign from GOProud’s advisory board to protest the outing of someone who is out because outing can destroy families and careers — thereby damaging the careers of two men who did not out anyone and the organization they founded — yes, this is the same Andrew Breitbart who outed Congressman Anthony Weiner as a tweeter of lewd self-portraits and destroyed his career …
Then remember this started with Rick Perry denouncing the end of a policy that outed lesbian and gay service members and destroyed their careers …
Now click thee to Cracked.com and scroll down to #1 to rejoice in this “tiny karmic miracle.”
Recall how Yama, the lord of death, came to visit the widow Patel, who lived alone threshing grain and fielding service calls for Microsoft. Yama tempted her with four gold coins if Patel would curse her fate and renounce acceptance. But Patel tricked the lord of death by pouring milk into a rolled up newspaper then unwrapping the newspaper to reveal no milk. Yama was confused. He left the widow and resumed smoking menthol cigarettes later that day.
What insight should we glean from Patel? How does this tale align with the teachings of the Vedanta?
Did I say Obama? My bad. I meant social conservative and Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry. Gabriel Malor reports that such is Perry’s reverence for the Constitution, he has proposed eight amendments to it so far in his campaign for president. What they have in common is that they would clear the way for social conservatives to impose their will through the coercive powers of government on pretty much every aspect of life and remove the judiciary as an impediment to their unfettered hegemony. Why would you need your liberty preserved by all those checks and balances when there’s an elite group of people that know better and can make you toe the line?
By the way, it’s the totalitarian nature of Perry’s proposals that confuses idealistic liberals and Leftists when conservatives say liberals are the true fascists and that socialism is totalitarianism. Socialism, at least, allows them liberty of religious belief or non-belief. So if their choice between conservatism and liberalism is between two totalisms, it should not be a surprise that they choose liberalism for its genuine liberty of faith in addition to its false promises of security from a nanny state. My own experience as a former liberal is that both of these totalisms are so anxious to keep the political dialog polarized that the genuine alternatives that respect both financial liberty and liberty of conscience — fiscal conservatism and libertarianism — seldom get a chance to make their cases in enough detail to be clearly understood and persuasive.
Most of the questions Stephanopoulos and Sawyer came up with tonight were clearly designed to do one of two things:
1) Throw out more heat than light, and set the candidates to squabbling over non-issues, while making sure there is as much bad blood on the stage as possible; and
2) Put each potential candidate in a position such that he/she had to either throw out red meat to the base (which can be used in attack ads next year in the general election, to turn independents against whoever the candidate is), or stand there holding their dicks/boobies looking stupid.
