The Gay Carpetbaggers

Going to school shouldn’t make you more stupid, but it was recently disclosed that eighty percent of the students who arrive at the City University of New York (CUNY) are unprepared for college-level intellectual challenges. At a cost of thousands of dollars to each of these victims of New York’s antiquated unionized public school system, they must take remedial courses in subjects they should have mastered in middle school. So, for the benefit of New York’s ignorant public-school graduates, allow me to explain the term “carpetbagger.”

Back in the Nineteenth Century (1801-1900) a popular fashion in travel luggage was the carpetbag. It was soft; it had handles, and it was made from recycled carpets. It was the sort of compact light-weight luggage that someone would prefer for a short trip and a brief stay. It was the luggage of a transient itinerant, not a permanent migrant. After the economic collapse of the American South caused by the Civil War, many Northerners traveled to the southland with carpetbags full of cash to exploit the disarray of Southern society. They came to snatch up plantations at fire sale prices; they came to bribe and purchase Southern politicians for the benefit of far-away Northern economic interests. These transient bagmen were derisively called “carpetbaggers.” A century and a half after the Civil War, the black art of the carpetbagger is alive and thriving.

The Gay Carpetbaggers

Homosexuals have a distinct political advantage: they own the best politicians money can buy. One in six of Barack Obama’s big-bucks bundlers is a self-identified homosexual and many more are bound to be closeted homosexuals. Homosexuals were heavy contributors to Obama’s billion-dollar campaign juggernaut. The homosexual lobby now owns Barack Obama. In New York State, where homosexual wedlock is now legal, homosexuals used the tactics of the old-time carpetbaggers to purchase politicians and win legal recognition for a newfangled social contraption called “gay marriage.”

As the New York Times noted “. . . checks from donors in far-flung places like West Hollywood, Denver and Chicago have been pouring into the campaigns of Democratic Senate candidates, adding a surprising dynamic to the battle to oust Republicans from their last post of power in state government.” (10/26/08) Gays from across the country were pouring money into New York senate races to promote the gay agenda.

In an article titled “Gay Groups Use Donations To Become a Force in Elections,” the Times tells us that

“Far from trumpeting their involvement, gay rights groups have been largely silent about their role in Senate campaigns for fear of raising the ire of social conservatives. But a review of campaign finance disclosure forms shows that gay and lesbian advocates have become a quiet but potent force this election season.

“All told, gay rights groups and donors affiliated with them have given a total of at least $480,000 this year to Democratic Senate candidates and campaign funds controlled by Democrats, according to the most recent disclosure documents available. Much of that money was donated in the past month and pointed at a handful of races, campaign finance filings show.”

Gay contributors include the Gill Foundation ($114,000), the Human Rights Campaign ($63,525), and Empire State Pride Agenda ($93,650). At a fund raiser in mid-town Manhattan, the Pride Agenda said it had raised $1.1 million which they intended to use in campaigns against New York Senate Republicans.

After disclosing that no one from any of the gay donor groups would speak to the Times, the newspaper observed that

“[T]he involvement of groups and donors from out of state allows Republicans to characterize Democratic supporters as out-of-touch with average New Yorkers. So far, Republicans are taking that opportunity.

“John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate Republicans, said that the ‘national, left-wing agenda’ has no place in the New York Senate races. ‘Their agenda may not be one that people in central New York, or western New York, or Long Island or, in many cases, New York City share.’”

Exactly right. Left-wing homosexual groups from outside New York were flooding local political contests with wildly unusual amounts of money and tilting races in favor of gay-agenda stalking-horse candidates. These outsiders from faraway cultures were careful to keep a low profile; these carpetbaggers wanted the clueless New York voters to believe that the Democrat candidates who were elected were the choice of informed New Yorkers, not the sock puppets of secretive homosexual groups that had bankrolled slick mind-twisting propaganda campaigns in New York. The Human Rights Campaign has shown itself to be an effective lobby on Capitol Hill and successful in raising money to promote gay desires. This group’s annual budget is about $30 million.

Four years later, in an article titled “Money Flows to G.O.P. Backers of Gay Marriage,” (1/18/12) the New York Times tells us that

“Gay rights advocates from Wall Street to Hollywood poured donations into the coffers of four little-known Republican state senators after the lawmakers provided the decisive votes for same-sex marriage in New York last June, according to new campaign finance filings released on Tuesday.”

Yup. And they were the best politicians homosexuals could buy. As the Times explained

“All four Republicans who voted for same-sex marriage sharply increased their fund-raising in the six months after the marriage bill passed, in many cases raising money from people they had never met. And Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who forcefully pushed the legislation, raised $6 million in six months helped by fund-raisers that highlighted his support for same-sex marriage.” Clearly, Andy Cuomo yearned for political power more than he wanted to be a genuine Catholic.

Gays weren’t winning arguments about gay marriage; they were just greasing unprincipled political careerists. State Senator Roy McDonald “raised about $447,000 in the six months following the vote, about 27 times more than he had raised in the same period in 2009,” the Times observed.

Senator Stephen M. Saland, a Republican from Poughkeepsie, garnered $425,000, an enormous sum for an Albany lawmaker. Both senators raised more cash in the latter half of 2011 than did the Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos. Senator Mark Grisanti, a first-term Republican, tipped the scales with $325,000 in the six months after voting for homosexual wedlock. Senator James S. Alesi of East Rochester admitted a post-election haul of between $350,000 and $400,000. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has amassed a $14 million war chest for 2014 thanks to Hollywood studio executives and the far-left likes of Rob Reiner and Calvin Klein. Donations to New York senators poured in from Hollywood director J.J. Abrams and producer Stephen Bing and billionaire Robert Siff. This is the real reason that same-sex marriage became law in New York State; all those speeches about “gay rights” were just political cosmetics – lipstick on the big piggy bank of the homosexual agenda.

Barack’s Gay Bundlers

A “bundler” is a wealthy donor who bundles his donation to a political candidate with contributions from his wealthy friends and family members. Barack Obama’s bundlers include 138 people who sit on the boards of Leftwing foundations and grant-giving charities with a history of funding causes that mirror Obama’s policy-making inclinations. These social-issue groups favor wide-open borders, unrestricted abortion and anything homosexuals desire. These people understand Obama perfectly; their lavish donations to him put to rest any nonsense that there is anything moderate or centrist about Barack Obama. About one in five (20%) of Obama’s bundlers is a homosexual, a number wildly out of joint with the mere 2.8% of gays in the American population.

In a mash note to Barack Obama, Newsweek’s Gay Power spokesperson Andrew Sullivan drew a straight-line connection between Obama’s abrupt embrace of homosexual wedlock and the desires of Obama’s homosexual bundlers. Mr. Sullivan’s “gaydar” is impeccable! The cover of Newsweek featured a photo of Barack Obama, above his head a rainbow-hued halo; below his saintly image was the title “The First Gay President.” Mr. Sullivan had no illusions:

“There was, of course, cold politics behind it. One in six of Obama’s fundraising bundlers is gay, and he needs their money. Wall Street has not backed him financially this year the way it did in 2008. A few Jewish donors have held back over Israel. And when Obama announced recently that he would not issue an executive order barring antigay discrimination for federal contractors, the gay donors all but threatened to leave him high and dry. The unity and intensity of the gay power brokers – absent in the defensive crouch of the Clinton years – proved that FDR’s maxim still applied: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.’”

So, Obama has been purchased. Cynical political calculation and Obama’s peculiar upbringing also contributed to Obama’s “evolution” on the legitimization of homosexual behaviors. Obama was losing the youth vote. Mr. Sullivan observes:

“If money was one factor making the move necessary, the youth vote – essential to his demographic coalition and overwhelmingly pro-marriage equality – clinched the logic of it. The under-30s were looking worryingly apathetic, especially compared with 2008. This would fire them back up. And by taking a position directly counter to that of Mitt Romney, who favors a constitutional amendment to ban all rights for gay couples across the entire country, Obama advanced his key strategy to winning in the fall: to make this a choice election. If it is a choice election, he wins. If it is a referendum on the last four years of economic crisis, he could lose.”

Exactly! Obama had ruined the American economy and he needed to change the subject. Obama was also in danger of losing the stupid vote. Youngsters were soft on gay marriage, but polls revealed that these same youngsters wildly overestimated the number of homosexuals in America. These little fools were offering estimates in the 25 to 30 percent range – far above the tiny and factual 2.8%. Would the kids be so enthusiastic once they understood how few gays there were in the world and how few of those few gays had any desire to be trapped in the straight-people institution of marriage? Maybe not, but by that time the election would be a done deal.

Andrew Sullivan re-imagined Barack Obama as America’s First Gay President in the same loose fashion that Toni Morrison re-imagined Bill Clinton as America’s First Black President:

“Barack Obama had come out of a different closet. He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family . . .”

This was not wonderful news to black Americans. They had voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008 and also for California’s Proposition 8 which defined marriage in the California Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. Now Barack was kicking sand in their faces because the homosexuals had deeper pockets – the blacks weren’t paying Barack enough.

Team Obama has filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing for the abolishment of Prop. 8. The Court may give a decision narrowly focused on the California Constitution or it may overturn every state constitutional amendment in America that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in effect trashing the traditional definition of marriage and replacing it with novel marriage parodies.

The Advocate, a gay-interest magazine, published a list of Obama’s bundlers that included the gay Los Angeles attorney Dana Perlman, interior designer Michael S. Smith, HBO executive James Costos, Chicago Cubs co-owner Laura Ricketts, and Lambda Legal board member Tim Gill and his partner Scott Miller. The Advocate’s list of “Obama Power Gays” included Sally Sussman ($500,000+), activist Kevin Jennings ($50,000 - $100,000), and Texas philanthropist Eugene Sepulveda ($500,000+). Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, gave Obama between $100,000 and $200,000.

Obama’s sudden announcement of support came less than 48 hours after gays threatened to withhold their donations. Abrupt changes of direction are an Obama hallmark. He had denounced Super PACs as “shadowy groups with harmless sounding names” that pose “a threat to our democracy,” only to renounce his opposition to Democrat Super PACs such as Priorities USA, which raised enormous sums from anonymous donors. Obama had pledged to fund his campaigns through public campaign financing, only to reject public financing and embrace private and often secretive fundraising.

The Gill Foundation created by desktop publishing software magnate Tim Gill, has disclosed its donations of over $118 million in grants, about 80 percent of which went to activists who advocate on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the so-called transgendered. At least 64 of those grants in excess of $10,000 were given specifically to promote “marriage equality.” Tim Gill is chairman of the Gill Action Fund, an activist group with 501(c)(4) status that allows the group to spend without limit on legislative campaigns. This is the dream status of the gay carpetbaggers. Through 2010, the Gill Action Fund splashed $7.9 million across more than 20 states to purchase political friends and promote homosexual wedlock.

Terry Bean was the first self-admitted homosexual fundraiser to serve on Obama’s campaign finance committee. Bean is chairman of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation; he ingratiated himself to Obama by bundling between $200,000 and $500,000 for our president. Under Bean’s leadership the Holmes Foundation sank about $3.2 million into the gay agenda. New York City public-relations guru Jeff Soref bundled between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama. Soref sits on two foundation boards, both of which lavish grants on the gay agenda. The list goes on and on.

Back in 2004, Barack Obama declared, “I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” But, as we have seen, for enough money Barack Obama will change his “religious beliefs” to whatever is most expeditious or fashionable. After Obama flipped and became a player on the gay team, Sean Eldridge, senior advisor to Freedom to Marry, who has shared many lingering chats with Barack, announced that “Now that [Obama has] come out in full support . . . gay and lesbian activists are all in now, on every level.”

The President of the United States is now an advocate for the entire homosexual political agenda to transform America. In the days immediately following his endorsement of one-sex wedlock, Obama doubled down on his effort to attract sexually deviant donors. Obama’s social calendar was suddenly gay-centric. Obama now relies on a network of rich homosexuals to solicit donations at a constellation of very exclusive parties and social gatherings. The Center for Responsive Politics has identified 14 homosexual-agenda activists who have collectively raked in $3.3 million for Obama. The gay couple Ryan Murphy and David Miller hosted a $40,000-a-plate dinner for Obama at their Los Angeles home. Any guest who committed to giving Obama a quarter million dollars for his reelection was promised the title of ‘co-host’ of this fundraiser. Barack Obama was thrilled to attend the Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgendered Leadership Council’s gala in Beverly Hills where tickets to see Pink perform went for $25,000 a pop.

The Origin of the Gay Bagmen

The tactical dimensions of today’s gay political program were first detailed by Harvard graduates Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (aka Erastes Pill). They shared a knowledge of human psychology and mass marketing technique. Together they collaborated on three gay manifestos: The Gay Agenda (1985), The Overhauling of Straight America (1987) and After the Ball (1989).

Their ’87 work was a six-point script for how gays should exploit the media in a concerted effort to desensitize normal humans to homosexual behaviors. Gays were instructed to conceal the truth about homosexual behavior and to “muddy the moral waters.” This queer-theory duo admonished their acolytes to “talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible” and to “portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” They looked forward to the later days of their campaign, which is today, when “it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.”

Step 6 of their plan to “overhaul” heterosexual America is a call for all gays to solicit funds. : “Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years – an unprecedented fundraising drive.” They called it a “war chest.”

Kirk and Madsen wildly overestimated the number of homosexuals in America at a possible “15 million” and noted that if each gay contributed only two dollars they would be doing well. Today’s gay network is awash in cash; the Human Rights Campaign alone has an annual budget of $30 million, which is everything Kirk and Madsen had hoped for. They noted, hopefully, that “. . . because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.” And they do, many millions more.

Now a money-hungry Barack Obama tightens his grip on power by pandering to well-heeled donors with abnormal sexual appetites and a destructive social agenda. The Democrat Party is now the party of Gay Power. Today every political candidate is either tempted or threatened by carpet-bagging gays who will infiltrate and tip any election campaign anywhere in America in their effort to purchase legislators who will reward them with votes for homosexual wedlock or special privileges and protections for the sexually abnormal. That’s how “gay marriage” was legalized in New York State.

The result is corrupted elections in which candidates who do not share the moral values or the best social interests of the voters in their districts are able to swamp their opponents with slick and misleading media campaigns financed by faraway millionaire homosexuals and shadowy political action committees with no spending limits and secret donor lists, thereby depriving the people of that district of the representation an uncorrupted election would have given them.

Thomas Clough
Copyright 2013
March 11, 2013