Richmond Fed: Letting Its Glee Flag Fly

by: michael r. shannon | published: 06 24, 2011

One of the positive benefits of smaller government is the consequent reduction in taxpayer–funded prevarication. The private sector will produce plenty of liars without government help.

Case in point is Jeffrey M. Lacker, Richmond Virginia Federal Reserve Bank president. Del. Bob Marshall (R–Prince William, VA) requested Lacker remove the homosexual lobby’s rainbow flag currently flying in front of the bank. The flag celebrates “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Deviancies to Be Named Later Month.”

Marshall pointed out that “a flagpole in front of a federal building is not a commercial or political message board.” And that Congress created the Fed to “contribute to the strength and vitality of the U.S. economy.”

Public support of sexual activity is obviously far outside the bank’s charter, unless one believes combating the phrase “queer as a three–dollar bill” will provide a boost to the economy.

In response, Lacker claimed flying the flag supports its employees and is not a political or social statement. Which is, of course, a lie.

There are a number of ways a company can discretely support alternate–lifestyle employees without putting a thumb in Middle America’s eye. For example, pin a poster up in the break room, right next to the hand sanitizer dispenser where everyone will see it. Circulate a memo. Organize an after work party at Richmond’s ‘Club Hush.’ Attach a rainbow balloon to the sneeze guard that protects the arugula. Sponsor an outing to an AIDs hospice or even award a free subscription to the New York Times.

What you don’t do is run a patently political banner up the flagpole to see who salutes. By way of contrast, does the Richmond Fed fly a manger flag at Christmas?

Good grief! What am I thinking? What I meant was: Does the Fed fly a snowman flag during the winter holidays?

The Federal Reserve likes to consider itself a quasi–governmental agency. This means it has all the advantages of a government–run organization — lack of accountability, immunity from market forces, access to taxpayer dollars and control over the citizenry — without any of the disadvantages, like elections.

The fact is, just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Fed can claim ‘quasi” all it likes, but when something goes wrong taxpayers will own the problem lock, stock and “pride” flag.

Which is why taxpayers, and their representatives, should have some say about what gets run up the flagpole.

Still, we can be glad (not GLADD) that the Fed is not as ambitious as the USDA, which evidently is ready to open re–education camps for conservative Christians and supporters of traditional morals.

The US Department of Agriculture (Motto: Fighting Famine Since 1862) evidently believes that since most of us are now obese and food no longer appears to be a problem, the USDA should concentrate on expanding its “intense brand” of homosexual indoctrination into the rest of the federal government.

According to the Washington Times, while the Fed is content with a bit of flag flapping, USDA seeks lavender domination by using the Office of Personnel Management to impose what is essentially brainwashing and self–criticism classes (who said Mao was unfashionable?) on every other government agency, quasi or otherwise.

I can certainly see how the sexual practice of farm animals comes under the purview of USDA, but adding humans appears to be mission creep.

USDA homosexual sensitivity training is adamantly opposed to traditional marriage and goes so far as to imply that people who support male–female marriage are bigots guilty of “heterosexism.”

This puts the “Oh!” back in Orwellian.

It redefines the approval of 4,000 or so years of normal behavior as the equivalent of hate. I would venture to say a class of individuals pathologically obsessed with broadcasting their sexual practices and demanding affirmation from people who do not approve of their choices could be in need of some from of intervention, but that’s just me.

You could also ask why taxpayer dollars are being spent on an indoctrination program that the vast majority of taxpayers do not support? But then you would have to justify the IRS, too.

You could even ask why Republican presidential candidates are always urged by the media and elites to “avoid divisive social issues” while government agencies are applauded for jumping into the fray in the most objectionable way possible?

Make no mistake, the goal here is not “tolerance.” The alternate activist’s ultimate aim appears to be controlling our thoughts, speech and opinions with regard to their place in society with no room for deviation — a goal I haven’t been able to achieve in my own household.

No wonder columnist Mike Adams refers to them as the “Gaystapo.”

add a comment