The US has a special sauce. Of the major inventions — the telephone, radio, TV, computers, utilization of space, etc. – Americans have either invented or commercialized the vast majority. This sauce – the ingredients of which are still debated but include employment based on merit and attempts at maximal efficiency — led to the world’s largest economy and US hegemony.

But something new is afoot, something that threatens US hegemony, maybe even America itself. We all remember how disturbing it was to find out that the federal government was spending millions all over the world to support various LGBT projects, especially within the US Agency for International Development. Below is AI evidence that we are also being taxed at local and state levels to advance homosexuality:

• New York City is allocating nearly $14 million toward gender-affirming care and other critical housing and employment resources for its LGBTQ community as part of the 115.9 $B 2026 city budget. According to council members and advocates, the funding marks the city’s largest-ever budget investment specifically targeted toward transgender and gender nonconforming New Yorkers. ‘It’s historic,’ said Kei Williams, who leads the NEW Pride Agenda, which advocates for LGBTQ rights across New York state. ‘New York City just made a nation-leading, life-saving investment that no other city, no other state, has done at a moment where transgender people are directly under attack.’
• In Boston, $200,000 is reserved from the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Advancement; plus 45 “Beyond Pride” grants, plus a $50,000 Gender Affirming Identity Document & Emergency Assistance grant.
• In New York’s budget, there is $15 million for transgender and non-binary wellness and equity; 1.8 million for LGBTQ+ youth crisis services.
• California’s 2025-26 budget includes 20 million for the TGI Wellness and equity fund which includes $15,000,000 for mental health services, youth programs, cultural competency training, and resettlement. Restoration of nearly 60 million dollars of public health funding includes support for LGBTQ foster youth and LBTQ Women’s Health equity initiatives, and $6 million for legal defense services, including protecting LGBTQ civil rights.
• Massachusetts has a specific budget line for the LGBT Commission: $1.6 million in FY2026. It’s for the commission on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning youth, used to address issues related to the state’s anti-bullying law. There are also smaller earmarks in the FY2026 budget for LGBTQ-related organizations, including $75,000 for the Southcoast LGBTQ Network, $25,000 for the North Shore Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth, and $100,000 for LGBTQ Senior Housing Inc.
• Dallas LGBTQ-related support seems to fall under broader “cultural equity” and equity programs rather than listed as its own LGBT line item. The Office of Arts and Culture was given $20.6 million, and the budget supports cultural celebrations including Pride.

Before LGBTs were given special rights and extra tax money they were more apt to be mentally and physically unhealthy, more socially disruptive (e.g., more criminal, more violent, more apt to rape, more apt to molest children, etc.), and more apt to utilize welfare. After these special rights and tax monies, LGBTs are still more apt to be mentally and physically unhealthy, more socially disruptive, etc., etc.

Christopher Rufo and Austen Hufford [City Journal 6/16/26] documented how Democrat politicians have used the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct 1.5% of the $43 billion (e.g., ~$633 million) spent by California’s utilities in 2024 to gay-owned businesses. Democrat politicians — who control California’s government — believe those who need utilities should pay extra to promote ‘diversity’ and homosexuality.

This scheme started in 1996 when “Governor Deukmejian [required] certain CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual ‘plans’ for buying goods and services from woman- and [non-white-owned] companies. Two years later, CPUC created its ‘Supplier Diversity Program,’ setting contracting goals for large utilities. In 2014, “Governor Jerry Brown [gay?] signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize ‘LGBT-owned businesses’ as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits. Five years later, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded the program … ‘encouraging’ other companies … to award contracts to gay-owned firms.” “By 2022, CPUC had fully implemented the expansion…[which] meant establishing a ‘goal’ for utility companies with annual revenues exceeding $25 million to buy things from state-certified LGBT businesses: 1.5 percent in 2024 and beyond.” If these “goals” were met in 2024, they would have sent ~$633 million to LGBT-owned firms. Currently, these diversity awards are divided so that an extra 15% of this ‘diversity tax’ also goes to non-white-owned firms; 5% to those owned by women; 1.5% to disabled-veteran-owned firms; and 1.5% to LGBT-owned firms. This quasi-extorted/quasi-volunteer ‘diversity tax’ might add an extra 26% to a utility-users’ bill.

Rufo and Hufford detailed how Mary Ann Horton took advantage of these programs. “Horton is a white male who transitioned to be a woman [he has neither a vagina, nor any female internal organs, just Horton’s declaration]. The application process, Horton said, required ‘a mess of documentation.’ To prove that his business was ‘lesbian-owned,’ Horton sent Supplier Clearinghouse [required to receive some of the ‘diversity semi-tax’] a domestic-partner affidavit. To establish that the business was woman-owned, Horton submitted a birth certificate, which had been reissued in Washington State post-transition.” To prove transgender status, Horton filed a therapist carry-letter, a document from a medical professional certifying transgender identity [which simply requires a statement that ‘Horton believes’].”

Whites, men, and straights are second-class in California. Only those belonging to the right classes (non-White, ‘being’ female, engaging in homosexuality, or pretending to be the opposite sex) deserve special benefits. Those who fall into the unfavored classes are less worthy [and don’t get special funding].

On a side note, I recently employed an electrician from Denver. He said he had serviced a gay residence that ended up having a party. Just as he was leaving, he was invited to join it. As he started to take some dip, one of the gays tried to grab his penis. The electrician slapped him. As you might expect, he was fired. At the same time, he was told he was not even supposed to be working there since the Denver gay community had resolved to only spend its money on gay service people to keep homosexual money within the community and not benefit their straight oppressors. In 1987, Los Angeles homosexuals published the Gay Yellow Pages for the same reason. Should states and cities be allowed to advantage those who they consider ‘oppressed?’

Traditional critiques of homosexuality are lacking. Intensive investigations of homosexual nest creation [US ~1950; Germany ~1940] occurred when homosexual activity was illegal. Imagine how much power and money might be diverted to promoting homosexuality when it is not only legal but favored!

Another aspect of homosexuality appears to be new rather than part of tradition: when LGBT individuals get access to allocating tax monies, they make sure some of it goes toward advancing homosexuality! Even as gays have no qualms about commandeering public restrooms for their sexual activities, LGBTs may have no qualms about commandeering public funds for homosexuality. No matter the city, state, or country where the LGBTs might access tax monies, they often land far afield, supporting those pushing homosexuality in Africa, or smaller cities or countries.

The liberal-on-homosexuality states (e.g., CA, OR, CO, WA, IL, NY, NJ, MA, etc.), try to hire LGBTs, have access to revenue that might be redirected to advance homosexuality, and have bureaucracies to manage the various programs (and offer positions in them for gays to replace normals with LGBTs and build the gay nests that weaken or eliminate merit-based advancement). These states apparently take federal funds as well as their own taxes to favor homosexual endeavors and causes. Should tax monies – be directed toward those whom the city or state favors? If race-based biases are unconstitutional, is not pro-LGBT bias by states and cities also Constitutionally-forbidden?

Six decades ago, it was illegal to engage in homosexuality. Five decades ago, it was a shame. Now, following the lead of ‘mental health experts,’ we have allowed homosexuality to become not only normalized, but advantageous, with tax dollars flying into LGBT wallets. All this, as survey after survey finds that LGBTs continue to be more apt to be disabled, physically unhealthy, mentally disturbed, criminal, on welfare, etc. as well as more likely to molest children. Indeed, it is difficult to find a personal or social pathology or defect that LGBTs do not suffer, display, or do. LGBTs are troubled folk doing troubling things. Yet they receive more city, state, and federal protections. They also get more city, state, and federal money.

It seems highly likely that many of these city and state policies are being driven and implemented by LGBTs within the city and state bureaucracies. After all, thousands were found federally employed when homosexuality was illegal in the 1940s and 1950s. Now that they are favored, they are likely to be even more numerous, dense, and ‘in substantial control [remember that Congress cedes a great deal of the ‘law’ into the hands of the bureaucrats that will ‘manage’ and ‘implement’ a given law (e.g., Nancy Pelosi saying ‘we will see what the law says when we get to read it’). Bureaucrats at every level have tremendous power thanks to legislative bodies ceding it to them. They also have an inherent motive to stretch things out and strongly enforce seemingly minor regulations – the longer it takes and the more hurtles in the way, the longer the bureaucracy endures, the larger it becomes, and the more power it wields. If the given bureaucracy is LGBT-populated, the chances it is doing more harm than good increases [consider Los Angeles’ rebuilding from last year’s fire, no matter what politicians promise, the bureaucracies involved are well aware of their power, and exercise it behind regulations and laws that almost assure they cannot be hurried or fired — while fewer than a few score are rebuilt].

The above list of taxes being diverted toward growing LGBTs around the world is a sampling. Will the USA survive if it prioritizes hiring LGBTs and uses tax monies to fund them and their efforts at recruitment? Especially, since the LGBT revolution is already associated with rapid growth in youth saying they are LGBT, shrinking marriage rates, and declining births?