Amazon Gets More Smileage Out of SPLC
Apparently, the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t going to let a few dozen allegations of racism and sexual harassment get in the way of some good, old-fashioned fundraising.
Apparently, the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t going to let a few dozen allegations of racism and sexual harassment get in the way of some good, old-fashioned fundraising. As far as board chairman Bryan Fair is concerned, it’s business as usual at the “Poverty Palace.” The hate machine, he assures donors, isn’t slowing down just because the group’s credibility is in tatters. So, if you’d like to send a nice little gift to an organization ravaged by scandal, he knows the perfect place.
So much for a moment of soul-searching and self-reflection. SPLC isn’t missing a beat of its war against conservatives. In a memo published by the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard, Fair tries to reassure supporters that this “highly profitable scam,” as one former employee called it, wasn’t going to let its own hate stop them from pointing the fingers at others. Before a long list of the group’s regularly scheduled targets, Fair insists that these 25 years of documented bigotry were just a “workplace challenge.” Don’t worry, he coos, the organization has already dealt with it by hiring Obama crony (and suspected Jussie Smollett meddler) Tina Tchen.
“As I said at the start of this letter,” Fair writes, “I serve on the SPLC’s board of directors because I believe in the work and I believe in the staff.” Then in a classic SPLC move, he pivots away from the group’s own cancerous prejudice to the “real” threat: conservatives. “Given the rising tide of hate and given the callousness of the Trump administration, our work is as critical as ever. I can assure you that we will continue to work as hard as we can to combat the forces of hate and bigotry and to seek justice for the most marginalized people in our country.” My suggestion to Fair is that he start within the hallways of the poverty palace!
At least for now, the media shows no interest in helping SPLC dig out from this latest disgrace. Every editorial page in the country seems to be bleeding disgust at the shame the organization is bringing on their shared cause. The SPLC is “everything that’s wrong with liberalism,” fumed Nathan Robinson in Current Affairs. “It was hypocritical in the extreme, preaching anti-racism while fostering a racist internal culture and being led by men whose own commitment to equality was questionable. It didn’t care about listening to and incorporating the viewpoints of the people it was supposed to serve. It was obscenely rich in a time of terrible poverty and squandered much its considerable wealth.” Most importantly, he argues, “it picked the wrong political targets, and focused on symbolic over substantive change.”
But as outraged as the mainstream media seems to be, several corporate giants have been conspicuously silent about the organization they trusted to purge “haters.” When the Daily Caller approached Amazon about taking back the power it gave SPLC over its charity program, the company refused to even reply. Reporter Peter Hasson was curious about the status of the partnership, since, as he points out, “AmazonSmile has raised more than $100 million for charitable causes — but participation in the program is dependent on the SPLC’s approval.”
The SPLC can’t even police its own hate! How could Amazon possibly trust it to detect others’? So far, the only thing SPLC has done is use its veto power to boot mainstream groups like Alliance Defending Freedom from the program. “We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” an Amazon spokeswoman said last year. No questions asked. When pressed for an explanation, she said, “because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever.”
If it’s bias they’re worried about, then what on earth are they doing with an organization ravaged by discrimination charges? A workplace with a culture so toxic that the Montgomery Advisor quoted a Harvard Law grad who couldn’t name “a single black employee” who was happy working there. Of 13 black former employees the Advertiser contacted, 12 had said they “either experienced or observed racial problems inside the law center… Three said they heard racial slurs, three likened the center to a plantation, and two said they had been treated better at predominantly white corporate law firms.”
Board members can spin the decades of corruption all they want, but the truth is out. And anyone who ignores it will be held responsible. Because then they’ll all be part of the con — and we’ll know it.
Originally published here.
Privacy Takes a Dive on Local Swim Team
She wanted to swim on the boys’ team. So, Coon Rapids High tried to do what was best for everyone: it compromised. Turns out, in this brave new world where fantasy trumps reality, that wasn’t enough. The girl who wants to be a boy is suing the school. All because they tried to accommodate her.
Like a lot of districts, Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin is in an impossible position. The war between transgender activists and every other student is getting fiercer by the moment. Coon Rapids High was sure it had a solution to please everyone. Instead of forcing a girl to use her own locker room — or making teenage boys uncomfortable by letting her roam free in theirs — they built her a place of her own. Spending who-knows-how-much money, the district constructed an “enhanced” locker room in 2016 for her exclusive use, near the boys’ locker room but still separate from it.
After going to all the trouble of keeping other students safe — while still meeting her needs — Anoka-Hennepin is still being taken to court. According to the ACLU of Minnesota and Gender Justice, Coon Rapids is somehow discriminating against the girl by letting her have her own special space. Earlier this week, the state’s Department of Human Rights piled on, announcing that it was joining the lawsuit because “because equal access to public schools for all students, including transgender and gender nonconforming students, is a civil right protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act.” Deputy Commissioner Irina Vaynerman argued that this girl shouldn’t have been singled out. “School districts should have policies and procedures that enable all students to thrive, free from discrimination.”
The district, who must feel like it’s in a no-win situation, fired back that the goal is “to ensure that all students feel safe and comfortable.” Everything, they explain, is decided on a case-by-case basis. “Plans for accommodation for restroom and locker room use are made in consultation with school building administrators, the Title IX coordinator, and superintendent.”
Of course, their frustration — and most everyone else’s — is that this was a perfectly acceptable solution. Coon Rapids managed to grant the girl’s wishes without putting the boys in an uncomfortable situation. But the truth is, the other side isn’t interested in compromises. They think their right to self-actualize trumps anyone else’s right to privacy. They’d rather force other people into embarrassing situations than accept an accommodation that meets everyone’s needs.
We’ve seen this same upside-down logic play out in locker rooms and restrooms around the country. Teenagers like Alexis Lightcap and so many others don’t understand why society has decided that the rights of the 99.9 percent are irrelevant. “Schools can and should be compassionate in supporting students who experience gender dysphoria. So should other students. But… an effective policy would be one that secures the privacy of every student — which is nothing more than what every parent and student has a right to expect.”
Unfortunately for the parents in the Anoka-Hennepin district, this has all been one long nightmare. Back in 2012, when the families banded together to fight SPLC’s pro-LGBT curriculum in schools, the group added them to its ridiculous catalogue of “haters.” Even the Obama Department of Justice got involved, smearing the parents in hopes of silencing them on the next ruckus like this one.
For now, Anoka-Hennepin’s story ought to be a warning to everyone of what’s lurking around the corner of the Equality Act. Liberals would be quite content putting whole populations at risk for a tiny minority of students who have a fleeting flirtation with another gender. Believe it or not, there are 239 House cosponsors who are willing to launch a transgender war on women. “It’s a proposal worth taking seriously,” Abigail Shrier warns in the Wall Street Journal. Why? “Because it provides a glimpse of the Left’s willingness to sacrifice women and girls to those wolves in sheep’s clothing — transgender or not — who would take advantage of them.” And schools, unfortunately, are just the beginning.
Originally published here.
Pastoring the Modern-day Issues
Most Christians worry about the pushback of sharing their values at work or in school, but at church? Well, according to a new survey from the Barna Group, some pastors feel the same pressure. It’s not an easy job navigating today’s culture — even in the place it should be safest.
Nearly three in 10 pastors (27 percent) think it’s gotten harder to speak from the pulpit about moral and social issues. And when they’re asked which topic gives them the most trouble, the answer is almost always sexuality and same-sex marriage. That’s not to say that church leaders don’t want to talk about the moral struggles of the day, but they certainly agree the stakes are high.
That’s just one of the findings in the new “Faith Leadership in a Divided Culture” report, a 101-page analysis of what U.S. pastors and clergy think about the state of religion in an increasingly political world. Church leaders, who watched Barack Obama’s eight-year siege on the First Amendment, seem more acutely aware of the threat than anyone. Three-quarters of them say religious freedom is “becoming less valued,” while 43 percent of everyday adults say it’s worse off now than 10 years ago. Not surprisingly, these beliefs are “especially intense” among Catholics, who had a front-row seat for the destruction under the last administration’s health care mandates and social service crackdowns.
In the three years since Obergefell redefined marriage, the clash with special LGBT rights is most church leaders’ primary concern when it comes to religious freedom. “Though most clergy feel as though legal same-sex marriage was inevitable, they are committed to actively resisting and reversing it while defending their right to refuse performing same-sex weddings. Overall, they feel somewhat prepared to address a number of LGBT-related issues, but are skeptical of the possibility of advancing LGBT rights while protecting religious freedom, viewing them as mostly incompatible objectives.”
But as much as they’re keeping a watchful eye on the First Amendment debate, it ranks third on their list of worries. Keeping young people from dropping out of church (72 percent) is first, followed by the decline of the natural family (65 percent).
The bottom line? Leading a church is hard work in these turbulent times. Here at FRC, we want to make pastors’ jobs a little easier, at least when it comes to engaging the culture. If you’re a church leader, we encourage you to get involved with our Watchmen on the Wall ministry and link arms with other spiritual warriors across the country who are committed to speaking into the debate in such a time as this. Our national conference is coming up next month here in Washington, D.C. To find out more information about that or how you can get connected without our Watchmen network, check out the website.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
