Mixing Business With Pressure
Inside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, workers are already ripping up the ancient teal carpet. By summer, the outside columns will be covered in scaffolding — part of an expensive renovation project meant to give the 100-year-old headquarters a new look. But as far as most conservatives are concerned, the Chamber’s real transformation was already well underway: a radical makeover that’s gone beyond what the building looks like — to what it stands for.
Inside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, workers are already ripping up the ancient teal carpet. By summer, the outside columns will be covered in scaffolding — part of an expensive renovation project meant to give the 100-year-old headquarters a new look. But as far as most conservatives are concerned, the Chamber’s real transformation was already well underway: a radical makeover that’s gone beyond what the building looks like — to what it stands for.
According to the Washington Post, the Chamber is tired of aligning with Republicans and wants to “rebuild” as a more inclusive brand. “We cannot just single-source our politics through one party,” says Tom Wilson, chairman of the organization’s board. It’s time, he insists, to “fundamentally act differently.” That mission has certainly been accomplished in the last handful of years, as the Chamber wades into radical social policies that are increasingly dividing the business community.
In its latest charm offensive to Democrats, the Chamber seemed to make the break with conservatives official — stunning everyone with its endorsement of the most extreme piece of LGBT activism ever introduced: the Equality Act. For an organization whose sole purpose is to protect American enterprise, the move came as a shock to anyone familiar with the oppressive realities of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) H.R. 5. The whole point of the Chamber, FRC’s Peter Sprigg points out, is to “advocate for pro-business policies that create jobs and grow our economy.” Their website even lists “regulatory relief” as a priority issue. So why, Peter asks, would they send a letter to Congress asking, in effect, “Please regulate us more!”
Instead of giving businesses the freedom to set their own policies on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” the Chamber of Congress thinks the government should force them to adopt restroom policies as unsafe as Target’s. And under this bill, U.S. businesses wouldn’t just be punished for having gender-specific restrooms or showers, they’d also be hauled into court over hiring practices, dress codes, insurance coverage — anything that doesn’t give a unique advantage to people who identify as gay or transgender.
If a day care wants its staff to dress like their biological sex, too bad! If a small family store doesn’t have the money to cover an $89,050 gender reassignment surgery, their loss. Worried about the legal fees for workplace disputes or the cost of a gender-free facility overhaul? Get in line. If the Equality Act passes, the government will be able to dictate what people believe — and torment those who don’t submit. How’s that for the “free” market?
That’s the irony of this debate. The corporate elites who’ve been blinded by this rainbow are actually lobbying for less freedom for themselves. The Chamber of Commerce, like the big wigs at Apple, Google, and others, are demanding conformity on an issue that people should be deciding with their own dollars. If consumers don’t like what a company stands for, they can shop elsewhere! If these politically-correct policies are benefiting LGBT-friendly businesses as much as the Chamber says they are, then why “invite the heavy hand of government to intervene?”
If organizations like the Chamber won’t count the moral costs of H.R. 5, then maybe they’ll count the financial ones. Some LGBT activists, Peter writes, “argue that gender-identity laws benefit the economy as a whole. We can test that proposition empirically. Twenty of the 50 states already have sexual orientation-gender identity laws for employment, public accommodations, and housing [very similar what the Equality Act would impose nationally]. Do those 20 states have an economic advantage over the 30 states that have declined to adopt such laws? The answer, in brief, is no.”
“CNBC published a ‘scorecard on state economic climate’ in July 2018, ranking ‘America’s Top States for Business.’ Six of the 20 highest-ranked states had such laws — but so did nine of the twenty lowest-ranked ones. Forbes published its own list of ‘Best States for Business’ in November 2018. Of the top seven states, not one had full protections, and only four of the top 13 had them. So did eight of the bottom 13.”
Employment numbers tell a similar story — so do population migrations and the American GDP. There is absolutely no evidence that the Equality Act will help the economy. There is, on the other hand, piles of it proving what most conservatives already know: true freedom is what leads to economic growth. When the Chamber of Commerce needed allies in the fights against taxes and government reform, do you think they called liberal politicians? Of course not. They leaned on the same conservatives they’re betraying in this debate. If Big Business wants to be a willing hostage of LGBT activists and abandon the principles that make companies successful, be our guest. But these same CEOs had better not come knocking when their profits are on the line — not if they’re just going to spend them attacking the conservatives’ values.
Originally published here.
Library Borrows Trouble with Drag Queen Criminal
After closing the book on “Drag Queen Story Hour,” there’s already talk of bringing Houston’s controversial library event back. A month and a half after organizers announced they were taking a break from the program after a child molester was caught reading to kids, the city might actually consider an encore. Good luck persuading parents, MassResistance says. Because if there’s anything worse than one sex offender getting access to children — it’s two!
That’s right. According to new documents, a second Houston Public Library Drag Queen “was convicted of multiple sexual assaults against young children.” The man, who MassResistance identified as William Travis Dees, has a history of sexually abusing four kids (ages 4, 5, 6, and 8) and is listed, LifeSiteNews reports, “as a high-risk sex offender.”
“It’s becoming clear that the outrages we’re exposing are not an anomaly, but more likely the norm — not only in Houston, but probably around the country,” the organization warns. At a press release explaining the program’s second criminal offender, MassResistence talked about Dees’ jail time and his graphic history (which he describes in his own words in “What I learned as a Trans Dominatrix”). Amazingly, this new development got very little coverage from the local press. And while the Dees’ story was picked up by a local Fox affiliate, the group was surprised to see that the segment was later removed from the TV station’s website.
If the city’s activists were hoping to resurrect the program, one thing’s for sure: this certainly doesn’t help their cause. Area church leaders had already been meeting with local leaders to fight the use of Houston resources in promoting such inappropriate events. Now we know: they aren’t just inappropriate — but dangerous too! If these absurd story hours are happening at your local library, take a page from the Houston Area Pastors Council and get involved. Help organize protests or contact city officials. Ask the local council to host a listening session with nearby families. No parent should have to worry about their kids being exposed to sex criminals a taxpayer-funded library!
Originally published here.
Born Debate Very Much Alive in Left
“No, we’re not — you are!” So far, that seems to sum up the far-Left’s best defense against President Trump. In the infanticide debate, where the White House is leaning into one of the greatest areas of American consensus in years, Democrats are scrambling for some foothold — any foothold — to explain away their extremism. And their latest attempt — accusing the president of “inciting violence” — just might take the cake.
It takes a powerful dose of cruelty to stand at the table of a newborn baby and argue she has no right to live. Democrats have been making that case for the last four months at every level of government, and the wear and tear is finally starting to show. With even their own party lined up against them, liberals have been desperately looking for some way to justify the horribly inhumane agenda they’ve been pushing. They’ve trotted out nurses to say infanticide doesn’t happen; moms who testify that some fetal abnormality gave them no choice; and even politicians like Hillary Clinton who say the “one percent” of children isn’t enough to worry about.
A quarter of a year into this debate, nothing the Democrats are selling seems to stick. So, they’re doing what they do best: attacking Trump. Over the weekend, when the president made his pro-life plea to Congress a centerpiece of the Wisconsin rally, he didn’t miss an opportunity to point out what the Left is advocating. Taking on the latest governor, Tony Evers (D-Wisc.) to buck 82 percent of voters, the president reiterated what these politicians are standing for. “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so. It’s incredible.”
In the handful of days since Saturday, liberals have seized on the president’s statement, sending bogus fact-checkers to parse the meaning of the word “execute” as if that somehow changes the reality of what Democrats are defending. In the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg actually made the astonishing accusation that President Trump — not the party lobbying for the killing of newborn babies — was the violent one.
“Besides their potential to inspire violence,” Goldberg argues, “Trump’s words are a cruel insult to parents who have to make agonizing decisions about end-of-life care for babies that are born extremely prematurely, or with serious anomalies. Doctors and mothers don’t choose to ‘execute’ newborns. They are forced to decide, in excruciating situations when to forgo medical interventions…” So it’s not an execution — it’s a “forgoing of medical intervention?” The president’s word choice makes people uncomfortable — and it should. It forces them to confront the barbarity of the situation. But like difference between a firing squad and lethal injection, the result is still the same. There’s nothing “bizarre and dangerous and insulting” about it — unless you’re the innocent child.
Goldberg insists the words of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) — who confirmed that infanticide happens — had been mischaracterized. That’s interesting, since even he has stood by them. At times, NRO’s Alexandra Desanctis points out, even doubling down on the horror. And while he didn’t say anything about “executing” infants, she writes, the reality is he’s “clearly condoning allowing at least some infants to die after birth if they were meant to have been aborted a few minutes earlier.”
Like a lot of extremists, Goldberg suggests that the point of these bills is to put Democrats in a “no-win situation.” Actually, the point of these bills is to save lives. She thinks that voting in favor of Born-Alive legislation that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to bring to the floor 33 times is to “concede the premise that these bills address something real.” Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!
Even if it weren’t common, as the Left would love everyone to believe, what’s the harm in addressing it again? None. The real harm is in not addressing it and leaving a 17-year-old law in place that’s powerless to stop the killing.
To make your voice heard, click over to our End Birth Day Abortion website and send Nancy Pelosi a newborn baby hat!
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
