What are all the big liberal corporations trying to protect in North Carolina?

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

So, North Carolina passed a law that says that in the state of North Carolina, people with male equipment have to use a male bathroom, and people with female equipment have to use a female bathroom.

Lots of corporations have come out against this law, as AMAC explains:

Here’s a list of companies that have come out against the newly signed law:

Salesforce, Bank of America, American Airlines, Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, PayPal, Google, Lowe’s Home Improvement, NBA, NCAA, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), Disney, ESPN, Marvel, Facebook, Charlotte Motor Speedway, BB&T Ballpark, Biogen, DOW Chemical Company, Citrix, Bayer, NC Policy Watch, IBM, Burt’s Bees, Duke University, Wake Forest University, SAS Institute.

And here is one typical response from one company – Pay Pal. The leftist Washington Post reports:

The backlash against a North Carolina law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people continued Tuesday, with PayPal saying it is abandoning plans to expand into Charlotte in response to the legislation.

This decision came just weeks after PayPal, the California-based online payments firm spun off from eBay, said it would open a global operations center in Charlotte, a move that state officials said would bring millions to the local economy and employ 400 people.

I note that Pay Pal does business in many, many countries where homosexuality is illegal, and many, many other countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. They aren’t making a fuss about those countries, though. They’re just making a fuss in North Carolina. That’s called hypocrisy, and most big corporations are actually like Pay Pal – not conservative in any way shape or form.

The WaPo article also notes:

This law could also cost the state federal funding. At least five federal agencies are debating whether to withhold money because of the law.

So, that’s what happens when you pay taxes to the federal government, and why we need to get the government out of anything that is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

The champion of the big pro-gay corporations

Anyway, now that we understand what those big corporations stand for, let’s take a look at who they are enabling. Let’s go to Canada, which is further down the road of sexual anarchy and moral relativism, and see how things are working out there.

Here is the article from the Toronto Sun:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

The judge said he imposed the indefinite prison sentence because there’s a great risk that Hambrook will commit more sex crimes and require strict supervision if he returns to the community.

[…]He noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

How could a man dress up as a woman and be allowed into a women’s space with women’s bathrooms and women’s showers?

Life Site News explains:

Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012.

[…]Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.

The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics.

And what did the transgender man do with that law? This:

[The] Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.

The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.

And you can see similar problems already in liberal states like Washington:

In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.

The Daily Wire reports that the University of Toronto, which is a city in the province of Ontario, is now partially reversing itself on their transgender agenda:

The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

Conservatives like me try to say that it’s a bad situation when men can walk into women’s change rooms, and walk around naked near women who are showering, going to the bathroom or changing clothes. But the big corporations disagree, they want biological men in women’s spaces, and all the better if clothes are coming on and off.  When the big corporations make these sorts of stands in favor of “inclusiveness” and “diversity”, it’s important to know what it is they really value. And what they don’t value, too.

In a previous post, I explained that the lead architect (pictured above) of the Charlotte legislation that allowed men to walk around naked in women’s bathrooms and showers was himself on a sex-offender registry. And that’s where all of these big corporations out to be put as well. On the sex-offender registry.

If socialism is so great, why are people moving from blue California to red Texas?

Migration from California to other states
Migration from California to other states – top 3 states are conservative states

A lot of young people seem to be really excited about socialism, and they want the United States to give it a try. They don’t know where socialism has been tried, and they don’t know what happens with it is tried. It just sounds nice to them.

Well, if you were going to pick one of the most socialist states in the United States, no one would fault you for picking California, where Democrats are running everything, and have been for a long time.

The Washington Free Beacon explains what happened next:

The number of Californians leaving the state and moving to Texas is at its highest level in nearly a decade, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.

According to IRS migration data, which uses individual income tax returns to record year-to-year address changes, over 250,000 California residents moved out of the state between 2013 and 2014, the latest period for which data was available. The tax returns reported more than $21 billion in adjusted gross income to the IRS.

Of the returns, 33,626 reported address changes from California to Texas, which has been the top destination for individuals leaving California since 2007. Californians who moved to Texas between 2013 and 2014 reported $2.19 billion in adjusted gross income.

[…]“California’s taxes and regulations are crushing businesses, and there are more opportunities in Texas for people to start new companies, get good jobs, and create better lives for their families,” said Nathan Nascimento, the director of state initiatives at Freedom Partners. “When tax and regulatory climates are bad, people will move to better economic environments—this phenomenon isn’t a mystery, it’s how marketplaces work. Not only should other state governments take note of this, but so should the federal government.”

According to Tom Gray of the Manhattan Institute, people may be leaving California for the employment opportunities, tax breaks, or less crowded living arrangements that other states offer.

“States with low unemployment rates, such as Texas, are drawing people from California, whose rate is above the national average,” Gray wrote. “Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs.”

“Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes,” Gray wrote. “States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates. The data suggest that may cost drivers—taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs—are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus.”

Just recently, I heard some of my Democrat co-workers laughing to each other about “trickle-down economics”, which is the “ridiculous” idea that if you allow businesses and workers to keep what they earn, then you’ll get more economic growth than if the government takes the money to study the drug use patterns of sex workers in the far East. Actually, we’ve been trying socialism-lite in this country for the past 7 years. How has it worked? Well, Obama has averaged 1.2% GDP growth through his presidency, far below average. And in order to get even that little growth, Obama will double the debt from 10 to 20 trillion in just 8 years.

Debt increase under Barack Obama
Debt increase under Barack Obama

But what about tax cuts? Do tax cuts create economic growth?

The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank describes the effects of the Bush tax cuts.

Excerpt:

President Bush signed the first wave of tax cuts in 2001, cutting rates and providing tax relief for families by, for example, doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.

At Congress’ insistence, the tax relief was initially phased in over many years, so the economy continued to lose jobs. In 2003, realizing its error, Congress made the earlier tax relief effective immediately. Congress also lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividends to encourage business investment, which had been lagging.

It was the then that the economy turned around. Within months of enactment, job growth shot up, eventually creating 8.1 million jobs through 2007. Tax revenues also increased after the Bush tax cuts, due to economic growth.

[…]The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
  • The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

Regarding the “Clinton economic boom”, that was caused by supply-sider Newt Gingrich passing tax cuts through the House and Senate. Bill Clinton merely signed the bills into law.

Very important to compare times and places where socialism has been tried to times and places where free enterprise and limited government have been tried. We know what works. It may not be what makes us feel smug, but we know what works.

Ted Cruz rides pro-life endorsements to huge 48.4 to 35.0 victory in Wisconsin

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I endorse Ted Cruz for President

Townhall reports that Ted Cruz got the endorsement from National Right to Life on Tuesday:

National Right to Life announced that they will be throwing their support behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the upcoming primaries. NRL believes that Cruz has a stronger pro-life record and credentials than Donald Trump, and also that he has the best chance to defeat Hillary Clinton.

An average of seven recent national political polls shows that Mr. Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 11.2%.

In those same seven polls, Sen. Cruz trails Mrs. Clinton by an average of 3%.

National Right to Life believes Sen. Cruz is the only candidate for president who has always been pro-life, who has a 100% pro-life voting record with National Right to Life, who can win the Republican nomination, and who can defeat pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in November.

National Right to Life was one of the many pro-life organizations that slammed Trump for his (since-rescinded) comments that women who have abortions should be punished.

That NRLC endorsement undoubtedly helped him to a 13-point victory over Donald Trump in Wisconsin, on Tuesday night:

Ted Cruz wins Wisconsin convincingly, setting the stage for a contested convention
Ted Cruz wins Wisconsin, which will likely lead to a contested convention

So why did Ted Cruz get this NRLC endorsement on Tuesday? I think it might have something to do with an answer that he gave to a tough abortion question from Megyn Kelly on Monday night. Cruz was asked about his opposition to rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life view. His answer sounded like something Scott Klusendorf would say.

The Daily Wire reports:

Stating his belief that all unborn children’s lives should be protected, Senator Ted Cruz expressed his opposition to exceptional access to abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Joining Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly for a town hall event in Madison on Monday, Cruz made a pitch to Wisconsin voters before the Badger’s State’s Republican primary on Tuesday.

“You don’t favor rape or an incest exception to abortion,” said Kelly, speculating that Cruz’s position on abortion might be “too far-right” for voters.

Recalling his former role as the Solicitor General for Texas, Cruz described his experience from the side of law enforcement in redressing rape.

“When it comes to rape, I’ve spent a lot of year in law enforcement. I was the Solicitor General for the state of Texas, and I have handled horrific cases of rape, people who had committed child rape. I went before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued in defense of state laws imposing capital punishment for the very worst of child rapists,” said Cruz.

Cruz then expressed the logically consistent position of opposition to abortion grounded in the belief that unborn children are persons entitled to the protections of life and security of person, opting not to carve out exceptions to this position for conceptions resulting from rape or incest.

“When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished, and punished severely. But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault, Said Cruz. “I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.”

Watch:

Are you ready to have that guy explain to the media and the public why the pro-life view makes sense? I am.

Ted Cruz is consistently pro-life. He’s not scared to defend the pro-life view that you or I would defend. He thinks his view is the right view, and he wants to defend the right view. He thinks that Roe v. Wade was a bad judicial decision, and he wants to go back to the way things were before that bad decision, such that each state would decide the life issue for themselves. That’s a moderate position, well suited to the general election. As for himself, he has supported pro-life laws and policies in his career, and achieved many pro-life victories.