Tag Archives: Sexual Harassment

Report: Chick-Fil-A donates to Southern Poverty Law Center, other anti-Christian groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center was connected to a 2012 domestic terrorism attack
The Southern Poverty Law Center was connected to a 2012 domestic terrorism attack on a Washington think tank

I’m re-posting my post about the Southern Poverty (SPLC), since it emerged this week that Chick-Fil-A had not only ceased donations to the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), but had now started donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center. You might remember that the SPLC was an accessory to the domestic terrorism attack on the FRC in 2012. That’s where Chick-Fil-A is now.

First, here’s the article from Townhall:

In 2017 Chick-fil-A donated money to the same corrupt SPLC that still outrageously lists FRC as a “hate group.”

[…]Covenant House, a homeless shelter for youth, takes pride in its promotion of all things LGBTQ. They even marched in the New York “Gay Pride” parade to show their inclusivity cred. Guess the Salvation Army (which admittedly has an issue with partially supporting abortion in cases of rape, incest and “life and health” of the mother) should’ve flown some co-opted rainbow colors to keep their hundreds of thousands in funding. Whoops. Looks like Covenant is the new Salvation. 

Chick-fil-A funds the deeply political YWCA, a radically pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ organization that repeatedly partners with Planned Parenthood.

Chick-fil-A also funds the DC-based New Leaders Council that identifies as a “hub of progressive millennial thought leadership” which exists to “support one another along their individual path to a more progressive political and cultural landscape.”

Chick-fil-A has given a sizable donation ($50k) to The Pace Center for Girls, yet another pro-abortion organization. The education and advocacy group featured radical pro-abortion feminist Gloria Steinem (the “I Had An Abortion” activist who declared that birthing children is the “fundamental cause of climate change”) as their keynote speaker for their most recent girls’ Summit.

[…]Chick-fil-A also gives tens of thousands to Chris 180 ($27,500 in 2017, $25k in 2019), a pro-LGBT behavioral health and child welfare service agency. The organization boasts of being awarded the “Leader in Supporting and Serving LGBT Families and Youth from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC).” Nothing promotes human degradation quite like the pro-abortion HRC—the multi-million dollar LGBT powerhouse that recently pushed for the legalization of prostitution in D.C.

[…]And then there’s Junior Achievement (JA), which inarguably does some phenomenal work with education and entrepreneurship. They’re the recipients of hundreds of thousands a year from Chick-fil-A. In 2016, though, JA joined a coalition (Georgia Prospers) of pro-LGBT organizations in their “Too Busy to Hate” campaign to politically oppose religious liberty legislation (specifically the First Amendment Defense Act) from passing in Georgia.

So, that’s where Chick-Fil-A is donating the money that you give them for their “Christian chicken”. For my part, I have stopped eating there, because I cannot patronize any organization that gives money to the SPLC.

So, let’s review what the SPLC does.

You might remember how gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to plan and execute a mass shooting domestic terrorism attack against the Family Research Council office in 2012. But just recently, the SPLC has run into major, major problems.

Let’s start with a summary from the Washington Examiner of what the SPLC has done:

In 2015, the discredited organization was forced to apologize to renowned neurosurgeon and now Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson for including him in its “Extremist Files” a year earlier.

Two years before that, an attempted mass murderer had stormed into the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council, a conservative group maligned by the SPLC with its “hate group” label, carrying a firearm and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His goal was to kill as many FRC employees as possible and smear their faces with the sandwiches. He told the FBI that his choice of target had been inspired by SPLC’s designation of FRC as a “hate group.”

[…]Across the hall from FRC at the time was the headquarters of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocate that has since also landed on the SPLC’s “hate group” list for our work litigating religious freedom, life, and marriage and family issues. We were given this designation by the SPLC even as we were earning nine victories at the U.S. Supreme Court since 2011.

FRC is still listed on the “hate map” on SPLC’s web site.

Big technology corporations like PayPal all partner with the SPLC. I wonder how the people who work for these companies feel about their “business partner” now, after all of these claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism have come out.

Gay rights activist Congresswoman admits to affair with younger campaign staffer

Here she is speaking for the Human Rights Campaign, a massive gay rights group
Katie Hill speaking for the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay rights group

When I saw all these stories coming out about Hollywood elites and Democrat mega-donors exposed for sexual harassment, pedophilia, rape, etc., I really started to wonder whether there is anything more to the Democrat party than championing sexual perversion and inflicting the consequences of that onto children, born and unborn. Here’s the latest Democrat sex scandal in the news.

Here’s the Washington Examiner reporting:

California Democratic Rep. Katie Hill was still paying consulting fees to her campaign staffer and former lover Morgan Desjardins, 24, as recently as last month.

According to FEC Records, since April 2019, Hill’s campaign has paid a little over $14,000 in fundraising-related consulting fees to Desjardins, doling out around $2,500 most months. Additionally, between 2017 and 2018, she made around $50,000 as a senior campaign staffer.

Hill, who is facing a House Ethics Committee investigation over allegations she had an intimate relationship with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, found herself under scrutiny after a nude photo of her brushing Desjardin’s hair was posted on the RedState.

Hill, 32, has admitted her relationship with Desjardins during her successful campaign for a House seat based in northern Los Angeles County but disputed any inappropriate relationship between her and Kelly occurred.

The image was posted along with text messages sent between Hill, the congresswoman’s estranged husband Kenny Heslep, whom she is divorcing, and Desjardins. According to the texts posted at RedState, the trio had an intimate three-way relationship during Hill’s first campaign for office, but it soured quickly after she won her race and went to Washington, D.C.

Now, the problem with having sex with your subordinates is that there is a power dynamic, because you are paying them. It’s easy to see what Katie Hill did as sexual assault and even rape, because her employees may have felt that they had to do whatever she wanted, e.g. – threesomes, with her, or they would lose their jobs. This is why companies outlaw relationships between employees – they don’t want people to use power within the company to pressure subordinates into sexual activities. Yet Democrats do this all the time and the mainstream media is silent about it.

Remember, even the pious, moral Muslim Ilhan Omar is now divorcing her husband because she had an affair with someone she was paying with campaign funds:

Rep. Ilhan Omar has filed for divorce from the father of her three kids, claiming the marriage is “irretrievable” — amid allegations that she had an affair with DC-based political consultant Tim Mynett.

[…]In August, The Post was first to report that DC-based doctor Beth Mynett had filed for divorce from her husband, Tim Mynett, alleging that he was carrying on an affair with Omar.

All the while, Omar’s campaign fund was paying Tim Mynett’s firm for work, including for travel.

Are Democrats really obsessed with sexual deviancy? Well, consider Democrats like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Eric Schneiderman, Ed Murray, etc. It seems like they are always involved in sex scandals. And in fact you can even see wealthy Democrat mega-donors like Jeffrey Epstein and Terry Bean getting charged with having sex with underage people all the time. (Terry Bean is the co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in the nation). The Democrat politicians who take money from the sexual deviants then try to change America to make what their donors are doing seem normal and even praiseworthy. That’s why Hillary Clinton threatened the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.

Sexual deviancy seems to be the main plank in the Democrat party platform, and all the rest of the rhetoric about “free this” and “free that” is just to buy the votes needed to make all sorts of adult selfishness and sexual exploitation of the weak legal, and even immune to dissent and disapproval. Which is why Democrats are always using the government to attack Christians who disapprove of adult selfishness and sexual exploitation of the weak.

Now I have a question for you. What is it that young Democrat women are hoping to achieve by supporting the party of sexual deviance? Do they think that this will lead them to a faithful man, a stable marriage, well-behaved children and a peaceful home? If so, then maybe we ought to be having talks with young women about what sort of worldview grounds self-sacrificial love, commitment, and objective moral obligations. It sure isn’t the secular leftist nihilistic worldview of the Democrat party. If they want a Mike Pence marriage, then why not tell them to get the worldview of Mike Pence? They certainly won’t get to a Mike Pence marriage with the worldview of Katie Hill.

If you want to read more about Katie Hill’s destructive relationships, check out this story from Red State, which has blurred photos and text messages.

Left-wing hate group faces numerous claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism

The Southern Poverty Law Center was connected to a 2012 domestic terrorism attack
The Southern Poverty Law Center was connected to a 2012 domestic terrorism attack on a Washington think tank

You might remember how gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to plan and execute a mass shooting domestic terrorism attack against the Family Research Council office in 2012. But just recently, the SPLC has run into major, major problems.

Let’s start with a summary from the Washington Examiner of what the SPLC has done:

In 2015, the discredited organization was forced to apologize to renowned neurosurgeon and now Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson for including him in its “Extremist Files” a year earlier.

Two years before that, an attempted mass murderer had stormed into the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council, a conservative group maligned by the SPLC with its “hate group” label, carrying a firearm and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His goal was to kill as many FRC employees as possible and smear their faces with the sandwiches. He told the FBI that his choice of target had been inspired by SPLC’s designation of FRC as a “hate group.”

[…]Across the hall from FRC at the time was the headquarters of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocate that has since also landed on the SPLC’s “hate group” list for our work litigating religious freedom, life, and marriage and family issues. We were given this designation by the SPLC even as we were earning nine victories at the U.S. Supreme Court since 2011.

Even after the SPLC was connected to domestic terrorism, (Corkins was convicted of domestic terrorism), the SPLC refused to remove the FRC, a respected socially conservative think tank, from their “hate map”. Isn’t that ironic? The group that inspired a hate crime refuses to stop hating the victim of the hate crime.

But there is some good news. Senator Tom Cotton (R. – AR) has noticed the claims against the SPLC, and he’s going to do something about it.

PJ Media reports:

On Tuesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanding an investigation into whether or not the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should lose its tax-exempt status. His letter comes after weeks of turmoil with the SPLC struggling with scandals of alleged racism and sexism. The organization fired its co-founder, saw its president and other leaders resign, and lost a prominent member of its board.

“I am writing to urge you to investigate whether the Southern Poverty Law Center should retain its classification as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” Cotton begins his letter. “Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents. In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

Cotton notes that “the SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets. According to the group’s most recent financial statement, it holds $121 million offshore in non-U.S. equity funds. The SPLC uses these assets to pay its executives lavish salaries far higher than the comparable household average.”

[…]”Based on these reports, and in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars from a racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation, I believe that the SPLC’s conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation,” Cotton writes.

But wait! There’s more good news:

Last December, Baltimore lawyer Glen Keith Allen filed a mammoth lawsuit against the far-left smear factory. Among other things, he alleged that the SPLC’s penchant for attacking “far-right groups” and primarily Republicans constituted a violation of the rules for 501(c)(3) status. Tax-exempt groups under this status cannot engage in political campaigning.

[…]In 2017, the charity navigation website GuideStar marked each organization on the SPLC list as a “hate group” on its website. Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, the Christian nonprofit D. James Kennedy Ministries filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the SPLC, after realizing that it was excluded from Amazon Smile over the SPLC list.

Huge technology corporations like Facebook, Amazon, Google, YouTube, Twitter and PayPal all parter with the SPLC hate group. I wonder how the people who work for these companies feel about their “business partner” now, after all of these claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism have come out. By the way, Amazon removed the Alliance Defending Freedom from their Amazon Smile program as well.

If these companies are actively promoting the Democrat Party and their allies through their business practices, maybe it would be a good idea for the government to investigate them, too?

Radical feminism changes men’s perceptions of women in the workplace

Radical feminists complain a lot about sexism, but damage is self-inflicted
Radical feminists complain a lot about sexism, but damage is self-inflicted

Lately, we’ve seen an outburst of radical feminism as more women have been equating actual rape and sexual assault with sexist comments or clumsy passes. How does this change how women are perceived in the workplace?

Here’s an article from Medium (H/T Tracy) by an anonymous male feminist.

The first point is about how women handle disagreement, compared to men:

When James Damore was asked for feedback from his supervisor and internally circulated his google memo, it got leaked, he got fired and women stayed at home the next Day because “for emotional reasons”

A ten page summary of data and analysis from Damore was enough to “emotional distress” the women at the company.

This lack of resilience and self-control disrupts the workplace, and results in lost productivity. If it turns into a lawsuit, the costs are even higher. This is in addition to women having fewer STEM degrees than men, working fewer hours than men, and taking months leave for pregnancy. Not to mention affirmative action hiring and promoting in order to meet quotas of women.

Second point, is increased hostility to men.

Look at this tweet from a writer at Teen Vogue:

Emily Lindin, a mainstreatm writer with a degree in music history, tweets her hatred of men
Emily Lindin, a mainstream writer with a degree in music history, tweets her hatred of men

She has 23,000 followers on Twitter – this woman is mainstream. I looked into her background a bit. No mention of a father at home, and a self-confessed “slutty” lifestyle from her early teens onward. Her entire writing career seems to be to attack everyone who disagrees with her promiscuity.

Feminism, as an ideology, does not allow women to prefer men who exhibit traditional masculine characteristics: providing, protecting, moral and spiritual leadership, chastity, fidelity. That’s “sexist”. So what’s left? Get drunk and have sex with the hot bad boys, since evaluating a man’s character is “sexist”. Then promote false accusations and misandry to get revenge against the hot bad boys you freely chose. This will only get worse as more radical feminists waste their 20s on hot bad boys, and raise more fatherless girls when they become single mothers by choice, in their 30s.

Do men want to work with women who hate men and make false accusations with people they disagree with? I’m a conservative, Christian, pro-life virgin. I disagree with all premarital sex. If this woman worked with me and found out my views, she would almost certainly get me fired.

Another article from Medium (H/T Wes) makes a third point about how conservatives are treated by liberal women in the workplace. The article is written by a female senior software engineer, who promotes STEM to women and the elderly. She is a self-described “moderate conservative”.

Excerpt:

On September 27, 2017, I decided to attend the Atlanta Google Women Techmakers’ event “Idea Jam Session,” which was hosted at TechSquare Labs in Atlanta. At that time, I was still an active member of Women Who Code, the Atlanta GDG, and Google Women Techmakers and, perhaps naively, I just assumed that I had every right to attend the event like any other member of the group because I had not been banned.

Upon arriving at the event, Maggie immediately asked me to leave the room. At the door, she informed me that she would be extremely uncomfortable if I remained a member of the community because some of the views that I had expressed on Twitter are “very harmful to gender equality”. She then asked Daniel Sabeo, the event coordinator at TechSquare Labs, to escort me from the facility. I was deeply upset at being publicly humiliated, but left willingly without causing any disruption.

Two days later, I got an email from TechSquare Labs. Daniel had discussed the incident with Allen Nance, Paul Judge, and Rodney Sampson, the owners of the facility, and he informed me that they had collectively decided to ban me and my company from using their venue or attending any of their events because they were concerned about the “safety” of their members. I later learned from a fellow developer that Maggie had, in fact, told various people that I’d been stalking her.

[…]The following week, Martin Omander, GDG program manager for North America, formally banned me from the Google Developer Group and Google Women Techmakers and, again, declined to provide me with any details of the complaints against me or the rules that I’d allegedly violated.

How many women are likely to attack conservatives in the workplace?

Young, unmarried women voted 78% to 22% for Obama in 2008, according to exit polls.

Exit polls from the 2008 Obama vs McCain election
Exit polls from the 2008 Obama vs McCain election: unmarried women voters only

Obama was a radical feminist president who voted against banning infanticide multiple times as a state senator in Illinois. 78% of young, unmarried women voted for him anyway. Women who graduate from college in non-STEM fields are especially progressive. In my experience, young, unmarried women typically form their views by adapting to the dominant views of their community, which is overwhelmingly liberal on campus. In my experience, men are more likely to construct a worldview through reasoning and evaluating evidence.

I’ve personally never met a young, unmarried woman who could answer basic political questions, like naming prior terrorist attacks against the United States, US allies, or US assets abroad, or telling me the amount of the national debt. In my experience, young unmarried women are not concerned with the plight of women in Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan. They’re not concerned with spending money today that will be paid back by generations of taxpayers not yet born.

Instead, I usually hear that they are progressive because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded contraception, no-fault divorce, single mother welfare, student-loan forgiveness, etc. They want taxpayer-funded bailouts for problems caused by their own free choices. They feel that if society is paying for something, then it’s “normal” and they don’t have feel guilty about making poor choices. Their primary concern about politics is being able to do what they feel like without anyone disapproving. Everything bad that happens is “unexpected”, and so society should have to pay for it. It wasn’t their fault that their “follow-your-heart” plan didn’t work out.

I don’t even speak to young, unmarried women about religion and politics in the workplace. It doesn’t matter if we have the same views or not. Feeling offended and going full totalitarian is just too widespread. The rational choice for men is to disengage. I can have conversations safely about religion and politics with men, even if they disagree with me.

Radical feminism changes men’s perceptions of women in the workplace

Radical feminists complain a lot about sexism, but damage is self-inflicted
Radical feminists complain a lot about sexism, but damage is self-inflicted

Lately, we’ve seen an outburst of radical feminism as more women have been equating actual rape and sexual assault with sexist comments or clumsy passes. How does this change how women are perceived in the workplace?

Here’s an article from Medium (H/T Tracy) by an anonymous male feminist.

The first point is about how women handle disagreement, compared to men:

When James Damore was asked for feedback from his supervisor and internally circulated his google memo, it got leaked, he got fired and women stayed at home the next Day because “for emotional reasons”

A ten page summary of data and analysis from Damore was enough to “emotional distress” the women at the company.

This lack of resilience and self-control disrupts the workplace, and results in lost productivity. If it turns into a lawsuit, the costs are even higher. This is in addition to women having fewer STEM degrees than men, working fewer hours than men, and taking months leave for pregnancy. Not to mention preferential hiring and promoting of women to meet government-mandated quotes.

Second point, is increased hostility to men.

Look at this tweet from a writer at Teen Vogue:

Emily Lindin, a mainstreatm writer with a degree in music history, tweets her hatred of men
Emily Lindin, a mainstream writer with a degree in music history, tweets her misandry

She has 23,000 followers on Twitter – this woman is mainstream. I looked into her background a bit. No mention of a father at home, and a self-confessed “slutty” lifestyle from her early teens onward. Her entire writing career seems to be to attack everyone who disagrees with her promiscuity.

Feminism, as an ideology, does not allow women to prefer men who exhibit traditional masculine characteristics: providing, protecting, moral and spiritual leadership, chastity, fidelity. That’s “sexist”. So what’s left? Get drunk and have sex with the hot bad boys, since evaluating a man’s character is “sexist”. Then promote false accusations and misandry to get revenge against the hot bad boys you freely chose. This will only get worse as more radical feminists waste their 20s on hot bad boys, and raise more fatherless girls when they become single mothers by choice, in their 30s.

Do men want to work with women who hate men and make false accusations against people they disagree with? I’m a conservative, Christian, pro-life virgin. I disagree with all premarital sex. If this woman worked with me and found out my views, she would almost certainly get me fired. As more and more women come under the influence of angry radical feminists, men will have the perception that women hate them. That’s bad for the minority of non-progressive women, but it’s just safer to avoid any woman once the radical feminist views become the majority.

Another article from Medium (H/T Wes) makes a third point about how conservatives are treated by liberal women in the workplace. The article is written by a female senior software engineer, who promotes STEM to women and the elderly. She is a self-described “moderate conservative”.

Excerpt:

On September 27, 2017, I decided to attend the Atlanta Google Women Techmakers’ event “Idea Jam Session,” which was hosted at TechSquare Labs in Atlanta. At that time, I was still an active member of Women Who Code, the Atlanta GDG, and Google Women Techmakers and, perhaps naively, I just assumed that I had every right to attend the event like any other member of the group because I had not been banned.

Upon arriving at the event, Maggie immediately asked me to leave the room. At the door, she informed me that she would be extremely uncomfortable if I remained a member of the community because some of the views that I had expressed on Twitter are “very harmful to gender equality”. She then asked Daniel Sabeo, the event coordinator at TechSquare Labs, to escort me from the facility. I was deeply upset at being publicly humiliated, but left willingly without causing any disruption.

Two days later, I got an email from TechSquare Labs. Daniel had discussed the incident with Allen Nance, Paul Judge, and Rodney Sampson, the owners of the facility, and he informed me that they had collectively decided to ban me and my company from using their venue or attending any of their events because they were concerned about the “safety” of their members. I later learned from a fellow developer that Maggie had, in fact, told various people that I’d been stalking her.

[…]The following week, Martin Omander, GDG program manager for North America, formally banned me from the Google Developer Group and Google Women Techmakers and, again, declined to provide me with any details of the complaints against me or the rules that I’d allegedly violated.

How many women are likely to attack conservatives in the workplace?

Young, unmarried women voted 78% to 22% for Obama in 2008, according to exit polls.

Exit polls from the 2008 Obama vs McCain election
Exit polls from the 2008 Obama vs McCain election: unmarried women voters only

Obama voted against banning infanticide multiple times as a state senator in Illinois. 78% of young, unmarried women voted for him anyway. Women who graduate from college in non-STEM fields are especially progressive. In my experience, most young, unmarried women form their views by adapting to the dominant views of their community. On campus, their community is usually progressive. In my experience, men are more likely to construct a worldview through reasoning and evaluating evidence.

In my experience, young, unmarried progressive women are progressive because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded contraception, no-fault divorce, single mother welfare, student-loan forgiveness, etc. Taxpayer-funded bailouts for problems caused by their own free choices. They feel that if society is paying for something, then it’s “normal” and they don’t have feel guilty about making poor choices. Their primary concern about politics is being able to do what they feel like without anyone disapproving. Everything bad that happens is “unexpected”, and so society should have to pay for it.

Most men rightly disagree with leftist policies, because men believe in personal responsibility. But if men think that they will be falsely charged or otherwise sanctioned for being conservative, then it makes sense for them to not speak to women at all. Again, that’s bad for the minority of young, unmarried conservative women, but it’s safer to just avoid the risk. Especially as radical feminism becomes the dominant view among young, unmarried women. The point is that men are going to have to hide their political views from MOST young, unmarried women in the office, because progressive ones seem to be very intolerant of the conservative views that most men hold.

I don’t even speak to young, unmarried women about religion and politics in the workplace. It doesn’t matter if we have the same views or not. Feeling offended and going full totalitarian is just too widespread. The rational choice for men is to disengage. I can have conversations safely about religion and politics with men, even if they disagree with me. I realize that this isn’t fair to the minority of young, unmarried conservative women who are safe to talk to, but it’s just too dangerous to risk it.