There’s a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they’ve turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it’s private power, located in a few mega-cities on the coasts.
And that’s not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hoping to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three-quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think.
And for some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As states like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other states have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a “fundamental right,” accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor’s note.
We’ve already begun to see the consequences of these laws, which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal penalties for killing an unborn child. According to the laws of New York State, that woman’s child never existed.
Pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label “radical.” So why isn’t the national media covering these radical laws with the intensity they’ve reserved for states like Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? Nowhere to be found, because their outrage is very selective. They don’t speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they’re actively trying to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public.
These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to betray our deeply held beliefs about life and death, in favor of a specious account of “equality.” If there’s one thing the New York Times ad got right, it’s that “the future of equality hangs in the balance” when it comes to abortion. But their idea of equality doesn’t include everyone: it omits and degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than, even “bad for business.” That’s a strange kind of equality, if you ask me.
Nailed it, clean and tight. Humble thanks to Ace for so generously providing that transcription for us, bless his coal-black heart. His own remarks, wherein he moots the idea of shareholder lawsuits against the CEOs of these WOKE! corporations, are as always worth a look:
Now, most such suits are over stuff like corporate charity but those suits don’t work because of the very malleable concept of “goodwill.” If a corporation thinks that donating to Planned Parenthood buys it more goodwill, it’s within the corporate charter (as increasing goodwill is always or almost always permitted as a basic function of business).
HOWEVER, moves that alienate half the country, threaten states, BOYCOTT entire states, etc., do not increase goodwill. They decrease it.
Also, I’m 99% sure they don’t run polls about this stuff to determine if such a move would increase goodwill or not. I think I know that because I know a guy who does consulting and was asked about this sort of issue, asked by the CEO of a MAJOR, MAJOR corporation for advice (because he thought all the liberal marketing department people and mid-level managers were just telling them their Get Trump opinion, not necessarily reflective of popular opinion).
How major a corporation? Well, one of the blue chips.
Anyway, he started to do a study, and so began looking for previous studies on this sort of issue for a background and template for his own study.
His findings? THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ACTUAL STUDY OR POLL DONE ON A CORPORATE POLITICAL POSITIONING MOVE. N-E-V-E-R.
His was the first.
Corporations just make these decisions based on the personal political preferences of the officers and board, and their vague “feels.”
True enough, but my guess is even that ain’t the whole story. These corporations—many of them headquartered in urban liberal citadels like NYC—are not ony acting in accord with their executives’ personal political leanings, but are also responding to the loud, shrill demands of Proggie activists—who have more than adequately demonstrated their willingness to launch protests cum riots at the very doorstep of those corporate HQs, complete with threats, human chains blocking main entrances, plus the usual assorted piss-and-shit-flinging, sabotage, and senseless, random violence.
The Left has long been the squeaky wheel, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And when that greasing is in harmony with corporate leadership’s own political preferences anyway—and when they also know that conservatives/Normals/whatever are unlikely in the extreme to make things as uncomfortable for them as they already know the Left will—well, just what would be the downside for the CEOs here?
It always boils down to the same old thing in the end, doesn’t it? The comfortably-numb Right, accustomed through long habit of passively accepting defeat after defeat, must find a way to rile itself up enough to start directly confronting the Left—ALL of the Left, from individual political-street-theater performers right up to corporate malefactors who must be forced to make a choice as to whether their business is, y’know, the business they’re in, or politics. Until that happens, the Right must resign itself to being antagonized, harrassed, attacked, and ignored.