Beware: The Human Rights Campaign is just a scam to push lefty issues
Because companies want to raise their score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index.
Equality is a good thing. I support human rights. But the Human Rights Campaign? That's something else.
'They have nothing to do with actual human rights,' says Robby Starbuck. 'They're an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization that pushes topics about transgenderism into the workplace.'
Starbuck uses his social-media following to criticize the many companies that partner with the Human Rights Campaign.
The campaign 'does great harm,' he says, because companies that want a high score must do things like pay for trans employees' gender reassignment surgery and fund puberty blockers for employees' kids.
I push back, 'I know people who've had the surgery, and they seem happier!'
'If you're an adult and you make a set of decisions I disagree with, that's your prerogative,' replies Starbuck. 'I don't want to give my money to a company that's going to use it to fund any sex changes of any child.'
People can debate the age when you're considered competent to medically change your gender. What surprises me is how many companies suck up to the Human Rights Campaign by paying for it.
Google even brags about providing a 'trans liaison' to help people transition.
Even some of your Amtrak tax subsidy goes to pay for this stuff. Amtrak's 'Lead Environmental Specialist' touts 'education on personal pronouns.'
To raise their Corporate Equality Index scores, companies are encouraged to donate to LGBTQ+ groups — like the Human Rights Campaign! That helps the campaign collect millions in tax-free money.
The more I looked at the organization, the less it seems to be about human rights, and the more it seems to be about left-wing advocacy.
Its homepage features protesters holding signs saying, 'I will aid and abet abortion.'
When I point that out to Starbuck, he says, 'Yeah, which humans? Which rights? Apparently, if you're a small enough human, you don't have rights.'
The campaign's president says its Corporate Equality Index is 'about partnership with businesses to make workplaces as inclusive as possible for LGBTQ+ people.'
But today, most businesses are inclusive, and in America, LGBT people are more accepted than ever. Twenty years ago, 37% of Americans supported gay marriage; 45% said gay relationships are moral. Today, support for gay marriage is at 69% and 64% consider gay relationships moral.
Yet, as life gets better for LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign declared a 'national state of emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans!'
'This is a crisis right now!' said HRC president Kelley Robinson.
I think I know why she said that. If activists acknowledge that Americans have come to accept LGBT people, the campaign might go out of business. One HRC executive says, 'We are never going to reach a destination.'
Of course not. There's money to be made and leftist propaganda that needs spreading.
Starbuck, by pointing out what the HRC really does, has persuaded some companies to stop sucking up.
Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe's, Molson Coors, Toyota, Tractor Supply, Walmart and others announced that they will no longer participate in the Index.
'We came along and told people the story and they backtracking began,' says Starbuck.
The campaign's president says, 'What we're seeing from these companies is short-sighted.'
Maybe.
Businesses can join whatever lists they want, but they ought to do what's good for their business. That means listening to customers, not progressive activists.
'At the end of the day,' says Starbuck, 'that's all people want, is for businesses to do their business. Not to virtue signal . . . or to perpetuate a political ideology.'
John Stossel is the author of 'Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Russiagate scandal demands prosecutions, overhaul of the FBI and CIA
Once again, newly released documents and damning evidence conclusively substantiate what many Americans have long suspected. Russiagate was a conspiracy — hatched, implemented and relentlessly promoted by top officials in the CIA, FBI and across the Obama-Biden-Clinton political machine to rig a presidential election and undermine a duly elected president. It also corrupted the very institutions essential to protecting American liberty. Despite the mountain of evidence and exhaustive investigations, those responsible for this travesty remain unpunished. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among other intelligence officials, have lied to Congress and the American public about their reliance on the discredited Steele dossier — a report paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC — while simultaneously engineering different versions of critical intelligence assessments to cover their tracks. Although the intelligence community and its leaders publicly maintained that the notorious dossier played no role in the official assessment concerning ' Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,' newly declassified oversight reviews flatly contradict these claims. The record shows that Brennan and Clapper prepared a classified, compartmented version of the assessment specifically for President Obama and senior officials, which cited the dossier to bolster key judgments about Russian election interference. Later, when sanitized versions were released to Congress and the public, all references to the dossier had been scrubbed away. Special Counsel John Durham's investigation verified that Brennan, Clapper, then-Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey were all briefed, even before the 2016 election, on the Clinton campaign's plan to concoct a false Trump-Russia narrative. Still, the FBI — with full knowledge that the Steele dossier was riddled with falsehoods — deployed it to secure baseless FISA warrants against Trump advisor Carter Page and launch the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (the FBI'S codename for the operation), with the intent of sabotaging Trump's campaign and subsequent presidency. Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act litigation exposed much of this corruption years before the Durham report. Court-obtained documents, such as the 'electronic communication' that launched Crossfire Hurricane, revealed the flimsy and third-hand nature of the intelligence used as pretext. Other records uncovered by Judicial Watch showed how high-ranking Justice Department officials, such as Bruce Ohr, maintained close ties with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, acting as a conduit for anti-Trump smears even after Steele was fired as an informant by the FBI for leaking to the media. Ohr's communications disclosed that so-called 'intelligence' on Trump-Russia ties was being laundered to the Clinton campaign and other government insiders. It goes deeper. Declassified supplements to the Durham report lay out how activists tied to George Soros' Open Society Foundations, aided by operatives within the Obama FBI and intelligence community, sought to plant and spread the bogus narrative about Trump colluding with Russia even before the FBI operations officially began. Hacked emails and foreign intelligence corroborated this extraordinary collusion between campaign operatives, federal law enforcement, and the media — a clear case of government being weaponized for partisan ends. Leaders at the FBI — Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok — and at the CIA, and their superiors in the Obama White House, knew precisely what was unfolding. They were using the intelligence community's credibility to spread what they knew to be their own fiction as if it were truth. Yet, they pressed ahead anyway, smearing Trump and creating excuses to spy on his campaign. Their collusion made a mockery of the rule of law, resulting in illegal warrants, fabricated evidence, and years of phony investigations. Recent Judicial Watch lawsuits have further exposed how shamelessly courts and legal systems were deceived, with virtually no oversight or meaningful hearings. For all it revealed, the Durham investigation resulted in one modest plea deal and few and failed prosecutions. If no one is held to account, Americans' confidence in government will be shaken by the toxic message that in Washington, the bigger the crime, the less likely it is to be punished. The FBI and Justice Department, and their enablers in the Obama White House, engineered the most egregious abuse of power and corruption in modern American history. The public deserves justice — not just in the form of reports and hearings, but through criminal prosecution of the officials who orchestrated and covered up this conspiracy. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and every enabler involved must be brought before a court of law. No spin can excuse years of perjury, abuse, and violations of civil liberties. It is not enough to claim that 'mistakes were made' or offer platitudes about trust. Laws were broken. Rights were trampled. Our democracy was threatened. News of criminal referrals for perjury by some of the players is a good start, but only that. Nor will prosecution alone suffice. The FBI and CIA need fundamental reform. Trump's recent executive orders aimed at ending the 'weaponization of government' are steps in the right direction. These agencies have proven incapable of policing themselves. From rubber-stamp FISA courts to politicized counterintelligence and persecution of whistleblowers, these agencies are built on unaccountable power. Significantly cutting back the Justice Department and dismantling the FBI should be on the table. America is a republic, not a banana republic. It's time for accountability, reform and a sharp reminder to the deep state: in America, the people are sovereign, not unelected bureaucrats.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
HUD launches English-only initiative for all department services: ‘Speak with one voice and one language'
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is making English the sole language used for virtually all of its services and affairs, according to a new memo obtained by The Post. HUD's deputy secretary wrote the memo, set to be sent out on Monday, advising department leadership of the changes, in keeping with President Trump's executive order in March to designate English as the official US language. 'We are one people, united, and we will speak with one voice and one language to deliver on our mission of expanding housing that is affordable, helping those in need, caring for our most vulnerable Americans, and revitalizing rural, tribal, and urban communities,' HUD deputy secretary Andrew Hughes wrote. Despite the upcoming change, there will still be some instances where other languages may be permitted in HUD services to comply with the law. Those include accommodations required under the Americans with Disability Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which have nondiscrimination provisions that may apply to language in some situations. 4 HUD will begin scrubbing its website and buildings of any non-English flyers. Getty Images 4 President Trump took executive action in March to make English America's official language. Ron Sachs/CNP / 'HUD will continue to ensure that all persons have meaningful access to HUD programs and services,' Hughes stressed, adding that the department also 'will continue to provide communication services to the hearing and seeing impaired, and persons with related disabilities.' Outside of those potential exceptions, HUD will switch to English-only for its services and affairs. Under previous administrations, HUD sought to accommodate other languages to help low-income legal immigrants to the US who struggled with English. Prior to the English-only push, HUD touted that it accommodated some 222 languages and had an interpretation line for individuals unable to speak English proficiently, a flyer seen by The Post showed. 4 Prior to the change, HUD touted how it provided recipients with over 222 languages. HUD Former President Bill Clinton took executive action shortly before leaving office in 2001 to improve the access that people with limited English proficiency had to government services. Trump's March executive order to make English the official US language revoked Clinton's directive and noted that 'nothing in this order, however, requires or directs any change in the services provided by any agency.' Following guidance from the Justice Department, HUD decided that the best way to implement Trump's executive order was to roll back other language translations, which some officials in the housing agency believe will save taxpayer dollars. The new changes at HUD are set to be 'effective immediately,' and the department will begin scrubbing some of the translated materials provided on its website in what Hughes described as an 'ongoing and iterative' implementation process. 4 HUD is the latest government department to take steps towards implementing President Trump's executive order. Getty Images 'All HUD communications, correspondence, and physical and digital published materials will be produced exclusively in English and that we will no longer offer non-English translation services,' Hughes' memo states. 'Additionally, please immediately remove all printed or digital collateral about non-English translation services currently displayed in HUD offices or HUD-funded facilities. Printed or digital collateral not in English can be replaced with an English-only version.' The department also plans to conduct a review of English translation service contracts. Last month, the DOJ blasted out guidance to all federal agencies last month on how to best carry out Trump's executive order. In about six months, the DOJ will provide agencies with updated guidance and allow time for public comment to determine whether or not further adjustments are warranted.
