USWCC endorses Hillary based on anatomy

Women Vote, Suffragettes
Women Vote, Suffragettes

There was a time when the name “Chamber of Commerce” held a level of clout and credibility as an organization who advocated for businesses, especially small businesses.

This week I received a press release from the US Women’s Chamber of Commerce (USWCC) announcing their endorsement for Hillary Clinton.

My initial reaction was “Oh great. Women endorsing a woman just because she’s a woman.” But I decided to shake that notion off and give it some more scrutiny.

Hillary’s not the only woman in the race, so I had to wonder why Carly Fiorina, an accomplished businesswoman didn’t receive the nod. There was no explanation of that on the website.

What was stated about Hillary’s endorsement on the website was this:

“From our detailed review, one candidate – Hillary Clinton – stands head and shoulders above the rest. Secretary Clinton has markedly unique governmental experience, deep and broad policy and leadership expertise, an undeniable commitment to women’s economic priorities and a campaign infrastructure that lays the foundation for a clear pathway to the White House.”

Carly’s lack of “campaign infrastructure” (read: financial backing) could have legitimately knocked her out of consideration. So the next question is, why didn’t the other 15 candidates make the grade?

It’s simple… not one is a woman!

Yes. It’s sexist discrimination, pure and simple. And, as the USWCC put it in their own words, it’s about securing a new “milestone”:

“The great march of women into political leadership, that began so many years ago, will secure a profound and impactful milestone.”

Forget about endorsing the single most qualified candidate. USWCC is only interested in endorsing who they believe to be the most qualified FEMALE candidate. Even if that woman’s record and experience are inferior to the other candidates.

Looking further through the USWCC website, you’ll find a link to an offshoot website IVoteForWomen, and this is where I get offended, both as a voter and as a woman!

As a candidate, I wouldn’t want women voting for me just because I’m a woman. That’s just downright demeaning! Sure, as a candidate, you want and need every vote you can get, even the stupid ones! But as a woman of integrity, I’d want a person’s vote because I was the best person for the job, not because of my anatomy.

Assuming that women are the best representatives of other women is absurd. I am currently represented by 2 female US Senators and I can assure you, in all the years they’ve represented me, only twice have I agreed with their stance on something. They definitely do not represent me!

Scrutinizing the IVoteForWomen website even further, they list responses received for “the Women’s Economic Priorities candidate questionnaire” sent out “to all women candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate” in August 2014. It’s a short questionnaire with mostly, as you might imagine, business-related questions. But then there’s this one:

Do you support or oppose mandatory coverage of birth control in the Affordable Care Act?

The correct answer is “Support” otherwise you won’t receive a 100% rating from them.

Since when is birth control any business of an employer? And since when does an organization who is supposedly an advocate for small business advocate forced medical coverage on a business owner?

Looking back at all the questions, it is clear that this organization aligns with Democrat party ideology. There’s no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. This is an organization with a decidedly Left-leaning agenda.

Yes, this organization who is “supposedly” a voice for women-owned small businesses is also advocating for:

  1. Increased minimum wage
  2. Mandatory 12 weeks of paid leave
  3. Increasing the payroll tax

None of these things make it easier for women to succeed in business. Instead, they add more regulatory burdens under the guise of getting women workers more benefits.

You can’t have it both ways. Give women (and men!) owned businesses the freedom they need to determine what benefits best suit their workforce, rather than mandating according to what you “think” they need.

And you know what was missing from this site… any mention of “free enterprise” “capitalism” “US Constitution” and 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Maybe those are just taken for granted since we do live in this great United States of America. However, given the oppression other women around the world are living under, wouldn’t it be great to acknowledge and appreciate those ideals? But that wouldn’t fit well with the “mandatory” government regulations they’re trying to sell us, now would it…

Photo credit Library of Congress

See USWCC press release here.

Christ following, wife, mother, grandmother, and small business owner with passions for holistic wellness, gardening, raising critters, and preserving our Constitutional liberties especially free speech, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment. God gave me the most wonderful husband, who I love dearly and am grateful to have the opportunity to work with every day as his Producer in this Real Side venture. When you see my posts, they are truly mine. So please don't hold him accountable for what I write. Contrary to what some say, I'm not a Stepford wife. I have my own opinions and am willing to share some of them here.