June 22, 2018

No Money for Free Market Investment but Millions for Environmentalism

*Editor’s Note* Below is a copy of a press release I received yesterday from the National Center for Public Policy Research. One of their members attended a Bank of America shareholders meeting and the CEO was asked why Bank of America claims to have no money for free market investments but has millions to spend on environmental issues and anti-coal business. As one would expect, no real answers were given. Of note, I found it “snickerable” to read the comments about the environmental whackos in attendance singing songs, etc.

Charlotte, NC / Washington, DC – At today’s annual Bank of America shareholder meeting in Charlotte, N.C., an attorney with the National Center for Public Policy Research criticized Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan for caving to left-wing race bullies and dropping its membership the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) a venerable network of conservative state legislators.

Bank of America dumped ALEC after a concerted effort by Color of Change, Common Cause and the Occupy movement to defund ALEC by intimidating its corporate members.

“Mr. Moynihan gave no definitive answer as to why the company dropped ALEC,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, who questioned Moynihan today.

“Mr. Moynihan basically answered me by saying, paraphrased, we take into consideration all factors when we make decisions, and when we make decisions, we consider all factors, including what groups we are part of,” added Danhof. “That tells us nothing.”

An audio recording of Danhof’s question and Moynihan’s response is available on YouTube here.

“The decision to drop ALEC – combined with the company’s green energy spending – has made it clear that Bank of America is willing and able to do the bidding of the extreme left.”

“Bank of America is lending corporate clout to radical groups making outrageous and unfounded claims against conservative and free-market organizations. Bending to the twisted will of radical left organizations is not a solid business strategy,” said Danhof. “If Bank of America is content to do the bidding of extreme race-baiters, shareholders may want to avoid investing in this company until its leaders recommit to free-market causes.”

And even though ALEC stopped working on the voter integrity issue, Color of Change still has an entire section of its website dedicated to defunding the venerable organization, titled “Tell Corporations: Stop Funding ALEC.”

“It appears Color of Change’s true mission is to gin up false racial narratives to defund conservative and free-market causes,” noted Danhof. “But we will not be silenced.”

Partly in response to corporate members dropping their memberships in ALEC, the National Center announced a new Voter Identification Task Force. In short order, the National Center has become a leading national voice for voter integrity.

Danhof also asked Moynihan why he was spending so much shareholder money on green energy programs.

“Considering that Bank of America has claimed in the past that it dropped ALEC for budgetary reasons, it seems odd that the company has allocated $70 billion for green projects including $100 million for grants to groups who are working to reduce fossil fuel usage,” said Danhof. “When I asked Moynihan if he would provide a list of these organizations who receive this gift of shareholder money, he refused to answer the question. It appears Bank of America hopes to hide these donations from the public and the company’s shareholders.”

“The larger point I was trying to bring to managements’ attention is that doing the bidding of left-wing radicals is a never-ending endeavor – environmental zealots are never satisfied,” added Danhof. “This was borne out at today’s meeting where Bank of America’s leadership touted their $70 billion commitment to green programs, yet scores of environmental activists were at the meeting and protesting outside demanding ever more. And if history is an indicator, they will likely get their way.”

Danhof noted that a huge portion of the meeting’s time was dedicated to listening to a series of anti-coal zealots, who dominated the question-and-answer period by making mini-speeches in lieu of questions about why Bank of America should not do business with the coal industry. “These speeches went on and on; perhaps 75% or even 90% of the question-and-answer time of the meeting was taken up by these anti-coal activists,” said Danhof.

“The anti-coal activists even included two rabbis, a woman from Boston and a man, and a minister from somewhere local,” added Danhof. “The female rabbi ended her ‘question’ by singing an Appalachian song of some kind. She was actually a pretty good singer, but a lot of these anti-coal people were just loons.”

A copy of Danhof’s question at today’s shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Bank of America shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. In 2012-13, zero percent of its contributions have come from the fossil fuel industry or related foundations.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

FBI Wants to Tap Your Social Networks – Obama on Verge of Agreeing

From the New York Times:

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.

Share

What Would Barack Obama Say to Thomas Jefferson?

At Ohio State University, May 5, 2013, President Barack Obama, the only president that I am aware of who told a reporter during an interview that the Founding Fathers got the Constitution all wrong, continued in his willful disregard and ignorance toward the foundation of America, by telling graduating students that they should “reject these voices”; that is those who warn of government tyranny. Here is the text of his comments:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

What I have not heard or read anyone pointing out is the terrible, incorrect and deliberately misleading statement the President makes right after he tells graduates to reject the voices that warn of governmental tyranny. The only focus seems to be on the fact that President Obama dared to swim against the flow, much like his statement of the error of the Founding Fathers, and tell young and influential graduates, to disregard, nay, “reject” any voice that might warn of tyranny.

President Obama attempts to tell the world that those of us who continuously warn of the dangers of despotic rule, believe that what, “they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

This is so much not the truth! Those of us who remonstrate the dangers of dictatorial/despotic/tyrannical rule are the ones who understand and cherish the actual foundation of this country. Barack Obama is falsely placing himself as one who affirms self-rule, while having done all he can so far in his nearly 5 years in office to destroy that self-rule and put it into the hands of government – himself to be exact. Few will argue that Government is too big. Such statements certainly supersede any philosophical notions of what the role of government should be.

The President’s tactics might work on some people in this country today but what about our Founding Fathers, who the President claims got it all wrong because they DID NOT give the Executive Branch of Government all the power.

Our current President has shown little respect for the foundation of this country, namely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His comments at Ohio State University once again bring to the surface his real feelings about what made this country great, crafted its identity, and most importantly why the United States even exists today.

Let’s turn the clock back a bit. When it came time to sever ties with King George of England, Thomas Jefferson began work on the Declaration of Independence. It took time and much debate but it was finally signed in Congress on July 4, 1776. What was it that went on in Colonial America at this time that the people felt the need, knowing war would be imminent, to declare their separation from England, their desires to be free of tyranny? The Declaration of Independence tells us.

The people in America had lost all say in how they could govern. They were being taxed without any kind of representation. In short, it was decided that King George was a tyrant and people didn’t come to the New World to be ruled by a dictator. Many people warned of a tyrannical government in England who controlled Colonial America.

Were the citizens of this country in 1776 told to reject the voices claiming tyranny? If Barack Obama was alive during this age, would he have stood up to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and all the rest, and told them to reject the voices of these men and so many others warning to tyrannical rule? Could he have convinced the Founders that King George’s tyranny was no threat?

The threat and reality of tyranny was important enough and prominent enough in 1776, that no fewer than 4 times does the actual document of the Declaration of Independence state that King George was a tyrant.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

He [King George] has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Surely, these men understood that free people cannot exist under the rule of a tyrant. Americans sought to be free. Those in this country, the United States of America, who lift up their voices against tyranny and expose all efforts for governmental rule that runs against freedom and self-rule, are doing the best public service possible. Any political leader, president included, who would willfully tell American citizens to reject the voices that warn against despotic rule, is, in fact, a tyrant and should be rightfully exposed for that.

Share

Halfwits In Charge of Weather

There is no end to ignorance, coupled with politics, and hatred of mankind. Now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced it may furlough employees due to “sequestration” and as a result of this announcement, other idiots in the media are saying that people won’t get weather warnings and they will all die!

Yessiree, Billy Bob! People can no longer look up from their goddamn cellphones and IPads long enough to look at the sky to see if it is raining. Think about it for a minute. Your and my tax dollars pay these buffoons to report that it’s going to be sunny outside, while it’s raining.

This is just another scare tactic to force people to give up more of their hard-earned money to pay someone’s government job and retirement benefits. Go ahead. Just give government all your money NOW! They won’t be happy until they get it all.

Bring it on. Whether they do or don’t, it won’t change my life one iota! How’s that?

Share

Immigration for Freedom – Immigration for Freebies

Immigration is a hot button issue in the U.S. these days, I suppose hidden behind the shroud of the claims that we need to tighten up boarder security to keep out terrorists and mixed in with this tale we hear of the criminals, unchecked because of lax immigration laws and the cost to the taxpayer, etc.

While Congress puts up a false front of pretending to debate immigration “for the good of all”, it appears nobody cares much about the grass roots of immigration, what it was, what it meant and in particular what was expected of those wanting to come to America.

Few even realize that immigration was mostly sold as a dream vacation for some, as greedy capitalists wanted cheap labor to bulk up their profit margins. And we can’t overlook the millions of immigrants sent to the United States by the Catholic Church in order to gain global dominance and control as many countries and their governments and their education institutes as possible.

I suppose the Pilgrims were some of our first immigrants, but even from the time of 1620 until the early 1900s, what drove people to want to come to this country is a far cry from what it is today. Consider the differences between once when the sales pitch was about being a free and ideally an equal chance to accomplish what every other man could. Today, not totally unlike many years past, we still have greedy capitalists seeking to exploit the foreigners for money, the Catholic Church still looking for a super majority of followers and we can easily add to that now, the slimy politicians looking for more voters who will keep them in their cushy and corrupt jobs as out of touch, wealthy criminals who hide behind the red, white and blue.

I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I have no issue with letting anyone who wants to come to this country for all the right reasons, to do so. Once America had an identity and dream for a future that is very much unlike what reality has bestowed upon us today. Why is it that we feel compelled to give immigrants more than they need to come here?; i.e. food stamps, welfare, education, driver license, etc. The immigrants of the past came and got a piece of paper that told them they had a right to be here and take care of themselves, by themselves and if they wanted they could work toward citizenship and assimilate into an America that was free and independent. Wanting a chance to better themselves and a fair shot at doing so, separated the wheat from the chaff. This is what made America great. An immigrant had to really want to be an American; an American once defined.

My how things have changed.

Over the weekend I read a short book by Mary Antin called: They Who Knock at Our Gates – A Complete Gospel of Immigration. The Riverside Press, Cambridge – 1914. The book examines the justification of immigration as is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence; that the reasons for America to want to be free from the despotic reign of King George, so too must all humans be given that same right.

But as I’ve tried to point out, immigration and what drives people to seek refuge in this country has drastically changed. To prove this point, below I’ve typed out an excerpt from the book that is describing what kind of person(s) wants to come to America and why. Compare this with what is happening today.

“I have little sympathy with declaimers about the Pilgrim Fathers,
who look upon them all as men of grand conceptions and superhuman foresight. An entire ship’s company of Columbuses is what the world never saw.” – James Russell Lowell

It takes a wizard critic like Lowell to chip away the crust of historic sentiment and show us our forefathers in the flesh. Lowell would agree with me that the Pilgrims were a picked troop in the sense that there was an immense preponderance of virtue among them. And that is exactly what we must say of our modem immigrants, if we judge them by the sum total of their effect on our country.

Not a little of the glory of the Pilgrim Fathers rests on their own testimony. Our opinion of them is greatly enhanced by the expression we find, in the public and private documents they have left us, of their ideals, their aims, their expectations in the New World. Let us judge our immigrants also out of their own mouths, as future generations will be sure to judge them. And in seeking this testimony let us remember that humanity in general does not produce one oracle in a decade. Very few men know their own
hearts, or can give an account of the impulses that drive them in a particular direction. We put our ears to the lips of the eloquent when we want to know what the world is thinking. And what do we get when we sift down the sayings of the spokesmen among the foreign folk? An anthem in praise of American ideals, a passionate glorification of the principles of democracy.

Let it be understood that the men and women of exceptional intellect, who have surveyed the situation from philosophical heights, are not trumpeting forth their own high dreams alone. If they have won the
ear of the American nation and shamed the indifferent and silenced the cynical, it is because they voiced the feeling of the inarticulate mob that welters in the foreign quarters of our cities. I am never so clear as to the basis of my faith in America as when I have been talking with the ungroomed mothers of
the East Side. A widow down on Division Street was complaining bitterly of the hardships of her lot, alone in an alien world with four children to bring up. In the midst of her complaints the children came in from school. “Well,” said the hard-pressed widow, “bread isn’t easy to get in America, but the children can go to school, and that’s more than bread. Rich man, poor man, it’s all the same: the
children can go to school.”

The poor widow had never heard of a document called the Declaration of Independence, but evidently she had discovered in American practice something corresponding to one of the great American principles, the principle of equality of opportunity, and she valued it more than the necessaries of animal life. Even so was it valued by the Fathers of the Republic, when they deliberately incurred the dangers of a war with mighty England in defense of that and similar principles.

Share

Obama is a Lying Snake

Visiting Mexico, the Liar in Chief, in a speech, told Mexicans that it is American guns that are responsible for Mexico’s violence. He didn’t want to mention to anyone about his “Fast and Furious” program, where this Marxist dictator was responsible for intentionally sending thousands of guns across the border in some scam covered by nonsense about tracking guns to see where they were coming from.

And even though the data show that guns used in Mexican violence that originate in the U.S. is a tiny percentage, the president continues to blatantly and deliberately lie about it. And yet it takes a foreign news agency to even indicate the guy lies.

Why does this guy get a free pass on his lying?

Share

Boston Bombing Questions About Black Backpacks

With every major killing incident, there are always oddities, unanswered questions, and of course conspiracy theories. A theory remains a theory until it can be proven.

I have countless unanswered questions about the Boston Marathon bombing but I want to keep this as simple as possible and focus on just one aspect of the bombing and then perhaps you too will have more questions.

Yesterday, a reader on this blog, left a link to a series of photographs taken in and around the bombing area of the Boston Marathon. This certainly was not the first batch of pictures I have seen in this regard. I recall the first series (don’t actually recall where I saw them) made little sense to me and as a matter of fact I considered many of the conclusions theorists were jumping to to be a stretch. I have learned over the years to never disregard anything. There is usually a degree of truth in everything and it’s up to me to be vigilant and search for the truth. I’m still searching.

The last series of photos certainly piqued my curiosity, so I’ve been doing some research and thought I would share with readers some of what I have found as it pertains only to the backpacks focused on throughout this investigation.

It is to the best of my knowledge concerning dates and “official” photographs, etc. that I present this information.

I believe it was on April the 17th, a Wednesday, that the FBI announced to the public that they were focusing on a black, nylon backpack or bag believed to have contained the bombs that were exploded during the foot race. They also released a photo of the remnants of one of the bags believed to be part of the bomb. Note: I believe this photo to be a copy of the official FBI photo released to the public and media.

shreddedbackpack

On April 18th, the following day, the FBI released photos of what they called “suspects” in the bomb attack. I believe this photo to be an official FBI release.

suspects

Two other important statements from the FBI took place on April 18, 2013. I am not sure if there was one or more FBI press conferences that day. If there was more than one, I then do not know the specific order in which the statements were made.

In one statement, the FBI said, “If you have visual images, video, and/or details regarding the explosions along the Boston Marathon route and elsewhere, submit them on https://bostonmarathontips.fbi.gov/.”

In a separate statement, the FBI warns: “”The photos and videos are posted for the public and media to use, review, and publicize. For clarity, these images should be the only ones and I emphasize the only ones the public should view to assist us,” DesLauriers said. “Other photos should not be deemed credible and they unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction and create undue work for vital law enforcement resources.”

I think under “normal” circumstances I wouldn’t pay much attention to a statement like this but it seems to contradict the plea given the same day for the public to send them “images, video, and details” of anything they deemed suspicious.

Of course one theory is that the FBI was attempting to direct the public to focus only on the two suspects they had fingered as the perpetrators.

However, let’s move on.

The FBI releases, on the 17th of April, a photograph of what they told the public was the remnants of a backpack or nylon bag that contained the bomb that blew up people near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Below is that photo again, only this time I have drawn a circle around what appears to be a whitish-colored square or rectangle – perhaps an ID patch or something attached there by the manufacturer.

backpackpatch

I am going to post two more photos that one I believe to be an FBI photograph published by USA Today. The other I am not sure where it came from but to me appears to have come from the same surveillance camera. The first photo is of the two suspects, their backs to the camera, but more importantly, it gives us a pretty good shot of the backpacks they had on at the time the photo was taken, presumably sometime prior to the explosion. The second photo is of just the older brother of the two suspects and gives a better look at his backpack.

brothersbackpack

olderbrotherpack

If we attempt to compare the official FBI photo of the shredded backpack with the two backpacks shown on the backs and/or shoulders of the two suspects, isn’t there reasonable doubt that these two packs don’t match very well the official FBI picture? Consider the pack hanging over the shoulder of the younger of the two brother suspects. It’s as much white as it is black. In the official backpack photo, the large amount of white appears to me to be more like the lining than built into the color scheme of the backpack slung over his shoulder. Or I’m wrong.

The lead suspect, the older brother, his pack comes closer to matching the official FBI bag but any whitish, square or rectangle patch cannot be detected in this photo.

If this isn’t confusing enough, I want to post one last photograph of what many of us were forced into seeing if any of us watched the news. It’s a picture of what is believed to be the backpack, with a bomb in it, placed at the bomb scene, or that’s what we have been told. However, I cannot find anywhere where this photograph is listed as an “official” FBI photo. Remember, we were told to only look at their photos and all others were not credible. So this may not be credible in the FBI’s mind.

Somebody please tell me that the image in this photograph does not an any way shape or form, resemble the official FBI photo of the black nylon backpack or bag that contained the bombs.

bombatscene

All of this has at least gotten me to a point of asking more questions and looking for more evidence. What I see in these photos, most of which are official FBI photographs, simply does not make that much sense – at least it doesn’t very nicely fit into the narrative given by the FBI.

I am certainly open to reasonable explanations.

Share

Margaret Thatcher’s Granddaughter at Funeral

Amanda Thatcher hails from Texas. She was not sent to represent Barack Obama’s government. Nobody was.

Share

One Boston Bombing Suspect Killed

bombingsuspect1

Share

CISPA Will Destroy Internet Freedoms

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, should come up for a vote today around noon.

cispa1

cispa2

Share