April 27, 2017

General Electric Use of Investors’ Money to Fund Extremist Charities Under Scrutiny

Free Enterprise Project Seeks Support for Shareholder Proposal That Probes GE Donations to Clinton Foundation, Planned Parenthood and Center for American Progress

Why Should Shareholder Money Be Spent Funding Abortion Providers and Ethically Challenged Political Groups?

Asheville, NC / Washington, DC  The National Center for Public Policy Research, the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism, is seeking support from General Electric’s investors for its resolution calling on the industrial giant to explain its rationale for donating shareholder money to controversial groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation.  The proposal, submitted and sponsored by the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP), highlights instances in which GE’s charitable contributions may be doing more harm than good by damaging the company’s reputation.

GE’s shareholder meeting will be being held on Wednesday, April 26 at the GE Aviation facility in Asheville, North Carolina.  This will be the ninth time a National Center representative has attended a GE shareholder meeting and the seventh corporate shareholder meeting that FEP has participated in so far in 2017.

“Why would GE donate to highly partisan organizations in this highly politicized environment?  And why would GE risk alienating conservative, free-market and pro-life investors and customers by donating to some of the most extreme liberal organizations in America?  Those are just some of the answers we are seeking with our proposal,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who is set to represent the FEP at the meeting.  “Pro-life investors shouldn’t have their shareholder money going to fund Planned Parenthood just as conservative investors shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the Center for American Progress or Planned Parenthood.  If GE makes an honest assessment of our proposal, the company will be forced to explain why it thinks the risk of alienating those investors is somehow outweighed by the benefit of its controversial donations.”

Out of concern that the company’s donations to the Clinton Foundation – which coincided closely with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to help secure a foreign contract for GE – may have subjected the company to liability for honest services fraud, the National Center previously sought an explanation from GE CEO Jeff Immelt regarding those contributions.  Immelt refused FEP’s request for transparency. That story waswidely covered in the national press, including numerous segments on the Fox News Channel.

The National Center’s proposal asks General Electric to “provide an annual report. . . disclosing: the company’s standards for choosing recipients of company assets in the form of charitable contributions; the business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions, if any; personnel participating in the decision to contribute; the benefits to society at-large produced by company contributions; and a follow-up report confirming the contribution was used for the purpose stated.”

The full text of the National Center’s proposal, and GE’s response to it, are availablehere.  The National Center’s prepared statement in favor of the proposal is availablehere.  Comments from the FEP after the meeting will be available here within hours of the conclusion of the meeting.

The FEP brought similar shareholder proposals before shareholders at Apple earlier this year as well as Coca-Cola, John Deere and McDonalds in 2016.  It also raised corporate funding and affiliation issues with executives of Aetna, Honeywell, Pfizer and UPS in 2015 and 2016.  This is also not the first time the FEP has submitted a shareholder proposal to GE.  In 2014, in response to an FEP proposal, GE proactively changed its corporate policyto protect employees from workplace retribution for private political activities.  The FEP has been attending GE shareholder meetings since 2009.

Launched in 2007, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group – focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.  On April 26, while Danhof is at the General Electric meeting, National Center Vice President David W. Almasi will be participating in Coca-Cola’s shareholder meeting.

 The National Centers Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:

  • FEPs highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundations activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEPs challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEPs Employee Conscience Protection Project strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassels 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

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 four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at@NCPPRMedia.

Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy: Why Does Soda Leader Criticize American Religious Freedom Laws While Doing Business in Nations Lacking Basic Civil Liberties?

All Coca-Cola Investors Urged to Vote for Free Enterprise Project’s Shareholder Proposal That Calls out Coke’s Human Rights Duplicity

Soft Drink Leader’s Allegiance with Fringe Anti-Religious Group Called into Question

Atlanta, GA / Washington, DC –  The National Center for Public Policy Research, the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activis, is calling on all Coca-Cola investors to approve its shareholder resolution that exposes Coca-Cola’s hypocritical treatment of civil liberties.  The proposal, submitted by the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP), questions why the soft drink giant opposes religious liberty in the United States on alleged civil rights pretenses while simultaneously maintaining operations in numerous nations lacking those same rights.

Coca-Cola’s shareholder meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at the World of Coca-Cola in Atlanta, Georgia. This will be the sixth time a National Center representative has attended a Coca-Cola shareholder meeting, and the sixth corporate shareholder meeting that the FEP has participated in so far in 2017.

“Coca-Cola’s attacks on Americans of faith have gone under the radar for far too long,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who is set to represent the FEP at the meeting and has participated in past Coca-Cola shareholder meetings.  “Coca-Cola operates in countries where governments consider homosexuality a crime.  Yet they allied with a radical pressure group, Georgia Prospers, to stop the Peach State’s religious freedom bill they falsely claimed persecuted homosexuals.  It’s inconsistent, and their error in judgement here is compounded by apparent silence abroad. We are simply asking Coca-Cola to justify their actions.” 

The National Center’s proposal “requests the board of directors review the company’s guidelines for selecting countries/regions for its operations and issue a report. . .  [to] identify Coca-Cola’s criteria for investing in, operating in and withdrawing from high-risk regions.” It is the only proposal for consideration by shareholders not being offered by Coca-Cola itself.

The full text of the National Center’s proposal, and Coca-Cola’s response to it, are available on page 81 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for downloadhere.  The text of its prepared statement in favor of the proposal can be found here.  Comments from the FEP after the meeting will be also be available on the site herewithin hours of the conclusion of the meeting.

The National Center’s FEP brought similar shareholder proposals before shareholders atApple, Eli Lilly, General Electric and Wal-Mart in 2016.  It also raised religious freedom issues with executives of Home Depot, Nike, PepsiCo and Red Hat. This is also not the first time the FEP promoted a shareholder proposal at a Coca-Cola meeting.  In 2016, the FEP asked Coca-Cola shareholders to consider a proposal for the company to issue a congruency analysis to point out and justify potentially questionable affiliations and contributions on the part of the company.  The FEP has been attending Coca-Cola shareholder meetings since 2012.

“By opposing Georgia’s religious freedom legislation, Coca-Cola opposed the kind of protections inherent in our nation’s founding principles and later advocated by the likes of Ted Kennedy.  Yet the company does business in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and other places where homosexuality is discriminated against to the extent it is punishable by death,” added Almasi.  “This disconnect in policy cannot be overlooked.  The Free Enterprise Project, as an advocate for the company’s shareholders, is asking company executives to justify their decisions.”

 “If Coca-Cola wants to go after religious Americans, it’s no longer going to do so with impunity,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq.  “Either the company is opposed to religious freedom everywhere or it only opposes religious freedom here in the United States as a means to score political points with the anti-religious left. If the company were to honestly answer our proposal, all Coca-Cola investors would know if the company was truly anti-religious or simply hypocritical for political reasons.  Those are the only two potential explanations for the company’s actions.”

Launched in 2007, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group – focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. The Coca-Cola meeting marks FEP’s sixth shareholder meeting attended so far in 2017.   On April 26, while Almasi is at the Coca-Cola meeting, Danhof will be participating in General Electric’s shareholder meeting.

The National Centers Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:
  • FEPs highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundations activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEPs challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEPs Employee Conscience Protection Project strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassels 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

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 four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at@NCPPRMedia.

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Void of sensible argument, let’s just say for the purposes of this discussion, that the corporate “citizens” of this corporation, the United States of America, live in a democracy. Might as well say it because most think we do and vehemently support it. A democracy sucks…especially when you are the sheep in a three-way discussion with two wolves deciding what’s for lunch. When you combine the ills of the so-called democratic process, with the ignorance of taking the high ground on all things democratic, scientific and wildlife management, spelled out for us in bold letters is HYPOCRISY.

To make my point, gander at the article written in the Kennebec Journal extolling the virtues of Maine’s Constitution and the democratic process in deciding who’s going to make the menu for lunch….er, well, kind of – until the promoter of the democratic process discovers she might be headlining the menu.

The article itself is garbage and so I will not waste my time with a step by step process refuting the endless claims of nonsense strewn through the blather of nonsensical words and hypocritical proclamations shouted from the position of the only one holding the high ground on all matters of what this person calls “rights,” science and the management of wildlife.

It would appear the letter writer assumes the position that rights are granted by governments and that those granted rights are how things should be, as in the rule of law, so long as they are the totalitarian rules of law she chooses to subscribe to that promote her ideology and choice of lifestyle.

The day we are born, our Creator gives us all our rights. It is only man in his sin that takes those rights away and/or doles them out as a means of controlling the population and presenting themselves as an “exceptional” government creating an “exceptional” nation. Sound familiar? Perhaps you don’t recognize it.

For each and every law that it enacted, one more aspect of our God-given rights is being chiseled away. We have reached a point in our uncivilized, greedy, nasty, hate-filled nation, where democracy, manipulated by money and power, is used to force the wills of only the most powerful and affluent among our society. There is a different name for this other than democracy…but, don’t go look.

In our own blind ignorance, created by the same powerful and affluent through essentially brainwashing (controlling all forms of education and media) once anyone assumes the high ground on any issue, of course the other side is wrong and need to be stopped, even to the point of wanting the oppositions rights removed. This IS but one of the nasty elements of democracy that you must like.

Aside from the blather of the letter writer, can anyone see the idiocy in the defense of what this person considers her choice in how democracy and the rule of law are applied? I see this most often but I wonder how many others do, especially those bent on forcing their idealism and totalitarian ways onto all others.

With but limited “rights” left, as most all “rights” are either taken away or have been limited to some degree, one can only employ the “democratic” process available in hopes of changing those laws.

In Maine there is but one more attempt at amending the constitution in order to establish what the promoters are calling a constitutional protection to hunt, fish and trap. Incidentally and most relevant to an honest discussion, since Maine became a state, there have been 172 approved amendments to its Constitution. Should it come as a shock to people that the process taken to adopt these amendments was the “democratic” process established within the original Constitution as defined in Article X, Section 4.? If you love this democracy so much, I hope you at least understand how it works.

How, then, is seeking approval from the Maine Legislature, to present to the voters of that state, a chance to consider, debate and vote on this or any other amendment, wrong as it applies to things a person doesn’t approve of?

The letter writer claims that a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap will destroy the rights of others and prohibit them from having any legal recourse in affairs concerning wildlife management. What nonsense. No constitutional amendment, unless so written, will supersede any and all other articles and amendments within a constitution.

Not that long ago, some in Maine were promoting a law that would remove a person’s right to petition the state in wildlife management issues of which I opposed. The proposed amendment, as written, would not do that.

It appears that in the letter writer’s enthusiasm and hatred toward all things hunting, trapping and fishing, she is skewing the lines between offering substantiated reasons to oppose an amendment for its content, and the actual democratic process established within the constitution.

I assure everyone that of the 172 amendments to Maine’s Constitution, not everyone liked and voted for them. However, as I have stated, democracy sucks, especially when you are on the short end of the stick.

The process is established and as much as some would like even to change that process, which can be done by implementation of the democratic and legal processes established within the Constitution, it is a process that shouldn’t be used to somehow demonize anyone’s or group of anyone’s right to petition the state and/or use the legal process to, in fact, let the voters decide. That is after all, what most American’s think is the best way to do things. It’s a classic Jeffersonian process.

The person who wrote this letter obviously does not understand the state’s legal processes, as well as the not so legal processes, that are presented as a right to assure a citizen the process to legally change the laws. It is not only ironic, buy of a double standard, that anyone would, while attempting to bless the Maine Constitution, out of the corner of their mouths, wish to limit those rights to anyone she does not agree with or that doesn’t agree with her.

The process is there, whether we like it or not. If you support this process and believe in it, then put your money where your mouth is and let the process work. In the meantime, if you oppose or support the proposed constitutional amendment then provide valid reasons for or against. Don’t pretend to understand the process while doing everything in your power to destroy the process.

Then again, all of this could be just a charade.

 

The Two Faces of Environmentalism

A man who is a member of the National Parks Conservation Association, wrote: “The northern Maine of my childhood was a perfect wilderness. In the car, as we drove north, houses and businesses would disappear from the sides of the highway, and the woods would close in. They were dense and dark and appeared entirely wild. I imagined, as a child, that no human had ever before dared to set foot in them. No one but us, of course.”

And this: “As it turns out, from the summit of Mount Katahdin I was looking out over what would become Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. The area appeared then as it does now, and as it has for thousands of years: It’s a rolling green sea of pine trees, broken only by granite peaks and shimmering lakes. It looked the same to Henry David Thoreau, who described finding “a primitive forest, more interesting” than any other for “a thousand miles westward.” It looked the same to a young Theodore Roosevelt, who took his experiences in the Maine woods and turned them into a life dedicated to conservation.”

Along with: “Having left Maine….There is simply nothing like the woods of Maine left in the eastern United States….Miles of forest floor covered in a thick bed of pine needles. Stands of fir so dense you need to turn around and use your back to push through.”

And finally this little tidbit: “My grandfather taught me years ago that Maine’s environment doesn’t stay wild on its own; rather, it requires ceaseless effort from those who are dedicated to protecting the land.”

These quotes were authored by a man, who not only supported the National Monument, Katahdin Woods and Waters, but claims to have been an active participant in getting the job done.

What puzzles me, and which is part of the nonsensical, two-faced hypocrisy of Environmentalism, is how can any person, with a straight face write such wonderful words to describe his memories of what Maine meant to him and his family, and then turn around and actively participate in creating a park, hoping to bring in hundreds of thousands of people, cutting trees, building roads and other infrastructure?

I think there is one small part of what this author writes that might go unnoticed. In the beginning the author describes how, while driving further and further north, the woods grew ever more wild and dense, imagining that no human had ever stepped foot into these forests, or ever would – No one but us, of course.”

And isn’t that the real face of Environmentalism?

The wonders of “conserving” wild lands and forests!

Apple’s Hypocrisy? Company’s Charitable Donations Helped Expand Presidential Powers Under Obama It Now Opposes Under Trump

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Shareholder Proposal Demands Apple Come Clean on Charitable Contributions

Apple’s Controversial Donations to Extremist Center for American Progress and Scandal-Plagued Clinton Foundation Shows Need for Transparency, Accountability

Cupertino, CA/Washington, D.C. – At today’s annual meeting of Apple shareholders in Cupertino, California, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research is presenting a proposal seeking greater transparency from the tech giant regarding its philanthropic activities.

In particular, the proposal expresses concern about the controversial political nature of and potential results from Apple contributions and seeks a report to shareholders explaining why the company’s management believes these charitable donations match Apple’s values and goals.

“Corporate charitable contributions should enhance a company’s image and improve the communities in which it operates. While much of Apple’s charitable activities match that criteria, the company has also donated to controversial political groups that could harm shareholder value and cause unnecessary damage to the company’s reputation,” said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who is attending today’s Apple shareholder meeting and presenting the National Center’s proposal.

At the meeting, Danhof is presenting the proposal which, in part, states:

[m]uch of Apple’s charity work is laudable. However, the company admits that it donates to thousands of organizations. Some of these organizations may use the funds in unintended ways. Donations to controversial groups – particularly political groups – may also result in harm to Apple’s reputation.

For example, the company has donated to the Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP is an extreme political group that has been accused of anti-Semitism. Additionally, in 2010, under the direction of John Podesta – who would later become the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – CAP wrote the blueprint for the Obama Administration’s expansion of executive power. According to the New York Times, “once Mr. Obama got the taste for it, he pursued his executive power without apology, and in ways that will shape the presidency for decades to come.” Now, with President Donald Trump in office, Apple has lodged complaints about the very same use of executive power that was effectively designed and, by implication, endorsed through its funding of CAP.

Danhof’s full statement at today’s meeting, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

The National Center’s complete proposal, and Apple’s response to it, are available on pages 54-55 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

“It takes quite a bit of chutzpah for Apple’s executives to protest President Trump’s use of executive power when Apple funded the liberal group that reportedly helped the Obama Administration expand the scope and breadth of executive branch power more than any other recent president. Because Apple funded the Center for American Progress, its recent complaints about the Trump Administration’s use of this executive power on immigration policy fall flat,” said Danhof.

In late January, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple CEO Tim Cook suggested the company might take legal action against the Trump Administration’s executive order on immigration. Then, in early February, the company joined with more than 120 other corporations in signing a motion to support the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Minnesota and Washington State that eventually scuttled the immigration order.

“Apple CEO Tim Cook is a well-known liberal activist, and the company counts Al Gore as one of its most prominent board members. That’s all well and good, but when the company funds one of the most extreme liberal organizations in America – with deep ties to George Soros – investors ought to be concerned,” said Danhof. “The Center for American Progress and Mr. Soros share a vision for America that is detrimental to the free-market system that has allowed Apple to grow and thrive.”

At the meeting, Danhof is also addressing Apple’s donations to the Clinton Foundation. Danhof’s planned statement reads:

[Apple] also donated to the Clinton Foundation, which is reportedly under FBI investigation. Media reports strongly imply that parts of the Clinton Foundation operated as a pay-for-play scheme whereby individuals and corporations may have sought preferential treatment from government actors in exchange for donations to the Foundation. That speculation is fueled by the closing of some of the Clinton Foundation’s operations following Mrs. Clinton’s unsuccessful White House bid.

“Outside of the overt political nature of donating to a foundation run by the Clintons, shareholders have a right to question Apple’s decision to donate to a group that has a poor reputation as a charity and may now be in the FBI’s crosshairs,” added Danhof.

Even before the specter of an FBI investigation fell over the Clinton Foundation, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project was very active in exploring the connection between the Clinton Foundation and corporate America. In April 2015, National Center personnel confronted executives at Boeing and General Electric about potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of violations regarding possible honest services fraud. Both companies donated large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and both were beneficiaries of large foreign government contracts when Hillary Clinton – then serving as Secretary of State – helped secure those foreign contracts. The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project’s activism played a role in intensifying the spotlight on the Clinton Foundation as the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” extensively covered Danhof’s confrontation with General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group, focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Apple meeting marks its second shareholder meeting so far in 2017.

In 2016, the Free Enterprise Project was featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune among many others. The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kim Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

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 four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

 

“Progressive” Sexual Assault is Acceptable….I Guess

Perhaps Not Such a Random Thought and Comment

I have, for the most part, stopped watching television news. Need I explain why? However, I think it was yesterday, as I was sitting at my computer writing, I could hear on the television in the next room a news story of how one Middle School, somewhere in America, was celebrating “culture day,” whatever that is. I think it is part of what is called “spirit week.” Probably the spirit is that of Satan, but I digress.

One student brought in a Confederate Flag for his representation of “culture.” The police were called immediately. The young man was arrested and suspended from school (I don’t know for how long). The next day all the black students skipped class and gathered in protest outside the school building. Their actions were applauded.

Open-Minded Voices of Tolerance

HuckabeeQuote

Black Turds Matter

Americans simply don’t understand rights. A right is something a person is supposed to enjoy expressing  because, for whatever the reasons, they believe in the need to make such an expression. Exercising of a right to free speech, for example, should not be limited simply because a person does not agree with another’s political perceptions. Also misunderstood about rights is that, although as an American you are supposed to be guaranteed and protected of certain rights, they believe they are also protected from the repercussions that may befall them for the choice they made. Never!

Americans are hypocrites, among other things, and cherry pick when and how a person is supposed to exercise a right – according to their value system. We all should know that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no protection of the American Flag. It can be burned, trampled and pissed on and that is part of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Somehow, Americans believe that the First Amendment is worth giving up over 13 stripes and 50 stars (57 if you are Obama), and the musical anthem of this country.

It matters not, to the establishment and protection of a right, whether you think an NFL football player is doing the right thing by not standing for the playing of the national anthem. What matters is that you should understand he has that right as an individual…supposedly. However, making that choice, of which he said he gave it a lot of consideration, will come with consequences…as do all our choices.

So, stop being a hypocritical idiot, and support this person’s right to free speech. If you think his perceptions are wrong, then I would suggest that instead of continuing to blindly follow your centralized government, believing they can do no wrong, you spend the time to find all the legitimate reasons in the world to convince Mr. Kaepernick his is mistaken. Good luck!

And while he is being run through the wringer for making a freedom of choice decision, the leaders of this government, responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions, continue to lie, cheat, steal, murder, perjure, etc. with no consequences for their actions.

If only the brainwashed, had they not been brainwashed, were as enthusiastic about lynching a man for exercising his right to free speech as they SHOULD be about putting politicians in jail for very serious crimes they have committed.

BUT, BY ALL MEANS, DON’T GO LOOK!

BlackTurdsMatter

F**k George Clooney

Language