July 21, 2019

My Recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

George Smith, an outdoor writer, and environmentalist, provides his readers with a list of his recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). I can’t say I agree with everything he is suggesting. I’ll explain why.

Smith wants a better open door policy at the MDIFW main office. I agree although I don’t use it and probably never will. You can’t fix a rigged system by using the rigged system.

George says it’s time for MDIFW to do something about turkeys. He says there are too many, that the fees and permitting system needs to be changed, bag limits raised, in order to motivate more hunters to take up turkey hunting.

I’m not a turkey hunter. I’ve never tried it and doubt that I will for a number of reasons. I will, however, concur that there are too many turkeys. I’ve never seen as many wild turkeys as I have this late summer and fall.

It is a known fact that management and acceptance of any wild animal on the landscape are heavily influenced by acceptance and satisfaction from the general public. When such animals become a nuisance and a public health and safety issue, acceptance by the public disappears in a hurry. Maine is reaching that point where they are considering the turkey to be a nuisance. I agree something should be done to get those numbers under better control.

It is my strong opinion that Maine has too many moose. This has caused the overwhelming growth in winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd. Maine should have been keeping the moose population at lower, healthier levels than growing them to numbers great enough to appease the selfish desires of tourists and hunters.

Smith suggests a program of capturing and “spraying” moose to kill the ticks. This is about as feasible as trapping deer and planting birth control devices in them. It certainly appears to me that the biggest motivational factor in finding ways to kill the ticks other than reducing the population is completely selfish. Whining and carrying on because moose gawking businesses can’t make enough money unless they can see moose anytime and everywhere they want to is not only selfish but it’s irresponsible. MDIFW is irresponsible in their management goals of the moose to attempt to grow moose to numbers that satisfy the tourist industry.

Smith says that Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s moose biologist, said he, “…believes that eventually the population will be reduced to a level where ticks will not be such a problem.” Eventually? Is this going to happen when the ticks (Natural Regulation) have successfully brought the number of moose to levels it should be through years of suffering moose, or is MDIFW actively manipulating the moose hunt to bring numbers to tick-free desired levels?

Hypocrisy exists when Smith in one breath suggests that moose numbers should be protected by finding ways to “spray” moose to kill ticks, while in the next talks about how proud he was to help facilitate the slaughter of deer on one of Maine’s coastal islands. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. While killing the deer was in the name of putting a stop to Lyme disease, evidently, such a suggestion informs us that ignorance is abundant when it comes to winter ticks, moose, and disease.

Marketing Maine by the Maine government to draw in tourists, hunters, anglers, hikers, etc. is a waste of time and money. Many Maine residents, who aren’t the business owners trying to make a go of it, while calling upon the government to promote their businesses, don’t want more of these people coming to the state, all for the sake of collecting more money. Any business should be geared to do their own marketing and provide a product or service good enough that “if you build it they will come.” Why should I subsidize another’s business? Who is subsidizing me? This is nothing more than an exemplification of the socialist/totalitarian society we have become.

Once again, Smith extolls the need to fund MDIFW with general taxation dollars. He even says that MDIFW should be run by “groups representing hunters, anglers, conservationists, and environmentalists.” It doesn’t take much effort to see that in other states that have done this, their fish and game departments have gone to hell in a handbasket.

I don’t understand how anyone of sound mind can encourage the operation of the fish and game department by those “conservationists and environmentalists” who have cost us millions of dollars over the years attempting to put a stop to hunting and trapping. Isn’t this a form of insanity?

The MDIFW has become overrun with “conservationists and environmentalists” and that’s one of the biggest reasons large predators have grown out of control and deer populations are shrinking to a point they’ve decided not to even bother attempting to manage deer in those areas that have lost all their deer.

Environmentalism is a planned mental illness that operates on the false pretense that “Natural Regulation” (which is an oxymoron) works better than a hands-on approach. Turning the reins of MDIFW over to the environmentalists and animal rights radicals, which is what you’ll get once the leverage of how the MDIFW is funded, is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

It might be of great interest if some who promote general taxation monies to fund the MDIFW would expend a little effort and look into what has become of other state’s fish and game departments when they lost control, turned their work over to Environmentalism and renamed their departments, departments of conservation and environment.

Granted the MDIFW needs some changes, but not in the wrong direction. Moving it more toward the demands of Environmentalism isn’t a cure unless death is what you are seeking.

Share

During Deer Hunting “Errant Bullets Being Discharged in the Forest”

The author of a Letter to the Editor rebuttal about how Maine tradition has included taking your children with you to go deer hunting, asks immediately, “Has the world gone completely mad?”

I would have to say it has after reading this ignorant, emotional claptrap: “How can anyone justify exposing a 7-month-old baby to the inherent dangers of errant bullets being discharged in the forest during prime hunting season?”

I am 66 years of age. I began following my father around in the woods during hunting season, sometimes I’m sure he did want me crashing through the leaves behind him, and I’ve never witnessed “errant bullets being discharged” while in the woods. It’s not something that happens but extremely rarely.

And yet the same sniveling whiners think nothing of strapping a newborn baby into a car seat and heading to the mall. Surely there is more risk in a car than from so-imagined “errant bullets.”

Or perhaps this brain-poisoned automaton would prefer that the children stay home and become mind controlled from filthy, disgusting movies, music, video games, cell phones, Facebook, and the like. Perhaps she would prefer propping the child up in front of the technological device and watching Disney’s new movie that shows one princess looking to kill another “rival” princess with broken glass. There’s also the myriad available violence-laced video games that teach children how to fire “errant bullets” and kill innocent people all in the name of entertainment.

Maybe the author prefers that at 7 months of age the parent begins teaching their child how to become a homosexual, a transgender, a lesbian, a queer, bisexual, or the benefits of smoking dope or doing meth at a young age. God only knows we can’t take any other far-out risk of exposing our child to “errant bullets.”

“Has the world gone completely mad?” Absolutely, and this author is proof of it. The world is insane. Priorities are askew. Values have all gone away. Morals are missing.

 

Share

When Money Talks and Shit Walks

According to the Boston Globe, Central Maine Power Company (a Spanish-owned company) wants to run an electric transmission line from the Canadian border, through the North Woods, crossing the Kennebec Gorge, and wending its way to a substation in Lewiston. The purpose of the proposed transmission line is to sell electricity to no other place than Massachusetts.

This same trick was attempted in New Hampshire with a project called Northern Pass, where residents and ultimately the state government said no thank you and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

With this proposal, it seems the energy supplier intends to bribe their way to victory offering millions of dollars to poor struggling communities that rely mostly on tourism, outdoor recreation, and the lumbering industry, all of which are a dying breeds thanks to environmentalism and a decaying social structure which thinks it has no use for any of this.

But the money sounds good and several individuals and towns in the path of the 150-foot wide clear cut appear eager to have the eyesore that Massachusetts wants and doesn’t have to live with in exchange for money, some jobs during construction, that more than likely will be meted out to out-of-state and/or out-of-country workers, and funded with money that comes from anywhere but Maine.

But even with all that, consider the utter nonsense the sellers of the project are spewing.

They first want people to believe that this project will save the planet, by producing “clean” energy from hydro-power locations which will cut down on carbon emissions to curb Global Warming. Anyone with a brain knows this is utter nonsense that cannot and will never be supported by real science.

Consider the statement…Please! There is ample room for discussing how building a dam smack dab in the middle of a perfectly good river is harmful to the environment.

And then, millions and millions of board-feet of trees are going to be removed from the forest. Last time I checked trees feed off absorbed carbon dioxide giving off oxygen for all of us to breath. Can removing all the trees save the planet?

During construction of the transmission line, carbon-burning equipment will pollute the environment, erosion will happen, wildlife will be disrupted, vernal pools destroyed, brooks and rivers will be dirtied and upset, more roads built to gain access, and the list is endless. How is any of this good for the environment and how will it have any effect on fake global warming? It’s “clean” energy from water power, therefore it is good?

Seriously!

I know I mostly waste my time talking about Global Warming because the masses are now completely sold on its validity and all that is measured these days is how ga-ga the zombies are at the moment about how it might affect their self-gratifying lives and their love affairs with cell phones and social media. Nothing else matters.

Some of the environmentalists are saying they aren’t sold on the idea that hydropower sent over a new transmission line will reduce the effects of global warming and instead suggest that CMP (a Spanish-owned company – oh, did I already mention that?) should take the money and put it to work building more solar and wind energy projects.

Consider this suggestion for a moment. Think of the environmental destruction that takes place when solar fields and windmill projects are built. Massive amounts of forests are forever destroyed and still transmission lines must be built in order to get power from point A to point B.

In the proposed new transmission line, it would pass the Appalachian Trail 3 times and cross directly over the Kennebec Gorge. Some find this an atrocity that cannot happen because environmentalists use the trails and consider the Gorge as untouchable. And yet, they think nothing of raping mountain tops and erecting the ugliest of all uglies – windmills towering well over 200 feet placing a blight on the skyline, especially when one catches on fire after it has killed hundreds of birds and changed the habitats and habits of all sorts of wildlife. But, but, but… we’re saving the planet.

And all of this will save the planet?

But saving the planet be damned, it appears money will talk and shit will walk. Here’s some of what CMP is promising the residents that will be impacted by this project.

It will create 1,700 temporary jobs and bring in $18 million a year in new property taxes. (Sounds like a lot of money but when you spread it out through numerous towns the length of the transmission line, it’s not that sizable that it would matter much.

CMP is pledging to spend $50 million over 40 years on “programs” to “assist” low-income families and to reroute the Appalachian Trail. Gobbledee-Gook!!! A million a year…until nobody keeps count anymore and then what? Pledge be damned!

You will have to decide for yourself about whether you think the project is a good one. The real issue here is the continued lying and hypocrisy that still exists and always will from two-faced environmentalists who swear to save the planet with one breath while something else is destroyed that is more destructive than what is attempted to be saved. It is utter insanity.

The world won’t come to an end if power lines are strung across the Kennebec Gorge. But don’t think for a minute that swapping that proposal for another super ugly, environmentally destructive windmill project will save the day. Give me a break!

However, it appears that the enticement of some temporary money will win out. Some in Maine will see effects of bribe money but most won’t, all for the prospect of delivering electricity to Massachusetts. As was suggested to me, if Massachusetts needs the electricity, let it be their problem and not Maine’s. Serious thought should be given about what happens to Maine that will only benefit Massachusetts and to hell with dirty bribe money.

If Massachusetts insists on “clean” energy, I’m sure there are many great locations to put up a nuclear power plant and be done with it. GASP!!!!

Share

The Number 18 and the Number 21

I often get emails ridiculing Liberalism and in most cases, the ridicule is justified. But how much of what we do and what we get done is actually the result of unclear thinking from liberals and how much is the product of Leftism or for that matter the Deep State?

For decades, perhaps centuries, 18 years of age seemed to be the benchmark for when the Deep State feels they can get away with sending our children off to fight their wars, many of which come home in a box.

18 years of age is also the magic benchmark that allows those the privilege to vote for those puppets in Washington who will decide that at 18 you are old enough to die for their cause, hidden behind the guise of “freedom isn’t free” or some other such apothegm.

At age 18 you can don a uniform, carry weapons, and kill people so that Americans can be “free.” Nobody questions the absurdity of this. At age 18 you can cast a ballot for the next fascist dictator puppet so Americans can be “free.” Nobody questions this absurdity.

At any age, you can stage a revolt in Washington and dictate to criminals in Congress who can own a gun and what kind they can own, how much ammunition you can possess and what your gun might look like. But unless you are 21 you can’t own one of those guns.

Are you so embroiled in “for the love of country” and your government that you are incapable of seeing that this fascist regime and useless eaters that do their bidding for them, insist that once you turn 18 you can go get yourself blown up in a war created by the politicians, but you are incapable of owning a gun in this “free” country many died for in the name of “freedom isn’t free?”

Absolute HORSESHIT!!!

Share

Hypocritical Circular Thinking

Share

Gore Criticized by Black Activists for Green Agenda Hurting Poor, Minorities

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Hypocritical Actions, Hysterical Assertions Hurt Gore’s Credibility

Washington, DC – As Al Gore takes his An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Powerdocumentary into theaters nationwide, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network are criticizing the former vice president for being out of touch with the needs of the American people.  In particular, Project 21 members say Gore’s green agenda is harmful to the well-being of poor and minority households and that his actions detract from his message.

On the documentary’s promotional website, people are urged to reduce their “carbon footprint” by using fewer of the plentiful and more economical fossil fuels, to embrace more expensive alternative energy sources and to be politically active in the pursuit of increased environmental regulation.  As energy costs inevitably rise under such an agenda, those who are already at an economic disadvantage will find themselves facing unnecessary new budgetary burdens.

“Al Gore’s comments and actions hammer home the fact that climate change alarmists aren’t taking into account how much their pet project hurts African-Americans, other minorities and low-income families,” said Derrick Hollie, a member of Project 21 and the president of the Reaching America policy organization.  “Energy is the lifeblood of our society.  Any increase in its cost disproportionately affects lower income groups.  Green activists tend to ignore how their agenda affects energy poverty, which keeps disadvantaged populations poor through high energy prices and decreased economic opportunities.”

Additionally, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the parent organization of Project 21, reported this week that Gore’s estate near Nashville, Tennessee used over 21 times more electricity in the past year than the average American household.  This conspicuous consumption of energy from someone who asks others to make do with less – and potentially more expensive – energy raises allegations of hypocrisy.

“Isn’t it cute when someone who has made a living peddling lies about the weather lectures Americans about how they should live?  Actually, it isn’t.  It’s not cute, it doesn’t make sense and it’s downright insulting,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington, a syndicated talk radio host and U.S. Air Force veteran. “Americans have every right to use all the energy they can afford – just like Al Gore does in a mansion you might be able to see from space at night because of its size and energy use.  Gore simply doesn’t practice what he preaches. His electricity use rivals over 21 American households combined.  We should ignore his climate decrees until he starts walking the walk.”

Another aspect of Gore’s environmental advocacy that angers Project 21 members is his comparison of environmentalism to civil rights.  At the recent EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne, Australia, Gore compared  global warming activism to “all the great moral causes” such as the abolition of slavery and passage of civil rights laws in the United States and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.  On comedian Marc Maron’spodcast, he likened the gradual acceptance of civil rights 50 years ago to people now interested in installing solar panels on their homes.

“This is truly rich coming from the son of a segregationist. When his father was filibustering against the civil rights for blacks in the Senate, where was Al Gore, Jr.’s concern?” asked Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former assistant law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, in response to Gore’s Melbourne speech.  “Study after study demonstrate that the radical climate policies advocated by Al Gore, Jr. will hurt blacks and the poor most.  Just as segregation and interracial marriage bans were purported to be for the good of all while clearly done to generate political support, today’s climate alarmism is pushed solely to get the support of a small group of so-called eco-warriors at the expense of blacks.  Please spare us any more of this.”

Share

Al Gore’s “Energy Hog” House Devours up to 34 Times More Energy Than the Typical U.S. Home

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Star of Green Documentary An Inconvenient Sequel “Has Done Little to Prove His Commitment to the Cause in his Own Life”

Power Bills Show Gore Leading Double Life of Preaching Sacrifice to Others While Indulging Himself

Nashville, TN / Washington, D.C. – Al Gore’s Nashville estate devoured more than 21 times the amount of electricity than the average American household over the past year.  A National Center for Public Policy Research report on energy use at the property of the former vice president portrays Gore as a hypocrite who demands others sacrifice for his green zealotry while he enjoys energy without apparent care for cost or capacity.

Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power environmental documentary debuts nationwide this Friday.

 Key findings of the National Center’s “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality” report, which draws on data obtained from the Nashville Electric Service (NES), include:

  • The 10,070-square-foot 20-room mansion, pool and security gate on Gore’s 2.09-acre estate outside Nashville used 230,889 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity during the last 12 months.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the typical American household uses just 10,812 kWh a year.

  • In September of 2016 alone, Gore’s estate guzzled 30,993 kWh of electricity – an amount more than 34 times the national monthly average.

  • Al Gore’s average annual power consumption at his Nashville home was a staggering 21.3 times more than the average American.  He also owns two other homes not included in this report.
  • The former vice president burns through more electricity to heat his pool each year than the average U.S. home uses in six years.

  • The 33 solar panels Gore installed on his home produce only 5.7 percent of the energy his home consumes annually.

  • With an average consumption of 22.9 kWh per square foot over the past year, Gore’s home classifies as an “energy hog” under standards developed by Energy Vanguard – a company specializing in energy efficiency methods.

“Al Gore has attained a near-mythical status for his frenzied efforts to propagandize global warming,” said National Center Senior Fellow Drew Johnson, the author of the report.  “At the same time, Gore has done little to prove his commitment to the cause in his own life. I’m not sure he even believes what he’s saying.”

“While Gore encourages people throughout the world to reduce their carbon footprint and make drastic changes to cut energy consumption, Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average the past year with no sign of slowing down,” Johnson said.

Electricity for Gore’s home, pool and security gate comes from NES and is largely derived from coal and nuclear power – with just 3.2 percent generated by wind and solar alternatives.

Gore’s behavior conflicts with behaviors he suggests others follow.  On the website for his documentary, people are urged to “lower your carbon footprint” and advocate for renewable energy use.  It asks people to sign a “ Pledge to #BeInconvenient” that commits them to “switch my home… to 100% renewable energy,” persuade others “to pursue climate solutions” and buy tickets to his documentary.

“Like most sequels, Al Gore’s documentary and his lifestyle choices don’t live up to expectations,” said National Center President David A. Ridenour.  “Al Gore is asking Americans to make expensive and uncomfortable changes to adhere to his green goals, yet his electricity bills show he does not live the way he wants to impose on others.  He can’t just talk the talk – he must walk the walk.  And he has now failed at that twice.”

This is the second time Gore’s conspicuous consumption of power has been exposed.  In 2007, Johnson – then president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research – reported that Gore used over 220,000 kWh of electricity a year at the same property. This led Gore to install solar panels, a costly geothermal heating system and other alleged energy-saving home improvements.  Despite these renovations, his 2016-2017 electricity consumption is over 10,000 kWh more than a decade ago.

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 60,000 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.

 

Share

Abortion Should Be the Recommended Instrument to Control Animal Populations

Insane debate rages in Maine over a proposed constitutional amendment wrongly presented as a guaranteed right to hunt, fish and trap.

Last week I was reading an article that contained some comments from those opposed to the amendment and those in favor of such. In one comment from a member of the opposition a woman stated, “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices.” 

We are subjected to the nonsensical drivel of the animal rights perverts but consider the realities here and then take a step back and ask yourself just exactly who is inhumane, unethical and insane.

It is always the Left who promote animal rights, while presenting animals as sentient beings of and above the existence of man, endowed with all the same rights, and more, as man. Any form of killing of an animal to these perverse followers of Satanic animal worship is considered “inhumane.” Ever stopped for a minute to understand what the word “inhumane” is derived from? I didn’t think so.

And so, in this one tiny discussion, it is believed by an obvious Leftist that a constitutional amendment suggesting that hunting, fishing and trapping be utilized as a means of controlling the population of certain game animals, will lead to “inhumane, unethical” practices.

Forget that this statement makes no sense at all, and just consider the positions always taken by the Left that make absolutely no sense, contradict their own stated positions and expose themselves as the ignorant frauds that they are.

The Left opposes the killing on ANY animal because doing so is “inhumane” and “unethical.” (understand that many of the same eat dead animals) However, they will give their own lives to defend what they call the right to mutilate and murder an unborn baby. To these mixed up individuals, which number in the millions, it is somehow humane and ethical to pop the head of an unborn baby, tear it to pieces and toss it in a garbage can, and yet hunting, fishing and trapping is inhumane.

Geez! At least most hunters eat what they kill. Do Leftists eat mutilated babies?

Perhaps then, if this country insists on living as mixed up, immoral murderers of babies while protecting animals, wildlife managers should begin a system of capturing and aborting the unwanted fetuses of animals in order to, not only control the population of certain species of animals but to also protect the rights of the female game animals who, according to many on the Left, should enjoy the same “rights” as us immoral and murdering, unethical and inhumane, Americans.

Nothing abnormal here. Move along.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share