September 30, 2020

Google Apologizes for Easter Snub; Explains Gun Policy

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Publicly Apologizes for Insult to Christians Worldwide by Celebrating Violence-Linked Union Leader Cesar Chavez with Google Doodle on Easter Sunday; CEO Larry Page Seconds the Apology

In Response to Question from Shareholder Activist Group, Google’s David Drummond Says Decision to Restrict Guns from Google Shopping Platform is NOT Linked to President Obama’s Push For More Gun Laws, Despite Coincidental Timing

Mountain View, CA / Washington, DC – At Thursday’s annual meeting of Google shareholders in Mountain View, California, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. asked Google’s leadership to explain the company’s decisions to ban gun sales from Google Shopping and its decision to honor left-wing union organizer Cesar Chavez with a Google Doodle on Easter Sunday.

The exchanges can be viewed on YouTube at http://youtu.be/K5kwaMzMm60

In response to whether the gun restriction was intentionally contemporaneous with President Obama’s push for more restrictive gun laws, Google senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond said Google was merely extending its previous policy banning gun advertisements to the new Google Shopping platform, noting “we have not allowed gun ads since almost the inception of our programs… so we’ve taken a position that it is best for Google [not to advertise guns] and that’s been our view, and we’ve been consistent… so I can assure you that it is a longstanding view that we’ve had, not any kind of a recent public policy [statement].”

Danhof also asked Google’s executive team about the company’s decision to honor labor icon Cesar Chavez this past Easter Sunday, concluding, “from a business point of view, what went into the company’s thinking in making this decision, and what did the company gain from unnecessarily offending so many customers?”

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt responded with a sincere apology to all Christians who took offense to the company’s decision. Schmidt said that it was never the company’s intent to insult Christians or their faith, saying in part, “…there was no intent to slight anyone… there was certainly no intent, and if there was offense, it was certainly not intended and I do apologize.” Google CEO and Co-Founder Larry Page then endorsed Schmidt’s apology.

“While I am thankful for Schmidt’s apology, this is a situation that never should have occurred,” said Danhof. “Chavez is a divisive figure who draws out strong emotions; I hope the company learns from this mistake.”

“Cesar Chavez is an iconic figure among leftists and ‘Chicano’ activists, a man whose life has become shrouded in political mythology,” notes Project 21’s Joe Hicks. “As a doctrinaire Marxist during the 1970s, I often crossed paths with Chavez and trained with many of his United Farm Worker organizers in ‘revolutionary theory’ classes. Despite today’s depictions of him as a man of peace and nonviolence, the tactics used by UFW organizers against resistant field workers often included intimidation, threats and violence. Even among the farm workers Chavez claimed to represent, his leadership was viewed as controversial. When examined closely, a darker side of Chavez and his movement emerges.”

In 2007, Hicks testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands concerning H.R. 359, “The Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act,” where Hicks explained that Chavez was “a labor leader that presided over an organization that harbored deep hostility and resentment about the American nation.”

After learning about Google’s decision to honor Chavez on Easter, Project 21’s Bishop Council Nedd, the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church, said, “I now will much prefer to receive the points from Bing Rewards in the future rather than dealing with a company that clearly seems to have gone out of its way to be offensive to Christians on the most important day on the Christian calendar.”

“Easter is a sacred day during which Christians celebrate the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Google’s management showed extreme callousness in their decision to honor a leftist icon on this holy day,” said Danhof. “I am not suggesting that Google choose a religious affiliation, but Google’s decision to honor a socialist ideologue on the day of Christianity’s most sacred celebration is unconscionable.”

Justin Danhof also was critical of the company’s gun restrictions following the meeting.

“Hypocrisy, thy name is Google,” said Danhof. “Google’s ‘Freedom of Expression‘ proclaims that the company has ‘pressed governments to make combating Internet censorship a top priority in human rights and economic agendas,’ yet the company is using its Internet market power to censor searches in an active effort to limit Second Amendment rights. More than just a Constitutional guarantee, the Second Amendment allows Americans to protect themselves and their families from harm. According to Gary Kleck, a highly respected criminologist at Florida State University, Americans use guns in self-defense more than two million times per year.”

In May 2012, Google announced that it would begin censoring guns, gun parts, ammunition and other weapons from its Google Shopping platform. Read more about Google’s weapons policy here.

“I respect Google’s consistency in policy, but the policy doesn’t align with good business practices,” said Danhof. “If you want to end the life of your child by aborting him, Google will show you the closest abortion clinic. If you want to purchase the most violent video games and movies available, Google will help you comparison shop and find the best price. But if you want to purchase a firearm to protect your family, Google has no use for you.”

“Google’s decision is also highly hypocritical since its Shopping platform remains a bastion of violent and gruesome video games off of which Google profits. From Manhunt, where Google’s description explains, “[p]layers can fight back with hand-to-hand moves, guns, or perform stealth kills using such items as meat cleavers, plastic bags, and hammers to slice, suffocate, and bludgeon enemies,” to God of War: Ascension, where players engage in “another blood-soaked adventure full of grand vistas, environmental puzzles, [and] brutal hack-and-slash combat,” violence and perversion are in full supply on Google Shopping,” added Danhof.

“Google’s policy of infringing the Second Amendment aligns with the White House’s current anti-gun posture. Google executive Chairman Eric Schmidt worked closely with President Barack Obama’s political team during the last election and was even in the campaign’s ‘boiler room’ on election night,” noted Danhof. “But Google’s most recent ant-gun policy is apparently an extension of previous company policy, not a concerted effort with the White House.”

“Google’s decision is not only hypocritical, it is bad business. Google Shopping operates on a pay-for-play platform, meaning that merchants pay Google for the right to have products appear in searches,” explained Danhof. “Google is likely actively rejecting money from willing merchants for purely political purposes, this is a breach of management’s fiduciary duty to protect shareholder value. The fact that Google also limits gun advertisements, the main driver of Google’s revenue, should be a real concern for shareholders and investors. It is clear to me that Google’s management team has decided that promoting progressive policies is more important than sound business practices in this instance.”

The National Center has recently attended the annual shareholder meetings of Comcast, Time Warner and Amazon.com, where it asked the CEOs of each about its seemingly anti-Second Amendment policies even as they broadcast or sold extremely violent materials.

Since January 1st, the National Center has participated in free-market and conservative activism at 33 shareholder meetings.

A copy of Danhof’s questions at the shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here. Note that the questions, when delivered, were shortened to comply with Google’s request to keep questions to one minute. The questions as literally asked can be viewed on YouTube at http://youtu.be/K5kwaMzMm60

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Google 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.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Why Does Amazon Ban Guns, But Not Extremely Violent Videos

Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos Asked to Explain Why Amazon Bans the Sale of Legal Gun Parts to Adults, but Not Videos and Games Depicting Mass Murder and Torture to Young People

Seattle, WA / Washington, DC – At Amazon.com’s annual shareholder meeting, CEO Jeff Bezos attempted to duck a question from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Horace Cooper about Amazon’s seemingly inconsistent policies toward the sale of violent media and guns, only to face two more shareholders, each of whom expected him to answer it.

According to a National Center analysis, Amazon.com sells all of the top ten most violent movies and the top ten most violent videogames, yet it refuses to sell guns, ammunition and some gun parts.

Noting that Google, Comcast, Ebay and Time Warner Cable have also limited commerce related to guns, Cooper asked Bezos to reconcile these two policies. If Amazon.com is opposed to violence, why sell the extremely violent videos and games? If it is following caveat emptor, why not sell the guns, gun parts and ammunition?

Said Cooper at the meeting:

Mr. Bezos, a research associate with our institution developed, using data from independent third-parties, a list of the ‘Top 10 Most Violent Video Games’ and another list of the ‘Top Ten Most Violent Movies’ of all time.

Having compiled the list, and having no idea which, if any, of these products would be for sale on Amazon, she then looked to see if Amazon sells them. Guess what? It sells not a third of them, not half of them, but each and every one of them.

I won’t even tell you what is in the film ‘Cannibal Holocaust,’ but if you’re curious, you are selling it for $22.50. If you want the most violent video game, ‘Manhunt,’ you’re in luck. What Amazon describes as an exploration of ‘the depths of human depravity in a vicious, sadistic tale of urban horror,’ is not only available on Amazon, you sell ‘Manhunt 2’ as well. Apparently it is the go-to game for people who want to, as Amazon’s product page puts it, ‘execute their kills in 3 deadly threats – Hasty, Violent and Gruesome.’

Mr. Bezos, many make the argument that selling an item does not make the seller responsible for it. If a teenager plays hundreds of hours of games that consist of never-ending gun massacres, becomes desensitized to the violence, and becomes a mass killer, that’s his fault, not the fault of the retailer.

I’m not here to argue with that philosophy, but to ask: how is Amazon.com deciding where its responsibility lies? Amazon bans the sale of legal gun parts to adults, but not videos and games depicting mass murder and torture for entertainment to impressionable minds?

Guns, as I’m sure you know, are often used in self-defense. The NRA says 2 million times a year; the NRA’s opponents say the number is closer to 67,000. Either way, that’s a lot of people protecting themselves. But who benefits from learning how to strangle an enemy in a toilet while playing Manhunt?

Mr. Bezos, we do not dispute Amazon’s right to sell any of these items, but as staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, we would like to know how Amazon made this decision: Selling legal guns and ammo to adults, no; selling vicious, sadistic torture and murder depictions to adolescents, yes. What is your thinking?

Bezos thanked Cooper for his point of view, said he would keep it in mind, and otherwise ignored the question.

Other shareholders, however, stepped up.

As reported by CNET.com, “But when two other shareholders followed up with questions about violent products, Bezos responded that the company wants to improve its policing of controversial content. But he said it can’t come prior to the products, offered by third-party sellers on Amazon.com, hitting the marketplace. ‘It needs to be self-service,’ he said of the marketplace. ‘If it was gated, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.'”

Geekwire continues the story:

‘We have millions of millions of items,’ [Bezos] said. ‘It’s a difficult technical challenge, it’s a difficult organizational challenge to police those items.’ He promised that the company will continue working on it with the goal of making its processes ‘statistically indistinguishable from perfection.’

Unlike the labor protests faced by the company last year, the questions did not appear to be an organized effort. The third time around, a shareholder asked Bezos for the specific steps to be taken by the company. ‘Parents cannot always control what their children are doing, and I think that you hold some responsibility for this.’

Bezos pointed out the parental control features in the Kindle Fire tablets, including the ‘Free Time’ feature that lets parents control what their kids watch and listen to.

And then he told a personal story about hosting a sleepover for one of his four kids. He collected all the electronic devices before they went up to their rooms. One of the kids asked if he could keep his Kindle.
‘E Ink or Fire?’ Bezos asked him. It was E Ink, so Bezos let him keep it. ‘If he had said Fire I’d have said no,’ he said.

He concluded, ‘Policing different content … people have a lot of different opinions and what is appropriate content, what is inappropriate. This is going to be an ongoing challenge for us, and we’ll do the best we can.’

Bezos did not, however, comment on Amazon.com’s policy regarding guns, gun parts and ammunition. Nor did he actually say that Amazon.com would remove any of the most violent games or movies once it reached “statistical perfection.”

The meeting took place May 23 in Seattle.

The National Center has challenged CEOs at 30 shareholder meetings so far this year.

A copy of Cooper’s question at the Amazon.com shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

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.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Time Warner Questioned over CNN Gun Violence Coverage

Time Warner Criticized for Public’s Misperception of Gun Crime in America

Gun Crime Rapidly Declining, Public Thinks it is Rising

Conservative Activist Blames Bias at Time Warner’s Cable News Station, CNN, for Distorting Public View of Gun Violence

Time Warner CEO Vows to “Strive to do Better” In Presenting the News Fairly

Atlanta, GA / Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Time Warner shareholders held at the CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Director Justin Danhof, Esq. confronted Time Warner CEO Jeffery Bewkes over his company’s bias and partisan positions regarding the Second Amendment.

“Media bias has become so bad in this country, that regarding the Second Amendment, it has actually altered the American public’s perception of reality,” explained Danhof. “As the owner and operator of CNN, Time Warner is culpable for the real world effects of its bias.”

Danhof explained to Bewkes that American gun crime rates are dramatically declining. Between 1993 and 2011, gun killings fell 39 percent and non-lethal gun crime dropped 69 percent. Despite this great trajectory, a majority of the American public mistakenly believes that gun crimes are on the rise.

“The public can be forgiven for their misperception regarding gun crime statistics,” explained Danhof. “The way many so-called cable news journalists at CNN and elsewhere jump to cover gun tragedies as a way to advance a political agenda is repulsive and relentless.”

“Time Warner owns CNN and is therefore responsible for the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by its activists such as Piers Morgan – a liberal partisan who has never met a shooting tragedy he wouldn’t exploit on his quest to abolish the 2nd Amendment,” said Danhof. “Morgan and his mainstream media cohorts have exploited gun tragedies so much in fact that it has altered the public’s perception of reality. This has to stop.”

“Conservatives often complain about media bias, but don’t know what to do about it,” noted Danhof. “Well this is a real world example where bias is affecting reality. Conservative and free-market minded Americans need to use these real world examples and confront bias with facts.”

“Bewkes recognized that bias is a matter of perception, and seemed fully aware that many individuals like me find the content and presentation of CNN’s news and opinion programming extremely slanted,” explained Danhof. “Bewkes said he would strive to do better and that CNN’s goal was to present the news in a non-partisan way.”

Danhof also presented Bewkes with the results of a Rasmussen poll that showed that only six percent of Americans consider the news to be very trustworthy, pointing out that this is lower than Congress’ approval rating.

“I told Bewkes that the distrust in the media is well earned,” added Danhof. “I told him that CNN should strive to present facts and stories, and let the viewer make up their mind what to think. Bewkes acknowledged that this was the optimal approach to news presentation and he would work to achieve that end.”

Time Warner Inc. isn’t the only company exploiting the 2nd Amendment in a partisan way. One of Time Warner’s former divisions has also jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon.

Just weeks after the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Time Warner Cable (now separate from Time Warner Inc.) announced that it would limit certain gun commercials stating: “We no longer accept ads showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people. We stand by this policy. If it’s essential to a business owner to show this kind of imagery in their commercials, there are other advertising options in the marketplace.”

“If Time Warner Cable wants to be consistent, it must ban all depictions of semi-automatic weapons and instances of guns being pointed at people across the company’s entire cable platform,” said Danhof. “Short of that, this decision is the definition of hypocrisy.”

Last week, Danhof confronted Comcast CEO Brian Roberts over his decision to ban all gun advertisements across Comcast’s cable and broadcast offerings. Read more about Danhof’s efforts here and here.

In addition to Time Warner Cable and Comcast, Google, General Electric and Groupon have all recently joined the anti-Second Amendment corporate bandwagon.

The National Center’s work to combat anti-Second Amendment corporations and confront media bias has been covered extensively, including by the Hollywood Reporter, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, the Washington Free Beacon and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Today’s Time Warner meeting, combined with the National Center’s presence at today’s Amazon and Home Depot annual meetings, moves the total of shareholder meetings attended this year by the National Center to 30.

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

National Center President David Ridenour is a Time Warner shareholder. Danhof attended today’s meeting as his proxy.

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.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Comcast Bans Gun Ads, Televises Gun Violence

Shareholder Activist Group to Bring Gun Rights Battle to Comcast’s Front Door

Comcast One of Many Major American Corporations Taking Sides in the Gun Debate

Philadelphia, PA / Washington, DC – This morning, at the annual meeting of Comcast shareholders in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research plans to question Comcast CEO Brian Roberts about his company’s hypocritical decision to ban gun and ammunition advertising on its airwaves.

“Comcast executives have a lot of explaining to do,” said the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Comcast is America’s largest cable provider, having nearly monopoly control in many areas of the country. By attacking the Second Amendment, it is directing aim at one of America’s founding principles.”

“Shows on Comcast’s cable and broadcast programming consistently glorify gratuitous displays of gun violence. Comcast profits from violent programming, yet is actively working to thwart gun shops – many of which are small businesses – from legally selling firearms and ammunitions to people who overwhelmingly use firearms in a lawful and safe manner, including in self-defense,” noted Danhof. “This is hypocrisy in the highest.”

Comcast operates in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

In March, USA Today and many other media outlets reported that Comcast would no longer run commercials for guns or ammunition. Chris Ellis, a spokesman for Comcast Spotlight (Comcast’s advertising division) explained: “Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward.”

“The National Rifle Association has five million members, and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in the Second Amendment as a necessary protection against tyranny,” said Danhof. “Comcast is engaged in an odd and possibly costly business practice that is alienating many potential customers. What is more, the company is actively rejecting advertising revenue that could increase the cable giant’s bottom line. This is a dereliction of their fiduciary duty to the company. Shareholders and potential investors may want to steer clear of Comcast’s stock until the company’s leadership team reasserts their commitment to shareholder value instead of this rigid anti-gun, anti-Constitution perspective.”

“In a 2008 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual American’s right to possess a firearm, yet some on the liberal left continue to refuse to accept that reality,” added Danhof. “It is a shame that some in corporate America are joining their fringe effort to limit the Constitutional rights of Americans.”

Comcast’s actions are hypocritical, the National Center believes. Comcast is telling would-be gun advertisers that they cannot profit through their television medium, yet that is what Comcast does all day, every day.

Earlier this year, the non-partisan Parents Television Council reviewed the 392 primetime, broadcast television programs that aired between January 11th and February 11th and found that 193 shows had at least one act of violence and 121 shows included at least one act of gun violence.

Comcast’s anti-gun decision comes at a time when gun violence in America is actually declining. Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that gun crime has plunged in the United States since its high-water mark in the mid-1990s, but a majority of Americans think gun crime is on the rise.

“What could be the reason for this disconnect? Look no further than Comcast’s cable news division MSNBC,” said Danhof. “From Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in the morning, to Rachel Maddow in the evening, MSNBC’s partisan rants against gun rights and the NRA seemingly never end. By exploiting tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting, MSNBC’s advocacy has helped distort reality and distract many Americans from the truth that gun violence is on the decline.”

Comcast isn’t the only major American corporation that is attacking the Second Amendment.

• In January, Time Warner Cable announced that it would no longer permit ads that depict semi-automatic weapons or have guns pointed at people.

• Also in January, Groupon cancelled all gun-related deals in North America.

• Last month, GE Capital, General Electric’s lending division, cut lending to retailers who primarily sell guns.

• In 2012, Google informed merchants that it would no longer allow listings for gun- and weapon-related items on its Google Shopping platform.

Since January 1, 2013, the National Center has participated in 23 shareholder meetings. Today’s Comcast meeting moves that total to 24. In 2012, the National Center participated in 19 meetings.

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 Comcast 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.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Cuomo Exempts Hollyweird From State’s Gun Bans

My intention was to include the link to this hypocritical news item in my daily “No Executive Orders” post for today. Instead I’ll include it in this stand alone thread.

It appears that money talks and $#!^ walks or perhaps a bit more eloquently put, here is a fine example of how the elite ruling class make sure they take care of their own, exempt themselves from the laws intended to control the serfs and bask in the glory of the billions of dollars that rule their hopeless and worthless lives.

Because Hollyweird brings millions of dollars each year to New York’s economy, movie makers don’t have to abide by Commie Cuomo’s gun laws. What does it take to make people understand? Is it even possible anymore to get people away from their cell phones, ipads, computers and television screens long enough to think for a second or two?

If it is perceived by the majority of Americans that violence is a problem in our society, why then do we ignore those who perpetuate violence? Simple really. Money talks and $#!^ walks. In other words, the ruling class, i.e. the Andrew Cuomo and Club of Rome member Michael Bloombergs of the world, dictate to the subjects the laws, crafted specifically toward them and for them. It isn’t about gun control, it’s about human control.

Hollyweird will continue to make violent movies and robotic human forms will continue to be influenced by their glorified violence but we will continue to blame a machine for it. Ridiculous!

As the photo commentary I saw the other day said, violent movies have no mental effect on kids or humans but a 30-second Super Bowl ad for television, costing millions of dollars, is done in order to mentally effect you to go buy their product.

Not that I even thought you were here reading, but just in case, now you can return to your beeping cell phone and get that all important text message. Who knows. It may the Devil calling.

Share

PETA Kills Over 89% of Adoptable Animals in Care

Despite its $36 million budget, PETA employees make little effort to find homes for the thousands of animals they kill every year. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk previously indicated to The Virginian-Pilot that the animal rights group could stop killing pets, but it would mean cutting down on press stunts and celebrity photo shoots: “We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn’t do as much work.”<<<Read More from Center for Consumer Freedom>>>

Share

Absolute Assinine!

At first today, I thought Oregon’s new bill that would require cigarette smokers to obtain a prescription, was really asinine. When you consider that just a few short months ago, Oregon voted to make it legal to fry your brain on pot but now residents might have to get a prescription to destroy your lungs and heart. Makes sense…….for Oregon.

BUT…..BUt…..But…..but, it can only get better. It was just announced that San Francisco running back Frank Gore was fined $10,000 for wearing his socks too low during the NFC Championship game. No, I’m not kidding. That was the game in which the NFL made sure SF won to go along with the game Baltimore was going to win so too brothers could coach against each other in the Stupid Bore.

Here is a football league that allows players to display obscene and gangster-related tattoos on any and all parts of the body that can be seen, including asses of players we now get to see because player’s pants keep falling off. Long hair that not only looks like a bunch of women but it must be unsafe. I mean they are trying to turn football players into pansies. I expect next seasons to hear a huge announcement of NO HITTING ANOTHER PLAYER!! He might be too busy tucking his hair into his helmet, fixing his earrings, checking for split finger nails, or spearing his helmet into some other guy’s face hoping to hurt him.

And then, when these guys go to the sidelines, we have to partake of their fashion show with ball caps that are flat-billed, ten sizes too big, twisted off to one side (that’s the gangstah style you know).

I mean seriously? Frank Gore wears his socks too low, while the league allows all other players to dress like women, thugs, gangsters, etc.?

This is really too damned funny to be real. I should be careful what I say. I’m sure somebody has already painted me a racist.

Share

Tyrant Cuomo’s Gun Ban Doesn’t Exclude Police

This report is interesting on several levels. First, this media report is saying the law, as written, was a “big oversight.” Was it? If you do research you will find references to such things as: “The creation of an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under P.L. 87-297 and described in State Department Paper 7727, along with the non-incorporation of the 2nd Amendment into the 14th Amendment protections against the states, indicates that our {their} criminal government will eventually declare martial law so that they can launch a “military enforcement action” to confiscate firearms from all law abiding citizens.”

Some are using this information to support the idea that Cuomo’s “big oversight” is part of a bigger plan to disarm citizens, police and military. However at the end of this video, the reporter states that an amendment will be forthcoming to change that.

A second issue is briefly talked about which in reminiscent of the Obama exemption tactics with Obamacare, tax increases, etc. The report states that a proposed amendment to Cuomo’s fascist gun laws will also include lifting these restrictions for retired police officers. And this is necessary because…..?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think anyone should have such restrictions to gun ownership. This just, once again, shows the corruption and hypocrisy of tyrannical government that the citizens are squashed under foot, having their rights destroyed, while government personnel are allowed to exercise the rights they want to take away from everyone else.

It’s tyranny as warned about by the Founding Fathers.

Share

New York Residents Want Something Done About Rat Infestation

And where are those same animal right zealots who work so hard to protect big rats, like coyotes, wolves, bear, mountain lions, etc. Is there a class warfare among animals?

Share

Irony: Freeport, Maine Fights Predator (green crab) Invasion

Hat tip to reader “Bonedog”!

Will this irony also become hypocrisy?

From the Portland Press Herald, we find an article stating the woes of the Maine coastal town of Freeport, creating a plan to control a predator, the green crab, from decimating the town’s shellfish population.

There’s an army of green crabs hunkered down in the channels of the Harraseeket River and Recompence Cove, and every night they skitter up onto the mud flats to feast on whatever shellfish they can find.

They’ve munched their way through most of the wild mussels, scallops and snails along the town’s 27-mile coast, and now they’re working on wiping out one of Maine’s prime soft-shell clam populations.

To combat this small but destructive creature, the Freeport Shellfish Commission is launching the first municipal shellfish conservation program in Maine. Its goal is to reduce predators, protect and enhance existing shellfish beds and diversify the bivalve species growing in nearly 180 acres of mud flats, more than half of which are currently unproductive.

Surely any reader could substitute “green crabs” for say, coyotes, and the stories are just about identical. Will there be outrage and opposition from environmentalists and animal rights groups because the Town of Freeport feels the need to control (kill) predators to save they shellfish industry?

Just yesterday, Governor Paul LePage signed an appropriations bill, LD372, that would earmark $100,000 to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to kill predators, mainly coyotes, that are destroying the deer hunting industry. From the very beginning, and is still ongoing, coyote lovers, environmentalists and animal rights organizations, are putting up a stink in opposition to the killing of any predators. They are predator preservationists……well, at least when it comes to hunting and trapping them.

So, will there be the same outrage from the same groups of people over Freeport killing green crabs? The article says the crabs will be trapped and hauled to the landfill and composted. One would think that these environmentalists would be outraged, first at needlessly killing a living creature, a predator, and secondly wasting it by tossing it in the landfill.

Don’t get me wrong. I take no issue with Freeport killing predators to save their shellfish industry. I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here. But surely, cannot we see the hypocrisy?

Certainly there is no difference between the needs of the Town of Freeport to kill predators and the State of Maine needing to kill predators. So why then do the coyotes get the attention of the environmentalists and the green crabs don’t? (at least to this point in time). Do coyotes have more rights than green crabs?

Tom Remington

Share