August 19, 2017

Those Damned Republicans And Their Demands for Control Over Immigration

Not an original idea…evidently.

Share

Amazon Grilled About Anti-Trump Immigration Position as Shareholder Meeting Gets Political

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

*Editor’s Note* – For those with understanding, it is easy to see the theater going on here.

Free Enterprise Project Warns Amazon Executives That Overtly Political Stances May Harm Tech Giant’s Reputation with Trump Supporters

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Owner of the Decidedly Anti-Trump Washington Post, Ducks Question with Claim That Company Does Not Take Political Positions

Seattle, WA / Washington, DC – Today’s annual meeting of Amazon.com investors turned political as a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) questioned CEO Jeff Bezos over the company’s strong opposition to President Trump’s executive orders on immigration and travel.

 “As an investor advocate, our message is quite simple: taking overtly political positions on contentious, evenly-divided issues is a major risk for publicly-traded companies,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting in Seattle and personally questioned Bezos.  “Amazon executives made a clear choice to oppose one of President Trump’s top political priorities, and they need to realize such actions are viewed by Trump supporters through a political prism.  If Amazon is considered anti-Trump, it will almost certainly harm the company’s long-term investors.”

At the meeting, Danhof stated:

Amazon publicly opposed President Trump’s first executive order on immigration.  The New York Post reported Amazon took “a victory lap for its role in halting Trump’s travel ban” after that initial order was halted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The company also signed a legal brief opposing Trump’s second executive order on immigration and travel.

Amazon risks reputational harm and consumer backlash for this stance.  Polling indicates nearly half of registered voters support Trump’s actions on immigration.  After Starbucks similarly came out against Trump’s proposed travel restrictions, Business Insider reported that “Starbucks’ brand ha[d] taken a beating.”

Danhof continued:

And Trump’s ban is not the first of its kind.  In 2011, after discovering two al-Qaeda members with links to Iraq operating in Kentucky, ABC News reported “the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months. . . even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”  One Iraqi refugee who aided U.S. troops was assassinated while banned from entry by former President Barack Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. . . it doesn’t appear Amazon said or did anything regarding the Obama-Clinton travel ban.

These examples raise a few quick questions.  First of all, Mr. Bezos, do you see any potential downside for Amazon related to the company’s opposition to the President, or from the Washington Post‘s anti-Trump bias?  Current and potential Amazon customers undoubtedly include Trump fans.  Are you concerned they may reject Amazon as they see the company opposes a President and policies they support?  And why were you willing to risk Amazon’s reputation by attacking President Trump’s executive order when it seems you lacked the courage to speak out against the Obama-Clinton travel ban?

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

“In response to our question, Bezos essentially claimed Amazon does not take political positions; it instead takes policy positions.  While this may be the company’s aim, it is often a distinction without a difference.  Regardless of Amazon’s intentions, the company is rightfully viewed as taking a political position against President Trump’s immigration reform efforts,” Danhof said.  “If Amazon was truly just taking a principled policy position, it would have also opposed the 2011 Obama-Clinton travel ban we highlighted in the question we presented at the shareholder meeting.  But Bezos ducked that part of the question.  Interestingly, former Obama spokesman Jay Carney – who is now a senior vice president with Amazon – turned around from his front-row seat when I mentioned the Obama-Clinton travel ban.  It clearly got his attention.”

“I get the impression Bezos understands the risk Amazon faces in becoming overtly political,” added Danhof.  “He chose to answer our question diplomatically rather than double-down on any anti-Trump rhetoric.  He may realize that the company’s actions – and his own – have placed Amazon in a liberal-leaning light.  In the long-term, that would be bad for investors.”

This was the second time this year that a National Center representative asked a question of this nature at a company’s shareholder meeting.  Earlier this year, also in Seattle, Danhof questioned outgoing Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz about that company’s opposition to Trump’s travel ban.  Danhof’s confrontation with Schultz garnered significant national media attention, with stories appearing in the Bezos-owned Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN and The Hill among many others.

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.  This is the sixteenth shareholder meeting the FEP has attended in 2017.

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 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

Changing Demographics in Maine Bear Referendum

The Times Record newspaper is saying that the Humane Society of the United States, in a radio ad, is saying that the Times Record supports the bear referendum, Question One. The newspaper says this is due to an error of placing a news article in the editorial section of their paper. The Editorial Staff are setting the record straight that they do not support Question One.

It’s important for us to point out — despite the continued use of our paper’s name in the propaganda campaign — that we are not endorsing the ban.

But more importantly, according to polling information provided by the Times Record, opposition to Question One has grown.

A more recent poll, conducted with 441 likely voters at the end of September, showed that 53 percent of them opposed the ban, 41 percent supported it and 6 percent were undecided. The newspaper article stated the poll had a 4.4 percent margin of error.

I would like to point out that polls are a worthless instrument as far as revealing the actual intent of voters. Polls are rigged and always have been. Polls are used ONLY to influence public opinion, mostly because people think polls tell them facts and they don’t.

The bottom line is to get educated about the issue and make your decision based upon facts. Stop trusting the media, polls and campaign rhetoric.

LincolnFool

Share

The Problem With Wildlife Commentary

BearsLotsA recent study showed that a recent study isn’t really a recent study at all. A scientific study, one that happens to be recent, showed that recent studies aren’t really recent studies at all but instead are non scientific, romance editorials designed to provide the public with recent study information so that they can write letters to the editor. Make any sense? I didn’t think so.

But don’t get me wrong. First amendment right to free speech is cherished and as much as I dislike reading fiction I wouldn’t ask that it be changed.

Everyone wishing, according to newspaper submission guidelines, can submit their opinions about issues that concern them. Take the spring bear hunting issue in Ontario, Canada. At least two sides exist and according to one side, the other side is wrong, blah, blah, blah.

If you are writing to a credible audience then I would suggest being credible. Accusing the other side of not relying on “scientific studies” and playing on people’s emotions, while you fail to use “scientific studies,” or name your resources and play on people’s emotions, just isn’t going to get the job done.

To explain about “science,” “recent studies,” and “data suggests,” one has to understand what those talking points mean. Science, unfortunately is not science any more. It’s what I call new science that is part of what a friend of mine calls “scientism.” Part of the process to promote agendas is to convince the public that you have the right “science” and everyone else is wrong. After all, there’s a lot of money in being able to do that successfully.

For the very clever person, they utilize the term “peer-reviewed” science or a “peer-reviewed” recent study. Peer reviewed today means some person with abbreviations after their name lied and another person with abbreviations after their name swore to it. This has become a very bad situation for the real and respected science community.

My favorite term is “recent data suggests.” I remember once, several years ago, a man suggested I take a long walk on a short pier. His suggestion meant nothing and more times than not neither does “recent data suggest.”

But getting back to Ontario’s spring bear hunt – which by the way a court tossed out the lawsuit to stop the hunt – in an opinion letter, a person states that a spring bear hunt will do nothing for public safety issues and suggests it might make it worse. The author accuses one side of failing to use science in making its decisions about the spring bear hunt while failing to use any science to argue against a bear hunt……well other than “recent studies,” and “science suggests.”

It is important as well, that is when writing to a credible audience, to be realistic. The writer says that he is, “saddened by the failure of residents in bear country to take responsibility for educating themselves on this issue and on the powerful tools we already have for achieving the goals the spring bear hunt cannot.”

Of course the writer has every right to be sad, but it doesn’t change reality. I might be sad that people who fail to obey traffic laws kill thousands of people a year, regardless of the education and laws that exist, but the reality is people break traffic laws. I may be saddened that criminals illegally own guns and use them to kill innocent people, regardless of how much education and laws are put on the books, but criminals exist and they keep getting guns and killing people. I may be saddened that politicians are crooks and are allowed to be, but the truth is stupid people keep electing stupid crooks.

Once intelligent people understand that concept then instead of practicing insanity and repeating the same process over and over and achieving the same results, perhaps something ought to change. The truth is people are not going to take responsibility about living with bears. The truth is, does anybody have to be forced to live in danger of wild animals because someone who studies Agenda 21 wants you to change your lifestyle for bears, wolves or rats? People today have been brainwashed against taking responsibility and thinking for themselves about anything. The programming of the minds has left us with reliability on government to do things for us. Government says kill the bears, we kill the bears.

And on the other hand, we have another writer who is on “the other side” evidently and presents his case:

Annual birthrate is extremely high. Given aproximately 30,000 sows of cub-bearing age with an average birthrate of 2.4 cubs annually – even with a 50% cub survival rate – this still suggests increased population annually is 36,000.

Recorded harvest mortality is merely 5,000. Despite the low harvest, the Ministry of Natural Resources claims the black bear population is not growing out-of-control in Ontario. Therefore, when you think about it, 31,000 bears must die annually as unrecorded mortality (road kills, rail kills, and those killed to protect livestock and humans).

This sounds a bit less whiny than the other writer who can’t seem to address reality but yet the failure of this editorial is that we have no idea where he got these numbers. People aren’t going to try to verify these numbers and maybe that’s the point of not providing a source. If they aren’t fabricated then wouldn’t a short note of resource have made the letter much more effective?

A quick Google search for “Ontario Black Bear Facts” produces quite the array of nothingness and I’m suggesting therein probably lies many of the problems people who care about truth face. Even the Ministry of Natural Resources provides nothing, that is that I can easily find, about facts on bears except how to learn to live with bears.

And so, it remains the same ole, same ole. Somebody with a platform spouts off and pretends to be presenting “facts,” “truth,” “recent studies,” “peer-viewed studies,” and “recent data,” and people are willing to accept what they read if it sounds good. Truth always seems to get in the way.In conclusion, I would like to say that a recent, peer-reviewed study showed that everything that Tom Remington writes is excellent writing and never wrong. Please tell everyone you know.

Share

Rah! Rah! Rah! Star Parker Speech

Saying all the right things, making countless points through data and statistics and rallying the troops will accomplish little. It’s feel-good stuff that progressives leach off.

I realize this is just a 15-minute speech, not geared toward solutions but to pump up the audience, etc. but readers need to understand that while many of the things Parker speaks of are true, at least to some degree, Americans who really care need to be told why they are angry, who and/or what is behind the realization of where we are today and how we got here. In addition what can we as individuals do, if anything, to stop this. Without it, this speech, like many others, is nothing more than self promotion and idealistic grandstanding.

I am not a follower of Star Parker and so I can’t say one way or the other what she offers for deeper truths and solutions. My comments are not about Star Parker but about the tired messaging of what the “left” has done and what the “right” promises to do about it and vice versa. And yet, what really changes? A cure for anything can never come until a complete understanding of the cause is established. I see little today that addresses this.

Perhaps a first step is in understanding that the 535 in Congress and the person in the White House aren’t calling the shots. Let’s begin there.

Share

Day 21 – No Executive Orders

SMOKE and MIRRORS

“Watch the right hand closely,” Obama says. “Because my left hand is doing some remarkable things I don’t want you to know about!” And by the way, nothing posted for executive orders on White House website.

The fake president in the fake photo below calls the guns you use for self and family protection, along with target shooting and sport hunting, “weapons of war.”

obamashooting

Share

Maine Audubon Pushing Their “Climate Change”

Ignorance abounds and that’s the kind of fodder that organizations like Audubon feast on in promoting their agenda-driven Marxist dogma.

The ignorance is unfortunate but it is actually perpetuated by water-muddying environmentalists who do not want people to know or understand facts and truth because that would put an end to their money making con job they are pulling on the people.

There are many and very distinct aspects of climate change, but never in any discussions that I have read or been a part of, has anyone taken a bit of extra time to expound on the differences and why it’s important to separate all issues and aspects.

Climate change, where once was generically referred to as global warming, is always used in an all-encompassing way to disparage the human race, while accusing man of being the culprit of changes in our climate. Seldom, if ever, was there even any attempts to define the deviations between natural changes and those, if any, caused by man and proven as such. Most people do not know there is a difference and this falls nicely into the hands of emotion-seeking blood suckers who promote man-caused climate changes.

Most fail to understand and certainly are not taught by those appearing to be concerned about climate, that there is a marked difference between weather, climate, proven science, modeled science, theories, differences in carbon dioxide and air and water pollutants, and the real effects all other things have on our climate. Al Gore acted nearly in a criminal way and has done more to dislodge any credibility in climate science by declaring “the science is settled”. How unfortunate. Science is never “settled” and shouldn’t be. Otherwise, how will we progress?

But, environmentalists have an agenda and it isn’t about finding the truth on what really does effect our climate and therefore they will continue to perpetuate all the lies that restrict scientific study and do what they can to play off the emotions of ignorant people and put more and more money in their banks.

The Maine Audubon will sponsor Maine State Climatologist George Jacobson in a speaking role to discuss climate change, or at least that’s the terminology that will be used. If you are hoping Mr. Jacobson might offer something refreshing and truthful, instead of the worn out verbosity of the global warming cultists, don’t hold your breath. Comments, like those published in the Bangor Daily News, let’s us know that Maine Audubon and George Jacobson are carrying on with global warming as the fault of man.

Climate changes driven by our activities, especially the use of fossil fuels, will be the great global challenge for the next few generations. How we adapt to largely unprecedented conditions will determine the fate of not just natural ecosystems, but even our own social order.

Share