May 1, 2017

Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.  Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at@NCPPRMedia.

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Right to Hunt, Fish Proposed Constitutional Amendment Perhaps Best Language…So Far

The proposed Constitutional Amendment in Maine, LD 11, the right to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish, may provide the best language so far of any proposed amendments. Passage of this amendment would be good for everyone and for the management of fish and wildlife, although opponents cannot and will never see it that way.

The amendment, often only seen from one side as providing protection to kill animals, not only would help in protecting the long-held heritage of hunting, trapping and fishing in Maine, but will help to insure that hunting, trapping and fishing are used as tools to manage and perpetuate healthy game and other wildlife populations.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is a proven method of conserving and perpetuating healthy numbers of wild animal species. That model calls for the employment of hunting, trapping and fishing as a means of controlling and perpetuating the species but also provides millions of dollars in revenue needed to continue the responsible management of wild animals.

While this amendment may not be the absolute best, it is one that I can at least support. I hope readers will as well.

Below is Section 26 of the proposed amendment. That is followed by the complete proposal as is currently written.

Section 26. Right to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish. The right of the 6 people of this State to hunt, fish and harvest game and fish, including by the use of 7 traditional methods, may not be infringed, subject to reasonable laws enacted by the 8 Legislature and reasonable rules adopted by the state agency designated for fish and 9 wildlife management to promote wildlife conservation and management, to maintain 10 natural resources in trust for public use and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. 11 Public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. 12 This section may not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to eminent 13 domain, trespass or property rights.

Maine 128 - HP 12 item 1

The Binary Logic of Civilized vs. Savage

*Editor’s Comment* – The binary logic discussed in this article attempts to explain the differences between the West’s compulsive desire to change everyone’s way of life to fit their idealism – an idealism formulated on an incorrect principle of “I am civilized (politically correct) and you are barbaric.” In this case, those hiding behind the guise of “animal rights” view what they deem “barbaric behavior” of hunting seals for subsistence and profit, as wrong (uncivilized, cruel, barbaric, inhumane) and their way right and yet hypocritical. This drives them to impose their belief system on others, sometimes at extraordinary consequences.

Hasn’t this been in play, at least to some degree, since the beginning of time? In more modern times, if we take off our blinders, we can see how, not just the “Industrial Complex” but the Military Industrial Complex has used its power and self-righteous authority to destroy many people’s way of life, having deemed such as barbaric or unacceptable in one form or another.

The author describes “complex” in the context of the “Industrial Complex” as the following: ” “Complex” here takes on two meanings, both the psychological and cognitive meaning of a “saviour complex” related to beliefs of one’s role as a saviour, as well as the meaning of an “industrial complex”, denoting intricate relations between the state, ruling class and a given industry (in this case the industry of non-governmental/non-profit organizations).”

Article excerpt:

“Inuk filmmaker Alethea Arnaquq-Baril’s 2016 documentary, Angry Inuk, is a story about the erasure and domination of Indigenous peoples by colonial powers. The film impassionedly defends the seal hunt industry by revealing how Western environmental and animal advocacy NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society International), have devastated the livelihoods of Inuit communities that rely on the industry for subsistence. The NGOs have destroyed the Inuit seal trade economy by successfully campaigning the European Union to ban products made from seals, despite allowing an exception for the trading of Inuit seal products. This reflection examines how the strategies carried out by Western NGOs to achieve their “victory” are rooted in colonial-capitalism, white supremacy and Eurocentrism, and therefore reinforces colonial domination. Below, I focus on a few strategies employed by the NGOs, as highlighted in the film.”<<<Read More>>>

Liberals Attack Disney’s Free Speech and Freedom of Association

*Editor’s Note* – Open your eyes for a second to understand what is going on. This should further substantiate that we are living in a “Post-Normal” world, i.e. white is black, black is white, good is bad, bad is good, etc. “Liberals” are looking to censor and destroy rights. A liberal would not do that. A liberal would be fighting to protect all rights and destroy all laws and regulations that destroy those rights. So, then who are these people that call themselves Liberals?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Urges Shareholders to Reject Proposal to Restrict Disney’s Ability to Associate With U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Other Pro-Business Groups

National Center’s Free Enterprise Project Says Left-Wing Shareholder Proposal Would Censor Disney’s Speech and Harmfully Dictate Business Relationships

Denver, CO/Washington, D.C. – The nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism is urging Walt Disney Company shareholders to reject a proposal under consideration this week that would harm the company’s ability to speak and associate freely.

At the annual meeting of Disney shareholders being held in Denver, Colorado on March 8, National Center for Public Policy Research General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. plans to speak out against a shareholder proposal about lobbying disclosure being offered by Zevin Asset Management. The National Center is warning shareholders that the Zevin proposal, designated as proposal #1, could restrict Disney’s ability to engage in relationships beneficial to its business.
The National Center also notes left-wing political activists are hypocritical, because they oppose businesses having relationships with free-market advocates and groups but say nothing about corporate spending favoring liberal political issues.

Zevin’s proposal demands Disney reveal details about and the motivation for its spending on lobbying as well as Disney’s memberships and support for non-profits involved in creating model legislation.

Zevin’s proposal, and Disney’s response to it, are available on pages 61-63 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.
In the National Center’s prepared statement to be read at the Disney shareholder meeting in opposition to proposal #1, Danhof says:
Zevin is attempting to conscript Disney’s shareholders into its efforts to defund and silence the National Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, groups that seek to improve America’s business environment.
Danhof adds:
[G]roups such as Zevin never – and I mean never – express concern about the billions of corporate dollars that go to fund liberal causes and politicians.  Herein lies the hypocrisy of its proposal.  Zevin abhors corporate speech when it is perceived to skew to the political right.  It remains silent when speech supports leftist causes they favor.
This will be the second time the National Center has challenged Zevin Asset Management on the issue of lobbying disclosure and business relationships at a Walt Disney Company shareholder meeting.  After the National Center spoke out against a similar proposal in 2016, Zevin’s proposal was defeated by Disney shareholders by a more than 2-1 margin.
The National Center has also been critical of Disney, questioning Disney CEO Bob Iger on issues such as the need for political protections for its employees and bias in the reporting of company-owned news organizations at shareholder meetings as far back as 2009.  After being questioned about media bias in 2013, Iger conceded to the National Center’s Justin Danhof, “we have, at times, either presented the news in… a slightly inaccurate way through mistakes or in ways we weren’t necessarily proud of.”  Disney owns ABC and ESPN.
Danhof may question Disney executives on a topic not related to proposal #1 at the March 8 meeting.
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 advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.  Disney’s meeting will mark its third shareholder meeting so far in 2017.
In 2016, the Free Enterprise Project was featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune among many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kim Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank.  Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations.  It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.  Subscribe to The National Center 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.

Is This What You Want Your “HERO COPS” Doing?

“Last week, Taser, the stun gun company that has recently become an industry leader in body-mounted cameras, announced the creation of its own in-house artificial intelligence division. The new unit will utilize the company’s acquisition of two AI-focused firms: Dextro, a New York-based computer vision startup, and Misfit, another computer vision company previously owned by the watch manufacturer Fossil. Taser says the newly formed division will develop AI-powered tech specifically aimed at law enforcement, using automation and machine learning algorithms to let cops search for people and objects in video footage captured by on-body camera systems.”<<<Read More>>>

Fake Free Speech and Other Fake Rights

What’s the trouble with rights? You don’t know? Well, then, that’s the first indication of why rights are in trouble.

Yesterday I was reading a column, written by a man in Maine – Al Diamon. He writes: “The trouble with the right to free speech is other people’s vocal cords. They insist on flapping them to utter obnoxious noises.

Also, other people’s computers, used to produce ridiculous postings. And let’s not forget other people’s fingers, which operate the aforementioned computers, light matches to burn American flags and flip us the bird when we politely suggest they conceal their ignorance by shutting their pie holes.”

I long for such eloquence. (That doesn’t mean to shut your pie hole.)

Rights are a funny thing these days, mostly because we have been trained to disrespect anyone in disagreement with our ideology and perspective on rights. Along with this training, comes the action to force everyone to do what I want them to do and to hell with you. Perhaps if we took a giant step backwards and began all over again learning about respect and proper etiquette, the problem could be solved.

It’s mostly simple stuff. I remember in what today is called Middle School, learning something as simple as answering a telephone. I suppose in a day and age when actually using vocal chords to communicate on a phone is falling by the wayside, replaced with texting in coded language, proper etiquette in telephone use would be laughed at. However, as digitally techie everything has become, we still need to talk on the phone and should learn the once-proper way. And, what about holding doors and helping elderly people across the street, checking on your neighbor, assisting a disabled motorist, etc.? I always hold doors to whoever is behind me, regardless of their species. Most are thankful, but I have had some, mostly of the opposite sex, tell me they are very capable of holding their own door. See what I mean? Me holding the door has nothing to do with whether a person is capable or not.

Those who think they promote free speech have an odd way of going about it. In their one hand they carry the torch for free speech, while in the other they wield the machete of eagerness to chop the heads of those who don’t agree with them – exercising their right to free speech. This is when the right to free speech becomes nothing of the kind, more closely resembling fascism.

Realizing it is impossible, try to imagine how free speech would work if there existed something called respect. Yeah, I know. You can’t do it. You are programmed in opposition to such thinking.

What has amplified the distorted view of free speech is technology. Techno-Zombies are everywhere. With their equipment, a devise purposefully designed to destroy societies, in hand, there is little, if any, accountability for the letters and words that are put on a computer screen or cell phone. We have been programmed to believe it is your right to do, say and act anyway you choose because “you have a right to free speech.” The boundaries of respect are falling at a pace that’s sure to end this society in disaster.

People haven’t a clue about verbal tonal inflections and body language that tell us much more than the words someone is uttering. These two elements are missing from text. If the author of that text hasn’t a clue, they will write words that are dangerous and harmful and not realize what they are doing.

Often I hear people talking to me and telling me of an email they got from someone. They begin to repeat the text of the email, adding their own tonal inflections and body language. HUH? I ask, how do you know that was the tone and attitude behind the texted message? Did you actually speak to this person? If not, there is no way of knowing exactly what the message was.

In short, texting can be and is a dangerous weapon, loaded with the false belief that the sender has a right to free speech, and they don’t have a clue about their responsibilities in exercising that right.

If you drive a car, unless you have lived a very sheltered life, you have taken your car into a traffic circle. Traffic circles once were designed to better keep traffic flowing instead of piling up at a traffic light. Traffic circles are mostly a thing of the past, but the more I travel, the more I see things that sort of resemble a traffic circle. Here in Florida they are called a round-about.

The magic of a traffic circle is that it was once designed with the idea that drivers would have respect for the other driver, sort of a give and take approach. This is why they don’t work today. The attitude is “Screw You” and get to hell out of my way. This “right” and right to free speech carries over into much of our lives today. The highways are hell. Entrance ramps to highways generally have a “Merge” or a “Yield” sign for traffic entering the highway. Almost never do those drivers merge or yield. It’s only TAKE. Screw you. Get out of my way. I have just as much right as you do. Instead of teaching what respect is as a driver, we have paid billions of dollars to redesign on-ramps in order to allow aggressive and disrespectful driving.

I wonder if you would honestly answer a question if I posed it to you? Here’s the question. Have you ever spoken or blurted out at some point during a conversation and said, “There oughtta be a law?” Unfortunately most of us have and for all the wrong reasons. Somehow we have been trained to believe that how you think, others should think the same way; that how you act, others should act the same way; that how you eat, sleep, relax, worship, etc., others should be forced to do it that way too.

Hidden in the act and wrongly perverted is a person’s notion that that is free speech. Wrong.

What this world needs is to take a giant step backwards and begin to learn respect all over again. I wonder if it could really be done?

From my perspective and knowledge, there is only One who can accomplish that task. If only we should ask.

 

 

 

Pie In The Sky Restoration of Rights

*Editor’s Note* – The below commentary is pie in the sky nonsense based on a false belief that the rulers of the United States Corporate Administration are chosen by the people to apply the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the servitude. To play within a false and rigged system, believing you can change the false and rigged system is an act of futility and a display of the lack of understanding of history and the application of laws and rights. There is too much (money) at stake that the Ruling Establishment would actually allow a “Wyatt Earp” into the White House. To believe that Donald Trump is going to end Progressivism is a mirror image of 2008, when an equal number of American citizen servants believed “Hope n Change” would end Conservatism. Nothing changes but perception.

While the author of the linked-to commentary suggests some ways to ensure the continuation of our Second Amendment rights, he fails to reveal his “reasonable” gun control necessities – of which I am most confident he, like most fake Second Amendment advocates, has a laundry list.

If Trump were going to be one to govern outside the Establishment ways, he would be talking about God-given rights and protecting them and not seeking the power of government to change government. That has never worked and never will. It’s all just pie in the sky.

“To do so, we enact national reciprocity; we remove the burdens placed on law-abiding citizens and we destroy the false notion of “gun free zones.” As in the economic examples above, a free people will flourish, crime will reduce even further than it has, and the desire for a government to enact more “gun control’s” will perish in the face of freedom thereby relinquishing the enemies of our rights to the ashbin of history with the rest of progressive America.”<<<Read More>>>

Fighting Against Destruction of Rights While Promoting Destruction of Rights Makes Little Sense

While I support anyone who will work to protect a person’s God-given right to self protection and the right to choose how one should be able to protect themselves, I cannot, with a straight face, allow for the concession of a right to keep and bear arms while fighting against an absurd, fascist attempt to rid the state of Maine and others from gun ownership.

Question 3 isn’t about so-called (fake) universal background checks before a gun can be purchased, swapped or loaned. It’s about gun registry, as are background checks of any kind. Once guns are registered, the fascist government (the United States) will know how many and of what kinds of guns you own when they come to confiscate them. If you understand that principle, then simply supporting a background check – the only ones who get them are law-abiding citizen-subjects – is advocating for the destruction of a person’s right to protect themselves and their choice to do so. If you do not understand this principle, then you are one of the blinded who think “reasonable” prohibitions to the Second Amendment are necessary and proper, and while appearing to be a supporter of such a right, in reality, you are a contributor to its destruction, and ultimately, of yourself.

An example of this is found in articles published in Maine newspapers. I applaud the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s executive director, David Trahan, for his relentless work in trying to ward off a fascist billionaire, ordered by his bosses to come to Maine and stir up as much havoc as can possibly be done in order to pit people against each other, while at the same time, attempting to destroy the Second Amendment.  However…..

I see things a bit differently. Make no mistake, I vehemently oppose Michael Bloomberg’s effort. I also vehemently oppose gun registries of any kind. The requirement of a background check, even though we are lied to that the information used in a Federal Background Check is not retained for further use, is nothing more than a gun registry.

The Bangor Daily News carries an opinion piece from David Trahan. Trahan is not the only one fighting against Question 3 that indicates they would support background checks for private gun sales in Maine. Trahan writes: “The reason we strongly oppose Question 3 is because it includes firearm “transfers” as well as sales.” Let’s not kid ourselves. What this statement means is that if Bloomberg’s Question 3 did not included background checks on “transfers” they would support it. That is unfortunate.

The limitations and destruction of any and all rights, inalienable or government granted, all come from concession and compromise. Fascists like Michael Bloomberg, and the totalitarians that follow him, want to be the dictators of what, if any, rights and privileges people have. One reason they continue in their onslaught of human rights is because they know that with each proposal they gain something because the opposition thinks offering up a concession or a compromise will appease the lion and that the lion will go away – only until such time that it is hungry again. That’s how it works and that is how promoting such behavior at any level is supporting your own self destruction. It makes little sense.

Maine needs to stop Question 3. However, if that should happen, the lion will return again because, if nothing else, it has learned that they can easily win another limit, a regulation, with a person’s loss of right to buy and sell a firearm but not a transfer….this time.

Which will come first? The loss of the right to loan a gun to a friend, or the right to keep and bear arms. At some point, this continued ceding of inalienable rights will end in the all out prohibition of anyone’s right to keep and bear arms…well, except the fascists who make the laws and force them onto everyone else but themselves.

Oppose Question 3, but oppose all efforts to limit your right. It’s what works.

Question 3 Intentionally Confusing to Isolate Gun Owners

*Editor’s Note* – As the debate on Maine’s referendum Question 3 continues, the author, linked to below, offers an interesting approach and resolve, and perhaps one that is not fully understood.

The author seeks power in the unity of gun owners. As a society it is what we know, but do we fully understand it? For someone like myself, I find my strength in self-determination and the limitation of my succession of liberties, given me by my Creator, in efforts to preserve some sort of sovereignty. Once any man joins forces with any group, community, country, state, shooting club, NRA, a political party, etc. they have willingly given up another chunk of their sovereignty, until, one day, it is all gone. There is no escaping it.

The dilemma freedom seekers face is exactly as the below author describes – that the only way to fight the fascists is to grow the membership of an organization, where more members equals more power to fight and yet, the resulting action actually ends up further destroying your perceived sovereignty.

Ah, but you say, it is necessary, it is the only way to fight it. Perhaps so, but understand that the end result is always a compromise – a giving away of another portion of your rights. There is no escaping it. As the old saying about “spreading the wealth,” what happens when you have compromised everything away?

It’s not that you shouldn’t do what you believe necessary to accomplish what you think you can accomplish but it is to question whether the immediate action is the right one and to do that one must understand the fullness of their actions, first. Perhaps there is that needed “Power” through something other than a man creation. If we all had it, there would be no Question 3.

“The greatest strength of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is not in the individual himself, but in the greater community of gun owners and those they would share their love of firearms with. The anti-gun crowd is not just attacking us as individuals, but attacking our very right to have a community, so they can isolate and weaken us in the eventual hope of destroying our rights altogether.”<<<Read More>>>

question3confusing