June 27, 2017

Gun Control That Works

Share

Hearing Focuses on Bills to Protect Property Rights, Increase Federal Transparency

Press Release from the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: (I added a link and copy of H.R. 1830 the Water Rights Protection Act)

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 18, 2017

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a legislative hearing on two bills to increase federal transparency, safeguard private and state water rights, and provide certainty to water and power users.

The “Water Rights Protection Act” discussion draft (Rep. Scott Tipton, R-CO) protects state water law and private property rights from future federal takings.

Private water rights holders should not live in fear of the federal government coming after them. Mr. Tipton’s bill is necessary to ensure that privately held water rights cannot be extracted by the federal government in the future as a condition to secure a federal permit,Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said.

Over many decades, federal attempts to manipulate the federal permit, lease and land management process to circumvent long-established state water law and hijack privately-held water rights have sounded the alarm for all non-federal water users that rely on these water rights for their livelihood. The Water Rights Protection Act is commonsense legislation that provides certainty by upholding longstanding federal deference to state water law,Rep. Tipton stated.

Vice President of the Utah Farm Bureau Randy Parker discussed the water rights issues he sees on the ground everyday as the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) “systematically challeng[e] state sovereignty and historically held water rights on public lands.”

The ongoing protests, claims, coercion and even bullying by agents of the FS and the BLM has created and continues to cause considerable uncertainty for ranching families across the West,” Parker said.

Chris Treese, Manager for External Affairs at the Colorado River Water Conservation District, urged swift passage of the “Water Rights Protection Act” to avoid the inevitable downward spiral of litigation.

Unless the FS commits to respecting Western states’ individual water rights adjudication systems to accomplish its flow-related goals, the only sure outcome is contentious, lengthy and expensive litigation. This is a result in no one’s interest, including the environment,” Treese stated.

H.R. 2371 (Rep. Paul Gosar, R-AZ), the “Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act,” establishes a pilot project to increase the transparency of the Western Area Power Administration’s (WAPA) costs, rates, and other financial and operational dealings for utility ratepayers and taxpayers. Patrick Ledger, CEO of the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, welcomed the transparency and accountability promoted by this bill in light of the recent trend of increased utility rates.

With better information broken down in key components – and with a historical perspective – customers can have a better dialogue with [WAPA],” Ledger said.This is perhaps the most fundamental benefit that the transparency legislation offers.”

Click here to view full witness testimony.

BILLS-114hr1830ih
Share

Suspended Black Conservative Columnist Speaks Out About Why She Quit St. Louis Post-Dispatch

*Editor’s Note* – Earlier today I posted President Donald Trump’s FAKE Executive Order  that he presented as “policy” of his administration to protect the right of free speech and freedom of religion. In my editorial note included with that post, I wrote of how there was no such thing as freedom of speech and that the Executive Order of Trump’s was nothing more that a further guarantee of the Government’s authority to control every aspect of your life.

The erosion of freedom of speech is further substantiated in the information contained in the press release that follows of one person being “suspended” from a news media company after writing an article about the Second Amendment.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“It’s Never Been a Secret That I Support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association”

St. Louis, MO / Washington, DC – Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington , a black conservative, was recently suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after writing a column defending gun ownership.  She is now speaking out and available for interviews about the allegations made against her by the newspaper’s management and her decision to end writing for the Post-Dispatch altogether.

Washington was recently selected to help guide Project 21, a leadership network promoting the diversity of political opinion within the black community in America, as one of its co-chairmen.

A freelance contributor who began writing a column for the Post-Dispatch last November, Washington was suspended by the newspaper on April 28 after writing a column on guns that her editor complained did not mention her past affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA).  While she has worked with the NRA on media programs and projects in the past, she says she was never paid for her services and the opinions in the column were her own.

Washington’s support of gun ownership has never been a secret.  In her first column for the newspaper, she wrote: “With my father on active [military] duty, guns were always a part of life, so I considered the Second Amendment second in importance only to the religious protections afforded to us in the Constitution.” Before becoming a columnist, the Post-Dispatch reported on her work with the NRA. She also said the column in question –  “Guns and the Media” – was reviewed by the newspaper’s staff before publication.  That column criticized other Missouri newspapers that recently featured commentaries speculating that gun owners favored guns over child safety and asked readers to compare the NRA to the ISIS terrorism network.  In her column, she wrote: “Gun ownership in America is a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, and owning a gun has no bearing on whether people love their children.”

 Commenting on leaving the Post-Dispatch, Washington said:

It’s never been a secret that I support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association. To effectively be suspended by a newspaper for that seems beyond comprehension. But that’s what I believe happened to me.

Last week, my final column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – “Guns and the Media” – discussed two anti-gun opinion columns in other Missouri papers. I think these commentaries were allowed to falsely accuse gun owners of prioritizing guns over child safety and tried to make the NRA and ISIS morally equivalent. I suggested such radical allegations were allowed to be published without challenge due to an editorial bias against guns.

Like all of my columns published by the newspaper, it was submitted, accepted, edited and approved by the staff of the Post-Dispatch. As a freelance writer, I was unable to post my work directly to their website. So I was obviously surprised when I was notified of a suspension that readers were told was due to my “ active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association, [which] represented an unacceptable conflict of interest.”

 I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of the NRA. I was not compensated for my participation in an NRA documentary that was released last year nor was I paid for any appearances on NRA-affiliated media over the years. Some of this work was even previously reported on by the Post-Dispatch. There was never any attempt at deception.

 After much consideration, I have decided to terminate my relationship with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. When I began writing for the paper, it was with the belief that I would be able to present my opinions from a conservative perspective without interference. This has not been the case, and it makes any future relationship with the newspaper untenable.

 I stand by what I wrote, and it represents me and no other person or organization. I believe that, even in a commentary, it is irresponsible and proves an inherent bias when newspapers permit the comparison of NRA members to Islamic State terrorists and imply that gun-owning Americans cherish their firearms more than the safety of their children.

 To book an interview with Stacy Washington, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

Project 21 members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 40,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from some 60,000 individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

Coca-Cola’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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.

 

Share

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
Share

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>>>

Share

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.
Share

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>>>

Share

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.

 

 

 

Share