Okay, So When are they going to fire?

Shareholders Rake Anti-Gun Dick’s CEO Over Coals During Public Shareholders Meeting

Now, Dick’s Sporting Goods is hearing from its stockholders.

Since the company reacted to the February massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by betraying its customers who support the Second Amendment, Dick’s has been hit by the gun industry, from street-level stores to corporate decision-makers.

But at a shareholders meeting on Wednesday, Dick’s heard from people with skin in the game.

In a direct attack on Dick’s CEO Edward Stack and other members of the company’s board, shareholder David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, raked the company’s leadership over the coals.

To the company’s top officers, Almasi charged, “virtue signaling” was more important than the company’s sales.

TRENDING: Smug NY Reporter Forced to Edit Out Racist Statement Printed About Kimberly Guilfoyle

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s announced it would no longer sell AR-15s (the “assault weapon” liberals hate the most these days) and would restrict firearms sales to those 21 years of age or older.

Those might be considered defensible business decisions, perhaps with worries about liabilities in mind, but Dick’s directors went even further, hiring an anti-gun Washington lobbying firm to actively work against Second Amendment freedoms in the nation’s capital.

Almasi cited that decision in particular in his attack.

Listen to the whole thing here:

After the Parkland shooting, Almasi said, “Dick’s Sporting Goods immediately engaged in corporate virtue signaling, by ending the sale of AR-15s, high-capacity magazines and other accessories. Dick’s also no longer sells guns to people until three years after they’re eligible for military service.

“In addition, Dick’s reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions, even though you’re literally in the business of selling guns …

“The company is willfully giving up money. It’s damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, even while the vast majority of … citizens support the amendment,” Almasi said.

“Thirty percent of Americans own guns and another 11 percent live with someone who does. Now you’ve alienated them.”

Will Dick’s regret its anti-gun positions?

YesNo

.
98% (2240 Votes)
2% (41 Votes)

RELATED: Florida Revokes Hundreds of Carry Permits After ‘Deceitful’ Worker Sabotages Background Check System

According to Fox Business Network, Dick’s has made up for its losses in firearms-related sales in other areas and the stock has risen by 13 percent over the past month.

Liberals like the crew at ThinkProgress are crowing that that proves the Dick’s critics are wrong, but it could well be a short-term effect from the political moment. Dick’s got a lot of headlines out of its anti-gun stance, and liberals could well have decided to patronize the stories because of the publicity.

In the long-term, though, Dick’s has a vested interest in pleasing its outdoors customer base, and its anti-gun decision was a flagrant snub to millions of Americans who could well have been spending their money at Dick’s instead of at a competitor. And shareholders don’t like having company executives who are “willfully giving up money.”

It’s likely not the last time Dick’s shareholders rake the company execs over the coals.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Something to Think About…

Considering the chaotic and splintered condition of our Nation and the broken nature of our Christian church, just about anything could happen.  The Nation and Christians has to do several things.  We need to walk Circumspectly paying close attention to everything around us, pray for discernment, strength and a national Christian revival.  We must join together with our real conservative leadership and get rid of the Shadow Government and Drain the Swamp.  We know, according to Bible prophecy, that we will suffer the period of a one world order and Christians will be under great persecution, however, only God knows the appointed time.  It is my studied opinion, that the time has not yet come, and for the Christian and the Nation to continue to move through life as a free Nation, we must crush liberalism’s plan for globalization.  Pray with me for revival, with the heart of 2nd Chron 7:14.

God Bless you.

R.S. Helms.

 

The following story is reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from AMAC, the Daily Torch, and authored by Robert Romano … Thank you all.

 

 

 

AT&T-Time Warner Merger – Mass Media Consolidation Could Lead the Way to One-Party Rule in The U.S.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2018   |   By Collaborative Correspondent  

Time Warner ATT
Control the Media – Control the People

A vibrant and healthy democracy depends on the free marketplace of ideas.

Call it what you want. Viewpoint diversity. Access to alternative views.

In today’s media and information-driven society and culture, being able to find the opposing view on an issue, to compare the pros and cons of public policy matters or different products and services, is critical to how the American people make decisions about just about everything.

What to buy? Who to vote for? What to watch? Which music to listen to? What to wear? The plethora of choices we have today is owed entirely to the openness of the Internet and other media that facilitates and enables brand development.

But what if that process could become compromised or disrupted in a bid to control media? To control what messages were available to the public? This is the very real danger facing policymakers today in an environment increasingly moving towards mass media consolidation.

With federal judge Richard Leon’s approval of the $107 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, allowing the two companies to combine, the floodgates are opening for content distributors like AT&T — which owns Directv — to also own much of content that plays on those platforms.

Now, Comcast is expected to bid against Disney to buy much of Fox’s media content properties.

So, what’s the problem? Besides the antitrust laws that are invoked by monopolization in any industry, mass media consolidation has meant fewer and fewer companies controlling almost all major media in the country.

A comprehensive Free Press 2018 study on major media ownership finds that just 21 corporations own all the television broadcast stations, 21 that own the radio broadcast stations, 13 that own pay television channels, 11 that own daily newspapers and 18 that own telecom and cable. That number keeps getting smaller every time there’s another merger.

A chapter on the topic in Censored 2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate Media is Corporate America” noted the massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and those of non-media corporations.

Then there is the dominance in tech by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Rapidly, the number of separately owned options is dwindling.

Along with media consolidation, there is also a growing call for political consolidation in Washington, D.C. — and even one-party rule.

In April, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira that called for “Democratic One-Party Rule” in the U.S. as a means of reconciling the nation’s challenges and implementing the progressive agenda. You see, all that debate by Congress and disagreement over which direction to go in is getting in the way of that agenda, so democracy no longer functions the way they want it to. Today’s captains of the information industry are getting impatient. They want to see Utopia in their lifetimes.

It will be anything but.

But leaving that aside, forget about competitive elections, Leyden and Teixeira warn: “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.”

The resolution: “Democratic One-Party Rule.”

Dorsey’s comment was astonishing, writing briefly, “Great read.” Really? What about the part where the authors called for one-party rule? What about the part where they called it a civil war? No?

Just, “Great read,” as if having one political party control the most powerful country in the world to govern with no dissent as the climatic outcome of a civil war “without firing a shot” was just an after-thought for the billionaire.

Who needs alternate viewpoints when there’s media empires to consolidate and an undemocratic agenda to implement? Just hurry up and work it into the afternoon schedule. Dictatorship by close of business. Can we get that yesterday?

Twitter like other social media giants cast themselves as an open platform, a device for free speech basically and the marketplace of ideas. But what if big media doesn’t live up to that and starts censoring political content of one of the two major parties in a bid for absolute power?

Would that be “anti-competitive” enough for Judge Leon to say it might pose an antitrust issue under federal law?

That is why the AT&T-Time Warner merger today is so important for the media landscape of tomorrow, and why the Justice Department must appeal Judge Leon’s decision, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

It may not happen overnight, but we are witnessing the end of media. This is the age of medium. And if we are not careful, one day there may only be one-party rule, too. That will not lead to liberty and prosperity, but to tyranny.

From – Daily Torch – by Robert Romano

A Deep Concern …

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion … from AMAC Newsletter.

 

Nearly Four In Five College Departments Don’t Employ A Single Republican

 

columbia-university-college-768x500

 

To set foot on an American college campus, as anyone who’s spent a picosecond thereabout lately can tell you, is to step through a left-wing looking glass. But a jaw-dropping new study from the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals just how deep the rabbit hole goes: among tenure-track college professors at the nation’s top-ranked liberal arts schools, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 10 to 1.
Rather than culling data from some voluntary survey, the report uncovers the political leanings of 8,688 elite academics by cross-referencing publicly available voter registration information with faculty lists from 51 colleges. At these schools, “78.2 percent of departments do not employ a single Republican.” And that’s just the topline.
The numbers below the fold, broken down by college and field of study, are even more alarming. Over at Wellesley College, perhaps best known for fostering pantsuited diplomats and disdain for the late Barbara Bush, there are 136 Democrat professors for every Republican. More than a third of the colleges assessed have ratios of at least 20-to-1.
At the low end of the spectrum are schools like the Naval Academy, where still more than twice as many Ds as Rs appear at the front of the lecture hall. Lopsided leanings are also evident in key disciplines, such as environmental studies (25-to-1), the humanities (32-to-1), and sociology (44-to-1).
Even If You’re Liberal, This Is Bad News
Look, it’s news to no one (except maybe the frequently confused Matt Yglesias) that the Left smothers conservative thought in academe. But at this magnitude, the consequences go far beyond who gets to wear tweed jackets with elbow patches. Each year, America’s universities ingest millions of bright but ideologically inchoate young people fumbling towards adulthood. Failing to expose them to an extensive menu of different ideas is a sure recipe for parochialism and intellectual indolence.
Even those who would welcome a unanimously liberal generation of Americans must recognize that a mind untested is as useful as a pencil unsharpened: it may be the tool you need, but good luck filling out your Scantron. The most valuable test of one’s worldview is to be confronted by an earnest exponent of a different or even contradictory one.
Moreover, consider the impact of straitjacketed thinking on academic inquiry. Despite being lavished with billions by American taxpayers, the social sciences are engulfed in a vexing replication crisis. Hundreds of findings once considered axiomatic have been impossible to reproduce, casting doubt on entire corpuses of published work in some disciplines.
Is this really all that gobsmacking, however, given the tool we use to appraise its validity? Peer review aims to ensure that academic evidence can be trusted by subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny of reviewers with expertise comparable to the author. Yet as activists and politicians grasp ever more desperately at studies to lend scientific heft to their policy wish lists, academic research has become increasingly politicized. A panel drawn from a cohort of homogeneous thinkers cannot be expected to fairly assess evidence that has a political impact.
Look no further than the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a tool social psychologists developed that purports to measure unconscious prejudice. After being cited in more than 3,000 peer-reviewed papers by “psychologists [desiring] to help solve social problems,” and eagerly circulated by fellow travelers in the media, it was revealed that the test returns wildly unreliable results and has no impact on discriminatory behavior.
Despite failing to meet basic scientific standards, the IAT has been taken by more than 17 million people worldwide, featured in multimillion-dollar federal grants, and made the centerpiece of countless corporate diversity workshops. These academic blunders carry a price we will continue to pay until we recognize the limitations of peer review in an echo chamber.
This Means the ‘Consensus’ Is Tilted
The same applies to the notion of “scientific consensus,” commonly aired today in discussions about climate change. In 2014, noted demagogue John Oliver excoriated the media for daring to present viewers both sides of a political question by holding a “statistically representative” mock debate. To illustrate the percentage of scientists who agree on climate change, he trotted out 97 extras in white coats to shout down three climate skeptics.
To this profusion of unintentional irony, the NAS study adds another nugget: the 25-to-1 partisan ratio among environmental studies faculty means that out of professors who declare for a party, 96.2 percent are Democrats. By no means does this invalidate the conclusions of climate scientists. But policymakers should be aware that the oft-cited “consensus” is not necessarily a meeting of purely objective minds.
Let’s face it: the academy’s ability to perform credible peer review and proclaim scientific consensus will be hindered until it reclaims ideological pluralism. But how? The study argues that, “[t]he solution to viewpoint homogeneity may lie in establishing new colleges from the ground up” because reforming hidebound institutions “seems a very tall order.” Yet a vast new expansion, in the context of bloated federal outlays and overextended state budgets, seems even more improbable.
There is no choice but to reform existing universities, although it will take a Herculean effort from within to expand the institutional Overton window. These days, you can hardly walk through a quad without turning up some provost or vice chancellor underfoot, vowing to promote diversity. It’s past time for these administrators to show some mettle and apply that principle not just to race, sex, and creed, but to ideas also.
That means ceasing the assault on academic freedom and putting the kibosh on the heckler’s veto. Those interested in a truly plural discourse on campus should also think twice before reaching for the typical administrative pro-diversity playbook. Mandatory training seminars and hiring quotas are poor solutions, whomever they favor. Instead, we should take matters into our own hands.
Here’s How to Start
First, students and professors with divergent views must be bold enough to publicly voice them. The chilling effect of overwhelming viewpoint discrimination drives right-leaning prospective young academics into tight-lipped diffidence, if not different callings altogether. The magnetism of compelling mentors—visible evidence that conservatives indeed belong—is an indispensable counterweight that must be strengthened.
Meanwhile, freethinkers should join (or promote and support) nonpartisan organizations that defend viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech on campus, like the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The surveys, tools, and research that groups like these produce are materiel for the vanguard.
Finally, right-leaning professors should strive to play a larger role in peer review, though not a tendentious one. These panels should not become venues for ideological combat, but a variety of perspectives is a needed check on cognitive biases, to which even pedigreed scholars are susceptible.
It goes without saying that all this may come at a substantial individual cost, denominated in professional opportunities and even personal relationships. But it must be paid. Otherwise, partisan faculties will continue to gather momentum like heavy stones tumbling down a hillside. The few conservatives in academia must be willing to stand athwart these boulders yelling Stop, no matter the risk of being flattened. The integrity of the academy depends on it.
From – The Federalist – by William Estes

Reblogged from AMAC a great place to be.

The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

Karl Marx Marxism MarxistThe New York Times just can’t stop talking about communism.

Recently the Times ran an editorial headlined  “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”

The piece, written by Jason Barker, a professor in South Korea, is about what one would expect from a defense of communism. As one Federalist writer noted, it was “beyond parody.”

Hilariously, the article was behind a very capitalistic paywall.

The New York Times hasn’t shied away from publishing Marxist boosterism.

In 2017, the Times dedicated an entire section of its website to the 100-year anniversary of the communist revolution in Russia. It featured an assortment of absurd pieces running the gamut of declaring Lenin a hero environmentalist to claiming that women had better sex lives under socialism.

This romanticized account of life under communism is a delusion.

Of course, while the most ridiculous claim in the most recent piece is that Marx has somehow proven to be correct, it’s notable it goes a step further to say that essentially nobody questions his fundamental critiques of capitalism.

“While most are in agreement about Marx’s diagnosis of capitalism, opinion on how to treat its ‘disorder’ is thoroughly divided,” Barker wrote.

It seems fair to conclude that actually there is widespread doubt about Marx’s claims about capitalism—unless, of course, one lives in a neatly sealed left-wing bubble.

The fact is, Marx was wrong about everything.

He was wrong about economics, wrong about the flow of history, wrong about religion, wrong about where his ideas would lead, and most importantly, wrong about human nature—which he believed could be reshaped under a communist regime.

If there was one thing that was illuminating about Barker’s piece, it was his description of modern social justice crusades as fundamentally Marxist.

“Social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo owe something of an unspoken debt to Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the ‘eternal truths’ of our age,” Barker wrote. “Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.”

This is an interesting admission that these movements are essentially “cultural Marxism,” a phrase that the left so often stridently claims is a figment of conservative imaginations.

Given the profound failures of and misery created by communism in the past, we probably shouldn’t be too hopeful about the success of its modern iterations.

Unfortunately, many young people don’t know about the depths of these past failures, or have a skewed idea of what communism means in practice.

We should all worry about the consequences of historical ignorance.

At least Marx could conceivably say that “real communism hasn’t been tried yet.”

His modern proponents don’t have an excuse.

After nearly two centuries of experimentation with Marxist ideas, communism has failed to produce a brotherhood of man or a classless society in which everyone worked in blissful harmony.

Instead, it has produced societies notorious for their cruelty, dysfunction, and violence. It has led to the estimated death toll of just under 100 million people in the last century.

One only has to look at the Korean Peninsula to see the astounding difference of a society under communist tyranny and freedom.

 

As historian Sean McMeekin wrote in his book, “The Russian Revolution”:

Today’s Western socialists, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for … they may just get it.

Communism offers nothing to humanity but suffering and hopelessness.

This is not to say that life under communism was all about starvation and murderous purges.

Even at its least malignant, living under communism’s inevitable system of enforced conformity and equality where decisions are only the purview of government authorities and bureaucratic managers is hardly a system of human flourishing.

This is more akin to living a lifetime stuck in the DMV.

Marx was wrong, hopelessly wrong. His ideas have been tried, tested, and spectacularly failed.

It’s time to leave his legacy on the ash heap of history.

From – The Daily Signal – by Jarrett Stepman

More Obama Fraud?

Reblogged from Nox & Friends … A charming piece of information to make us wonder even more about the depth of the Swamp.

 

SNAP = Fraud
By SafeSpace | March 30, 2018 | Alinsky, Barack Hussein Obama (asshole), Culture War, Democrats, Dumbassery, Entitlements/Free Stuff, Evil Left, Lefties
It never fails: Some leftist politician authorizes the distribution of millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of free stuff to “the needy”, then redefines “needy” as anyone who meets bullshit criteria that frequently DISregard income, employability and citizenship status. Magically, the number of “needy” grows exponentially, and millions more hands reach into the pockets of honest American workers. And the “free stuff” program descends into corruption and abuse.

This sequence of events played out at local, state and national levels bigtime during the eight years of the Batears Regime. King Putt encouraged officials in Appalachia USDA offices that dealt with the poor (both folks in actual poverty and those simply suffering from poverty of spirit) to destroy the ethic of self-reliance and corrode the respect for a day’s work for a day’s pay. His directives caused bonuses to be paid to USDA employees who recruited the most new SNAP enrollees. BHO replaced the time-honored work/paycheck equation with free stuff, available without the “stigma” of welfare through SNAP, the renamed food stamp program. Note that Soetero’s socialist approach was not limited to the Blue Ridge; it played out in different forms nationwide. States and localities that had large numbers of illegals also found ways to add ’em all to the SNAP rolls.

SNAP benefits can be grossly abused because the program actually exists for three purposes: Feeding the hungry, of course … but also building the culture of dependency on central government, and enlarging the Democrat voter rolls. By granting SNAP eligibility withOUT citizenship requirements, both the number of dependents and the level of fraud increases.
Judicial Watch presented the following report a few days ago … one more feather in JW’s war bonnet in their battle against leftard corruption.
Nearly 200 Busted in $3.7-Million Food-Stamp Fraud Operation
More than a year after the Obama administration slammed American taxpayers with a record-high tab to provide an unprecedented number of people with food stamps, the fraud continues full-throttle in the bloated welfare program. Authorities in north Florida arrested nearly 200 people for operating a sophisticated ring in which millions of dollars in food stamps were fraudulently exchanged for cash and drugs. Keep in mind that food stamps—renamed by the Obama administration Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to eliminate stigma—are designed to help nourish the nation’s most needy.
For years Judicial Watch has reported extensively on the rampant fraud in the program that cost U.S. taxpayers a bewildering $80.4 billion in one year to provide a record 46 million people with the welfare benefit during the Obama tenure. Even then, a federal audit revealed that many who didn’t qualify for food stamps received them under a special “broad-based” eligibility program that disregards income and asset requirements. The expansion was part of the former president’s mission to eradicate “food insecure households” in the U.S. To accomplish it, the administration spent millions of dollars on ad campaigns to recruit more food-stamp recipients, even doling out hefty cash rewards to local governments that signed up the most people. One state even bragged about a $5 million performance bonus it got from the feds for its “swift processing of applications.”
Not surprisingly, the food stamp program became a hotbed of fraud and corruption. Recipients use social media to illegally sell and buy food stamps online and others use the welfare benefit to buy drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors, according to a federal audit that also says some trade food stamps for reduced amounts of cash. The fraud costs the government hundreds of millions of dollars, the audit discloses. This was back in 2012 when the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency that distributes food stamps, told Congress about the serious issues plaguing the program. Things got so out of control that the Obama administration dedicated $7 million to crack down on food-stamp fraud in 2014. Among the anti-fraud initiatives that the money funded were strategies to identify and successfully investigate attempts to buy or sell SNAP benefits online using social media such as Facebook, Twitter or ecommerce websites like Craigslist and eBay.
More than a year after Obama left the USDA program in disarray, the scams continue. In the recently busted Florida operation, more than 22,000 fraudulent transactions totaling $3.7 million were documented by a task force of local and federal authorities. It has been coined Operation Half-Back and a Jacksonville news report says undercover officers personally observed 115 individuals commit 390 fraudulent transactions involving food stamps. In most cases the food-stamp recipient took 50 cents per $1 in benefit. Some of the corrupt vendors were stores but many were mobile businesses that sell food and have USDA approval to accept food stamps as payment. Among the biggest offenders are a produce business that recorded 7,164 fraudulent transactions for $1.1 million, another that had 7,390 transactions totaling $1 million, a seafood store that recorded 3,958 transactions for $1.2 million and a mobile meat vender that had 3,958 fraudulent transactions for $572,282.
The undercover sting started back in 2012, the year the Obama administration shattered food-stamp records. Law enforcement agencies created fictitious businesses, according to the Florida Attorney General’s office, which disclosed last week that more than 115 individuals have been charged with felonies and 61 others with misdemeanors. Though the federal government doles out food stamps, in Florida a state agency called Department of Children and Families administers it to provide nutrition assistance to vulnerable populations such as children, senior citizens and families in economic distress. “Food stamp trafficking steals from Florida’s hardworking taxpayers,” Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “The SNAP/EBT program is designed to provide services to the most vulnerable among us and for anyone to take advantage of this system is shameful.”
Florida seems to be a hotbed of food-stamp rackets. Less than two years ago the feds busted the largest food-stamp fraud operation in U.S. history in south Florida. Twenty-two defendants in the largely black and Hispanic areas of Miami-Dade County known as Opa-Locka and Hialeah swindled the government out of $13 million by fraudulently trading food stamps for cash. The crooked vendors operated food and produce stands at a local flea market as part of then-First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiative to eradicate “food deserts,” common in poor, minority communities where fresh, healthy food is tough to find or often unavailable. The feds say the business owners and their employees let food-stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to get cash in exchange for a cut of the money.
— SafeSpace —

Helicopter Protesting

 

Reblogged from the federalist.com (http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/28/march-lives-just-helicopter-protesting/

 

The March For Our Lives Was Just ‘Helicopter Protesting’

In a triumph of helicopter parenting, the ‘student-led’ March for Our Lives protest turns out to have been mostly organized and paid for by adult activists.
Robert Tracinski

By

The big “March for Our Lives” pro-gun-control demonstrations last weekend are being touted as the defining moment of the late millennial generation. Much as I like to think ill of millennials, second only to thinking ill of the Baby Boomers, such projections are unlikely to be true because, as Dave Marcus points out, they weren’t true of the Boomers, who were not defined by the hippies and went on to vote for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

“Neither of these generations, and in fact no generation at all, is defined by…media-hyped paradigms of what they think and do.” That’s especially true when we discover more confirmation that this spontaneous student activism isn’t so spontaneous, after all.

First of all, the numbers are in for the weekend rallies, and the crowd size is estimated at 200,000. That’s comparable to what we had in DC for the big Tea Party rally in September of 2009. It’s probably smaller than the nationwide Tea Party demonstrations in April of 2009. Perhaps a more direct comparison would be the almost identically named “March for Life,” an annual anti-abortion rally in DC that peaked at 650,000 people a few years back and regularly brings in protesters in the hundreds of thousands. And this is without the benefit of weeks of free publicity provided by the national media.

But these protests had the benefit of more than just free media. Under a carefully neutral title, “In Gun Control Marches, Students Led but Adults Provided Key Resources,” The New York Times basically admits that the marches are astroturf—artificial grassroots.

Although the events, which together drew hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across the country, were inspired and often led by students, many protests simultaneously benefited from groups with more financial resources and organizational skills than the teenagers had on their own….

Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded and financed by Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire and former New York mayor, proudly declared that it had doled out more than $1 million in grants to local organizers. A nonprofit led by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, arranged for more than 200 people from the Parkland area to attend Saturday’s march in Washington, and said it had worked with the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert Kraft, to use the NFL franchise’s plane to bring some people to the capital….

‘Our mission was to give them the biggest megaphone possible,’ Shannon Watts, the founder of an Everytown-affiliated group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said on Sunday.

There’s a lot more of this sort of thing in the report, but it’s all summed up in this amazing statement:

‘The kids did everything,’ said Jenn Hoadley, 36, who helped students organize a march in Anchorage. ‘All I did was say, ‘You want a stage? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You need a sound system? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You want to march in the park? I do paperwork to help you get that done.’ They planned it all, and they should be given credit for that.’

“The kids did everything” ends up meaning that they expressed their preferences and adults swarmed in to do all the actual work. Plus, in the words of another local student “organizer,” the adults “were paying for everything.” As we usually do. Oh, and all the angry rhetoric about politicians being bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association? That was spoon-fed to them, too, by a Parkland teacher whose “government” class apparently spent a lot of time railing against “special interests” and not much time on the Constitution.

I don’t blame the kids for this, not primarily. They are responding to a perfect storm of two big trends among the older generation. The first trend is the rise of protest culture, in which your entire personal and political identity are supposed to be tied up in which protests you attend. Combine that with helicopter parenting, in which parents are so eager for their kids to enjoy success and a wide range of experiences that they hover over the kids and hold their hands the entire way. I guess we could call this helicopter protesting.

This isn’t new. It’s a phenomenon I observed during campus protests a few years back, when the president of Claremont McKenna college announced “I’m holding a sit-in in my office.” As I wrote, “Today’s students are so coddled that they no longer have to make the effort to take over university buildings. Their elders will take it over for them. It’s like a weird kind of helicopter parenting: ‘Here, let me rebel for you, sweetheart.’”

Similarly, one education reformer observed the irony of the recent anti-gun school walkouts, “protests” that were effectively sponsored by the school’s own administration. “If students have permission to walk out, it’s no longer student activism at all. It’s a field trip.”

I have no doubt that the some of the kids from Parkland and elsewhere will do amazing things some day. Some of them already have, but they’re not here to talk about it. The rest will go on to accomplish much in their lives, eventually. But they will start to do that only after they emerge from under the protective wings and ideological influence of their teachers and parents and decide what they think on their own. Then maybe some of them will dare to launch protests without the permission and support of their elders.

Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for The Federalist. His work can also be found at The Tracinski Letter.

A Lot of Talk

Aviary Photo_131660526231178359

Of course, this is my opinion, the name of the blog “Bob’s Opinion,” should more than indicate that it is my opinion, my studied opinion but still an opinion. It is where I am able to say what is on my mind, what I think and what I believe. It is an “op-ed” journalism post of opinion. Now, with that said, we need to get on with this post “A Lot of Talk” part two, being pro-active in stopping mass murders, (mass shootings, or any shootings), and make it possible to restore the second amendment rights of the citizens of our nation.
Every time there is a shooting the knee-jerk reaction of the left wing is to stage demonstrations and fake news journalism to attack the second amendment and the right to bare arms. More gun legislation, and gun seizure. All this before the mainstream media hacks are giving their impersonation of a forensic autopsy and a complete dissection of the incident, and the shooter. Meanwhile the mainstream media and liberal politicians are pimping the tragedy.
A lot of talk as far as any serious measures to stop this madness of terror and slaughter of our innocent children and young people. We need action, and not more milking and pimping such an evil tragedy. If the amount of money that is spent by the left-wing radical activists and put it to work in PREVENTION we might get something done to secure the safety of the people.
The things that the shooters have in common is that they have some degree of mental or personality dysfunction; in other words, they are crazy as a loon. Okay some degree of personality dysfunction that creates a sociopathic or psychotic behavior trait that is really quite volatile, and we don’t want a meltdown episode. That is when they become violent and plan and execute mass murder. We need to be able to stop them from killing people especially children and young people. Another common trait is also a common trait found in terrorism, absolutely no value of human life.
There has always been those who commit mass murder, but not in the rate of occurrence that there is now. There is motive and triggers that need to be addressed, but, first the individuals or individual must be identified, and their threat evaluated, as mental dysfunction, criminal, terrorist, or just radicalized beliefs. and still within due cause and due process. However, as President Trump pointed out if we start with due process first, it could be the process that takes away valuable time, time that no one knows will end, we must assume the fuse has been lit and no one knows how long it will burn before BANG!
Don’t for one-minute think that all mental cases are dumb, no they are some mental people that are brilliant, able and have no fear. Four prerequisites for a planned attack. And of course, with the people that we are dealing with one thing is really not totally in place and that is the fear factor. Most will pick a soft target, it is easy and poses no resistance. Why do you think the socialists want to take our guns away? There will be no resistance during a mass takeover.
Nonetheless, the first obstacle is to identify the potential shooter or shooters. I doubt if strange behavior would cause enough attention to get reported as it now stands and most citizens would fear a lawsuit, it is coupled with identifying possible intent along with behavior. The police have a probable cause detainment at the present, it however, is only good for 72-hours at a psychoanalysis ward in the hospital. It is used for sociopathic and psychotic episodes and is to provide the patient with a period to reduce the acute anxiety or psychotic episode or to reestablish medication schedules, or detox, then to provide behavior observation, diagnosis, and proper prescription medication reaction. There is simple not enough time in a 72-hour sociopathic or psychotic observation, let alone the other areas of diagnosis, observation and treatment.

With the presumption that we need to identify the mentally ill and get them treatment, will not to rain on anyone’s parade, but, any one that will commit mass murder has a sociopathic episode if not a severe psychotic event, or a delusional or terrorists. This must be understood before they murder someone, but identifying the potential killer and the threat the individual or group individuals pose, is where it may get tricky.
It could be tricky because of the liberal shadow government fine-tuned by the Obama administration. That if the suspected shooter is Muslim, Black, Hispanic, or under the age of 21, the policy of hands off has been applied, or so it may seem. And the banning of profiling as a means to help identify a suspect was truly a means to block law enforcement from effectively doing their job. I remember how the MSM played Obama’s comment of the legal Mexican family out to get an ice cream on a Sunday afternoon being stopped and questioned by police, as his attempt to justify his lawsuit against Arizona and to protect the innocent from police harassment – Phooey! In reality it was his way of allowing more illegal aliens in to vote Democrat. But with those he also granted free passage to the Mexican gangs, and drug dealers.
It could get tricky because of what has been just a lot of talk in the press and all of it is postmortem. After the finger-pointing is all over with and the liberal press has used up its last fake witness and goes silent until the next mass murder. It has become so bad that it has to be mass murder by a semiautomatic weapon before it gets press.
The time has long passed to start working on preventing the mass murderer from killing his or her first victim. Before I get into my opinion of how-to procedures, I must address a couple of things that are so wrong with America today. If the wrongs are not addressed and solved there is no chance of doing a proper job of prevention. Like crisis counseling, or drug counseling, the first thing that must happen is light must shine on the wrong, unless a patient accepts the problem(s) anything done is only a Band-Aid. Here today, the patient is the American people and until we can shine light on the problems and accept them we will never be able to protect the second amendment or protect the public against mass murderers. We need to address our culture and what it has become. It does not mean “going backwards” like Hillary and Pelosi claim. Restoring our values and integrity is the starting point of healing our splintered culture. Insisting on what liberal’s institute as political correctness has done just the opposite of healing, it actually has brought more harm. Treating people with respect and dignity would have healed more of the divisions. But political correctness used as a weapon against conservatives is not only wrong but by necessity builds more hate and division.
Aside from liberalism our nation faces one of the greatest challenges in our history, and that is our splintered culture. How can we fix our culture when our people are so divided and under such strong evil delusions? How do we fix our smashed moral compass?
We must look at the mess we call our culture, the one that Obama bragged about as he apologized to foreign nations as he bowed before their kings and dictators. And tried to convince the people of the United States that America was something it was not. His infamous words were “and that’s not what America is about.” Before he was elected the first time he made the statement that Christians just wanted to poke along clinging to their Bibles and guns, then said to his liberal brainwashed imps “but that’s okay, we will push on without them – leaving them in the dust of history, and not into change.” Change to Obama was a Global Socialist Union.
Well Mr. Obama, you and the three who preceded you, along with corrupted politicians and the Deep State, are to blame for what is our present condition, and the blood of the people including the children is on your hands not the NRA or the guns. You and the liberal policies since the 1960s has finally came to fruition in the Obama administration.
Okay so now that we have placed the blame, and rightfully so, on the liberals and liberal ideology of socialism, we can look at the aftershock of it all, our nation has shattered its once proud culture that moral values, integrity, ethical practices and what was an advancing social unity. A nation that was teaching the three r’s and the fourth r is respect for authority, moral values in our homes, where kids were raised up respecting their parents and honoring them, they were raised understanding social values and decency, modest dress, and that there is a difference between males and females and how our culture has lost respect for our women, our values have been trashed by politics and liberalism.
Our value of life has been trashed through abortion, and senseless violent demonstrations. Our value of respect of others property has become a myth among the millennial liberal activists and “liberal community organizers” or as I prefer to call them conspirators against law and order, against anything decent. Since the 1960s the free thinkers have become more and more radical anti-American, pro liberal socialism as though they are under some sort of evil delusion, following yippy skippy after false heroes and a utopia promised, that can never be realized by a liberal socialist Republic.
One would seldom suspect that liberalism was festering like a big boil, since FDR, but it has, just, at times, it was more open than others, corruptness in our politicians and the actual race dividing “New Deal of Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of the Kennedy’s (Kennedy just didn’t live long enough to sign it), would produce such anti-American Activists such as Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson, but it has produced even worse in black and Hispanic racism against the Hinze-57 white man, where it is okay for celebrities and politicians to call for the killing of all white people, and if someone says the sky is blue, you are tagged a racist, where hypocrisy is the normal of liberalism. Obama’s policies over eight years has done more harm to our American culture than any other administration in history.
Folks, just step back for a moment and really take a look at the condition of our culture, then actually think of any bonafide reason that we should be astonished at such horrific evil as mass murders? We must admit that there is a problem with the mental dysfunction of all the killers. Muslim Jihad and Sharia Law, has encouraged, not only Muslim Terrorist, but all terrorists, to rape, kill, and destroy anything or anyone who don’t agree with them.
However, our American culture is not totally lost, and with the help of God we can regain our land and our people from the evil delusion that has perpetrated its evil into our millennial generation. We simply need to expose the evil heroes and replace them with real heroes with morals and integrity. The same with the politicians and celebrities.
Meanwhile, we need to be able to identify and nullify those with, or without, mental dysfunctions before they need to be a top priority of law enforcement on the local, state, and federal level and the subject of the media’s post mortem forensic analysis. Profiling is actually not a dreadful thing, and it does give results, while protecting everyone’s Constitutional Rights. It is a constitutional right for a citizen to live and to possess a firearm or firearms. It is not the authority of law enforcement to seize a firearm without due cause or due process, and there is where we have a problem in defining what is due cause.
Law enforcement should respond to all notifications of concern, in an investigative intent, first point of contact should be to make physical contact with the person making the report of concern, to establish if the concern is actually warranted. The second is to contact the subject or subjects of the concern. It is then the responsibility of the trained officer (and situation evaluation is part of officer training), if the officer determines the threat exists, then he should detain the subject for observation by a trained and equipped person or team, and a background investigation be performed as due process.
It is simple and does not require any more laws than are already exist, except the limit of 72-hours. 72-hours should be the minimum, and 120-hours limit for observation, then panel review to determine the mental instability and recommend no further action or treatment or should be held for further treatment, or placed on a watch list, with the subject’s behavior monitored. If the evaluation result be considered safe, then legal arms be returned, as due cause has been satisfied. If not, then due process needs to be acted on to permanently remove the firearms. Due process can be started in the courts at time of detainment with due cause.
I believe that this is just a jab in the dark opinion, but serious actions need to be taken to remove potential threats to the safety and wellbeing of the community. However, while getting the bad people and their weapons off the streets to nullify any threat, law enforcement must not be able to take away the 2nd amendment rights of any citizen. We need to nullify bad people before they have the opportunity to murder innocent citizens.
End sanctuary cities, end any amnesty for illegal aliens, create laws dealing with gang activities and gang associations, define terrorist groups and put them on a watch list. But it depends on restoring our culture to have any real long-term effect. We must do what we need to do while we fix our nation’s moral compass.
R.S. Helms … Bob’s Opinion.