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

Just As It Is

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion

 

 

William Murchison
William Murchison

WILLIAM MURCHISON: Of the Baptists and the modern world

June 12, 2018

 

I live in amity with the Southern Baptists, whose general tolerance for my fellow “Whiskeypalians” I take kindly.

I wouldn’t dream of joining the media whoop-de-do over who among the Baptist faithful did what to whom, and when, and what to do now. You have read it all; I will not recount the imputations of Baptist sexism, patriarchy and the Lord knows what else.

There is a point, even so, to be made about life in an environment — this one — where religious standards of belief and behavior more frequently encounter scorn or indifference than support.

Without brushing off genuine concerns about particular attempts in Baptist ranks to downplay sexual aggression (all forms of sexual aggression are despicable, would you not say?) we need to look at the premises that make such aggressions possible and familiar.

Which are? Ah. Here we get down to brass tacks.

Leave the Rev. Dr. Paige Patterson out of this. The deterioration in male-female relationships over past decades has brought this thing to pass, and all the attendant misery and reproaches.

It is in part the churches’ fault. It is in part not the churches’ fault.

It is the fault, broadly speaking, of the modern supposition that the relationship of man and woman is for that particular man and that particular woman to figure out for themselves — never mind what Western culture and religion taught in the ages prior to Freud.

It will be noted, if one looks, that there was no #MeToo movement — no swelling demand for reckoning with male aggressors — until very recent months.

There was no such movement in the ’50s. There was no such movement in the ’40s. There was no such movement in the ’30s.

Which is a far cry from saying, “Gee, everybody sure was happy and content in them there old days!” It is more reasonable to say society lived by a different ethic than that which came to hold sway following World War II.

That is where the churches came in.

The male-female relationship, as the churches saw it, and tried to teach it, involved obligation. Personal expression was low on the totem pole as a cultural objective. There were limits.

These limits, under religious tutelage, society acknowledged. Sorrow and pain and cruelty, being elements of the human character, hung around the house and, often enough, broke out windows or set the place on fire.

But that wasn’t supposed to be the way of it. The way of it, according to the Christian principles America’s churches had been endowed with, was love; it was mutual forbearance; it was kindness toward, and respect for, others.

Personal, shall we say, “expression” — meaning, among other things, rape, humiliation, aggressive encounters with members of the opposite sex — ran counter to how the Good Book told it. There were limits. You needed to keep within those limits.

You didn’t, for instance, get a stranger drunk and carnal knowledge have of her — as rape statutes used delicately to phrase it. Families and social institutions of all kinds assumed responsibility for the observance of these necessary limits.

Until they didn’t. Until the churches, to put it another way, more or less gave up on proclaiming the value and worth of the old norms: acceding, in effect, to the modern clamor to let people do as they liked; adjusting the Christian message so as not to look old-fashioned and out of it.

The Rev. Joseph Fletcher, in “Situation Ethics,” stressed the need to avoid “stern, iron-bound do’s and don’ts,” along with “prescribed conduct and legalistic morality.”

Fletcher, was, well, um, I admit it, a fellow Whiskeypalian whom the Southern Baptists could accuse of helping fellow Christians, along with non-Christians, create a vast moral trash heap.

I ache for the Baptists at this juncture: victims of, as well as collaborators in, the moral confusion through which we lurch, yelling, denouncing, prosecuting, demonizing — everything but trying to remember what it was like back when the cultural rule of thumb was taken to be to love your neighbor as yourself.

William Murchison’s latest book is “The Cost of Liberty: The Life of John Dickinson.”

 

 

 

Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion..

via Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

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 on Stopping Mass Shootings

This is a repost from AMAC, (I am a member), but they do have great articles and this is one that shares my thoughts.  It is not the legal gun owner, but the bad guy with the gun.  and really no reason what so ever, to mess with the second amendment. 

AMAC Calls For ‘Rational Debate’ On Gun Control

gun control debateWASHINGTON, DC – Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens, has called for “rational debate’ rather than politically motivated rhetoric” regarding the issue of gun control.

“The murder of innocent children in our nation’s schools by mentally disturbed individuals cannot be tolerated.  Nor should it become political campaign fodder.  Yet that is exactly what is bound to happen in the next eight months leading up the 2018 Mid-Term elections,” says Weber.

In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens escalated the politics of gun control by calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment.

Weber describes Justice Stevens’ solution as an “absurdly extreme way to control the use of firearms.  Not to mention that it would be perhaps the first time in American history that our own government would be taking away a Constitutional right.”

A scholarly critique of the rationale for gun control showed that many of the reasons cited for the need of more onerous regulation of firearms are deceptive.  One of the criteria cited is the notion that “homicides are largely ‘crimes of passion’ committed by otherwise law‐abiding citizens not distinguishable from other people.  Therefore, control must be directed at all gun owners rather than select criminal subgroups.”

Says Weber, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which keeps track of gun deaths, has found that nearly two-thirds of death by firearms in the U.S. were the result of suicides, accidents and legal interventions.  He notes that homicides accounted for only 33 percent of deaths.

Law professor Robert Delahunty has a different take on the need for more stringent gun control.  According to Delahunty, “progressives claim that more regulation of guns will deter violence and promote public safety.”  But, he says, they demure when it comes to the notion of abortion control.  “The progressive position seems to depend on what kind of laws they are talking about.”

Weber points out that he is in “no way” condoning indiscriminate sales of guns, particularly to individuals who are potentially a danger to themselves  and to others.

“The emotional and mental stability of gun buyers should, indeed, be a factor in deciding whether to allow such sales.  But, in addition we need law enforcement to be more proactive.  For example, there was plenty of evidence to identify the intentions of the shooter in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School incident.  The FBI and local police had been informed of who he was and what he was capable of.  He was said to go around introducing himself by saying, ‘Hi, I’m Nick. I’m a school shooter.’  Yet, the authorities seemed to ignore the threat he posed.”

More recently, however, police in Lexington, KY got an anonymous tip that a local high school student was threatening to shoot himself and others at his school.  The youngster had recently posted social media pictures of himself with a gun he had recently purchased.  Little time was wasted in obtaining a mental health petition apprehending him.

“Instead of disregarding the right to bear arms granted by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, instead of targeting legitimate gun buyers and sellers, let’s focus on the reason for the mayhem.  We should be concentrating on the mental health aspects if the issue by finding ways of identifying those with problems and intervening and preventing further atrocities as school shootings,” according to Weber.

ABOUT AMAC

The Association of Mature American Citizens [AMAC] [https://www.amac.us] is a vibrant, vital senior advocacy organization that takes its marching orders from its members.  We act and speak on their behalf, protecting their interests and offering a practical insight on how to best solve the problems they face today.  Live long and make a difference by joining us today at https://amac.us/join-amac.