Connect with us


NRA Conference Guests Sick After What Dallas Restaurant Tricked Them Into Paying For On Every Bill

Would you eat there?



The National Rifle Association is having a great convention in Dallas this year with it’s estimated 70k attendees.

Although most of the attendees at this weekend’s convention have received a warm welcome from Dallas, there always has to be at least one that has to spoil it for everyone else. This time it was a sign the phrase “NRA enables domestic terrorists” projected onto the convention center to the protests planned outside the convention all weekend.

And that wasn’t the only instance of liberal lunacy. One downtown West End restaurant will find a message on their receipts: “Thanks for visiting Ellen’s! A portion of this week’s proceeds will be donated to organizations dedicated to implementing reasonable and effective gun regulations. Welcome to Dallas!”

Trending: BIG Billboard Goes Up On Busy California Highway Overnight With 4 Words That Makes Maxine Waters PANIC

Welcome to Dallas, NRA!

Posted by Soraya Colli on Friday, May 4, 2018

Joe Groves who owns Ellen’s, posted a photo of the restaurant’s receipt copy on Facebook today. “I’m making a list of the vile, racist, moronic conversations overheard from NRA attendees eating at the restaurant,” he wrote. “They don’t even speak softly.”

This here has to be one of the dumbest moves ever by any business person. Why would anyone who owns a public restaurant ever want to come out against a group of people, many of whom will be paying customers is beyond any business class I’ve ever taken. Business is about money when you turn it into something emotional and start getting involved in politics, either side, that’s just not good for the bottom line. Business suffers, your employees suffer and everyone else who is involved with your supply chain suffers.

It’s a lose-lose for everyone involved just to get a point across which will be forgotten by the next day. Except by the people who end up feeling alienated and those who end up losing their incomes because of it. Not smart, not smart at all.

Here is more on the NRA convention via Bloomberg:

“I have long cautioned readers about the dangers of mixing politics with their investing. Politics is so emotional, so tribal, that it can easily cloud an investor’s thinking. Anything interfering with factual and logical analysis will disrupt even the best decision-making processes. Indeed, changes to your investment strategy based on hot emotions rarely work out.

But what about when politics affects how corporate executives make their decisions? There are dangers and opportunities when hot-button topics are mixed into a business model.

Consider some recent examples where politics appeared to influence corporate decision-making:

First National Bank of Omaha, the nation’s largest closely held bank and thus one might assume not subject to outside shareholder pressure, dropped its National Rifle Association affiliate credit card “in response to customer feedback.”

Papa John’s International Inc. ended its relationship with the National Football League, in large part because some players kneeled during the national anthem.

Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. ended sales of assault-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines; it would also require any gun buyer to be at least 21, regardless of local laws. Walmart Inc., the biggest gun seller, said it too would no longer sell assault-style rifles, and would stop selling guns to anyone under age 21.

Chick-fil-A Inc.’s chief in the past made comments about “the company’s support of the traditional family;” it was subsequently reported that the company donated to anti-LGBTQ groups.

Outdoor retailer Recreational Equipment Inc., better known as REI, said it planned to stop sales of five brands, including firearms maker Vista Outdoors Inc., amid customer complaints. Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Hertz and Avis, meanwhile, have ended co-branding partnerships with the NRA.

Delta Air Lines Inc. rescinded a one-time group travel discount for the NRA’s annual meeting. (It was only used by 13 people.)

It would be easy to see the actions related to the latest mass shooting as a knee-jerk response. But there’s a big difference between the hotheaded reaction by traders to political news, and what seems to be more deeply considered moves by corporate executives in response to customer feedback. But with the #BoycottNRA still unfolding, 1 I want to use something with more distance from today as a leaping-off point for discussion.

Consider how politics informed corporate decision-making at Chick-fil-A.

The company began with a single location in Georgia in 1946, and most of its early growth was in its home and neighboring states. It should come as no surprise that a company that openly espoused religious precepts would find no difficulties expanding in its own backyard in the Bible Belt.

By 2006, sales had topped $2 billion. But the company also had a major obstacle, largely of its own making. In 2012, Dan Cathy, son of the company’s legendary founder, Truett Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he and his company “operate on biblical principles” and “are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” That led to some controversy, and a closer look at the company’s charitable donations. As it turned out, some of the recipients of those company donations were anti-LGBTQ groups. Protests erupted.

But if you want to be a national brand, you have to sell wherever people are, including the coasts and the cities, areas that tend to be much less conservative and religious. The company’s chief executive officer had two options: either tone down the controversial public political commentary, or scale back the company’s expansion goals. He decided on the former.

In 2015, the first Chick-fil-A opened in New York, to modest protests and long lines. There are now more than 2,100 restaurants across the country, and the fast-food restaurant outfit has gone on to surpass KFC as the nation’s largest chicken chain. 2

There is a message here for corporate executives: They must consider who their customers are now, and who they might be in the future. I do not believe this reflects the rise of what some have taken to calling woke capital, but rather, pragmatic business decisions made by people whose bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Expansion plans, revenue targets and profits appear to drive a lot of these decisions.

Although there are risks when executives choose sides in any national political debate, most CEOs are smart enough not to alienate customers or potential customers. But opportunities exist for companies to become more aligned with the broad public opinion on rapidly changing social issues.

There are, of course, risks for those corporate managers who misread the way the political winds are blowing. Recall Papa John’s break with the NFL: On the very next day, Pizza Hut became the NFL’s official pizza sponsor.

Investing and politics clearly don’t mix, as I keep telling readers. There is no such rule of thumb for business and politics. Companies can take political stands; the results can yield benefits or prove costly. Either way, we’re likely to see more of it in the future. How it plays out depend on whether the decision expands the base of future customers without alienating those who are content with the status quo.”

H/T The Dallas Observer

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’



Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading


Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!



President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook



No trending posts found at this time.