The political marketplace: weaponizing business

Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.

You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:

(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”

“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.

Back to the M/O

But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.

It has had some success I won’t bother to list.

So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.

Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.

First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.

You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.

However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.

Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.

Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.

Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.

Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.

Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.

Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.

Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.

Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.

Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.

By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.

But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.

“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.

The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.

From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?

That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.

Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.

My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?

I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.

Right Ring | Bullright

Enemy within: Media War on the People

Two statements made news over the weekend. And they were set off by a Trump tweet which you’d think spoke for itself. Maybe these people are not even smart enough to read a tweet and comprehend it.

McCain adds his two cents. You’d never catch him putting it in a tweet.That’s beneath him. He’d much rather run to the Mainstream media wolves to vent.

“A fundamental part of that new world order was a free press. I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you.”

“I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

“When you look at history,” McCain said, “the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”

He tried to clarify that he was not saying Trump is a dictator. Just referencing it.

Senator Graham cracker has upped the flame by declaring in Germany that 2017 will be “the year Congress kicks Russia in the ass.” (…will they go Obamacare on Russia?)

MSM had its view, from CNN to Chris Wallace on Fox, that they don’t like that talk. Oh, too bad! Get a grip on yourselves. Why is it when the people say something, it’s either disturbing or outrageous? Then when Trump says it, it is downright “dangerous.”

Just look at media, or the press. Adversarial press is the word they like to use. But they’ve gone from biased to adversarial, to opposition, to cheerleaders for obstruction. They are in protest of Trump every day.

Then there is the “I am a Muslim too” protest. Followed by the “Not My President’s day” — impeach him protest. In Britain, elected officials are in protest against Trump receiving a state visit in UK. No state visit for you, Donald! Stay away from our Queen. People in the UK are actually betting how long Trump will last as president?

So President’s Day for Trump means national protest day. Well, every day is protest day for Trump. We have sports’ and Patriots-players’ protests. Pope Francis had more criticism for our domestic and immigration policy. Francis, tear down your wall!

Now getting down to the crux of that media’s war on the people. That is basically what it comes down to. Media doesn’t like that being said or that language? Oh well. Stop acting like the enemy of the people then. Even before Trump won, the media and liberals began attacking Trump’s supporters. It’s a typical leftist tactic to blame and ostracize the supporters — as a basket of deplorables and irredeemables.

Why is media the enemy of the people? Well, this their seventh year of really proving it. Where was this adversarial press for the past eight years? Where was Media mafia on Benghazi.We still don’t know what Obama or officials were doing?

Did they ask probing questions about the Iran deal? No.Did Media care the IRS was targeting Obama’s political opponents. Did they cover Fast and Furious? Did they cry outrage when Obama’s campaign talked to Iran before getting in office? Or call for an independent consel-investigation? Did media pursue Obama’s Russia flexibility?

Did media sympathize with or cover Tea Parties? No, they attacked them relentlessly.

Media despised anyone who was not onboard with Obama; they mocked and probed them and kept reminding everyone that Obama is the president.

Adversarial press? Hardly, they were his biggest cheerleaders. Now press is just more the loyal opposition and the middle man between boycotting, dissenting politicians and the Resistance — which are all really the same thing. Rrah-rah!

They went from Obama’s sycophant press to just the unabashed enemy of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Sderot, Israel under steady fire

Sderot, Israel has been hit by 5000 rockets over the decade. Name another place or country in the world subject to that.

This view of a Sderot neighborhood is from a hill outside town. Hamas wants to make this a “ghost town,” but so far all they’ve done is to strengthen the resolve of those who live here, and help create a population that can live under a rain of rockets and still keep going.

But do we hear the bleeding heart Left on campuses and media in the US calling for an end to it? Do we see student protests organized at universities signing petitions or calling for divestment and boycotts? Just a rhetorical question. (I think you know)


Welcome to Sderot. A sign welcomes visitors with a counting of the kassam rockets which have fallen on Sderot or nearby.

NYU students protest surreptitious Israel boycott conference on campus

By MAYA SHWAYDER — 03/01/2014 | Jerusalem Post
26 students and student leaders from the school’s Democrat and Republican groups send protest letter to school president. (protesting the BDS movement)

[NYU] NEW YORK – The American Studies Association hosted a large pro-Boycott, Divest, Sanction at New York University from Friday night to Saturday evening, sparking a backlash from NYU students, who wrote a letter of protest to the school’s administration.

The ASA-BDS event, which coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week in New York and was titled “Circuits of Influence: US, Israel and Palestine,” was not widely publicized and was closed to the press.

“We are immensely disappointed with both the nature of this event and how it has been met with complete silence from the NYU administration,” the letter said, citing the fact that invitations to the event were extremely selective and the event itself features only pro-BDS, anti-Israeli speakers.

US Student organizations boycotting Israeli academic institutions

[Daily Sundial] California State University (CSU) Chancellor Timothy White made a statement in early January denouncing a controversial move by a major academic association to boycott academic partnerships and investments made between American and Israeli universities.

In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) joined a small, but growing number of academic associations calling for academic divestment from Israeli universities, which can mean cutting financial support to and ending partnerships and exchange programs with Israeli higher institutions. The ASA resolved to do so in protest of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, which the organization described as violating “human rights and international law.”

Academic divestment is inspired by a worldwide political movement known as the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) of Israel, started by Palestinian organizations in 2005. BDS protests Israel’s controversial policies toward the occupied territories of Palestine — the Gaza strip and the West Bank — by encouraging individuals and organizations to financially and symbolically boycott the state of Israel. Its goal is put enough pressure on Israel to cease their policies. More

No Universities have formally signed on to the ‘academic divestment’ campaign. However, aside from this California University, their collective silence on the movement agenda is deafening. But only when the few who stand up to protest the agenda does it get any attention. That’s only coupled with the lack of attention about the rockets flying, and the intercepted shipments by Israelis.

Source:  http://www.gazaborder.com/sderot1.html

RightRing | Bullright

Paula Deen debacle and the left’s economic justice

Paula is a good ol’ gal, with no offense meant. She is a personality and now a celebrity. But based on a word she used some time ago, her reputation is under fire and her job on the line, due to her own words in a deposition. I have some sympathy for her situation.

*This is not a defense of Paula, but then THIS is not just about Paula either.

Does it show how vulnerable a celebrity can be for their words? Hardly, she is the exception and not the rule. After all, look what so many celebs have said or done. It doesn’t cost them their position.

Now I am saying forgiveness does have a place. We as society should take that as one of our duties and exercise it seriously. It makes another statement about the times, the penalty for telling the truth. She’s the latest casualty.

MY question is are we going to now put corporations and sponsors in charge of ethical conduct — or society — to be the ‘culture police’? Are these guys the poster boards for ethical conduct? Should they be? Are they up for the job? Resumes anyone?

For the most part, the left advocated and justified Food Channel’s reaction, as the self-appointed race and “civil rights” police. There must be consequences for using such language, even in the past, they say. If it were anyone else would they have a different view? It wouldn’t surprise me. But this fits their political paradigm and they applaud it.

Lets go a bit further. It seems to be a double standard for the left. These are the greedy corporate titans the Marxist left loves to blame for everything from global warming, to murders on the street, to crooked politics, not to mention the human and civil rights abuses. But in this case, the left will salute a corporation for its knee-jerk reflex to fire Paula because of a word she said she used 30 years ago. (at a traumatic time)

But think about it, there are boycotts and there are “boycotts”. The Left and the LGBT lobby have used boycotts as their tool against any opposition. It goes hand in hand with their economic argument, or their social justice agenda. So they attack businesses who do not support them. For example, they are calling out corporations for having business ties or a relationship supporting Israel, based on their own political ideology.

Now what is worse: the left taking an economic position based on sexuality or a disdain for Israel, or simply keeping cultural issues in the social fabric of society – and out of the corporate board rooms? But no, can’t do that because this is how the activist left operates across the spectrum, from the board room to the public square.

Yet they want to make the corporations the cops on the beat for society? Really?

These leftists don’t like government making laws that might ban certain sexual behavior, but they are okay with using corporations as the arbiter for personal conduct? (as long as they align themselves with the uber-Left politics) What happens when businesses take positions that are not convenient or in line with their sociopolitical positions – and their ideology? Ah oh! They are treading where they ought not tread.

Sure there is room for forgiveness. I thought the left always lectured us about that?

Update… an interesting thing happened, which often does in these evolving events:
George Zimmerman’s trial began on the Trayvon Martin shooting. The prosecution’s star witness, a teenaged black girl, comes out to testify that Trayvon described Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker“. Asked if she thought that was a racist remark, she said “no”.

Then in the aftermath punditry — always the last word in all things ethical — debated it suggesting that was just the way they talked in her community. Oh, those double standards are rearing their ugly little heads once again. See how this game works?

But apparently she didn’t say that in her prior statements because she did not want to offend Trayvon’s mother. Okay, so you didn’t want to mention it to his mother, but you do not believe its a racist remark? Okay. The punditry concludes that’s just how people talk in that community, like a dialect. Glad that’s settled.

Anyone up for a good game of whack-a-mole?