ARE YOU REALLY FOR US?

[Dale T]

http://activistcash.com/biography_quote ... ne-pacelle


Corporations Withdraw Financial Support

HSUS has been successful in recruiting corporate sponsors to provide funding for the organization’s operations or events. At last count, 39 companies were listed as official sponsors including Bank of America, BB& T, Xerox, and Microsoft Corporation.

However, a number of companies have withdrawn their financial support in response to customer complaints about HSUS and its radical agenda.

The Australian winery Cassella Wines, under its brand name Yellow Tail, donated $100,000 to HSUS in January 2010. The company promised to follow up with another $200,000 in grants.

But the Yellow Tail donation unleashed a storm of protest that quickly had the company reeling.

On February 5, South Dakota rancher Troy Hadrick posted a video protesting Yellow Tail’s support for HSUS. “I recently found out that Yellow Tail Wines is going to be donating $100,000 to the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world, the Humane Society of the United States – a group who is actively trying to put farmers out of business in this country,” said Hadrick on his flip video camera. “That being said, I cannot and will not support a company who is doing such a thing,”

Hadrick then poured a bottle of Yellow Tail Wine into the snow-covered ground.

Within minutes, the video was posted to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Thousands of farmers and consumers joined Hadrick’s protest against Yellow Tail. And within two weeks, Cassella Wines announced it was rescinding the remainder of its $300,000 pledge to HSUS. In a letter to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, the company promised that “any future support for animal welfare will go to organizations specifically devoted to hands-on care, such as rescue, sterilization, feeding, or disaster assistance.”

At virtually the same time, the Tennessee-based Pilot Travel Centers, a network of motorist support centers, withdrew its support for HSUS after thanking the company for its support on the HSUS Facebook page. But the company took so much flak for the $52,000 in donations to HSUS that it quickly ended its support: “In order to avoid any further misunderstandings, employees will immediately cease collections of donations to HSUS.”

Three more companies terminated financial support for HSUS soon after these controversies. The companies included the Mary Kay cosmetics company, Precious Cat, Inc., and Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc in response to protests.


If you support or use any of these companies that support the HSUS aren't you supporting our enemy?

[007pennpal]

good to hear

[outlaw13]

can you get a list of all the corporate sponsors, I would personally like to know who they are.

[Dale T]

Copied off the Humane Watch web site:

HSUS "Featured Corporate Supporters"

AuthentEscapes Mighty Fine
Bank of America (FB)
Neue Galerie New York (FB)
BB&T (FB)
NSF Clothing (FB)
Buffalo Exchange (FB)
Oreck (FB)
Carivintâs Winery Organic Bouquet (FB)
Charity Partners Petco Stores/Foundation (FB) (FB)
Cheeky Monkey Jewelry (FB)
Pet e-Tailing
Crocodiles Not Waterlilies Petfinder (FB)
Check Gallery PetSmart Charities (FB)
DoGreatGood.com (FB)
Pilot Travel Centers (withdrawn)
Ebay Giving Works (FB)
Prai Beauty Group (FB)
eFundraising Precious Cat (withdrawn)

GreaterGood Somerset Entertainment
Grounds for Change (FB)
Tisbest (FB)
Harland Clarke (FB)
ViMax Publishing
Jakks Pacific (FB) (FB) (FB)
Xerox (FB)
Land Rover N. America (FB)
[yellow tail] (withdrawn)
Legacy Interactive Zazzle.com (FB)
Microsoft Corporation (FB)
Hill's Pet Nutrition (withdrawn)


if you support these companies you ARE supporting our enemy

[Dale T]

Where there money is spent:

The Humane Society of the United States, which is not affiliated with community-based humane societies, is a very wealthy organization. In 2009 its budget was more than $121 million, and the HSUS network had more than $191 million in assets at the end of 2009.

Despite the financial ability to run a pet shelter in every state, HSUS doesn’t run a single one. And it shared only four-fifths of one percent of its budget with pet shelters during 2009. (HSUS hasn’t filed its 2010 taxes yet.)

We’re often asked a simple question: Where does all that money go, if not to real humane societies?

A considerable chunk of HSUS change funds lobbying. HSUS also has a sizeable (read: 30-person-strong) in-house legal department that doesn’t exactly operate pro bono.

And a tremendous amount of HSUS’s revenue is diverted to its executive pension plan, which has grown by $11 million since Wayne Pacelle took over as CEO in 2004.

Let’s take a look at how HSUS’s pension-plan spending compares with its pet-shelter support. (The bottom line: Not well.)

We went through HSUS’s 12 most recent tax returns, covering the years 1998 through 2009. And we made a startling discovery: Overall, HSUS’s self-serving pensions got more money than pet shelters.

Here’s the data, year-by-year:

Year ..... Pension contributions...... Shelter Donations
1998..... $402,278.00 ...... $109,854.48
1999..... $1,036,834.00 ..... $130,724.43
2000.....$1,030,621.00 ...... . $387,414.90
2001..... $1,403,310.00 ..... $339,061.04
2002..... $0.00 ...... $284,745.55
2003 ..... $1,292,077.00 ..... $226,656.87
2004...... $969,632.00 ..... $251,324.39
2005...... $975,647.00 ..... $5,143,420.00
2006..... $2,193,090.00 ..... $3,514,942.00
2007 ...... $1,887,592.00 ..... $2,995,792.00
2008 ..... $2,532,167.00 ..... $461,996.00
2009 ..... $2,592,272.00 ...... $976,775.00

Total $16,315,520.00 $14,822,706.66

[Dale T]

Look to the Stars
Celebrities
this list is pretty tough to take


Read more: http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity#ixzz1umRUnjrf

Once you go on and see all of our Country and Western star listed on the HSUS web site you will see most of them that are listed are not giving to the HSUS but they don't tell you this until you click on there name and it lists who they do give to,

intentional deception you bet!

[Dale T]

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark

Posted: 16 May 2012 05:34 AM PDT

We’ve already established through public polling that the vast majority of Americans—you know, the regular folks who are the targets of HSUS’s disclaimer-less, deceptive TV ads—mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter umbrella group.

HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role" (reporter's paraphrase).

It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong.

We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered "yes" to the question "Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?":

Just 1 percent of HSUS's donors list "farm animal protection" as their primary reason for supporting the group.
Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year.
Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS's donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters.
Knowing HSUS's non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS's own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”
Nearly 50 percent of HSUS's donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters.
This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters.

HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark.

Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs.

There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?)

HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups.

And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth.

[Dale T]

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark

Posted: 16 May 2012 05:34 AM PDT

We’ve already established through public polling that the vast majority of Americans—you know, the regular folks who are the targets of HSUS’s disclaimer-less, deceptive TV ads—mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter umbrella group.

HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role" (reporter's paraphrase).

It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong.

We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered "yes" to the question "Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?":

Just 1 percent of HSUS's donors list "farm animal protection" as their primary reason for supporting the group.
Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year.
Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS's donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters.
Knowing HSUS's non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS's own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”
Nearly 50 percent of HSUS's donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters.
This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters.

HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark.

Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs.

There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?)

HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups.

And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth.

[Dale T]

Where do you bank?[/size]

Subject: Bank of America will not do business with gun manufacturers
If you are not familiar with McMillan manufacturing, they are a large manufacturer of firearms stocks and components located in Phoenix, Arizona.


McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking ( Bank of America ) came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an "account analysis" meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them.

He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories. At this point I interrupted him and asked "Can I possibly save you some time so that you don't waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business."

"That is correct", he says.

I replied "That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won't mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?"

"You have to do what you must", he said.


"So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?" Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say.

I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don't agree with a business' political position I cannot in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.


Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision
http://www.mcmillanusa.com





http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/16180826 ... aking-guns



http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/16180485 ... t_id=87185 (They do not have a case to sue for discrimination)



http://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational

[robertbob]

Thank you for all the up date I will past this on.....
Kep up the good work

[Dale T]

DIRECTLY FROM THE HSUS WEB SITE

California Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Proposed Bear Hunting Expansion
New poll results indicate more than 80 percent of voters prefer managing bears with non-lethal methods


SACRAMENTO – A statewide survey conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. has revealed that three in four, or 74 percent, of California voters oppose expansion of black bear hunting while only 17 percent support it. The survey results were consistent in every geographic region of the state and in every political and gender demographic, with all regions and political affiliations represented.

The poll comes in the run-up to the California Fish and Game Commission vote on whether to increase the statewide annual bear hunting quota by nearly 20 percent – from 1,700 bears to 2,000 bears per year. The HSUS submitted formal comments opposing the proposal, along with expert opinion questioning the legality and scientific foundations upon which the Department of Fish and Game proposal is based. The Commission will vote at its May 4-5 meeting in Ontario.

“This poll demonstrates convincingly that Californians oppose expanding bear hunting in the Golden state,” said Jennifer Fearing, California senior state director for The HSUS. “Current bear hunting practices, especially the inhumane and unsportsmanlike use of dogs to chase and kill bears, are out of step with most Californians’ sentiments toward these charismatic, iconic animals.”

California is one of only 18 states that permit the pursuit of bears with packs of dogs. The poll reveals that 83 percent of California voters oppose allowing packs of dogs to chase and kill bears – with 75 percent of voters saying they would support a statewide ballot measure to end this trophy hunting method that puts bears, dogs and other wildlife in jeopardy of serious harm, suffering and death.

Despite an increase in media coverage of bears showing up in human population areas, like the Lake Tahoe area, Californians voters say the state should prioritize non-lethal methods – like education, abatement, and avoidance – to resolve human conflicts with bears, by a margin of nearly 6 to 1.

The survey of 800 California voters was conducted statewide from April 14 through April 17, 2011. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent. The questions and results are below.

Statment: The state of California recently announced plans to increase bear hunting with the expectation that hundreds of additional bears will be killed annually.

QUESTION:Do you support or oppose the expanded hunting of black bears in California?

Statment: Some trophy hunters use packs of dogs to chase bears until they climb a tree, or until the dogs catch them on the ground. The dogs can be injured or killed during the hunt. Other wildlife is also killed by dogs that run loose in the woods during a bear hunt.
QUESTION: Do you support or oppose permitting the use of packs of dogs to chase and kill bears?

Statment: California is one of only 18 states that permit the trophy hunting of bears with packs of dogs.
QUESTION:Would you support or oppose a ballot measure to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt bears?

Statment: Bears sometimes come into conflict with people. The vast majority of these reported conflicts are nuisance complaints about garbage cans, bird feeders and simple sightings of bears near urban areas. Many states successfully manage bear populations and reduce conflict through non-lethal measures such as public education, trash management, and game officials using rubber pellets and loud noises to frighten bears away, instead of killing them.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose California placing priority on policies that promote non-lethal methods to reduce conflicts between bears and people?

NOW THE QUESTION IS, DO FEEL BRAIN WASHED TO BELIEVE THERE B.S.

[Dale T]

There is info on Mcmillan group international where Ducks Unlimited are dropping Bank of America
McMillan Group International


http//www.facebook.com/mcmillangroupinternational

[Dale T]

From McMillan arms face book site


Ducks Unlimited have the principals to make a change.

During a series of meeting this weekend at Ducks Unlimited headquarteers in Memphis the business relationship with B of A will officially be terminated by mutual agreement of the two organizations.

Richard Comeaux

[Dale T]

From the McMillan Group International face book
10 hours ago

Today was a big day. We actually started closing accounts at Bank of America. The photo shows the branch I always used to do my transactions. When I went in and asked who I needed to see to close my accounts I was pointed to a woman I ha...d not yet met. While in her office she asked my why I was closing my accounts. When I told her "you don't want my business any more because I manufacture firearms" she says what do mean. I said "Mr Fox, a Senior Vice President of your company came to my office and told me BOA no longer wants my business because we make firearms." She said "making guns is legal" to which I replied, "I know that, but apparently Mr Fox doesn't." And that was the last of the conversation. She had not heard of McMillan or any of the goings on and as far as she knew had not had anyone else close there accounts because of their treatment of McMillan.

[Dale T]

Strait from the HSUS web site, so watch you don't any of the B.S. on you!

HSUS Becomes Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. Shareholder
Organization purchases shares in restaurant chains’ parent company to encourage animal welfare reforms within supply chain.



As part of its efforts to encourage CKE Restaurants, operator of the Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. restaurant chains, to improve the treatment of animals in its supply chain, The Humane Society of the United States has purchased stock in the chains’ parent company, Apollo Global Management (NYSE: APO). The HSUS intends to use its stockholder position to help motivate CKE to move away from purchasing eggs from caged hens and pork from systems that confine breeding pigs to gestation crates.

Nearly all breeding pigs and egg laying hens used for Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr.’s products are confined in crates or cages that prevent the animals from moving more than a few inches for most of their lives.

“Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. allows its suppliers to permanently confine animals in cages so small they can barely move,” said Matthew Prescott, food policy director for The HSUS. “It’s time the companies aligned themselves with the public’s expectations and values.”

CKE Restaurants operates more than 3,150 eateries nationwide. Carle’s Jr. is based in Carpinteria, Calif. and Hardee’s is based in St. Louis, Mo.

Facts
Eight U.S. states and the European Union have passed laws to phase out the extreme confinement of certain farm animals.
Food industry consulting firm Technomic found that animal welfare is the third-most important social issue to American restaurant patrons, outranking the environment.
More than 90 percent of egg-laying hens and 70 percent of breeding sows in the United States are confined in cages and crates so small that the animals can barely move more than a few inches for nearly their entire lives. Extensive scientific research confirms that this causes suffering. Renowned animal scientist Dr. Temple Grandin has stated, “I feel very strongly that we’ve got to treat animals right, and the gestation stalls have got to go.”
Studies have shown that not confining animals in cages or crates may improve food safety.


If you eat at Carls or Hardees you are putting money in the pockets of the HSUS.