Friday, October 6, 2017

Why Congress does nothing

Congressman Buck reveals the Corruption on Capitol Hill
and explains the unwritten rules

We continue to find and share articles of interest to our followers.
This interview provides an inside look at Congress and the 
political machinations which put money first, leaving the 
wishes of the voters and constituents in the dust.

This explanation makes one of the strongest cases we've seen yet for term limits!

For Congressional Representatives:  Six terms of two years each.
For Senators,                                      Two terms of six years each

[Congresspersons could extend their influence by running for the Senate]

Click here for full article

Congressman Ken Buck is interviewed by    and discloses all the dirty tricks on Capitol Hill, and how it is that Congresspersons and Senators start off by pinching pennies but end their careers as multimillionaires.  

A former federal prosecutor, Buck has been in Congress less than three years. He says his education from Washington DC’s school of hard knocks began right after his election during his orientation trip to the Capitol. 

Republican Congressman Ken Buck speaks out of school about the shocking, transactional nature of Washington politics. About Party elites he says, "live like kings and govern like bullies." And he's lifting the curtain on why he says nothing gets done in Congress, describing collusion between Democrats and Republicans to fleece taxpayers on behalf of special interests. 

For students of politics, think of this as an advanced course in PoliSci 400.

Representative Ken Buck:
The game here is not to take a tough vote.
Nobody wants to take a tough vote, Democrats and Republicans, there’s a quiet conspiracy going on that
If you don’t make me take a tough vote I won’t make you take a tough vote.

He says a “tough vote” means anything that cuts spending or programs that benefit political and corporate interests, and the result is that the ability to cut federal programs or to reduce spending in other ways, or to get our tax structure under control- simplify the tax structure is very, very difficult. And that results in higher spending.  He says it’s why Congress consistently spends wildly more money than it receives from taxpayers: $600 billion last year alone.

And, why the federal debt has been allowed to balloon to record levels:
the US owes about $20 trillion dollars it doesn’t have on hand.

Sharyl Attkisson [Interviewer]:
Is there an element of that Democrats and Republicans may appear to disagree with things in public and yet privately agree because sometimes they cater to the same interests?

Sure, I think Democrats and Republicans disagree on some social issues and make a big deal out of that, and disagree on some other major issues. But for the most part, there’s agreement behind-the-scenes not to make waves and to get things done quietly. Not good things, but things that involve spending more money. If I scratch your back you’ll scratch my back.

Is what you describe what some Americans might call ‘The Establishment’?

Absolutely. The Establishment consists of the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership getting along and pretending not to. But clearly getting along.

And that’s when a lot of the rules were explained to us about the dues to the NRCC other requirements.[
[Buck said he was stunned to find the NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] just like its counterpart for Democrats,; it requires hefty party dues, especially if members hope to aspire to meaningful committee positions.

Ryan: Republican or Democrat

Rep. Paul Ryan comments on fund raising:
Talk about a record $30.1 million right here in this room. 
Give yourself a big round of applause. 

It’s mildly offensive to think that to serve on a committee in Congress you need to pay a private political organization dues, and that’s what they were asking for.

Did you have any idea before you were elected that that was the case?

Rep. Buck:
I did not know that there were mandatory dues here, no.

How did they tell you?

Ah, well it’s not a big secret. They have a big chart in the National Republican Congressional Committee offices, and you can see everybody’s name and the dues that they owe and how much they’ve paid.

What was going through your mind when you started to hear this news?

Well, as Freshmen we have to raise $200,000 and that’s a lot of money. You know I just finished campaigning and raising money, and now I had to go back to donors and ask them for money again.  Rep. He says to meet fundraising quotas, members of Congress spend hour upon hour of public work time asking for money from the very interests they’re supposed to oversee, ending up beholden to them instead of the public at large.

For people who really have no idea how things work up here, can you tell us how the special interests and corporate interests, for example, actually influence members? How does that happen? R

It starts with committee assignments.
If you’re on the transportation and infrastructure committee, the transportation bill will come before your committee and all over town there will be receptions and the members on the Transportation Committee will be invited to those receptions, expected to attend those receptions and receive donations as a result of that.
They know the easy money, the low-hanging fruit, is gonna be at receptions that are given right before a major piece of legislation goes to committee.

Everything is called ‘across the street’ because at the Capitol behind me, you can’t accept money there. You can’t give money there, but once you walk across the street, then the bags open up.

Sharyl Attkisson: 
Restaurants around here?

Restaurants: the Republicans, the Capitol Hill Club has a lot of different receptions and dinners. Industries paying for those receptions and dinners include tobacco, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, TV broadcasting, beer and wine, defense and Hollywood.
Democrats have their own fundraising hangout nearby: The National Democratic Club.

I’ve attended receptions where I’ve had 10, 12 corporations represented and they have made their case to me on why they need me to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. And I know that if I accommodate them, I will have a reception later on where they will support me.

Sharyl Attkisson: 
You’re describing an entire system where almost every consideration that ought to be for constituents is instead about special interests and corporate interests and donations.

It surprised me when I got here and I’ve been involved in politics since I was a teenager, and getting to this place is really shocking to see the influence that money has in politics.

[Early on, Buck challenged GOP leadership on a vote he felt would give President Obama too much power on trade issues.  Republican leaders retaliated by trying to oust him as president of his freshman class. But he went on a public offensive and survived. He says he’s watched colleagues get punished for doing what they think is right instead of what party bosses demand; booted from committee positions and even denied dining room privileges.] 

The incentive structure right now is to vote for more money.
You never vote for less money, because someone’s gonna get mad if you vote for less money. And so as long as the American public doesn’t stand up and demand that members of Congress are accountable, Congress will continue acting the way it does.

Do you think a lot of people come to Washington really hoping it will be different and planning to work for their constituents and just find out it can’t be done?

I absolutely think most members come here with the best intentions. And I think within a year or two they realize that there is no hope of changing this place. And a lot of them leave fairly early on. Others become disillusion
ned and some others just settle into the swamp and enjoy it.

Sharyl Attkisson: 
I’ve not heard another sitting member of Congress talk about these things.
What happens to you now because of this?

 You know I didn’t come here with any friends, Sharyl, and I’m not leaving with any friends and I’m okay with that. I didn’t come here to make friends. And so, if I’m gone in a couple of years, I did what I came here to do and that’s hopefully make Americans aware that this place is broken.

Buck says solutions include requiring a balanced budget meaning Congress wouldn't be able to spend more money than it has and they'd be forced to make the tough choices they now avoid and term limits to restrict the number of years people can serve in Congress.

Buck reveals the unwritten rules and outlines the allegations in his book: 
Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You Think.

[Will Congressman suffer the fate of House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise, who chairs the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations - and perhaps, investigated a bit too closely for comfort?]

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Deep State Collusion with Russia

This is another of our guest posts which 
we publish based on relevance and accuracy.

It Was the Deep State that Colluded with the Russians, Not Trump
By Clarice Feldman American Thinker September 24, 2017

As more and more leaks about the ongoing “Russian collusion” witch hunt by Robert Mueller appear in print, it seems to me that if Russia had been trying to erode our faith in our institutions, the Deep State is accomplishing what Russia failed to do.
The Obama claque’s efforts were initially intended to help Clinton when they thought she would win and no one would know about their crimes. Then they continued the unlawful spying to cover up their role in the worst case of misuse of federal power in our history, effect the removal or emasculation of Trump, the newly elected President; and  now they are desperate to cover up their illegal actions when all that failed.
A. Where we are today on “Russian collusion”?
Instapundit tweeted the answer succinctly: 
“The election was hacked!” turns out to mean, 

Facebook is now turning over ads presumably purchased by Russians during the campaign.  Good -- let’s see them. 
As the article notes:
The announcement that Facebook would share the ads with the Senate and House intelligence committees came after the social network spent two weeks on the defensive. The company faced calls for greater transparency about 470 Russia-linked accounts  -- in which fictional people posed as American activists -- which were taken down after they had promoted inflammatory messages on divisive issues. 

Facebook had previously angered congressional staff by showing only a sample of the ads, some of which attacked Hillary Clinton or praised Donald J. Trump.

As Tom Maguire reminds us, it would be unwise to assume this was a one-sided campaign: 
Let's see all the ads and find out whether Russia was winding up both sides. Back in the day it was believed Russia backed anti-fracking groups in Europe. Why not also in the US?

Best of the Web’s James Freeman thinks that, in any case, the notion that these ads swung the election is ridiculous on its face: 
So the spending on fake Russian political ads identified by Facebook amounted to around 1/7,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising. And of course these fake ad buys were not material in the context of Facebook’s total advertising revenues, which amounted to nearly $27 billion last year.
Is a $150,000 ad buy even big enough to require sign-off from Mr. Putin? 

If, as some believe, Russian meddling was simply intended to discredit the likely winner, some poor Russian agent may now be headed to Siberia for engineering the election of a US President who seems determined to drive down the price of oil and challenge Russia instead of taking bribes. 

Let’s hope Congress gets to the bottom of this. If $150,000 amounts to the entire iceberg, and it still managed to sink the S.S. Clinton, marketing majors will be studying these ads for years to come. 

B. Using the Full Force of FISA to spy on a political opponent
Rubber Stamp for Illegal Surveillance
Obama has a long history of spying on his opponents and releasing information damaging to them. It’s a lifelong pattern. 

He got two opponents’ sealed divorce records unsealed in order to use unsubstantiated claims in pleadings by estranged spouses against them. As President, he continued this practice. 

By way of example, the Obama Administration used the IRS to collect information about the activities and donors of conservative and pro-Israel citizen groups while it refused to grant them the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled. The EPA collected private information from farmers and ranchers and released it to environmental groups to help them in their battles against those farmers and ranchers. 

There’s no reason to suppose that this pattern didn’t carry over to the 2016 election, and plenty of evidence that it did. 

As Sharyl Attkisson points out, they did it with reporters and Congressmen.

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.
You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”  
[Which turned out to be perjury]
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.
Watch my fingers, not my words
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, although CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. 
The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News. 
[They also spied on journalists at the National Press Club!]
As Attkisson reminds us, other Trump associates General Michael Flynn and Carter Page were also under government surveillance. As bad as that was, it was discovered that multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. 

We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking”, or asking to know the identities of, the officials. 

Spying on US citizens is considered so sensitive their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.   [It is also illegal!]

Rice also specifically unmasked Steve Bannon, who met in the transition period with a UAE official, so it’s altogether possible they were spying on him generally as well. 

If so, that would mean that four Trump associates had been spied on, multiplying the number of conversations with the President these people were listening in on.

Even more “unmasking
-- revealing the names of those innocents scooped up in this broad surveillance -- about 300 people, had their privacy violated when [then]  UN Ambassador Samantha Power was revealed to have made almost one unmasking request a day, rapidly adding to the list as the inauguration approached.
Samantha Power was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 -- and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News. 
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 in 2016. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

C. The FISA Court surely was misled in order to get information to surveil and to continue surveilling Trump and his associates.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) permits blunderbuss intelligence gathering. It’s not designed to gather information on crimes in general, but only to act as a tool of counterintelligence or counterterrorism. And it certainly would be suspicious if efforts were made to misuse it to conduct domestic political spying. 

There’s only one legitimate reason to conduct surveillance on a US citizen under FISA -- to find out more about the activities of a foreign power or terrorist organization. 
Since in the process of scooping up so much information, other matters might be revealed, “minimization” procedures are used to mask the identities of those caught up in the sweep who are not involved in such activities.

CNN reported -- with some obvious omissions and errors of law -- that former FBI director James Comey secured secret FISA orders to wiretap Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, and that having received nothing from that order, then secured another FISA warrant in 2016 (after Manafort joined the Trump campaign) and continued that surveillance into 2017, after the election.

Further, CNN reported that two attempts were made in the summer of 2016 to obtain a FISA order, both of which were rejected, and an order was issued only after the third try. FISA rarely rejects such requests, so I think it fair to assume the court was suspicious of these requests, which smelled like political, not national security matters. I think it almost a certainty that the final request received the personal imprimatur of Comey (as Director of the FBI) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

And what, you may ask, was different about the third and ultimately successful third attempt? I suggest it was the phony Steele dossier, which credible reports indicate was partially financed by Comey’s own FBI.  

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “Dossier”, the allegations of which appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele
[Ed: Sources for the most scurrilous allegations in it were from unnamed sources in Russia, most likely Russian government intelligence agents or liars working on a pay for dirt basis.]

The Washington Post reported in February that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the Bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.

Who was Mr. Steele’s friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start? The timing matters because it could answer the vital question of why the FBI wanted the dossier. 

Here’s one thought: Warrants.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees spying activities, is usually generous in approving warrants, on the presumption law-enforcement agencies are acting in good faith. When a warrant is rejected, though, law enforcement isn’t pleased.
Perhaps the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance on someone connected to a presidential campaign (Carter Page?) but couldn’t hit what was -- and ought to be -- a supremely high bar for getting such a potentially explosive warrant. A dossier of nefarious allegations might well prove handy in finally convincing the FISA court to sign off. The FBI might have had a real motive to support Mr. Steele’s effort. It might have even justified the unjustifiable: working with a partisan oppo-research firm and a former spook to engineer a Kremlin-planted dossier that has roiled Mr. Trump’s entire presidency.

True Pundit claims that FBI connivance with GPS Fusion to create the dossier was not all it did to secure the final 2016 FISA warrant -- it also set up a meeting in Trump Tower and used information gleaned from Britain’s GCHQ in NSA headquarters to unlawfully gather information on US citizens.

From the beginning it was a set-up to find dirt on Trump campaign insiders and if possible to topple Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Before and after the 2016 election. And while this operation had many moving parts and alternating players, the mission to unseat Trump never changed. And it remains ongoing.

 And none of it was very legal.

Six US agencies [the FBI, NSA, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, Justice Department]created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within US laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.

The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian’s visa by True Pundit.
(More on the unusual visa granted to Veselnitskaya here. More on GCHQ operating from NSA headquarters here.)
In July, Bharara's former associate US Attorney Andrew Goldstein was added to Mueller’s army of largely Clinton backers and contributors to the special counsel’s enormous team.
In sum, the contention by True Pundit is that the government first spied on Trump and then concocted a national security ruse and desperately sought a FISA warrant to cover up the political spying which occurred before the FISA warrant was ever issued.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal also suspect that the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, and, if so, that requires a congressional investigation:
The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey’s FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court? 
All of this is reason for House and Senate investigators to keep exploring how Mr. Comey’s FBI was investigating both presidential campaigns. Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the “integrity” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don’t cooperate in contempt.
I agree with Daniel Greenfield. Based on what I’ve read and observed, while the initial surveillance was to stop Trump and help Clinton, Obama used FISA to provide a “national security” cover for politically spying on Trump right up to the inauguration. As he notes, the first 2016 application was made the month after Trump obtained the nomination and the second in October, the month before the election.
As the unmasking picked up pace after the election, the reasonable assumption is that its purpose was to undo the results of the election or hamstring the incoming President.
Now Obama and his allies are or should be terrified that the scope of the illegal surveillance is revealing their criminal acts.
This is why I believe Mueller is growing increasingly desperate to find one crime by one person he can force by threat of jail to provide any shred of anything that might be used to justify their illegal espionage. Greenfield’s conclusion is apt: “The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor. A turning point in history is here. If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.”

Why do I say that Mueller seems increasingly desperate? How else does one explain a middle-of-the-night pick-lock armed entry (and the search of his bedclothes-garbed wife) into the home of a man who by all accounts had been fully cooperating and turning over all requested documents? How else to explain requesting a court grant such a necessary special warrant on the ground that otherwise documents evincing a purported eleven-year-old crime would suddenly be destroyed? How else to explain the effort by Mueller to find out client information from the Skadden Arps and Akin Gump law firms, materials probably covered by attorney-client privilege? With each leak of his conduct – designed, I suppose, by his team to terrify honest men into lying to redeem the special counsel’s misbegotten efforts -- Mueller looks more and more like a petrified enlistee in  the secretive repressive state force -- the Stasi -- as the wall is coming down and their conduct made public.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

NFL Anti-Patriotism

A US Marine takes a knee

We are told the NFL players are free to exercise their Right of Free Speech; and we agree.

However, the football field, and in uniform, are not the venue. Just as US soldiers were allowed to protest the Vietnam War, but outside Military installations, in civilian clothes, not in uniform, and speaking not as US soldiers, but as private citizens.

We encourage NFL players to remove their uniforms and carry picket signs, and march in front of the White House, or perhaps the statue of Lincoln in Washington, or at the WW2 Memorials, or the Vietnam Memorials, or at Arlington Cemetery where all those who gave their lives defending Freedom of Speech for everyone, even young athletes, many of whom have police records for rape, assault, drugs, and violent crimes, are now millionaires for spending a few months playing football.

The Right to Free Speech, however, is limited, not by the federal or local governments, but. amazingly enough, by the NFL.  The NFL Rule Book is specific, on page A62,63, pertaining to the National Anthem.
The National Football League Rule Book states: 
The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
The ONLY player to take the field!
[On Gold Star Mothers Day [honoring mothers of soldiers killed in action, the Pittsburgh Steelers remained in their locker room, with only one player on the field, saluting, and singing the National Anthem; that would be the only player on the team to have served in the Military, with three tours in Afghanistan and a Bronze Star]
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.

"The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition.".
"...It should be pointed out to players and coaches that they continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

Now, we all enjoy a good game of football.
However, in recent years, the leadership of the NFL seems to have promoted the idea that NFL players are above the law, and that criminal records are meaningless in recruitment programs and keeping players on the field.

Although the list of players and records is incomplete, it's significant to note that the NFL Record shows 869 Arrests for a range of offenses including drugs, domestic violence, assault, battery, weapons, DUI, Hit&Run, reckless driving, etc.   Virtually every case was finished with "Resolution Undetermined, Case Dropped, two days in jail, or, home detention [except during games].

Although there are many fine professional football players, it seems that there is a significant element adhering to the illusion that they need not pay attention to Rules, or the Law.

We wonder if the NFL has become a breeding ground, or a haven for criminals.

Perhaps it's time to replace Roger Goodell as NFL Commissioner and replace him with an executive more in tune with the fabric of America.

These are the current sponsors of the NFL 
Feel free to alert them of your feelings for the NFL's promotion of anti-American conduct by the NFL team players. 


Barclaycard US 

Bose Bridgestone [Tires] 

 Campbell's Soup 

Castrol Courtyard 

Marriott Dairy Management, Inc [Fuel UP to Play 60] 

Dannon [Yogurt 

Extreme Networks 



Gatorade H

Hyundai Motor America 

 Mars Snackfood [Candybars] 

Microsoft Nationwide [Insurance] 

News America 

 Papa John's [Pizza] 


Procter & Gamble 

Quaker [Cereal] 



USAA [Military insurance and banking]