May 27, 2018

United Airlines Confronted About Breaking Ties with the NRA

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

After Parkland School Shooting, United Joined Liberal Mob Denouncing National Rifle Association and Ended Relationship
With Group

United CEO Oscar Munoz Tells Shareholder Activist That the Obviously Political Decision Wasn’t Political

Chicago, IL / Washington, DC – United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was confronted today about the company’s decision to end the airline’s affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA) following the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) –  the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – challenged the company’s action in front of its investors and leadership, calling the move overtly political.

“When I asked why United broke a business relationship with the NRA, Munoz dismissively answered me by suggesting I was making political commentary and that the company’s decision to essentially denounce the NRA wasn’t political,” said FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended United’s shareholder meeting and confronted Munoz. “Munoz claimed the decision was made only because a United employee’s daughter was killed in the Parkland shooting. While that is indeed a tragedy, this explanation insults the intelligence of United’s investors and customers. United has 90,000 employees and has been around for nearly 100 years. In all that time, has no other United employee or a family member experienced gun violence? That’s hard to believe. It would seem the company, like so much of the mainstream media, regularly ignores shootings in areas such as the South Side of Chicago.”

Today’s annual shareholder meeting of United Continental Holdings – the parent company of United Airlines and United Express – took place at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

“Munoz’s decision to end the company’s discounts for NRA members came on the heels of a very politicized reaction to a tragedy. The mainstream media and anti-Second Amendment activists were pressuring corporations to join their cause. United fell in line with the liberal mob. Of course its decision was political,” said Danhof. “It’s also pretty rich for Munoz to grandstand and claim the company isn’t political when it just hiredformer Obama Administration mouthpiece Josh Earnest.”

At the meeting, Danhof told Munoz:

I suppose you are ignoring the fact that the NRA had nothing to do with what happened in Parkland and that the perpetrator had zero affiliation with the NRA. But, hey, congratulations on your virtue signaling. What exactly did investors get out of that? The company is willfully giving up money. That’s an odd choice for an airline company in a hyper-competitive industry.

Danhof then added:

CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on 370,000 employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with people who own guns. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Buffett went on to explain that corporations that make in-the-moment political decisions are subject to the fickle nature of politics and are constantly reacting to events rather than standing on consistent principles.

Can you tell us – your investors – how it makes sound business sense to alienate millions of potential customers who support the 2nd Amendment, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffet has this wrong?

Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available at this link.

“By refusing to actually address the crux of my question, Munoz made it clear to me that he doesn’t really care that he offended so many gun supporters and NRA members,” noted Danhof. “Furthermore, he refused to address how this decision might affect United’s business. That should concern the company’s investors. That’s a leadership failure of epic proportions.”

Following the Parkland shooting and the subsequent corporate backlash, Danhof penned a commentary for The Federalist noting just how predictable it was that big business aligned with the left. Danhof observed the common pattern following such tragedies, noting: “It’s an all too common pattern. Liberal politicians and the media take up a cause. Left-wing activist groups mobilize to pressure corporations. Corporate America joins the fray, and their support is used to bolster and justify the cause. It’s a circular echo chamber, but it’s effective.” Danhof’s full commentary is available here

In April, Danhof confronted Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan over his decision to cancel lending to certain gun manufacturers. That confrontation was widely covered in the press, including the Charlotte Observer, the Chicago Tribune, the St. Louis Post-Dispatchand many other major publications.

Following that meeting, Bank of America announced that it would indeed extend critical financing to Remington – a maker of military assault rifles. An article in Reuters discussed that decision in the context of Danhof’s question to Moynihan.

Counting today’s United meeting, FEP representatives have participated in 21 shareholder meetings in 2018.

Additionally, at yesterday’s annual meeting of Merck shareholders, Danhof asked the pharmaceutical company’s CEO, Kenneth Frazier, about his political activism. Frazier quit President Trump’s business advisory councils in the wake of the civil and racial unrest that took place last summer in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to Danhof, Frazier “jumped the shark” in alluding to Nazi Germany during what he called “a wild distortion” of his question. A video of that exchange is available on YouTube.

Further commentary from Danhof regarding the Merck meeting is forthcoming.


Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.


FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP’s work was prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).


Danhof’s latest commentary, on the recent Walt Disney shareholder meeting where his actions resulted in Joy Behar’s public apology for suggesting Christianity is a mental illness, is available by clicking here.

Share

CDC and Firearms–By Their Numbers

From the Outdoor Wire:

“In the very first paragraph this taxpayer funded report notes gun deaths in the US are declining. Here a federal agency admits what liberal mass media news outlets will not report. And for the 26,800 plus firearms related deaths reported and recoded in 2003, the numbers reveal 16,500 were suicides. Next, only about 10,000 firearms related deaths were homicides and about 700 of the recorded deaths were unintentional, equals accidents or other.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

There Are Fewer School Shootings Now Than During the 1990s

But…But…But…We’re All Gonna Die!

No sense in looking at any of this information. Facts are always getting in the way of agendas. Regardless, I was surprised to read this stuff.

“And when it comes to things like homicides, there is no evidence that things are getting worse. It is indeed true that things aren’t like they were “when we were kids,” but that’s a good thing. There were far more homicides in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s than there are today. Things were even worse than that during the 1970s. In fact, the homicide rate in the US was cut in half between 1991 and 2014. And while the homicide rate has inched up over the past two years, it is nowhere near where it was “when we were kids.” 

“For anyone familiar with these trends, it should not be a shock to hear that a subset of those homicides — school shootings — have decreased over that period as well. “<<<Read More>>>

Share

NRA Sues Governor Cuomo

*Editor’s Note* – And good luck with that. Although, neither the NRA nor the Governor needs any luck as I’m convinced this “lawsuit” (wink-wink) is nothing more than a dog and pony show.

On Friday, May 11, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, the NRA filed a lawsuit claiming  that Gov. Cuomo, and his Director of Financial Services (DFS) have engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” designed to coerce banks and insurance companies to withhold services from the NRA.

The NRA argues that such tactics vastly overstep DFS’s regulatory mandate, and seek to suppress the speech of Second Amendment supporters and retaliate against the NRA and others for their political advocacy.

The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages to redress harms inflicted by the DFS campaign.

Among other things, the lawsuit cites a pair of “guidance” letters issued on April 19, 2018, by the DFS to the CEOs of banks and insurance companies doing business in New York.  Styled as regulatory “risk management” advisories, the letters encourage institutions to “take prompt actions” to manage “reputational risk” posed by dealings with “gun promotion organizations.”

The same day, Cuomo issued a press release in which the Director directly urged “all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue their arrangements with the NRA.”

Read a copy of the lawsuit complaint as filed, here:

https://www.nraila.org/media/2543/file-stamped-complaint.pdf

Share

What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?

“What would that be like, the repeal of the Second Amendment? Would it markedly transform our way of life? Would acts of unspeakable violence cease? Would civility and compassion return in our deeply divided country and troubled culture? Would discipline of children return to homes? Would there cease to be drug use and mentally troubled individuals? Would there be a return to moral values in a country that is so adrift? Would sex and violence stop being promoted in television, movies and video games? Would our citizenry be held accountable for its own behavior? Would there truly be consequences for lawlessness and would the rule of law mean something?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Ruger’s official response (posted 5/9/2018 to their Facebook page)

Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shareholder’s activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That’s it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our business, and frankly would rather see us out of business. As our CEO explained, “we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, as importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers, and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens and I want to assure our long-term shareholders and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that.”

Share

NRA Appoints Oliver North as its President

Seriously? So, just what is the image the NRA is trying to present themselves as? Are they making sure that everyone knows they are nothing more than a “good-ole-boy” political pawn of the U.S. Corporation?

As many of you may well know, I am not a fan of the NRA. Short one stint of membership with the NRA that lasted one-year several years ago, I have not been a member of the NRA and do not support them today. They present themselves as THE supporter and defender of the Second Amendment when in reality they work tirelessly to water down the amendment and seemingly carry out the bidding of whoever the standing administration is in Washington promoting “reasonable” restrictions on a constitutional amendment that was intended to not be allowed changes or limitations.

Now, the NRA has asked Oliver North to be their president. Many see Oliver North as their hero…I suppose because he was a Marine, wore lots of medals and bling and worked for the NSC during the Reagan years. No matter how you want to present North in your mind’s eye, he was a crook, a thief, a cheat and some would go so far as to call him a traitor. You and I would have locked up and the key thrown away.

North claimed responsibility for devising the machination of “Iran Contra” as well as the system that would illegally sell guns to the Iranians in exchange for cash that would be funneled through a “shell” organization, on to a Washington, D.C. bank that was a favorite of some in the Republican Party (wink-wink) and with connections to black organizations all over the world.

And yet, after North retired from the Marines during his investigation and trial and was found guilty of his involvement, subsequently all charges were “dismissed” – an obvious and deliberate indication that he was going to be protected by a crooked government that sent him to carry out the affair in the beginning. There are no laws that govern those that govern.

Regardless of what you may think of Oliver North, even though he was a member of the NRA Board, moving him up to become the new president of the NRA is a bold move on the part of the NRA and one that could backfire enormously and create an even bigger mess for them in the long run. For certain it will increase the divide between those who support the Second Amendment and those that blame the NRA for all gun violence.

Some will buy into the concept that North’s high profile will be a bonus, along with his perceived strength and connections, but seriously, why is it that people think that any organization that claims to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment would do everything in their power to align and connect themselves with the U.S. Corporation?

The insanity that exists in this country reveals itself when the overwhelming majority of Americans say that the U.S. Government is corrupt and they have no faith in them to do anything much good, and then turn around and run to the same Federal Government for strength and protection.

Nope! Sorry! You can continue to pay your money to the NRA and now you can have Oliver North as your spokesperson who will in their deceptive ways continue to downgrade the Second Amendment to nothing more than a government allotment of a right to keep and bear only those arms THEY deem appropriate and purchased the only way THEY deem appropriate and kept the only way THEY deem appropriate.

SHALL NEVER BE INFRINGED?

Share

NSSF Sends Dick’s Packing

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries;

Board of Governors today unanimously voted to expel Dick’s Sporting Goods from membership for conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation. <<<Read More>>>

Share

The Dicks at Dick’s Say They Have Been “Humbled”

Ammoland says:

What a load. It’s time to humble them some more.

Share

The Right to Live is Supreme…Only If You Are a Liberal

The title above is part of what a California politician was quoted as saying while making his proposal to force everyone to turn in their “assault/military-style weapons” or face mandatory jail sentences.

According to NBC News, Eric Swalwell, a democratic said, “the right to live is supreme over any other.” No, seriously. That’s what the news article says.

Evidently, that “supreme” right is limited therefore it is not supreme. As with everything this country has brainwashed to believe and repeat, like my hate is better than your hate, a “supreme” right to life only applies to those who choose to believe if guns are banned they won’t die. For the rest of us who know better? Well, I guess we can just go to hell!

Share