March 28, 2023

When Repeated Failure Loses Its Mask to Planned Destruction

Many years ago, when I was in the U.S. Navy, I attended a school to study computers – repair and maintenance. We were studying Boolean Algebra. Each Friday we were always given an exam. Each exam would always consist of 20 questions – usually multiple choice. We were given 3 hours to complete each exam. On a particular Friday, having started the task of completing the exam, I soon realized that it was going to be impossible to finish the exam in the allotted three hours. As each question selected for the exam was “randomly” selected by computers, it happened that each question took a minimum of 1 hour to complete – if you were a smart SOB. I was left with the choice of leaving the remaining 17 questions unanswered or “when in doubt bravo out” which meant if you weren’t sure of the answer, select answer “B.” I bravoed out.

I got the first three answers correct and randomly missed the remaining 17 questions and scored second highest in my class.

The administration, sure that the only way an entire class could miss so many answers, insisted there must be a conspiracy as nobody could fail so much without intending to do so.

Hold that thought for a minute and consider the movie Casablanca. Louie, head of the Prefecture, for the sole purpose of protecting his own butt, plays along with the invaded military of Germany and the Nazi Regime. As part of his charade at carrying out his fake compliance with the Germans, whenever there was a crime committed, his command to his underlings was always, “round up the usual suspects.”

No I’m going to bring these two thoughts together as one.

Today, I was reading Richard Fernandez’s article, “The Brain Surgeon and the Cleaning Lady.”  “Wretchard” adeptly points out what appears to be the ongoing laundry list of “failures” by the Obama Administration in what most Americans believe to be “terrorist attacks” on Americans, at home and abroad. The author likens the act of attempting to distinguish between who’s a terrorist and isn’t by the analogy of giving the same test to someone who claims to be a brain surgeon and one to a cleaning lady. Results of the test should determine which, if either, of the two is a brain surgeon. However, it is much easier to just “round up the usual suspects.”

In my military school, had I repeatedly failed so miserably on my exams, I would have been kicked out of school. Upon a closer look, it didn’t take long to figure out, too many of the wrong kinds of questions appeared on the test. All was understood and forgiven but not before I, and others, were accused of conspiring to fail a test.

We are often reminded by Government, and is pointed out by Wretchard, that the “usual suspects” fit a prescribed set of character flaws and who is and who isn’t on one of their famed “terror watch lists,” and yet, once the “usual suspects” have been rounded up, they are let go until the next crime takes place. The entire event being fake.

At what point, if ever, will people begin to realize that the only way a government, or government agency, could repeatedly fail, as is pointed out by Fernandez, would only be a conspiracy to do such – a deliberate attempt to mislead for the purpose of achieving other sinister goals?

Readers have come to realize that I have written often that this government – the actual puppet of the ruling establishment that calls all the shots to be carried out by our president – creates the chaos, crisis, controversy, etc., then they embellish the issue, followed by offering a solution – a solution that government wanted from the beginning but had to make people believe they NEEDED a solution, i.e. the cessation of rights – natural and man-given.

If a person can truly discover and have understanding of the level of corruption and satanic evil that is the power source behind the American Government (they just don’t want to admit it and I can’t blame them), then perhaps they would be ready to look at things a bit differently. What I am about to suggest is a very big pill to swallow and most will think I’ve gone over the edge, but that’s okay, because I really don’t care, if I can cause just one person to see more clearly.

A few weeks ago, I asked a friend what they thought was the huge push by this government and all of their activist groups, to promote and bring to the very forefront, the lifestyle choices of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. We could not come up with a definitive suggestion. Both agreed that if nothing else it was just a way to accelerate the destruction of a moral existence through the lies given us all about tolerance and diversity.

After the Orlando night club shooting, I began to see what might be going on that I certainly would not put past the ruling establishment, knowing all of the other absurd, vial and evil acts they have carried out.

Consider that the huge push to bring the LGBT issue to the front pages of every news media just in time that it sets the stage for a government-planned mass shooting in a gay bar in Orlando. Not only does such an event offer the ruling establishment, whom I have said have only to disarm the American people to gain total victory over a free society, the chance to extol the urgent need to disarm the people in order to be “safe,” but it also furthers the hatred that burns inside millions of Americans – a hatred intended to keep the people divided.

Wretchard suggests that the Obama Administration has failed so terribly that they have lost all credibility in even suggesting that government can do the better job of protecting Americans if they would just give up their guns. While I believe strongly that the evils of worldly rulers, whether directly or indirectly, have created the LGBT issue, resulting in the Orlando shooting. What exactly their intent in doing so might be, I’m not sure. Because they are like the rest of us and prone to mistakes and poor judgement, one has to ask if the Obama Administration (the puppet) is pushing the gay lifestyle so strongly, combined with the outward appearance of failure to keep the people safe, to further seek for the disarmament of the people, might just have the opposite affect. If government shows its incapability to keep us safe, who are we to trust for protection other than ourselves?

Obama, or whoever the president is at the time, playing the part of Louie, the prefect, calls out for the rounding up of his “usual suspects” hoping that the majority of Americans, like the Germans, will fall for the gag. However, we should never lose sight of the reality that repeated failures can only mean a deliberate conspiracy to fail in hopes of achieving something different.


Pepsi Doubles-Down on LGBT and Transgender and Restroom-Access Activism

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Pepsi Doubles-Down on LGBT and Transgender and Restroom-Access Activism

Shows No Interest in Alternative, More Constructive, Approach to the Issue, Preferring Party Line of LGBT Activist Groups to the Position Held by a Majority of the Public in Opinion Polls

Pepsi Previously Declined an Activist Role on Another Issue that Would Have Helped the Poor in the Developing World and Helped Pepsi’s Bottom Line, But Has Jumped in With Both Feet on Controversial Issue That Risks Angering Half of Its Customer Base


New Bern, NC / Washington, D.C.  – Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi doubled-down on the company’s commitment to LGBT activism at the company’s shareholder meeting today.

Ms. Nooyi made it clear that activism on the LGBT issue is a priority for the company.

National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. spoke directly with Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi at the meeting, which was held today in New Bern, NC.

Ms. Nooyi has called on North Carolina to repeal a state law known as HB2 that itself repealed a Charlotte ordinance that said bathroom use in Charlotte cannot be designated by biological sex, and made harsh statements about the law.

The law is highly controversial, in part because business executives such as Pepsi’s Nooyi, entertainers such as Bruce Springsteen, and even foreign businesses such as Ontario’s Cirque du Soleil have made firm statements against the law that appear to question the morality of anyone holding a contrary opinion.

Yet the public, while divided about the law, has certainly not reached a consensus that the law should be repealed, let alone that its backers are immoral. A Time-Warner Cable News poll taken in April showed 51 percent of North Carolinians support the law’s provisions regarding restroom use, while 40 percent oppose it. Nationally, a CBS News poll about transgender restroom access policies generally, and not the North Carolina law specifically, found 59 percent preferred limiting restroom and locker room access to people of the same biological sex while 26 percent advocating letting people use the restroom or locker room of their choice.

“Ms. Nooyi appears to be comfortable casting her statements on the law as representative of Pepsi as a corporation, and likewise appears to be committed to continuing the company’s LGBT activism, but she has in the past turned down requests to involve the company in policy activism that has a more direct impact on Pepsi, is less controversial, and literally could save lives,” Justin Danhof said. “In 2014, I asked Ms. Nooyi if Pepsi would increase its educational activities about the life and eyesight-saving benefits of genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs, in the Third World. Pepsi uses GMOs extensively, so making sure the public knows the truth is important to Pepsi’s bottom line, but this also is a huge humanitarian issue. Ms. Nooyi was very courteous when she spoke to me, but she made it clear that she thought it was more important for the federal government through agencies such as the FDA and think-tanks like the National Center for Public Policy Research to do most of the heavy lifting on GMO education. Proving the point further with real-life evidence, since 2014, we have not seen Pepsi take a strong lead on GMO education or policy, but Pepsi is all over the news on LGBT and bathroom-access issues.”

“So we see the priorities,” said Danhof. “When involvement in an issue can save lives and help Pepsi’s revenue stream, Pepsi has a little bit of interest in speaking out, but not very much. When another issue, one that at present is very important to the left, does not prevent premature death, reduce malnutrition and blindness in the developing world, does not involve Pepsi products, and has at least the potential of angering 51 percent of Pepsi’s customers, Pepsi is firmly committed to speaking out.”

“This is the picture of a company that has made the decision to put activism over profits, and LGBT activism over anti-poverty activism,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, “and it is clear it is Pepsi that is making the statements here, not its CEO speaking as an individual, which she has every right to do, and which is far less likely to anger Pepsi customers.”

“A clue to the strength of the company’s commitment to being part of the LGBT activist coalition can be found in Ms. Nooyi’s response when I offered the company a framework for promoting the company’s values in a constructive way, instead of driving them apart, as implying that people who hold a different view lack moral fiber quite predictably will tend to do,” said Danhof. “We suggested that Pepsi bring the different sides together to identify the areas of common ground, so action can be taken immediately in those areas, and to identify areas of discord, so a specific search for innovative solutions can immediately be undertaken. In the restroom case, for example, the most contentious issue – locker room access – might find a solution if big corporations donated money so the public schools could build private shower facilities, to name just one possible solution that seems doable yet does not drive Americans apart.”

“This is a far more productive approach than casting aspersions on 51 percent of the community, and far better for Pepsi, but I might as well have been talking to a brick wall,” Danhof continued. “A very courteous brick wall, and I do commend Ms. Nooyi for being willing to speak to me, as she has been willing to do on many occasions, and that is very much appreciated, but a brick wall nonetheless.”

Remarks made by Mr. Danhof publicly at the meeting, as prepared for delivery, are available here.

In part, Danhof said:

Liberal activists pressured Pepsi to denounce the [HB2] law. And you obliged. We suggest this was a missed opportunity to bring folks together and elevate Pepsi’s brand. Your decision to speak out so forcefully against the law pleased one contingency but angered another. And that anger is palpable. In reaction to HB2, Target announced that it would open its bathrooms to any and all-comers. Over a million Americans now claim to be boycotting the chain in protest. Pepsi does not want to be the next Target.

When approached to take a position on an issue, many companies see only a few options: say nothing, or choose one side or the other. I propose there is an alternative: bring people together.

When you denounced the law, you made Pepsi just another one of the many companies that jumped on a bandwagon. You weren’t leading on the issue. If instead, Pepsi had worked to bring both sides together, you would be viewed as a leader in the community, the state and indeed the nation. Pepsi holds a prominent role here in North Carolina. Why use that position to divide citizens against each other? Or, for that matter, some customers against the company?

I have with me today a one-page framework companies can use to approach contentious issues like this. It does this by focusing on solutions and can be applied to literally every issue. I’m hopeful the company will take a look at it. I think you will find it helps the company stand up for its values in a way that brings people together and increases the public’s appreciation for Pepsi as a company and as a brand.

The next time you are approached by a group of activists demanding that Pepsi sign a letter or denounce this or that, we simply suggest that you ask yourself, Ms. Nooyi, is there a way that I can bring both sides together and lead the community to solutions the public – and Pepsi’s customers – can get behind? Can I suggest to you that the paradigm I have suggested would help Pepsi be the community leader it clearly wants to be without making itself another Target?

“We hope Pepsi will reconsider,” concluded Ridenour. “And choose instead a path that brings people together.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Pepsi meeting marks its 8th shareholder meeting of 2016.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.


Eli Lilly Shareholders to Management: Religious Liberty Matters

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Religious Liberty Matters

Shareholder Resolution Urges Pharmaceutical Giant to Be Respectful of ALL Groups, Including Religious Americans and Those Who Respect the First Amendment

Company Questioned at Shareholder Meeting for Doing Business Where Homosexuality is Illegal While Posing as An Ally with Gay, Lesbian and Gender Identity Activist Groups in the United States


Indianapolis, IN / Washington, D.C.  – At today’s annual meeting of Eli Lilly shareholders in Indianapolis, Indiana, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a liberty-based shareholder resolution in response to the company’s activism against state-level religious freedom laws.

“Eli Lilly is acting with extreme duplicity. The pharmaceutical giant has joined with the leftist mob that falsely claims that religious freedom laws are avenues for discrimination of homosexuals. Yet, while it bemoans state religious freedom laws here in America, it has done business with nations that actively discriminate against homosexuals, women and just about every conceivable minority group,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Today, our shareholder proposal called out the company’s hypocrisy.”

Speaking on behalf of the National Center’s proposal, Danhof stated, in part:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination. The company’s spokesman stated: “One of our long-held values is respect for people, and that value factors strongly into our position. We want all our current and future employees to feel welcome where they live.”

Our proposal takes Lilly up on this. Eli Lilly has operated in many nations where homosexuality is outlawed. In some of those countries, homosexual acts are punishable by death. Women have almost no rights in some of these places. And try getting a fair trial in many of these nations.

The full text of Danhof’s remarks at the Eli Lilly meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“As the national debate over religious freedom laws began last year in Indiana – and Lilly is one of the biggest companies in the Hoosier State – it deserves a fair share of the blame for the anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation,” added Danhof. “When Georgia recently tried to pass a similar law, that state’s governor made the spineless decision to veto it after many corporations including Coca-Cola and the National Football League complained.”

“I find it very curious that many leftist politicians, organizations and commentators in the media have spent the better part of the past six years bemoaning corporate involvement in political activity. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which simply affirmed that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights), to hear liberal talking heads tell it, the world would stop spinning due to corporate involvement in political activities. But when corporations such as Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola use their bully pulpits to spew invectives regarding religious freedom laws, the left cheers corporate involvement in the political process,” said Danhof. “This is the hallmark of a movement that lacks basic principles.”

“Liberal shareholder activists have filed hundreds of shareholder resolutions over the past few years and spent untold sums to denounce corporate involvement in any political or policy activity that might be considered conservative,” said Danhof. “But they have no problem with corporations using their power to advance far-left agendas.”

“Eli Lilly is violating a basic principle of business,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Don’t disrespect your customers, lest they disrespect you in return. Eli Lilly might claim its activism on lesbian and gay rights and gender identity issues was done to be inclusive, but the path Eli Lilly chose unnecessarily excluded others. The religious protections Eli Lilly opposed have been around for years. Everyone’s rights and freedoms could have been respected.”

“Eli Lilly does business in places where people have no basic civil rights,” Ridenour continued, “including the right to practice the religion of their choice. In that light, I suppose it is not odd that the company is standing against the continuation of long-held religious protection laws here in America. It appears likely that religious freedom is not its thing. Standing up for it certainly isn’t.”

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Eli Lilly’s response to it, can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

Eli Lilly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to block the National Center’s proposal. However, the National Center’s legal team, also led by Danhof, prevailed in convincing the SEC that its proposal was so significant that the company’s shareholders should have a say on the matter.

The entire legal exchange between Eli Lilly and the National Center, along with the SEC’s decision, can be downloaded here.

After Danhof presented a similar proposal ton General Electric’s investors last week, he also made these observations about the current state of the national debate over religious freedom laws:

“Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.”

“Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement and the pockets of pro-gay marriage leaders. In that light, it is easy to understand why they concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.”

Earlier this year, Danhof presented a similar proposal to Apple. For more information about those meetings and shareholder resolutions, see here, here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Eli Lilly meeting marks its seventh shareholder meeting of 2016.

 The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.


Obama Executive Orders Gay/Lesbian Benefits Including VA Benefits

“Aiming to circumvent that issue, the Veterans Affairs Department will start letting gay people who tell the government they are married to a veteran to be buried alongside them in a national cemetery, drawing on the VA’s authority to waive the usual marriage requirement.”<<<Read More>>>