May 27, 2023

Dick’s Sporting Goods Doubles-Down on Reduced Gun Sales

June 14, 2018 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

CEO Admits Alienating Customers, Says It’s “Fine”
Shareholder No Longer Shops There

Pittsburgh, PA / Washington, DC – Dick’s Sporting Goods reaffirmed its decision to end certain firearms-related sales during today’s annual meeting of its shareholders. A shareholder activist challenged corporate leadership about putting anti-gun advocacy ahead of the needs of its customers and its investors. After the meeting was over, Dick’s CEO Ed Stack said it was “fine” if the shareholder never shopped in his stores again.

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted Stack and other company leaders about the company’s recent decisions to stop selling AR-15 rifles and certain accessories as well as to raise the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 years old. These changes were made after the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The company also reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions. 

“The management of Dick’s Sporting Goods shot itself in the foot by catering to the fanaticism of the gun-grabbers,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who represented FEP at today’s shareholder meeting in Pittsburgh. “Stack seems to believe that most customers support the company’s politicized retail strategy, but he has also acknowledged that these decisions could harm shareholders’ return on investment. This is irrational and irresponsible, and I don’t consider it a sustainable strategy.”

Noting that the company puts itself at risk with its high-profile stance on guns, Almasi said:

Mr. Stack, you knew the risk of these political moves from the start. During your March 13 earnings call, you admitted: “There are just going to be some people who just don’t shop us anymore for anything.”…

Sales are so anemic and relations with gun manufacturers such as Mossberg so poor right now that you’ve even indicated Dick’s might get out the gun business entirely. Meanwhile, Sportsman’s Warehouse reports that their gun sales and net sales were up 15% during the first quarter. That company credits consumer backlash against companies such as Dick’s as partially responsible for its success.

The company is willfully giving up money. It has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, even while the vast majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment. Thirty percent of American adults own guns, and another 11 percent live with someone who does. You’ve now alienated them…

Stack admitted Dick’s change in gun-related sales “did alienate some gunowners,” but insisted that “we’re not going to change” the policy and that “we as a company and a board stand by our decision.” Almasi then warned Stack that Dick’s new policy could mean “the hunters won’t be back. The supporters of the Second Amendment… won’t be back.”

The full text of Almasi’s statement and question, as prepared for delivery is available here. Audio clips are also available of Almasi’s question and Stack’s answer.

After the close of the meeting, Almasi approached Stack to discuss the issue further. Stack terminated the conversation when Almasi questioned Stack’s assertion that the gun policy was about corporate concern for child safety. Almasi asked why, if the company was concerned about child safety, the stores continue to sell football gear despite the risk of head injuries and brain trauma.

On his way out of the room, Stack asked Almasi, “I suspect we won’t see you in our stores?” Almasi answered: “Probably not.” Stack replied: “Fine!”

“When Dick’s alienates gunowners and their supporters, those people won’t just stop buying their guns at Dick’s – they also won’t buy hunting equipment, coolers, jackets or golf clubs at Dick’s. They will tell their friends to shop elsewhere,” Almasi added. “It’s a poor business model to offend a group as motivated and organized as gunowners. It’s also not wise for a corporation to oppose a basic constitutional right.”

FEP has raised the issue of gun rights several times this shareholder season. It challengedBank of America CEO Brian Moynihan over the financial institution’s decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers. It also challenged United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz about the reputational risk of breaking off its relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA). In addition, FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq. recently wrote in The Federalist that “[c]orporate America has become the muscle of American liberalism,” explaining how liberals are using the business community “to bolster and justify the cause” against the NRA and gun rights.

FEP representatives have participated in 26 shareholder meetings so far in 2018.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , , , , ,

Bank of America’s Decision to Sever Ties with Certain Gun Manufacturers Blasted by Free-Market Leader

April 25, 2018 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Refuses to Say How Much Money Investors Will Lose Because of His Decision to Join Those Who Oppose Second Amendment

Charlotte, NC/Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Bank of America investors, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted notoriously liberal banking CEO Brian Moynihan over the company’s financially irresponsible decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers.

“Moynihan and Bank of America’s leadership team have decided to place liberal virtue signaling ahead of the company’s investors,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting and confronted Moynihan. “This is a gross violation of the company’s fiduciary duty to its investors. If Moynihan wants to lobby against gun rights on his own time, that’s one thing. But he instead put Bank of America’s significant financial and institutional weight behind a policy movement aimed at harming or abolishing the Second Amendment. By using his position as CEO in such an overtly political manner, he is abdicating his responsibility to act in his company’s best interests. He doesn’t accurately speak for all of the company’s investors and customers – which surely include millions of Second Amendment supporters.”

At the meeting, Danhof noted:

[T]he company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. The company is also lending its voice to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at how another famous investor addressed this issue. 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 [our] 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 [gun folks]. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Danhof then asked:

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

To read Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, click here. (Note that Danhof shortened the question at today’s meeting due to a strict time limit that was imposed on investors – except for Jesse Jackson, who was allowed to ramble well past the time allowed.)

“Today Bank of America made it clear that it is proud to lend its voice to the anti-Second Amendment community. If you are a gun owner, a member of the National Rifle Association, in the gun or ammunition business, or simply a supporter of the Constitution, it’s my impression that Bank of America doesn’t want your business,” said Danhof. “And perhaps those constituencies ought to take the company up on that score.”

Audio of Danhof’s exchange with Moynihan is available with this link.

“I think most folks in the financial press would be interested to know why Bank of America’s Moynihan thinks he is right on this issue and Warren Buffett is wrong,” noted Danhof. “Maybe a financial journalist can follow up with the company and get an answer to that question – because it’s clear he doesn’t have enough respect for his investors to give us a straight answer.”

Following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the ensuing corporate backlash against the National Rifle Association, Danhof wrote a commentary describing corporate America’s repeated pattern of joining with the liberal cause of the day. As published in The Federalist, Danhof noted:

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…

By and large, conservative Americans leave business alone because they realize private enterprise drives the economic engine that keeps America thriving. However, as corporate America continues to join with the left to erode constitutional protections and traditional beliefs that conservatives hold dear, silence is no longer an option.

Click here to read Danhof’s entire commentary.

This meeting marks the 12th shareholder meeting of 2018 in which FEP has participated.

To book an interview with Danhof or another National Center representative, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-0269 or (703) 477-7476.

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 here.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Trump Asked to Rescind Monument Designations Harmful to Economy, Private Property

October 18, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Letter from Free-Market Coalition Urges Comprehensive Overhaul of Antiquities Act

“Dramatic Break” Sought to Combat “Abuses That Have Plagued the Program for Decades”


Washington, DC – Over three dozen free-market organizations, trade associations, businesses, former federal officials and current lawmakers have signed a letter to President Donald Trump from the National Center for Public Policy Research seeking comprehensive reform of the Antiquities Act and a rollback of national monument designations that threaten economic development and private property rights.  The letter asks the Trump Administration to “deal more forcibly with the abuses that have plagued the program for decades” and “restor[e] integrity and transparency to a process that for too long has been lacking in both.”

“In keeping with President Trump’s campaign pledge to undo the harm massive national monument designations have inflicted on rural areas in the West and Maine, as well as fishing communities along the Northeast coast, the White House needs to take bold action,” said National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D.   “Just trimming around the edges, as Secretary Zinke has proposed, won’t do.”

Responding to an executive order issued by President Trump in April, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke sent a draft review of national monument designations to the White House in late August.  While the draft report allegedly seeks to curtail the overreach of the Antiquities Act in designating monuments, and suggests scaling back some recent designations, it apparently does not advocate for completely rescinding any monument designations.

The 37 signatories of the National Center’s letter include leaders of prominent free-market environmental groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mountain States Legal Foundation and Citizens for a Constructive Tomorrow.  It is signed by former Interior Department officials: G. Ray Arnett, assistant secretary of fish and wildlife and parks during the Reagan Administration, and George Rasley, the former assistant director of the National Park Service during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.  Current Idaho State Representative Judy Boyle and former California State Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth have signed the letter, as well as trade associations and businesses representing agriculture, logging and other interests.

The letter points out that many national monument designations are unconstitutional.  Even though wilderness areas require congressional authorization, the letter notes that “[m]any of today’s national monuments are de facto wilderness areas where strict land- or sea-use restrictions are in place.”  The letter adds: “In what is a complete distortion of the Antiquities Act’s original intent, monument designations – whether on land or at sea – frequently involve thousands of square miles that are permanently off-limits to almost all economic activity.”

To remedy the problem, the National Center’s letter advises: “With this history of abuse in mind, we strongly urge the Trump Administration to make a dramatic break with the past and begin to undo the injustices perpetrated in the name of designating national monuments… Federal law has also been circumvented by the executive branch in designating national monuments.  It is time for this unconstitutional practice to end.”

In particular, the letter recommends fully rescinding the national monument designations for the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments in Utah, the Katahdin Woods and Water National Monument in Maine and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England. [emboldening added]

“President Trump directed Secretary Zinke to review the antiquated Antiquities Act because he recognizes it is terribly flawed.  Radical pressure groups have worked with their allies in government to use it to prevent the American people from accessing natural resources found on already well-protected public lands owned, managed and regulated by the federal government,” said National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith.   “The Antiquities Act is used to lock up clean coal deposits, shut down well-regulated fisheries, prevent ranchers from grazing their cattle, close access and recreation opportunities and even take private property.  Our coalition asks the Trump Administration to recognize and end these inherent problems by rescinding unnecessary and harmful designations while returning to environmental policy that embraces multiple-use goals.” 

Legislation to overhaul the Antiquities Act was passed out of the National Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives last week.  This bill would allow a president to reduce the size of existing national monuments while placing more restrictions on the ability to create new ones. 

Share
Filed Under: National/World, Politics in General Tagged With: ,

Black Conservatives Say Players Kneel and Protest at Their Peril

September 30, 2017 by 5 Comments

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

NFL’s Indulgence of Radical Politics Sends Divisive Message, Drives Away Fans

Washington, DC –  With the high likelihood of continued instances of professional football players “taking a knee” while the National Anthem is played during this week’s NFL games, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are warning that continued protests lacking clear intentions are hurting the sport’s reputation as well as the well-being of its sponsors.

While fans who have been polled by the media do not necessarily want players fired over their protests, overwhelming majorities want professional athletes to stand respectfullyduring the playing of the National Anthem. Past protests have been cited as a key factorin fans no longer watching games.

In a commentary published on the Fox News Channel website, Project 21 Co-ChairmanStacy Washington wrote that millionaire athletes protesting without a specific goal are testing the dwindling patience of the American people. 

“The NFL has a choice to make, and it’s an easy one: political activism or sports. The American people will only tolerate one of those so they had best choose wisely,” said Washington, a syndicated talk radio host on the American Family Radio and Urban Family Talk networks and U.S. Air Force veteran who served in an honor guard unit at military funerals. “There are ways to sway a community; defiling a national symbol associated with honor, service, sacrifice and bravery isn’t one of them. If the NFL continues to indulge the players, declining ratings and lower attendance at games will become the norm. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the team owners must man up: choose the fans by ending the protests.”

Anger over the players’ protests has trickled down to other businesses that make money through their affiliation with the NFL. Fans are reportedly buying less team merchandiseand not going to games (and thus not buying concessions). Bars are refusing to broadcastgames. And, in a move that could be costly to the NFL, DirecTV has let some customers cancel their premium “Sunday Ticket” game packages. Sponsor boycotts are also being organized.

“We live in a free country where people have a right to free speech. Having said that, there’s a responsibility to use it wisely,” said Project 21 member Darryn “Dutch” Martin, a former federal diplomatic official and motivational speaker. “I believe Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players have a right to kneel when the National Anthem is played. But the flip-side to this coin is that fans don’t have a duty to spend their hard-earned money on the NFL if they feel our country is being disrespected in any way – even by a peaceful protest such as kneeling during the National Anthem. Furthermore, team owners who are fully aware of the financial ramifications shouldn’t be obligated to hire players such as Kaepernick. There’s a time and a place for everything. Professional sports should be a politics-free affair.”

Project 21 member Nadra Enzi, a community anti-crime activist in New Orleans, is critical of the anti-law enforcement sentiments that many protesting players are embracing: “I can’t take a knee to take up a cause that gives perverted honor to mostly career criminals who lost their final fight with the police. Doing do steps on the dignity of urban crime victims and the officers who have been killed in the line of duty in the inner city.”

“We need civil discourse,” said Project 21 member Jerome Danner, host of the “Thinking It Through” podcast. “It is my utmost desire that our most famous athletes and Commander-in-Chief would set an example by engaging in thoughtful conversation. Rather than impulsively stating our opinions about emotional issues, careful introspection should be taken and considerate perspectives shared. Protests are not necessarily wrong, and neither is having an opinion about them. To move forward as a unified nation, however, we should proceed in a thoughtful and courteous manner uncharacteristic of the times.”

 

Share
Filed Under: Politics in General Tagged With: , , , , ,

CEO Resignations From Trump Business Councils Reveal Leaders’ “True Colors”

August 18, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Liberal Grandstanding and Cronyism Seen as Undermining Efforts to Grow Economy, Create Jobs

Washington, DC – Recent CEO resignations from the Trump Administration’s business councils are being criticized by the nation’s leading conservative shareholder activists as being short-sighted and political.  The Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) says the resignations, which prompted the disbanding of the councils, highlight the political agendas that now guide corporate behavior and expose companies to increased pressure from radical activists.

FEP is a program of The National Center for Public Policy Research.  It has participated in over 100 corporate shareholder meetings since 2014.

“By fleeing President Trump’s advisory councils, these CEOs showed their true colors. CEOs such as Merck’s Kenneth Frazier, Intel’s Brian Krzanich and Disney’s Bob Iger – who left the advisory council in June – are well-known liberals and likely opposed to much of President Trump’s free enterprise agenda.  The events in Charlottesville are likely just a convenient excuse for them to leave, and they are making political statements rather than business decisions in doing so,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq.  “Under eight years of President Obama’s policy of picking winners and losers and running the government as a crony statist regime, these corporate leaders became accustomed to working with Washington to set the rules to benefit their respective bottom lines and crowd out competition.  It’s not a coincidence that all of these companies have seen their stock prices drop since January.”

Danhof cited Merck’s Frazier in particular: “Under Frazier’s leadership, Merck has pushed and promoted ObamaCare to benefit its own bottom line even as the law’s market-distorting mechanisms cripple millions of Americans.  One of President Trump’s top priorities is to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a more patient-centric approach to health care.  It seems Frazier prefers the ObamaCare model that provides handouts to industry.  The American people deserve better, President Trump knows that and that had to be a point of contention between them.”

Horace Cooper, a member of the National Center’s board of directors who has represented FEP at shareholder meetings, called out CEOs for the obvious political nature of their resignations.  He said: “The decision by Kenneth Frazier and the others to resign from the White House’s American Manufacturing Council represents the triumph of politics over policy.  It is very disappointing when our nation’s corporate leaders have been given an opportunity to work with the federal government to encourage innovation and investment but instead appear more interested in political correctness.”

Cooper added: “These corporate executives represent the livelihoods of millions of Americans.  Their selfish decision to effectively become Antifa warriors means that the important issues of deregulation and tax reform – critical to job growth and improving household budgets – will be pushed to the back of the bus.  CEOs are hired to improve and expand their companies’ value and to provide needed services and products to consumers. Federal policy is critical to that effort. Abandoning this rare opportunity to work directly with the White House in order to pursue left-wing politics harms not only the corporations, but also the Americans – black, white and brown – who work for them and rely upon their products and services.”

Commenting on the intentions of the White House’s councils, Danhof noted: “President Trump deserves credit for trying to put together a group of business leaders that included CEOs from across the political spectrum. Whether in politics, academia or business, many liberal leaders are completely unwilling to listen to opposing points of view.  In the end, Trump’s efforts at bipartisan outreach were met with liberal grandstanding and defections that undermined the advisory councils’ goals.  He was left with no choice but to disband them.”

Danhof further pointed out: “Another element at play here is the power of corporate activism.  Liberal investment organizations have long recognized the power of shareholder engagement and the ability to influence corporate decision-makers.  From the get-go, all the CEOs appointed to President Trump’s advisory councils faced heavy pressure from leftist agitators to resign.  The CEOs who caved to this pressure – whether they used the events in Charlottesville or President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord as their excuse – may think they are appeasing the liberal mob.  They are not.  Because they have shown a willingness to do the left’s bidding, the activists will return asking for even a greater pound of flesh.”

Share
Filed Under: Politics in General Tagged With: , ,

NRA Magazine’s July Cover Girl Is Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington

July 7, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Black Conservative Radio Host in the Spotlight After Her Pro-2ndAmendment Commentary Resulted in Column Suspension

St. Louis, MO / Washington, DC – Stacy Washington, the co-chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Project 21 black leadership network, is the author and face of the cover story in the July issue of the National Rifle Association’s America’s 1stFreedom magazine.  In the article, Washington recounts the controversy surrounding her pro-gun commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, why she broke off her relationship with the newspaper and how bias threatens the future of the media industry.

“I’m so excited to have written a number of columns for NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom website and now the magazine,” said Washington.  “It’s an opportunity that might never have come to fruition without my column’s suspension by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  But moving on has been bittersweet, with so many readers sending cards and emails that shared how much they miss my writing.”

Washington was recently selected to help guide Project 21, which promotes the diversity of political opinion within the black community, as one of its co-chairmen.  She also hosts the weekday “Stacy of the Right” talk radio program on WGNU-St. Louis that is syndicated by the Urban Family Talk network.

Washington began as a freelance contributor with the Post-Dispatch last November.  She was suspended on April 28 for a column on guns that her editor complained did not highlight her past affiliation with the NRA.  While she had worked on media programs and projects with the NRA in the past, Washington says  she was never paid and that the opinions in the disputed column were her own.  The column, which criticized other Missouri newspapers for commentaries speculating that gun owners favored guns over child safety and asked readers to compare the NRA to the ISIS terrorist network, was reviewed by the Post-Dispatch staff before publication. She subsequently broke off her freelance relationship with the newspaper.

 In her America’s 1st Freedom article, Washington writes  about the controversy:

In the media furor surrounding this story, my original call has been almost lost – that [Missourian columnist George] Kennedy was permitted to malign the NRA and its membership, and retains the opportunity to do so since he has received no reprimand for his awful and baseless comparison. He will never be held to account or asked to prove that NRA members dismember, set on fire or otherwise terrorize politicians – or anyone else, for that matter. . 

My column was factual: It called out media bias and asked for introspection in media outlets for the sake of preserving printed newspapers. The irony of having my column suspended – under the guise of being a paid advocate for the NRA – for writing that is unjustified nonsense, which is what prompted me to terminate the contract with the Post-Dispatch. The distraction that has ensued over who pays me and why has served its purpose for those at the top of the food chain in the newspaper industry: No one is discussing their failure to remain neutral. Consequently, circulation numbers will continue to tumble.

To book an interview with Stacy Washington, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

 Project 21 members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 40,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

 Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from some 60,000 individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. Sign up for email updates here . Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World Tagged With: , ,

Trump’s Paris Accord Pullout Applauded by Policy Experts

June 3, 2017 by 2 Comments

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Promise Kept to Protect Economy, Safeguard Jobs and Make America a Leader in Energy Production

National Center Provides Diverse Perspectives on Trump Action: Scientific, Regulatory, Business and from the African-American Community

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump’s decision to remove America from the Paris climate accord is being applauded by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a free-market think-tank which has – for over 25 years – actively opposed  anti-competitive regulations that damage the economy and deprive Americans of affordable energy.  National Center experts offering a wide array of perspectives on the issue are available to speak about how this action by the Trump Administration will benefit the nation.

“We applaud President Trump for having the courage to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.  It was a bad deal for the U.S. worker, a bad deal for U.S. industry, a bad deal for the environment and a bad deal for our system of government,” said National Center President David Ridenour, an environmental expert who has attended past United Nations meetings on climate regulation.  “Despite requiring a wrenching transformation of our economy that would cost millions of jobs, it would accomplish next to nothing even if you buy into all the dubious science upon which it is premised.  Trump made the right choice for the economy, the environment and for constitutional government.”

Ridenour’s full statement is available here.

“In fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, President Trump has struck a blow for millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on having ready access to affordable and reliable energy,” said National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., an expert in regulatory and energy issues.  “By targeting our use of fossil fuels under the wholly specious claim of protecting the climate, the Paris accord was specifically designed to shackle the U.S. economy.  Elites here and abroad see our recent emergence as a global energy powerhouse as a threat to their ability to micromanage our lives through transnational agreements and regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats.  With one mighty stroke, President Trump stood up for those who have had no voice for too long.”

Trump fixed an Obama error.  In honoring his commitment to cancel America’s participation in the Paris climate accord, Trump is helping save an estimated 6.5 million jobs and $3 trillion in our national economy,” said Stacy Washington, co-chairman of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.  “The Paris climate accord is unfair and unworkable.  While America bears a severe financial burden, countries that pollute as a matter of course such as China are not required to reduce emissions until 2030.  This detail alone calls into question the benefit of agreeing to what amounts to the utter destruction of our coal industry.  Thank God President Trump said no.”

Earlier this week, Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper criticized the Paris climate accord earlier this week on the RT network’s “The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann.”   Cooper noted: “The very same studies that were claiming alarmist predictions say that the Paris treaty doesn’t make that much of a difference, and that those same alarmist outcomes are going to occur.”

“President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate accord is a victory for the free market and a defeat for rent-seeking corporations,” noted Justin Danhof, Esq., the National Center’s general counsel and director of its Free Enterprise Project  (FEP).  “Many corporate leaders became accustomed to the Obama leadership style of selecting winners and losers.  In the energy market, Obama rewarded certain green energy providers and users with lavish taxpayer subsidies.  It proved detrimental to the American people, especially low-income Americans paying more of their incomes for energy. Appeals by corporate leaders from companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Salesforce to remain in the accord were likely in hopes of keeping this taxpayer-funded gravy train rolling.  President Trump showed real leadership, signaling that the corporate welfare state that flourished during the past eight years may be a thing of the past.”

FEP has challenged corporate leaders at companies such as Apple, Google (now Alphabet Inc.) and Exelon at shareholder meetings about the sustainability of their support for risky regulatory regimes and alternative energy schemes.

 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 60,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here .  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share
Filed Under: Climate, National/World Tagged With: , , , ,

Amazon Grilled About Anti-Trump Immigration Position as Shareholder Meeting Gets Political

May 24, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

*Editor’s Note* – For those with understanding, it is easy to see the theater going on here.

Free Enterprise Project Warns Amazon Executives That Overtly Political Stances May Harm Tech Giant’s Reputation with Trump Supporters

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Owner of the Decidedly Anti-Trump Washington Post, Ducks Question with Claim That Company Does Not Take Political Positions

Seattle, WA / Washington, DC – Today’s annual meeting of Amazon.com investors turned political as a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) questioned CEO Jeff Bezos over the company’s strong opposition to President Trump’s executive orders on immigration and travel.

 “As an investor advocate, our message is quite simple: taking overtly political positions on contentious, evenly-divided issues is a major risk for publicly-traded companies,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting in Seattle and personally questioned Bezos.  “Amazon executives made a clear choice to oppose one of President Trump’s top political priorities, and they need to realize such actions are viewed by Trump supporters through a political prism.  If Amazon is considered anti-Trump, it will almost certainly harm the company’s long-term investors.”

At the meeting, Danhof stated:

Amazon publicly opposed President Trump’s first executive order on immigration.  The New York Post reported Amazon took “a victory lap for its role in halting Trump’s travel ban” after that initial order was halted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The company also signed a legal brief opposing Trump’s second executive order on immigration and travel.

Amazon risks reputational harm and consumer backlash for this stance.  Polling indicates nearly half of registered voters support Trump’s actions on immigration.  After Starbucks similarly came out against Trump’s proposed travel restrictions, Business Insider reported that “Starbucks’ brand ha[d] taken a beating.”

Danhof continued:

And Trump’s ban is not the first of its kind.  In 2011, after discovering two al-Qaeda members with links to Iraq operating in Kentucky, ABC News reported “the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months. . . even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”  One Iraqi refugee who aided U.S. troops was assassinated while banned from entry by former President Barack Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. . . it doesn’t appear Amazon said or did anything regarding the Obama-Clinton travel ban.

These examples raise a few quick questions.  First of all, Mr. Bezos, do you see any potential downside for Amazon related to the company’s opposition to the President, or from the Washington Post‘s anti-Trump bias?  Current and potential Amazon customers undoubtedly include Trump fans.  Are you concerned they may reject Amazon as they see the company opposes a President and policies they support?  And why were you willing to risk Amazon’s reputation by attacking President Trump’s executive order when it seems you lacked the courage to speak out against the Obama-Clinton travel ban?

 Danhof’s full question at today’s Amazon meeting, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

“In response to our question, Bezos essentially claimed Amazon does not take political positions; it instead takes policy positions.  While this may be the company’s aim, it is often a distinction without a difference.  Regardless of Amazon’s intentions, the company is rightfully viewed as taking a political position against President Trump’s immigration reform efforts,” Danhof said.  “If Amazon was truly just taking a principled policy position, it would have also opposed the 2011 Obama-Clinton travel ban we highlighted in the question we presented at the shareholder meeting.  But Bezos ducked that part of the question.  Interestingly, former Obama spokesman Jay Carney – who is now a senior vice president with Amazon – turned around from his front-row seat when I mentioned the Obama-Clinton travel ban.  It clearly got his attention.”

“I get the impression Bezos understands the risk Amazon faces in becoming overtly political,” added Danhof.  “He chose to answer our question diplomatically rather than double-down on any anti-Trump rhetoric.  He may realize that the company’s actions – and his own – have placed Amazon in a liberal-leaning light.  In the long-term, that would be bad for investors.”

This was the second time this year that a National Center representative asked a question of this nature at a company’s shareholder meeting.  Earlier this year, also in Seattle, Danhof questioned outgoing Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz about that company’s opposition to Trump’s travel ban.  Danhof’s confrontation with Schultz garnered significant national media attention, with stories appearing in the Bezos-owned Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN and The Hill among many others.

Launched in 2007, 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.  Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance 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.  This is the sixteenth shareholder meeting the FEP has attended in 2017.

The National Center‘s Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:

  • FEP‘s highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation‘s activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEP‘s challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEP‘s “Employee Conscience Protection Project“ strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
 So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel‘s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

 

 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 60,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share
Filed Under: Politics in General Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Ford’s Funding of “Fake News” Through Ad Revenue Raises Questions

May 10, 2017 by Leave a Comment

*Editor’s Question* – When Obama was in the White House and Fox News spent every waking minute being “hostile” toward the man, was Fox News also “Fake News?” Isn’t this just getting a bit carried away?

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Shareholder Activists Want to Ask Ford Motor Company Executives About Potential Backlash for Advertising on News Programs Hostile to Trump Administration

Will Automaker Use Virtual Format to Avoid Answering Tough Investor Inquiries?

Washington, DC – On Thursday, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – will seek to ask Ford Motor Company executives if they believe there is a reputational risk and potential consumer backlash from advertising on television news programs hostile to the Trump Administration.  FEP representatives are hoping for the opportunity to pose this tough question during Ford’s first online shareholder meeting – a departure from traditional in-person meetings.

“Ford executives will be tested to see if they are willing to tackle hard questions at a virtual shareholder meeting where they control access,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi.  “When liberal politicians wanted to avoid angry constituents during the Tea Party movement, they held virtual meetings to avoid uncomfortable interaction.  We are hoping Ford executives will not employ the same strategy.  Annual meetings are the one time a year when shareholders can question corporate leadership.  To restrict that opportunity would be a disservice to the investment community.”

The Ford shareholder meeting will be held on May 11 at 8:30AM eastern in an audio-only format accessible through the Ford website.

During the meeting’s question and answer session, FEP hopes to ask if Ford executives think that advertising on news programs hostile to the Trump Administration could harm the Ford brand by exposing it to “reputational risk” now that “fake news” and leaked emails showing collusion between liberal political operatives and members of the media have caused public trust in the media to plunge.

“We filed a shareholder resolution asking Ford to detail the risk to its reputation of doing business with media outlets that were exposed by WikiLeaks as working closely with the political class to promote specific political and policy agendas.  Rather than being transparent about such risks, the company petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking approval to exclude our proposal, arguing that this was an issue in which shareholders shouldn’t have a say.  The SEC ultimately agreed with Ford, but we are still seeking answers,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who is set to represent FEP at the meeting.  “Now, many of those same news outlets that we expressed concern about in our proposal are seemingly at war with the White House.  President Trump has called much of the mainstream media an enemy of the American people and has accused specific media outlets of peddling fake news.  The risks to Ford’s reputation of continuing to advertise with such outlets appear to be increasing, not diminishing.”

This is the third time FEP will participate in a Ford shareholder meeting.  In 2011, FEP asked Ford to reassess its membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a fringe political group pushing regulations that FEP noted might negatively impact Ford and its consumers. Ford left USCAP  in 2012.  In 2014, a FEP representative asked the automaker to educate the public about how government regulations increase the cost of producing a vehicle and to consider listing regulatory impact on sales stickers of new Ford cars and trucks.

 Launched in 2007, 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.  Since 2014, National Center representatives have participated in nearly 100 shareholder meetings to advance 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.  This is the fourteenth shareholder meeting the FEP has attended in 2017.

The National Center‘s Free Enterprise Project activism has yielded a tremendous return on investment:

  • FEP‘s highly-publicized questioning of support for the Clinton Foundation by Boeing and General Electric helped trigger an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation‘s activities that dominated the 2016 presidential campaign.  
  • FEP inquiries prompted Facebook to address political bias against conservatives in social media.
  •  Company executives acknowledged media bias at ABC News (Disney), the Washington Post and CNN (Time Warner) in response to FEP‘s challenges, which helped to bring about more objective reporting and more balanced political representation.
  • FEP‘s “Employee Conscience Protection Project“ strengthened protections for the political beliefs and activities of over five million workers at 13 major U.S. corporations.
So far in 2017, the FEP has been featured in media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Drudge Report, Business Insider, CNET, National Public Radio, American Family Radio and SiriusXM. In 2016, the FEP was also featured in the Washington Times, the Fox News Channel’s “Cavuto,” the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, the Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chicago Tribuneamong many others.  The Free Enterprise Project was also featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel‘s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

 

 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 60,000 active recent contributors.  Sign up for email updates here.  Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements.  To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share
Filed Under: Politics in General Tagged With: , , ,

Suspended Black Conservative Columnist Speaks Out About Why She Quit St. Louis Post-Dispatch

May 5, 2017 by 1 Comment

*Editor’s Note* – Earlier today I posted President Donald Trump’s FAKE Executive Order  that he presented as “policy” of his administration to protect the right of free speech and freedom of religion. In my editorial note included with that post, I wrote of how there was no such thing as freedom of speech and that the Executive Order of Trump’s was nothing more that a further guarantee of the Government’s authority to control every aspect of your life.

The erosion of freedom of speech is further substantiated in the information contained in the press release that follows of one person being “suspended” from a news media company after writing an article about the Second Amendment.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“It’s Never Been a Secret That I Support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association”

St. Louis, MO / Washington, DC – Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington , a black conservative, was recently suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after writing a column defending gun ownership.  She is now speaking out and available for interviews about the allegations made against her by the newspaper’s management and her decision to end writing for the Post-Dispatch altogether.

Washington was recently selected to help guide Project 21, a leadership network promoting the diversity of political opinion within the black community in America, as one of its co-chairmen.

A freelance contributor who began writing a column for the Post-Dispatch last November, Washington was suspended by the newspaper on April 28 after writing a column on guns that her editor complained did not mention her past affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA).  While she has worked with the NRA on media programs and projects in the past, she says she was never paid for her services and the opinions in the column were her own.

Washington’s support of gun ownership has never been a secret.  In her first column for the newspaper, she wrote: “With my father on active [military] duty, guns were always a part of life, so I considered the Second Amendment second in importance only to the religious protections afforded to us in the Constitution.” Before becoming a columnist, the Post-Dispatch reported on her work with the NRA. She also said the column in question –  “Guns and the Media” – was reviewed by the newspaper’s staff before publication.  That column criticized other Missouri newspapers that recently featured commentaries speculating that gun owners favored guns over child safety and asked readers to compare the NRA to the ISIS terrorism network.  In her column, she wrote: “Gun ownership in America is a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, and owning a gun has no bearing on whether people love their children.”

 Commenting on leaving the Post-Dispatch, Washington said:

It’s never been a secret that I support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association. To effectively be suspended by a newspaper for that seems beyond comprehension. But that’s what I believe happened to me.

Last week, my final column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – “Guns and the Media” – discussed two anti-gun opinion columns in other Missouri papers. I think these commentaries were allowed to falsely accuse gun owners of prioritizing guns over child safety and tried to make the NRA and ISIS morally equivalent. I suggested such radical allegations were allowed to be published without challenge due to an editorial bias against guns.

Like all of my columns published by the newspaper, it was submitted, accepted, edited and approved by the staff of the Post-Dispatch. As a freelance writer, I was unable to post my work directly to their website. So I was obviously surprised when I was notified of a suspension that readers were told was due to my “ active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association, [which] represented an unacceptable conflict of interest.”

 I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of the NRA. I was not compensated for my participation in an NRA documentary that was released last year nor was I paid for any appearances on NRA-affiliated media over the years. Some of this work was even previously reported on by the Post-Dispatch. There was never any attempt at deception.

 After much consideration, I have decided to terminate my relationship with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. When I began writing for the paper, it was with the belief that I would be able to present my opinions from a conservative perspective without interference. This has not been the case, and it makes any future relationship with the newspaper untenable.

 I stand by what I wrote, and it represents me and no other person or organization. I believe that, even in a commentary, it is irresponsible and proves an inherent bias when newspapers permit the comparison of NRA members to Islamic State terrorists and imply that gun-owning Americans cherish their firearms more than the safety of their children.

 To book an interview with Stacy Washington, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

Project 21 members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 40,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from some 60,000 individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share
Filed Under: Guns/Gun Rights, National/World, Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,