February 5, 2023

Hornady Tells NY State to Stick It Where the Sun Don’t Shine

Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry.

While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.

-Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company<<<


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

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.


Remington Bankruptcy

It’s common knowledge now that Remington Outdoor Company, the maker of Remington firearms, is seeking protection from creditors for the company’s near one billion dollar debt. Much speculation is going on and some of it is nonsense.

For example, Outdoor Hub is trying to tell their readers that the reason Remington is going under is that when Trump took office, everybody stopped buying guns because he was not a threat to take them away: “Like most in the gun industry, Remington’s sales have dipped because there is no longer fear that guns will become more heavily regulated by U.S. government. President Trump has made it abundantly clear that he never plans on impeding “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

What nonsense! Remington’s billion-dollar debt didn’t happen because some Leftist wants to claim gun sales have stopped because Obama left office, Trump is in and we’re all gonna die. It takes a bit longer than one year to amass a billion dollars in debt no matter how big you are.

Besides, according to Ammoland, the number of background checks for January of this year was identical to that of January the previous year when Obama was in office. Perhaps the “panic buying” of guns will abate somewhat, but certainly, only a fool would think this is the cause of Remington’s debt.

Guns have been made and sold in America for a very long time. Politics have been around even longer. Presidents have come and presidents have gone, some having more influence than others on the Second Amendment and the effect of gun manufacturing and sales in this country. No one president’s position on the Second Amendment is going to force a major gun manufacturer to go broke. That can only happen due to very poor management – whether that management is due to stupidity or is a planned event. More on that in a bit.

Jim Shepherd explains Remington’s debt and proposed reshuffling of finances here.

A day earlier Shepherd wrote the following interesting tidbit: “It’s no secret that Remington has been hamstrung by a mountain of debt – $950 million dollars worth, courtesy of the leveraging expertise of Cerberus Capital Management -and said management’s abandonment of the company after the Sandy Hook murders in 2012.”

Are we seeing the Global Power Structure (GPS) at work here?

If the GPS cannot, at least at this moment in time, waltz right in and disarm every man on this earth, there are other ways to do. Many of these incremental events have been spoken of and written about for a long time. But what of this sort of thing? Has the GPS so heavily infiltrated every aspect of our lives that, one, they could orchestrate a Sandy Hook event in order to manipulate public perceptions about guns, and two, do they also control the Financial Industry and Remington Arms so well that they can create the bankruptcy of a major gun manufacturing company forcing them out of business? You can believe what you will about whether or not this is who was and is behind any of this, but I happen to know the GPS wields enough power to do a lot of things and pulling this off would be no big deal. What might become complicated (to me anyway) is how they would do it in order to not feel the effects of lost debt.

However, when you consider how they pulled off the “too big to fail” heist of the American Taxpayer, citizen serf, something as tiny as Remington Outdoor Company would be a sinch.






Comcast CEO Declines to Deny it Runs MSNBC Not for Ratings and Profits, But to Open Doors for Comcast With Liberal Elected Officials

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
This Explains Why Comcast Accepts Dismal MSNBC Ratings and Gears Programming Toward Only 24% of the Population

Washington, D.C.  – At today’s annual meeting of Comcast shareholders, Comcast executives dodged questions from the National Center for Public Research regarding the company’s bizarre business model for MSNBC, which caters to liberals, 24% of the U.S. population, while demonizing conservatives, 37% of the population.

But the executives’ most revealing moment may be in what they declined to say: They declined to deny that Comcast really runs MSNBC to keep the corporation in the good graces of liberal elected officials.

At the meeting, Biddison asked, in part:

Saying “CNN… was a little too liberal,” CNN’s President Jeff Zucker put more conservatives on CNN.

CNN doubled its audience in the key 24-54 demographic and the Wall Street Journal says CNN is “…nipping at the heels of Fox News… and is roughly doubling the audience of MSNBC, the weakest of the three…”.

MSNBC caters to liberals, at 24% the smallest ideological demographic.

As this makes no sense, I ask you: Is Comcast is using MSNBC and its loyalty to the Obama Administration and other liberal elected officials as a lobbying tool? Is this lobbying tool worth the cost to shareholders of being a distant third in the ratings?

For years we attended this shareholder meeting in person, and now by computer since you cancelled face-to-face interactions with your shareholders, asking why Comcast aims so low with MSNBC. You always duck the question. We tell you now: If you do not deny that your strategy with MSNBC is a lobbying one, we are going to publish a press release saying Comcast’s management refuses to deny that the entire point of MSNBC’s existence is to promote Comcast’s lobbying efforts.

The full text of Biddison’s question at the Comcast meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“In this tumultuous political year, the highest-ranking television networks are the ones that aren’t vilifying conservatives,” said Jennifer Biddison, the digital media specialist at the National Center for Public Policy Research, who attended the meeting. “Even if a network’s leaders personally have liberal leanings, it is important that they find innovative ways to reach viewers across the entire political spectrum. Otherwise their network’s ratings will tank, as we have seen this past year with MSNBC in particular. If Comcast wants to save MSNBC, it should rebrand its acronym to ‘My Station Nixes Biased Coverage.'”

Comcast’s executives ducked Biddison’s question, touting MSNBC’s perceived success instead. Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts answered simply, “Under Andy Lack’s leadership, who is the President of NBC News, who joined us in the last year or so, I think MSNBC has made terrific improvements in ratings and continues to have a wonderful roadmap ahead.”

The reading of Biddison’s question, in addition to Roberts’s response, can be heardhere.

“We told Comcast’s CEO point-blank that if he did not deny that the purpose of MSNBC, from Comcast’s point of view, is to make liberal elected officials and other policymakers feel good about Comcast, essentially a very informal form of lobbying, that we would issue a press release saying you refused to deny this. And he did refuse to deny it when he could easily have done so,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Mr. Roberts’ silence may speak volumes. Comcast apparently has been putting up with MSNBC’s dismal ratings all these years because the very fact that Comcast owns MSNBC opens doors for it, figuratively but probably also literally, with liberal elected officials and their staff members, such as those at the White House, but also in liberal policymaking offices all across the land,” continued Ridenour. “Just as businesses and unions make campaign contributions in the hope of being able to get face-time with elected officials, Comcast may be running a TV network for much the same purpose.”

“What an irony,” Ridenour continued, “that the anti-capitalist message of so much of the on-air ‘talent’ at MSNBC is merely a front for an extremely sophisticated form of pro-business grassroots lobbying.”

“This is perfectly legal,” concluded Ridenour, “but so ironic. If Comcast is running MSNBC to keep the Obama Administration and its allies on its good side, people such as Rachel Maddow are actually a new form of lobbyist, not journalists. Put a pin in that for a second.”

For years, representatives of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project have attended Comcast’s meeting in person and quizzed company executives about its strange strategy of catering to less than one-fourth of the American people, and its willingness to let the on-air personnel at MSNBC make outlandishly inaccurate statements without requiring corrections, even to the point of exposing Comcast to potential libel lawsuits. (See here, here and here for more information about some of these meetings.)

Biddison attended today’s meeting on behalf of National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour, who is a Comcast shareholder.

In her question, Biddison referenced CNN’s recent rating success that stems from a very deliberate business decision to try to balance the network ideologically after years of skewing left. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, CNN President Jeff Zucker stated: “I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal. We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.”

CNN’s decision to try to balance its programming follows years of pressure from many, including the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, over the company’s liberal bias. The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. questioned Time Warner (CNN’s parent company) Jeffrey Bewkes in 2013 and 2014 about the company’s liberal bias and urged CNN to try to achieve more balance and objectivity. For more about those confrontations, see here and here.

“We are living in a time when only six percent of Americans trust the media,” said Danhof. “Networks such as MSNBC deserve a fair share of blame for this. MSNBC is not a platform for news. It is an outlet for liberals who wish to hear talking heads regurgitate and affirm their leftist beliefs. CNN’s leadership was willing to accept criticism that this was a flawed business model. By adding conservative commentators, that network has added to its bottom line and has done right by its investors. Comcast continues to do a disservice to its investors who suffer right along with MSNBC’s abysmal ratings. The fact that the company’s executives couldn’t be bothered to honestly answer a simple question about MSNBC’s poor performance speaks volumes.”

Earlier this year, Danhof questioned Disney CEO Bob Iger over the liberal bias on Disney’s media platforms, ABC and Disney. Incredibly, Iger defended his company’s news stations and denied any bias. Danhof’s confrontation with Iger was detailed in aHollywood Reporter article that was prominently featured on the Drudge Report.

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 for the purpose of advancing liberty. Today’s Comcast meeting marks its twelfth 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.


Small family business says it’s intimidated by AutoZone 

Family-owned companies are good not only for the families involved, but also for both the local and global economies. However, many find it hard to survive. Around a third of the 100,000 family businesses that are passed to the next generation each year subsequently fail, while many small business owners struggle to ensure that they are financially independent from their businesses when they retire.

There are advantages and disadvantages to running any business, from a small business to a larger, publicly traded company. However, family firms come with their own unique advantages and challenges. Here we delve into the pros and cons of running a family business, along with tips to capitalise on the positives, and overcome the negatives.

Economic downturns and other challenging times can be a struggle for many businesses, where the board of directors needs to work out how to keep the business afloat while still paying staff. In family firms, however, it will often be the case that family members are willing to contribute financially to keeping the business afloat during times like these but of course all the family has to beware of any part of the business and get business protection for the sake of the future.

It may be that this involves taking a temporary pay cut, contributing some of your own finances, or handling your payroll more efficiently. For the family behind the business, long-term business success is crucial to their financial survival, which gives more flexibility where finances are concerned.

AutoZone says the couple is using the word “zone” in its name. The company claims the Hamms can’t do that.”Do you think that’s right?” I asked. “No, of course not” Hamm replied.In the letter, AutoZone accuses this mom-and-pop business of trademark infringement. It claims consumers could confuse this family shop of being affiliated with AutoZone.As a result, the letter demands that the Hamms change the name of their business, so it does not contain the word “zone.”AutoZone also wants the Hamms to give up all of their website domain names and hand them over.”This is how we pay our bills,” William Hamm said. “This is how we raise our kids. We are a ma-and-pa shop. They’re attacking us. That’s how I feel.”

Source: Small family business says it’s intimidated by AutoZone – azfamily.com 3TV | Phoenix Breaking News, Weather, Sport


Welcome To The Guntry Club, Where There’s A Boardroom And A Shooting Range

A couple weeks ago, I walked into The Alamo in Naples, Florida, a state-of-the-art, self-described “shooting destination.” The newly-constructed, 26,000-square-foot facility into which its owner has invested over $10M is bright, airy, and modern. It was built from the ground up on what was once a dirt lot; it opened in early May. Kevin Creighton, The Alamo’s marketing manager, describes the opening as more of a “squishy” launch than a soft launch because this is the area’s off season; “snowbirds” from the East Coast and the Midwest will flock down here en masse come winter.

Source: Welcome To The Guntry Club, Where There’s A Boardroom And A Shooting Range


Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com Ducks Political-Neutrality Request

Jeff Bezos Ducks Request that Amazon.com Use Its Own Judgment, Not Political Activists, to Determine Companies and Groups to Work With

At Thursday Shareholder Meeting, National Center for Public Policy Research Asked Amazon.com to Avoid Politics When Choosing Merchants and Outside Organizations With Which to Associate

Request Comes in Light of News that Amazon.com Has Relied on Southern Poverty Law Center, Whose So-Called “Hate Map” Including Mainstream Conservative Groups Inspired a D.C. Shooting

Leftists Also Have Demanded that Amazon Boycott the Boy Scouts

Seattle, WA/Washington DC – Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos refused Wednesday to pledge the company would seek to avoid politics and aspire to be “content neutral” in response to repeated requests from left-wing activist groups that Amazon.com sever ties with traditional and conservative organizations.

The request for the pledge came from Justin Danhof, representing the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who asked Bezos, in part:

Mr. Bezos, Amazon has recently come under fire from activists demanding that the company end certain associations for politically-motivated reasons. For example, last week MSNBC reported that more than 105,000 people had signed a change.org petition calling on the company to ends its AmazonSmile association with the Boy Scouts of America over that group’s position on openly gay leaders. The MSNBC article also noted that Amazon relies, in part, on lists compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which groups to work with.

In a September 2013 report, the SPLC also claimed that Amazon was allowing so-called hate groups to profit off of relationships with the company. In 2012, the SPLC’s hate map was used by a would-be mass murderer to target the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. And in March of this year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation broke its ties with the SPLC. Given this, and the SPLC’s shoddy record of defining hate groups, which includes listing many traditionally conservative and religious organizations, I urge the company’s leadership to dismiss the SPLC’s findings, and instead, use your own resources and expertise to determine who to work with…

On Wednesday, Danhof, again representing the National Center, made a very similar request at Groupon’s annual shareholder meeting. Groupon’s management emphatically agreed.

“Amazon investors and employees have sincere cause for concern following today’s shareholder meeting. I asked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to make a simple pledge to be content neutral in deciding which merchants and outside organizations with which to affiliate, and he simply refused to answer the question,” said Danhof. “Bezos said he recognized that the issue was complex and that the company would continue working on it.”

“In the meantime, Amazon will apparently continue to rely on activist organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center for advice on which organizations Amazon will do business with. This is a scary proposition for Amazon’s investors. Doing the bidding of activist groups, rather than reacting to market forces such as consumer demand is an irresponsible business practice. Activists, by their very nature, change with the political winds, and if Amazon wants a defense against the next dictate from these groups, it will adhere to a content neutral policy which we suggested.”

“Just this week, the executive leadership team at Groupon was able to firmly pledge to stay neutral and not take dictates from activists groups that have been demanding that Groupon end deals with certain merchants. Groupon clearly understands that bending to political whims is a great way to break a company and lose market focus. By pledging to stay neutral in current and future policy dust-ups, they have inoculated themselves from the next activist attack. If companies signal that they are willing to accede to the demands of groups such as PETA or Greenpeace, they send a signal to other activists that its company is ripe for the picking. This is what Amazon has done today, and what Groupon has protected itself against,” Danhof concluded.

More on events at the Groupon meeting can be found here.

Danhof’s question for Amazon.com, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. Thursday’s Amazon.com meeting was the National Center’s 35th attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.

National Center for Public Policy Research Chairman Amy Ridenour is an Amazon shareholder.

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, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


Groupon Pledges to be “Content Neutral” When Selecting Deals to Offer Its Members

Free-Market Group Attended Groupon 2014 Shareholder Meeting to Ask Groupon to Treat All Legal Businesses Equally; Receives Emphatic Pledge from Groupon to Do So

PETA Announced in April Plans to Ask Groupon at 2015 Shareholder Meeting to Ban Deals with Certain Circuses and Zoos

“Groupon’s executive team sent a loud and clear message to activist organizations trying to dictate what deals the company offers,” National Center’s Justin Danhof Reports

Chicago, IL/Washington DC – At the annual Groupon shareholder meeting Tuesday in Chicago, The National Center for Public Policy Research requested and received a pledge from Groupon management that it will be “content neutral” in regard to the deals it offers to Groupon members.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof attended the meeting to request the content neutrality pledge after PETA announced it will attend Groupon’s 2015 shareholder meeting to ask Groupon to adopt a content bias policy that would prohibit circuses from offering deals to Groupon members.

“Groupon’s executive team sent a loud and clear message to activist organizations trying to dictate what deals the company offers – your opinion is not welcome. Multiple company leaders told me that the company offers deals and services that their customers want, and that is what drives its business,” said Danhof, who also serves as the National Center’s general counsel. “I told them to ignore the whims of the political class in light of PETA’s pressuring the company to cancel certain zoo and circus deals. After today’s meeting, I am confident that Groupon will not bow to PETA’s will, nor to the will of the next activist organization that comes to dictate what products Groupon offers.”

“After the meeting, Groupon’s Head of Communications Paul Taaffe approached me to reiterate that the company does not make any business decisions based on politics. He explained that Groupon reacts to customer demand and interest, noting that when the customer wants something, Groupon provides it. When they don’t show an interest, Groupon doesn’t offer the product. That very simple message is a victory for Groupon and the free market, and a very clear defeat for PETA and its ilk.”

Justin Danhof’s question to Groupon, as prepared for delivery, is available here.

It seems that hardly a week goes by without a news story about left-wing organizations pressuring businesses to cave in and endorse some aspect of the left-wing agenda,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center. “We learned from a story by Ellen Jean Hurst in the April 22 Chicago Tribune that PETA plans to attend Groupon’s 2015 shareholder meeting to pressure Groupon into becoming one of its activists. Unfortunately for PETA, it did not buy shares soon enough to attend this year’s meeting, but we did. So we went first. We asked Groupon to be content-neutral; that is, equally fair to every point of view and every legal product. We are pleased to say that Groupon not only said ‘yes,’ but did so emphatically. We congratulate Groupon’s management.”

Ellen Jean Hirst’s April 22 Chicago Tribune story about PETA’s future plans begins:

PETA says it will attend Groupon’s annual meeting on May 20 to begin the battle to pressure the daily deals site to stop doing business with circuses and zoos with records of animal abuse and neglect.

The animal rights activist group said on Monday that it has purchased 359 Groupon shares for more than $2,000 in hopes that it can influence what companies are allowed to run deals on the site, but that purchase — made on April 15 — missed the cutoff of March 30 for shareholders allowed to attend the annual meeting.

PETA vowed to attend the meeting next month whether or not it was allowed inside. If it’s left out, PETA’s deputy general counsel Delcianna Winders said it will instead hold a protest outside…

The National Center’s Danhof reports seeing “5 or 6″ PETA demonstrators outside the shareholder meeting Tuesday.

Later today, May 21, at 9 AM Pacific time, Justin Danhof, representing the National Center for Public Policy Research, will attend Amazon.com’s annual shareholder meeting in Seattle. Like Groupon, Amazon.com is being pressured by left-wing activists to treat certain segments of the population differently, depending upon the activities of their legal businesses or their political or religious views. We will urge Amazon to be content neutral, as Groupon has pledged to be, always steadfast in its objectivity and treating everyone engaged in legal activities in an equal manner.”

The National Center will also be represented at Comcast’s annual shareholder meeting today in Philadelphia, on other issues.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. Tuesday’s Groupon meeting was the National Center’s 34th attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.

National Center for Public Policy Research President David Ridenour is a Groupon shareholder.

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, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


ObamaCare is Hurting Business, General Electric Says

National Center for Public Policy Research Quizzed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt at Company Shareholder Meeting Today

Immelt Says There is “A Lot of Uncertainty in Health Care”; Company CFO Blames Downturn in Company’s Health Care Division Directly on ObamaCare

National Center Also Asked GE to Institute a Conscience Guarantee in GE’s Code of Conduct Respecting an Employee’s Right to Engage in Legal Political and Civic Activities, in Light of Mozilla/Brendan Eich Situation

Chicago, IL – General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt today doubled-down on acknowledgements by his company that ObamaCare is hurting the business sector, saying in response to a question posed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, “there is still a lot of uncertainty in health care.”

Immelt’s statement followed a report by GE Senior Vice President and CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein that a decline in the profitability of GE’s previously-solid health care division over the last two quarters came about because “Hospitals and clinics appear to be delaying purchases and responses to the Affordable Care Act.” Mr. Immelt also has referenced the health care market’s recent “volatility.”

“ObamaCare’s devastation is so far-reaching that it is now having a tangible, real-world negative affect on one of the world’s largest and most diversified companies,” said Justin Danhof, Esq., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “As CEO, Mr. Immelt has vast health care experience, yet even he cannot predict what the future of the Affordable Care Act will do to the country or his company.”

Danhof met one-on-one with Immelt before the shareholder meeting and also asked him two questions during the meeting itself, one on ObamaCare and the other on General Electric’s policy toward legal, personal, outside-of-work political activities in light of the firing of Brendan Eich from Mozilla over his civic activities.

Audio of Danhof’s question and Immelt’s answer is available here; Danhof’s question as prepared for delivery is available here.

“In light of the Mozilla situation, the National Center for Public Policy Research is urging companies to affirmatively guarantee their employees’ right to participate fully in legal civic activities according to their consciences without their jobs being affected,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center. “A review of General Electric’s Code of Conduct found no such explicit guarantee, but some wording showing that it may have been intended. We asked Mr. Immelt to make that guarantee explicit.”

Immelt declined to answer the Mozilla/Code of Conduct question today because he had not been aware of Brendan Eich’s firing or the issues raised by it prior to his private meeting with Justin Danhof today.

“I both met one-on-one with Mr. Immelt prior to the meeting and then asked him in front of the board of directors and the shareholders about the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich. Despite being one of the largest news stories outside of the missing Malaysian jet, Mr. Immelt had not heard of Mozilla’s capitulation to narrow-minded activists. This highlights the importance of bringing public policy issues to corporate leaders who often do not have the time to acquaint themselves with issues outside of their business responsibilities. This is another reason the Free Enterprise Project’s work is so important,” said Danhof.

“We will be following up with General Electric on this point in coming days,” said Ridenour. “And with other companies as well.”

“And as for ObamaCare,” Ridenour continued, “Mr. Immelt’s comments and General Electric’s health care division’s recent experiences provide yet another solid reason to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered reforms. It is a very bad sign for patients that hospitals and clinics are delaying or cancelling orders for medical equipment they otherwise would have made, if not for the passage of ObamaCare.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a General Electric shareholder and regularly attends the company’s shareholder meetings.

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, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


NSSF Dumps Reed Exhibitions, Will They Dump Connecticut?

Most of you are probably already aware that earlier this year, the Eastern Outdoor Expo in Pennsylvania was canceled when Reed Exhibitions, who host the event, banned guns in the show. Mass numbers of exhibitors pulled out of the show eventually forcing Reed Exhibitions to cancel.

When you combine the questionable tactics of Reed Exhibitions with the anti gun efforts by this administration and groups bent on ridding the world of guns, things happen that leave one to question the sanity of some businesses such as Reed Exhibitions. The backlash and fallout from Reed’s gun banning is still showing up.

Recently the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) announced it was dumping Reed Exhibitions, who have been doing their SHOT Show for over 30 years.

Some NSSF members say this announcement took too long in coming but in addition to that, are questioning why NSSF doesn’t pull it’s operation out of Connecticut, which recently implemented several anti gun and anti gun business regulations.