NIKE’s Kaepernick ad promoting the idea that kneeling during the National Anthem is “heroic” sent their stocks tumbling. 

Yet NIKE is posting a 31% gain in sales. 

As someone who has spent years in retail management, that’s an eyebrow raiser. 

Sure, the sales could reflect a successful counter-boycott, much like In-N-Out enjoyed.  But are there really that many Democrats who believe that promoting hatred of our country, our national anthem, our flag and our police force is a “heroic” deed requiring personal sacrifice?

Are there that many Democrats who really believe that Kaepernick is a stand up guy rather than a spoiled brat who was raised by wealthy white parents? 

If the sales figures are correct, exactly who is buying them? From what point of origin are the sales generated? Have they been charged to Sugar Daddy Soro’s VISA to provide uniforms for his BLM, Antifa and Feminazi armies? That could spike sales. Are lobbyists and other wealthy investors snatching them up with multiple purchases? Are NIKE’s own purchasing them to cook the books and drive up sales? 

What happened to fiduciary duty that companies like NIKE have toward their stockholders? 

According to Cornell Law, corporations are bound by the following primary fiduciary duties-the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

Duty of Care: This duty requires that directors inform themselves “prior to making a business decision, of all material information reasonably available to them.”  Whether the directors were informed of all material information depends on the quality of the information, the advice available, and whether the directors had “sufficient opportunity to acquire knowledge concerning the problem before action.”  Moreover, a director may not simply accept the information presented.  Rather, the director must assess the information with a “critical eye,” so as to protect the interests of the corporations and its stockholders.  

Duty of Loyalty: … “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interests. . . . A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate officer or director, peremptorily and inexorably, the most scrupulous observance of his duty, not only affirmatively to protect the interests of the corporation committed to his charge, but to refrain from doing anything that would work injury to the corporation, or to deprive it of profit or advantage which his skill and ability might properly bring to it, or to enable it to make in the reasonable and lawful exercise of its power. 

Duty of Disclosure: This duty requires directors to act with “complete candor.”  In certain circumstances, this requires the directors to disclose to the stockholders “all of the facts and circumstances” relevant to the directors’ decision.

Was the decision to run the Kapernack ad disclosed to all the shareholders in advance? Was the entire Board of Directors in agreement with this decision?

Real Great Americans reached out to Inspector General Horowitz about the trend of corporations posturing as Social Justice Warriors. 

Any response from the Inspector General’s office will be updated in the comments section below this post. Meanwhile, if you can answer these questions, please use the SpotIM comments section below so people outside your facebook group can benefit from your input. 

The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 4706
Washington,DC  20530-0001
Dear Mr. Horowitz,
Please forgive me if I overstated “media” in the subject line. I’m a Conservative blogger. My website, Real Great Americans, is not portrayed as a news source, but is simply commentary with links to credible news sources. It’s important to me to be as accurate as possible.
Something has been gnawing at me lately. How is it that publicly traded companies such as Starbucks, Twitter, Facebook and NIKE are using their businesses as a platform to make controversial political statements? 
Do these actions not conflict with laws that publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders? Are they not supposed to protect the company’s bottom line rather than utilize the company to voice their personal political opinions, putting shareholders’ investments at risk? 
I could understand if it’s a company that was clearly based ion social issues rather than simply offering products and services before consumers were to purchase shares. For example, if a company that is based on promoting womens or Veterans issues or advertises that “10% of our proceeds benefits XYZ,” then of course it translates to investors practicing due diligence.
But is it not misleading to offer shares in a sneaker company that covertly intends to utilize investors’ money to promote violent rhetoric against the police? 
My next question can be considered hypothetical since social media platforms continue to deny censoring Conservative voices. That said, would it not be misleading to characterize a company as a public forum for both sides of the political aisle, rake in profits from both shareholders and consumers, while covertly utilizing investors’ dollars to steer the political agenda of those in charge? 
In addition, it’s difficult to imagine that although NIKE’s shares tumbled as a result of the Kaepernick ad, they’re reporting that sales were up 31%. As someone who has spent a lifetime in retail business management, I find that number to be unusual. How would a person go about investigating those sales figures? 
Also, how would a person go about getting access to the minutes of a meeting with Boards of Directors to ensure that CEOs did not make these seemingly impulsive decisions on their own, without their opportunity for a full review by their board? 
Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. 
Just do it or just blew it?
Do you think NIKE and similar SJW Corporations should be allowed to be publicly traded? Not all investors trade directly with companies. For example, many people rely on brokers to to invest for them through their employer with bundled 401K’s. 
Do you think NIKE has acted with the best interests of their investors at heart? This is not the first time they’ve sided with athletes who kneel during the national anthem. And they already have a track record proving that it’s not a good idea. CNN Money reported last year that NIKE stocks were “fumbling.” However, it was unclear if the decreased stock value was due to their siding with athletes regarding their diss of our National Anthem and all that it represents. 
As a company notorious for exploiting Chinese slave labor, is NIKE even positioned to portray themselves as Social Justice Warriors? 
If this trend is allowed to continue, could it not provide a means to manipulate stock markets and create a state of volatility? 
Silver lining.

If nothing else, the internet is blazing with hilarious NIKE memes. Share your favorites in the SpotIM comments system below this post! 

Like Real Great Americans on Facebook! Follow on Twitter (IMOwired heading)


Sources sales up 31%

New York Post-NIKE shares tumble

CNN Money– NIKE stocks fumble (last year)

Cornell Law School

Related Links

Diamond and Silk-Facebook censorship

Brandon Straka Founder of #WalkAway movement-possible Facebook censorship