In an October 13, 2010 opinion piece titled
"Political Target Practice," the Wall Street Journal reported what
Boycott Watch wrote in an August 16, 2010 article titled
Target / Emmer
Boycott by LGBT Groups is Baseless and False. Despite basic Internet
research revealing Boycott Watch broke the story two months prior;
unfortunately Boycott Watch was not given credit. There is also much the WSJ
and then Bill O'Reilly who reported the story both missed, yet would have known
had they taken the time to read other Boycott Watch articles.
In recapping our original story, the LGBT boycott of Target
Stores is baseless for several reasons. First, the reason for the boycott is
contrived. It's a fourth degree of separation from Target, and as the Kevin
Bacon game goes, any connection can be made in six degrees or less, and distant
links are irrelevant. Second, businesses which donate to candidates generally
donate equally to both sides, thus negating any claims of bias, but that was
purposely ignored by the boycotters. Third, Boycott Watch contacted the Emmer
Campaign which flatly denied and disproved any and all of the claims made by
the boycotters. In fact, when we called the Emmer campaign, they acknowledged
we were the first to contact them about this and that they had no press
releases or written rebuttals for the topic at the time. Yes, Boycott Watch
brought the topic to the Emmer Campaign and was therefore
first to cover the
story.
The story does not end there. Instead of admitting their
boycott is baseless, the boycott advocates have been turning up the heat,
revealing the real motives and their plan. You may recall that Boycott Watch
was also first to report how LGBT groups were boycotting supporters of
California's Proposition Eight which defined marriage as between one man and
one woman in November, 2008. The stories are related.
The simple fact is LGBT groups have started to use political
boycotts to specifically silence the free speech of people they do not agree
with two years ago. These boycotts were first used against pro-Prop Eight
supporters in San Francisco. Soon thereafter, the usage of boycotts to silence
free speech was expanding the political boycott to silence free speech with
Arizona SB 1070. In that case, a boycott of the entire state of Arizona was
launched, thereby attempting to give non-Arizona residents political votes in
Arizona. Both boycotts failed.
Boycott Watch President Fred Taub was quoted in the LA times
among other newspapers; he was the guest on several radio shows including on
Green 960 AM KKGN and KQED, San Francisco's NPR station where he challenged the
boycotts being used to silence free speech as anti-American. Fred's argument is
"… this great nation was build on the idea of free speech and
respecting the views of others, even if you do not agree with them. Silencing
the opposition is what oppressive dictators do. … Silencing free speech
has no place in the United States."
Boycott Watch has written six previous articles on the topic.
Monday, November 17, 2008
California:
Free Speech V. Boycotts
Boycotts used to intimidate and deny freedom of speech
Monday, November 24, 2008
California:
Free Speech V. Boycotts
Boycotts used to intimidate and deny freedom of speech
Monday, November 24, 2008
Boycott Watch
in the Sacramento Bee and on KVMR: "Prop 8 Boycotts are protests against
free speech."
Summary: Fred Taub wins the argument when his opponents refused to protect free
speech.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
More Efforts to
Silence Free Speech in California
Despite what they call it, it's not a boycott.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Boycott of Glenn Beck Show
Fails
Political progressives again try to silence free speech.
http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/beck1.htm
Monday, August 31, 2009 (Revised)
Whole Foods
Boycotted for Expressions of Free Speech
Boycotting free speech is anti-American
The fact is, Boycott Watch is the first and only site to
document how boycotts are being used to silence political opposition, thus free
speech itself, and the Boycott Watch reports on the topic prove an alarming
trend. Based on this, Boycott Watch makes the following points:
- Every boycott needs a negotiable end point to be
successful. Without an end resolution, open ended boycotts are generally
ignored since the boycotters degrade themselves when the public realized they
can never be made happy. This something Boycott Watch has repeatedly reported.
Even if the boycotters have not thought of an end strategy, Target surely has.
Considering the boycotters are, as evidenced by the previous article, pro-union
and will settle for unionization of Target since it will add to their political
base and give the boycotters the ability to call for strikes against Target, or
any other store they try the same tactics with.
- This is, therefore, a work-around to the laws which forbid
the use of boycotts to force a company to join a union. Since the union itself
has not called for nor has been directly involved with the boycott, no union
will be in violation of the law, thus the LGBT groups and George Soros dollars
supporting the issue are being used to indirectly come to the same end result.
It is still possible that we may see collusion and antitrust lawsuits filed if
Target is pushed into a union deal. The damage to free speech, however, is
still expanding via the efforts to silence opposition by using boycotts to
threaten the livelihoods of people some disagree with.
You may not agree with someone, but that does not give
anyone the right fabricate hate-filled messages or to silence someone by
threatening their very livelihood. If you respect free speech, then you must
respect voters, the election process and not try to silence people blatantly
false claims.
Despite the desire by LGBT groups to subvert an election by
making false claims against Emmer, The Target / Emmer boycott is beyond just
that. It is a ploy to force a union on Target in order to maximize the
political power of Progressives over Target and other businesses in order to
steer political donations their way. As Boycott Watch has previously written,
businesses should avoid getting involved with political hot button issues. In
this case we see the opposite - political groups are insisting on imposing and
controlling all aspects of a business so it complies with their political plan.
There is a word for that: Marxism. |
| |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
