Boycott Watch  
October 19, 2010
Target / Emmer Boycott Revisited -
the Marxist Agenda the WSJ and O'Reilly Missed
Summary: The Wall Street Journal and Bill O'Reilly recently covered the Target Stores / Minnesota Gubernatorial Republican Candidate Steve Emmer boycott topic, yet failed to give Boycott Watch credit. They also missed the bigger picture.
    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.

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.

E-Mail This Page to a Friend
Enter the recipient's e-mail address:

(Click here to return to top of page)
 ©2003-2008 Boycott Watch