Hardly a day goes buy that I don't get a email from someone, usually a fellow Catholic, urging me to boycott some retailer or another. These "feel good" messages typically point out a corporate policy and inform me that I should be outraged and refuse to do business with the company. There is often the implied message that I am going against my faith by not complying. In truth, most of the time the corporate policy in question is one I disagree with, but that doesn't convince me to boycott the business. In fact, I often find the plea to be somewhat hypocritical.

First, let me explain why I generally don't go along with these boycotts, and why that decision is not contrary to my faith. Typically, the offending business is a large corporation that has made some contribution to a cause that I do in fact find immoral. Does that make me culpable if I patronize their local store? No, not if my intent is to buy a product, and not to support the cause. My intent determines my guilt in supporting or cooperating with evil. For instance, one of the latest pleas is to boycott Starbucks because the company supports gay "marriage." When I buy a coffee from the local shop, am I doing so because I support redefining a Sacrament of the Church? No, I'm buying the coffee because I want a consistently made, somewhat decedent and over-priced cup of coffee. My support, if you want to call it that, of the local retailer and their employees in no way indicates support for what I consider an immoral lifestyle. Is Starbucks in business for the purpose of supporting gay marriage? No, Starbuck is the business of selling me a consistently made, somewhat decedent and over-priced cup of coffee. My action is too far removed from the corporate policies to make me culpable. I am not cooperating in the actions of the corporation.

It is also interesting that local Starbucks employees are active in helping the homeless and those in need. My patronage of the local store would have a greater affect on these local folks, than the corporate board room. Ironically, it wasn't too long ago that the tables were turned and folks were urging a boycott of Starbucks because they do support traditional American, and Constitutional values.

The Target chain is another target (sorry) of a boycott call. Apparently the chain sells a "gay pride" t-shirt. Don't like the "gay pride" shirt? Don't buy it. Shopping at Target doesn't make me a supporter of "gay marriage." If I purchased the offending items, that would be a different story.

Ironically again, Target faced a boycott a couple years ago because they gave money to an "anti-gay" political candidate.

I don't give money to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. I don't vote for politicians who support positions I find offensive or immoral. Those would be direct actions that would make me guilty of cooperating with evil. As opposed to the Starbucks example, Planned Parenthood's main function, the reason for its existence, is immoral. To give support to them would be to directly support their mission.

I mentioned the hypocrisy of the boycott calls, emailed to me using a computer that is either running the Windows operating system, or the system from Apple. The Gates Foundation is one of the largest global supporters of abortion and sterilization world wide. And Apple Computer uses its corporate wealth to support redefining marriage. So maybe the senders of these emails aren't really all that sold on using the boycott as a tool after all. I'll make a deal with you. You stop using products from these companies, and I'll reconsider where I buy my morning coffee.

H/T The Smallest Majority

... is worth a thousand words.

Classic "I support the 2nd Amendment, however..."

Dear Mr. [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent legislative efforts that would create reciprocity for concealed carry permits.

I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate around Second Amendment rights.  I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I supported full funding of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the only national database that flags individuals who are precluded under current law from purchasing or possessing firearms.  I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

In the aftermath of the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona and in light of the Virginia Tech shootings, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure firearms do not get into the wrong hands.  In the United States Senate, legislation on gun control generally falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member.  However, I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

He pontificates on his support for "law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms" but at the same time believes those same law-abiding citizens turn into non-trustworthy citizens as soon as they board an Amtrak train. And throwing the VA Tech shooting out there is a typical gun grabber misdirection.

Sorry Senator, you can't be "half pro-2A" any more than you can be "half pregnant."

You need to watch this. It's important to all Americans, not just our Jewish compatriots.

This should be very interesting.

The Washington Post is holding a photo caption contest. As you can see, it involves beer and President, um, O'bama. Head over the the Washington Post page to see the entries so far, or enter your own.

Photo Credit: Charles Dharapak - AP

H/T to Beer in Baltimore.

I recently mused about the trustworthiness of a person who objects to the right of self-defense or who advocates "gun control." Over at JFPO, there's an article which looks at the mindset, and motivations of the propagandists who work against our rights.

The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. 

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

The author goes on to list seven categories these oppressors fall into.

1. Elitists
2. Authoritarians
3. Criminals
4. The Fearful
5. Ideological Chameleons
6. Security Monopolists
7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

I found the divisions, and the accompanying descriptions, to be frightenly accurate. Go read the article. It makes for a good defense to know the enemy.

Here: The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

There's a battle over religious freedom brewing in the United States. Currently the aggressors are focusing on the Catholic faithful. However, people of all faiths should be concerned. While the opening volley happens to focus on the Catholic church, this is ultimately an attack on all Americans and on the freedoms we treasure. Russell Shaw opined last year that religious persecution in the United States "will be a tight-lipped campaign of secularist inspiration in which the coercive power of the state is brought to bear on church-related institutions to act against conscience or go out of business."

The declaration by President Barack Hussein Obama ordering the Catholic Church to violate its fundamental beliefs was only the first wave of an assault that shows no sign of letting up. The president's declaration was met, thankfully, by indignation by the Church in the U.S. Over most of the country last weekend, Catholics heard statements from their Bishops, read during Mass, condemning this attack. Here in the Arlington Diocese, we heard a statement from Bishop Loverde.