Ask J.C. Penney: Supporting the Homosexual Agenda Can be Bad for business

Written on Friday, November 23, 2012 by David L. Goetsch

Investors are jumping ship on J.C. Penney in droves in response to CEO Ron Johnson’s new “every-day-low-prices” strategy.  However, to be fair Johnson inherited a company that was already in trouble, and the trouble had nothing to do with pricing.  J.C. Penney’s trouble actually began when it ignored the values of its customer base and began supporting the radical homosexual agenda.  Former CEO Michael Francis decided to make a statement about same-sex marriage and use the prestige of J.C. Penney to give his statement validity.  He could not have done a worse job of anticipating the unintended consequences of his actions, actions that cost J.C. Penney investors millions of dollars and threatened to drive the company into bankruptcy.

In deciding to support the radical homosexual agenda Francis must have thought, “With the support and approval of the mainstream media, how can I go wrong?”  He can be forgiven for thinking that having the assistance of the mainstream media would be enough to ensure success in his effort to make a positive statement about same-sex marriage.  After all, hadn’t the radical homosexual movement established a successful track record of using the mainstream media to bludgeon opponents into supporting its agenda or at least not opposing it?  Maybe the mainstream media would have a similar influence on J.C. Penney’s customer base.

If this was the assumption of Michael Francis, he misjudged both his customers and the effect of the media on them.  He hired comedienne Ellen DeGeneris, a homosexual and same-sex marriage advocate, as the company’s national spokesperson.  On Mother’s Day 2011, J.C. Penney shocked its customer base—people who, for the most part, still hold to traditional American values—with an intentionally provocative, same-sex marriage ad featuring a family with two “moms.”  Then in spite of a tidal wave of protests from customers, the retail giant obstinately ran a similar ad on Father’s Day featuring a family with two “dads.”  Francis quickly learned what happens when businesses ignore sound business practices in favor of political ideology.

Customer response to J.C. Penney’s in-your-face endorsement of homosexuality was hard for even the most ardent ideologue to ignore.  Following the controversial ads, the company posted a $163 million loss, saw its stock price drop by 8.8 percent, and endured a 10 percent decline in customer traffic.  CEO Michael Francis was fired for ignoring a rule retailers learn in Business 101: Know your customer. J.C. Penney has always appealed to a conservative, middle-American customer base.  The store was founded on traditional America values, and the majority of its customers still subscribe to those values.  When J.C. Penney walked away from its founding values, customers who still subscribe to those values walked away from J.C. Penney.

New CEO, Ron Johnson, was brought in to fix the problem, but he quickly learned that his predecessor’s misguided support of the radical homosexual agenda had left him with a larger than expected mountain to climb.  Another truth that every business leader must understand—and apparently Ron Johnson didn’t—is that when a business gets at odds with its customers, the disgruntled customers talk to friends and they, in turn, talk to friends and soon the “piling-on effect” comes into play.  There is a lesson in this for other businesses that feel the need to pander to the radical homosexual movement.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/ask-j-c-penney-supporting-the-homosexual-agenda-can-be-bad-for-business

Alec Baldwin is Wrong: If The caliph خليفة Benedict Arnold was White he would Not be President

Written on Monday, October 8, 2012 by David L. Goetsch

62

In a widely circulated message Hollywood liberal, Alec Baldwin, asserted that “If Obama was white he’d be up by 17 points” (in presidential preference polls).  I usually just ignore the comments of Hollywood liberals as the inane rhetoric of intellectually-challenged people who confuse stardom with substance. But Baldwin’s comment is so far out of bounds that it requires a rebuttal.  Let me state that rebuttal clearly: If Barack Obama was white he would never have been elected president in the first place, nor would he have a chance of being re-elected.  The demographics of his supporters in 2008 and his current strong showing in the polls—when one considers his record—make it clear that race is not just an asset for President Obama, it is his principle asset.

The breakdown of how groups voted in 2008 tells the story of Obama’s election.  He received 95 percent of the votes of blacks, 67 percent of Hispanics, 62 percent of Asians, and 66 percent of “others.” What white candidate could have captured 95 percent of the black vote and so disproportionate a percentage of the overall minority vote?  In interviews subsequent to the 2008 election, black and white voters could be heard proudly proclaiming that they voted for Barack Obama primarily because he is black. White independents voted for Barack Obama in sufficiently high numbers to ensure his election because they thought electing him would help mitigate America’s racial past and bridge the racial divide.  Even blacks who did not like Obama or his liberal policies have stated in interviews that they voted for him because of the historical significance of finally having a black man in the White House who is not a member of the staff.  It should be clear to even his most ardent supporters that if Barack Obama had been anything but a black candidate, he would have lost the election in 2008.

Obama’s race also partially explains his current standing in the polls.  Consider President Obama’s dismal record.  He has: 1) amassed a federal debt so large that our great grandchildren will still be paying for it, 2) forced a healthcare bill through Congress that will increase the cost of medical care while simultaneously decreasing its quality and will bankrupt Medicare, 3) lost $90 million on foolish “investments” in alternative energy ventures that are a long way from commercial viability, 4) appeared so weak in his foreign policy that terrorist mobs have no fear of murdering American embassy personnel and trashing our embassies, 5) angered the Jewish community with his anti-Israeli stance on the Palestinian issue, 6) allowed America’s credit rating to be downgraded, 7) put the economy on life support with his misguided economic policies, 8) oversaw a stubbornly persistent high unemployment rate and then tried to hide the fact by manipulating the statistics, 9) used our military services for leftist social experiments, and 10) undercut the viability of our military through massive budget cuts and additional planned cuts.

In short, Barack Obama has an abysmal record as president. In fact, he actually makes Jimmy Carter look good.  With his record, if President Obama happened to be white not only would he not be 17 points up in the polls as suggested by Alec Baldwin, he would be 17 points down, or more.  To suggest that Mitt Romney has been able to stay close with President Obama in the polls because he is white is a statement that should be enshrined in Ripley’s Believe it or Not under the category of world’s biggest whoppers.  Turn Mr. Baldwin’s twisted logic around and you will find the truth: If Mitt Romney were black, he would lead in the polls by 50 points.  We would not even need an election.  America would anoint him president.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/alec-baldwin-is-wrong-if-obama-was-white-he-would-not-be-president

Why I Refuse To Join the AARP

Written on Friday, September 7, 2012 by David L. Goetsch

17

I have reached that point in my life where cashiers at McDonalds—teenagers who cannot make change without the help of a computer—take one look at me and ask: “Would you like the senior discount.” What I would really like when asked this question is to take a sledge-hammer to the cashier’s skate board or pull the metal stud out of her nose. As you can see from my grouchiness, I am now old enough to qualify for membership in the AARP, if qualify is the right word. In spite of possessing the requisite qualifications—the need for bifocals and loss of short-term memory to name just two—I refuse to join the AARP. Why? The answer is simple: Because what was once known as the American Association of Retired Persons no longer has anything to do with helping retired people. Rather, it is about using its access to the elderly to make money—a lot of money—and using that money to pay its executives exorbitant salaries while lobbing for leftwing political causes such as Obamacare.

According to a new study produced after Congress asked the IRS to review the organization’s tax exempt status, AARP operates on a for-profit basis but enjoys the tax-exempt status of a non-profit enterprise. The AARP’s revenue in 2010 was $1.2 billion. If you are thinking the organization’s dues must be awfully high to generate that kind of cash, think again. Dues charged by the AARP are actually kept quite low because that is not where the lion’s share of the organization’s revenue comes from. AARP makes it money endorsing products aimed at elderly people and by allowing its name to be used—for royalties of course—by a private insurance firm that markets supplemental Medicare insurance. This cozy arrangement with the insurance company earned the AARP $670 million in 2010. In other words, the AARP makes its money in the same way that for-profit businesses make theirs.

The AARP’s most effective political strategy is using scare tactics to convince seniors that Congress is trying to take away their Medicare benefits, even though the organization’s executives know better. What is widely known in the halls of Congress as well as the halls of the AARP’s corporate headquarters is that even the most aggressive Medicare reform recommendations apply to no one over the age of 55. Ironically, AARP executives understand as well as anyone that Medicare reform must be part of the equation for solving America’s budget woes. In spite of this knowledge, AARP executives—in league with liberal politicians who operate with the same disregard for the future—stubbornly cling to their selfish goal of getting mine now.

Obamacare would not have passed without the strong support of seniors who were egged on by the purposefully deceitful scare tactics of the AARP. Telling seniors that they must support Obamacare or see their Medicare benefits reduced, the AARP was able to generate a tidal wave of grassroots support from seniors nationwide. The truth, known to AARP executives who deceitfully stirred up fear among the elderly in America, is that Obamacare not only fails to protect Medicare benefits, its cuts them by $500 million dollars annually to help finance other aspects of President Obama’s signature legislative “victory.”

If seniors heard the truth rather than the propaganda spread by the AARP, would they really support leftwing policies that will leave the country their grandchildren will inherit bankrupt? Although I hope this would not be the case, I cannot answer for other seniors. I can, however, answer for this senior and my answer is a resounding “NO!”

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/why-i-refuse-to-join-the-aarp

"Spinelss, Career Consumed, Perfumed Princes” in El Presidente’s Military

Written on Friday, August 10, 2012 by David L. Goetsch

48

Because I served in the Marine Corps many years ago, people sometimes ask my opinion on military issues.  Lately friends have been asking me about the proper response of military officers to President Obama’s order that all military personnel be supportive of open homosexuality in the ranks.  How should high-ranking military officers who are responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of military units and for protecting the morale of the troops in these units respond to the president’s order?  I attempt to answer this difficult and complex question herein.

First, some background.  When I served in the Marine Corps many years ago, one of the first things we learned was our obligation to obey all “lawful” orders.  Disobeying a lawful order was not just frowned on, it was a court-martial offense.  But what happens when an order, though lawful, is unethical, unconscionable, or just ill-advised?  Should military personnel obediently carry out such orders? Should they try to speak up on behalf of what is right?  Should they simply refuse to obey? What is the right course of action? How high-ranking military officers answer this question depends on their priorities and convictions.

Military personnel who put their careers above all else will obediently fall into line and carry out orders, no matter how unethical or ill-advised they might be.  Further, they will punish those who do not immediately obey.  Colonel David Hackworth—a courageous warrior and a man of deep convictions—called these self-serving politicians in uniform “spineless, career consumed, perfumed princes.”  This is an apt description, and anyone who has ever served in the military is familiar with this type of officer.

The middle-ground position is for officers to speak up and try to influence a bad decision before it is made or reverse an ill-advised order that has already been given.  Officers who choose this option are better than the “spineless, career consumed, perfumed princes,” but in the long run—when push comes to shove—they typically opt for career over conscience and begrudgingly fall into line. Several of the military’s highest ranking officers chose this option when President Obama first announced his intentions to eliminate the military’s “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy.  They grumbled a little, but quickly fell into line.

The final option is to make a statement by disobeying the unconscionable order.  This option takes courage because it inevitably brings severe consequences, and those who choose this option must be willing to accept the consequences.  An example of an officer who chose conscience over carrying out an unethical order is Lt. Gordon J. Klingenschmitt, a Navy Chaplain.  Pressured by his superiors to offer generic, nonsectarian prayers during Navy ceremonies, the Chaplain stood his ground and said no.  Klingenschmitt knew there would be consequences, but he was willing to accept them to shine a light on the secularization of religion in the military.  He has a higher calling than the military and a higher purpose than getting the next promotion.

Lt. Klingenschmitt entered the Navy as an Episcopal minister, a Chaplain whose job it is to minister to sailors on the basis of the Word of God and to provide comfort to those who are suffering in the name of Jesus.  But with Barack Obama in office, “Christianity” has become a bad word and the “spineless, career consumed, perfumed princes” are falling obediently into line behind the president.  Further, the politicians in uniform are turning courageous officers who stand on principle—officers like Chaplain Klingenschmitt—into martyrs.  When backed into a corner by President Obama’s obedient minions, this dedicated Chaplain decided to stand up for what is right and take the consequences.  He has been court-martialed and fined, but he may get the last laugh yet. Chaplain Klingenschmitt plans to leave the Navy rather than submit to the secularization of religion.  His departure will be a loss for the Navy, but a gain for people of principle.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/spinelss-career-consumed-perfumed-princes-in-obamas-military