We're Looking For A Few Useful Idiots

Some years back, certain recruitment advertising for the U.S. Marine Corps carried the slogan: "We're Looking for a Few Good Men." I'm thinking that the above title ought to be the slogan for the ''secular left.'' Here's why:
Let's presume that the homosexual lifestyle and the gay political agenda carry no deleterious societal effects, and no negative metaphysical or karmic repercussions (i.e., it's not aberrant or sinful); imagine it's just ingrained, as we hear so often, like preferring buxom redheads or guys with goatees.
The secular left would have Americans believe that our homosexual population is in the neighborhood of 10%. Many on the right maintain 1% to 3% is a more accurate assessment. As my wife is fond of saying, "There are three sides to every story" (I hope I haven't used that line before). I honestly believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. Given this, the percentage of homosexuals who are far-left activists versus those who simply practice homosexuality is anyone's guess. The likely answer is that those who are simply folks forging through life like the rest of us far outnumber those for whom it has become an imperative to transform America into a Roman orgiastic nightmare.
So, if we're truly looking at a figure more in the area of 5%, why is it that more and more major corporations have decided to play Russian Roulette (using extremely high-caliber revolvers) with regard to their sales, their lifeblood, and their responsibility to stockholders?
"What's that, you say?"
The American Family Association and The Commercial Closet have been engaged in a cyberspace feud for some time now. The AFA (which has actually been around since 1977) is what might be considered a vehicle of the Religious Right. Its claim: "The American Family Association represents and stands for traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media--including pornography--on our society."
The Commercial Closet? Well, its Mission Statement reads: "The Commercial Closet Association educates and influences the powerful advertising industry to understand, respect, and include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) references in advertising to achieve a more accepting society while achieving successful business results." Further, its Vision Statement is: "Through our work, we see LGBT inclusion and equality as commonplace in effective mainstream advertising and in society."
"Commonplace?" First, let's not forget those percentages. Second, suffice it to say that my reconnaissance missions to the ''Closet'' never fail to leave me thoroughly nauseated. While we've seen the proliferation of divorced and blended family television shows and commercials, this target market far, far, outstrips that of the GLBT market. Bottom line? Like it or not, most Americans are repulsed in the extreme by commercials that feature two women or two men deep kissing, hanging out in bed, or the man who makes no big deal of discovering the date he just brought home is a transvestite. As I've mentioned before, the ''Closet,'' while claiming not to be a pressure group, lists the "evil" (non GLBT-compliant) corporations and the "good" (GLBT-compliant) ones right on its home page.
One of the more publicized firefights in which the AFA and the ''Closet'' are currently engaged involves the Ford Motor Company, that has made no secret of actively targeting and sympathizing with the GLBT market. The AFA (whose members were instrumental in forcing NBC to pull Madonna's "crucifixion" from her television special) has been extremely active in terms of getting the word out about Ford. The company has, through its actions and statements, publicly given the AFA (and presumably, anyone who claims solidarity with AFA) the middle digit.
Has all this had an effect on the auto giant? You tell me…
Note this article by MSNBC on December 5, 2005: "Ford to Close More Than Eight Plants." Subtitle: "Ford Motor Company plans to close more than eight North American assembly and parts plants in a drive to revive faltering operations on the continent…"
And note this article from CNN on January 23, 2006: "Ford to Cut Up to 30,000 Jobs." Subtitle: "No. 2 automaker to close 14 North American manufacturing plants in effort to stem losses."
So things got that much worse between December 2005 and January 2006, did they? How about this, then..?
The Associated Press, October 23, 2006: "Ford Loses $5.8B in 3Q on Sagging Sales." Excerpt: "Dearborn, Mich. - Ford Motor Co.'s blue oval continued to bleed red ink in the third quarter, with the company posting a $5.8 billion loss Monday due to sagging North American sales and huge costs associated with a massive restructuring plan.
"It was the largest quarterly loss in more than 14 years for the nation's second-biggest automaker, and company officials predicted things would get worse in the fourth quarter as market share drops and Ford pays for further plant closures to bring its manufacturing in line with lower demand for its products."
Now, you don't suppose..? No..! Could it be that among the silent majority of Americans who have better things to do than protest and lobby and exchange expletives on left-wing blogs, some quietly chose to buy their vehicles elsewhere, perhaps from a company that wasn't actively engaged in our cultural annihilation? I imagine some sort of study might have to be done…
Again, the question: Why would a billion-dollar corporation seek to actively alienate the majority of Americans? When you think about it, what Ford is doing makes less sense than Bill Clinton nearly throwing it all away for a few minutes of sloppy sex with a certain pudgy trollspawn.
The answer: Useful Idiots. When gay activist groups and lobbyists approach these corporations (likely employing Jesse Jackson's modus operandi), who do you think they're dealing with? Discounting those who may sympathize for personal reasons (being gay, having a gay child, etc.), they're dealing with the powdered wigs of our age, fabulously wealthy people who live insular, rarified lives. Perhaps they've just been presented with statistics that reflect half of America as GLBT. "Very well, then… Let the masses have their faggotry, if that's what they really want. I mean, it's not like my Biff or Muffy are going to 'turn into one,' [guffaw, guffaw]!"
The gay political agenda is not and never has been one of "rights" or representation for homosexuals. It is one of international socialists seeking to subvert established paradigms in order to gain control over an intellectually misdirected and overly-sexualized populace.
From a marketing angle: People who practice homosexuality don't "require" targeted marketing any more than I as a person of mixed race "require" it--although I'll admit it would make for an interesting ad campaign. "Drink 'Beige Beer'! Wealthy nymphomaniacs will beat a path straight to your door!"
And that, God willing, will be the last time that I equate homosexuality with ethnicity to make a point.
from Chron Watch / Erik Rush