Last week (8-9-10) I told you, and on numerous occasions that the homosexual agenda goes far beyond the "right to marry", and this weeks boycott is just one of many examples of what I said.

Late Thursday, MoveOn.org announced plans to escalate its ongoing protest against Target, America's second-largest retailer. In an e-mail to supporters, the group described its new initiatives, "including skywriting above Target's headquarters, viral videos from angry customers, and live events outside stores around the country." It also plans to give the company an online petition with more than 200,000 signatories who promise to boycott the store "until it stops spending money on elections."

So why are the homosexuals and far left mad at target?  Did they disparage homosexuals or something?  Well, not directly.  And there seems to be confusion over what, exactly, landed Target in the doghouse. In an interview on Friday, Ilyse Hogue -- MoveOn's director of political action and the author of the emails -- stressed that her organization and the petition's signatories are focused on the question of Target's political contributions: "Target dramatically miscalculated the outrage of their customers when they tried to buy this election." In other words, Hogue believes that Target shouldn't make any political contributions at all.  The nerve!

On the other hand, most protesters are incensed by the specific politician that Target's money will help fund. The company gave $150,000 to MN Forward, a pro-business, pro-education political action group that is backing Minnesota state senator Tom Emmer for governor of Minnesota. While Emmer's economic priorities aren't terribly controversial, his social policies are a different matter: The senator has openly expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, and he previously met with Bradlee Dean, the leader of a group that vehemently opposes homosexuality.

First of all Target has done nothing illegal or wrong in their contributing.  By law they have every right to financially endorse whatever political candidate that they choose.  What gives homosexuals the right to expect that they can exert THEIR WILL on someone else, be they an individual or corporation? Why are they seemingly so arrogant when it comes to pushing their various agendas upon a citizenry that by and large rejects that "lifestyle choice"? (Perhaps not anymore)