An article in today's Hatchet notes some controversy that RHA's annual "Target takeover" has created.  The controversy stems from Target's $150,000 contribution to Minnesota Forward, a Republican-leaning political action committee.

Some left-wing organizations like Move.org and some gay rights activists, including some on GW's campus asking President Knapp to cancel the event, claim that Target is funding bigotry, making it seem like Minnesota Forward is devoted to passing an amendment to ban gay marriage and limit the constitutional liberties of gay and lesbian Americans.  In actuality, this is a preposterous distortion.

Minnesota Forward's mission statement according to their website is, "to ensure that private-sector job creation and economic growth are at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign. We are working with a broad coalition of Minnesota job creators to elect candidates from both parties who support policies that enhance job growth in Minnesota."  Minnesota Forward has three main objectives: tax reform, spending reform, and education reform.  Nowhere on their website or mission statement are social issues such as gay rights even alluded to.

So what's the problem with Target's donation to Minnesota Forward according to these left-wingers calling for a boycott?  Well, it's the fact that Minnesota Forward endorsed Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who is staunchly against gay marriage and favors an amendment to ban it in Minnesota.

Minnesota Forward endorses and supports candidates based on their economic and fiscal platforms - not because of social issues - it's not a consideration.  In fact, out of the 6 Minnesota House and Senate candidates they endorsed, 3 were Republicans and 3 were Democrats, all with extremely diverse views on social issues, including State Sen. Terri Bonoff and Jim Metzen, both who have recently recieved a 100% rating from OutFront Minnesota, an LGBT rights organization.

Target did not directly support or endorse Tom Emmer.  An organization they donated to did.  Far-left radical organizations like MoveOn are purposely distorting Target's contribution to Minnesota Forward to make it seem like they directly supported an anti-gay rights politician to advance MoveOn's political and financial agenda.

GW students calling for the boycott must be grossly misinformed on the basic facts of this story and have let the the dissemination of misinformation by radical groups trick them into believing that Target was going around intentionally advancing an anti-gay platform.  Had some up in arms over this controversy done some basic research, they would have discovered the Target-anti-gay marriage connection is completely indirect and blown entirely out of proportion.

The Target boycott movement resembles the worst of American partisanship.  A political donation was distorted by one far side of America's ideological spectrum.  Many Americans sympathetic to that part of the spectrum believed the hype without considering the facts, and in turn created a non-existent controversy.  The entire notion of boycotting Target for this (which they apologized for donating to Minnesota Forward for good measure, which apparently wasn't enough) makes anyone advocating for this either a tactful liar or a blind partisan.

Whoever comments with the wittiest summation of this SKnappshot wins!

Photo credit: gwu.edu news center.

Patriot editors will be at the student org fair tonight in University Yard from 7-9pm.

If you'd like to write for The Patriot, now is your chance! If you can't make it, email inquiries to thegwpatriot@gmail.com.

Or, input your info here:

On the front page of the Hatchet last week was a story about Tim Foley, a sophomore at GW who happens to be the son of two of the Russians spies recently caught by US authorities and subsequently deported back to the Russia.  There are several facets behind this August 26th, 2010 story that amount to a disgusting lack of class, respect, and journalistic integrity on the part of the Hatchet.

On August 28, 2010, thousands of patriotic Americans descended upon the National Mall in Washington, DC. Their message: Restore honor and integrity back to America. Uphold the values of the Founding Fathers. Convey the idea of less government to the people running the government.

The event was certainly historic. Hundreds of thousands of people gathering out of admiration for the Founders of this country and subsequent leaders who have championed liberty, freedom, and individualism. Each of these Americans saw 8/28 as a window of opportunity to communicate their dissatisfaction of government, and to question why our current leaders tend to contravene principles that humans have been conscious of for thousands of years. All of them have called into question the progressive eroding of personal freedoms. Many are stunned as to how mandated healthcare, cap and trade, and “stimulus packages” are even considered serious legislation or constitutionally admissible. After speaking with several “disgruntled” individuals, all of whom claimed to be small business owners, I realized that many considered the looming threat of higher taxes in this near double dip recession potential“robbery.” So why does Washington, even after such a strong egalitarian showing of the nation’s discontent, continue to shove welfare statism and spending down our throats?

My guess is as good as anyone's guess. What I can conclude from Congress’s blatant crassness is that certain values crucial to the preservation of our constitutional republic are no longer “significant” to society, and considered “antiquated.” At least that is what the Left continues to tell us. How many times have we heard that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that refashions itself as times change? Despite the longevity of that argument, thousands of Americans rejected it unanimously by attending the rally on Saturday. These people articulated that it is not the values we need to retire, but rather the people who try to alter them.


I should take this opportunity to point out several lies expressed by a few obnoxious journalists, specifically that the rally was a de facto tea party event, or a “whites only” rally. While most of the attendees were conservative-minded individuals, several seemed to convey their political ideology as “moderate” or “independent.” Glenn Beck specifically stated that the rally was apolitical and nonpartisan (I wonder if Al Sharpton’s rally was nonpartisan). As someone who was standing amongst the crowd, I can honestly say that I did not see a single piece of signage that contained racist slogans, nor did I hear anybody shout anything derogatory. These individuals, most of them elderly, were probably the most kind, respectful occupants of the National Mall in a long time! The conviction that everyone at these types of rallies are “racists” is the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever heard. Yes, let’s all believe Grandma Betsy is a racist because she attends a rally hosted by Glenn Beck and waves a flag displaying “NOBAMA.” Or thousands of people wearing “Don’t Tread on Me” pins are bigoted Christians who love clinging to their guns and religion. At one point that morning, as I was taking a cab from Washington Circle to F Street, my taxi driver took one look at the masses of people exiting the Foggy Bottom Metro station and exclaimed, “Look at all of those Glenn Beck people! They’re all chubby and old and they’ll believe anything you tell them.” I shrugged off the ignorant remark, but came close to asking him how that Obama Kool-Aid was tasting.

At the root of this “Restoring Honor” movement, regardless of what critics say, is the notion that the government’s sole purpose is to secure and defend the individual rights of Americans. It’s not to provide welfare, nationalize industry, or bailout banks and corporations. It’s not to take our hard-earned money and practically hand it to another, less deserving person. The current Democratic establishment in Washington has for too long instituted fiscally irresponsible legislation that has suffocated every American businessman and every American family. Comparably, the Republican establishment falls short when it comes to implementing policies that would institute less government, namely, riding taxpayers of so-called “sacred cows.” The message that Americans sent to Congress and the President on Saturday was the idea that the only legitimate power in a constitutional republic is derived from the consent of the governed. Without that popular consent, the government, and those at the helm of the sinking ship, are governing illegitimately, and without honor.

President Lincoln eloquently said “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.” And what would be more of a national crisis than the ceaseless obliteration of our individual freedoms?

How much money would you give to GW in order to have a building named after you?

$5 million? $10 million? More? Well, it's your lucky day! Pelham hall is now West Hall, which essentially means the naming rights to the new building on the Vern are now up for auction.