A Penny Saved Is a J.C. Penney Spurned
June 21, 2012 - Thursday
J.C. Penney has lost its way--and in the process, its profits! "Is J.C. Penney trying to become GayC Penney?" ABC News is asking--and so are customers. In the last several months, the company once known for its Christian roots has undergone a radical transformation. It started last year, when J.C. Penney hired Ellen DeGeneres, a vocal proponent of same-sex "marriage," as its spokesperson.
The choice drew fire from several people who thought DeGeneres was a departure from the store's longstanding values. When organizations like American Family Association's One Million Moms complained, J.C. Penney's new president, Michael Francis, stubbornly dug in his heels. On Mothers' Day, the company shocked consumers with a blatant endorsement of homosexuality in an ad that featured two moms. The grassroots protested again. J.C. Penney responded with another same-sex ad for Father's Day. Underneath, the text read, "What makes Dad so cool? He's the swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer, and hug giver--all rolled into one. Or two."
As Ford Motors will tell you, siding with radical homosexuals has its price. And in J.C. Penney's case, the cost is about $163 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, J.C. Penney's stock "has lost more than a third of its value since a disastrous earnings report in mid-May, when Penney's posted a $163 million loss and said sales fell 20% in the first three months of its fiscal year." CEO Ron Johnson also admitted that Father's Day sales were a bust. "Penney's shares fell 8.8% Tuesday to their lowest level in a year, [and] store traffic was down 10%."
Obviously, the company's far-Left approach is driving away shoppers--and its executives. Michael Francis was fired after just eight months on the job. Whether J.C. Penney will learn from its mistakes is yet to be seen. But its freefall should serve as a warning to other companies who are itching to jump on the same-sex bandwagon. Catering to homosexuals may earn you a pat on the back from the Human Rights Campaign, but in the long term, it's bad business. Americans want corporate neutrality in the culture wars, and when they don't find it, they'll go elsewhere--like my family has done with J.C. Penney. Shoppers are shrewd enough to know that speaking up is important--but sometimes what speaks the loudest is their wallets.
Let this be a cautionary tale to General Mills, Starbucks, and other corporations on the wrong side of the marriage war. This is a political wager that companies will lose. Even Target is putting its bulls-eye on traditional families by introducing a new line of same-sex merchandise. One hundred percent of the proceeds are dedicated to putting Christian adoption agencies out of business. If you haven't signed our petition protesting the company's "love is love" campaign, click here. Then, print out the flyer of protest and take it to your local store!
Court Sends a 'Fleeting' Look the FCC's Way
It wasn't the ruling that most Americans are waiting for, but today's Supreme Court decision was still an important one. Eight years after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" on national television, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was still fighting for the right to fine networks for incidents like it. We're talking about what broadcasters call "fleeting occurrences." Those are the brief moments on live television when nudity or profanity occurs. Networks have argued that they shouldn't be liable for indecency if it's "unscripted."
Millions of viewers--and the FCC--disagreed. After an avalanche of complaints, the FCC modified its policy in 2006 to fine networks for a single word or scene, and it's been the subject of ongoing legal challenges ever since. Ultimately, the issue worked its way to the high court, where producers had hoped that the justices would strike down the FCC's "fleeting" rules altogether--turning television into a racy 24/7 free-for-all. Although the court agreed that the FCC should have given the networks more notice about its broadcast decency rules, it stopped short of making a judgment on the policies themselves.
Unanimously, the justices decided not to overturn the "fleeting expletives" regulations and remanded the case back to a lower court. In the meantime, the justices gave FCC the green light to enforce their rules in the future--as long as broadcasters know what those rules are! At the end of the day, we had hoped the court would have upheld the old fines for Jackson's incident, Bono's profanity, and others, but we're also confident that that the justices will protect those penalties in the future. To read FRC's amicus brief in the case, click here.
Abortion Amendment Is Second to Nunnelee
By next week, the Supreme Court could strike down the entire health care law--but Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) isn't taking any chances. He's moving to protect taxpayers now. The Mississippi Congressman is taking aim at ObamaCare in the Financial Services bill that opens the backdoor to a massive expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion. As it's written, the appropriations plan funnels money to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee new multi-state health care exchanges. Under current law, the OMB's health care plans for federal workers can't cover elective abortions. Yet all but one of the multi-state exchanges it oversees can. That's a loophole Rep. Nunnelee is trying to close by tacking an amendment on to the overall Financial Services bill to bring the state coverage in line with the Hyde Amendment, which blocks the federal funding of abortion.
Using language from Congressman Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) Stop Abortion Funding in Multi-state Exchange Plans (SAFE) Act, Rep. Nunnelee managed to pass his amendment out of committee (28-20) yesterday. Now the measure heads to the floor, where House members will have the chance to strip abortion coverage options from any plan administered by a federal agency. Help Rep. Nunnelee keep taxpayers out of the abortion business. Contact your representatives and remind them that abortion isn't health care!
I West My Case
If you want to revitalize the economy, one Congressman says it'll take a lot more than jobs. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army Lieutenant Colonel, told a group on Capitol Hill that strengthening the family has to be a main ingredient in any recovery effort. During a talk about empowering the black community, he cited the breakdown of the African-American family as one of the most significant problems it faces today. "'Husband' and 'Wife' in the black community are at 28%; that leads to a failure in education and that leads to a failure in urban statistics and revitalization."
"Government can't do it alone," he said, "but the family can do it. My great grandmother was a slave, she put us in a boxcar, she didn't have it in the household, but she went and earned it and she taught us how to make money. So I do believe that you can do it, but it's going to take everyone--it's going to take the family, it's going to take the parents, it's going to take the church."
We tip our hat to Rep. West for highlighting the importance of the family--not just to economic freedom, but to every freedom! For the latest research to help you and your congressman make the case for the family's role in the economy, check out FRC's Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI).
** If you missed this week's webcast, "Two Weeks for Freedom," don't miss this clip with Gov. Mike Huckabee.