Oh goody another boycott!

I really find most boycotts distasteful, no matter who is calling for one. I hate it when Left-wing groups do it, I hate it when Conservatives do it. So this story, about a group of women stricken with Offendeditis, yes,conservatives can contract this malady just like Liberals can, who are demanding we boycott J.C. Penney because they had Ellen DeGeneres do a commercial for them, she is a Lesbian you know, is pathetic. Who she sleeps with is her business. I remember catching some of her show, a few years ago. She had one of George W. Bush’s daughters on, and treated her very well. She seems like a decent person to me, what skin is it off my nose if she is a spokesperson for a store I sometimes shop at?

Donald Douglas has the commercial, that has so offended a group calling themselves One Million Moms, how original.

What is offensive about this ad? Nothing, but, the mere fact that DeGeneres is playing for the other team offends this group. So it is boycott time! Give me a break! This is more like look at us time

A J. C. Penney Christmas commercial featuring openly gay talk show host Ellen DeGeneres has angered a Christian group called One Million Moms, which called for a boycott of the retailer.

“JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again,” the group said in a statement. “Christians must now vote with their wallets.”

“We have contacted J C Penney’s several times in the past with our concerns, and they will not listen,” the statement continued. “They have decided to ignore our complaints and so we will avoid them at all costs.”

The group — which is affiliated with the ultraconservative American Family Assn. — has criticized J. C. Penney several times this year for ads or commercials including lesbian or gay people. 

In February, One Million Moms urged shoppers to boycott Penney’s after the company first named DeGeneres as a spokeswoman, but later dropped the campaign after several critics, including Fox News host Bill O’Reilley, attacked the group’s efforts.

Oh they are afilliated with the AFA, that explains a lot. Groups like these strike me as people who like to think that everything on TV ought to be pre-approved by them. You can hit their website and check out the things that outrage them. Many of the alerts I saw were asinine frankly. Sorry, folks, but EVERYTHING on TV is not going to be for children. They are no better than the politically correct Liberals who want to shut up anyone who says things they do not like. They strike me as overly sensitive and whiny, two things that are a big part of what is wrong with America. There are many channels, many shows, many movies, many choices. If you do not like something then change the channel, it is not difficult!

So, I am sure I have now offended some Social Conservatives, and that is OK. I am more of a person that believes that in a free society, we are going to be offended sometimes. When a place of business offends me in some way, I do not call for a boycott, I simply do not go back. When I see something I do not like on TV, I change the channel. When Bill Maher, or any of the MSNBS hosts say something twisted and despicable, and that is pretty much anytime they open their mouths, I do not try to launch a campaign to get them fired. Why would I they have a right to free speech too. And I enjoy using MY free speech to go after their ideologies. And yes, the One Million Easily Offended Moms have a right to call for a boycott, no matter how distasteful it is to me. See how it works?

I am shocked

Shocked I tell ya! William Teach has  a link to the Lindsay Lohan Nude pics in Playboy. William is a true blogging legend, and a heck of a good guy, and if I can get in on some hits by linking him…………

A little bit of traffic bait. Head here for the full uncensored pics, via Coed Magazine (probably not safe for work) through a link at The Chive. See them now before Playboy’s lawyers file a takedown order.

Traffic, as in hits? Sure, we will take some of that.

Daily Benefactor News – Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibit Features Ant-Covered Jesus, Naked Brothers Kissing, Genitalia, And Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts



————————————————————- TOP STORY ————————————————————-

Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibit Features Ant-Covered Jesus, Naked Brothers Kissing, Genitalia, And Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts – CNS

The federally funded National Portrait Gallery, one of the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, is currently showing an exhibition that features images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show’s catalog as “homoerotic.”

The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” opened on Oct. 30 and will run throughout the Christmas Season, closing on Feb. 13.

“This is an exhibition that displays masterpieces of American portraiture and we wanted to illustrate how questions of biography and identity went into the making of images that are canonical,” David C. Ward, a National Portrait Gallery (NGP) historian who is also co-curator of the exhibit, told CNSNews.com.

A plaque fixed to the wall at the entrance to the exhibit says that the National Portrait Gallery is “committed to showing how a major theme in American history has been the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity. As America’s museum of national biography, the NPG is also vitally interested in the art of portrayal and how portraiture reflects our ideas about ourselves and others.

“These themes, historic and artistic, come together in ‘Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,’ the first major exhibition to examine the influence of gay and lesbian artists in creating modern American portraiture,” says the plaque. “‘Hide/Seek’ chronicles how, as outsiders, gay and lesbian artists occupied a position that turned to their advantage, making essential contributions to both the art of portraiture and to the creation of modern American culture.”

The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian’s chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum’s annual report. The gallery’s overall funding in that year was $8 million.

St. Thomas told CNSNews.com that federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves, including the “Hide/Seek” exhibit. The federal funds received by the Smithsonian, she said, pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff, including the salaries for curators of exhibits. The exhibits presented at Smithsonian museums, including “Hide/Seek,” are funded by donations from individuals or institutions. Among the donors who provided support for the “Hide/Seek” exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery are The Calamus Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, The John Burton Harter Charitable Foundation, and The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation.

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a former senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, told CNSNews.com, “If the Smithsonian didn’t have the taxpayer-funded building, they would have no space to present the exhibit, right? In my own view, if someone takes taxpayer money, then I think the taxpayers have every right to question the institutions where the money’s going.”

“Think about the Washington Post,” he said. “They don’t have to publish every op-ed that they get, right? They own the platform. In this case [the Smithsonian Institution], the taxpayers own the platform and so the taxpayers should decide what is presented on that platform.”

Gary Scott, an economist who is a senior research fellow at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, had a similar view.

“Leaving aside the merit or lack of it in the exhibit itself, the notion that taxpayers don’t fund it is unpersuasive,” said Scott. “First, most of the overall budget derives from tax monies for the facility, and maintenance and staff. Second, the exhibit appears inside and is monitored by staff. Finally, if it was funded only by outside funding the exhibit would be outside in a snowdrift.”

A spokesperson for the gallery’s external affairs office said the cost to mount the “Hide/Seek” exhibit is $750,000, the most expensive exhibition to date at the National Portrait Gallery.

Located just seven blocks from the White House, the National Portrait Gallery is a Washington, D.C., tourist attraction because of its permanent collection of portraits of distinguished American figures. These include iconic pieces such as a version of Charles Willson Peale’s painting of George Washington after the Battle of Princeton and John Trumbull’s portrait of John Adams when he was vice president.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


—————————————————– NOTE TO READERS ——————————————————

THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!