Russell Pearce’s B.A.N. calls for boycott of Phoenix New Times advertisers


A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, April 7, 2012

Monday, March 26, B.A.N. leadership announced a “buy-cott” of retailers and restaurants who purchased paid advertisements in ultra-liberal, pro-Amnesty, pro-illegal immigration rags like the Phoenix New Times.

“The pro-amnesty New Times is 100% dependent on ad-revenue,” said Sean McCaffrey, B.A.N. founder. “Without ad dollars spent by local businesses, the New Times could not afford to print their vicious, heinous attacks against law enforcement, elected officials and conservative leaders who dare to oppose illegal immigration, dare to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, dare to enforce the law, and dare to put American workers first.”

In a recent online survey, 98.5% of supporter respondents said they would actively support a boycott of New Times advertisers. In response to this clear mandate, Ban Amnesty Now will publish a list of prominent New Times advertisers (CLICK HERE FOR THE LIST).

“I am confident responsible conservatives will take this buy-cott to heart, and stop spending their hard-earned dollars with businesses and restaurants that support the illegal alien agenda,” said Sen. Russell Pearce, president of B.A.N. “There are plenty of car dealers, retailers and great Arizona restaurants that don’t advertise in the New Times that will be happy to have our business.”

In addition, B.A.N. will also make available a “You Lost My Business Coupon” which B.A.N. supporters may print and give to “Buy-Cotted” establishments (CLICK HERE FOR THE COUPON).

With more than 800,000 active members and supporters nationwide, over half of whom reside in Arizona, our hope is that B.A.N. patriots will choose to spend their money with retailers and restaurants that do not fund hyper-partisan, pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration media establishments dedicated to attacking public servants like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other leading conservatives.

Please also click here to follow B.A.N. and this “Buy-Cott” on Facebook.

Join Our Mailing List

Comments

  1. AmericaFirst says:

    Sean Caffrey and APG, please spend a few minutes investigating what, exactly, the term “buy-cott” means before looking like ignorant fools.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buycott

    “A buycott is the opposite of a boycott; that is, an active campaign to buy the products or services of a particular company or country.”

    • Conservative American says:

      “…our hope is that B.A.N. patriots will choose to spend their money with retailers and restaurants that do not fund hyper-partisan, pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration media establishments dedicated to attacking public servants like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other leading conservatives.”

      Anything else?

      You, of course, as a Conservative, don’t support the New Times anyway, isn’t that right?

    • Conservative Railbird says:

      Interesting the the populist and sometimes misinformed wikipedia is the final reference source for popular culture.

      As for a boycott of the PNT? Not much chance of that since most B.A.N. supporters aren’t the target consumer for most of the ads in the PNT. So its pretty much a dumb idea.

      • Conservative American says:

        CR wrote: “…most B.A.N. supporters aren’t the target consumer for most of the ads in the PNT.”

        Not true. If you visit the website of the PNT you will find advertisements from a gun shop, restaurants, a health food store and so on. Have a look for yourself:

        http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/adIndex/

        Many may be doing business with these companies without knowing that they advertise in the PNT. The point is that if you find out that they are advertising there, let them know how you feel about it.

        • “If you visit the website of the PNT you will find advertisements from a gun shop, restaurants, a health food store and so on”

          Yes, I’m Hippie Gypsy, Shirts N’ Things, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, etc. are just losing sleep of losing sleep over the loss of their non-existent crossover business with Russell Pearce.

          Maybe the K1 Speed Indoor Raceway will be more fun now, with the loss of the Russell Pearce business – less old people in the right-hand land with their blinkers on, clogging up the track.

          Now, if Metamucil, Dignity Cemeteries, and Plavix were advertising in the New Times, this “buy-cott that is actually a boycott, but we’re too stupid to fix our mistake” might work.

          • Conservative American says:

            Yes, they said that man could never run a mile in under four minutes. They said we could never put a man on the moon. There have always been naysayers who will tell us what can’t be done. Their objective is usually to keep us from trying.

            Thank you very much, Klute, but we’ll try anyway.

            Have a nice day! :-)

  2. UtterlyConfused says:

    Boycott? Buycott? Do you realize BAN has the same acronym as the Border Action Network that wants to eliminate our border? I kind of think I know what you are advocating but it took me reading to the very end to figure it out, and I’m still not sure I know what you are talking about.

  3. Thanks for the list!

    First company I saw was Cox Communications.
    I’ve been wanting to upgrade our connection for some time now.
    Thanks to the list I’ve done that.
    And, added a few more things I don’t even need.
    Oh, and I noted it was due to seeing their ad in New Times…even though I haven’t picked one up since high school.

    If it’s going to companies that tweak the far right I’m all for it.
    Even better if Herr Pearce opposes it.

    We’ll do our best to patronize each and every company on this list.

    • Conservative American says:

      You know, Rob, sometimes you write really thoughtful stuff and then you write one of these pubescent comments. We’ve all seen this type of comment countless times on the internet and it is meaningless.

      • Going to take the wife and kids to see 21 Jump Street.
        Just bought the tickets online.

        At Harkins Theaters.

        But first, we’ll take the kids to Wildlife World Zoo.
        The Aquarium is pretty cool.

        Afterwards we’ll swing by Oregano’s for dinner.
        Then we’ll drop the kids off and the wife and I will hit a couple Casinos.
        I’m not a big gambler but am always up for a couple cold beers.
        (I’ll have to check if there’s a particular brand that BAN/Pearce “recommends”).

        If we run into you the first rounds on me, ConAm.

  4. McCaffrey and Pearce didn’t care about the New Times until they asked for BANs tax returns. Thats what this is all about.

    • Conservative American says:

      And you have proof positive that that is what this is all about, I’m sure, LOL!

    • This is a great plant ideawise. And CA bought it. Let’s get that public information and digest it, then see how many conservatives are ready to defend this group.

  5. Tiny Elvis says:

    Hmm, didn’t Pearce criticize Grijalva when he called for a boycott after 1070?

    How is this different?

    • The difference is boycotting those who support of the rule of law (Grijalva) and boycotting those who sponsor street filth who support lawlessness. If you don’t understand it, you don’t want to.

      • Tiny Elvis says:

        Glad you’ve justified the difference in your head. You know what both boycotts have in common? Pathetic publicity stunts instigated by grand-standing politicians heavy on rhetoric.

  6. Boycotts* work only if the demographics of those participating in the boycott are also the demographic of those buying the boycotted product.

    For instance, a threatend boycott of Coke and Pepsi by Color of Change got those two companies to leave ALEC. Why? Color of Change is a youth oriented demographic. Coke and Pepsi are youth oriented democraphics.

    Which demographic is in New Times’ target audience and the BAN audience, exactly?

    * – (not a “Buy-cott”, which BAN stupidly thought was a great term, until the actual definition was known, and now has to save face by keeping the word, even though it’s 180 degrees from the actual meaning)

    • Conservative American says:

      No, Klute, boycotts and other interventions work only if people make an attempt to make them work. I understand that you don’t even want the attempt to be made as such an action doesn’t fit with your politics. We’ll go ahead anyway, thank you very much.

      Have a nice day, Klute! :-)

      • So first, you’ll have to start using the businesses in the New Times, and then you’ll need to stop using them. So, these businesses should see a spike in revenue, and then go back to normal.

        Makes sense.

        I think the New Times will be doing fine.

        • Conservative American says:

          No, Klute, we stop using the businesses we have been using which we find are advertising in the New Times. Really very simple.

          But don’t worry your little head about it. You are telling us that it won’t have any effect anyway. Indulge us as we go ahead, despite your attempts to discourage us.

          Have a nice day, Klutester! :-)

  7. Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

    So hypocritical of Pearce & Co. to first freak out over people boycotting businesses affiliated with politics they disagree with, and then turn around and call for a boycott of businesses affiliated with a newspaper whose politics they disagree with.

    The New Times isn’t so much “left wing” as anti-authoritarian. Their columnist Matt Hendley is a Ron Paul voter, for example. I’m sure Stephen Lemons votes Democratic. They relentlessly chewed up Janet Napolitano, though. It’s kind of thuggish to go after them because they disagree with you…especially when they point out your bad deeds like Olivia Cortes, getting fired from MVD, etc.

    • Who are you kidding? The butt wipe known as the New Times is a insanely psychotic liberal rag on it’s best day. We all know you hate Russell Pearce so you rush to soften their depravity, but what about their constant attacks on Joe Arpaio, Jan Brewer, Sylvia Allen, John Huppenthal, etc. etc. etc.? I suppose as a “conservative” you’re willing to overlook that. The New Times knows their niche – to play to the sewerites of humanity – and they plug it for every penny it’s worth. Be on the wrong side of everything and you attract followers like a roach motel. By the way, enforcement of federal and state laws is not politics, unless of course you advocate for criminals.

      • Tiny Elvis says:

        So, what happened to the First Amendment? Or does that only apply to people you agree with?

      • Lampoon says:

        Dude, you have serious anger issues, unhealthy anger issues. Guys like you die young, anger kills.

        Don’t like NT? Don’t read it. But this ignorantly named “buycott” will not register a blip. And Pearce will lose again…bank on it.

        CTFO man

      • “…what about their constant attacks on Joe Arpaio, Jan Brewer, Sylvia Allen, John Huppenthal, etc. etc. etc.? I suppose as a “conservative” you’re willing to overlook that.”

        All those people are public figures and have brought any stories about them upon themselves. (And, I tend to think that Arpaio would probably lose more sleep were PNT NOT writing about him).
        Of course, since they all share some similar political beliefs as you you, you choose to ignore and trash them.

        How loudly did you complain when they exposed Phil Gordon and his shenanigans? Jack Harris? Janet Napolitano?

      • The overall editorial opinion of the New Times undoutedly leans to the left. But that doesn’t mean all of their writers do. It certainly isn’t “psychotically liberal”. For example, Sarah Fenske who used to work at the New Times was a fairly conservative Republican when she started working there and even published articles praising Sarah Palin in the New Times:

        http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-09-11/news/sarah-palin-can-run-on-her-record-proudly/

        She only quit being a Republican after being one of the first to investigate and report on the Sheriff’s Command Association scandal:

        http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-10-23/news/the-az-gop-slandered-dan-saban-and-used-funny-money-for-sheriff-joe-this-lifelong-republican-has-had-enough/

  8. Conservative American says:

    Well, let’s stop talking in generalities and get down to specifics. Here’s something from the Phoenix New Times:

    “Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
    By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”

    “It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience. Like a beard on an alligator, you know it’s fake from jump.”

    “That’s why I cracked a smile today while perusing far-right wing blog Sonoran Alliance, where moral relativist-in-charge Shane Wikfors is demanding an apology from Carolyn Cooper, a supporter of the recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce.”

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php

    • Well, let’s stop cherry picking and get down to the fact that Stephen Lemons isn’t the only writer at the Phoenix New Times. Here is something else from the Phoenix New Times:

      “Sonoran Alliance Blog and Readers Strike Critical Note on SCA Contribution

      By Ray SternTue., Jul. 21 2009 at 3:00 PM”

      “We asked for comment, we got comment — from the Sonoran Alliance blog, anyhow.

      Turns out Shane Wikfors (pictured), who runs the blog, considers church-mate Dan Saban a friend. Who knew? Wikfors slams the infamous attack ad on Saban as ‘disgusting.'”

      “It looks like skepticism about the SCA donations has bipartisan support.”

      http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/07/sonoran_alliance_blog_and_read.php

      • Conservative American says:

        Well, let’s get reality based and realize that the fact that Stephen Lemons isn’t the only writer at the Phoenix New Times is irrelvant. The fact that the Phoenix New Times did, in fact, publish the article by Lemons which I posted shows what sort of venue they are. Here’s another choice tidbit from Lemons which the Phoenix New Times chose to publish:

        “SB 1070 Boycott Over? NCLR Says, “Yes,” Sal Reza Says, “Hell, No!”
        By Stephen Lemons Sat., Sep. 10 2011 at 11:01 AM”

        “For my money, Arizona remains the most racist state in the nation, with nativism a tapeworm-like force, gnawing at the innards of its body politic. That’s why I’ve always thought Arizona deserving of an economic cordon sanitaire.”

        http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/09/sb_1070_boycott_over_nclr_says.php

        The Phoenix New Times chooses to publish, on an ongoing basis, these sorts of comments by Lemons. That tells us quite clearly where the Phoenix New Times is coming from and what it’s standards, or lack thereof, are.

  9. Lemon didn’t rouse himself up even after being informed to control a fraudster who used his blog as a shelter from which to slime Shane and Pearce. So, who’s he to pretend all righteous?

    How was it that New Times was so dull , monotone, lock-step parroting that he and his crowd had to slither over to Sonoran Alliance to whinge and posture here? If they need to be hanging at SA, it’s because they’re BORED with the vapid New Times echo-chamber.

    New Times doing their civic duty part to get notorious warlord Joseph Kony by buying grubby NGO ‘$900,000 for me $100,000 for starving orphans Invisible Voice” t-shirts. posters and pizza boxes?

    • Well, I don’t exactly see Shane rousing himself up to control fraudsters on this blog who rise up to slime others.

      I think, both writers recognize the vagaries of the internet and anonymity of blog posters. I also think both writers understand that those with common sense can discern whats real and what isn’t.

      And, again, Lemons is but one writer amongst many at PNT. Much like posts on SA are not all written by the site owner. SA has also posted blogs written by those who don’t toe the line with the far right. Does that mean that SA isn’t a conservative blog?

      • Conservative American says:

        For the apparently uninformed, like Rob, let’s get down to the bottom line about the Phoenix New Times and it’s political identity.

        “The paper was founded in 1970 by a group of students at Arizona State University, led by Frank Fiore, Karen Lofgren, Michael Lacey, Bruce Stasium, Nick Stupey, Gayle Pyfrom, Hal Smith, and later, Jim Larkin as a counterculture response to the Kent State shootings in the spring of that year as a media arm of the SDS Students for a Democratic Society.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times

        “Though various organizations have been formed in subsequent years as proposed national networks for left-wing student organizing, none has approached the scale of SDS, and most have lasted a few years at best.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society

        So all of this “fluff” about Lemons being “but one writer amongst many” is totally irrelevant.

      • Rob.
        I’ve been wondering how long to hold on to the screen shots of the fraud libel postings on Lemon’s blog and my public announcement to him that this was a fraud.

        Despite being told in no uncertain terms, Lemons allowed the fraudster to continue to libel Shane, Arpaio and Pearce in very vulgar terms for weeks. To say that puts me as a writer in a bad light is putting it mildly, it is damaging. That many people thought I was doing that and asked me here at SA what was going on proved they knew where to look for me at SA.

        You are very aware of what transpired and you keep finding it necessary to try to divert the issue to something else, and that dirty trick is why I was forced to get a gravatar so as to enable investigators to quickly separate fraud usages from legit. And that’s just on top of the proof of the different IPs, yeah?

        I was minding my own business at SA. Never heard of New Times or Lemon before that, but boy howdy have they made their impression in pure slime, financed by slime.

        • Is your real name Wanumba? If not, too bad. Post in your real name, then you would have a case. What libel occurred?

          You are seriously whining. Post under your own name, copyright you posts and then, maybe, you have an argument.

          • As usual, you make up fake arguments and then argue them to yourself. Good thing so much of American life is automated now, so you don’t have to interact with your usual ‘charm’ with actual humans.

            I am a copyrighted author on SA under the nom de plume wanumba. If I wrote under one name and then posted comments under another, you’d complain about that, too, sneering that I was somehow hiding the connection between author and comment posting.

            So, listening to “advice” out of the likes of you is de la folie. You probably yell at the ATM machine for not dispensing tens instead of twenties.

            • “I am a copyrighted author on SA…”

              So, you’ve filed for a copyright with the Federal government for a blog post.

              1. Probably not.
              2. If so, how incredibly vain.

    • TruConserv says:

      Ever the hypocrite, Wanumba is buthurt because someone else also used the Wanumba nic, on a different site, but Wanumba finds humor when the far-right hijacks the SA nics of mainstream conservatives to post lies on SA.

      Go back to telling lies about how Obama was born in Kenya and is supporting the slaughter of Christians in Africa, at least those were amusing, wanumba. Now you just sound like a decrepit old man whining about kids playing on his yard.

      Wanumba breathes life into the old chestnut about humor being you getting punched in face, while tragedy is (wanumba) slipping on banana peel.

      • The tragedy is that I get great entertainment to see who is most worried about anything potentially actionable and that I’ve done my ‘buy-cott’ duty by avoiding New Times like the plague, thus never adding a click to their counter, while in my own modest way, driving up traffic right HERE on SA.

        • So, you are really doing damage to NT from Africa? LOL….

          You just love freedom of the press…unless you disagree with it….

          • I don’t like negatives. The only positive action here would be to ding up SA traffic. Seems to be working!

  10. TruConserv says:

    April 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    Go back to telling lies about how Obama was born in Kenya and is supporting the slaughter of Christians in Africa, at least those were amusing, wanumba.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    It gets more amusing as I’ve never said any of that .. so there you go again with that peculiar habit of lying about me and then arguing with yourself.

    I guess it’s now the new normal in your ideological bubble to fabricate narratives and then get all irate about nonsense you made up in your own head. That’s what schizos do, you realize that don’t you? Then you get mad at yourself and say it’s me. Huh? Thats three now… two in your head, one innocent bystander. Keep going like that and you’ll be Sybil … oh but that turned out to be a fraud, too… awkward .. so much psychology theory for three decades constructed on another fraud… collapsed! poof!

    Speaking of loony Lefties who get literally mad as in naked nuts when they are questioned about their motives, their goals and their FACTS….
    … Now have you bought your Joseph Kony 2012 t-shirt yet and ordered your Kony 2012 pizza box and poster to tape up somewhere so the greedy money grubber Democrats at Invisible Voices can make bank on a blood-thirsty murderer and contribute to Obama’s campaign?

    ANd what’s with the like demonic upside down triangle? Is that like a secret society thangy? They want it spray-painted everywhere, but what IS it? We’ve all seen DOOM,who wants demons suddenly jumping like spontaneous generation out of those filthy #OWS encampments?

Speak Your Mind

*