Top Menu

Lowe’s Pulls Ad from “All American Muslim” Due to Pressure From Islamophobes

It is interesting to note the strange things Islamophobes take umbrage at. For instance think about the google doodle they thought hid the ulterior motives of Islamic stealth jihad, don’t you see the crescent hiding under the US flag:

or who can forget the crusade launched by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer against Campbell’s Soup:

or casting Ms.USA Rima Fakih as Hezbollah’s secret Muslamic ray-gun weapon who would secretly spell the doom of the West:

then recently there were the calls to boycott Butterball Turkey for being certified as halal, according to Islamophobes the halal certification was evidence of the Islamization of America!

There are other instances of such stupidity, (just check out our archives) but one has reared its ugly head anew and this one can’t be so easily laughed off. Far right Christians and anti-Muslim bigots hate a new show on TLC called All American Muslim. According to them it humanizes Muslims, and we can’t have that! Robert Spencer for instance wanted to see a “terrorist Muslim family” included.

The hate brigade has been campaigning advertisers to withdraw their ads from the program. Now one company, Lowe’s has supposedly taken the bait (hat tip: H.). According to the campaigners, the “show riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values” and they are claiming success:

Supporters’ emails to advertisers make a difference.Florida Family Association sent out a third email alert on December 6th which reported The Learning Channel’s new program called All-American Muslim.  All-American Muslim is propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.  The email alert encouraged supporters to send emails to the companies (including Lowes) that advertised during the December 4th and 5th episodes.   

Lowes sent the following email to Florida Family Association stating that All-American Muslim “does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines.”  If you have not sent your email to All-American Muslim advertisers click here.

—– Original Message —– 
From:
 Andrew
To:
 davidcaton@floridafamily.org 
Sent:
 Tuesday, December 06, 2011 12:57 PM 
Subject:
 RE: Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. advertised during All-American Muslim

Hello David,

Thank you for contacting Lowe’s.  We work hard to listen to our customers and respond to their concerns.  Lowe’s has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs and on a variety of cable outlets.  Lowe’s constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines.

While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention.  Lowe’s will no longer be advertising on that program.

Our goal is to provide the best service, products and shopping environment in the home improvement industry.  We appreciate your feedback and will share your comments with our advertising department as they evaluate future advertising opportunities.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call 1-866-900-4650, or email execustservice@lowes.com.  You may also contact us by mailing your correspondence to Lowe’s Companies, Mail Code CON8, 1605 Curtis Bridge Rd., Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697.

Thank you,

Andrew
Lowe’s Executive Support

Update (h/t JD):

Here is a list of companies that they claim to have succeeded in convincing to cancel their advertising based on this bigoted, hateful, anti-Muslim reasoning:

3M (Command, Scotchbrand tape),
Airborne Vitamin,
Amway,
Anheuser Busch Inbev (Select55),
Art Instruction Schools,
Bamboozles,
Bank of America (Cash Rewards),
Bare Escentuals,
Brother International (Ptouch),
Campbell’s Soup,
Capital One,
Church & Dwight (Oxi Clean, Arm & Hammer),
City Furniture,
Conagra (Hunt’s Diced Tomatoes),
Corinthian Colleges (Everst411),
Cotton, Inc.,
Cumberland Packing (Sweet’N Low),
Dell computers,
Diamond Foods (Kettlebrand Chips),
Estee Lauder (Clinique),
ET Browe (Palmer’s Cocoa butter),
Gap,
General Motors (Chevy Runs Deep),
Good Year,
Green Mountain Coffee,
Guthy Renker (Proactiv),
Hershey kisses,
Home Depot,
Honda North America,
HTC Phones,
Ikea,
JC Penney,
JP Morgan Chase (Chase Sapphire),
Kayak.com, Kellogg (Special K),
Koa Brands (John Frieda),
Leapfrog Enterprise (Leapster Explorer),
Lowe’s
Mars (Dove Chocolate),
McDonald’s,
Nationwide Insurance,
News Corp (We bought a zoo movie),
Nintendo (Mariokartz.com),
Novartis (Theraflu),
Old Navy,
Pernod Ricard (Kahlua),
Petsmart,
Pier One,
Pfizer (Centrum vitamin),
Procter & Gamble (Align Probiotic, Crest, Febreze, Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, Pur, Tide),
Progressive Insurance,
Prudential Financial,
Radio Shack,
Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse,
SC Johnson (Drano, Glade, Scrubbing Bubbles),
Sears ,
Signet (Kay Jewelers),
Sonic Drive-ins,
Subaru, T
HQ (uDraw),
T-Mobil,
Toyota (Camry),
Volkswagen,
Vtech (Mobi Go, V Reader),
Wal-Mart
Whirlpool (Maytag)

Did this program not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines because it showed a Muslim policeman who self-identifies as an American? Was it because Muslims and Arabs were not portrayed as evil villains who are not “real Americans” and have no right to act as if they are normal human beings with families, mortgages, jobs, etc. From here it looks like the MuslimPhobes are winning the undermine anything Islamic and Muslim as evil PR war.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Mohammad Assaf: Son of Palestine | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • (that is, “mens rea, of “intent”)should be

    (that is, “mens rea,” or “intent”)

  • Just Stopping By should stick around: @Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.: Okay, I think I understand you. Would it be fair to say that unknowingly or independently not purchasing goods that are the subject of a foreign boycott is not against the law as written, but (you argue that) there are cases in which the government will “interpret” someone’s other actions to make it seem as if they were actively supporting a foreign boycott?

    When it’s not possible to get them on some other charge, yes. But the law was intentionally written that way, to allow exactly that.

    If so, then any apparent disagreement between us was because we were addressing two separate points: what the law says versus how it may be implemented in fact.

    What the law is overtly intended to target but is actually written to target a much broader field ~ anyone who opposes Israel and can be “shown” to be sympathetic to another boycott effort, knowingly or not. The law explicitly provides that no showing of “knowing cooperation” (that is, “mens rea, of “intent”) is necessary to convict. That opens the door to arbitrary prosecution willy-nilly among all of the ADL’s “Anti-Semite” categories ~ anyone who “doesn’t like Jews.”

    Guess who wrote the law? Better yet, do some research and find out who wrote the law, and see who contributed to their campaign funding. “The best Congress money can buy” wrote that law.

  • Just Stopping By

    @Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.: Okay, I think I understand you. Would it be fair to say that unknowingly or independently not purchasing goods that are the subject of a foreign boycott is not against the law as written, but (you argue that) there are cases in which the government will “interpret” someone’s other actions to make it seem as if they were actively supporting a foreign boycott?

    If so, then any apparent disagreement between us was because we were addressing two separate points: what the law says versus how it may be implemented in fact.

  • Yusuf contends: @Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D., That still doesn’t mean you cannot boycott Isreali products if you so choose or organize. It simply means you cannot participate in a foreign countries boycott. If you boycott Israeli products and organize such a boycott you will not be arrested because it is a separate boycott and not the same as the Arab League boycott. For that matter if England had a boycott Germany law you couldn’t join that boycott because it is a foreign countries boycott.

    I’m not “qualified” (by virtue of having a license) to give legal advice. But I’d suggest that you consult with an attorney ~ a federal defense attorney would be best ~ before you consider an independent boycott of Israeli goods and services that you let anyone know about. If, that is, you think that anyone might imagine you to be “influential” or potentially influential.

    This is not a “clear and present danger” thing for us. The round-up of potential counterrevolutionaries is a bit further down the road. Google “Red Terror” and see what became of the Bolsheviks’ closest allies after the October Revolution.

  • Just Stopping By stopped by … I thought that the following would have ruled out your example:

    “(3) Intent is a necessary element of any violation of any of the prohibitions under §760.2. It is not sufficient that one take action that is specifically prohibited by this part. It is essential that one take such action with intent to comply with, further,or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. Accordingly, a person who inadvertently, without boycott intent, takes a prohibited action, does not commit any violation of this part.”

    A claim of no intent is entirely subjective, and alone is insufficient to establish the defense. Collateral evidence ~ letters to the editor, comments on a web blog, any showing of disapproval of Israel or sympathy with Israel’s enemies ~ would be sufficient to persuade a jury that the defendant intended to boycott Israel, and a link to the “unsanctioned foreign boycott” need not be proven.

    As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I understand that the way that things apply in regulations is often not obvious to the layperson. So, perhaps I am misinterpreting this and you are right that someone can violate this without even knowing about the foreign boycott, but I don’t read the regulation that way.

    A federal prosecutor would, and the Rules of Evidence would support him. Remember ~ it’s only necessary to persuade lay jurors who are instructed by the court regarding what the prosecutor has to prove and what he doesn’t need to prove. How long do you think it would take a jury to convict someone who had been shown to have attended a gun show in Idaho or Montana?

    And remember ~ anyone who has ever expressed any doubt about Israel’s “righteousness” that has been seen or heard by the wrong brainwashed gossipy passer-by has a file in the ADL archives with his name on it. I’m sure I’m on several such lists ~ and so is anyone who has ever posted at LoonWatch. It’s not personal, it’s just business …

  • Believing Atheist

    Everybody I have an announcement to make.

    The ADL has condemned Lowes actions and called them based on prejudice.

    Here is the link

    http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/6091_41.htm

  • Yusuf

    @Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D., That still doesn’t mean you cannot boycott Isreali products if you so choose or organize. It simply means you cannot participate in a foreign countries boycott. If you boycott Israeli products and organize such a boycott you will not be arrested because it is a seperate boycott and not the same as the Arab League boycott. For that matter if England had a boycott Germany law you couldn’t join that boycott because it is a foreign countries boycott.

  • Shehab

    I smell loon Pam Geller’s involvement in this – FFA, using the ‘Family’ wording to hide her SIOA’s involvement

    Lowe’s opened its stores in Canada recently – mostly in diverse suburban areas. They are definitely going to take a hit

  • Just Stopping By

    @Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.: Thanks for your clarification of the law. I thought that the following would have ruled out your example:

    “(3) Intent is a necessary element of any violation of any of the prohibitions under §760.2. It is not sufficient that one take action that is specifically prohibited by this part. It is essential that one take such action with intent to comply with, further,or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. Accordingly, a person who inadvertently, without boycott intent, takes a prohibited action, does not commit any violation of this part.”

    As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I understand that the way that things apply in regulations is often not obvious to the layperson. So, perhaps I am misinterpreting this and you are right that someone can violate this without even knowing about the foreign boycott, but I don’t read the regulation that way. Ironically, it would be hard to use a prior misreading of the law as a defense, because even misreading it would suggest a likely awareness of a boycott that one is pretending not to know about.

  • Danios

    @ Rocky Lore:

    You are laughably trying to strike a moral equivalence between (1) opposing shows that are bigoted towards a particular race or religion (what we do) and (2) opposing shows that are trying to fight bigotry towards a particular race or religion (what your hate-filled, foaming at the mouth, loony ilk do).

Powered by Loon Watchers