Tom Kovach
March 19, 2006
Boycott Walgreen's
Corporate sponsor of the deadly “Gay” Games
By Tom Kovach

Let me apologize in advance for the fact that this column is quite a bit longer than most of my columns. The extra verbiage is needed to overcome the lies of the Leftist MSM. Some of those lies, like the one exposed herein, can kill people.

some background

I like Walgreen's. I like their commercials. They're funny: "In a perfect world ..." Then, some ridiculous things happen — things that most people wish could happen, but the laws of physics prevent it. "That's perfect; this is Walgreen's." I like their stores — well, as much as a guy like me can like going into any store (unless it sells guns, tents, or horse tack). The atmosphere is clean and bright. The locations are convenient. They have a good selection of merchandise. What's not to like?

Until recently, nothing.

But, within the past few weeks, it has become public that my favorite all-purpose store and pharmacy has chosen — at the corporate headquarters level — to become a sponsor for the "Gay" Games. In case you aren't aware, the Gay Games is a quadrennial event — ostensibly about sports, and ostensibly styled after the Olympics — that promotes fun and fitness for homosexuals. Any group that is known for its sexual preference, and then gathers for fun, would reasonably include sex as part of that gathering. I would expect the same from a sporting event that called itself the "Married-Coupling Marathon," the "Voyeur Vaults," the "Rubber Relays," or the "Hetero Hurdles." (Of course hetero- really is "better-oh," especially in a real marriage.) So, by its very definition, the "Gay" Games will invite people from all over the world to come to Chicago this summer and have homo-sex. And, just in case you still don't think there is such a thing as media bias, two major newspapers — the New York Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times — are among the major supporters (along with Altoids breath mints — which are heavily marketed at Walgreen's, and Hilton Hotels).

So, how does this affect the rest of us?

Walgreen's bills itself as "the official protection sponsor" of the "Gay" Games. But, there are multiple problems with that statement. The most obvious is that Walgreen's has always touted a squeaky-clean, family-friendly corporate image — which even claims invention of the milkshake. "That was perfect". Now, they have suddenly thrown themselves "proudly" into the middle of a societal cesspool. "This is Walgreen's." But, although they mention several other charity support projects, the Walgreen's official corporate Web site does not mention the "Gay" Games. And, no wonder. The corporation's support of this event violates its own contributions guidelines.

Note: by the time you read this column, those guidelines might be changed. Here are the "funding prohibitions" from their own Web site, as published at the time of the research for this column. (Special emphasis is added in bold.)

Walgreen's charitable funds will not be used to support:

  • Any group which is not qualified as a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

  • Individuals seeking educational grants, contests, pageants, or trips

  • Requests of any type from fraternal, veteran, labor, or religious organizations serving a limited constituency

  • Sports teams or any sports-related activity or competition

  • Political, lobbying, or voter registration programs, or those supporting the candidacy of a particular individual

  • Hospitals

  • Capital campaigns or projects

  • National headquarters of single-disease agencies, except those identified through Walgreen's annual special program

  • Additional requests from organizations or institutions already receiving Walgreen Co. grant, or in-kind support within the previous 12 months

  • Travel for groups or individuals

  • Fund-raising benefits, program advertising, or marketing venues

  • Organizations which might, in any way, pose a conflict with our corporate goals, products, customers, or employees

As you can see by the above, Walgreen's has violated a number of its own policies in order to kowtow to the homosexual lobby. That lobby wants the public at large to believe that it represents a full ten percent of the population, plus their sympathizers. But, by any logical estimate, the actual numbers are less than two percent — and that is giving a generous benefit of the doubt.

By the way, if you're still wondering why I keep putting the word "gay" in quotes, it's because the word actually means "happy and wholesome." Thus, there is nothing "gay" about being queer. Homosexuals are the most melancholy and self-loathing group of people that I can think of. And, I've roomed with two — that I know of — in years past. So I speak from personal observations, as well as societal observations. A lot of liberal politicians might "talk the talk" when it comes to "gay" "rights" (to do what?), but not many are willing to actually share an apartment with an open homosexual — even out of economic necessity, as it was in my case. It was a stressful situation, on both sides, but we managed to find some common survival ground. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." And, that leads to my next point, survival.

But, wait, there's more.

Promiscuous homo-sex is very risky. But, it is widely promoted by the "gay" lobby. Why? Well, if they were to accept any restrictions at all on their activities, then some people might construe that there are actually some sex practices that are actually wrong — for all people. So, it's full "steam" ahead for homos ... in steam rooms, "bath" houses, bars, public restrooms, in streets during Mardi Gras, etc. Why would a company such as Walgreen's want to support or encourage such activity?

Walgreen's sells condoms. And, as long as the public continues to buy into the "condom myth," then homosexuals will continue to buy a lot of condoms. Just what is the condom myth? It is the false belief that condoms can prevent the transmission of AIDS. How can I say that such a belief is false? That's easy: follow the logic.

Condoms were originally developed to prevent pregnancy. And, they are fairly effective in that limited function. Healthcare professionals widely agree that condoms prevent pregnancy about 85% of the time. (Now, would you buy a parachute that was guaranteed to open 85% of the time? How about a car that was guaranteed not to crash 85% of the time?) But, the obvious logic is that sperm cells are able to get through the microscopic holes in the condom material about 15% of the time.

But, here is the deeper problem. Virus cells, which carry AIDS (and many other sexually-transmitted diseases — or STDs), are much smaller than sperm cells. Further, the AIDS cell is much smaller than even most other virus cells. Are you beginning to see the problem with the condom myth? People using condoms are not having "protected" sex at all. And, if a homo has sex with a dozen other men in an evening, and catches AIDS from the first one, and each of the infected eleven has sex with a dozen other men .... You do the math.

Back in 1993, when I hosted a conservative talk-radio program on a liberal state-university station (under public-access rules), this topic came up one evening. Here's how it happened. The university wanted to make sure that my conservative message was as watered-down as they could make it. So, they assigned me a Leftist engineer. (His mother, Margaret Coffee, was a staffer of then-Congressman Matt McHugh, who later retired from Congress and went on to a high position with US-AID under the Clinton Administration.) One evening, trying to torpedo my show, he interrupted me with a Public Service Announcement (PSA) about the benefits of condom use. A young woman with an obvious NYC Puerto Rican accent talked about how she knew that her boyfriend was out "having fun" — meaning that he was cheating on her. She said it was OK, though, because she knew that he always used a condom; therefore, she was safe. Gerald, the liberal engineer, gave me a "Cheshire cat grin" through the control-room glass. All the girls in there with him giggled, and openly laughed at me.

When the PSA was finished, I said on-air, "Well, I see that my liberal engineer has inserted a spot to promote condoms. That wasn't what I'd planned on; but, let's talk about that. If we consider that sperm cells get through condoms 15% of the time, and an AIDS cell next to a sperm cell is like a tricycle parked next to a tractor-trailer, then what makes you think that a condom can protect you from AIDS?" One of the three girls in the control room fainted right then, and another stormed out of the room. The third one glared at me through the window for the remainder of my program that night; and, she never came back during my program again.

That was more than a dozen years ago, but the logic hasn't' changed. Condoms do not — cannot — prevent AIDS. But, as long as the condom myth survives, then retail outlets can sell a lot of condoms. And, because they are relatively cheap to make (no electronic components, no moving parts, no maintenance), they carry a large profit margin. So, if Walgreen's is the "official protection sponsor," then it stands to reason that many attendees of the "Gay" Games would flock to Walgreen's. This becomes even more true when one realizes that this year's games are in Chicago, and Walgreen's was founded in Chicago.

other shoe dropping

Could there be an even greater profit motive to Walgreen's sponsorship of such risky sexual behavior? Before considering the question, let's consider a historical example of a two-step profiteering case. Back in the mid-1970s, a particular corporation (I remember the name, but will call them XYZ in this presentation) was a leading maker of baby formula. But, they wanted to expand their market. It was the old "profit motive."

Their research indicated that women in Africa were against bottle-feeding, and insisted on breast-feeding. But, XYZ found a way to change their societal norms. They paid off a few government officials, and then sponsored a heavy advertising campaign about the "health benefits" of giving babies formula — especially during the first month after the babies are born. Because it came from the government, via trusted news agencies, the population believed it. (Sound familiar?)

So, women in parts of Africa began to use baby formula. Then, XYZ introduced a "benevolent" marketing program. They would provide, for free, the first month's supply of formula for any newborn baby. Oh, the mothers were so grateful for this "free" program. They didn't realize that, if not used for the first month, their milk glands would dry up. So, when the formula ran out, the mothers were not able to nurse their babies. Then, the XYZ salesman would come along with a supply of formula — for a greatly inflated price. The mothers had no choice but to buy the previously "free" formula for their starving babies. As a byproduct of this greedy strategy, the Black population in Africa was in jeopardy of serious reduction. (Some have argued that it was actually the other way around: that killing off Blacks was the main goal, and the huge profits were merely the byproduct.)

Now, I don't know if Walgreen's is using a similar marketing strategy for touting themselves as the "protection sponsor" of this event. However, the list of sponsors also includes Lexiva, a medication that claims to be for treating HIV. The medication is only available via prescription. Thus, if Walgreen's sponsors behavior that increases the chances of getting HIV/AIDS, and if they also sell both the "prevention" and the "cure," then it stands to reason that Walgreen's could experience a huge profit increase — possibly comparable to the gasoline profits after Hurricane Katrina — in the wake of the "Gay" Games. This becomes even more true if the special-status foreign visitors decide to stay in Chicago after their visas expire. Why? Because those visitors are on lists of people that are already known to have AIDS. (If they become too sick to leave Chicago, and if Walgreen's is still perceived as a "benevolent" sponsor, then Walgreen's profits are sure to rise. But, at what cost to taxpayers?) And, if this scenario plays out, then corporate pandering to homosexuals could result in a dramatic increase in their death rate. How ironic that such a risk is being promoted by the very people most at risk of death.

what should people do?

I'm asking concerned citizens to visit my campaign Web site, and to be prepared to participate in a boycott of Walgreen's. I have sent an e-mail to their Investor Relations Department, requesting a reply from the president of the company. Here is the text of my e-mail.

An open letter to Walgreen's Investor Relations Department

(this letter will be published in my column, and possibly by other news outlets and activist organizations)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please forward this message to the president of the company, from whom I would like a reply.

Based upon Walgreen's corporate sponsorship of the "Gay" Games, I am thinking about organizing a boycott of Walgreen's.

There are several reasons for this planned boycott.

Among the reasons are:

  1. Sponsorship of such an event goes against Walgreen's own corporate history and image as a clean and family-friendly company.

  2. Sponsoring the "Gay" Games violates Walgreen's own corporate contribution guidelines. Among those groups that your own guidelines prohibit supporting are ANY "sports-related activity or competition."

  3. By touting itself as the "protection sponsor" of the event, Walgreen's acknowledges that the event carries an inherent risk, from which participants need to be protected. Thus, sponsorship could involve Walgreen's investors in liability for diseases contracted during the event, if the "protection" should fail. (If condoms fail to prevent pregnancy 15% of the time, then how can they block the much-smaller virus cells that cause HIV/AIDS?)

  4. Lobbying activities to change Federal policy regarding entrance visas for people with HIV/AIDS, just so that they could attend the "Gay" Games. Such a policy change could put uninformed Americans at increased risk of catching these deadly diseases. (And, as with terrorist infiltration, there is no guarantee that infected participants would actually leave the United States when their visas expire.) Having a special visa category for homosexuals stands our American immigration and health-protection policy on its head. (This, from a company that sells health-care products?!)

  5. The potential "blowback" when homosexual activists realize that, by inviting and supporting risky sexual activity, Walgreen's could later experience increased profits from sales of more condoms and anti-AIDS medications. (And, imagine the amplification of the blowback effect if lawsuits arise from the population at large, because of the health risks noted in Point 4.) Even the homosexual activists, with whom I largely disagree, would have to see that they are potentially being exploited for a hidden profit. (Parallel to the African baby-formula scandal in the mid-1970s.)

Before launching my planned boycott, I wanted to give you and your company an opportunity to reply to each of the above points. I would encourage you to reconsider a position that seems quite duplicitous, and also quite risky for your investors (particularly regarding Points 3 and 5 — with or without a boycott). I'm especially curious how your company got such a huge violation of it's own policy past any scrutiny by your investors.

If I do not receive a reply by Wednesday, 22 March 2006, then I will consider no reply to be a negative reply. If you do reply, then I will consider a dialogue on the issues. (And, unlike Jesse Jackson's actions over the past two decades, I have no intention of accepting any amount of contributions in order to ward off a boycott, if a boycott becomes necessary. Besides, your corporate guidelines prohibit political contributions, and I'm confident that you will adhere to your own guidelines....)

Although some homosexual activists might attempt to claim "victim status" with regard to any boycott, they are no strangers to the tactic.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply.


Thomas F. Kovach
Candidate, 5th Congressional District
Web portal address:
Mount Juliet, TN

I believe that any potential boycott of Walgreen's should begin as a "test market" boycott. It is no accident that many market research firms are headquartered in Nashville and surrounding areas. There is a belief that "as Nashville goes, so goes the nation." So, because Walgreen's has a large presence here, and because it would be easier for me to manage, my plan is to start any potential boycott here in the Nashville area. Hopefully, a Nashville boycott will not become necessary, and neither will its expansion nationwide.

I want to first give the president of Walgreen's an opportunity to respond to my e-mail. And, I want to give Walgreen's investors time to learn about this column and read it. Hopefully, a group of them will band together and voice their displeasure at the next investor's meeting. Perhaps someone with more clout inside the corporation can change the policy, and fire the people responsible for this dangerous decision.

If not, then it might become time for everyday Americans to vote with their wallets, and to say, "That was Walgreen's, this is now." Keep an eye on this column, and on my campaign Web site. Further details will be publicized as they become available.

© Tom Kovach

Comments feature added August 14, 2011

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Tom Kovach

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications... (more)

Latest articles


Alan Keyes
Update re Romney's refusal to renounce Obama's abusive executive order

Fred Hutchison
Faith and atheism in politics: The great divide

Alan Caruba
What just happened to the rule of law?

Lloyd Marcus
Supreme Court ruling: rebirth of tea party

Kevin Fobbs
Obama's tax lies brought communism to America's door

Louie Verrecchio
Patron saints of the Constitution?

James Lambert
Musician from '60s rock group Love has dramatic encounter with God

Chris Adamo
Democrat "damage control" has become an embarrassment
  More columns


Michael Ramirez


RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
J. Matt Barber
Michael M. Bates
Bill Borst
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites