Christianity Proves Expendable for Chick–fil–A

Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

John 12:42–43

Rick McKee Atlanta Chronicle.png

Maybe the timid, cultural Christians in corporate Chick–fil–A know something regarding Mayor Pete’s presidential campaign that’s escaped the rest of us. This week the corporation jettisoned its last connection with any Christian charities that believe in the Bible lock, stock and marriage.

Both the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes have been weighed in the corporate balance and found wanting.

When asked about this obvious rejection of biblically sound charities, Chick–fil–A did what any secular corporation would do: It lied. A corporate SpokesPharisee told the Christian Post, “Beginning in 2020 the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness and education.”

Or as Matt Walsh put it, “[Chick–fil–A] will stop donating to charities that help with education, homelessness, and hunger, in order to focus more on education, homelessness, and hunger.”

This is the final act in a drama that began in 2012. CEO Dan Cathy told an obscure Baptist newspaper, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

Grievance archeologists discovered the quote and faux marriage supporters ginned up a faux crisis. Cathy proved to be a conscientious objector in the resulting culture fight. He canceled his public appearances for the rest of the year.

Christians failed to take the hint.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee didn’t examine the chicken entrails either. He organized Chick-fil-A Appreciation day. Hundreds of thousands of Christians, overjoyed that a corporation finally agreed with them on a social issue, stood in line under a hot August sun to show their gratitude.

Pastor Rick Warren said the company set a sales record with seven hours left in the retail day.

While Christians were celebrating, the company was quietly “growing” in its interpretation of the Bible. It severed all connections with any Christian charities in 2012 except for the Salvation Army, FCA and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

Now it’s done with those three, too.

The Salvation Army deserves credit for not quietly slinking away. “We’re saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education and homelessness organizations — areas in which The Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed.”

How does insulting every Christian who stood in line during Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, in order to curry favor with Consonant Crusaders, pay off in the long run? Chick-fil-A has grown from a $4.6 billion corporation in The Year of Controversy, to a $10.5 billion corporation today.

In every one of those years sexual orientation totalitarians did their best to damage the corporation. And nothing worked.

Now that Chick-fil-A is the third–largest fast food company, it appears to be treating Christianity like Turkish Premier Erdogan’s Democracy Streetcar, “When you come to your stop, you get off.” How does Chick-fil-A intend to continue growth after showing its Christian base that they’re expendable in favor of an obsessed sexual minority whose activists hate everything associated with Christianity?

Chick-fil-A could start grilling Christians along with chicken and it still wouldn’t land the concession contract at a Buttigieg inauguration. The Gaystapo doesn’t just demand acceptance. It requires positive public affirmation and approval. Is Chick-fil-A ready to go that extra mile?

The Chick-fil-A surrender sends a crushing message to small business and run–of–the–congregation Christians. If a $10 billion corporation doesn’t have the willpower to defend biblical truth, there’s no hope for a mom–and–pop operation that runs afoul of the Tolerance Police.

Individuals had best be content to practice religion in the privacy of their own home, maybe in a closet. As long as it’s “safe religion” and the kids aren’t exposed, lest it be reported and social workers take the children for deprogramming.

COO Tim Tassopoulos tried to justify his craven pandering to BisNow, “…as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are.”

Which is evidently just another money–grubbing corporation that worships Mammon.

One surprising lesson from this abject surrender. Judas Iscariot was a better businessman than Chick-fil-A. He got his 30 pieces of silver up front, before he betrayed Christ.

Ghosts of the USDA

I’m wondering when the WoePost will stop haunting readers with stories of the US Dept. of Agriculture’s brutal forced migration from Washington to the primitive hellscape of Kansas City.

Rick McKee Augusta Chronicle

This week it’s low moans from former researcher Andrew Crane–Droesch who tries to convince us moving his department was a loss to research that rivaled the burning of the library in Alexandria.

Egypt, not Virginia.

If I’m reading Andrew correctly, humanity managing to feed itself over the centuries, without the help of scientists at the USDA, was just a lucky fluke. “Humanity’s dependence on the environment is made explicit through our food systems; without the right combination of weather, soil and labor, nobody eats.”

When bureaucrat uses the word “systems” it means the topic is too complicated for mere farmers or other laymen to understand. “…they need experts to make sure that food systems work efficiently and public funds are spent effectively.”

I’m going to interrupt here before Andrew tells us how many times to chew each bite of the “food system” before swallowing. Instead, let’s look at what USDA scientific “experts” and their research brought us in the past.

In a mere 40 years USDA “expert” researchers helped the USA waddle away with the prize for the fattest nation on earth. Then we ate the trophy. USDA research quacks and food fanatics are single–handedly responsible for the obesity crisis that has made type 2 diabetes the trademark affliction of the U.S. welfare state.

Their fraudulent “food pyramid” upended the food industry, bloated millions, cost billions and it was all based on “settled science” that was dangerously wrong.

Reduce saturated fat intake to 10 percent? Wrong. Cut back on salt until corned beef is only a memory? Wrong. Increase carbohydrate intake until you look like a stuffed shell? Wrong.

According to the Daily Mail: “A new review says evidence from [medical research] trials did not support the advice. It says it is ‘incomprehensible’ that such advice was introduced for …220 million Americans . . . ‘given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men.’”

Two generations now have no idea what a decent steak tastes like due to our current “food system.” A vile cabal of granola–heads and the USDA ruined beef. Instead of corn–fed beef that produced tender, marbled steaks — USDA anti–fat crusaders gulled beef producers into going back to “natural” grass–fed beef.

Now we can enjoy the same type of tough, stringy beef Augustus McRae and Captain Call ate in Lonesome Dove. The agency’s motto should be: The USDA – Making It Easy to Go Vegan!

Andrew also has the strange belief that taxpayers are penalized when duplication and empire–building are eliminated. “The team that studies patent law and innovation is gone. Experts on trade and international development, farm finance and taxes all left. The publishing staff all left, delaying dozens of reports on subjects from veterans’ diets to organic foods.”

Where to begin? Patent law and innovation belong in the lethargic hands of the USTPO. Trade and international development belong to Commerce and the State Dept. Publishing is handled by the Government Printing Office. The only entry in that laundry list of waste and duplication that really belongs to the USDA is “farm finance and taxes” and I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt there.

As for the reports on “veteran’s diets and organic foods [sic]”, if the research is of the same quality that produced the food pyramid, I guarantee vets are better off without it.

The truth is his USDA research department was a nerd’s playpen, “We loved ERS because it offered a rare degree of intellectual freedom, combined with the chance to make a real impact. We got to spend a great deal of our time pursuing research questions that we defined.”

And all at taxpayer expense!

Andrew and his merry band of Resistors were another group of self–aggrandizing Truth Tellers to Power! “The Agriculture Department wanted to restrict access to food stamps, for example. According to our models …food assistance programs were often a positive multiplier for local economies.” As if any agency report in the history of bureaucracies ever found that a program comprising a large part of the agency budget was ineffective and counter–productive.

An estimated 141 of the 180 bureaucrats ordered on the march refused to budge. That’s not a tragedy. That’s a good start.

The USDA is a self–licking ice-cream cone that essentially pays one group of dependents to grow food and pays another group to eat it, all at incredible taxpayer expense. If an order to move west produced an 80 percent attrition rate in the rest of the agency it wouldn’t occur a moment too soon.

Why the UK Repeatedly Stumbles Heading for the Brexit

MAGA–hat owners would feel right at home on the streets of London. Moseying along wary of a sneak attack by leftist thugs, they’d be secure in the knowledge that in the UK, just as in the US, government institutions are run by individuals adamantly opposed to them and any public policy they support.

Daryl Cagle

Specifically, those individuals are leftists who are currently very disenchanted with democracy. In both instances, the disenchantment dates back to 2016.

As Christopher Caldwell — author of ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’ — explained at a recent Claremont Institute discussion, the 2016 UK referendum on whether or not to leave the European Union (Brexit for short) was a throw–away gesture on the part of then Prime Minister David Cameron.

The referendum was proposed with the same sincerity that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell employs when he promises to balance the federal budget or repeal Obamacare. Cameron called for the vote to silence anti–EU critics in his own party. After the vote failed, he could go on about the business of transforming the UK into a wholly–owned subsidiary of the trans–national elite.

That was a predictable mistake. Caldwell explains, “The Tory party is 75 percent pro–Brexit at the base, but not at the leadership level. Cameron never thought Brexit would pass.”

On June 23rd Brexit did pass by a 52 to 48 percent majority in an election with the largest turnout in UK history.

Four months later democracy failed again when Donald Trump was elected president.

As 2017 began conservatives in both countries learned the Resistance in the US and Remain in the UK had more than a consonant in common.

Brexit supporters quickly discovered, in Caldwell’s words, “At the heart of Brexit all the decisions are being made by the institutions that were repudiated by Brexit.” That’s why three years after the vote to leave, the UK is still in the EU. The Remainers are acting against the will of the electorate.

Just as only one presidential candidate was legitimate in the eyes of the left here, in the UK only “one outcome [was] legitimate in terms of the Brexit referendum.”

Besides delay, the Remainder counterattack to Brexit reveals what low and dishonest creatures they truly are. Led by their pet newspaper, The Independent, Remainers are now proposing another election, as if referendums, like marriages, are something you keep doing until you get it right.

Brexit on the rebound is termed either the “Final Say” or “People’s Vote,” meaning if the right people vote this time we’ll win,

And they aren’t content with just another bite of the same apple. This vote is clearly designed to defeat Brexit. Three choices are proposed: 1. Remain. 2. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal. 3. No Deal.

The two Brexit alternatives are designed to split the Brexit vote while concentrating the Remain vote. It’s election as sham. Remain would win with a plurality, which is close enough for government work.

Here the response wasn’t a new election. It was to nullify the votes of 63 million people. As White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller told the Washington Examiner, “[Anti–Trump] career federal employees believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically, it’s heads I win, tails you lose.”

That’s why Trump can’t build a wall, can’t deport illegals, can’t limit legal immigration and can’t penalize employers who hire illegals. His short attention span doesn’t help, but even if Trump had the focus of LeBron James chasing a Chinese endorsement contract, he would still be fighting for every inch of progress.

The stakes are cosmic for conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. In Caldwell’s view, “Brexit is crucial in that it is the moment that does or does not roll back trans–national organizations.” The fight will decide whether or not the UK can set its own course for the future.

Here Trump against the Resistance may well be the last chance to control our borders and decide who is and who isn’t a citizen of the USA.

The left’s distaste for the results of the 2016 election remind me of East German communist playwright Bertolt Brecht’s joke, “Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government’s confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?”

Sounds like a plan say Resistance and Remain.