* The comments in green are ours, and related to what we can only describe as poor prose and worse editing.
“…The U.S. fast food chain said that as it expands, it will no longer donate to the Salvation Army, the Paul Anderson Youth Home, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which opposes(singular verb with plural subject)same-sex marriage.The company’s charity, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, has donated millions of dollars to the two organizations.(“Two” organizations when the prior sentence mentions three!)
…“There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”
“When there is a tension, we want to make sure we’re being clear. We think this is going to be helpful,” Tassopoulos continued. “It’s just the right thing to do: to be clear, caring, and supportive and do it in the community.”…”
Very, VERY disappointing. Since Chick-fil-A’s supposedly interested in u, why not make clear their position is simply in keeping with that directed byGOD ALMIGHTY in HIS HOLY SCRIPTURES?!?
Consider this manifestly misleading and idiotically incorrect headline from Bisnow.com:
“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,” the charity said in a statement. “We serve more than 23 million individuals a year, including those in the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ+ population.”
It continued: “When misinformation is perpetuated without fact, our ability to serve those in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or any other factor, is at risk. We urge the public to seek the truth before rushing to ill-informed judgment and greatly appreciate those partners and donors who ensure that anyone who needs our help feels safe and comfortable to come through our doors.”
The facts simply aren’t in keeping with the fiction.
We made it a point to frequent Chick-fil-A more often after the manufactured LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ kerfuffle; but this certainly gives us reason to do avoid their fast food completely in the future.
And if Tim Tassopoulos think’s his craven capitulation will end The Left’s demands, the reaction from GLAAD should serve to disabuse him of the notion:
“On Monday, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation commended Chick-fil-A for its decision to halt donations to several Christian charities but demanded the fast-food chain do more to change its “anti-LGBTQ” brand.
GLAAD said it “greet[s] today’s announcement with cautious optimism” but warned that the Georgia-based company still has work to do to fix its tarnished image with the LGBTQ community.
“In addition torefraining from financially supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations, Chick-fil-A still lacks policies to ensure safe workplaces for LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak out against the anti-LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents,” GLAAD director of campaigns Drew Anderson said in a statement to CNN…”
Rumors Chick-fil-A will attempt to further kowtow to the radical LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ lobby by offering a new sandwich to celebrate homosexual marriage and serving it on Sunday…
…could not be confirmed at press time…but we can easily see it happening.
In a related item from the Entertainment Section, we learn of yet another example of Progressives crying “Bias!” where none exists:
“…Banks — who wrote, produced, directed, and starred as Bosley in the reboot — hinted to the Herald Sun prior to the film’s release that a form of sexism from a male-dominated audience may be to blame for its current lack of financial success. (Really: “Prior to the film’s release”?!?)
“Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie too. (Really: “have to buy”?!?)This movie has to make money,” Banks told the Sun.(WHY?!?) “If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”
The “Hunger Games” actress seemed to dismiss the box office success of “Captain Marvel,” the Brie Larson-led Marvel film that earned $1.1 billion worldwide earlier this year, as well as “Wonder Woman,” which grossed $821 million in 2017, because they belonged to a “male genre.”…”
We’ve little if any respect for a “reporter” who would mention “THE Hunger Games” …notThe “Hunger Games”…without mentioning the incredibly successful film franchise featured…
…as a female lead.
As Occam’s Razor suggests, all thing’s being equal, the simplest explanation is most often correct. Which is another way of saying, could not the reason the latest film adaptation of a bad ’70s television show bombed be a significant portion of the film-going public isn’t familiar at all with the premise of the production?!?
And in the Follow-Up segment, NRO‘s Kevin Williamson weighs in on the inane utterances of Marco Rubio, a once-rising star in the Conservative firmament:
“This is a time of great forgetting, and one of the things that has been forgotten is why we have a federal government and what it is there to do.
From Senator Marco Rubio and his “common-good capitalism” to Senator Elizabeth Warren and her “accountable capitalism,” politicians right and left who want politicians to have more power over private economic decisions assume a dilemma in which something called “capitalism” must be balanced against or made subordinate to something called the “common good.”This is the great forgetful stupidity of our time.
Capitalism is not a rival to the common good. Capitalism, meaning security in one’s own property and in the right to work and to trade, is the common good that governments exist to secure.
The U.S. government exists to see to the liberty of the American people. That is it. That is its only reason for being. It is an instrument and a convenience, the purpose of which is to ensure that Americans are able to enjoy their liberty and property— liberty and property being overlapping concepts.
What is contemplated by Senator Rubio and Senator Warren — along with a few batty adherents of the primitive nonidea known in Catholic circles as “integralism” and everywhere else more forthrightly as “totalitarianism” — is to invert the purpose of the U.S. government. Protecting Americans against those who would use force to curtail their liberty and take control of their property for their own ends is the duty of government; Rubio, Warren, et al. would have the government become the party that curtails Americans’ liberty and takes control of their property for its own ends. Which is to say, in the name of the “common good,” they would organize an assault on the actual common good the U.S. government was in fact constituted to protect. This account isn’t fringe libertarianism — it’s right there in the founding documents.
Being the nightwatchman is a difficult and generally thankless job, one that tends to receive attention only for its failures. But that is the job Senator Rubio and Senator Warren asked for and campaigned for. But there is a lot more political juice in being the bandit, taking control of other people’s property for your own purposes. And let’s have no more high-minded talk about the national interest from Senator Rubio, whose idea of the national interest is broad enough to encompass shilling for billionaire sugar barons, or from Senator Warren, who has never met a tax increase on rich people she didn’t like except for the one on medical-device manufacturers, who are (surprise!) clustered around Boston.
We’re supposed to give up our property rights so that these two and their ilk can use corporate welfare to fortify their own political interests? Hard pass. And considering how obvious it is that political incentivescontrol this kind of decision-making and control it utterly, the notion that the internal management of any given firm presents us with questions of unconflicted and unitary “national interests” that can be discerned and evaluated by a committee of lawyers in Washington and acted upon honestly is absurd. It is indefensibly stupid…”
So, here’s to you…
…Lieawatha and He Who Craves Liquids…
And hypocritical douchebags at that!
Now we turn, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s this instant classic courtesy of Balls Cotton:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another titillating tale torn from the pages of The Crime Blotter,
“…Larry Paul McClure, 55, said in a letter to state investigators that he and his daughters — 31-year-old Amanda Michelle Naylor McClure and 32-year-old Anna Marie Choudhry — plotted the murder of John McGuire, who was dating Amanda, the Bluefield Daily Telegraph reported.
A West Virginia State Police officer testified in a recent court hearing that the trio hit McGuire in the head with a bottle of wine, (Silver Oak ’96?) tied him up and injected him with two vials of meth, according to the report. They then strangled him and buried him in a shallow grave on the property of a home where they were staying in the Skygusty section of the state.
…Police allege Amanda and her father then traveled to Virginia and married each other…”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.