Thursday, January 04, 2018

More Than Just "A Little" Biased

One of Dan's nonsensical attacks on Trump is Trump's attacks on the press, and how anti-American and damaging to democracy it is for a sitting president to call out the press.  Despite Dan's ignoring of the facts I presented showing that his guy Obama was truly the malicious one in how he dealt with the press, Dan regards Trump's legitimate concern with blatant and hostile left-wing bias as somehow of greater concern.  He has provided no evidence that Obama's attacks worried him one bit, demonstrating that Dan is no better than those he defends.

In any case, I thought I'd provide some examples of liberal media bias and "fake news" that justifies Trump's criticisms, but also justifies the general mistrust of the media by the American people in general.  I doubt Dan will peruse these offerings, but at least he can't say no evidence exists that justifies those critiques and lack of trust.  Here ya go:

I really could have spent a lot more time gathering such stories.  These cover the issue from a variety of angles.  Personally,  I don't have a problem with a given news source deciding what story deserves its attention.  It would be great if they could be held to account when the general public finds out that their choices do not inform us in a manner that is most beneficial or informative (and truthfully so).  Fortunately, there are so many more sources available now than ever before.  But UNfortunately, this requires more diligence by the consumer to find sources that are trustworthy and dedicated to bringing news that is indeed most beneficial and informative (and truthfully so). 

The bottom line for the purpose of this post is that Dan's concern that Trump is wacky and a liar for calling out the press and for lamenting the proliferation of "fake news" is no more than scraping for evidence with which to indict Trump.  The more Dan can find to demonize Trump, the better, because Dan embraces grace.  

Count this as another area that Dan is completely wrong about Trump. 

Friday, December 22, 2017

Lefties Are Liars

Is it wrong to defend Hitler against false charges against him?  It would seem so to listen to those on the left.  How about unsubstantiated, unproven charges?  Again, the left would have us do so. 

According to my understanding of our American ideals (as set forth by our founders and supported by Christian principle), it is no less a lie when false charges are brought against an evil person that against the good. 

The recent dust up over the Roy Moore candidacy is the perfect example.  Let's assume that Roy is as racist, homophobic and...well...whatever else people thought of him before the allegations leveled against him in the eleventh hour of the race for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Do these flaws justify our knee-jerk acceptance as truth those allegations of sexual impropriety from forty years ago? 

Now consider:  from how I understand things, Roy Moore's "racism" is based on two things. 

1.  Some comment he made about how long it's been since America was great (or something to that effect).  He said it goes way back to the days of slavery.  This has led lefties to say that he wants us to return to slavery today.  Yeah.  I know.  It's absurd to pretend that one means the other. 

2.  His position on the election of muslims in government.  Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition.  Our founders agreed.  They, too, saw islam as incompatible with our way of life.  That's not racist.  That's pragmatic, realistic, logical.  Incredibly common sensible. 

Moore's "homophobia" is also based on his understanding of the facts about homosexuality.  I've posted several posts dealing with the many lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based, and Moore simply has similar common sense positions. 

It is not hate to deal in realities.  One isn't necessarily hateful of another who is not worthy of selection for the baseball team.  In the same way, one isn't hateful, or bigoted, of someone who isn't worthy of elected office or a marriage license based on truths used to reach the conclusion.   Lefties would insist, however, that holding those positions are proofs of hate...because it's just easier to so insist.

The second point leads to a third area that led to Moore's rep as a bad dude:  Decisions he made as a judge.

1.  He opposed the Obergefell decisions as that which forces Alabaman county clerks to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.   But Moore understands two things of great importance here:

a)  Those clerks are not working for the federal government, but the Alabaman governments (state, county, municipal) and are beholden to them, not the SCOTUS.

b)  The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.

2.  He stood firmly behind his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on public property.  There is no Constitutional breech at play in doing so.  Nothing in the Constitution forced him to remove the monument.  Only those with a bad understanding of the first amendment did. 

So these are the main areas of contention between Moore and those who use these situations to justify their hatred for him.  How dare he stand in the way of saintly homosexuals!!!  How dare he question the motives of angelic muslims who by their faith can lie at any time!!!   How dare he have a sound understanding of Constitutional principles!!!  The hatred that these positions provoked in the leftists meant that this guy could not fart out loud without being accused of some great evil.

Now come the allegations of sexual improprieties just before the actual vote was to take place.  "We find the women credible" they said, without any actual reason to do so.  No counter testimonies speaking to his character in a positive way would ever be considered credible now, and they weren't.  There's no way to verify that the allegations were true, but solely due to already bad sentiment against him, Moore was guilty.  And his crimes were made worse by the purposeful use of words chosen specifically to inflame negative passions against him.  It's not enough to say that Moore dated young women, most of whom were over the age of consent.  Let's call him a pedophile!! 

During the course of this "scandal", I found two or three articles that spoke to Moore's upbringing and background, the application of the term "credible" to the women making the worst allegations, and one that listed a dozen women who offered themselves as character witnesses for Moore, some of them going back to those days forty years ago.  None of it mattered once the allegations were out there marketed with the worst possible embellishments by those "reporting" them. 

Falsehood wins.  And those of us who insisted we wait until something akin to proof could be found were also victims of falsehood, as we were labeled as defending "a pervert", as if he was actually proven to be one.  And we're the ugly ones.  This is the character of the left today.  Whatever it takes to push the agenda.  Whatever it takes to demonize and defeat the opposition.  Lies will do the trick nicely. 

Sunday, December 10, 2017

An Open Letter To Dan About His Open Letter To Alabama

Dear Dan,

Having read your letter to Alabama, I felt it a better option to respond in kind here rather than at your blog.  Hence, this letter to you.  It will be pretty much the same kind of response I would post in the comments section under your nonsensical letter to Alabama, in terms of style.  That is, copying the various statements one by one with my reply following.

"We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country..."

...mostly as a result of center-left forces pushing the culture toward perdition with too little resistance by the center-right.

" I was raised as an extremely conservative..."  "this former raging-conservative"

In all the years we've been going at it, you've not once demonstrated a grasp of what it means to be either a political or theological conservative.  It's just a word you throw around because you think it helps you to posture yourself as thoughtful.  You do the same with the word "progressive" (as do most who refer to themselves by this term) as if it means you're doing something or supporting something new and more beneficial. 

"If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil.""

This is true.  You choose the greater evil every time.  If you voted for Obama, you chose the greater evil.  If you voted for Hillary or Bernie, you chose the greater evil.  Go back farther.  If you chose Al Gore or John Kerry, you chose the greater evils.

You define evil as it suits you and your posturing.  This posturing is the support of evils of the kind you refuse to recognize as evil...such as abortion or homosexual behavior, or the confiscation of the wealth of the productive to name just a few...twisting these evils to appear as "progressive" and beneficial when they neither and never have been.

" It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines."

As much as I detested the sophomoric braggadocio of Donald Trump, and his infidelity and alleged adultery, it is absurd to consider these wicked characteristics as so horrid as to allow either a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders to prevail, when those two presented a far greater danger to the republic.  To stand down from one's duty to country over such things and then pretend to be morally sound is no more than rank preening.  I'm not impressed in the least, but rather disgusted by its falseness.

"But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies."

This is particularly egregious given the people you do support.  Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist.  Socialism is a lie.  Obama and Hillary are a step or two away from admitting the same of themselves.  Their own lies are well documented, but you've said nothing about them.  Most of those lies are far worse than how many showed up for an inauguration, or how great one's tax plan is or any of the many insignificant things Trump has said that you add to the list as if they're akin to "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" or "our people died because of a video".  The lies of Obama have helped to double the national debt. 

And then of course there are your own lies...lies that are perpetuated by other so-called "progressives" regarding the aforementioned social issues.  Your candidates spew them as a matter of party policy, and despite all evidence, you pretend they are truth and facts.

"When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."

No.  He is suggesting a possible explanation as to why these allegations are being made at the eleventh hour of a political campaign in which he is solidly leading his opponent.  

"He is saying that they many women who now have made these claims are liars. Period."

Why wouldn't he if the allegations are untrue?  And really, he is only basically saying that the allegations are untrue.  It is YOU, with your progressive Christian "grace" that chooses to interpret his denials as accusations of lying.

"Here we have many women who have independently and, so far as anyone knows, without any influence from the Democrats or "the media," made these allegations."

And by "many" you mean "three".  Each of which have been found to be less than credible in their "recollections" after all.  (Not saying it makes their claims untrue, but far less believable--if they ever were--than when first presented.)

" But based on what?"

Maybe on the fact that none of it happened.  That would be a good basis for suspecting the claims are untrue or even outright lies.  How can it be proven one way or the other? 

"Why would they make up these stories? What do they have to gain by exposing themselves in this manner?"

Are you kiddin'?

"Look, I fully know that, in some extremely rare circumstances (and if you're not familiar, look at the research - it's a tiny minority), women have made false allegations about harassment/abuse. But these are the extreme minority."

You know nothing.

"IF you have one allegation made against you by a woman, maybe she's one of this tiny minority that have made false claims. But when you have five... eight (what is Trump up to, now, 20??)"

Three.  You have three who have alleged Moore engaged in some form of abuse or sex with a minor.  Each is suspicious for a variety of logical reasons.  But hey!  If we can up the number to 20, why not?  Right Dan?  That's called "grace", not casual lying.

"And then, when you add to that charge that these women are liars (a very serious charge!),"

More serious than charges of sexual abuse or statutory rape?  Your shock and outrage is crap.

"...a new CBS News poll found that 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say..."  "Based on what?"

Based on the low regard so many people have for the honesty and integrity of the the Democratic party and their media lapdogs.  It's a bed you people made and you refuse to sleep in it, although you must despite having peed in it.

"I would not vote for a casual liar and Trump and Moore are casual liars."

As you reiterate this incredibly principled stance, I reiterate that you instead choose more egregious liars, those who think out their lies and plan to implement policy based upon them...lies you prefer to the truth despite all facts and evidence that has already exposed them as the lies they are.  Because you're a flaming progressive and that's how you roll.

"People of Alabama, I'm asking you to not cross that line now...snip... Write in a vote. But don't cross that line."

Not that you want Jones to win, mind you.  Only that you don't want that line crossed!  Nonsense.  The support of Jones for the aforementioned social issues and other left-wing policy lies is far better for the country than to continue to vote for someone strongly believed by his supporters to be a victim of a sham.

Should the people of Alabama take you up on this suggestion, it will only lead to more right-wing candidates being accused of evil behavior anytime they have a solid lead on the lefty who opposes them.  Allegations and accusations are proof of nothing more than someone is alleging and accusing.  What is known about Jones is far more harmful to the nation than what is alleged to have happened to three young women forty years ago.

"But with Trump and Moore, we have men who, by all the data we have available, are men who've abused, mistreated, oppressed or sexually assaulted or harassed women."

But that's the thing, you more-than-casual liar.  You have no data that is stronger than allegation.  That can't be good enough for honest people.  There must be more based upon our American philosophy for judging guilt or innocence.  Your pretense of honor is not fooling anyone.

"I don't need to know anything else about the candidate or his opponent if I know he has abused/mistreated women/girls."

But YOU don't "know" anything, especially about Moore, except that you dislike his positions on your favored sexual immorality.  That's enough for you to gin up these allegations to known fact...which makes you a liar.

"When the stories about Bill Clinton came out, there were two... then three women"

More like eighteen.

"People of Alabama, the evidence against Trump and, now Moore, is greater than that against Clinton."

Bull.  There is no comparison, except for perhaps Trump and Clinton, but even then, to say it's greater requires an in depth study for another post.  Feel free to do so, but make sure you use actual evidence rather than progressive sources.

Your plea to the voters of Alabama is crap, Dan, and I'm not at all surprised by it.  Your objections to Moore have nothing to do with these allegations from forty years ago, but are simply due to his accurate understanding of Scripture on human sexuality, his reasonable concern about voting for muslims for public office in our federal government and these allegations provide you with cover to encourage his supporters to abandon him in favor of someone who supports the same lies and abominations you do.  That's no casual lie on your part.  It's far more heinous.

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Are The Democrats Embarrassed, Yet?

The title of this post is in direct response to Dan's post Is The GOP Embarrassed, Yet?.  In it, he refers to both Donald Trump and former judge Roy Moore, who just won a primary election in Alabama for the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Dan spews his usual hateful vitriol against Trump and provides the same for Moore.  He hates Moore because Moore is an actual Christian who knows and understands both Scripture and the U.S. Constitution as they were intended to be known and understood.  Doing so makes him vile and reprehensible in Dan's world.

And of course, Trump's evil personified as well as mentally unfit for office, because Dan saw a book by a couple dozen shrinks of unknown political persuasion who said so.  (Of course, saying homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so is delusional.)

But here's the thing.  I am embarrassed that the GOP couldn't promote a solid conservative properly to avoid the ascendancy of Donald Trump.  It had an excellent alternative in Ted Cruz, but he wasn't establishment enough.  That's embarrassing.  The GOP wanted someone more McCain-like, because that worked out so well with McCain.  It never understood that McCain didn't stand a chance until he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.  But she, too, isn't establishment enough to garner the support of a Mitch McConnell.

So it's embarrassing that a party with control, of all three of the movers and shakers, the House, Senate and presidency, can't get something as asinine and destructive as the Affordable Care Act repealed outright, or even replaced.  Indeed, it's embarrassing to me personally that the GOP wouldn't even try to make the case that total repeal alone was not only justified, but beneficial.  They allowed the lying left to insist that people will die and let them do it without response.  No.  They clearly didn't want ACA repealed, even though they had the votes to do it in 2015, lacking only the president's signature to make it so.  Having obtained that, they bailed on the idea in favor of ACA-light.  That's embarrassing.

And it's embarrassing that the GOP can't cobble together enough of the plethora of facts on any of the social issues of the day and produce a compelling argument for the sake of righteousness and the soul and character of our nation.  One would think it would be a relatively easy task given the indisputable nature of the facts that support conservative notions of virtue and morality.   But the GOP is too spineless in the face of BS allegations of racism, discrimination, misogyny and a host of other lies used by the left to appeal to the emotion, rather than to whatever mind exists in the heads of Dem voters.

But here's the thing.  Embarrassment only afflicts those who have a conscience.  For those who feel no shame, who reject the concept of guilt, except where it can be used to force compliance by those with said conscience, there is no embarrassment.  Yet there is plenty for which the left in general, and the Democratic Party and its supporters should feel great shame.  I'll be posting on that incredibly long list soon, though I doubt I'll be able to take the time and space for a complete list.  It'll just be too long.  A complete list is unnecessary to make the point.  Stay tuned.

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Sorry. Guns Still Aren't The Problem.

The recent tragedy in Vegas has resulted, so very unfortunately, with the same old, same old.  The left are out insisting on "common sense" gun control as the means by which we can rid mankind of the kind of evil that resulted in so many dead and injured.  But as McVeigh and 19 muslims proved, there are many ways for madmen to kill lots of people.  So it ain't guns.  Never was and never will be.  Taking them from the rest of us only puts more people at risk with less hope of rescue.

We hear again about "gun show loopholes", which do not truly exist as they are described by know-nothings.  And to the extent that gun shows have ever been tied to crime is only due to so-called "straw purchasing", which is already illegal.  It isn't possible to make what is illegal more illegal. 

Someone on Facebook mentioned preventing the mentally ill from having guns, as if that hasn't been addressed already as well.  The true issue here is one of civil rights and when one is certified as being mentally ill and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms.  It isn't a simple thing to make such determinations, and certainly, as with no-fly lists, there would certainly be those who are wrongly regarded to be among those with whatever degree is decided upon to deny a person his Constitutional right to bear arms. 

Speaking of which, more than one person has suggested that anyone on a no-fly list should be denied.  But again, there have been many cases where someone is wrongly added to that list, and now, as if being wrongly denied the ability to travel by plane wouldn't be bad enough, a person would lose his right to self-defense, too. 

Of course the big thing now is bump stocks...a devise that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire multiple rounds quickly, almost like a fully automatic weapon.  They've been approved for sale because they don't actually convert such weapons to full auto, and few people even knew they existed before the Vegas tragedy.  It even appears as if the NRA is willing to stand down on this particular issue and allow the knee-jerk control freaks to outlaw them.  This doesn't deal with the issue of just how simple it would be to make a homemade version that would work just as well as the store bought, but such people never think beyond the self-serving politics in which they're engaging. 

(And that means, no, I don't think they really care about saving lives.  I think they care about appearing to care about saving lives, or they'd deal with the real issue....which ain't guns.)

And then there's the question of "need", or more precisely, lefties whining that they don't see any need for anyone to have an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, an AR15 style weapon (because they look scary) and in this case, a need for bump stocks that allow one to fire their weapon like it's a Tommy-gun.  The better question here is, who are these people to suggest they can impose their idea of "need" upon another as if they know each other person's personal situation.  I recall the riots after the Rodney King verdict where Korean store owners were on the roofs of their businesses with guns protecting their property.  I'd wager their need was real and legitimate.  But "need" is irrelevant.  It's called, the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

What's more, this whole gun-control thing smacks of bad parenting, where all the kids suffer because of the misbehavior of one sibling.  I hate that, and I hate it more on the adult level where it is even more common.  With this issue, it is especially heinous as it puts people at risk, just to politically posture one's self as "doing something".

But then, guns ain't the problem, anyway.  Never were and never will be.  In the meantime, I'm posting links to a few relevant articles and vids.  They address this topic well.  Take the time.

IF the above two don't hook you up, try this one...the article where I found them:

One more thing:  "silencers".  I thought this had been thoroughly debunked, but perhaps not.  I've seen a few vids that compare guns with and without suppressors.  In these vids, it is clear that the guns are still loud, just not so loud that damage to the ear is a problem, though many would still use ear protection.  In other countries, it's considered bad form not to suppress one's rifle when hunting or target shooting. 

But then I decided to google words to the effect "gun silencers that actually silence guns" and came upon some vids that perhaps suggest there's more to the story. 

One vid showed a fully automatic weapon (I won't mention the type here---cuz I didn't write it down and don't want to take the time to find it again) that was remarkably "silenced" by it's fully integrated suppressor (part of the gun).  The mechanics of the weapon made a bit of a racket, but had the Vegas shooter such a weapon thirty-two stories up, perhaps more would have been shot before they could tell where the bullets originated.  Of course, buying a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult and most licensed dealers can't sell them anyway.

Another presented a pistol with an integrated suppressor that was also rather quiet.  It was made by a company that is actually in the business of making suppressors for a variety of products and decided to try their hand at designing a pistol.  That is, they're not actually a firearms manufacturer outside this particular pistol. 

Yet another showed a guy adding multiple suppressors in order to see if he could get it "Hollywood" quiet.  That is, like all the silenced weapons in the movies that gun-control nuts think are representative of the real world.  This guy had about five screwed on to the end of his pistol's barrel and it was rather an awkward piece at that point.  While it was really quiet, he removed one of them so it would be more practical. 

All three of these weapons were very pricey.  The automatic in the first example is probably over ten grand, and I'm guessing much more.  Both pistols start around $1200.00.  They may be considerably more as well...I'm going from memory here. 

Still and all, guns aren't the problem. 

Sunday, October 01, 2017

No, I Meant YOU Should Embrace Grace, Not Me!

Just a quick post here to highlight curious practice of deleting legitimate comments by one who has complained about ill treatment after having been blocked from commenting at the blogs of Stan, Neil, Glenn, Mark and I don't know how many others.  Oh, how he whined when references to his positions were posted at any of these blogs!  Now, after having been accused of supporting and defending rapists, he deletes my comments posted to clarify my position and question how his charges expresses the spirit of "embrace grace"...a term he is quick to use at other blogs where his weak arguments are appropriately derided for being as weak and dishonest as they are. 

You'll note that at this here blog, I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, either upon myself or worse, my other of the only rules for engaging here that I have.  Even then, if such comments contain actual substance, I tend to copy such comments, delete them, but then re-post them with the childish vitriol either deleted or re-worded in brackets (this happens now and then when feo posts something that, for him, has just a bit of substance or something for which a response seems appropriate---a rarity).
Some would ask, why bother?  There are two reasons:

1.  I enjoy regular discourse a bit deeper than small talk.

2.  I much enjoy discourse with those who have opposing points of view.  And with those with invented religions to which they attach the word "Christian", there is much to discuss.

It's too bad, but leftists are notorious for running away...surrendering without actually conceding defeat.  Deleting comments is one manifestation of this trait.  And even if any of my comments are truly lacking in substance (as feo's routinely is), deleting them leaves one forced to take the word of he who deleted them...and that's a risky proposition, given the less than honest reasons given for deleting them in the first place.  I say, let others back you up by joining in and criticizing what I said.

I once deleted a comment of Mark's because I thought it was over the line in terms of crudeness.  His point could easily have been expressed differently to get the same thought across.  From that point, his deleted comment was referenced falsely by the person at issue here, and from that point I found it more practical to leave even the crude comments stand, so as to let people expose themselves as well as to let others respond if they felt like it.  And of course, to respond to what was actually said, not like Dan who responded as if Mark said something he never said.

I've mentioned all of the above in one way or another on more than one occasion.  I try to practice what I least here at my blog.  Dan does not.  When he runs up against that which he cannot counter, he quits, pretends he never saw it, accuses the commenter of bad behavior or he deletes.  And he certainly fails to ever "embrace grace"...whatever the hell that was ever supposed to mean.

Friday, September 15, 2017

For Hiram

Hiram is an occasional visitor to Dan Trabue's comedy blog.  He interjected a comment referencing an alleged "Catholic conservative" who writes tweets, columns and books and asked for insights on what I believe was   this article mainly, though I could be wrong.  If I am wrong, and Hiram was more concerned with something else written by this guy, I trust he will let me know and I'll do another post.  In the meantime, I'm going with this one because it seemed to relate to the topic of the thread in which his request appeared.  So...

Michael Coren is typical of the "progressive" Christian, based on what the linked article implies.  He apparently has written a number of books, with the latest being entitled "Epiphany: A Christians' Change of Heart Over Same-Sex Marriage".  The article in question speaks of a "proposal by Trinity Western University of Langley, B.C., to establish a law school."  The issue revolves around a conflict between Canadian law which supports the travesty of SSM and the right of a religious school to impose standards upon its students...the disregard for which can lead to expulsion.  This is the typical conflict imposed by all states or nations that choose to support a behavior long considered immoral and abnormal.  In the good old U.S. of A., our Constitution acknowledges our right to express our faith as we see fit in all we do.  Such legal impositions such as state recognition of sexual immorality naturally causes hardship for people of faith and reason and naturally pits "rights" against each other.

Such is the case with Trinity, as they seek to maintain standards of conduct among their students, faculty and employees.  It is their right to do so and as these standards are up front, open and easily found out by all who seek to spot among their community, the whine that they are "denying" or "discriminating" if homosexuality is akin to race or ludicrous.

But worse, the hatred for those who uphold long held and time-tested standards of morality and virtue extends to the hiring of those who acquire their law degree through this university.  The problem is that British Columbia will, like Ontario, deny law licenses to graduates of Trinity's law program, simply because the school has moral expectations for their students!  It's not like graduates are obliged to ignore the law simply because they signed onto a covenant.  But just like in the case of Amy Coney Barrett, somehow leftists, and this Coren dude, can't believe that a Christian can uphold the law if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  In the case of BC and Ontario, apparently, they aren't even going to take the chance, as idiotic as the notion might be. 

So what of Coren?  Early in the piece he makes the cheesy and woefully deceitful argument (though typical of the "progressive" Christian) that after His resurrection, Christ "went on again to not address sex, abortion, contraception, pornography or any of the other topics that seem to so obsess the Christian right. Odd, that."  Not odd at all, given three very significant factors:

1.  Christ was known to uphold the commandments of the Father, encouraging obedience to them, including those regarding human sexuality, which prohibits various immoral expressions of it.  What this doofus refers to as "obsession" (another typical argument and equally false) is actually concern with the obsession of the immoral that has led to laws that codify immorality.  As sexual immorality is harmful to body, mind and soul, decent Christians are justified in opposing it where proponents seek to legitimize it.

2.  Jewish law in the time of Christ resulted in sexual immorality not being as common as it otherwise might have been, and the punishment for being guilty of engaging in homosexual behavior was death, so it wasn't prevalent in Jewish least not that anyone has ever proven.  Why would Jesus spend time speaking on that which was not a problem for the targets of His preaching at the time?

3.  It is said by John (I believe) that there is much that Christ said and did that he did not record in his gospel.  To suggest that Christ NEVER broached the subject of homosexuality is an assertion without basis. 

Again, Coren assume Christians can't do the job because of their faith.  He says Trinity is inconsistent in their policy:

"The question is whether those future graduates should then be permitted to work as lawyers within the public square, to participate in a legal and social framework where the equality of LGBTQ people is the law — a fundamental human right. Trinity’s advocates respond by claiming the covenant is about protecting the sanctity of marriage, not homophobia. That’s a rather disingenuous claim, to say the least. What if a heterosexual student had a sexual relationship while enrolled at the college?"

An actual journalist, or an actual Christian concerned with truth and facts would have the answer to that question before writing an article about the case.  In Illinois, Wheaton college has a similar covenant incoming students are contractually expected to abide.  It is my understanding that ANY sexual immorality results in the same consequences.  I would assume Trinity is the same, but I'm not opposed to what has been stated about their covenant...Coren is.  If he wishes to portray them as wacky, interview someone from the school who is solidly familiar with the covenant in question.  Doing so may even have resulted in making his article unnecessary.  Having all the facts can do that.

But it seems that Coren believes that one cannot live one way and abide and defend the law at the same time.  One might be led to believe that there is absolutely no law that any Canadian lawyer finds objectionable.  It's absurd and unjustly derogatory toward Christians who do not pervert the Word of God to suit their personal preferences and Dan and feo.

Then Coren goes all in.

"Prejudice is what it is, by the way, and I’m sick and tired of people trying to use and abuse Christianity to justify their own baser feelings. Homosexuality is hardly mentioned in the Bible. Jesus doesn’t refer to it at all. The Old Testament never mentions lesbianism, the story of Sodom is more about rejecting the stranger than gay sex … and let’s just say that David and Jonathan might have had a tough time becoming law students at Trinity Western.
Frankly, scripture is vague on the issue. But sex and sexuality simply do not figure large in the Bible story, particularly when Christ becomes its centre."

Like all false Christians, Coren believes that discriminating against bad behaviors is anti-Christian, as if Christ never spoke about human behaviors.  This is what Coren regards as "baser feelings".
---He also suggests that how much something is mentioned matters to whether or not it is moral or immoral.  A single, solitary "Thou shalt not" is sufficient to all true Christians who seek to live a life pleasing to God.  It doesn't require reiteration every other page throughout the entirety of Scripture.  As I've demonstrated to Dan over the years on more than one occasion (because for him, reiteration is required, though never sufficient for edification), even pro-homosexual scholars and theologians acknowledge the clear and unmistakable prohibition of homosexual behavior in any context or scenario in which it might take place.  It is always an abomination, detestable, sinful and forbidden.

---The OT doesn't need to mention lesbianism.  As "progressive" Christians are quick to remind us, the ancient Hebrews were a patriarchal culture.  They counted their population by the number of adult men, not by how many men, women AND children there were.  What applied to men was (at least) equally applicable to women.  If a man was prohibited from lying with a male as one would with a female, there's no way a woman could lie with a female as one would with a male.

---The story of Sodom is NOT about rejecting the stranger as the men of Sodom were absolutely NOT looking to reject the two strangers Lot was protecting.  The homosexual aspect of the tale describes just how wicked the people of Sodom were, that they would welcome strangers by having homosexual sex with them.  If anyone was being rejected, it was the men of Sodom in their intentions to welcome the visitors in their customary manner.  I'm being only partially snarky here.  They didn't get pissed and attempt to force their will until after they were refused by Lot.

---Nothing is more desperate than the homosexual attempt to portray the David/Jonathan friendship as homosexual.  The activist/enabler is so corrupt as to accuse them of vile and detestable desires just to pretend there is Biblical precedent for their own.

Scripture is not "vague" at all on the subject of sexual immorality in general and certainly not with regard to homosexuality behavior.  God forbids it because it is detestable, and even mandates capital punishment until the sacrifice of Christ on the cross paid for that sin as well.

Coren is not a Christian any more than are feo or Dan.  They all worship a god of their own making who has only a loose similarity to the God of the Bible.  It is not conservative Christians who drive people away.  It is the sin nature of those who find the moral teachings of Christianity inconvenient that does it.