Thursday, July 14, 2016

Coming Attractions

In two recent posts http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2016/03/agenda-lies-10-nothing-to-worry-about.html
and http://marshallart.blogspot.com/2016/02/rip-antonin.html, the intrepid and always faux-intellectual feo listed 15 points meant to testify to the greatness of one Barry Obama.  I've been wanting to take on this list, most if not all 15 points, in an effort to present the reality that is so hard for those like feo to take.  I don't know how long it will take me to get through them all, assuming I ever feel I need to do so, as my schedule leaves me little time to truly gather what I need to complete the task.  But in time I will indeed get most of them.  I may do two at once depending upon the nature of the given assertions, while others will surely require undivided attention.  I'm not sure if I'll take them in order, or by virtue of which is the most outrageous claim.  Nonetheless, the list gives me something to do until a more pressing issue compels me.  In the meantime, I will begin with the link below, which deals with the Great Unifier, who has done so much to divide us.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=9383#more-9383

178 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Obama is, hands down, the worst president in the history of this nation. He has done more to divide the people of this nation than anyone, or any event, has ever done. He's proven to hate police, to be a rank racist, to love Islam and hate Christianity, to be rabidly anti-gun, pro-abortion, forcing homosexuality on the nation (same-sex fake marriage; agree or be punished), etc. And yet he claims to be a Christian! He's also a pathological liar.

And yet people like the false priest support him and his ilk 100%. The false priest and HIS ilk are disgraces to humanity, and especially to Christianity with their false claims to be Christians as they worship a Christ of their own making.

Marshall Art said...

For most of what you say, I am in total agreement. Where I depart with you I do only by restating some of the points. I'll do so now, but also add those points where I have no disagreement at all:

1. Worst president in my lifetime. I'd need to study more deeply the administrations of all past presidents to compare to the extent where I can confidently state Barry O is the worst of all. In the meantime, I'll just say I wouldn't wager against the notion.

2. He's certainly an expert divider. I think it comes naturally due to his low intelligence. As to his low intelligence, releasing his college records would go a long way toward confirming or disputing the charge.

3. I don't know that I've ever heard him say he hates the police. It does indeed look to be true that he does not hold them in as high regard as the thugs he defends when shootings are publicized.

4. Yeah. He's a racist. But then, I'm not sure he has a great love for humanity in general. He seems surely to love himself a great deal.

5. He does indeed show favoritism toward islam over Christianity. His desire to allow millions of muslim refugees to flow unimpeded into our country, while doing far less to defend, protect and welcome foreign Christian victims of Islamic brutality is quite clear.

6. Rabidly and stupidly anti-gun. Far more so than he appears to be anti-crime.

7. Pro-abortion. Without a doubt.

8. Forcing homosexuality on the nation...in all its variant forms.

9. Pathological liar. OR just incredibly stupid. Likely both.

10. Claims to be a Christian, as if merely saying so alone makes it so.

Dan Trabue said...

You all are welcome to have negative opinions about Obama, but you are in an increasing minority. Currently, his ratings are just over 50% and rising.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

This compared to Bush's about 32% at this stage in his presidency. Now, if you want a truly flawed president, there you go. W.

While bitterly partisan Republicans will no doubt continue hating on Obama (irrationally, given how successful he has been), historians will no doubt be quite kind to him.

Obama joined a small crowd of other mostly progressive US Presidents (and one Vice President) to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and, of course, Obama). I know that roasts the goat of conservatives.

Obama inherited a floundering economy and turned it around.

Obama inherited dangerously high unemployment and turned it around impressively.

Obama inherited two wars and has done less well closing them, but has made improvements.

Obama captured/killed Osama bin Laden, the actual person responsible for 9/11 (as opposing Iraq, which had nothing to do with it... arguably, a war crime)

Obama has been astoundingly scandal free (as compared to recent presidents).

Obama and his family have been classy, intelligent, presidential, mature, moral and just very cool, decent people (as opposed to the moral shipwreck of the current GOP candidate for office).

Yes, history will judge Obama quite well. The GOP and their irrational hatred, opposition and obstructionism, not so much.

Dan Trabue said...

Here are five smart reasons that show where Obama has done better than Reagan (gasp! I know...), including...

1. No real scandals (as opposed to Reagan who supported and sold weapons to thugs and terrorists - including giving bin Laden his start! - and got us convicted of war crimes!

2. Bottom line: Better employment numbers.

3. Inflation is under control.

4. Economy in better shape

See the data and the rest here...

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/5-reasons-why-obama-is-a-much-better-president-than-reagan-or-how-to-make-conservative-heads-explode/

And once again:
Obama: Nobel Peace Prize.
Reagan: War crime conviction in the world court. Supported terrorists. Supported Apartheid. Supported Noriega. Supported Saddam Hussein. Supported bin Laden. Supported Pinochet (who was placed in power by Nixon...). Supported Marcos. Supported the thugs in El Salvador responsible for killing three nuns and Oscar Romero.

Damn. The people he supported sound like attendees at a cartoon villain convention!

Reality hurts when you don't like it, I know.

More reasons that Reagan wasn't as good as conservatives think...

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21reasonsReaganwasaterriblepresident

Dan Trabue said...

By comparison, Obama is a sainted boy scout. History and historians and scholars WILL judge him kindly, just be prepared for that disappointment.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

Poll numbers about popularity have nothing to do with the actually performance of the individual. It just shows that people don't care about performance when it comes to a public figure, they just care about his appeal, most of which is produced by the media.

We don't hate Obama irrationally, we don't hate him at all. We hate his policies, which have ruined this country. He is a pathological liar, refuses to call Islam the root of the terrorism, has virtually destroyed the military with his social engineering forcing them to accommodate perversion, raised health care costs with his failed Obamacare, force sexual perversion into the public school systems, has virtually sold Israel down the river, is determined to disarm law-abiding citizens, has proven himself to be a rank racist, and is bent on turning this nation full-blown socialist.

His getting the Peace Prize was fraudulent -- he did NOTHING to earn it, NOTHING.

He has NOT turned the economy around, he has put this nation farther in debt than it has ever been. Unemployment is higher than it ever was, but they don't count the people who aren't on unemployment. The actual number have been reported much higher than the LEFT will admit.

Obama's "improvements" in the wars have consisted of having more killed than under that last two presidents. And HE didn't capture Osama, that operation was set up before he became president and he just took credit.

There has been nothing "classy" about Obama; perfect example is his using a funeral service to promote his agenda rather than simply honoring those who were killed BECAUSE of his policies. Mature? He's a whiner. MORAL?!?!? promoting abortion and homosexuality is not moral. The family thinks they are royalty and are the most arrogant presidential couple we've ever had.

What is irrational is your drinking the LEFTIST koolaid. Go back under your rock, FOOL

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

OH, and Obama is a RANK racist to boot!

Feodor said...

Mr Hanson can't get out of the box without being historically ignorant. The Habsburg governments were an advance on articulating the rights of citizens. Even before that, the Polish King, Boleslav, made applaud great by inviting and protecting hundreds of thus ands of Jews to fill out professional and labor needs of his budding nation.

We cannot blame theses governments for failing to see or evade the brutality of nativism and exclusive nationalism. Even now our own version in the form of you two and Trump are weakening America.

The US and Canada remain exceptional for our multi-culturalism. Peru, France, England, etc. It's multiculturalism that will make us great again; nothing else will. We may though have to wait for the likes of you haters to die off.

Feodor said...

This is, of course, just from the top of my head. But, then, intellectuals can do such things.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Multiculturalism is the lie that says all cultures are equal. Multiculturalism is what has destroyed the American culture as every new group demands special rights, and each new group brings in their own worldviews of demands for "free" things, or like Islam bring in terrorism and the desire to conquer the USA.

Look what "multiculturalism" has done to Europe with the invasion of Islam; terrorism, rapes and other attacks on an unprecedented scale, and in England especially they are draining the government coffers as they collect their millions of welfare.

Multiculturalism has led to all the hyphenated Americans who have no real loyalty to the USA -- our nation has become balkanized primarily due to LEFTIST policies.

Feodor said...

"Multiculturalism is the lie that says all cultures are equal."

Absolutely wrong. Multiculturalism is the truth that no homogenous culture is healthy. We are healthier when we share the different strengths of cultures and help repair the weaknesses of our own. That's why open nations do better.

Dan Trabue said...

Multiculturalism is the lie that says all cultures are equal.

Always beware when someone says this, and then says, "MY culture is the better one..."

Just sayin'...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And Europe is doing so much better with all those other cultures invading, aren't they?

For the jackass, I never claimed any culture as the Better one. However, a Christian worldview is the best cultural worldview no matter which culture you put it with.

Feodor said...

European countries rate better in education, health, happiness, longevity, vacation days.

Glenn loves playing tennis with flat balls.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The only reason European countries rate better in education is because the LEFT has taken over American education and have dumbed it down, teaching all revisionist history, sex indoctrination, homosexuality and every other sexual perversion. Can't have good education that way.

Um, no they don't have better health or longevity.

As for vacation days, well when you pay the majority of your income in taxes, you get more days off paid for by your taxes.

Your hate for America just keeps showing more and more. Go live in Europe.

Feodor said...

The truth isn't hate. And the education you think is making us worse here is, in fact, what is taught in the Europe that bests us educationally.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, but how you have shown how much you HATE the truth.

What is taught in Europe is what we USED to teach -- real education. They don't have the PC crap we have here ruining our educational system. However, homeschoolers beat them all hands down!

Anonymous said...

Re: Homeschoolers have them beat...

I would point you to research:

For example, two large U.S. studies (Rudner, 1999; Ray, 2009) are frequently cited as definitive evidence that homeschoolers academically outperform public and private school students. But in both cases, the homeschool participants were volunteers responding to an invitation by the nation’s most prominent advocacy organization to contribute test scores (on tests usually administered by parents in the child’s own home).

The demographics of these samples were far whiter, more religious, more married, better educated, and wealthier than national averages. And yet these test score results were compared to average public school scores that included children from all income levels and family backgrounds. Not surprisingly, wealthy homeschoolers from stable two-parent families who take tests administered by their parents in the comfort of their own homes outscore the average public school child by large margins.

The simple fact is that no studies of academic achievement exist that draw from a representative, nationwide sample of homeschoolers and control for background variables like socio-economic or marital status. It is thus impossible to say whether or not homeschooling as such has any impact on the sort of academic achievement measured by standardized tests.


Which is not to say that homeschoolers aren't doing well (one would certainly hope so with such small class sizes and individual attention and strong parental involvement!!), just that the data isn't out there to objectively make the claim.

I know this because I went to public school and understand about research and making claims one can't support with the existing data.

Just as an aside, if facts matter to you, Glenn.

(Here's betting they don't.)

http://icher.org/faq.html

~Dan

Feodor said...

"For illustration, in Austria, parents are included in the sexuality education lessons. In Denmark, external experts such as prostitutes, homosexuals or HIV-positive persons are invited to speak in schools about their experience. In the Netherlands, sexuality education begins at the age of four. However, in Poland sexuality is taboo at school as well as at home. In Spain, the subject is hardly ever taught in schools in rural areas. Overall, the best practises are observed in Benelux, Nordic countries, France and Germany."

"Policies for Sexuality Education in the European Union"

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/462515/IPOL-FEMM_NT(2013)462515_EN.pdf

Marshall Art said...

Note the numbers from that Gallup poll Dan offered:


2016 Jul 4-10
Republicans: 9 % Independents: 48 % Democrats: 90 %

Not hard to see how Obumble's numbers might look good when almost all Dems approve of his every fart. What I couldn't find (with only a quick scan) of the poll is who was being polled. That is, how many people, and of that total how many were Dems, Independents and Repubs. That's significant information that provides a more accurate picture.

"While bitterly partisan Republicans will no doubt continue hating on Obama (irrationally, given how successful he has been), historians will no doubt be quite kind to him."

It's not only "bitterly partisan Republicans" who "hate" Obama (if indeed even they do), but rational, honest people who do not have their heads up their backsides like Obama supporters do. It is more than doubtful that history will have high regard for Obama as president. It's more like a slam-dunk certainty.

"Obama joined a small crowd of other mostly progressive US Presidents (and one Vice President) to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and, of course, Obama). I know that roasts the goat of conservatives."

Because he did absolutely nothing to deserve it, and so much since then to justify taking it back from him.

The rest of you next two posts contain most of what I intend to refute in coming blog posts. So I won't deal with them now.

Marshall Art said...

"Mr Hanson can't get out of the box without being historically ignorant."

That's funny. feo thinks he's smarter and a better historian than VC Hanson. Incredible!

"Multiculturalism is the truth that no homogenous culture is healthy. We are healthier when we share the different strengths of cultures and help repair the weaknesses of our own."

An example would help. Dan hasn't been able to provide one for this notion. Maybe the blog buffoon feo can do so. I'll wait here.

Marshall Art said...

Regarding Dan's link referencing home schooling. I'd like to thank you for providing evidence for the types of educational changes that people like Glenn and I would be more than happy to see. Your link credits individual attention and, more so, parental involvement, for the better results of homeschooled children. While there are limits to class sizes in public schools, parental involvement is essential and greatly lacking in this country, particularly in urban areas where "progressive" policies and ideologies have resulted in the most damage.

But here's another irony, since you love irony so much, that totally escapes you, and that is that this article cites as problematic two factors of note:

---the participation in the study was volunteered, and
---the sample is not representative.

Yet, in the 60 studies always cited to pretend the children of homosexuals/lesbians fare no worse than those raised by their own parents, those are just two of the many flaws that are ignored by proponents of the LGBT agenda, who in Dan's mind are perfect, angelic and beyond reproach in any way. Thus, if such flaws must be ignored in order to champion the cause of sexual immorality and maintain the illusion too many do nothing to overcome, then it cannot be held up as noteworthy in order to argue against the benefits and results of home schooling.

There's another distinction, however, which is that the character of people who homeschool is also what makes success far more likely in the education of our children. Such character is hard to come by from the progressive side, as they are so determined to overlook the real causes of problems in our society today. This is also a character flaw of the Great Obummer that Dan thinks will be treated kindly by history.

Dan Trabue said...

You do know, don't you Marshall, that homeschool parents include progressive, conservative, libertarian and all across the political Spectrum?

Further, to act as if only conservatives have integrity and the progressives don't, further undermines your credibility.

And time will tell how history will treat Obama. But just looking at the data, it's hard to argue he was not an impressive president if data is what you're looking at. Also his calm, cool character and scandal-free presidency speak for themselves as opposed to the literal, demonstable liars and criminals and war criminals in the Reagan, Bush,bush years. They were war criminals... convicted war criminals. They hired and pardoned war criminals. They were responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent lives... nuns, priests, children, infants, families.

Truly, those who defend war criminals do not have much to speak of integrity.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Gee, wouldn't you guess that liberals would make claims about HS compared to government schools being rigged.

Well, we homeschooled and we weren't/aren't wealthy and when our daughter went to college she was 4.0 the whole five years and on the dean's list. Every homeschool family we know had similar results and none are wealthy. Mostly Christian? yes, because it is mainly Christians who are fed up with the government brainwashing their children.

Most whites? Probably, because overall the black culture is anti-education, considering education a "white thing." Only those blacks who use their own heads rather than listen to racist propaganda from the likes of Sharpton and his ilk, and the gangs, will seek better education.

As for marital status, yep, but that is also a variant if government school success.

Yep, fact matter, trabue; too bad you don't have the real ones.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Wow, that is the sex education they get? And I thought the US was bad. Nothing like teaching every sexual perversion as being an alternative lifestyle.

Indoctrinating young people into sexual activity at the age of four. How nice.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You do know, don't you Trabue, that the vast majority of homeschoolers are conservative Christians who normally vote against the leftist Demokrats?

How many homeschool conventions have you been to? I've been to several. I think I have a better handle on the situation than you do.

Dan Trabue said...

Holy fucking shit! Over all, the "black culture" is "anti-education..."!??

Marshall, are you prepared to stand by and/or defend such blatant and ungodly racism?!

I've always found Glenn's comments to be borderline, "soft" racism, but here he is going full Grand Wizard on us!

Shit and damnation!

Feodor said...

Yeah, Glenn! The very education you acknowledged as superior to ours. And you're right! First and last time for everything.

Feodor said...

You have no idea what the Habsburg Empire was do you, Marshall? Can you at least find Poland on a map? No?!

How about Canada? Know where Canada is, Marshall?

Dan Trabue said...

Obama data, if data matters...

Unemployment: Down
Cop killings: Down
Violent crime: Down
Uninsured citizens: Down
Stock market: Up
Gas prices: Down (half the cost as under Bush)

The most globally admired man: Obama - Higher than the Pope and previous presidents

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/12/1547100/-Things-that-are-Obama-s-fault-in-graphs\\

If data matters to you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

Get your head out of your fourth point of contact and read current events, study sociology, etc. Even Thomas Sowell has written about the black culture's anti-education stance. Why do you think so many blacks drop out of schools?

Oh, and your language is another demonstration of how not only do you have a false christ you worship, by you don't have a good command of the English language.

Keep spewing your slanted "data" rather than studying facts. Typical liberal who is just a media lemming.



Feo,

I don't consider "sex education" to be education -- that is indoctrination into sexual immorality.

And the only one on this string lying about Scripture is YOU.

Dan Trabue said...

"By you don't have a good command of the English language."

Funny, you criticize me speak but command your language bad yourself, so.

Racist.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, this is your chance to give yourself a little credibility by calling Glenn on his ugly-ass racism.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Glenn: "What is taught in Europe is what we USED to teach -- real education. They don't have the PC crap we have here ruining our educational system."

Glenn: "Wow, that is the sex education they get?"

You really have no idea what you're trying to talk about, do you, Glenn?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue the ass pulled out the racist card. What every liberal does when you give them truth. There isn't a racist bone in my body and anyone I know can vouch for that. It isn't racism to point out facts about a fake culture developed by radicals and gangs.


Feo,
I read about their education system, not their sex education. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about, contrary to your stupid you spew here on a daily basis.

You two are peas in a pod; ignorant, intentionally stupid, far left radical and anti-Christian.

Have fun with them Art, I can't tolerate their foolishness, so it's time for me to leave this string to you.

Dan Trabue said...

You said something that is, by the very definition of racism, racist, Glenn. Now, is it possible that you are NOT a racist but just say incredibly racist things? That you're just too stupid to know that it's racist? Yes, sure, I guess it's possible. You tell me. Are you so stupid that you don't recognize what you said was racist?

Marshall, will you step up and correct your comrade or defend this overtly racist language?

Dan Trabue said...

The thing about you, Glenn, is you are almost certainly too big a fucking coward to go up to a Black Panther, say what you said and ask, "that isn't racist, is it?" aren't you?

Or ask one of your many friends from "the black culture," even, right? Is that too scary for you? Or do you have even one black friend?

Tell me, Glenn, when was the last time you went to eat at a black friend's home? Or had anyone from "the black culture" come to your house?

I will give you this: I think it's entirely possible you are too blinded by culture or just too stupid and lacking in intellectual depth or fortitude to know that you're saying something incredibly racist. That's sort of pitiable and, to the degree that you can't help yourself, I feel sorry for you and I'm a bit sorry that I'm being so rough on you. But someone needs to try to wake your ass up and help you not be so stupid or blind or cowardly.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Stating factual evidence is not racist. But to those who hate the truth, truth is hate.

Dan Trabue said...

You have not cited a single bit of data. I have.

You have denied the science I provided but had nothing but your word to say what was wrong with any of the data I cited.

You have, by definition, made a fucking racist claim like a fucking pussy-ass privileged white school boy. You are free to make racist statements if you want, but you can expect to be called on it, you hypocrite, you liar, you racist-spewing idiot.

Again, sorry to be so rough on you, but people are tired of the racism. This is the 21st century and you WILL be called on it. Again, take it to the Black Panther meeting and run it past them. But you won't, will you? Because you are afraid to and, no doubt, somewhere, deep in your soul, you recognize it's wrong. Or maybe you're just a coward and a deliberate racist. Again, you tell me.

Feodor said...

Glenn: "Have fun with them Art, I can't tolerate their foolishness, so it's time for me to leave this string to you."

Then he comes back again.

His usual commitment to his word.

Feodor said...

And, Glenn, you're too scared and ignorant of scripture. You know I'm right about Galatians. That's why you avoid the thread.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Art,

I think you need to ban the filthy language from fools.

Feodor said...

And comes back again after saying he couldn't take the heat anymore.

Dan Trabue said...

He spews ignorant, racist hate-bile and his dainty little ears can't bear a straightforward and righteous, "fuck that shit!"

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

I do think that the coward boy makes a good point, though, Marshall. You probably should ban his filthy racist language from fools like him. If for nothing else than for his sake, so he doesn't embarrass himself further.

Dan Trabue said...

You know, I just noticed something. I could be wrong, but I think that Glenn has actually often used the "racist" card himself... and out of the hundreds of years of slavery and oppression against black folk here and around the world, I believe the ONLY "racism" that Glenn has consistently been able to find fault with is with black folk being what he calls "racist..." or white folk who are defending black folk perhaps. Even Paul Ryan and many, many evangelical conservatives can see how obviously Trump is using racist language, but Glenn can only see fit to defend that...

Hmm. Interesting.

Almost like he can't find a white person racist enough to condemn, but apparently "black racists" are everywhere in Glenn's world.

Hm.

But that's just a side observation.

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn, did your ancestors fight in the Confederacy? Did they ride with the Knight Riders? If so, are you able to condemn any of that?

Just curious.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm sorry, but it's time I just have to respond to the top jackass of all time, Dan Trabue. I'm sick of his continuous libel labeling me a coward and a racist. The fool has no clue, and is the true racist.

My family fought against the confederacy, by the way. My great-great-grandfather fought in some of the bloodiest battles of the war, and when he was one of the few survivors of his unit during a particularly nasty event during which he received a battlefield promotion to 2nd LT, he ended up being sent home to recruit (during which time my great-grandfather conceived). He then became commanding officer of company F, 113th Ohio Volunteer Infantry and marched with Sherman to the sea.

I have proclaimed a zillion times that there is really no such thing as "races" as based on skin color. "Race" used to mean a particular culture, such as the "Irish race" or the "German race." It was the evolutionists who really turned it to mean skin color with their belief that there are five basic races and each one is farther developed from the apes, the black race being closest to the apes. It is the evolutionists who are racists. God teaches ONE race -- the human race.

When you have solid conservative black men and women who condemn the culture which has developed among the American blacks, especially in the ghettos, you don't call them racists, but if I repeat what studies have demonstrated that takes place I'm considered by Trabue as a "racist." Facts demonstrate that the black family suffer more than any other population group because of the culture that has developed; and anti-American culture that continues to whine about the sins of the past (slavery, etc), a culture in which men become sperm donors and brag about how many women they've impregnated and left behind leading to a fatherless culture which spawns violence and gangs; a culture which says that getting educated is for "whites" and to not be like "whitey," etc. A culture which says black men committing crimes should not be challenged by police; a culture that says Black Lives Matter only when they are shot by police while black on black crime accounts for the vast majority of black deaths; a culture which leads to the majority of abortions being black children. A culture which says LEOs should be executed. I describe the problem with this manufactured culture and Trabue labels me a racist.

Trabue needs to study some sociology, especially when it comes to the manufactured black culture. I'll even suggest a first book, "The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers," by Taleeb Starkes ( black man). take a look at my Thought-Provoker blog under the label "NIGGERS" (Starke's label, not mine) for six good quotations from the book which will make you understand a wee bit about the truth.
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/search/label/NIGGERS

As for white's being racist, I point them out all the time. The ones who support Obama's racism (Obama denigrates his white half and calls himself black), the ones who support the entitlement program to keep blacks in the slavery of the ghetto, the ones who support government programs for blacks which make it easy for fathers to leave home, the ones who promote affirmative action programs because they think blacks can't make it on their own. And of course the KKK and skin-head types.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Part 2
But blacks can be even more racist than whites, and I have seen it personally over and over again as I witness those who are part of the "culture" preach hate and violence against all whites. I lived for a few years in a federal housing project with Mexicans and blacks and knew the "good guys" from the "racists." I've lived in other neighborhoods with large percentages of blacks and could tell easily who was being part of the manufactured culture and watch how they denigrated those who didn't want to be part of it. I went to High School where the blacks who studied hard and did good were harassed and bullied by those who were part of the "culture."

It is the Demokrats who keep the blacks as slaves to the government. It is the false teachings of the social gospel which stirs the same pots. Trabue is complicit in the racism against blacks because he is a blasphemer of God and Christ and promotes all the social practices of the Demokrats.

And Trabue, I'm like Stan-- as soon as I see your name on a comment I delete it without reading it - you know you have been banned from my blog but you still like try to get your lies and filth on it; it will never happen.

So quit your libel, Trabue. That is your main recourse on every blog you troll. You immediately begin telling lies about the blogger and anyone who is against you.

You are certainly the son of your father Satan.

Dan Trabue said...

The cowardice charge still stands solid because you are too pansy-assed to ask a Black Panther if that phrase is racist. The racism charge stands because your comment is by definition racist. Now again I will admit it could be you're too f****** stupid to recognize how racist and cowardly you are, in which case I do feel sorry for you. Get some education. Face your cowardice like a man.

Dan Trabue said...

And I see your self-serving, lily-livered, irrational emotional defense of your racist comments that you're defining racist as anybody who disagrees with you culturally, who disagrees with your racist opinions. as opposed to, you know, the dictionary definition.

Figures. A failure to use reason and Reliance upon brainless, emotional, shallow and unsupported answers is your MO.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

Sorry. Too many typos in that last comment. I had to delete it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

I'll tell a black panther they are racists as soon as you tell an ISIS guy that he is a terrorist. It's not cowardly to avoid hitting someone in the face. You are the coward who is afraid of truth. The phrase is factual, not racist. You're too stupid to understand it. You are the one who needs education, you fool

And, as usual, you misrepresented everything I wrote and lied about it to promote YOUR self-service charges against anyone who points out what a fool you are.

End of discussion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and, no I wasn't picked on people as you claim. Just more proof you are a bald-faced lying libeler.

Anonymous said...

You know, Glenn, I have seen your rather thuggish and immature type before. I think I have a reading on you:

You were picked on in school by big, mean black people and in your impotence and shame, you extrapolated out that tiny, tiny, pathetic experience to assume that all black folk are big, bad and mean. (Oh, you make an allowance for the "nice blacks," but they're the exception, aren't they?) "They" hate education in your pissant-sized experience, so all "the black culture" hates education.

You were emotionally emasculated as a child and you never grew out of it... am I right, Glenn?

If so, let it go. Grow up, face your fears and your lack of adult reasoning, make some peace and Let It Go.

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

When was the last time you ate dinner with black friends, Glenn? Went to a black friend's house and sat down and chatted with them about " the black culture..."?

Look, I'm sure you have good intentions, in spite of your cowardly and racist behavior. But most likely, you've isolated yourself in an echo chamber, surrounded only by people who agree with you and say the same sort of anti intellectual, shallow, racist sorts of things. But I'm encouraging you to let go of your fears and biases and get out in the real world... It's not as scary as you probably think.

Anonymous said...

Glenn...

I'll tell a black panther they are racists as soon as you tell an ISIS guy that he is a terrorist.

Let me explain to you why this is so exceedingly stupid.

1. When was the last time a black panther group killed someone? Assaulted someone in the name of the group?

A "terrorist" group that doesn't kill and otherwise terrorize is NOT a terrorist group. By definition.

2. The ISIS guy gladly affirms he is a terrorist, that he is killing innocent people to further his cause. It's no shock to him that he is a terrorist and does not need to be told.

3. Comparing the two shows further signs of mental soft-spots in your reasoning.

4. You remain a coward because you won't take your claim to the people your accusing in it. You'll gladly make this stupid-ass, racist claim from the safety of your computer keyboard, but you won't deal with the real people you are making false and racist claims about. That is cowardice, defined.

Eduction complete, IF you have the intellectual fortitude to consider it reasonably, like an adult who isn't a racist.

You're welcome.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue

I'm out with black friends often enough. Even tried to adopt two black girls back in 1999, but working with DHS became a nightmare and we had to stop the process. I don't see skin color -- I see the character of the person. And your character is horrid. Proof is your last paragraph with it's lies. You are a pathological liar.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Your education is incomplete. Because you are unteachable. Black panthers have been responsible for many deaths, but you don't know history so you are ignorant of that fact. I wasn't comparing ISIS to BP, I merely gave you a similar challenge. ISIS would behead you in a second. IT's stupid to throw vinegar into the face of anyone. That's not cowardice when you withhold the vinegar.

Keep libeling me, you pathological liar.

Anonymous said...

A recent article that's apt...

"In order for white people to restore our own humanity, let us stop condemning the perspectives and voices of black Americans. The best way to share our power instead of hoarding it is to stop believing we already know how it is, that our understanding of the world is the right one. We will know racism has been eliminated when we can listen to one another with respect, and if we do not currently feel respected by black voices, we ought to stop whining about it. We should go out and earn it. Respect doesn’t just get handed to us because we don’t own slaves.

We ought to stop talking at black people and about black people. I suggest we shut up and listen. If we are going to speak, let’s talk with not about. Talk with, not at. If we’re still talking at and about, then we are, by definition, still attempting to wield power over a group rather than sharing the power. We are, in the recesses of our subconscious, still tainted by white supremacy.

Dear non-racist white people, stop saying we’re not racist. That does not contribute to the solution. Dear non-racist white people, repent. Repent of the self-righteousness that allows us to glide through these violent times with smug indifference or offended egos or an unshakable sense of our own moral superiority or with shocked horror at what other people are capable of doing. Dear non-racist white people, pretend it is the very first day of integration. Are we alert and empathetic to the cries of the oppressed? Do we have the courage to put our own safety and comfort at risk to stand in solidarity with the suffering? Do we have the Christian humility to listen to other perspectives and learn new things? Dear non-racist white people, can we swallow with grace the fact that we have not earned the respect or trust of our black brothers and sisters, and that to do so will take work on our part, not theirs?"

Glenn...

IT's stupid to throw vinegar into the face of anyone. That's not cowardice when you withhold the vinegar.

? It IS cowardly to accuse, from the safety of your keyboard, the BP of being racist or of "the black culture" being anti-education, but you are not willing to take the charge to the person/group you're making your racist and cowardly charge against.

Get some balls and show you're not a coward or shut up, you racist, school-boy bully/coward.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

Your article is typical anti-white racism. If I am not racist, I can certainly state that. And I have nothing to repent of in this regard. (Sounds like you might have pulled this off of Jim Wallis' site).

Your continued attacks on my character as being cowardly have no reality to them. Nor am I a racist, a bully, or a coward. The cowardly bully is you, who uses your keyboard to troll everyone from the safety of your home/office/whatever knowing you will never have to meet any of them face to face. You just continue to libel people you pathological liar.

Anonymous said...

Your article is typical anti-white racism.

Meaning, again, that if someone disagrees with your unsupported hunches and says something about or to white folk, that it is "racist."

But claiming that "the black culture" "hates education" is spreading love and peace.

Got it. Racist. Coward.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue ass,

How about citing me properly. I gave the context of "black culture" in the succeeding lengthy emails as the "manufactured culture" of a particular, but vocal, segment of the population. I doubt if you bothered to read the quotes on the link I provided, otherwise you would have understood and your whole argument would have been dismantled, proving again what an ass and liar you are.

Nevertheless, I'm going to assist your laziness and post the citations which refer to my context, and they are by a black man and his context is "Niggers" vs the rest of the black people. Here's the first short quote:


Please understand that NIGGERS aren’t the “have nots,” instead, they’re the “rather nots”! Why do I call them the “rather nots”? Because they “rather not” productively contribute to society, they “rather not” cease NIGGERtivity, they “rather not” accept responsibility for their actions, they “rather not”(feel free to fill in the blank).

Taleeb Starkes, The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers, p.2

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

From the HoG [“Hood or Ghetto”], the outside world is realized through a narrow lens. It’s a place where their (NIGGERS) immediate, present day surroundings are the extent of their concern. As a result, this lack of horizon impairs their ability to meaningfully connect with others outside of their bubble. Moreover, environmental or social issues like climate change (whether it’s real or fake), recycling, conservationism, etc. which affects our bubble (Earth) is deemed inconsequential. Seemingly, they know there’s no future in being a NIGGER, so their lives are structured around instant gratification. While some NIGGERS are oblivious of their social branding as such, others embrace the lifestyle. Even so, there’s no difference between the two. Gangs, for example, annually account for thousands of homey-cides because of their supposed differences; however, under close inspection, they share the same Ebonic speech, gangster hip-hop, style of dress (only different colors), and taxpayer-dependent existence. Although they appear to be rivals, culturally, they’re all NIGGERS. Actually, there are more similarities than differences between these so-called rivals/gangs. Remember, they are two sides of the same, worthless coin. Don’t be fooled.

Taleeb Starkes, The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers, p.10-11

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

NIGGER parents don’t mind if their children fail to adjust to society’s measures of success because they inherently believe that America is rigged by WHITES for African-Americans to fail. In the NIGGER subculture, failure is always an option because of their belief that racism is so pervasive that no amount of individual effort will overcome it. Furthermore, failure is routinely embraced because it navigates their kids toward that reliable path of government handouts, which generationally has been the financial pillar of their subculture. … Oklahoma State representative, Sally Kern (R), expressed similar sentiment regarding the subculture’s outlook by stating, “We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.” Although she makes the common mistake of mis-labeling NIGGERS as BLACKS, she is spot-on with her observation.


Taleeb Starkes, The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers, p.26

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Since the NIGGER subculture has consistently demonstrated the inability to grasp the fundamentals of English, Ebonics manifested to supplement their handicap. But here’s the truth…their assumed speech impediment is actually an embraced and encouraged attribute of their subculture. During his 2004 Ghettoesburg address, Bill Cosby highlighted this aspect of the NIGGER subculture, and correctly surmised: “It’s standing on the corner. It can’t speak English. It doesn’t want to speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk. ‘Why you ain’t where you is go, ra.’ I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house an switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with ‘why you ain’t…’ You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this? Well, they know they’re not, they’re just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you’re just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out.” Naturally, Dr. Cosby was vilified for telling the truth.


Taleeb Starkes, The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers, p.40

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Within the African-American populace, BLACKS and NIGGERS will forever be oppositional segments. BLACKS are the cream of the crop, upwardly mobile, productive, taxpaying, law-abiding, assets to society who characteristically don’t subscribe to the NIGGER subculture. Whereas NIGGERS are the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community.

Taleeb Starkes, The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers, p.41

When the political left wants to help the black community, they usually want to help the worst elements in that community -- thugs they portray as martyrs, for example -- without the slightest regard for the negative effect this can have on the lives of the majority of decent black people.

Thomas Sowell, Random Thoughts, 12/30/14

But in Trabue's book, both these men, and the ones they cite, are all racists.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm not speaking of these men. I'm speaking of YOUR racist language and naked cowardice.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You ARE a jackass. I use the exact same information and you call me a racist. You call it racist language by me, but I guess it's okay by them because they are black.

Keep calling me a coward, jackass, but that doesn't make it so. Just proves you continue to libel me and are a pathological liar, all the while claiming to be a good Christian.

Facts hit you between the eyes, didn't they!

Anonymous said...

I don't know. Let me know if you ever, you know, start using facts. Like something to support THIS racist claim: "The black culture hates education."

By all means, step up, present some FACTS to support the claim or admit that you misspoke and, even better, admit that it is, by definition racist.

And the FACT that you are too wet-your-pants-scared of the Black Panther to bring this up in a meeting with them and ask their opinion, well, that fact attests to your cowardice.

So, please, yes, start dealing with some facts.

~Dan

Feodor said...

"Whereas NIGGERS are the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community."

Glenn is a true nigger.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
Gee, what a highly intellectual libel you just made. You're as stupid as your brother liar Trabue.


Trabue,
You are so stupid to insist I search the country to find a BP member and discuss the issue with him or else I'm a coward. You get stupider with each post.

Dan Trabue said...

Be honest, Glenn, WOULD you walk up to a crowd of Black Panthers and tell them what you said and ask them "Is that racist, in your opinion?" if you had a chance to do so?

I bet you wouldn't. I bet you're a coward.

Feodor said...

Speaking of liars... "Have fun with them Art, I can't tolerate their foolishness, so it's time for me to leave this string to you."

Feodor said...

Glenn is a lying nigger... by his own definition and Marshall is a two time sellout in the last week.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

That wasn't a lie, it was an intent. But with the false accusations attacking me, the intention to leave you fools had to be overturned so as to defend against two pathological liars.

And speaking of stupidity, I can't be a "NIGGER" by the context of the citations because my skin is the wrong color.

Continue to bear false witness just like your lying brother Trabue. You are both apparently demon possessed; that's the only thing that can explain both of you continually blaspheming God and Christ as well as bearing false witness against true followers such as me and Art. Lying is your native tongue.

Feodor said...

Nigger has nothing to do with skin color, Glenn, as you yourself pointed out. It has to do with mind frame and morals. You're a nigger alright if there ever was one.

Feodor said...

And you lied about leaving the thread.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor, nigger in the context of the statement you cite is about color. Of course you abuse peoples' writings for your own agenda just like you abuse the Bible.

Again, an stating an intent to leave a conversation, and then finding the need to re-enter it is not a lie. But you are such a stupid person you don't know any better.

Feodor said...

These are your words, Glenn!!!!

"Whereas NIGGERS are the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community."

You are the definition - your definition - of a nigger!


"... finding the need to re-enter..." There's the lie. The "need" did not result from anything new. You were attacked before you said you couldn't stand the heat. You didn't find anything that wasn't there before.

You lied.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Those were NOT my words, they were a citation by a black man comparing normal black people with what he called niggers.

I cannot be a nigger by that definition. Nor by any definition you want to come up with.

As for my leaving, her is my quote:
Have fun with them Art, I can't tolerate their foolishness, so it's time for me to leave this string to you.

Comments to Art following that were not in the context of dealing with you and your brother Trabue. But you don't understand context, as has been proven many, many times.

Nor does this statement say I won't post farther, rather it only states that it was time to leave the string for him. Not that there wouldn't be a time to come back. So, you again misrepresent my statements, libel me again, and again prove to be a pathological liar.

And there was something new, in that Trabue went on a tirade about me being a racist, which led to me to prove he was a pathological liar like you.

Marshall Art said...

OK. A few things. First, feo has no standing to refer to anyone as a liar, since he's a false priest.

Second, Glenn cited someone else using the dreaded "N WORD", so for feo, the false priest (and thus a liar) to say that Glenn brought it up first in order to justify his use of the word pejoratively against Glenn is...lying, because there's clear distinction between citing someone else who uses the word, versus using it one's self as feo continues to do. Worse, he feels he's somehow justified in doing so because of his imaginary marriage to a black woman.

Third, while Glenn at the very least presents the author of all he has cited, Dan once again posts his own goofy stuff with no reference to who said it. In Dan's case, I would very much prefer an actual link to go with it whenever possible given Dan's history of poor comprehension skills. With this in mind, seeing the cited piece in its entire context is essential to confirm that Dan's head isn't up his own backside once again.

Fourth, from what I can see, no one in all the many comments posted has directed any of them to the link to VD Hanson's piece, which stands as the topic of the post. feo thinks he did by making completely unrelated comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the Hanson piece, so he can stroke himself again as if he is more intelligent and intellectual than...and this is the funny part...Hanson himself. Funnier still is his evidence-free self-opinion that he is intelligent and/or an intellectual at all.

Fifth, when the job allows, I will be perusing the entire body of comments and will be sure to straighten all things out.

PS. Dan. Your comments would be deleted at your own post if spoken by anyone else, you incredible hypocrite. Embrace grace? You truly do not understand the word.

Anonymous said...

GLENN: "THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS ANTI-EDUCATION."

By definition, a racist comment. So, you are fine with Glenn's blanket condemnation of black folk, but you object to me calling him on it?

Is that really where you want to stand, defending a racist comment?

Maybe in your world calling racist comments fucked up, using the curse word is more offensive. In my world, the racist comment is the problem.

~Dan

Feodor said...

I have no problem with Glenn using the word. I have no problem with Glenn quoting, approvingly and adoptingly, someone else's using the word.

But the definition he adopts - who cares where it comes from, Glenn has taken it on - clearly defines racism not by color of skin but by frame of mind and values. As such, Glenn is the very modern model of a major nigger because he is "the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community."

Feodor said...

And then, of course, Marshall is a two-time sellout of his faith by willfully denying Paul what he writes in Galatians and by supporting a Playboy swinger whose wife poses nude.

Feodor said...

Now, if Glenn wants to disavow those words and impeach them as repugnant, I'll stand corrected.

Feodor said...

A man stands behind the words he chooses to quote, or quotes them in order to impugn them.

It is the coward, like Glenn, who quotes words and the says, "I have nothing to do with them."

Goes along with his lie, now a a dozen or so of his comments ago. I'm not the standard of a lie, Marshall, of course. But you forget to apply the standard easily drawn from one's own conscience. A shame that conscientiousness is nothing more to you than a foreign immigrant: just something to block and walk off.

Sellout to your conscience as well as your faith.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Trabue again lies and misrepresents what is said.

Trabue makes this claim: GLENN: "THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS ANTI-EDUCATION."

Now let's look at what Glenn really said: because overall the black culture is anti-education, considering education a "white thing." Only those blacks who use their own heads rather than listen to racist propaganda from the likes of Sharpton and his ilk, and the gangs, will seek better education.

Notice I said "culture" vs "community. And in this same statement I distinguish as to who is anti-education: a particular culture. And as the string goes I point out it is a manufactured culture, and I used citations from a black author showing the context of the culture discussed. Yet Trabue has to misrepresent what is stated so as to continue his rant that I'm racist and making racist statements.

The man is a pathological liar. But typical of all the LEFT -- when they don't like what you say, you get label "racist." That's their default argument when they have no real defense.

Feo,
Again showing your stupidity and taking out of context the quote; in context it is impossible to say anyone fits the definition of Nigger without first being black.

Then you post libel as this defining me: the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community."the dysfunctional, counterproductive, non-contributing, law-breaking, liabilities to society, who personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African-American community."

Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence that I am "dysfunctional" and my record of numerous awards and commendations for military service, work with the Postal Service, and 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller -- not to include many recognitions for service performed in my off-time certainly prove "non-contributing" to be a lie. Not a "law-breaker" either, proven by the many security clearances I've been given and approval to carry a concealed weapon. Of course all this also proves I've never been a liability to any society and in fact have been very beneficial in many ways. And no one can point to me as a "negative stereotype" without bearing false witness, and nothing I've ever done has plagued any community.

It would be easy to bring a lawsuit for libel against you, but you hide behind anonymity so you can cowardly troll the internet to attack people. I'll post my credentials against yours any day of the week you false priest and pathological liar.

Oh, and I heartily agree with the words I cited. They are the sentiments of a huge segment of the black population.

Marshall Art said...

Still not possessed of time to get too deep in the weeds. Just a few points:

Dan,

"So, you are fine with Glenn's blanket condemnation of black folk, but you object to me calling him on it?"

I didn't need to read Glenn's response to you (or his original comment for that matter) in order to take the high road, "embrace grace" and assume he's speaking in generalities. As his response clearly shows, you have chosen to demonize him despite what was originally a clear distinction made that should have been enough for any honest opponent who truly "embraces grace". Thus, what I object to is your choice of assuming the worst when a clear distinction was made in his original comment, together with the altogether graceless tone of your response, you hypocrite.

feo,

The very fact that you think you have any authority to any degree to "have no problem" with Glenn's use (even though he wasn't actually using the term himself, but merely citing someone else who did) of a term most black people, and particularly most honorable black people, deny the use of for themselves, simply demonstrates your arrogance and low character. No real marriage to a black person, to say nothing of your imaginary marriage to a black woman, justifies you're assuming the posture of spokesperson for the black race.

Furthermore, I don't care how many times Glenn insists he isn't returning to engage with the likes of you, he is perfectly welcome to do so, just as Dan does at other sites when he feels there is reason to do so. In both cases, rightly or wrongly, each of them feels provoked to return. You take great pains to be provocative in your constant false characterizations. If you were an honest person in discourse, I doubt he'd feel the need to return at all.

Continuing, your constant desperate need to label me as a sellout also validates claims against you as being a liar. I cannot support my nation, or the one party that comes closest to aligning with the vision of the founders (that has a chance of winning a major election these days) by NOT voting for Trump, given there is no one else with any real chance of beating out the worst example of American ideals...the Democratic nominee. If either of us is a sellout, it is clearly you, as the Democrat Party has sold out this country already and continues to do so. You're good with that because you share with them what you laughingly call "values". Not surprising for a false priest who wasted time and money on education and books as you have.

Do either of you have anything to say about the topic of this post? It seems that Glenn at least offers something in the way of a possible explanation for the current state of affairs. What have either of you two to offer?

Dan Trabue said...

"Speaking in generalities..."

...and that is why you all have lost an entire race of people who will not vote for you. Because you cannot call racism for what it is. And you are losing women and their allies, gay Pope and their allies, Hispanics and their allies, immigrants and their allies... That is why you all will lose this presidential race in a landslide. The old bitter angry white conservative male vote only gets you so far.

Dan Trabue said...

...gay Folk, that should have read.

Dan Trabue said...

As to the point of this post I already save data this showed why historians and Scholars and eventually most people consider the Obama presidency to be one of the better ones. The country is in much better shape than what he inherited, which was a disaster from Republican policies.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

Before Obama this country did not have forced same-sex fake marriage. Before Obama this country did not have forced acceptance of "transgenders" in women's restrooms. Before Obama we did not have a military ruined by social engineering putting women in combat, forced acceptance of sexual perverts and paying for perverted surgeries to let people pretend to be the opposite sex, or the abomination of Obamacare which raised health costs and insurance premiums for everyone except those on the dole who get theirs "free" through the rest of us getting slammed with unaffordable costs! The morality of this nation has been corrupted worse under Obama than any other time. Our military is at the lowest strength since the end of WWII, with the Marines being the lowest since before WWII.

And race relations are worse under Obama because of his racist pandering to BLM and calling cops racists, which has led to the assassination of too many LEOs. He is also the worst president we've had for our ally Israel as he continues to sell them down the river with things like a nuclear Iran.

Really, what has Obama accomplished for the good that can outweigh all the bad?

Dan Trabue said...

Sorry, Glenn, but the good news for those concerned about morality and justice is that your side lost the argument on each of your ideas in the first paragraph. You are on the wrong side of history and you will increasingly be lumped with the racist anti-miscegenists and those opposed to women's rights as grossly immoral.

The morality has been worse, you say. Others see that for the first 100 years nearly, we ENSLAVED HUMANS, beating an oppressed people and killing them for being the "wrong" color. Hardly moral. In fact, grossly immoral. For the next 100 years, black folk were still oppressed and marginalized, beaten and killed, lynched and imprisoned unjustly. Grossly immoral.

For the first ~century and a half, women didn't have basic human rights, including the right to vote. Grossly immoral.

For nearly all of our history, gay folk have been oppressed and killed for the "sin" of being gay. Grossly immoral.

We are in a renaissance of morality, by comparison. Oh, yeah, we get that people don't "do sex right" according to an increasing minority of puritanical hacks, but so, what? We disagree with you. Your ideas of morality and your "arguments" for your idea of morality have been found wanting, immoral and unjust. Grossly immoral. So, yes, I DO celebrate the great advances in human rights and morality for many of the very things you bemoan.

Fortunately, no one has elected Glenn the Bedroom Monitor of the nation.

And race relations are not worse, we're just confronting some of the remnants of the gross immorality of the past. "The good ol' days," as you no doubt call the days of Jim Crow, slavery and gay folk being oppressed and denied rights.

You're just going to have to adjust to the reality that you argued poorly and lost, making it increasingly obvious you're not advocating morality, but a perversion of morality.

Bad? What bad? You are blind, Glenn. May God open your scaley eyes.

Feodor said...

"Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence that I am "dysfunctional" and my record of numerous awards and commendations for military service, work with the Postal Service, and 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller..."

Glenn, you're aware that the last two shooters of cops were ex-military? You're aware that we have cops killing black men without cause?

Your record indicates nothing about your dysfunction. It's your incapacity to think clearly, to be aware of the implications of your rigid and myopic claims, and your cowardly disappearances and whining returns that speak to your dysfunctional character.

And the law you break every day is this: "love one another as I have loved you."

And god knows, you personify the negative stereotypes that plague the entire African American community: that of a racist white, paranoid and hypocritical hater.

No, son, you are a nigger through and through. It's good to see you own the words rather than trying to cowardly run away from them. Press the close, Glenn. They are your self-revelation. The Gospel of a Bagpiper.

Feodor said...

Regarding the post, I've already pointed out how Mr Hanson is illiterate when it comes to history - something you scoffed at though you are ignorant of the facts and unable to engage.

I've pointed out how Glenn is ignorant of what "multi-cultural" means and so proceeds from mistaken conceptions to - as Dan has pointed out at length - make absurd conclusions based on his erroneous beginning.

I will say that I applaud Mr Hanson for acknowledging my wife and I as the exceptional representatives of America that we are. It's there in the second paragraph if only you could read Marshsll.

You also appear just there in the following paragraph, Marshall, when he talks about demogoguery tearing apart the exceptional advanced my wife and I signify.

But you won't defeat us. Sellouts never win.

"America was exceptional among modern societies in slowly evolving to a 21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society..."

Thank you, Mr Hanson!

Dan Trabue said...

I would love to hear some GOP types to answer the question, "'Make America Great Again...' when exactly is it you think America was great?" What time period are you speaking of? The glorious 1950s? The Roaring 20s? The Reagan Years? When exactly?

Feodor said...

You can play around with semantics like a liberal, Marshall, but the sum of what you've said is that you're yourself down to my level.

You're voting for a Playboy swinger and nude model.

Sellout.

Marshall Art said...

"Because you cannot call racism for what it is."

Oh sure we can. Here are a few names by which it goes:

Farrakan
Rev. Wright
Barack Obama
feo
Dan Trabue
KKK
David Duke
Black Lives Matter
Black Panthers
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
anyone who feels that race should play a role in hiring or admission to universities

Not a comprehensive list, but absent are names like Glenn or Art because they represent those who do not think in terms of skin color at all, and unlike the Dans and feos of the world, do not cower at acknowledging obvious causes of problems for fear of buffoons like Dan or feo insisting they are racists for doing so.

As to losing political races or support from the various groups Dan listed, there's such a thing as losing for the right reasons. It's kinda like being hated for being a Christian who adheres to actual Christian teaching...such as that which the Glenns and Arts of the world do and for which they are hated by the feos and Dans. We know to accept that such hatred will flourish amongst those who comprise the left. It's what they require in order to overcome truth, reason, facts and logic. It's what generated the lie that conservatism is made up of "old bitter angry white conservative male". There's far too many women, young people, people of all different races, religions and nationalities (there's even conservative homos who, by the way, don't piss themselves at being referred to as "homos" and are hated by the typical LGBT activist/enabler) for that to even be honest, much less accurate.

"As to the point of this post I already save data this showed why historians and Scholars and eventually most people consider the Obama presidency to be one of the better ones."

The rantings of leftist scholars does not constitute actual scholarly thought. The leftists in academia are not known for their honest portrayal of current events and recent history.

"The country is in much better shape than what he inherited, which was a disaster from Republican policies."

This bit of idiocy will be addressed in upcoming posts at this very blog. Stay tuned.

"Sorry, Glenn, but the good news for those concerned about morality and justice is that your side lost the argument on each of your ideas in the first paragraph."

Again, losing for the right reasons isn't a bad thing. But more accurately, we haven't lost yet, and to the extent that it might appear we have is not due to any flaw in our arguments, but in the dishonesty of the immoral and unjust who have managed to impose their unjust immorality on the nation without actually demonstrating a legitimate, logical and fact-based argument at all.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue is such a deluded, demonically-possessed troll.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo is just like Trabue, a deluded demonically-possessed troll

They both spend most their lives slandering and libeling REAL Christians.

Marshall Art said...

"You are on the wrong side of history..."

One of the stupidest expressions put forth by the immoral in defending their immorality. But the dishonest advocates for sexual immorality never put a lot of real thought into what they say, but only latch onto that which, in their fevered imaginings, seem to make sense. No surprise, therefore, that Dan would employ this nonsensical expression.

Out of time. I'll have to pick it up later and finish addressing more of Dan's jokes. But really quickly, just because feo would feel left out:

"Regarding the post, I've already pointed out how Mr Hanson is illiterate when it comes to history - something you scoffed at though you are ignorant of the facts and unable to engage."

You assert all sorts of things without ever making the least effort to back it up. You certainly have done nothing to demonstrate that Hanson is lacking in any way. You have, however, doubled down on your unjustified posturing as an intellectual. It's almost unbearable how pathetic you are in actually believing you've scored any points...except that it's hilarious, too.

I'll be getting into more detail later. But here's something you can take with you as your go back to your room in the institution: I'm not the least bit moved by accusations by one who is projecting as you do. Sell out? As I said earlier, you are the poster child of selling out, as you have sold your soul for the benefit of leftist ideology. No one could sell out his faith (such as yours ever might have been) or country as those who support people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Feodor said...

"Again, losing for the right reasons isn't a bad thing."

Marshall... going down with the KKK he mentioned enlist above.

Sellout.

Feodor said...

Pretty soon, Glenn, you know what time it will be.

"Have fun with them Art, I can't tolerate their foolishness, so it's time for me to leave this string to you."

Dan Trabue said...

Trabue is such a deluded, demonically-possessed troll.

Boogetyboogetyboo
I am coming for you.

Truly, the fundamentalist wing of conservatism lives in a world of fear and terror, devoid of common sense or data. Rather than adults who disagree, their enemies are monsters and demons.

No wonder they're so afraid to do anything other than whine on the internet... they can't defend their positions with anything other than "you're the son of satan! You are mean! You are an ass!" and other name-calling, which they fail to see only undermines them and makes them seem more irrational and immoral.

Brother Glenn, even though you spew racist comments, no doubt in total ignorance, you are welcome at my church any time, where we will greet you as a brother in Christ, with love and acceptance and grace. We could have a seat over coffee or tea and work out disagreements a bit perhaps. If you could only face your fears and get over this irrational approach to disagreements, maybe you could save your soul, if not your party.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Traube,

Your "church" is an assembly of non-believers pretending at Christianity. Your assembly is an assembly of deceived people.

I wouldn't step foot in a place like that.

You lie again by claiming I make racist statements, but it is YOUR ignorance that believes such foolishness.

We've defended our positions quite well, but you refuse to acknowledge the truth. You behave as a jackass, and you've demonstrated by you theology and ideology that you are in league with Satan.

Dan Trabue said...

My church is the body of Christ, believers in the risen son of God, Jesus, who came teaching us about God's salvation through grace, not pharisaical legalism. We are those who show the love of God to all, even people like Glenn, because the love and grace of God compels us. You will know they are my children by their love, the Bible tells us, and love, we do.

And, because we are followers of God, we must respectfully disagree with your human opinions when they appear foolish, or childish, or shallow, or emotionally-based, unjust or just plain evil. We must follow God, rather than Glenn, even if Glenn calls us names. And we do welcome you in our doors should you ever be inclined to meet and greet. We have no fears of you or your message, even though we think some of them are not of God, because we recognize that we are all just imperfect humans, and we are no more perfect than Glenn, or vice versa, but we are all sinners, saved by God's grace. Thank God for grace. Would that we could share it more freely amongst each other.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

If your theology is like the church you attend, they you worship a god of your own making a christ who cannot save. You are dead in your sins.

Dan Trabue said...

We follow the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus who began his ministry by saying he'd come to bring good news to the poor, freedom for the enslaved, healing for the sick. The Jesus who said to love our enemies. The Jesus who warned against the legalism of the Pharisees. The Jesus he taught us to consider the lilies of the field and to not worry about our clothes or money, to not store up treasures on earth, but to seek first God and God's way.

We follow the Jesus who said he came to seek and save the lost... Who poured out his life for all mankind and who was abused and eventually killed BT the religious and political powers of the day and who, nonetheless, overcame death and rose in the power of God. Who invites us by God's good grace to be part of God's kingdom, who invites us to lay aside and repent of our sin and follow Him, in and by his grace.

Now, you can accuse all day long, you can say because we disagree with you and your human opinion that we are not saved. You can accuse us of all kinds of things, as you do... nonetheless we are Christians saved by God's grace. One day you will see this and be quite embarrassed by your behavior. Thank God for Grace.

Feodor said...

Marshall and Glenn are Judaizers. The very sort that Paul condemns forever in Galatians 1:8,9. Paul may be wrong about the forever part, though.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No Trabue, you follow a god and christ who approve of homosexual behavior and sanctions same-sex fake marriage. To say God and Christ do that is rank heresy and blasphemy. And you worship a christ who lies about Genesis and most of the Bible, saying it is myths. Heresy again.

Sorry bub, that is Satan's playground.

Feodor,
You don't even know what the term "Judaizers" mean or you wouldn't accuse us of it. Your problem is that if we point out sin is being approved by you guys, you claim it's "Judaizing." You are like your demon brother Trabue, worshpping gods of your own making

Dan Trabue said...

you follow a god and christ who approve of homosexual behavior and sanctions same-sex fake marriage. To say God and Christ do that is rank heresy and blasphemy.

As a point of observable fact, I disagree with your hunch about the topic and you disagree with mine. Disagreeing with me is not heresy or blasphemy and similarly, disagreeing with Glenn is not heresy or blasphemy.

HOWEVER, conflating your opinion to that of God's opinion, THAT is heresy and blasphemy, or close to it at least. According to traditional orthodox Christianity. In orthodox Christianity, it is not a heresy to disagree with Glenn's opinions about the topic. It just isn't. You're flatly mistaken in that claim.

And you worship a christ who lies about Genesis and most of the Bible, saying it is myths. Heresy again.

Again, disagreeing with Glenn's hunches is not heresy. By your measure, it would appear that most of the church is probably heretical because they disagree with you and the YEC theorists. Rather graceless, that.

But again, in traditional Christian orthodoxy, there is nothing heretical about holding different ideas on the interpretation of Genesis. You're flatly mistaken.

I bet even Marshall will back me on that point.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

It isn't a "hunch" about homosexuality. It's a 100% bonafide fact, as thousands of years of Jewish teaching and 2000 years of Christian teaching has proven. Your johnny-come-lately perversion-minded liberals want to reinterpret scripture to justify sin, and that is blasphemy and heresy. PERIOD.

If Genesis is myth, the Adam and Eve aren't real, then you don't have a literal fall and there is no literal sin nature inherited, and then no need for a savior. THAT is heresy.

Dan Trabue said...

It's a 100% bonafide fact

1. Prove it. I'll wait.

2. But since you can't prove it, I'll just point out that it's STILL not a heresy to disagree with Glenn on homosexuality. It's just not, not in the orthodox Christian world. Are you speaking from some place besides orthodoxy? Where one HAS to be "right" on SOME vague and unspecified number of opinions in order to be saved and not a heretic?

Please support that. I'll wait.

But you can't support that, either. Not biblically, not rationally, not historically within the church.

Glenn, you make unsupported claims that you can't prove and insist that they are facts. I don't think you know what the word means.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I prove what God says about homosexuality here;
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html

In the orthodox Christian world, when you ascribe to God the approval of what he has called an abomination, that is heresy.

Historically within the church homosexuality has been taught as being an abomination to God, based on what the Bible ACTUALLY says, rather than what you want it to say.

That is my proof, supported rationally, biblical and historically, and you have no proof to say I'm wrong, just your blaspheming hunches.

Dan Trabue said...

Find some place of authority that says, "To disagree about a sin is a heresy."

You can't find it.

Plus, you don't have the authority to tell me that because I disagree with your shallow, irrational and immoral hunches that I am disagreeing with God or that it is a heresy.

In the orthodox world, heresy is disagreeing on essential teachings of the church, Is Jesus the son of God? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Are we saved by God's grace and not legalism? etc.

What is your opinion of marijuana or gay guys getting married is simply NOT an essential teaching of the church because, how could it be since it is not an essential teaching of Jesus?

You, on the other hand, ARE advocating an actual heresy: The notion that people can't be mistaken on some points and still be saved. That is a works-based theology, antithetical to actual orthodox Christianity.

Thus, your "proof" is nothing more than you silly, shallow, irrational hunches, NOT a supportable "fact." As noted, you do not appear to understand what that word means.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

When you ascribe to God the approval of a sin he calls an abomination, that is heresy. It is heresy to say Christ approved of sin, because that makes him no longer sinless. A sinning Christ cannot save. THAT IS an ESSENTIAL teaching of the Church.

That isn't disagreeing about sin, because God said homosexual behavior is a sin, as I have proven.

And you lie about what I teach. More proof that you are a pathological liar.

Dan Trabue said...

There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him:
1. haughty eyes,
2. a lying tongue,
3. and hands that shed innocent blood,
4. a heart that devises wicked plans,
5. feet that make haste to run to evil,
6. a false witness who breathes out lies,
7. and a man who sows discord among brothers.


God has called your lies and your arrogance an abomination. You are giving approval to your lies and arrogance. Thus, by YOUR MEASURE, YOU are a heretic.

The thing is, Glenn, you have not "proven" anything. You offered up some verses and said, "TO ME, THIS MEANS that God thinks..." and offered your hunches. You have no proven jack shit. You have no facts to support you.

You keep using those words, I don't think you know what they mean.

But okay, by your measure, you are a heretic. If you say so, I'll agree with you.

A heretic AND a racist AND a coward.

Man, brother, it's time to start developing some character and start repenting of your pride. If you're ever in Louisville, look us up. We'll welcome you, heretic, false witness, racist and coward that you are (by your words and your measure).

Marshall Art said...

feo,

"Pretty soon, Glenn, you know what time it will be."

Don't bother with telling Glenn what time it is or will be. Concern yourself with what time it is for you to do what you should have been doing for years...supporting your contentions. Any of them. Any at all. Begin with your accusation of racism on my part. Go find yourself anything that demonstrates in any way that I'm a racist and explain why that "evidence" proves the contention. That would be a good start and go a long way toward showing you have any understanding at all of the concept of "integrity". I mean, good gosh, you haven't even been able to prove the charge of "judaizer" or demonstrate that it isn't YOU who is the false priest.

So try that, false priest, or continue to prove yourself to be the simpleton you are.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again Trabue resorts to libel and lies. Proving again he is a tool of Satan.

Marshall Art said...

"But again, in traditional Christian orthodoxy, there is nothing heretical about holding different ideas on the interpretation of Genesis. You're flatly mistaken.

I bet even Marshall will back me on that point."


I don't know that I would, Dan, considering my repeated statement that my position on Genesis is no more than that I believe God is more than capable of doing everything just as Genesis described, and in even less time if He so chose to do so. My position is that your position on Genesis is based on a faith in human ability that thus obviously exceeds any you claim to have in God. That is, because people (scientists) are infallible in their collection and interpretation of data gathered by tools and inventions of their own creation.

As to heresy, yours is crystal clear if you're going to bend over backwards as you do to insist that there is any room for doubt with regards God's clearly revealed teachings on human sexuality...particularly homosexuality. It's not merely a matter of you being mistaken on this point, because there is nothing to get wrong without a willful and willing desire to reject that clearly revealed teaching for worldly reasons.

I will also reiterate that your claims of what you believe are not supported by the positions you take on various social issues (like homosexuality), nor by any track record of your regarding your understanding of verses and passages you put forth as support for those positions.

Marshall Art said...

I would like to extend an invitation to all for comments and opinions with regard to the topic of this post. I don't mean what passes for comments and opinions in feo's tortured imaginations, but actual, substantive comments and opinions. That would be good. I'm certain at this point we've all made clear our positions on the character of our opponents. We can move on to the actual topic now.

Dan Trabue said...

I've posted plenty of data and learned opinion supporting the notion that Obama's presidency will be judged kindly by history and historians and scholars. So, I guess my job here is done.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I recommend that all comments not related to the article be deleted.

Dan Trabue said...

Of course you do, Glenn. Deleting and banning and hiding and cowering is your way of doing things. Step into the light, son, embrace grace! Shed your fearful ways!

Feodor said...

[Substantiallu unaddressed comments on the post:]

I've already pointed out [via the Habsburgs, early modern Poland, the US, Canada, etc.] how Mr Hanson is illiterate when it comes to history - something you scoffed at though you are ignorant of the facts and unable to engage.

I've pointed out how Glenn is ignorant of what "multi-cultural" means and so proceeds from mistaken conceptions to - as Dan has pointed out at length - make absurd conclusions based on his erroneous beginning.

I will say that I applaud Mr Hanson for acknowledging my wife and I as the exceptional representatives of America that we are.

"America... was exceptional among modern societies in slowly evolving... to a 21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society..."

Thank you, Mr Hanson!

Anonymous said...

Marshall, Glenn... I am really wanting an answer to the question: The GOP began their convention with "Make America Safe Again" as its theme... I want to know what time period they're referring to as "safe..." as in, we were SAFE in 19... but now we're not safe.

What year/time period is that an appeal to?

If it's the Reagan years, I guess you know that the data shows that we're incredibly much safer now, violent crime is way down from those years.

If it's the 1940s-1960s era (or any earlier time), you must realize that those were not safe years for African Americans, gay folk and many others, right? And you must realize, surely, that by appealing to those "good ol' days" you are making an appeal that seems bigoted on the face of it, given the reality of the oppression of minorities back then, right?

I just want to know what time period the GOP is appealing to there. Any thoughts? (this relates to the topic because the US is empirically safer now from violent crime than in the Reagan/Bush/Bush years... and the Clinton years, too... and that deadly violence against police officers is down, too... thus, strengthening the case that Obama's been a good president...)

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

You "pointed out"? You asserted. Nothing more. Just a quick look at Wiki's synopsis of the Habsburg Empire shows a great deal of turnover, not a whole lot of unity, and definitely not a blending of the type for which the United States was once known...the adopting of a common culture. This was not the case in any empire where various nations were acquired and put under the rule of a single monarch or ruling family. Such rule does not guarantee that tribal affiliations is possible, and Hanson's point is that such had always been the case until America. Said another way, not that doing so will make the obvious any more clear to an intellectual lightweight such as yourself, that common culture is the result of the will of the people, not the mere acquisition of territories by a whomever has the power to acquire.

Thus, your inferiority to Hanson is made more obvious by your pathetic attempt to appear his superior. The very thought is laughable.

With regards to Glenn's understanding of "multiculturalism", you speak of what you would like it to be in your wild imaginings. Glenn speaks of what it is in reality. Reality dictates meaning far more accurately than the pretentious drivel of your definition. At its most basic level, it is the maintaining of those tribal affiliations to which Hanson alluded. It cannot and does not improve the AMERICAN culture that such affiliations take precedence over the AMERICAN culture...a culture that was beginning to be a blend racially until another whose name is "racism", Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" began a decided decaying of the general black population.

I don't believe Hanson was referring to imaginary mixed marriages. But if we were to assume yours existed beyond merely in your own mind, Hanson would still not have had you in mind, since you with your white guilt, enhanced by your wife's bigotry, are exactly the type of demagogues to which he referred. I know you like to think he was talking about someone else, but your history of projection is now well known. You're not exceptional in any way, unless being an exceptional boor is your aim...in which case you're doing a great job.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the theme refers to pre-9/11/01 or maybe even pre-February 26, 1993, but I could be wrong (doubtful). Trump's main plank has always been immigration and muslim refugees. I'm guessing the theme refers to terrorism and having president with the spine to deal more aggressively to protect American citizens from further attacks. We know Hillary hasn't a clue about such things. We can only hope Donnie-boy has enough sense to listen to actual intelligence professionals and generals who care about America more than their own political careers.

The Piper's Wife said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue's idiotic response to my suggesting of deleting comments not germane to the topic of the post:
Of course you do, Glenn. Deleting and banning and hiding and cowering is your way of doing things. Step into the light, son, embrace grace! Shed your fearful ways

My way of doing things it to not have a topic overrun by comments which are not germane to the article, so as not to have the string hijacked into many rabbit trails off topic. Not hiding or cowering, just cleaning the dross off so anyone wanting to see the original discussion won't have to wade through trolls like you and Feo, and the necessary response to trolls like you. I ban people from my blog who want to preach false teachings, like you, and who want to attack authors, the way you do, and who refuse to stay on topic, as you refuse to do. Nothing fearful in my body.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo again makes an ignorant statement, lying about my not understanding what multiculturalism is.
I've pointed out how Glenn is ignorant of what "multi-cultural" means and so proceeds from mistaken conceptions to - as Dan has pointed out at length - make absurd conclusions based on his erroneous beginning.

My conclusions are right on target BECAUSE I start with the correct beginnings. I'd like to city from Thomas Sowell's article,
"The Multicultural Cult"

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased "perceptions" or "stereotypes," if not outright "racism." But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

More about multiculturalism from Thomas Sowell's article:

Today, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.


Another black author, Walter Williams, says this in his article, "Multiculturalism Is A Failure"
Multiculturalists argue that different cultural values are morally equivalent. That's nonsense. Western culture and values are superior. For those who'd accuse me of Eurocentrism, I'd ask: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. In some countries, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to Western values?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Robert Bork addressed multiculturalism in his outstanding book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah":

Most women’s studies, racial and ethnic studies, and gay and lesbian studies are intellectual hoaxes, programs of propaganda an mutual support. It is hardly surprising that denials of the possibility of rationality should come from groups whose excuse for existence is threatened by rational inquiry. The knowledge that science produces, moreover, often results in a picture of the world that is anathema to the more rabid egalitarians, for that knowledge may demonstrate there there is a hard, concrete reality blocking the egalitarians’ path forward. Radical feminism is put in peril by scientific proof that some sex-role differences are inherent and cannot be dismissed as mere social constructs. To multiculturalists, empirical investigation is dangerous because it will demonstrate that not all cultures are equal in their capacity to equip their members for success in the modern world. Contrary to the claims of the multiculturalists, there are not different ways of knowing.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

How about another couple of good citations about multiculturalism:

Thomas Sowell, in his outstanding book, "Intellectuals and Society," wrote: Intellectuals have romanticized cultures that have left people mired in poverty, ignorance, violence, disease and chaos, while trashing cultures that have led the world in prosperity, education, medical advances and law and order. In doing so, the intelligentsia have often degraded, or even filtered out, the fact that masses of people were fleeing the societies intellectuals romanticized to go to the societies they condemned.

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, in their book, “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,” said this:
[M]ulticulturalism is a new form of racism because it reduces a matter of the intellect to a matter of racial or ethnic membership.

Yes, false priest, I do indeed know what multiculturalism is -- a blight on our culture.

Marshall Art said...

Nicely done. As I said, Glenn, the difference is in what the lefties want multiculturalism to be versus what it is in reality...how it negatively impacts society.

Feodor said...

It's nice that Glenn can cut and paste. He made it to the 2nd grade at least. But that he only chooses enemies of multiculturalism wont get him through High School where students now really have to take on the other side.

How is Glenn at numbers? Let's see.

Here's the lie to Mr Hanson's whole premise about multiculturalism and Mr Obama as he thinks shootings of cops are the evidence:

Under Reagan, an average of 101 police officers were intentionally killed each year.
Under George H.W. Bush that number fell to 90.
Falling further to 81 deaths per year, under Bill Clinton,
and to 72 deaths per year under George W. Bush.

Under Obama, the average number of police intentionally killed each year has fallen to its lowest level yet — an average of 62 deaths annually through 2015. If you include the 2016 police officer shootings year-to-date and project it out to a full year, that average of 62 deaths doesn't change.

Then, if we consider that 300,000 more police are on the streets than two decades ago, we can conclude that police shootings are down 75%.

75% reduction in police shootings in Obama's time in office compared to Reagan.

Wow. Can either of you deal with those numbers? No. Can Mr Hanson? No. Can Mr Sowell? No.

Mr Hanson is lying. Mr Trump is lying. And you guys will deny and cover up and lie yourselves in the face of these numbers.

Oh, where did I get these facts?

The "Officer Down Memorial Page" https://www.odmp.org

Feodor said...

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/07/police.png&w=1484

Dan Trabue said...

Glenn smash numbers! Puny numbers! Glenn Smash!!!

Marshall Art said...

First of all, I checked the site as best I could, not finding a graph similar to that presented by the Post. Using just the figures for the Reagan Admin, I've found that feo's numbers, taken from the post, I assume, do not match feo's claim of intentional killings of cops. For that, I would have to try and find details surrounding each death of each cop listed as having died in the line of duty in order to determine whether or not the intention was to actually kill the cop. An arduous task to be sure.

Instead, I looked for the breakdown, listed by year, and by using the categories, determined that intent does not result in an average of 101 cops intentionally killed per year during Reagan's two terms. At best, it came out to about 90 per year who were intentionally killed.

For example, one category was "electrocution". There is no indication that someone attempted to intentionally kill a cop by means of electrocuting him. Thus, I did not count those who died by that means, as such deaths could be accidental and most likely were.

There were also categories involving vehicles. Disregarding aircraft, motorcycle and auto accident deaths (since accidents denote no intent to kill), we have only "struck by vehicle", "vehicle pursuit" and "vehicular assault". Only the last denotes intent. With that in mind (and including stabbings--the only other category where intent to kill is possible), the total for the Reagan years is 717, which averages out to 89.625 per year.

However, even with the stats counted as I did, simply the fact that a cop was shot and died as a result only demonstrates intent to shoot a cop, not necessarily intent to kill. A fleeing criminal might only mean to secure his escape, not add to the charges already against him. This is particular true of vehicular assault. Not knowing the details we can only surmise.

Be that as it may, there are still two other important questions to ask:

1. With the overall reduction in violent crime already having been noted over the past several years, of what significance is the listing of deaths by presidential terms? Is feo suggesting Obama did more to reduce assaults on cops? If so, in what way, and why hasn't he trumpeted this incredible work seeing as how he likes to take credit for all the good that happens in the world?

2. Even in cases during past presidencies where cops were intentionally killed, how can we determine which were murdered as the specific goal of the perpetrator, as opposed to killing the cop during the commission of another crime?

What we are facing now is specific and distinct cases of cops being targeted. That is, the sole aim (so to speak) of the murderers is to murder cops. They aren't shooting cops trying to apprehend them for robbing liquor stores.

So, while feo is apparently so desperate to disparage past presidents in a pathetic effort to suggest that Obama has been better for the nation, the fact is that during his term in office, his racist comments in response to police actions, made with no knowledge of the details of the incidents in question, had at least in part played a role in stoking anti-cop attitudes that led to these murders of officers by black perpetrators.

It is so very typical then, that feo would compare apples to oranges in order to stroke the object of his man-crush. Too bad he fails epically once again to accomplish what he set out to do, proving yet again what a buffoon and intellectual lightweight he truly is.

Marshall Art said...

Continuing on, with all that I've put forth above, any reduction in cop shootings is not as significant as why the cops were shot. Was the intention simply to murder cops, as we have seen in Dallas, or simply to escape arrest? Hanson speaks to the reason for cop deaths, not merely that cops have died, and Obama's role in the 44% increase so far this year. According to odmp.org, there were 37 deaths by gunfire that weren't accidental in 2015. This year, at the end of the seventh month, there has been 30. At this rate, we'll have another 21 by year's end. That would be an increase of from 37 to 51 in Obama's last year in office. Can feo deal with those numbers? I highly doubt it.

Maybe we'll see Dan smash numbers! Puny numbers! Dan Smash!!!

Marshall Art said...

One more thing for now:

"But that he only chooses enemies of multiculturalism..." "Enemies of multiculturalism"? Why wouldn't a rational person choose "enemies of multiculturalism" over friends and defenders of multiculturalism? That would be like choosing friends of Nazism, or friends of racism (like feo and Rob't Byrd), or friends of sexual immorality (like feo and Dan) or friends of communism. Or worse, friends of feo.

Anonymous said...

1. With the overall reduction in violent crime already having been noted over the past several years, of what significance is the listing of deaths by presidential terms? Is feo suggesting Obama did more to reduce assaults on cops?

Team Trump and his sycophants appear to want to suggest the US is more dangerous (it's not) and under more threat of deadly violence (it's not) and that cops are more likely to be murdered (they're not) and they want to blame Obama for this.

IF you all want to blame Obama if the numbers were higher (and they're not) then on what reasonable basis would we also not praise Obama if the deadly violence is down (it is)?

You can't have it both ways? Pretend like the numbers are bad and getting worse (they're not) and try to blame Obama as if he were the source of all violence and, when confronted with the facts that violent crime is down, then try to say "that's not Obama's doing..."

If you try to do that - especially after being caught in the act of spreading false information - it exposes you as a liar and a hypocrite and a partisan ninny.

So, I would advise conservatives, IF they want to be considered credible, to begin by admitting, "No, violence is not getting worse in the US, not according to the data, and THOSE WHO SUGGESTED IT IS are wrong and should admit it!" ...and then we could begin to talk about "What about the violence that we DO have, how can we start making it even better?"

But the first step is to stop the false claims and admit that they were mistaken.

If you all want to be taken as credible.

False claims smashed! Puny false claims!

~Dan-Hulk

Anonymous said...

Why wouldn't a rational person choose "enemies of multiculturalism" over friends and defenders of multiculturalism? That would be like choosing friends of Nazism,

...and Marshall, once again, jumps the shark and shoots himself in the foot and destroys any semblance of credibility he has, by invoking Godwin's Law.

Yes, yes, of course, we can all see it... those who value a diverse melting pot and who celebrate cultures throughout the world and their contributions to making the world better ARE comparable to Nazis... yes, that's not crazy-sounding, at all.

False puny insane claims smashed!

~Dan

Feodor said...

"Why wouldn't a rational person choose "enemies of multiculturalism" over friends and defenders of multiculturalism?"

Because you're too weak to take them on. Too weak even to read them.

Sellout faith is weak. Simple.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Just to correct Feo's ignorance:

Every citation from books are from books on my shelf. I originally typed them out for my other blog, "The Thought-Provoker." http://moralophobia.blogspot.com

The two cited from an internet link were originally copied into my other blog.

So, yes I cut and pasted them here to save time, but the work has already been done.

The enemies of multiculturalism are enemies precisely because of the problems the ideology causes. In the government schools they learn nothing about the truth of liberal ideologies -- they are brainwashed/indoctrinated into these leftist policies and usually aren't even allowed to discuss the opposing views.

Numbers such as you give only compare apples to oranges. Crime overall was on the decrease for decades because of solid policies fighting crime. Police killings were in the large, crime-ridden cities and were not assassinations.

Obama has instigated the assassinations of police officers and the majority of police officer deaths are now not from intervening in crime but are nothing more than assassinations by cowards-- who, by the way, are racists.

The only liars on this comment string are the two false priests from hell.

Feodor said...

Mr. Hanson's claim is true: multiculturalism as a value has been on the rise since Reagan.

Mr. Hanson's corollary that violence has risen as a result... is not true.

As admitted now even by Marshall and Glenn themselves: violence has gone down.

Further, gunfire is 80% cause of all intentional police deaths. Which is why the police want the guns off the streets.

Mr Hanson talks about the gun violence in Chicago, a city with strict guns laws. He doesn't talk about the fact that the guns come from outside Chicago. In fact, the number one feeder state for guns in Chicago? Indiana. Who's the governor there? The top 15 source states for Illinois crime guns, 2010–2014: #1) Indiana 3,269. #2) Mississippi 1,002.

Increase standards on gun control, protect cops.

But Marshall doesn't remark on the fact that gunfire is 80% of the cause of cop deaths. He's stuck on the one cop killed by electrocution.

Typical sellout.

Feodor said...

And Glenn lies yet again. Should have more books on his shelf.

"Obama has instigated the assassinations of police officers and the majority of police officer deaths are now not from intervening in crime but are nothing more than assassinations..."

We knew you couldn't deal with numbers. Just keeping your glue handy, huh?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It is not a lie to say Obama is the cause of the assassinations. He started it when he claimed that police in general are racists, and he supports the racist BLM.

Fool

Feodor said...

He didn't say such a thing -- you lie, Glenn -- and yes, he supports Blue Lives Matter. You don't?

Feodor said...

Both Glenn and Marshall are showing their colors now: they don't care about cops getting killed. They only care if the shooter is black.

Racist sellouts.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo you lie. He has consistently stated there is a culture of racism in LEOs.

He supports BLACK LIVES MATTER, and hates police.

Feodor said...

You don't support Blue Lives Matter, Glenn. Your response to a special interest group being singled out has been All Lives Matter. You don't support Blue Lives Matter because you don't care about cops. You don't care about black people.

You only care when a sick shooter of cops happens to be black.

You are the sickest kind of bastard there is.

Anonymous said...

And as has been pointed out by others,

IF you don't like "Black lives matter..."

Because, you say, "ALL lives matter..."

BUT THEN you are fine with "Blue lives matter..."

...then the operative word that you had a problem with was Black.

Also, I wonder if, when Jesus got up and said, "Blessed are you who are poor..." if you had been there, if you would have gotten up and shouted Jesus down saying, "But Jesus, ALL are blessed!" ...would you have done that?

And if you had, don't you think it is at least a little likely that Jesus would have thumped you on the head?

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

You are one of the worst lying sacks of crap I've ever come across, along with your clone brother Trabue.

The police are being assassinated by racists. THAT is a FACT. It isn't racist to point that out, and it is a non sequitur to say that means we don't care about cops being killed, but only the skin color of the assassin. Your are so foolish and stupid it is difficult to have any ration conversation with you (or Trabue - you are two peas in a pod)

I don't support ANY movements of whose lives matter. I believe ALL LIVES MATTER wether black, white, purple, pre-born, cops, fire-fighters, military, etc. Black Lives Matter is an extreme racist terrorist group. Our point is that BLM asserts by its very name that all other lives are secondary, especially if they are white police officers.

Feodor said...

I couldn't finish the first minute of this video. Violent feelings toward this cop started arising. They're messing with the primal male reaction to protect. Bad things will happen as a result. Human psychology can only take so much. No justice no peace is not a threat. It's a diagnosis of human capacity to take brutality.

And fuck you, Glenn.

http://thegrio.com/2016/07/22/violent-arrest-of-teacher-caught-on-video-officers-face-investigation/

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

MARSHALL,

This is why these two jackasses need to be banned from every blog on the internet. They lie, libel, spew filth, preach false doctrine, misrepresent everyone who is conservative, and are HUGE time wasters.

Feodor said...

What a whining, snotty child going to daddy.

Feodor said...

And fuck you, too, Marshall, you racist, lost pitiable human being.

Feodor said...

I'm out; Christ brushes your shit off his shoes, I'm brushing it off mine.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Regarding your comment from July 22, 2016 at 8:49 AM.

You begin by quoting me, and then never addressing the point of the quote. Why bother quoting me?


"Team Trump and his sycophants appear to want to suggest the US is more dangerous..."

I don't much care what "team Trump and his sycophants" appear to want to suggest. I didn't bring it up, and it has nothing to do with the post. It is not simply a matter of quoting statistics alone, but analyzing what the stats mean to arrive at a sound conclusion regarding the issue at hand. Is the nation safer? You seem to want to speak only of internal crimes, such a robbery, muggings, etc? The question needs far more scrutiny.

A Washington Post story that features the same graph in one of feo's posts, goes into more detail:

"One area where the numbers are a little murkier is ambush attacks such as the Dallas shooting, where killing police officers is the sole intent of the crime. These are generally very rare, with the number of officers dying in these attacks each year in the single or double digits. But they have become slightly more common. During George H.W. Bush's administration (the first administration for which the FBI provides complete data) about eight officers died in ambush attacks each year. That rose to nine under Clinton, and 10 per year under George W. Bush and Obama (through 2014)."

...and again, the year has five more months to go. Hopefully, we'll see no more assassinations. What's more, in common with my question you quoted it goes on to say:

"It's tempting to place credit or blame for these figures with whichever president happened to be in charge at the time, as many conservatives have done in recent days. But in reality, police officer safety is much more closely connected to broader social trends than to whomever happens to be sitting in the White House."

This "social trend" is and has been exacerbated by ignorant rhetoric of Obama, who opines on tragedies without benefit of actual facts, choosing sides in the issue that further inflames passions already burning due to preconceived notions instigated by a lack of or disregard for the actual facts.

This alone shows you've done nothing to mitigate what's been said by either Glenn, myself or VD Hanson. You abuse the numbers to protect your position on the issue.

Much more later.

Anonymous said...

I didn't bring it up, and it has nothing to do with the post.

Some are saying that the US is less safe under Obama and that police are more at risk under Obama, as if he's somehow at fault. I'm pointing out that we ARE safer under Obama and the police ARE safer under Obama's administration. That is to the point of the post. The US is a safer, thus better, place today than we were under Bush, Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

This "social trend" is and has been exacerbated by ignorant rhetoric of Obama,

The only thing "ignorant" are those who try to tie Obama somehow to police attacks. It's as if you are trying to say, "Obama has more strongly spoke out against the very real problem of a few bad apple police officers... and in so doing, he's given people the suggestion that they can and should kill police officers..." which is stupid.

The only one abusing the numbers are the pants-wetting, fearmongering cowards/con-men of the GOP who are trying to paint the US as unstable, unsafe and not Great. Shame on you all.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, Team Trump ARE almost certainly encouraging this sort of filth...

"The fact is that European Americans need at least one man in the United States, one man in Congress, who will defend their rights and heritage."

Former KKK Wizard, David Duke, running for GOP senate seat

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/david-duke-senate-race/index.html

~Dan

Anonymous said...

More on how Obama is beating the GOP on their own promises!

"Mitt Romney four years ago pledged to bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by the end of 2016. Back then the jobless rate was above 8%. But it has moved steadily lower, falling below 5% today. The economy has added some 9 million jobs. In 2014, the U.S. saw the fastest job growth since 1999, and the second best in 2015...

Four years ago, presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich promised gas prices below $2.50 a gallon and the GOP platform called for more domestic oil production. During the second Obama administration, domestic oil production has surged to a record (in part because of fracking) and America's abundant oil supplies have helped slam oil prices and bring gas prices down to $2.20 a gallon..."

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/22/news/economy/obama-republican-campaign-promises/index.html

For instance.

~Dan

Marshall Art said...

Citing a personal favorite source of yours, Politifact, we see two things that support the proposition that things aren't safer during Obama's reign. One of them, from earlier years, suggests it isn't, the second from very recently, claims the charge is false while at the same time suggesting the Daryl Glenn's charge is actually true"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/10/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-says-there-have-been-more-terrorist-at/

The above is rated "mostly true" in suggesting terrorist attacks on American soil are up under Obama. This is the older of the two and Politifact quibbles on the manner in which Ann Coulter comes to her conclusion. This is not surprising given its leftist bent, but doesn't provide much in the way of a more accurate picture, except to say that Coulter's isn't comprehensive enough. But that's pretty easy to say if the parameters used don't give a picture one likes. However, I don't know if adding "American interests overseas", as the piece suggests, would improve things much anyway.

The second piece:

http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jul/20/darryl-glenn/darryl-glenn-says-neighborhoods-have-become-more-v/

...rates Glenn's claim as "mostly false", yet when looking specifically at stats that mirror his exact charge, it supports his charge twice. He spoke of "the neighborhoods" getting more violent. The piece shows stats regarding an increase in murders in Chicago, and another referencing major cities that make Glenn's charge more than "mostly" true.

The point here is that the left is equally (at the very least) as guilty of abusing numbers to defend their own. In the meantime, the overall trend can't be cited to defend Obama if at the tail end of his administration that trend is beginning to turn in the other direction...even if only slightly statistically.

And then to say that his rhetoric plays no role, when so quick to indict conservative talk show hosts and Sarah Palin for things like the attack on Gabby Giffords, is hypocritical to say that least. Talk about having it both ways!!

The message of Hanson's article draws the connection between tensions and Obama's response to it. He has definitely been speaking in a manner that trumps up charges against police and/or white people as if there is truth in the BLM charges that cops are targeting black people. Recent attacks on cops are indications that the overall narrative is connected. Recent attacks are distinct from other intentional attacks on cops due to the intent behind them...the attack itself is the intention. The attack itself stands alone as the actual crime being perpetrated, not something in addition to another criminal activity such as shooting at a cop while the cop is trying to make an arrest.

Putting it another way, if, from the Gates and Trayvon Martin cases onward, Obama's immediate response had been along the lines of, "there is no excuse to attack those defending the law", as had been the case in even the sloppiest examples of cops dealing with suspects (I add the Martin case because despite Zimmerman not being a cop himself, he was acting in defense of his community), there could be no linking of Obama to anything with regards dead cops and increased violence. That is, he could be legitimately defended as calling unambiguously for law and order...period.

But that hasn't been the case....hasn't been his track record. He's consistently been no better than one who rationalizes bad behavior, very much as you have in the past with regard to the response by some from the black community.

Marshall Art said...

"...and Marshall, once again, jumps the shark and shoots himself in the foot and destroys any semblance of credibility he has, by invoking Godwin's Law."

In truth, citing "Godwin's Law" every time a righteous reference to Nazism is made is a truer example of the "Godwin" principle. This is particularly true when it is single out from amongst the several "isms" to which I referenced. The larger point remains even if we remove "Nazism" from among them and thus there is no fallacy or lack of credibility in my citation. You just have your desperate need to avoid the truth. For your sock puppet buddy to insist that Glenn errs in citing only "enemies of multiculturalism" is no different than saying Glenn would be in error to cite only enemies of Nazism in opposing Nazism. It's idiotic and so is citing "Godwin's Law" simply because I chose to use Nazism to point out and illustrate that fact.

"Yes, yes, of course, we can all see it... those who value a diverse melting pot and who celebrate cultures throughout the world and their contributions to making the world better ARE comparable to Nazis... yes, that's not crazy-sounding, at all."

The great flaw in this rhetoric and the consequences can be understood by recognizing the distinct perceptions of multiculturalism in conflict with each other. Wikipedia describes it this way:

"Two different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different government policies and strategies. The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures; this approach is also often known as interculturalism. The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness which can sometimes result in intercultural competition over jobs among other things and may lead to ethnic conflict.[5][6] Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity.[7][8] A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central.[9]"

It is the second that is of importance here. Your perception of multiculturalism suggests that because a culture is different, that the difference itself provides some as yet undescribed benefit by its addition. Our position is that it is the subordination of one's native culture in favor of acclimating, assimilating and promoting the culture of the host nation is what provides benefit. YOUR perception results in a house divided against itself. Ours acknowledges that one culture can be and is superior to others and it is from that that true unity and oneness exists to make a nation great. Yours maintains distinctions that result in hyphenations and class distinctions. Ours results in a true blending where all are seen as "Americans" only...not "this-American" or "that-American". These distinctions maintained by your perception leads to class and ethnic and cultural warfare of varying degrees and types BECAUSE it maintains and stokes the tribal attitudes.

Marshall Art said...

feo drools:

"Mr. Hanson's claim is true: multiculturalism as a value has been on the rise since Reagan.

Mr. Hanson's corollary that violence has risen as a result... is not true."


The violence must be dealt with where it takes place. If an area has a high degree of cultural conflict, as is not uncommon where two ethic groups remain distinct, such as "black neighborhoods" versus "Irish neighborhoods", there is always an "us versus them" dynamic at play. What Hanson refers to as "multiculturalism" is the same definition and dynamic lauded by people like Dan and leftists in general. This definition is inherently divisive because it highlights and focuses on the differences between the various "neighborhoods".

The point here is not an overall increase in violence and crime, and I'm not sure that anyone is specifically referring to that. As Daryl Glen mentions, it's what is happening in neighborhoods...specifically inner city neighborhoods. Chicago, for example.

"Further, gunfire is 80% cause of all intentional police deaths. Which is why the police want the guns off the streets."

This is a typical "no shit" stat that suggests intellectual laziness (or in feo's case, absence of intellect). What's more, police do NOT want guns off the street. They want bad guys unarmed. That's incredibly different than saying they want guns off the streets. In fact, cops most definitely support the right of the law abiding to carry guns.

So then clearly, "Increase standards on gun control, protect cops" is untrue. What protects cops is respect for the law by bad guys together with armed good guys.

"But Marshall doesn't remark on the fact that gunfire is 80% of the cause of cop deaths. He's stuck on the one cop killed by electrocution."

A blatant and willful misrepresentation, especially considering my actual comments demonstrate that I'm "stuck" on facts and reality. I mentioned electrocution as an obvious example of a category that can't be used to describe intentional killings of copes before moving on to categories that were likely used inappropriately for the purpose. But how could feo make such a mistake? Because feo is once again exposed and intellectually vapid and has no other recourse but to lie. It's what false priests do.

Marshall Art said...

Continuing with the false priest feo:

"Both Glenn and Marshall are showing their colors now: they don't care about cops getting killed. They only care if the shooter is black."

More recent comments indicate who's true colors are exposed. I'll get to that later. But for this comment, feo lies again. Glenn and I most absolutely do care about cops getting killed. What's more, we care about innocent blacks getting killed by criminal blacks in the inner cities, which is where the focus of any group daring to say "Black Lives Matter" should be. Instead, feo and the BLMers care about the police treatment of the criminal element.

Neither Glenn nor I care what color a murderer is, be his victim cop OR civilian or even if the dead is another scumbag. For feo to even suggest that it matters to us that a shooter might be black is not only a lie, but another typical misdirection from a lefty to cover a fact that is relevant to the topic at hand. But again, that's what false priests do...they lie.

"And fuck you, Glenn."

"And fuck you, too, Marshall, you racist, lost pitiable human being."

And here we see the true colors of feo, not that he hasn't shown this hue before. Indeed, there have always been obvious traces of it shading every comment he posts. This is what a priest says, evidently. This is how a seminary student, Bible teacher...whatever feo calls himself...speaks to others who demonstrate more sense, more thoughtfulness on issues of the day, more respect for truth and reality. When one is bested, drop a few F-bombs in true Christian fashion. We point out falsehoods and conclude you are a liar. You face better arguments and cuss us out. Isn't this where Dan should be exhorting feo to "embrace grace"?

But now feo pouts and whines and stomps out holding his breath until he turns blue. He dares suggest that "Christ brushes your shit off his shoes" so therefore "I'm brushing it off mine."

First off, feo has thus far, in all the time he's darkened my virtual door, failed to demonstrate any "shit" exists here that Christ would need brush off his "shoes" that feo didn't step in at his own house to track in here. Secondly, he has shown over the years just how unworthy he is to dare put himself in the same sentence as Christ, much less to suggest that Christ would agree with him on much of anything. If feo is truly "out", it's near impossible to resist saying "Good riddance". But if he returns, I would hope that at long last he would see fit to bring some substance.

Marshall Art said...

Now back to Dan:

"And as has been pointed out by others,

IF you don't like "Black lives matter..."

Because, you say, "ALL lives matter..."

BUT THEN you are fine with "Blue lives matter..."

...then the operative word that you had a problem with was Black."


This is what passes for reason in Dan's world, and is an example of why reason is a poor standard by which to interpret anything, particularly if using Dan's reasoning ability for the purpose. There are two distinct issues at play that Dan conflates to force his false representation of our postions.

1. Between "Black Lives Matter" versus "All Lives Matter", only the latter matters to us. This belief disregards superficial traits such as skin color in determining when or if any given life matter. If we're talking human life...it matters and is precious and has the right to continue until natural death puts an end to it. "Black Lives Matter" suggests there is some tangible disregard by anyone not himself black for the lives of black people. While there still exists people who might feel this way, there is no such attitude prevailing among the wider non-black population. Thus, the concept is rejected for its own racist implications, and rightly so.

2. Between "Black Lives Matter" versus "Blue Lives Matter", the statement of the latter is in response to the statement of the former where the former is put forth to suggest that cops are killing blacks disproportionately to anyone else and with malice aforethought, as the BLM people clearly are doing. It is BS to the Nth degree, as recent Harvard studies have shown. When this lie regarding cops is put forth, the result has been Dallas and New York and other examples of cops targeted in retribution for the falsehood put forth about cops.

The larger point here is that, for those like Glenn and myself, All Lives Matter is the prime directive. There is no diminishing of black lives in our ideology whatsoever, despite Dan's wanting for it to exist in us. One who truly lives the "embrace grace" philosophy would be loathe to assume that either Glenn or I have ever tried to make the case that blacks in general are evildoers. Pointing out clear and obvious flaws in the character of too many of the black community...flaws that enough have overcome for either of us to generalize about those flaws being natural to the entire race, as Dan's demonization of us would suggest...does not make us racist in any way shape or form. It makes us honest, and frankly, more caring that we would risk charges of racism by those who use the charge so frivolously to quiet others, as Dan does.

I really don't care if I'm called a racist by people like Dan and feo. But it does black people harm to do so, when there are real racists out there, to so cavalierly throw the term around as these two do. What's more, it perpetuates the divisions that already exist, which is typical of the left. They need to divide in order to have victims to defend who will in turn support them for doing so. In the meantime, people like Glenn and myself defend everyone based on merit and character and the simple fact that they are human beings, not due to superficial qualities like skin color.

Marshall Art said...

"Also, I wonder if, when Jesus got up and said, "Blessed are you who are poor..." if you had been there, if you would have gotten up and shouted Jesus down saying, "But Jesus, ALL are blessed!" ...would you have done that?

And if you had, don't you think it is at least a little likely that Jesus would have thumped you on the head?"


No. We would not. And here's why: Jesus would not be speaking of those who were poor due to their own laziness and immaturity anymore than he would say "Black Lives Matter" because a black dude died while resisting a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. Nor do I think Jesus would have thumped you in the head for daring to make such a stupid analogy even though He'd have been justified in doing so.

"The US is a safer, thus better, place today than we were under Bush, Reagan, Bush and Clinton."

I've touched on this already, but another way you abuse the stats is to ignore potential risk, real AND perceived. Has that risk gone up? There are legitimate reasons to insist it has. For the purposes of this post's topic, that risk has been addressed by Hanson's article and Obama's link to that risk is beyond debate. He is absolutely engaging in the same kind of rhetoric that provokes and perpetuates the false perception by too many blacks that they are victims of a mythical "institutional racism", or that racism is fixed in the character of the nation. Too many lefties depend upon this perception being maintained so as to maintain their power. We're seeing the consequences of this beginning to boil over in a real tangible and deadly manner in both attacks on cops and inner city violence, which has indeed been on the rise.

Think of it this way: The overall level of pollution might be going down. But that stream behind your house is filthy with crap from the factory upstream. What's your perception of pollution now? Do you give a damn about pollution levels in other areas, or your own? And all who live along the banks of that stream have the same bad perception of pollution levels as you do. It's getting worse, not better.

"The only thing "ignorant" are those who try to tie Obama somehow to police attacks. It's as if you are trying to say, "Obama has more strongly spoke out against the very real problem of a few bad apple police officers... and in so doing, he's given people the suggestion that they can and should kill police officers..." which is stupid."

Stupid is your misrepresentation of reality. He rarely speaks in terms of "a few bad apples" unless he's called out on the implications of his original comments with regard to a given incident. Even in his "speech" at the Dallas funeral, he couldn't resist making references to the very same false narratives that led to the deaths to which all of his comments should have focused. He is absolutely part of the problem of the false narratives being perpetuated. To suggest otherwise is a lie. And again, this is the very thing that the left has accused the right-wing commentators of doing...stoking anger that results in shootings (Gabby Giffords). The difference is that Obama disparages the cops in every incident having to do with some less than stellar character dying during a police action. He is blaming cops for the deaths of blacks as if it is a true problem that is out of hand.

"The only one abusing the numbers are the pants-wetting, fearmongering cowards/con-men of the GOP who are trying to paint the US as unstable, unsafe and not Great. Shame on you all."

People like always try to pretend the right are fear-mongering when pointing out actual threats, while at the same time pretending cops are black hating killers. Could be anymore false and hypocritical? I've no doubt you can and will based on past performance. The shame is all yours.

Marshall Art said...

"On the other hand, Team Trump ARE almost certainly encouraging this sort of filth...

"The fact is that European Americans need at least one man in the United States, one man in Congress, who will defend their rights and heritage."

Former KKK Wizard, David Duke, running for GOP senate seat"


Wow. Talk about shameless!

Dan Trabue said...

It's reality...

"The well-dressed men who gathered in Cleveland's Ritz-Carlton bar after Donald Trump's speech accepting the Republican nomination for president prefer the term "Europeanists," ''alt-right," or even "white nationalists." They are also die-hard Trump supporters...

"I don't think people have fully recognized the degree to which he's transformed the party," said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States...

"Tons of people in the alt-right are here," he said, putting their numbers at the RNC this week in the dozens. "We feel an investment in the Trump campaign."

He and his group chatted up convention goers late into the night, including an executive from a major Jewish organization and a female board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition. They sat at the marble bar as Spencer explained his position on blacks, Hispanics and Jews. They challenged him repeatedly and expressed shock at how calmly he dismissed their rejection of his ideals.

"We'll help them go somewhere else. I'm not a maniac," Spencer said of the minorities he wants to eject from the country. "I know in order to achieve what I want to achieve, you have to deal with people rationally..."

Trump's "America First" message, backed by his call for a massive border wall and focus on immigrants who are criminals, has energized people like Spencer. He described their mood as "euphoric."

Seizing on that energy, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke on Friday announced a bid for the Senate. The Louisiana Republican likened his policies on trade and immigration to Trump's in an announcement video.

"I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years," Duke said. "My slogan remains 'America First.'"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/energized-white-supremacists-cheer-trump-convention-message-183705548--election.html

You can't spit into a fan and be surprised when it blows back on you.

Craig said...

"You all are welcome to have negative opinions about Obama, but you are in an increasing minority. Currently, his ratings are just over 50% and rising."

Unless, of course, you refuse to define right and wrong by the results of public opinion polls.



"Obama inherited a floundering economy and turned it around."

Unless you happen to be African American.

"The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent."
"he wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year high."
"However, currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent of White students."
http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama/

"1. Black misery has been growing since 2009 under President Obama’s economic and job creation policies. Black folks participation in the labor market has been steadily moving DOWNWARD during the Obama presidency – since 2009 when he was first inaugurated.

2. ALL other major racial groups have moved up, albeit moderately, since 2009! Blacks are the only group that has taken a definitive step BACKWARDS since then. Why? This article will argue that it is because for the past 4 years, until last week, Obama has declined to even put forth the idea that "low income Black people need targeted help too!!! Needless to say, has not designed any job creation strategies or policies that would do something for the Blacks who supported him the most."
http://blackagendareport.com/content/expansion-black-american-misery-under-barack-obama%E2%80%99s-watch

"54% of African Americans graduate from high school, compared to more than three quarters of white and Asian students."
"The twelfth-grade reading scores of African American males were significantly lower than those for men and women across every other racial and ethnic group."
"Only 14% of African American eighth graders score at or above the proficient level. These results reveal that millions of young people cannot understand or evaluate text, provide relevant details, or support inferences about the written documents they read."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/too-important-to-fail/fact-sheet-outcomes-for-young-black-men/


"Obama inherited dangerously high unemployment and turned it around impressively."

Again, unless you're black.

"When Obama entered office on January 20, 2009, U.S. unemployment stood at 7.8 percent. By April 2014, that Bureau of Labor Statistics figure had fallen to 6.3 percent — a modest improvement. Among blacks overall, joblessness dropped, though less significantly — from 12.7 to 11.6 percent. But for blacks aged 16 to 19, unemployment grew from 35.3 to 36.8 percent."

"America’s population of food-stamp recipients soared overall from 32,889,000 in 2009 to 46,022,000 in 2012, the latest Agriculture Department statistics show. For blacks, the analogous numbers are 7,393,000 when Obama arrived to 10,955,000 in 2012."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378087/black-americans-are-worse-under-obama-deroy-murdock

"Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration broke a decades-long pattern of being twice white unemployment, has resumed its disturbing and prolonged trend under President Obama, with the rate among African Americans now at 13.4 percent, according to a new Pew Research report."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/under-obama-black-unemployment-back-to-twice-the-white-rate/article/2534597

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378087/black-americans-are-worse-under-obama-deroy-murdock

Craig said...

"Obama inherited two wars and has done less well closing them, but has made improvements."

If one ignores the rise of ISIS and the large amount of territory it now controls. The calamity in Benghazi, and the fact that Guantanamo Bay prison (remember, this was the reason "they" hate us) is still open, and the number of attacks by Islamic terrorists is on the rise, then perhaps one could justify "done less well". Of course let's not forget that he's putting more troops into these two wars that he's "made improvements" in.

"Obama captured/killed Osama bin Laden, the actual person responsible for 9/11 (as opposing Iraq, which had nothing to do with it... arguably, a war crime)"

Yes he did. That's one.

Obama has been astoundingly scandal free (as compared to recent presidents).

"Obama and his family have been classy, intelligent, presidential, mature, moral and just very cool, decent people..."

Just like Biden said “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”.

I guess we'll just ignore the moral train wreck of the Clintons.

I also notice you ignored the ACA which has not done what was promised. Fast and Furious. The VA healthcare system. The use of the IRS to target conservative groups.

If one looks as objectively as possible that best that can be said about the Obama administration is that it has been dissapointing.

Craig said...

I'm already regretting commenting in this guano fest.