Lefties Are Liars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b)  The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter To Dan About His Open Letter To Alabama

Dear Dan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" But based on what?"

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

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

Are you kiddin'?

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

You know nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More like eighteen.

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

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

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

Are The Democrats Embarrassed, Yet?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Sorry. Guns Still Aren't The Problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/03/democrats-have-no-idea-how-to-prevent-mass-shootings/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.9bed45490864

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

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/04/are-there-any-new-gun-regulations-that-are-appropriate-in-the-wake-of-las-vegas-n2390116

https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8

https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still and all, guns aren't the problem. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Hiram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Coren goes all in.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the G.O.P racist?

It ain't a trick question.  It's an irrational but widely held belief by those who oppose the GOP.  There is no real, true, honest (sorry for the redundancy) basis for the belief, but it proliferates.  Purposely.  It's a good lie to tell because it puts center-right people on the defensive and distracts from shortcomings of the left as the center-right wastes time explaining reality and/or distancing themselves from whatever provoked the charge in any given circumstance.

Here's Dan Trabue commenting on the subject in the comments section attached to a recent post of his from August 26, 2017 at 10:11 PM:

"WHEN it already appears that you are a party of racists, WHEN there is a literal history of you all being on the wrong side of racism, WHEN your presidential candidate repeatedly played to/appealed to racists, THEN you damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst.

And that is why you all are viewed as the party of racists and racist supporters."

The following is an even more egregious example of this blatant falsehood that Dan perpetuates.  It is the lie that provokes this post:

"Not implying anything.

I'm saying:

1. The GOP has a racism problem. They are perceived by many to be harboring racists. This is just a point of fact.

2. The GOP's racism problem didn't arise from nothing. It's based on real world events and words from conservative types.

3. There ARE racists in the GOP/right wing, point of fact. Yes, it's also true that there are racists in the DNC/left wing, but not to the point that it's as big a problem as with the Right. We don't know how large the numbers of racists/nazis/scumbag types there are in the GOP, but it appears to be a significant number. Trump could not have won without the votes of racists/"alt-right"/nazis.

4. We warned you all (indeed, many conservatives warned us all) that Trump was invoking racist language and empowering racist groups back when he was campaigning. It was obvious enough/clear enough that many conservatives noted it.

5. And those warnings went unheeded, and now we have a president who has made nazis/KKK-types/racists feel comfortable and emboldened to crawl out from under their rocks. The nazis/racists will tell you that they have been emboldened by Trump and that "wing" of the conservative movement.

So, while we don't know the number of racists/nazis/white supremacists in the party, they are having their day and their way with the Trump presidency. The GOP/Right Wing is in a crisis because of this maniac and is not doing enough to stop it.

Disagree all you want, the data is there. I just hope enough of the Good Conservatives grow some spines and start taking courageous steps to (non-violently) end this fiasco.

In the meantime, we on the Left will keep fighting racists and nazis, it's kind of what we do. I just hope you all can swallow your pride and join us at some point. Redeem yourselves.

~Dan

August 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM"

Sorry to have posted such a large chunk of his steaming pile, but it needs to be addressed.  But before I do, I have one more from Dan that I feel is relevant.  Speaking of those like himself, and ostensibly the progressive left in general, Dan, presumably with a straight face types:

"We hate lies, we hate racism, we hate gross stupidity/ignorance in places of great authority."This is not at all true, as lies are essential to much of what the left, and Dan, promotes.  As regular readers (such as they may be) know, I've an ongoing series called "Agenda Lies" that speaks to just one issue championed by the left which details all the lies that led to an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.  The stupidity of the left is also blatant and obvious regarding that issue, and no more so than the stupidity of believing the rest of us are stupid enough to buy into the lies of those who promoted the "agenda that doesn't exist".  That stupidity/ignorance was also on display in every center-left politician who supported that agenda and the achievement of its goals. 

But here we're dealing with a different issue...race...and the supposed hatred of racism by the left is laughable considering the history of the Democratic Party, even until quite recently.  Heck, the support for Affirmative Action requires a level of racism in the belief that a particular race requires government help to achieve.  On that subject alone, the center-right population demonstrates far less racial preference in its position that no race is such that government assistance is necessary for those of that race to succeed in life, any more than for our own selves.   So that's just for starters.  Let us carry on beginning with the first quote from old Danny-boy.

---To whom does it appear that the GOP is a party of racists?  Why, to those who oppose the party, of course.  To those who intend that people perceive them as such.  It doesn't actually have that appearance, since it is a party of racists at all, and honest people do not perceive it that way.  How could they when it's not true.

---In what way does "literal history" portray the GOP as being on the wrong side of racism?  I can think of no such evidence, and Dan has not bothered to provide any.  He's free to do so here, and I'll enjoy a good laugh when he does.

---Now here comes the really funny part:  Dan insists, as do other nutjob lefties, that candidate Trump "repeatedly played to/appealed to racists".   It's the really funny part because as a business man, I can't see that Trump would be concerned about appealing to a portion of the population that is tinier than the LGBT community...and that's really tiny.  The fact is that by running on a platform of immigration reform and enforcement in the manner that he did, the left willfully chose to interpret that as racist or anti-immigrant.  That is, protecting our people and borders is said by the left to be a sign of racism...in much the same way as protecting the lives of people not yet born to be proof of misogyny.  That's called "lying".

---Daniel then goes on to say that the GOP "damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst."  Well, let's see...we've already rejected David Duke, but he's been a member of five different parties and will likely jump ship again when it best seems beneficial for him to do so.  Aside from him, who else is there?  Most racists in American history have been Democrats, with Robert Byrd being the most notorious of recent times.  Most of the Confederate officers, whose statues the left now wants to tear down, were themselves Dems honored with those statues by Democrats.  But then there's Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...oh, wait!   They're all black people!  What am I saying?  Black people can't be racist!  At least that's what they tell us, and the white people on the left will never point out the racist speech of any of these people.  (Meanwhile, here on the plantation, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Mia Love, Larry Elder, Tim Scott are all self-loathing house n***ers...according to the left)

Let's look at Trabue's list from his second comment:

1.  The only racism problem the GOP has is lefties and deluded minorities accusing the GOP of racism without any proof to back it up.  It's like insisting Dan's a goat regardless of the reality.   That such buffoons insist on perceiving the GOP in this way cannot be helped.  Liars lie.

2.  It's true.  The GOP's "racism problem" did not arise from nothing.  But Dan lies again.  It arose from willful distortions of what may have been said by certain GOP politicians.  As I said, liars lie.

3.  Dan believes it's a "point of fact" that there are racists in the GOP.  If he's referring to party members, specifically elected officials, he'll need to name them and provide evidence of their racism.  Whether or not there are racist voters who routinely vote for Republicans I would not dispute.  But then again, how can one tell without polling data of some kind, or simply such voters openly proclaiming their racism.  Remember...we cannot, and should not, give credence to the claims of those who oppose the GOP for such statistics as they are given to making every statement "code" for racism as it suits them to do so.

But Dan believes there are "a significant number" of racists in the GOP, though he gives no clue as to how he's support the charge.  Given that there is not a significant number of racists in the nation (that is, klansmen or neo-nazis---the best estimates seem to be no more than a few hundred thousand total), it seems not a little deceitful to suggest there could possibly be a significant number within the GOP.  It's a baseless assertion and a desperate hope to distract from the fact of racism in the Democrat Party.   Indeed, as I've pointed out with my own small list, it's a far bigger problem for Dems.  They just aren't honest enough to admit it.  Dan certainly isn't.

4.  Dan has a very mentally dysfunctional notion of what constitutes conservatism, and more so what constitutes a conservative.  To him, anyone puts an (R) behind his own name just has to be a rock solid conservative.  This is crap, as actual conservatives have long had a problem with the GOP for preferring wishy-washy Republicans over true conservatives.  Just check out the "love" those like Mitch McConnell have for those like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.  He prefers "establishment" Republicans, not Cruz or Lee.

And again, Dan prefers to regard Trump's unpolished references to those like immigrants and refugees as racist, when honest people see Trump's meaning through his inarticulate expression.  Dan wants Trump to be racist.  And for the left in general, there's no way that a white person is not racist.  That's the law.  So it's not that Trump actually intends to use racist language or seeks to inflame racist passion...it's simply that the left asserts such things in their hatred of non-leftist politicians.  (The irony here being that Trump is really less conservative than he is liberal)

5.  It's not Trump who has made racists feel comfortable.  It's the left who has done that.  I have a post in mind to address that in more detail, but in general, Trump's existence in the political arena is the result of leftist policies and politically correct BS with which the left has so horribly bored us.  This nonsense has left many feeling that despite their calls for consideration for the feelings of "protected" groups, it is just fine and dandy to say any nasty thing that comes to mind if the target is white, Christian and or conservative.  Given all the crap about "white privilege", it's hard to believe that among those fed up with this leftist PC attitude that racists wouldn't be among them.  For Trump to act with disregard for such PC considerations, only to have the left pretend said disregard means he's purposely seeking to attract racists to his cause is idiotic and willfully deceitful.  But that's who the left is: idiotic and willfully deceitful.

Dan believes that racism is a problem for the GOP.  He offers no data while claiming data exists to prove his premise.  Yet, lefties like Dan ignore the racist activity of the left and the Democratic Party in American history against which the right and the GOP had always been a foe...and still is.  The left has been accusing the GOP of racism for a long time...projecting it's called.  The "racism problem" of the right is in fact no more than the accusation of racism by the left, and the gullibility of those who've bought into it.  Dan can no more prove the GOP is racist than he can prove the Democratic Party isn't.

Dan Is Such A Brave Boy

...then Dan says to me,

I said one chance, Marshall.

"One chance and one chance alone, Marshall. Do you agree that neo-nazis and KKK members and their comrades have lost the opportunity to be treated seriously, respectfully or to be met with anything but contempt?"

THAT is the point of the post.

Do you understand that this is the point of the post?

Do you agree with the point of the post?"

I can't put into words the comedic effect of condescension from someone of Dan's questionable character.   The reason for this hubris stems from my original comment after reading his post from Aug.13 called RESIST (yes, it was in caps and bold print, because he's serious, dammit!).  He finishes his post beginning with this line:

"Good and moral people must always stand opposed to oppressors."

...and that was what prompted my initial comment, which reads as follows:

"And that's why I stand firmly opposed to abortionists and those who enable them. The horror and oppression of one group of selfish, anti-science monsters against the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind must be opposed at all costs, and those who stand with the very people who seek to legitimize the practice (the lion's share of the Democratic Party, for example) are heinous for doing so.

"It's like all these conservatives who try to mock those who value tolerance for being intolerant towards some. But who are we being intolerant towards? The intolerant."

This is a lie. You are being intolerant against people who are intolerant of immoral sexual practices and against the support (legal, social, pseudo-religious) of those practices in all its forms.

BTW...do you think you'll ever address intolerance by black groups any time soon, or are you just opposed to intolerance by "white boys"? Just wonderin'."

Dan doesn't get the connection.  So, in his arrogance he condescends and demands an answer to a question I really shouldn't have to answer.  But I did.  He just didn't like it the answer I gave and deleted it.

You see, the problem is that this post of Dan's constitutes the definition of low hanging fruit.  Indeed, the fruit no longer hangs but was lying there on the ground next to where Dan was sitting, rotting half eaten.  He just picked it up and apparently feels just so noble and courageous for saying the obvious.  My goodness, how righteous he is!  HE OPPOSES NAZIS AND THE KKK!!!!  He's a pip!

There's so much wrong with his post and his many inane comments that followed in response to both Craig and myself.  And my initial response provides a few:

1.  Dan is an oppressor himself, and an oppressor of the most vile kind.  He is an abortion supporter, recently claiming (sincerely or for effect---it doesn't matter, really) that he no longer finds abortion to be immoral.  Here's some perspective from a 2013 article.  Dan wants to get all self-righteous about neo-nazis and klansmen while defending that which has killed far more people than all white supremacists in the history of this nation.  He wants to posture himself as among the "good and moral people" of America.  Clearly my initial comment indicates that I clearly do oppose oppressors beyond just the Klan and neo-nazis.

2.  He lied about conservatives being intolerant.  It's what the progressives do...because they don't understand conservatism at all, and because they need to demonize others in order to appear to be the morally superior faction while promoting immorality.  But while those bozos are intolerant of conservatives and Bible-believing Christians, we're intolerant of behaviors that are displeasing to God...as Christians are supposed to be.

3.  Dan takes great joy in referring to the Charlottesville protesters as "white boys".  I've never heard him refer to any of those stoked so highly by BLM rhetoric that they assassinated or attempted to assassinate cops.  I've never seen him reference those perpetrators as "black boys".  What's more, my link referenced three black hate groups.  But Dan chooses to lie and say I'm comparing neo-nazis and the Klan to "black folks".  Obviously he didn't have the integrity to even click on my links.  I was not referencing "black folks".  I was referencing hate groups.  Groups that have been out there for some time, some of which call for the killing of whites and Jews.  Even Bobby Seale, a famous founding member of the original Black Panthers, calls the New Black Panther organization "a black racist hate group."

As if that wasn't enough, we have the shooting of a GOP Congressman by a Bernie Sanders supporter.  Don't recall Dan writing a post to decry the shooter in the foul terms he reserves for white supremacists.   And he gives Antifa and BLM a pass for their violent behavior because their violence is justified in fighting the "white boys".  Except the "Unite The Right" protesters had a permit to be where they were and there is no known evidence I've seen that suggest their intention was to do more than protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue.  The other lefties, in greater numbers, chose to confront these people, and some of them came armed as well as did some of the white nationalists. 

As to that, I've been trying to find anything that points to just who began the trouble in Charlottesville that led to the death of Heather Heyer. This LA Times piece was one that I chose because it gave a list of witness testimonies that help to answer that question.  I find it relevant given Dan's choice to believe that it was all the white nationalists.  But there are a couple left-wing testimonies that cite the Antifa people as the true instigators.  And that's important, because actual Americans understand the the freedom to assemble and protest is a right even scumbags have.  Dan believes the Klan lost the right to be treated seriously or with respect.  Dan also has a problem with Scripture as he apparently does with the Constitution.  One isn't required to like what these people represent, but so long as they're peaceably assembled, they have the right to be assembled without other scumbags interfering. 

There are two more points that need to be addressed as regards Dan's idiotic grandstanding:

1.  Bad people are also sometimes susceptible to good ideas.  That doesn't mean that the person with the good idea is seeking to attract support of the bad people.  It also doesn't mean that the person with the good idea needs to tell the bad people to take a hike just so buffoons like Dan aren't confused about the quality of the person with the good idea.

2.  The "alt-right", white nationalists and jerks like the Klan and neo-nazis are NOT "right-wing".  I recently read a piece by someone suggesting conservatives need to reject the term "right-wing", in part because of how many lefty chuckleheads abuse the term to demonize their intellectually superior opponents.  These sorry groups do NOT align with the principles of either constitutional conservatism or the American way/ideals.  They are far more comparable to Dan and his leftist/progressive/socialist/fascist circus of clowns.  Indeed, Dan said the Antifa people aren't nazis.  Well...yes.  They are.  They are two sides of the same worthless coin. 

There's really much more I'd like to say about this nonsensical perspective of Dan's.  It's held by many, even by some on the right.  It's have to wait till next time.

Bad Time For A Movie Like This

With Friday's newspaper comes the entertainment section, in which new movies are reviewed.  This week, Kathryn Bigelow's new movie "Detroit" debuts.  It is called by movie critic Dan Gire, a "docudrama", which means it's a dramatic depiction of actual events surrounding the Detroit race riots of 1967. 

I'm not intending to comment on Gire's slanted view of this movie...slanted in the sense that it regards this depiction to be the unvarnished truth rendered in an absolutely objective manner without regard to personal biases.  Whether police brutality was suffered by the black community in greater degree than by others (like hippies) is not a concern here (though they most assuredly were).  Whether or not the police overreacted to the response of the black community after a police raid on an illegal event (possibly, though "overreaction" to an entire community looting, burning and assaulting would be difficult to measure) is also not a concern.  Whether or not blacks overreacted to the police raid of said illegal event (Yes.  They most certainly did.), or were in any way justified in doing so (No.  They most certainly were not.  No one would be.), is as well another story.

No.  Here, my concern is with the making of the film and the timing of its release.  I don't know when this film was conceived, nor when production of it began.  The best I can determine at this point was that it wasn't all that long ago given Bigelow's announcement in early 2016 that she intends to collaborate with Mark Boal on the film.  She's been a busy woman in recent years and sometimes these things can take quite some time to get from one's initial inspiration to actual release for public consumption.

Bigelow, in one interview, stated she felt it time to enter into discussions involving race relations.  I don't know where she's been, but it seems to me that she's somewhat late to the party on that score given that Eric Holder chided us in 2009 for being "a nation of cowards" with regard to such discussions.  The thing is, not only are many of us willing and eager to get into such discussions, many of us are willing to be absolutely honest about it, including discussing the topic from a wide variety of angles.  Some of those angles are those others would prefer not be discussed. 

For the purpose of this post, the point has to do with what impact a film like this will have on such discussions, as well as on the climate of race relations as it now stands.  This assumes the film is entirely accurate and honest as to the events of those riots in 1967.  That's in question given that some don't even want to use the term "riots" in favor of a more noble "rebellion". 

Recent years have shown that arguing that all lives matter, in response to chants that black lives do, is itself a racist comment to some.  Exposing the numbers regarding who's doing what and in what percentages also results in outcry, as the truth interferes with a narrative by which some benefit.  I would suggest that this film will only make things worse in that regard.  It will validate some false opinions with which truth, facts and evidence are inconvenient.  It will be used to justify more attacks on cops, as if the attitudes of most people today remain unchanged from 50 years ago...which is blatant nonsense.

I don't think the movie will tell us anything we didn't already know, except perhaps that the riots actually took place.  The young may not be aware.  But will they be enlightened, or further indoctrinated?  I don't know, but I don't think incendiary films like this are the way to bring it to their attention. 

I hope we hear of no violence tied to any presentation of this film.  And should dialogue take place as a result, I hope it's all positive and of a type that relieves tension between the races instead of increasing it.  It remains to be seen.

UPDATE...UPDATE...UPDATE:

Just watched Steven Crowder's review of this film and it lends credence to my fears...not that it came as a surprise.  Here's the YouTube link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSHYp0Q1UtM 

Much Ado...

So way back in April of '07, when I began this blog, I had a notion for a title that reflected a major interest of mine...martial arts.  As my name is "Art", it seemed a natural to appropriate the term for the purpose.  After setting up the whole thing, that nagging feeling I had turned out to be provoked by a misspelling.  My mildly clever idea had been to use the term for a law enforcement officer, which as it turns out is often spelled as I had initially spelled it on my masthead (according to Wiki).  As I was new to the whole create-your-own-blog thing, and as Blogger was a bit different at the time, I wasn't keen on trying to figure out how to fix it.  So I left it.  Yet, I intended to one day fix it, because I didn't think it conveyed the clever idea as well as the more common spelling, and thus you see the blog is "renamed" MARSHAL ART'S.  (woo-freakin'-hoo)

I even have a concept in mind for graphics.  That requires actual sketches to get it right so that it looks good, and perhaps contracting with one or two other artists to do it for me, to see which version I prefer.  It would blend the western notion (Marshal Dillon) with the combat arts in the design.  What's in my head is way cool.  How long it'll take me to actually do it is another matter altogether.   Then of course I'll have to determine if I can actually import the pic to appear on my homepage.  Sounds like work.  I don't like work. 

You won't have to do anything different to get here, gentle reader, as evidenced by the fact that you got here.  And whoever is so compelled is free to engage in snark and mockery related to my misspelling my own name.  Just be prepared to suffer a virtual spinning back kick. 

Just as an aside, and for the purpose of needlessly expanding this post, I want to tell you a little story.  Back in the day, when I was full on martial-manic, a fellow karateka joked about our own TV show.  We only got as far as the intro, and it would be a martial artist cop show (like Walker: Texas Ranger became).  At our dojo, I was the only "Art" and this other dude was the only "Gary".  So, the voiceover would say, "MARSHAL ART!  and his sidekick (and as I would perform a side thrust kick, the camera would follow my foot panning over to), MAWASHI GARY! in..."(we never came up with an actual title)  A kick in Japanese, we were told, was pronounced (likely poorly) "geri".  A mawashi geri was translated as "roundhouse kick" or "round kick".  Hence the nickname of my associate, Gary, who would perform a roundhouse kick.  We even acted it out now and then for other eye-rolling students.   Oh, how we laughed.  "Marshal Art and his sidekick Mawashi Gary".  Those were the days.  He's in Houston now.  But anyway, that's whence the name of this blog originated and I'm sure you're all appropriately enthralled and enriched by the knowledge.

You're welcome.

And Then, Of Course, There's Dan

A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion.  This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic. 

The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue:  is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother?  Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question.  He believes...scratch that...claims that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward.  It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.

Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes.  It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me.  I love red meat!).  It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins.  (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)

In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human.  From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being."  A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't.   It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent.  (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event)  I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings.  As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise. 

Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven.  Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking.  This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being.  Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence.  Hair continues to grow.  Cells are replaced.  Damaged parts are as restored.  More importantly, when the child emerges from the oven (Momma's womb), it is not "fully baked" as it were, but still developing for a good 18 years or more.  The pie isn't fully formed until it is done baking.  The child in the womb is fully formed at whatever stage of development it happens to be at.  Again, the distinction is between fully human and a fully developed human being.  Dan conflates the two without any evidence in support of the argument that his arbitrary line of demarcation is worthy of respect by honest people of character and virtue. 

Then comes the punchline.  After all these and other arguments defending the unborn...arguments that actually relate to available scientific facts and data that undergird our pro-life position, Dan then goes on to suggest that our arguments have led him to reverse his belief that abortion is immoral.  That is, he no longer believes it is because of our arguments that fully support the premise that it is!  It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.  The truth that is more likely is that he couldn't find a way to actually justify his support for abortion for any reason.  His former claim that he would not have one himself were hollow at best, if not an outright lie.

I have to think that his defense of infanticide is similar to his defense of homosexuality.  He knows people who have had abortions and, by golly, they're just such nice people and wonderful, loving Christians.  This is, for Dan, what passes for "embracing grace".  While actual Christians try to appeal to the sexually immoral, with love and understanding, to seek forgiveness of God for their immorality and repent of it, Dan chooses instead to enable it.  That's not a Christian response to immoral behavior.  It is complicity...aiding and abetting.  He may as well be aborting those defenseless children himself. 

From The Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"

As the title of this post implies, the topic is compelled by a nonsensical question posed by feo.  Before I get to it, there are two other statements he made on which I wish to comment.  Don't bother trying to find them, I've been deleting his comments due to restrictions placed upon him due to his ongoing hateful behavior.  But these comments and the questions I thought were worth saving until I had the time to compose a post about them that will demonstrate once again how foolish he insists on being.  Let's begin:

"In christian theology marriage is a sacrament of the presence of God in the love two people have for each other."

Remember, this is a guy who brags about his vast knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith and his overall intellectual superiority.  The above may be an example merely of hasty composition, but it's really not much of a definition.  That is, it wouldn't pass the editor's approval due to it's sloppiness and lack of precision.  Here's a far better definition:

In Christian theology, the sacrament of marriage is the union of one man and one woman who, in the sight of God and for His glory, vow to love, honor and serve each other faithfully, forsaking all others, until death parts them.

That's far more accurate a representation of what a Christian marriage is.   Indeed, that's what is actually is in fact.

"I like rubbing your nose in who you are given that you (sic)  spine bends that far back."

Since the first time he's darkened this blog by his arrogant and condescending presence, as if he's ever presented reason to justify such attitudes, he has either failed to understand who I am, or, more likely, lacks the honesty to acknowledge who I am.  For example, despite repeated requests for evidence to support the charge, he likes to think I'm racist.  I've no doubt that's just his self-loathing white guilt talking and I pray that when he gets the psychological counseling he so desperately needs then that issue will be addressed as well as all the others.

As to spine, I'm not sure exactly what he means there.  But he hasn't demonstrated he has the spine to engage in honest discourse without the nasty, hateful pettiness.  He likely is referring to his charge that I dodge his accusations or something to that effect.  An absurd charge to say the least.  It's a defensive tactic when faced with that which his "intellect" fails to provide a legitimate and compelling response.  I'd actually have to be an incredible coward to run from the lame and infantile rhetoric and accusations he constantly puts forth.  I mean, it's not like he offers up anything that I'd consider a real stumper.  And the question (more of a demand, really) to which I referred is a good example:

"Try to explain to me how baking a cake for a gay wedding supports gay marriage but voting for a racist isn't supporting racism."

No "trying" required, first of all. 

To provide anything for the celebration of sexual immorality, which he refers to as "a 'gay' wedding", is to take part in the celebration.  That's obvious.  It doesn't matter whether one provides a product or service for free or if one charges for doing so.  It is taking part in the celebration either way.  Certainly, one's participation ends once the product or service is delivered, but taking part it is nonetheless.  Promoters of sexual immorality like to pretend that isn't the case, but the whole purpose of the product or service being requested is to celebrate that immoral and depraved union.  To provide that product or service acknowledges that the union of two of the same sex can actually be a marriage.  Such acknowledgement is support for the notion.  As such a union cannot be a marriage, to acknowledge the union of a same-sex couple is to affirm that it can.  That's called support for the notion.  "You are charged with supporting the revolution against our president!"  "No!  I just provided the guns!"  That dog, as they say, just won't hunt.

The question seeks to prove that I support a racist.  There are two problems with this:

1.  Trump isn't a racist and there's no evidence, hard or otherwise, that proves he is.  There is evidence he is not.  For instance:

http://ipatriot.com/proof-donald-trump-no-racist/

Of course to sad and pathetic self-loathing people suffering from white guilt, if you're white, you're racist.  That's feo.

2.  But let's assume that I voted for an actual racist, just for the sake of argument.  Does that mean that I support racism?  It certainly would be if I was a racist as well, and voted for the person because the person's a racist.  But might there be legitimate reasons why one might vote for a racist?   Of course.  It's the lesser of two evils dynamic, just like it was in reality with the choice between Trump and Clinton:  the desire to prevent a far worse candidate from winning.  I don't have to like a person personally in order to vote for that person, particularly if I think that person, despite that person's faults, is unquestionably a better choice than the other person, or said another way, that the other person is far worse and needs to never win an election ever.

What's more, a racist (or any other foul person) who is a conservative, or simply favors most of the same things I favor, would be the better choice over the other person whose positions I totally oppose.  And that's another point of relevance.  Trump is not a free trade guy.  I am.  But does my vote for him mean I support protectionism?  In politics, as in love, it's next to impossible to find a perfect fit in an off the rack world.

Of course, it would be hard to find a conservative who is a racist.  Racists are almost always leftists who vote Democrat...the party of racists.  feo's a racist.  He hates his own race.  By his logic, allowing him to comment here means I support racism.  But I clearly don't support anything about a sad and pathetic little "man" like feo, except his visiting here to engage in discourse in a respectful and courteous manner regardless of who attacks him personally...because he'll be deleted if he doesn't.  He's earned that special status.

So that should answer his question quite completely.  Let's see if he's smart enough and honest enough to acknowledge that it has been answered, and answered in a manner that can no longer allow him to pretend I've supported racism by voting for Trump.  Don't anybody hold their breath.

A Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"

Just a short note:  feo is not banned from this blog.  That's the first thing that needs to be said.   I am more than willing to engage with those of disparate positions and opinions and to provide the opportunity for such to fully present them.  That's never been a problem for me.  I welcome it more than agreement with the like-minded.

But feo isn't willing to engage.  From his first visit to this blog, he's done little more than assert, condescend, insult and attack, all without a shred of supporting evidence.  This is a guy who claims a vast educational background including seminary training.  His demeanor, prideful, arrogant and as I said, condescending, belies any claims of Christian devotion.  And like Dan, his support for sexual immorality and the murder of innocents also suggests otherwise.  As such, he has long since worn out his welcome as if his only goal is to be banned outright and with extreme prejudice.

But feo doesn't get to call the shots here.  Instead, he now has very strict guidelines for maintaining his welcome.  From this point forward, be it commenting on this post, or any future or past post, he is now required to be the kindest, most gracious and humble visitor to this blog.  No insults, no condescension, no arrogance, no profane or obscene talk or words of any kind.  The standards his ongoing, unrepentant behavior has invited has put him in a very special and unique category.  He must maintain these high standards even in the face of direct and purposeful attack and provocation directed at him by absolutely anyone else.  Any comment he posts that is in breach of these standards will result in the deletion of the comment as soon as I read it.

To all others, know that should you respond to a comment by feo that is anything less than saintly in tone, it may appear to be speaking to no one after feo's comment is deleted.  I may even delete your response as well, just for the sake of clarity.

feo needs to believe that I delete his comments because I'm afraid of the "facts" he presents, even though he doesn't post facts, or what he posts has no relevance to the topic.  And that's another standard he must uphold.  He is not free to commandeer a thread as he tries to do with too much frequency.  He is free to request that I cover a topic, but he is not free to go off on tangents or to attempt to start a new discussion unrelated to the topic at hand. 

I've always maintained that it isn't so much name-calling that's a problem in today's culture.  It's the unjustified name-calling.  That is, as an example, feo constantly calling me a racist without ever...EVER having offered even one bit of evidence in support of the charge.  Opposing, say, affirmative action policy, Barack Obama's presidency or rioting by blacks after a black thug is killed while committing a crime, is not evidence of racism in the least.  BUT, feo is allowed to say, in the nicest way possible (as judged by me), "I think your position is racist, and here's why..." which is likely to begin a legitimate back and forth (until he reverts to his usual prideful and hateful ways). 

As I type this, feo may well be posting his usual hateful drivel.  Those comments are not long for this blog.  I'm suggesting there will never again be a comment of feo's that does not get deleted, because he doesn't have the character to act as if he actually has the character of a Christian.   If anyone wants to start a pool, let me know here.

Obama Made Us Safer? Uh...

In a recent discussion from not too long ago, Dan assured us that Barry Obumble has made us safer.   While that's a laughable suggestion on its face, given the rise in terrorist activity here and abroad, I just saw this article that proves just how ludicrous the claim is.  While the article speaks specifically about the Democratic-led city of Chicago (led by former Obama co-hort Rahm Emanuel), it contains this gem as well:

"According to this FBI report, violent crime in the U.S. increased a little more than five percent the first half of last year." (2016)

Chicago, and two suburban cities, Elgin and Joliet, saw much larger increases in violent crime. 

The claim, therefore, that Obama somehow made us safer is not supported by law enforcement.

What's more, despite Obama's claim that no terrorist organization has attacked our nation during his administration, that's a hollow victory to say the least, given the several so-called "lone wolf" attacks, such as the Boston Marathon Bombers, the San Bernardino shootings and various other examples of islamist inspired murders. 

Chicago just hosted Obama's farewell address before adoring chumps to whom he could say anything and be believed as if he spoke the truth.  This article provides us with this morsel for our consumption:

"A few hours prior to the event and while people were arriving there was a carjacking and holdup involving a gun not too far from the venue."

and...

And several miles from the Obamas' Chicago home, police reported two bodies found in a vacant South Side building."

Yeah.  He's made us so much safer.  I don't know how a 5% rise in violent crime translates into a safer nation.