The List of Suggestions (That Ain't Worth Squat)

So, now we get into "the plan"...or the suggestions that won't make a difference.  Let's begin:

1.  Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.

I am unaware of any state that does not require this on all licensed gun dealers.   One cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.   Some control freaks think they can somehow legislate that Frank can't sell his shotgun to brother Bob or best friend Phil without putting them through a background check.   The problems with this have been discussed many times over the years.  They include the obvious...that most criminals won't waste their time trying to buy a gun through licensed dealers...as well as the not so obvious.  An example would be that while there have been attempts by criminals thwarted by background checks, there have also been law-abiding citizens denied due to similarities in their names or personal info to criminals, much in the way some have ended up unjustly on "no fly" lists, making them subject to having their right to bear infringed.  Not good.

But again, I am unaware of any state or municipality in this country that does not have some form of background check in place. 

2.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.

Are all "violent misdemeanors" and "domestic assaults" created equal?  A bar fight is a violent misdemeanor.  If feo's wife kicks his ass again, should she be denied? (I'm assuming he really does have a wife like he says he does...as doubtful as that sounds)  These are vague terms indeed and require specific definition, without which they'd never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.  A fight of any kind...bar fight, smacking a spouse...does not equate to a murderous character, nor even that such a person totally lacks self-control.  It's an idiotic suggestion without more detail as to how it would be defined and administered.  It is a suggestion that simply seeks to ban firearms.

3.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
    stalking another person

This too is problematic from a Constitutional perspective, and also requires distinct defining.  It assumes all who are accused of "stalking" has murderous intent, or even any attempt to harm at all.  To be accused of stalking does not guarantee that the accuser isn't seeking to cause trouble for the accused.  That is, how do we guarantee that the accused is a true threat to the accuser?  Better would be to allow the accuser the right to carry a weapon for personal protection as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee. 

Most stalking laws consist of two main aspects:  threat of harm, emotional distress of the stalked.  But when laws that result in orders of protection, or restraining orders as they are often called, are not ignored by the accused, why should the accused be denied the ability to carry a weapon for personal protection?  The real problem comes from denying the stalked to arm up.

4.  Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm.

Licensing is simply a registry of people as opposed to their weapons.  Only three states require a license to own any kind of firearm, while New York has one for handguns only.  This is how a government knows who to fear should it choose to act against its people.  Just deal with every licensed gun owner first.   In the meantime, how does feo plan to license the criminal element for the weapons they carry?  This would have no effect on the criminal use of weapons, and indeed would increase it, as normally law-abiding citizens would be breaking the law if they don't acquire a license to own.

5.  Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
    ammunition.

The same foolishness as checks for gun buyers.  It's a backdoor to further confound those that are law-abiding as if the criminal element will comply.  Stupidity at its finest, but no effect on gun crime.

6.  Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
    firearms.

This would result in the elimination of about 80% or more of the most popular weapons on the market for no rational reason.  Fully automatic weapons are next to impossible for the average person to buy regardless of their law-abiding record.  But as it happens, this ban was implemented for the same nonsensical reasons that feo types want to banish all other weapons.  There was NO legitimate argument for doing so, but as it was only one type of weapon, there was little resistance.  But at the time, there was not many instances of automatic weapons being used in crime, despite what the Roaring 20's gangster movies would suggest. 

Semi-auto weapons are nowhere near as cool as fully auto, but they are not so much more devastating as single action weapons, particularly in the hands of a practiced shooter.  Those who wish to ban semi-automatic weapons are those who don't know squat about them.  And if one is under threat by a criminal type, the ease of use of a semi-auto weapon is a life-saver.  This is a total infringement on the right to bear and will do little to reduce "gun violence". 

7.  Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.

Already in place pretty much everywhere, if not absolutely so.

8.  Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms.

The problem with this law should be obvious to normal people, but feo isn't one of them.  He likely hasn't considered the consequences beyond the superficial benefit he thinks exists, or ignores those consequences in his bid to ban firearms altogether.  The following fleshes out those problems:

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/02/problem-mandatory-reporting-missing-guns-laws/

It will solve nothing but feo's fear of law-abiding citizens.

9.  Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
    capacity greater than 10 bullets.

This was covered in a video I posted in one of my previous posts dispelling feo's suggestions for the crap sandwiches they are.  I'll add a link later, but one needn't travel back to far in time to find it.  In short, it showed how little difference there was between using a 30 round magazine versus smaller sizes totaling the same amount of rounds.  It demonstrated both an expert and a novice firing off various sizes for comparison, dropping empty mags and replacing with loaded mags and the difference was insignificant even for the novice shooter.  It also staged a simulated attack by a potential victim who sought to subdue the shooter while changing mags.  Also failed to convince.  Magazine capacity is meaningless to one who seeks to do damage.  This law would have no effect on gun violence, but would make self-defense more difficult.

10.  Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry.

Despotic governments LOVE this one.  Only a complete idiot would suggest such a plan and feo is just the complete idiot to do so.  What a buffoon!

That's all we have time for today, kids.  I'll pick up where I left off later, and feo will just have to bite it until I'm finished before he'll have a chance to prove he's unworthy of being allowed to comment here.  (He claims he's finished with me, but I doubt it.)

Sidebar

Before I get into the list of "suggestions", I just have to post this laugher from the troll with my commentary in italics:

"Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever.(This from a guy who's never demonstrated the least bit of respect for other blog visitors since he first darkened the blogosphere by his presence!) Sheer pity is all I have left.(I'll have to seek professional help to get over it, I'm sure!) That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience.(Yada, yada, yada!) I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity.(I'm all a tremble!) A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments.(My "word" is of recent expression.  That is, two posts ago.  Until then, I had no intention of ever allowing a comment from this putz ever again, nor had I suggested I might without him finally producing his "plan".  Now, I have yet to get to that point wherein I stated I would allow him.  I'll post my condition later.) Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts.  Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.(I'm well aware that you bore others at their blogs with the same crap that winds up in my spam folder.)

You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.(Sez you.)

As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ.(Sez the defender of sexual immorality and the murder of innocents.) And I am done with you.(How will I live with this on my conscience?)

I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ(Wow!  That's exactly the prayer I've prayed for you from our first meeting on these here blogs!  Cosmic!)

So here is what I said with regard to allowing comments by feo:

" Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse."

Here's a little hint, sad troll:  I ain't finished.

Diving In To Find The Pearls

So, after having spent time responding to other nonsense from the king of nonsense, I now turn back to his "plan" to see how far I can get for this installment.  I must first deal with a couple of statements that preceded his list of suggestions.  The first is this:

"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."

Unfortunately, there is no data presented whatsoever.  Nothing that ties any of the suggestions with any provable results...nor even implied results.  Note the following:

"For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."

Did you catch that?  "According to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."  Are the opinions of these alleged "experts" supposed to satisfy an obligation to provide "data"?  I suppose, since feo demanded Craig and I seek out the various bits of his plan to assemble it ourselves, we're to research who these "experts" are and then the various and sundry studies that somehow support the implementation of these many "effective" policies.  That's not how it works.  In my several posts dealing with feo's first listing of suggestions, I provided much more in the way of data, facts and evidence to show how impotent they are than the mere "thoughts" about probabilities of effectiveness.   It's very much the way leftists speak of the next version of a failed socialist idea...there's no evidence that suggests it could possibly work.  There's only their "opinion" or "thoughts" that it will.  Not good enough to warrant infringing upon a clearly stated Constitutional right.  Moving on...

"The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. "

So what?  Are we to assume that ineffective policies work better when combined with other ineffective policies?  While I suppose that's possible for some policies, what does feo present to suggest it's at all possible with any of these?  While I wouldn't say feo's list contains absolutely no policies that should be implemented (assuming those I have in mind aren't already implemented most everywhere), most are clearly absurd for the purpose of preventing or reducing murders or suicides and thus, their addition to any plan won't increase the plan's effectiveness one iota.  I'll point out the absurd later on...

"Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade."

Oh look!  There's absurdity right there!  "Expectedly"?  Based on what?  This statement implies that ANY of the suggestions are "statistically effective", but no such stats are provided anywhere in feo's "plan".  Again, are we supposed to seek them out ourselves?  Is this how they taught students to put together and present a plan at the correspondence school from which feo got his diploma?  The above is  a wish and nothing more.

"For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws."

Absolutely useless for imposing an infringement on a Constitutional right.  If the majority of those voters approved of reinstating slavery....

This is what passes for "data"?

"Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."

I like this part.  Those of us who actually read the article can see that the cops generally opposed most of these suggestions, particularly those that impacted the ability of the law abiding to possess and carry weapons.  Far more compelling than the imaginings of "current or retired academics".

Next time I will examine the actual suggestions themselves.

THE BIG DAY IS HERE!!!!

Well folks, the day has arrived.  Today is when I post feo's "plan" for reducing gun violence.  What will follow is something the troll posted at Dan's sometime, I think, in August and referenced in a more recent post.   So I went back and looked for it and lo and behold!  There it was!  In all it's *gack* "glory". 

So here's how it's going to go down:  I'm going to post all of the comments that included this "plan", as well as following comments from feo (because he's just so funny) and then I will be making my comments on it.  Much of what he proposes has been addressed in two previous posts of mine and I will likely refer to it to deal with specific suggestions...likely with a link or some such, but possibly with additional thoughts. 

This may involve multiple posts to address it all and should it turn out that way, I will not be posting any comments until the entire "plan" is presented (with my attendant comments).  It may be one post per week until the whole thing is presented, but I think I can get it done in three installments.  We'll see.  I'm just gonna wing it.  Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse. 

Did you read that part feo?  "CIVIL" discourse!  You clearly don't know what this means, so pay attention.  Imagine you're ACTUALLY a Christian who lives to treat your worst enemy in the most Christian manner possible...with kindness, humility, graciousness, tolerance and absent any hint of your typical smarm, condescension, pretension and other acts of hatred and evil so common in your every comment.  Yes, that means if everyone is acting towards you the way you act towards us as if you're getting paid for it, you will nonetheless do nothing in return but act as if you're an actual Christian...loving your enemies more than you clearly love yourself.  Throughout this probationary period, it will be up to me and me alone to determine if you've acted according to these terms and letter of the law will be the law you will follow lest you immediately find your comments deleted and Comment Moderation enabled once again.  Then, you will be back to trying to post your idiocy and having it end up in the spam folder to be deleted without being read.  You will be the sweetest and most loving commentator or you will not comment at all.  Period.

So, let's get on with it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other. They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans. Clearly the reason they've lied as cowards.

    At any rate, I'd love to hear your response to this proposal: listed in the next comment box are 27 gun control policies recommended by gun policy experts AND law enforcement officials that have been instituted somewhere in the US. Their statistical effect on reducing gun violence is given, followed by what % of Americans polled are on favor of that particular policy.

    The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade.

    To create this survey of effective policies, the NY Times "consulted the academic literature on laws from American states and foreign countries and spoke with advocates for gun rights and gun control. Both surveys were conducted in June of last year. For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws. For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities. We asked the experts to ignore considerations of political or legal feasibility.

    Our expert panel consisted of 32 current or retired academics in criminology, public health and law, who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy...

    Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."

    August 11, 2019 at 11:01 AM
Blogger Feodor said...

    Policy % effectiveness in reducing gun violence % supported by Americans

    - Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun. 7.3 86%
    - Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
    violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults. 7.1 83%
    - Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
    stalking another person 6.5 85%
    - Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm. 6.4 78%
    - Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
    ammunition. 6.4 72%
    - Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
    firearms. 6.1 63%
    - Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as
    dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider. 6.0 87%
    - Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms. 6.0 88%
    - Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
    capacity greater than 10 bullets. 5.8 63%
    - Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry. 5.7 70%
    - Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill. 5.6 86%
    - Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun,
    such as a law enforcement job or hunting. 5.6 49%
    - Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely
    matches the gun and bullet. 5.5 65%
    - Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms
    illegally. 5.4 80%
    - Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales
    to the Federal government. 5.4 80%
    - Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms. 5.0 67%
    - Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints. 5.0 72%
    - Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered
    to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I. 4 89%
    - Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased
    before it can be taken home. 4.8 77%
    - Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month. 4.8 67%
    - Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
    period. 4.4 64%
    - Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit. 4.4 76%
    - Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally. 4.3 60%
    - Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their
    specific firearm. 4.1 79%
    - Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and
    magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns. 3.9 74%
    - Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally. 3.8 68%
    - Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks. 3.5 82%

    August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html

    August 11, 2019 at 11:03 AM
Blogger Feodor said...

    Marshal two days ago at Stan's blog: Maybe one day he'll send the plan. I thought with recent events we might see it (not really...he has no plan).

    Craig, yesterday: Feo, posted his list of talking points again.
    Marshal: He'll never provide his complete "plan"
    Marshal: I just looked at Dan's blog... and saw feo's list. I'll have to peruse it for sure.... what he's posted seems smaller than what he's been saying he's provided us

    Marshal and Craig just outed themselves as determined liars and corrupt Christians.

    August 12, 2019 at 6:59 AM
Blogger Feodor said...

    Dan, if you look at Marshal's lates post's comments you'll see two lying, corrupt Christians examining a plan they say isn't a plan and criticizing it without the guts to take on responses from the person who gave it to them while they keep saying he never did.

    Their open lying should be clear to them. That it's not makes clear their moral corruption.

    August 13, 2019 at 9:51 AM
Blogger Feodor said...

    [Sorry, Dan, but I'm counting on you to keep this open reply to an not-open post of Craig's addressed to me but which blocks my participation:]

    Fuck you, Craig. You and Marshal have had the plan for months. You wanted it but you two couldn't get it together and so refused to put the plan up on your blogs. You both have such a need to deny how ignorant and fearful you are that you both have dedicated yourselves to lies.

    LIe 1. You never got it - but you've gotten it four times.
    Lie 2. It's not a plan - it may not be a perfect plan but fuck you, what is a perfect plan?
    Lie 3. There are no details - but you're already arguing with the details: See Marshal's blog.
    Lie 4. It's up to me do anything - it's up to you and the other shallow fake to post the plan. Then we can hash out issues. Take care of your shit and stop being a deceitful coward.

    Where's your plan? Oh, that's right. Your brilliant plan is more guns in more hands.

    And what does ALL the research and all the data and all the math in the us and around the world say about more guns?

    IN EVERY STUDY: THE MORE GUNS THE MORE DEATHS.

    You have a whole hell of a lot of work to do to be a Christian who loves the living.

    August 13, 2019 at 2:04 PM
Blogger Feodor said...

    [Thnks, Dan, for your ever kind forbearance.]

    Open and last comment to Marshal and Craig:

    Marshal in the face of strong, reasoned opposition, you've turned into a corrupt Christian many years ago. Craig, you followed him in recent years. You both block data. You block facts. You even block definitions. You utilize fake, untrained, uneducated sources of information providers who really only provide cant.

    You brutalize the living.

    1. All commendable research has long shown us that most effective way to drastically reduce abortions are the provision of condoms, contraceptives, full and early sex education, full provision of affordable women's healthcare, and female empowerment.

    2. All commendable research has long shown that the more guns, the more gun deaths.

    3. My gun violence reduction plan presents a slate of policies. Take the top ten and put them all into effect in one multi-state region of the US. People will still own guns. Gun deaths will drop dramatically.

    4. You said you blocked me because you did not get a plan (and Craig wanted "details'). Yet, you' have both been writing about my plan for months, and objecting to some details. You may not like it; you may think you have points that oppose some of it. But that wasn't why you blocked me.

    You lied.
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/08/when-remaining-quiet-is-not-loving.html

    This is simply what has happened to half of America's white population. You and people like you are so fragile, that when confronted with the growing consciousness of how America's past and present policies have inherent racist and misogynist and bigoted force, AND that that past and present are deeply shapes by white, western, slave trade economy-based Christianity (of which we should truly repent and repair), you have regressed into an reasoning platform and argument-making process dependent upon an internal system of denial, dodge, prevarication, myth-making and irrational defense.

    Having crossed that line for such a long time and with such thorough consistency, your abdication from your 'professed' faith has releases me from the obligation to honor you with respect. Until you repent and repair, and win it back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, there it is.  Note that last paragraph.  That is not how it works.  No Christian is "released" from the obligation to act like a Christian.  Now, it is true and accurate to say that feo has never crossed any line of respectful behavior, because he began on the wrong side of it and has never stepped across in earnest.  He's NEVER shown respect for others because he's been way too busy expecting respect FROM others.  Thus, I don't expect he'll act any different now and thus no one should expect to see any comment of his last for longer than it takes for me to see it, recognize he hasn't what it takes to act like the Christian he laughingly expects people to believe he is, and then delete it. 

But let's make some comments about his "plan" and get this started.

"Dan, here is the plan to markedly reduce deaths from guns that Marshal and Craig have gotten three times in the last year but claim they haven't gotten or didn't get in the right wary and won't share with each other."

feo expected Craig and I "to share" bits and pieces he posted at either of our blogs as if he has any authority or status to make such demands, rather than simply man up and post the whole thing in one place and dig in his heels for the more rational opinions that it would provoke.  So part of his plan was to keep it from being posted in one place where it could be mocked in its entirety.

"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."

I've done much to present my own notions about how to decrease the criminal use of guns ("gun violence" is an idiotic term for what the problem is).  I began here and continued here, here, here, here (man, I did a lot!), and then I get into feo' "plan" as it was at the time, incomplete, evidently, and for good reason since it sucked.  My original responses were here and here.

What we're going to see in the ensuing posts is that there is absolutely no data indicating any of the suggestions listed above are in any way effective.  Indeed, the "experts" surveyed were merely asked "to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."  feo provided absolutely no evidence that they were effective in any way!

So all of the above is merely prelude to the more fun dismantling of feo's "plan", as I had done so effectively as seen in the last two links provided above.  I can't wait for the next installment.  feo will be much more geeked about it as well.

Tales From The Spam Folder

There are three of us (four if you count Dan, but for obvious reasons, he can't be included) who have to suffer being inundated with the unjustly arrogant commenting attempts by feo.  feo isn't content with being ignored by just one of us.  He feels the pathetically desperate need to be ignored by all of us..."us" being Craig, Stan and myself.  feo fills our spam folders.  Sometimes I read them before emptying the folder of them, because he never fails to entertain.  Here's one I found especially amusing:

"RE Stan’s latest:

You: “ Chick-fil-A stores have never discriminated against anyone.”

Facts: “Chick-fil-A, the Georgia-based fast-food chain known for its juicy chicken sandwiches — and for its executives’ conservative strain of Christianity — has continued donating to anti-LGBTQ charities through its foundation despite claiming it had no political affiliation.”

You’re not the brightest bulb on the moral porch"

The problem here is who is labeling the charities as "anti-LGBTQ"?  Most likely, given feo's moral corruption, it would be another enabler/supporter/champion of sexual immorality.  That is, a morally corrupt source. 

I guess one can say that to be for one thing...say, the true definition of marriage...means that one is against the opposite...fake "same-sex" marriage.  But it isn't honest to regard the former by the latter.  That is, it would be dishonest to label feo as "anti-honest" because he's so in favor of the lies he spreads.  It would be honest to simply call him a liar. 

Of course, more importantly is the lie feo tells by the above.  Stan stated a fact: Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate.  That is, they serve everyone who can pay the tab for a chicken sandwich.  They don't refuse service, even to the blatantly sexually immoral or disordered. 

Donating to charities who support long-standing, traditional notions of morality and virtue by their actions...such as adoption agencies who acknowledge the best placement of children is with husband/wife marriages...is praise worthy, even if the result of their practices is that the sexually immoral are denied...because they're sexually immoral and therefore, in the moral eyes of the charity, not the best people with whom the children in their charge should be placed. 

feo lives to prove he's intellectually superior to those like Craig, Stan and myself.  He fails miserably with incredible frequency, but continues in the attempt due to his fragile ego as well as his need to avoid facing his chosen path to perdition...his defense of the immoral.  He dared suggest Stan is "not the brightest bulb on the moral porch".  feo is the stubby, charred wick of a candle burned to the base which is unable to illuminate at all. 

No One Is Good...

So apparently, despite Jesus saying that there is no one good but God alone (Mark 10:18), I'm admonished for my foolishness for believing it.  I'm not given any reason why I shouldn't take His words at face value here, nor are there any indications in the text that He meant it in any but a literal sense.  No "hard data" is offered to correct my allegedly poor understanding.  It can only be a "hunch" that Jesus meant what He said in this verse for no other reason than I'm told it is so. 

You see, if only God is good, what of all those lovely people who do good things all the time?  Gosh darn it, they're good, too!  Because of all the good things they do!   So they're good and no one can say otherwise without being...something! 

It all began here where Stan had the audacity to speak on a very basic...as in Christianity For Beginners...concept that we are all sinners with a sin nature and prone toward sinfulness.  Dan Trabue immediately was overcome with horror at the very thought and took issue with Stan here.  I pointed out that even Jesus backed up Stan's position when He uttered the aforementioned words of Mark 10:18 and was then told I needed to prove that Christ meant what He said, despite there being no reason anywhere in the text to suggest He didn't.  Worse, Dan has yet to offer an explanation, complete with "hard data" that would provide a sensible, logical alternative meaning of such a clear statement that there is no one good but God alone.  I'm still waiting for that explanation.  I don't mean like I'm actually waiting, as if I truly expect Dan to provide that explanation.  More like it's a standing invitation I offered but can now put out of my mind knowing it'll never be provided.

But here's a pertinent thought or two.  For most basketball fans, no one epitomized "great" like Michael Jordan.  He is what a "good" basketball player is.  That doesn't mean there are no other "good" basketball players, per se.  It means that none of them are good by comparison.  He's that far above them all.  So very few would argue the point.  All others are only "good" relative to each other, but not to Jordan.  He's so good, they're not good at all.  They're only good when Jordan's taken out of the equation. 

Now, the above analogy only works as an illustration of the difference between God and the rest of us.  We're simply not "good" because God is what "good" is, and by comparison, we all have fallen short of that glory.  It doesn't mean we can't refer to some of us as good.  It's a reference that's a matter of relativity.  That is, relative to each other.  We can't possibly match God for the term, but we can still use the term.

Dan likes to think he's on God's level.  Normal people don't do that.  Normal people recognize His thoughts aren't our thoughts...His ways aren't ours...we have no idea what it's like to be Him.  He's much farther above us than any athlete like Jordan.  Think of the "good-est" person you can and that person is not close...not within a universe...to God as far as being "good".  The difference is such that what passes for good among humans isn't good at all.  It's only good relative to other humans.  It's a term we use for convenience.

More than anything, I can't understand what about this concept so troubles old Danny boy.  Stan mentioned several verses that speak to our sin natures in contradicting the notion that people are basically good.  Christ claims no one is good.  Dan wets himself.  In the meantime, I'm perfectly "good" with the concept.  I get it and it doesn't do anything than to further teach me just how badly I need Jesus to be my Savior.  No one is good but God and that's why we need Him.  We are all sinners and that's why we need Him.  Our actions are the fruits by which others see that we are Christians...not that we are "good".  There's a difference.  We are Christians because we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior and because of that, the fact that we are not good won't be held against us when our time comes.  But still, no one is good but God alone. 

Basic stuff.  The invitation stands.  I wait in vain.

The Principle Argument

What follows is the result of disagreement between me and a couple of guys with whom I am normally in agreement on most issues.  I will touch on issues I feel are important for consideration by all, but are directly related to the division between us.  The division regards whether or not to vote for Trump in the next election.

To begin, I state once again that I was a fairly staunch Ted Cruz supporter.  Still am for the most part, and think he'll make a fine president some day.  He's extremely solid in his understanding of the US Constitution, and that's what I felt was most needed as we considered the choices back in 2016.  Like most people, I was amused by the campaign of Donald Trump and never thought there was any chance he'd win the nomination, much less the election itself.  Frankly, I still still can't believe it when I think of those days.  But as he gained momentum, and as the idiot John Kasich let his ego override reason that I believe resulted in Cruz being denied the votes he would have gotten had Kasich drop out, Trump did win the nomination.  Now my path was clear..crystal clear...despite my own personal desire that I not have to choose between two such people.  

That is to say, I did NOT want to vote for Donald Trump.  I opposed him for all the reasons so many others did.  His character flaws were well known.  His philandering and womanizing seemed to him to be a badge of honor.  I didn't want to vote for a boastful horndog who seemed no more than a self-promoting clown. 

Worse, however, the thought of a President Hillary Clinton was too much to bear.  There's no way I could pretend she was "the better man", morally, politically, or as a human being.  Trump was just a wise ass.  Clinton was reprehensible.

So I looked at the promises.  I knew full well what Clinton brought to the political table.  I had always felt the only difference between her and Obama (in the previous elections) was that she had an actual pair of testicles.  Everything else about the two of them were pretty much the same, politically speaking.  Four more years of what the last eight brought us was a horror I didn't wish to endure.  Nor did I think the nation could or should.

So I voted for Trump.  He was an unknown quantity, but his promises aligned with what I hoped to see.  I took a chance knowing he might turn on us.

And whaddya know?  He's been doing a really great job!  For the first year or so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but he continued to impress.  I'm not talking perfection...that's what the left demands from all center-right figures while they allow all manner of transgression from their own...but strong conservative policies and achievements! 

So at this point, I stop to point out the difference between myself and those two I mentioned at the outset.  It has to do with principle.  The two did not vote for Trump because of his character flaws.  They saw doing so as a compromise of their Christian principles.  I, on the other hand, saw allowing Clinton to win as a major and more serious compromise of my Christian principles.  We all prefer our president to be a person of high moral character, while recognizing that none exist who are perfect.  Where we differ is in the reality of the situation.  They thought it the moral option to vote third party/write in, trust in God and hope the nation survives.  I saw the moral option was to deny the evil inherent in Hillary's platform which was one of the only two likely outcomes, thereby bringing greater harm to our nation than simply having a boor like Trump as our president. 

Wayne Grudem did a few articles that appeared at Townhall.com, in which he addressed the morality of voting for Trump back in 2016.  After his first, he backtracked when he came across more details about Trump's history that he frankly should have known before writing the first.  Then he did a third that was a more reasoned, objective consideration.  In it, linked here, he responds to pretty much every objection to Trump, and I present it here because this third piece is very relative to the current situation, as we are again faced with the choice of Trump or someone else.  I encourage everyone to read it, especially the two "NeverTrumpers" referenced at the beginning. 

Among Grudem's many valid points is the idea that the choice is not one of the candidate's character...though he doesn't suggest it in the least that it isn't important...but of the policies of the candidate, because that's what it's really all about.  The principle of how those policies will affect the nation against the principle of voting for a low character guy.  But that's not all.  That was truly the choice back in 2016.  Now, the character issue is of FAR, FAR less importance, given that it has not been much of an issue throughout his presidency thus far.  That is to say, the worst aspects of Trump's flawed character have played absolutely no role.  He's still boorish, doesn't concern himself with precision and accuracy when speaking.  That's really about it.  Nothing about his infidelity has been an issue.  There's nothing akin to a sex scandal or anything like that.  No "perversion" as some fake Christians like to go on about. 

Thus, what we have here is a track record of benefits to the nation...serious benefits that we'd never have seen had he not won.  These go beyond his economic policies that have led to the best employment numbers, expansion, and all that...beyond great judicial appointments...beyond so many things, to include pushing back against the horrid attitude of the leftists who mock everything Christian, American, family, etc and those who defend them. 

And as to his character flaws, which of them does he promote as a moral good, either in policy or in any other way?   He may defend his bad behavior, but has he done a damned thing to promote it?  No.  In fact, he seems to promote really good and moral things, even if he does so clumsily. 

I still don't love the guy.  I just don't know him well enough for that, anymore than his most vitriolic detractors don't know him well enough to hate him as they do.  I simply don't see that there is any "principle" that justifies refusing to vote him to a second term.  On the contrary, I believe principle...yes, Christian...principle demands support for his re-election, especially given how much worse his opposition has become.  

There is no Christian principle that justifies risking a Democrat or socialist victory in 2020.  None whatsoever, and pretending one that says Trump's character is bad enough to take that risk is shameful. 

Another Word Redefined

As almost everyone knows, our president had recently posted a few tweets that the lunatic left now insists is racist.  Let's look at them.  Here they are all together:

""Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worse, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run.  Why don't they go back and fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.  Then come back and show us how it's done.  These place need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough.  I'm sure Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to work out free travel arrangements."

Where's the racism?  Please, lefty lunkheads.  Point it out specifically.  Is the skin color of the any Congresswomen mentioned anywhere in these tweets?  Of course not.  You know why?  Because it isn't freaking racist in any way, shape or form regardless of how badly the Trump haters want it to be.

Trump not only didn't mention race in the tweet, he didn't even mention the Congresswomen he had in mind!!  Indeed, there's a great meme I saw on Facebook of a smiling Donald Trump with the words, "I didn't use any names in my tweet and four morons stood up!"  Hilarious!  It is rather funny that these four idiots assumed he was talking about them.  I tend to agree with one pundit who believes he was referring specifically to Ilhan Omar, the anti-semite terrorist defender, but chose to pluralize the target of his comments in order to avoid distracting from his point.  But we're talking about lefties here, and distracting from the point is what they do.  This damned story is proof of that. No one is talking about the point at all, in fact, but instead choose to lie about the tweet being proof of racism. 

And here we see another example of what racism means to the left these days.  It's another example of redefining a word or term to further their evil agenda (yeah..."EVIL").  To the Trump haters, this tweet is racist because of the race of the target of the tweet.  By that standard, Trump would be racist if he singled out these women for praise.  I mean, you can't have it both ways.  To the left, if one speaks negatively about ANYTHING regarding a person of a different race, it's racist.   WAIT!!!  Let me clarify that and be more specific:  If a white person, in this case more than any other, Donald Trump, says anything negative in relation to a non-white person, it's racism.  Idris Elba could drive badly and if Trump points it out, it's more evidence that he's a racist. 

The left needs racism.  They love racism.  Without racism, they'd have to focus more on actual positions and issues and the real underlying components of how things are.  While the left whines about these women being attacked in a racist manner, two of them are known for their seriously hateful and fact-free anti-semitism.  Another rejects any black or brown person that fails to be "a voice" for that which SHE insists are the causes a black or brown person should support.  That makes Candace Owens, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and a host of other conservative black people racist against their own race, or self-loathing or some such nonsense, when in fact, the problem is in the fevered imaginings of this Ayanna Pressley idiot. 

These women, each in their own way, are reprehensible.  That would be true if they were descendants of Scandinavian people but with the same warped and evil positions.  And the only point of Trump's tweets are reflected in another really good meme, the jist of which is as follows:  "So many insisted they would leave the country if Trump won the election.  Now that he's president, the same people are whining because he's letting them know they can leave."  This is another sentiment a great deal of the population holds.  It's not racist at all.  We'd love to see Bernie Sanders leave and take up residence in, say, Venezuela or Cuba. 

Criticizing the nation and its government is no sin...no crime.  It's a right, actually.  But the vile crap that we hear from the left these days is an abuse of the right, just as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is.  But while we can defend the right of any lefty bonehead to say stupid crap, we have the right to suggest they get their ticket and go illegally cross over some other nation's border and live their twisted version of utopia.  That's not racist at all.  The real racists in this case, as always, are the leftists and Trump-haters.

(Not Necessarily the Top) Ten Reasons Dan Is An Ass.

In what is at present his most recent blog post, Dan Trabue writes of his Top Ten Reasons Not to Be An Ass.  Unfortunately...mostly because Dan's perspective on life and Christianity is hopelessly  skewed in a most delusional manner...Dan is the ass by his typically nonsensical notions of the issue he believes he is defending.  Here I will respond to his top ten points and show how in each case he is indeed the ass, by virtue of his misrepresentations and distortions. 
As an aside, be it known that due to a more recent post at Craig's, I feel it may be likely that to respond at his blog post would result in my comments being deleted, so rather than take the chance, I respond here.   More and more it seems this is how things must be.
Refer to each point at his blog to understand my responses here:

1.  Here he tries to cite Scripture to accuse those who believe in the concept of national sovereignty and security.  But nothing in Scripture suggests we should welcome the immigrant on the immigrant's terms.  Old Testament mandates were rather clear that all were to abide God's Will in the Promised Land.  That is, visitors must obey the laws of Israel...and of God, which at the time is pretty much the same thing.  One couldn't, for example, just start planting his own field as he doesn't have a field yet, nor could one continue to build altars to Baal or sacrifice their kids to Molech.  And the very concept of "welcoming the immigrant" suggests rather plainly that the people have the choice to do so or not on the basis of it being the citizens' land, not the immigrant's.  If this were not so there'd be no welcoming required as the immigrants could just pitch a tent wherever.  It isn't land that belongs to anyone.  But that wasn't the case then anymore than it is now.  Israel was a nation and the land of Israel belonged to God's Chosen.  Welcoming is a courtesy and the other side of that coin is gratitude.  Gratitude in this case would include abiding the laws of the nation doing the welcoming.  Crossing the border covertly, or overstaying a visa, doesn't show gratitude and certainly doesn't show respect for the laws of the land into which the migrant seeks entry.

It is also helpful to remember that the United States accepts about a million new people per year...a number that includes visa holders who take the oath.  So we're already "welcoming" and we welcome quite a bit.  We also accept a good number of actual refugees every year, even though the amount has been decreased in recent years, for good reason.  So only an ass would pretend our actions are in conflict with Christian teaching.

2.  We are in no way treating those in detention in the same manner as prisoners of war, even though so many of them are actual and literal invaders by definition.   Here also, Dan joins with the elite of stupid, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in referring to detention centers as "concentration camps".  This is world-class assholery here of a type we've seen before.  I recall a not too recent discussion at his incredibly fascistic blog wherein he railed against the use of the term "enemy of the people", citing the connection to communist dictators who used the term and thus, by golly, one can only be a dictator himself who uses such a term.  Now, he has no problems with using the term "concentration camp" which has a connotation that conjures images of 70lb Jews in Auschwitz and Dachau in the minds of most every American who isn't an idiot lefty.  And of course again, this is done to disparage as much as possible this president and administration when nary a word was said against the guy who employed them in the last administration.  Some of these "concentration camps" were housing military people at one time, and now they're "concentration camps" because our government is using them to house the throngs of people who have been led to believe they can swarm into the country in whatever manner of their choosing.  The purposeful, deceit in using terms like this is Dan being an ass in a post about reasons not to be an ass.

3.  This one is a new one that likely gave Dan a tingle up his thigh.  "OH GREAT!!  Another thing I can use to show how evil our government, president and laws are!!!"  Who drags their kids for hundreds of miles without bringing these basic supplies?  It's another lame argument by the left, another chance to exploit something to disparage our government, president and just and righteous immigration laws.  And of course, there's this:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/as_pelosis_democrats_yell_about_soap_and_toothbrushes_migrants_empty_out_western_unions.html

4.  "Self-determination" doesn't justify ignoring the laws of the land or national sovereignty.   This BS argument also ignores the self-determination of the American people, who through their elected representatives, enacted laws regulating immigration into our country.  As with other "rights" the left insists exist, here Dan ignores the obvious conflict between what one group sees as their "right" versus the rights another group must subordinate as a result.  The right to defend our borders against invaders, to determine just how much generosity we are obliged to provide...these and other considerations are dismissed to put forth this lame "self-determination" argument Dan believes is a mature and legitimate defense of those who ignore our own "self-determination".  This is another way Dan shows he's an ass.

5.  Only an ass would try to equate the border crisis to the Holocaust or Japanese internment.  There is no parallel here, as we have policies that welcome both immigrant AND actual refugees.  Dan refuses to put a number on how many we're obliged to allow entry, defaulting to the typical childish response of simply "more".  Yet, even with the overwhelming of our systems and the personnel tasked with implementing our policies, we're still eventually getting to find out who is legitimately seeking refuge according to what our just and righteous policies for doing so mandates.  For Dan, it's never enough and we must assume the stories told by asylum seekers are truthful and legitimate.  Dan claims he's all for vetting, but when vetting  is taking place...and those not yet vetted must be detained until they can be...Dan once again lies about the unjust nature of our laws and policies...like an ass.

6.  This is one of the worst points, and truly indicates what an ass Dan is.  One can "if" until the cows come home and that doesn't have a damned thing to do with what is.  The crisis is not as Dan pretends it is.  Interviews with caravaners indicate very few are "fleeing danger", but instead simply want a better gig.  Fine.  Wait in line.  Apply for a visa in the manner one is supposed to from home instead of knocking on the door as if law-abiding hopefuls aren't here already doing things the right way.  We just saw the sad story of the man and his little girl drowned trying to line jump.  As usual, people like Dan try to blame our president, government and laws for this guy's impatience in trying to get what he might not even be entitled to have.  But to Dan, wanting is all that our government must consider and by that wanting entry must be allowed.  That's idiotic. 

So how many lives are truly threatened?   Hard to say.  Dan won't agree to dissuade the rest from crowding them out from our ability to address their claims.  So, if my family was being threatened directly and I sought refuge elsewhere, I'd be freaking pissed that I can't get through the tens of thousands of people who aren't fleeing danger at all, but instead insist they are once caught breaking the law.  So I turn the question back on Dan.  How would YOU feel if your attempt to seek refuge was inhibited in this way?  Don't be an ass.  Support our nation in this crisis and you'll be better serving those who truly need our help.  Or, continue being the ass and lie about how evil we are.

7.  Here Dan simply asserts that we're the asses simply because we choose to abide the law and desire the law be enforced, since the law is for OUR benefit...immigration is for OUR benefit.   Dan is also an ass for lumping together "seeking a decent life" with those truly fleeing direct harm, as if all those who are showing up at the border have been harmed at all, have been threatened with harm or were ever in any danger at all except in danger of not making enough money.  The vast majority of those at the border are NOT running for their lives.  Dan is an ass for pretending otherwise.

8.  Dan claims data does not support the claim that illegals are taking jobs from Americans.  Yet, he offers none of the data he says contradicts the claim.  Just like an ass.  What's more, the reality is more along the lines of jobs not being offered because some businesses can get away with paying really low wages to illegals because they won't complain and risk being deported.  Americans won't work for those low wages, so those jobs are no loner open to Americans.  Without the illegals, the businesses would be forced to pay better to get the help they need, or pay to automate where they can.  That's pretty basic stuff. 

He also likes to pretend that illegals working here spend their money here.  While that may be true, they don't spend all of it here.  They send a great deal of it back to their home countries. 

https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do

https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/jobs-americans-wont-do

9.  Here, like an ass, Dan relies on skewed and incomplete info to insist "data" proves immigrants commit less crime.  And this is after he pretends the "rapists and murderers" argument is worthy of dismissing outright.  But assuming...just because I understand graciousness and how and when to apply it...that even illegals, who have broken the law just by being here, commit less crime than Americans once they get here, the very notion that there would be less crime had they not come should be obvious even to a liar like Dan...if he chose to be honest.  The "argument" is more about importing criminals when we have quite enough of our own, thank you very much.

Properly vetted immigrants granted access are typically quite law abiding.  But we're not talking about such people.  We're talking about illegal aliens. 

https://truepundit.com/do-immigrants-really-commit-less-crime/

10.  Only an ass would bring up the amount of space we have to legitimize the idiotic notion of total welcome of any and all who wish to enter.  Space isn't the issue, and not all areas of the country are conducive to easy living without displacing the wildlife these same idiot lefties believe are more important than people.  It's amazing how there is no one or nothing that can't displace actual Americans in the disordered minds of the "progressives".  The issue is how many can our economy support without burdening it to the point that we become the very situation these people came here to escape...for whatever reason?  We are not a bottomless pit of wealth.  And there is no way an intelligent person can believe that everyone who comes here will be a productive and beneficial addition.  I would submit that the likelihood would be that more than not would be a burden.

Finally, Dan insists we're engaging in "a great national sin".  Bullshit.  We're dealing with a situation compounded by idiocy from idiots like Dan...non-thinking, self-satisfied posers pretending to be Christian on the dime of another...and then daring to take credit at the same time!   And like the complete ass he is, he claims he's workign for basic human decency.  One cannot do so by acting unlawfully, which is what those like Dan are doing in enabling the unlawful. 

Dan doesn't provide reasons "not to be an ass".  He provides instruction in how to be one.

During the course of putting this post together, Dan has gone on to provide more proof that he's an ass.  There may be a "Part Two" to this post soon.

Loose End Continued

As a result of my last post, Dan has decided to respond with a post of his own, because he's too chicken-shit to engage here, and has some petulant pants-wetting issues that compels him to delete me there, even when I've successfully answered demands he's made of me.  Indeed, it's why he deletes me.  But I digress.

In his recent post, he takes issue with my position that abortion is never necessary.  Thus far, I've only ever been able to find a contrary position by those who perform abortions.  In another post, an article was present from some medical experts who were speaking on behalf of many others as well, who insist that there is no medical reason to abort in order to save a woman from a complicated pregnancy.  So there's a clear conflict between a number of those who deal with pregnancies on both sides of the issue, but one side is decidedly pro-abortion and my guess is that they aren't above rationalizing their choice any more or less than the women who choose that route.   I mean how can so many who have had long careers delivering babies so firmly insist no situation exists whereby abortions must be performed when some form of delivery can be performed instead?  Would the pro-aborts try to insist they simply haven't had truly life-threatening situations?  That would be an absurd thing to put forth.  More likely, it is as I said, that the pro-aborts rationalize their decision rather than the situation truly dictating it.  They already are predisposed to believe that it's a "moral" choice, whereas all the others are speaking from experiences dictated by their conviction that it isn't.

Anyway, what follows are responses to Dan's questions put forth as if they are truly exposing flaws in my position.  Before I do, however, I will say this:  Most pro-life proponents have expressed a willingness to compromise in order to save the most lives as possible, by allowing for those rare and minuscule instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.  The rejection of this compromise by the pro-aborts proves they aren't concerned with the health of the mother at all, and simply use these excuses so as to protect ANY reason for abortion from legal consequences.  So here we go:

"These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots."

Is this supposed to be an insult?  If so, it's inaccurate in fact.  Truer is "pro-life zealot".  That's a good thing and one would think this would be a default position for anyone daring to call one's self a Christian.  But as I'm not convinced that there truly is a legitimate reason to ever abort, why would I not deny anyone the legal ability to off their own kid?  Then again, as I consider abortion murder...yeah, that might be accurate after all. 

Before anyone blows a gasket over a possible contradiction, I do not believe that allowing an exception for "life of the mother" denotes a belief that there are truly such cases where a mother's life is so endangered by her pregnancy that the unborn must be killed.  The compromise is simply to save as many lives as possible.  To have the pro-aborts muster the humanity to actually agree with such a compromise is not the ultimate ideal, but merely a stopgap until it can be shown there is no such need.  The law wouldn't even have to be changed.  We can work on those three myths later on.

"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"

Sadly, this is true.  In fact, it happens quite a bit in any of those shithole countries with unfortunate regularity.  Often, it is simply not seen as wrong.  It's a cultural thing.

"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"

Uh...yeah.  I do.

"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"

I recognize that this is true for some, but not necessarily true for all.  I'd prefer to simply say it's not ideal for any of them.  The list in the link I provided in my previous answer clearly states some were "delivered", while others were by C-section.  But you pro-aborts pretend the risks posed by abortion to such patients is negligible.  They're not.  They're about the same.

"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"

I recognize you're purposely overstating this possibility in order to shield the heinous act from objective scrutiny.  Guatemala is among those countries where young girls are commonly abused as a matter of cultural acceptance (even if illegal).  That is to say that there is a high percentage of girls younger than 14 giving birth, including as young as ten, with unfortunate regularity.  To suggest that they all have experienced great trauma simply from being pregnant is just pro-abort hyperbole.  More than likely, any trauma is only related to the actual rape if it was particularly violent...not the pregnancy that results from it.  My reference to Guatemala stemmed from researching all this.  I thought I saved the article that informed me, as it quite clearly showed that these girls commonly go on as if it was no big deal, for a variety of reasons including the fact that they didn't even regard their situation (being preggers) as particularly alarming, and went on to regard their offspring as if a sibling, many having children later on in life.

"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"

As a general rule, yeah.  I'm willing, as are most pro-lifers and most pro-life governments, to hear arguments on a case-by-case basis.  There is the unexpected.

"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"

Oh, I'm the worst kind of monster.  I'm the kind that doesn't think killing the innocent is necessary and that protecting them does not put an unjust burden on anyone, even if it puts some degree of burden on some.  I'm the kind of monster that won't consider the most vulnerable expendable simply because it costs those less vulnerable some hardship.  Most importantly, I'm the kind of monster that doesn't deprive one of one's humanity due to one's size, age or location as if I'm some kind of nazi or klansman.  I'm the kind of monster who wishes he could be as monstrous as my Lord Jesus Christ...the ultimate Pro-Life Zealot.

"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"

If you could prove that they are more likely to die without an abortion as from one, this question wouldn't be so stupid and presumptuous.  It's clear you worship at the altar of abortion, offering up thousands of dead innocents daily.  So much so that I can't honestly recall you ever offering to give up that 99% of most abortions in order to save these children.  No.  You're simply exploiting them like all pro-aborts do.  You don't care about these children or any other woman considering death for their unborn. 

"Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed."

Absolutely indeed, Dan.  Thousands of children per day.  You're worse than a Molech-worshiper.  You're just wacking kids left and right without the pretext of pagan devotion in defending these pro-abortion laws.  Thousands of innocents per day!

"Girls may labor for days; many die."

This is true for women, even in this country, to say nothing of the country your source highlighted.

"Their babies often don't survive labor either."

This is one of the most egregious ploys.  feo used a similar angle, which proves it's bad.  Sometimes, babies die from difficult pregnancies where abortion wasn't even considered.  Sometimes, people die on the operating table.  Honorable doctors and surgeons...and obstetricians...lose patients they worked desperately to save.  That's no excuse to murder any of them.  Imagine someone saying, "He didn't survive the by-pass surgery.  Should've just killed him in the first place!"  That's what that quote is saying.  Because the baby didn't survive, they should have killed it in the first place.  Talk about monstrous!!  That's pure evil!!

"Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers"

So you'd no doubt like to believe.  But you're speaking of three groups of people.  The first is the heinous pro-aborts who would grant that ANY example of ANY KIND is sufficient to allow abortion, so this example is just another on an endless list.  The second is pro-lifers who either believe that there are actually legitimate reasons to abort that must be considered and permitted.  The third is pro-lifers that begrudgingly agree to allow this -1% of examples in order to prevent the murder of the other 99%.  The third isn't willing that any should die (where have I heard that before?).

"It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus."

I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there isn't a fundamental difference.  However, real Christians argue the difference is only a matter of age, size, and location, not that one is "more human" than the other because of those differences.  Only pro-aborts looking for whatever cheap rationalization they can put over on people pretend that is so.   Speaking of which:

"Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote."

Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged, geezer.  All are people, fully human but at differing stages of human development, as every biology textbook states.  Thus, the human zygote is literally a person, fully human, at the zygote stage of human development. 

"And that is a significant, significant difference."

No.  It's not.  It's a cheap rationalization invented to protect the ability to gratify one's self sexually without consequence.

"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?"

The only right of any concern in this discussion is the right to life.  Physical differences have no bearing on that right and do not diminish that right for anyone.  So the question is stupid, as aside from the question of that unalienable right, all other differences between people of each of those stages of life are irrelevant to the discussion.

"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"

No.  A baby can drink hard liquor, but as far as the unalienable right to life, absolutely identical.

"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"

Pure evil would be a more accurate term.  This is especially true in this extreme case you want to use to push your evil agenda.  Not only are you murdering an innocent for the sins of its father, something you pretend you oppose, you're teaching the girl that such a thing is acceptable.  You're teaching her that if someone makes her life more difficult, killing that person is a legitimate option.  Or, you're teaching her that she can deny another person's humanity on whatever subjective criteria benefits her to do so.   The next thing you know she'll be hating transsexuals.

"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold?"

Do you recognize that you could have made the question much more rhetorically inflammatory if you just exerted a little effort?

Do you recognize that you're presuming her pregnancy is deadly in such a way that abortion is the only possible option when that's most likely untrue?  (I'm being generous.  I don't believe it's true at all.)

Do you recognize that if all the world favored murdering the unborn for this or any other reason it wouldn't mean jack shit to a true Christian, as numbers don't determine morality?

You getting the point here?

"Can  you understand why?"

I think I've already proven that I would understand why.  It has nothing to do with compassion for the 10 year old girl, and everything to do with preserving the ability to abort when convenient to do so.

"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"

I recognize that if you truly want to run that crap then you'd be a liar to pretend the reverse wasn't as true.  But here's the thing:  I don't have to prove it.  The onus is on you to prove that there is a scientifically viable excuse to draw your arbitrary line for determining when one becomes a person with the unalienable right to life that is any time after conception.  But you can't.  I know that it is a full person with that right simply because it is a person, regardless of whatever stage of development to which you choose to point.  It's true because it came into existence by the very means by which a person is brought into existence.  It can't be anything BUT a person. 

The fact is that people like you are inventing reasons to deny that humanity.  You damned well know there is no such line of demarcation without you inventing one.  But it all comes down to the same reality:  that line, wherever you decide to draw it, is to satisfy your convenience...not because it actually makes sense.   What's more, your arguments, especially this one, are specious.  Use your own bullshit idea and just tell males not to rape.  That should do it, right?

A Loose End

While I await Dan's response...or deletion...to my response at his blog following my last post, I now wish to demonstrate how his rectal itch, feo, lies once again.  In this case, he had insisted I hadn't provided my definition for what makes one human or a person or whatever term he chooses to use to further pretend he's "winning".  The fact is, he continued to make this false claim well after he had received my definition.  It is as follows:

It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.

This comment was posted on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM in the comments of this post.   By March 29, 2019 at 3:13 PM, he was still pretending I hadn't provided my explanation, stated above in words so simple even a highly educated, well read seminarian like feo should be able to understand.

Not being one too into cheap rationalizations...like the pro-abort crowd feo and Dan defend as if their "Christian" duty...I don't cotton to those they put forth.  The arbitrary and subjectively chosen lines of demarcation between what is or isn't "fully human"...designed to allow one the ability to maintain a claim of moral character after offing one's own children...hold no appeal to me as examples of intelligent justifications.  They aren't. 

Science demonstrates that from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists.  As such, a new person exists...person and human being being two terms meaning the same thing by definition.  It's not a matter of "philosophical ethics".  It's not a matter of consciousness.  It's not "potentially" a person.  That's a matter of absolute fact.  All potential refers to all that which further development will reveal, but personhood is not one of them.  That's a done deal by virtue of the fact that this new person is the result of a man and woman engaging in the very act designed for the purpose of bringing into existence a new person.

There is no need to abort.  EVER.  No example exists whereby an abortion was required to save a pregnant woman's life.  It can't be proven where abortionists insisted there were.  There is only their word for it. 

Media Lies---The Enemy of the People

"Just a note that I created this post entirely to give Marshall a chance to prove his enemy of the people claim about the media and answer relevant questions about the topic. Despite his assurances that he can prove it (he literally can't, as it is a stupidly false claim), it has now been over a month since he's even tried.

The silence says it all. "

So says Dan Trabue in one of his final comments following his post RE: False Claims (This One's For Marshall...) (BTW...I haven't used that spelling for my nom de plume for some time.  I guess if I chose to be referred to by a female pronoun he'd show more respect---but I digress already)  Despite having already proven the point in previous posts with examples in support, Dan pretends clicking on his mouse a couple more times to get the answers at my blog, where I won't be deleted for the least little infraction he invented for the purpose, is just too labor intensive.  And my "silence" is the result of life getting in the way.  He has no problem when it does so for him, but apparently my more important distractions suggests I'm unable to answer his questions.  He's an idiot.

Anyway, I have chosen to prove my point here where he can't delete me when I succeed in that endeavor...which I do now.  I could not get assurances from his cowardly ass that he would NOT delete me if I went through the effort.  Why the hell would I try?  So I've done so here, and I will simply link to it at his blog where he can click on it as he would any other linked info...should he have the honor, integrity and courage...or just delete it like the weaselly fake Christian he is.  His choice. 

So without further ado, I present evidence that the mostly left-wing media is indeed the enemy of the people with the following examples of their malfeasance and laziness. 

1.  "Immigrants are animals"

This lie was perpetrated by Julie Hirshfield Davis of the New York Times, Andrea Mitchell of NBC and Scott Neuman of NPR, to name three "journalists".  The charge is blatantly false and anybody with the resources available to them as they are to each of these liars could easily find out exactly what Trump said and about whom he said it.  The transcript of him describing MS-13 members as animals is clear and unequivocal, regardless of lame excuses that he made the statement in the context of a discussion of immigration, and thus one could be excused for confusing his words for a general statement about all immigrants.  That's what we in the real world call "crap".  What's more, even if such confusion existed in others, a real journalist, for whom truth and objectivity is paramount, would be quick to set the record straight, by reporting on the exact words of Trump spoken in the context at the time he said it. 

2.  "Good people on both sides"

This is another snippet of Trump's words, falsely and purposely used by the leftist press to smear his character.  It is another example of that which a true and complete reading of his words would show that, despite the press' desire to paint Trump as having praised white nationalists, is in fact simply an acknowledgement by him that among those who were protesting against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were average citizens of Charlottesville with absolutely no connection to the racists who also sought to protest the statue's removal.  Truthful and objective journalists would not have tried to use this out-of-context snippet to portray Trump in a bad racist light.  Both of these first two examples demonstrate a willful desire to misinform the public who relies upon the press for facts alone, upon which it can form its own opinions.

3. "Where's Martin?"

"Journalist" Zeke Miller published that the Trump people removed the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the White House.  That was a lie.  He later tried to claim it was obscured from his view.  Well...why not say nothing until it's confirmed one way or the other?  Because he wanted to smear Trump.

4.  "Snubbing a special needs child"

It was reported that Trump wouldn't shake the hand of a disabled boy and a clip of the event where this horrid action took place showed Trump ignoring the outstretched hand of the tyke as he shook the hands of others.  But a full version of the very same handshaking showed that the boy was THE VERY FIRST PERSON whose hand Trump shook, and the boy's mother explains that what was shown originally was the boy showing off to Trump the badge he was given.  The piece was purposely cropped to portray Trump as dismissive of the disabled boy.

5.  "Mocking a disabled reporter"

From Investor's Business Daily:

The incident in question is Trump supposedly mocking New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, whose hand and arm movement on his right side is impaired due to arthrogryposis. Video from 2015 seems to indicate that Trump was indeed cruelly imitating the man.

But the media are too lazy and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are too nasty and small-minded to look deeper. The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated.

This was simply another attempt by Trump-haters to portray Trump in as negative a light as possible...in this case that he has no compassion for the disabled.  It is truly reprehensible and another indication that too many in the media are NOT "friends of the people". 

6.  "Lazy and unprofessional reporting"

 Just the previous five points alone should be evidence enough that too many in the media are appropriately labeled "enemies of the people" given their willful disregard for truth.  That disregard extends to how dedicated they aren't in securing the truth before going to press. Sharyl Attkisson compiled a list of 75 media "mistakes" that include every level of media malfeasance with regard to covering Trump.  Gavin McInnes did a smaller one that is just as illustrative of the prevalence of media lying and misinformation.  (Some of his examples have been mentioned already, others haven't)  All of these involved some degree of laziness on the part of the media that shouldn't be tolerated, even by those leftist buffoons who so badly want to believe all of it.

But it isn't just about Trump.  The media has lied about other things as well.  Here are just a few:

7.  "Covington Kids"

So egregious was the lame reporting on the incident involving Nick Sandmann and his classmates from Covington Catholic school, that there are now lawsuits pending against various news outlets, such as NBC, MSNBC and the Washington Post.  This is a situation where just a little effort would have prevented the story being told as it was.  Instead, a 16 yr old boy was defamed, while at the same time, Nathan Williams was falsely portrayed as the victim.  There was little to no effort by these and many others to see if there was more to the story, as a longer, unedited video clearly showed.  This isn't how "friends of the people" do news.

8.  "Zimmerman the Racist"

The George Zimmeran/Travon Martin incident is one that is a two-fer.

First, NBC
went way out of its way to portray Zimmerman as a racist, purposely editing his 911 calls to do so.  They were intent on making the incident a matter of racism on the part of Zimmerman, thereby misinforming their viewers.

Secondly, reports from both television and newsprint purposely chose to print pictures of Trayvon Martin from several years prior to the incident, from when he was around10-12 years old, looking like a fresh faced innocent.  This served to frame him as an innocent victim of the evil George Zimmerman.  But there were plenty of more recent pictures of Martin that were far more accurate indications of who he became by the time he met is untimely end.  They would have shown him as the thuggish, gangsta wanna-be he really was.  There's no way to describe this disparity as other than a purposeful desire to tell consumers what to believe about the incident, as opposed to simply informing with the facts and nothing but the facts.  Kinda something an enemy-like entity would do.

9.  "This is getting tiresome"

There really are so many examples of the media printing false information.  So many, in fact, that to list them all myself would be more time consuming than this post has already been.  So, I'll simply let others do it for me.  Here, here's more Trump stuff, here as well, still more here and here.  While a lot of what these links provide are duplicates, each seems to have that which the others don't.  In other words, there's LOTS of stuff that could be produced, and it all suggests that the mainstream press isn't exactly what the consuming public expects them to be.  Sure, some of it is honest mistakes.  But then there's that issue of how the corrections are presented...that is, with the same degree of attention, or on page 13 in some small box in the corner where it is easily missed?  And of course, most of these "mistakes" are the result of ignoring proper journalistic standards of news gathering, generally the result of the source's extreme bias. 

To pretend the press is our friend, or to feign outrage that President Trump would regard many in the press as "enemies of the people" is to one's self be dishonest and dismissive of the needs and desires of the average citizen to be well informed.  It is an attack on the people to allow them to be otherwise when it is within one's power to inform properly and objectively as is the duty of the press.  The press has rightly been described as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, but as many of these examples show, their shortcomings don't restrict themselves to botching the political.  Whatever their motivations, if it strays at all from providing objective, fair and accurate reporting on the most important issues affecting us all, they are indeed our enemies, and where I initially found the use of the phrase to be questionable, my humble research for this post only proves it accurate.

Response To The Troll

There are two posts at Dan's blog that went off on tangents (as blog discussions are wont to do)  wherein the troll feo engaged in his usual nonsense.  The are here and here.

The first link is where the tangent involved a discussion on abortion, and more specifically for this post, what constitutes a person/human being/"personhood".  Even more specifically, whether or not I gave the troll my explanation/definition of what a person/human being/"personhood" is.  He claims I never did so.  He's an idiot.  I gave it quite clearly in my comment on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM, which is what follows:

"My definition of what a person is (because "personhood" is the real issue here)is the same as the actual definition one would find in a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster: human, individual

Dictionary.com: 1. a human being, whether an adult or child
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. (which puts feo's status in question)

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com : In general usage, a human being;

It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person. It's not rocket science, and even a false priest like you should be able to understand it. I've no doubt you do, but your desire to preserve the imagined "right" to murder your own child compels you to wallow in cheap rationalization dressed up as philosophical moralizing."

feo, as if he works for CNN or MSNBC, ignored this explanation in order to pretend I failed to provide it, as well as so he can maintain the lie that I claimed the mere presence of DNA was what constitutes a person.  He then thought he was clever by insisting that would mean a single hair off one's head would be a person because of the DNA within it.  But again, he lied about why I mentioned DNA in the first place, which was to explain why the "it's my body, my choice" argument is crap.  If the child growing within her, invited by her engagement in the procreative act, was truly "her body", it would not have its own unique DNA which distinguishes it from her mother.

The second link is to a discussion where the subject of the border crisis comes up.  He lies about my position there as well, distorting the truth just as the mainstream media does in making themselves an enemy of the people.  His biggest hangup seems to be on the understanding of what constitutes an emergency with regard to the border.  My position is it's simply a matter of the fact that the border is unprotected.  He then points to our northern border, which is indeed much longer.  But people aren't flooding in at the rate of the southern border.  Then he wants to point to past years where the numbers of illegals crossing in were greater than the amount stopped at the time of the discussion.  Yet he won't speak of how many thousands are acceptable before referring to the situation as a crisis.  It just goes on and on, and while it does, he continues to insist I've said something I haven't...even with my words still present for all to see. 

Lazy and/or purposeful inaccuracies in reporting seem to be a truly lefty thing, as both Dan and his troll clearly demonstrate with incredible frequency.  No wonder that Dan sees no problem with the leftist media Trump refers to as an "enemy of the people".