Technical Error Corrected

 It seems Glenn is not the only one for whom posting comments here is a problem.  Sure, I get a ton of attempts by Dan's troll and they show up in my emails (spam folder) like most do.  With Glenn, and now it seems, Dan, I do not get email alerts for some reason.  This means I'll have to try to remember to check the list of comments collected by Blogger, which I did.  I waded through all those from the troll that I won't publish and went back to early in the year.  The earliest comment from Dan (there were only a handful---maybe five in total) showed up on Oct 2.  I've gone ahead and published them all and apologize that his comments didn't see the light of day.  Now they are basking in it like most others.  I'll be responding to them all should I feel a response is appropriate and Dan can take up any conversation from that recent past if he so chooses, and I'll engage.  His last two comments are in the thread preceding this post.

The Liar Wants To Find Common Ground

 Other than for reasons of personal amusement, I'm pretty much done with commenting at Dan's blog.  Being such a cowardly liar, it makes no sense to put in the effort only to have him delete what I say and then pretend I've not provided what he's demanded.  That shit ain't worth the time anymore...except, as I've said, for reasons of personal amusement.

With that in mind, anything I choose to say about any of his blog posts will be done here, where freedom reigns and only the most absurd people, like his troll, feo, will be denied for reasons so often explained over the years.
So, Dan's latest post (http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/12/find-common-ground-we-must.html) laughingly speaks of a desire to seek common ground.  What a putz.  He's no more interested in common ground than he is in truth, facts, the US Constitution or Jesus Christ.  But let's enjoy a stroll though his field of schemes:

He begins by speaking about the division in those who identify as either left, right or center...or more precisely, Democrat, Republican or Independent.  But let's be clear: on any issue of importance, there are really only two sides.  Independents are sometimes siding with conservatism, and other times siding with stupidity...leftism.  So given the issue, the divide is not a 30/30/30 proposition.  This is pretty much true even when a particular issue results in multiple ideas to resolve it, which are generally variations on a theme, with some of them being of a conservative nature and others being of a stupid...leftist...nature.  We're not "split into thirds" at all. 

"As we enter into a new post-Trump era at a very divided time, it is vital for us to recognize that we're all in this together."

First of all, we entered into the Trump years because of the division caused by his pathetically divisive predecessor.  Since Trump entered into office, leftists have gone way the hell out of their way to deepen the divide in this country.  While Trump sought to "Make America Great Again", the left did everything they could to obstruct, inhibit and attack Trump and the America-improving policies the vast majority of his policies have been.  Said another way, what division there is now, just as it was at the time of Trump' inauguration, is the result of leftist behavior...not Trump's.  This is not even debatable.

Secondly, it's really convenient for lying lefties to now say we're all in this together.  What tripe!  It's ALWAYS been about "us"...that is, America...but the Dan-like are too morally corrupt and hateful of America to abide it's founding principles and the Christian faith behind it.  It's all lip-service to these bottom-feeding parasites.  Despite what this asshat wants to pretend, the righteous DO need to take this country back from those who have corrupted it so badly.  Dan is among those so given over to corruption, and the party he supports is the biggest threat to the future of this country, followed closely by China.

"And I know you all feel quite wounded and are grieving Trump's loss - not even trusting that Trump lost!"

That's because it has not been settled that he has lost.  There are still cases being brought forth, and the dismissals...the refusals by some courts to even look at them...does not mean the litigants are wrong, mistaken or blowing smoke.  The fact is that Trump DIDN'T lose.  The problem is whether or not he'll be able to have that fact honored.  It's not looking good for the good guys, and it's because of the lefty division and criminality.  Evidence abounds.  Honesty doesn't and it may be too overwhelming for truth to survive.  This is what comes from voting Democrat.  Honesty doesn't exist within the leftist, and here's some proof:

""The president wants to exhaust all of his legal avenues, as he has made clear many times.  His team is doing that, and that is his right," Conway said during and interview with The 19th, a news website.

"Is you look at the vote totals in the Electoral College tally, it looks like Joe Biden and Kamal Harris will prevail," she continued.  "I assume the electors will certify that and it will be official.  We, as a nation, will move forward, because we always do.""

Yeah.  That sounds like the ultraconservative is doing no more than acknowledging the state of affairs... not admitting Trump lost.  (The several sites at which I've looked all refer to the quote above.  Dan likely never read it at all, but simply saw a headline that doesn't accurately convey reality and ran with it.  It's how he rolls.)  And the same is true with Bill Barr, who never said it's over.  Rather than state emphatically that there is no evidence of voter fraud, he said, according to the AP, from whom all BS renditions flowed, "to date, we have not sen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."  This has been provided for the liar Dan Trabue already, and like Trump grabbing women by the crotch, Dan continues to ignore the truth in favor of the truth he wishes existed.  Barr's efforts have not been comprehensive, and Rudy Giulianni has stated that Barr's outfit has not asked to look at any of the evidence they have of fraud.  Thus, Barr's statement is not the caving Dan falsely tries to pretend it is.  

Now let's look at some of Dan's "ideas":

1.  There are actually three companies with vaccines.  The means of distribution is already set because of Trump's fantastic work through Operation Warp Speed, which made the vaccines possible in the short time they've been brought to bear.  Previously, the average length of time to develop and distribute vaccines has been about ten years, and no vaccine has come about in less than five that I've been able to find.  The vaccines now available were not supposed to have been ready before sometime next year or later.  Trump again made liars and fools of his detractors who were and are still trying to use this disease as a political weapon.  Common ground for who gets it first should be easy enough to grasp:  front line medical people (working with Covid patients), then the elderly.  Race, unlike what some asshat Dems are proposing, should not in the least be a consideration.  After those first two groups are satisfied, then spreading the vaccines equally among all the rest of the population who wants to risk getting vaccinated shouldn't be a big question.

2. "The spread of covid is skyrocketing."  This is an example of why finding common ground will never happen so long as one is seeking common ground with lefties.  When you begin with a lie, real solutions will never be found.  Lying about this disease has been ongoing from the beginning and has been done to further lefty despotism.  To date, for example, we've been hearing two numbers, both of which are false.  

First, the death rate.  All the media is excited to tell us we're approaching 300,000 deaths from Covid-19.  This is a lie and their own people, both from the CDC and the "experts" standing next to Dem governors and such, have admitted as much.  The real "death rate" isn't even 20K as yet.  But rather than assure the people, the despots prefer keeping them frightened to death, as if we're experiencing our own Andromeda Strain, by counting any death where Covid is present in the dead's system regardless of whether or not it was the true cause of death.  

The same is true of "new cases".  The PCR tests being used do NOT test for who is sick, but merely detects the presence of the virus' genetic material, regardless of whether or not the presence is a threat to the person tested.  Dead particles register just as active particles do, but with either, the tested person may not be sick, contagious or even aware they had ever been exposed.  What's more, one person testing more than once...say three times...counts as a new "case" for publication to the masses.  That is, that one person tested three times, and having tested positive each time, counts as three new "cases", thereby inflating the already useless numbers despots exploit for their political purposes.  How can we find common ground when lefties lie so badly and so often and so easily?  This doesn't even take into account how many false positives this test can produce.  And they use these lies to convince us we need to mask up, lock down and leave our elderly to die alone without their loved ones present to comfort them.  

Worse is the notion that we need to "slow the spread".  Why the hell would we want to slow it down?  Is the left not satisified with the suffering they've already caused that they want it to last and last?  The answer is no.  They're not at all satisfied.  The more problems they can cause, the more they can blame their ideological betters and then pretend they have the means to alleviate the suffering.  "Sinister" is a word that just doesn't fully describe the evil of the lying left.

3.  "Our economy has taken a big hit this last year."  This is due to the lies told by the left in their haste to destroy everything that Trump's done to make America great again.  They revel in the destruction of the economy because it was just humming along far too well before they were lucky enough to have Covid spread across the land.  What a break!  On this third point Dan doubles down on the worthless Covid-mitigating mandates and suggests we find new ways to do business.  That's another case of Dan suggesting others implement his ideas as if Dan weighed the burden of those ideas on those others so tasked.  Dan's a complete moron and should never be allowed anywhere near where adults speak of dealing with the mess his party created.  We don't need to alter anything but whether or not we allow morons to vote.  That's a problem for which there is no real solution, though should the lefties come to power, I've no doubt they'll further destroy the integrity of the election process and more morons will vote for more morons.  Harris/Biden is only the beginning.

4.  Here, Dan speaks of financial help for those suffering from needless restrictions and mandates imposed upon us all by his morons.  No.  We don't need to subsidize anyone.  We need to let them go back to work.  All rich people who voted Democrat can contribute 80% of their personal wealth so that businesses (restaurants and such) destroyed by Covid mandates and bullshit social justice groups like BLM and Antifa can rebuild.  Since the Dems are the cause of the suffering, it's only fair they pay to heal it.  There's some honest common ground for you, asshole.

5.  In Trump's four years, he's spoken about "our crumbling infrastructure" just as those who came before him.  The problem is it isn't true.  It's a myth and one of the areas where Trump and I part company.  The difference is at least Trump is interested in public/private partnerships to deal with what infrastructure might be "crumbling".  

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-bold-vision-for-infrastructure

6.  Police.  This is one of the most egregious lies of the left...and that's saying something!  We do not have a population that wants police defunded or even maligned as the left enjoys doing.  We have a population that wants less crime.  Dan wants to pretend, against all evidence that has been publicized since they first started pretending thugs were unjustly killed by cops, that cops are racist and that blacks are unfairly targeted simply because they're black.  What an overt lie!  And rather than discuss this belief with those who hold it, people like Dan buy into it and promote it as a fact.  Real reform must come from those who find themselves choosing between abiding the lawful commands of the cops and maintaining their "street cred".  The lies horribly about the police...and that's accounting for the imperfections naturally existing in everyone...abound.  George Floyd was not murdered, yet assholes pretend he was.  Eric Garner was not murdered, yet assholes pretend he was.  Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin...even Breonna Taylor, were not murdered.  Yet assholes insist they were without any acknowledgement of the choices they made that led to their demise.  How do we find common ground while dealing with such evil liars?

7.  Prisons.  Dan likes to harp on this educating the criminal crap.  I would not ignore the potential of helping criminals find a legitimate way to become a productive citizen, if working a gig is enough for them.  But Dan insists others must pay for it.  That is, someone who is not the criminal or Dan himself.  Incarceration is referred to as "repaying one's debt to society".  Dan thinks adding to that debt lowers costs.  If we are to provide a second education for those who broke the law, and do so out of the wallets of those who DON'T break the law, "saving money" is poor compensation for the insult.  Here's the common ground that Dan has already rejected, because he's a moronic asshole who isn't concerned with the costs to others:  Calculate the costs of training a criminal and deduct it from their pay once they get hired.  It doesn't have to be all at once.  It can be $25 per paycheck.  Just make them pay for what everyone who doesn't break the law has worked to provide for themselves.  The putz just doesn't think beyond the superficial!

Dan's three final suggestions

A.  Dan is truly only concerned about experts of his choosing.  How he chooses them is suspect and those he chooses are almost always totally wrong and provably so.  The covid issue alone is proof of that and the experts that Trump's been abiding aren't good enough for lefties...because Trump likes them.  Lefties aren't cool with facts and truth, so to the extent that honest people listen to experts, there's no better common ground to find.  Here's common ground honest people of even marginal intelligence can accept:  Ignore any "expert" a lefty suggests.

B.  Dan believes himself smart enough to determine what is or isn't true.  He insists that the election was not rife with fraud.  At least 74 million people disagree...not because Trump said so, but because unlike Dan and other assholes like him, the evidence abounds and it easily seen.  A recent poll claims even 30% of Dems agree that fraud played a roll in Biden's win.  Dan's OK with fraud so long as his guy wins.  Four years of Dem attempts to unseat Trump on the grounds he colluded with Russia to steal the election of 2016 is fine, but somehow, after leading in all battle ground states until late in the game, we're to believe it all flipped in the middle of the night for the crash-test dummy.  Sure.  False claims?  Bullshit, Danny-boy.  If they're false, it should be easy to prove the elections were fairly run.  Well, except for the paper results from voting machines that weren't saved as per law, but aside from that...

C.  This might be the most disgusting suggestion.  "We have to agree that causing harm to others is not acceptable.  Period."  This coming from the guy who supports the murder of the unborn.  Who supports taking money from those who earned it to give it to those who didn't.  Who defends public schools for those who learn nothing in them.  Who allows illegal aliens to enter unfettered to do as they will, from committing all manner of crimes to being a burden on citizens.  Who supports asshole marxists like BLM and Antifa while they destroy cities and attack Trump supporters.  The utter hypocrisy of ANY leftist suggesting  we must not cause harm to others is among the many reasons I no longer wish to treat them as if they were really serious about making America a better place, as if they were really serious about tolerance and love of fellow man, as if they cared about children or the aged or the most vulnerable.  The left is the enemy.  They've proven it and now there is no longer any doubt.  They're a far, far greater threat to this nation than is China, and that's saying something.  

To pretend that a buffoon like Dan has any standing to determine which claims are true or not is to abdicate reason.  How can a claim be determined false if it is not even examined...if evidence said to exist is never truly scrutinized...if not clarification is ever even requested, but the claim is rejected out of hand, as so many claims of the right are rejected by liars like Dan?  

Common ground is something honest people find while working together with a sincere desire for truth.  Lefties begin from falsehood and don't let go.  What constitutes common ground for the lefty requires accepting the falsehoods, distortions and corruptions they wish were facts and truths.  A lie is a poor foundation and no "common ground" is solid when sitting on lies. 

The Way It Is

 So, recently I've been accused of the following:

"Trump love"

I don't see how simply acknowledging Trump's good work as president, and thus advocating another four years based upon that good work, constitutes "Trump love".   I love my Lord, my wife, my family, my country, my friends. 

"despising those who didn't vote the way I demanded"

First, I don't demand anything regarding how anyone votes beyond demanding they do so based on all the facts, which would result in them voting as I have, since I voted based on all the facts.  Secondly, I don't despise anyone who doesn't vote the way I vote.  I do however have issues with how poor the reasoning given for why one might vote differently.  I may indeed "despise" some examples of poor reasoning.  I have not used the term "despise" in any discussion regarding how or why someone votes differently than I do.

"name-calling"

While I won't say I'm above name-calling, I will insist that name-calling is neither something I do in the early stages of discussion with anyone of opposing points of view, nor something that is not explained in detail after implemented.  That is to say, whatever "name" I've employed is not so much an epithet as it is an appropriate description based upon the evidence presented in support of using said "name". 

More to the point, I haven't labeled anyone in the discussions that led to these accusations, but instead have described specific actions...in this case for whom one did or didn't cast a vote.  Intelligent people can make stupid choices now and then.  That doesn't make them stupid....no longer intelligent...but simply acknowledges a mistake made by an otherwise intelligent person. 

"accusation"

As implied above, accusing someone of making a stupid choice is not in and of itself a negative.  One cannot truly discuss much of anything regarding human behavior without some accusation being made...including accusing someone of positive attributes.  Here, however, I've no doubt it is meant to imply I've engaged in something rather sinful.  Disagreeing is not wrong, but merely a means to come to some understanding, hopefully one that benefits all parties involved. 

"what it has lacked completely is anything resembling love for the brethren"

This is one of the more curious charges against me.  It is clear that being emphatic, passionate or insistent is regarded as less than loving.  This makes no sense to me, given how parents can be all those and more in guiding or disciplining their children and still be loving.  If a friend insists on acting in a manner that will bring about harm to himself or others, is it not loving to forcefully insist on the wisdom of correcting that behavior...hopefully before harm is done?  Can such a person truly be accused of not loving his brethren in such a situation?  More importantly, how much love can one have for others if one does not speak forcefully toward a friend who insists on acting in a manner that will bring about harm to himself or others?  Again, a parent will begin to correct a misbehaving child with a loving tone, and escalate to a shout should the child not heed the initial attempt.  Such a parent yells, scolds and disparages out of love.  An uncaring person abandons the attempt to correct after the initial warning goes unheeded. 

"There has been no attempt to be "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" in this dialog."

Uh...not at all.  It's not as if this was a one and done discussion.  It's been going on, truly, since the last election.  The same mistakes were made as they were then, but with fewer justifications given the president's remarkable track record since then.  Four years is "too quick"? 

"That is what I'm talking about when I say you don't believe in Sovereignty. You believe we thwarted God's Will. That Satan is capable of standing in His way. I don't. I believe God is in command always, in all things. You believe we can interfere."

Nothing in anything I've ever said in the discussions in questions suggest my position reflects any of this.  Nor has there been an actual connection made between what I have said and this accusation.  Indeed, there's been on justification for even making the suggestion simply because I present the facts regarding the consequences of voting one way as opposed to another.  No.  This argument is a rationalization for rejecting Trump, but an incredibly weak one.  Indeed, there's a far stronger argument that God has used the imperfect Trump to accomplish good things for the nation.  The real problem is that anyone would ignore those good things and refuse to get on board to support the positive direction Trump's policy have pushed us.  It's absurd to use this argument to rationalize not supporting his reelection.  It suggests that God's focus in narrow when it comes to how we choose our presidents...that only the character of the candidate rather than the benefits of policy are to be our concern.  It's as if it doesn't matter how much suffering occurs so long as the president is "good".  It's as if a "good" man is more important than the impact that man's policies will have on the people he is to serve.  Again, that's absurd. 

The true concern should be in why we vote as we do, and why we vote MUST take into consideration all the facts, which necessarily go far beyond the facts of a man's character alone.  Trump's character flaws have not resulted in anything more than annoyance, while he went about the business of improving the lives of Americans. 

The idea of God's Sovereignty is perverted by suggesting one is "OK" in rejecting Trump.  Trump stands as the best defense against what the other party has in store for America.  Pretending God will take care of things in this situation, when the choice was so clear, is akin to playing on the expressway and believing whether you live or die is God's Will.  It's tempting God...putting Him to the test.  There's no Biblical backing for this nonsense. 

Tens Of Thousands

On this day, there are still votes being counted, lawsuits being adjudicated or about to be and more coming out that indicates election fraud on a massive scale.  (No, Dan.  I'm not going to provide what is easy to find on the internet at any not-leftist media source.)  At this time, the moron who has odds against him making it to Inauguration Day, given his senility and feeble-mindedness, and the woman smacking her lips...not to advance her political career in this case...in anticipation of taking over when Biden falls, has established a new "Office of the President-Elect"...which he is not.  Not until all Electoral College obligations have been fulfilled.  He's just Idiot Former Vice-President Sleepy Joe Biden. 

President Donald Trump...the best president we've had since President Ronald Reagan despite his obvious flaws...has a real uphill battle ahead of him to try and undo the various acts of fraud perpetrated against him.  Success in that endeavor may not be enough to turn the election in his favor.  We honest people understand that fully, and are steeling ourselves against that hellish possibility.  This may be, as some imagine, where God allows us to feel some substantial pain in order to find out who will turn to Him and perhaps provoke another Great Awakening.  Even that doesn't mean we'll be ale to right the ship of state and become America again, toward which Trump was doing his part so very well to guide us.  No.  We are teetering precariously on the precipice and may fall so hard that correction is generations away.

There are many examples of behaviors which I find reprehensible and which have led us to this sorry state of affairs.  The many examples and forms of voter/election fraud are most obvious.  There have been acts that have made this more possible...easier...than it has ever been before.  Acts that took place not so very long ago that impact this election now.  Acts that suggest "systemic" election fraud"

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelosis-election-reform-encourages-voter-fraud-to-benefit-dems

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/obama-administration-voter-fraud-law-selective-enforcement/

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-all-vote-by-mail-ballot-harvesting-are-an-invitation-to-fraud-2088495/

These and other actions taken prior to elections, none worse than rushing a mail-in scheme on the pretense that Covid-19 is just so dangerous that distancing and masking in a polling place is just so much more dangerous than rioting and celebrating a presumed victory by a senile putz whose 47 years in politics has produced no significant work whatsoever.

The most disturbing news in this election, however, has been this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tens-thousands-left-president-option-185212525.html

What does that mean?  "Tens of thousands".  Well, it has to be more than 10,000 because that would only mean "TEN" of thousand.  So it has to be at least 20,000.  But could it be, and really is, far, far more.  According to the article, 34K in Arizona didn't vote for president on their ballots, Stan.  Another 14,000 in Nevada.  It later suggests Biden benefited more, likely because of all the down ballot voting went Republican.  A woman in the article said, "I did what I had to do for my conscience."  Good gosh, that makes me gag!  The "conscience" excuse for failing to pick the man who deserved to win a second term based on his stellar presidential record.  Given the promises of the Harris/Biden team, I can't seem to get an explanation for how such people can have a clear conscience...particularly if she does indeed win and we have to listen to her puppet say all manner of nonsensical babbling until he's carted off to the home for good.  

A proven, beneficial commodity is rejected over reasons not fully explained and at great risk of proven jackasses, one of whom is clearly a socialist moron (the other just a moron), who both promise great suffering and will make every effort to deliver...and will if we can't get Perdue and Loeffler reelected.  Their conscience is just fine with that reality.  "Oh, I'm good because I didn't vote for Trump.  Your life is destroyed, but I'm good because didn't vote for Trump."  Nice. 

How is God good with that?  "Your choice wasn't between two sinners.  It was between two visions for how your nation should proceed."  Maybe God didn't consider shower heads.  I don't know.  But of all these "tens of thousands" that didn't vote for the Republican candidate, they removed themselves from the equation, "If it ain't close, they can't cheat."  So they allowed not only the worst case scenario to have great potential to befall us, they allowed all the cheating and fraud that helped make that possible.  When the horrors of the Biden/Democrat/socialist platform manifest in the lives of all who tried to prevent it, and the innocent who could do nothing about it, may it weigh on the consciences of you center-right voters who were among those "tens of thousands".  It's on you.

Voted My Conscience, And It's Clear.

When the wife came home from work, we went to the local county courthouse to do some early in-person voting.  The wait was about half an hour, and aside from a glitch requiring the card for the voting machine needing re-activating, our civic duty was performed. 

It was great to be able to cast a vote to remove the lying Dick Durbin from the Senate.  There's a guy whose existence provokes in me the desire to vote twice.  His response to correspondence encouraging his support for Amy Coney Barrett was the typical Dem brushoff followed by his totally lame rationalizations for denying that support.  It was difficult to read as he began by praising Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who showed no real respect for the Constitution by which she was obligated to rule on legislation brought before her.  Then, irony of ironies, he lambasted Barrett for responding to questions Dems put before her in the same way Ginsburg did...indeed, a precedent for such questions set by Ginsburg.  What a moron.  Like all Dems, this guy opposed Barrett <i>because</i> she respects the Constitution, and there's no way it's easy for the left to get what they want without activist judges on the bench.  Cretins like Durbin know there'd be no Roe v Wade, no Obergefell, no ACA without a Supreme Court that fails to abide the Constitution.  They know that given the right circumstances, the current make-up of the Supreme Court can overturn any one of those as a result...and they'd be right to do so, regardless of whether or not any of us favor or oppose them. 

In my 8th Congressional district race, no Republicans ran, and I was forced to choose the libertarian, Preston Nelson, over the incumbent jackwagon Dem, Raja Krishnamoorthi.  He's responded with the same lack of intelligence Durbin has shown.  For that matter, Tammy Duckworth is also brain-dead. 

For Cook County State's Attorney, I went with Pat O'Brien over the wacky Kim Foxx, who dropped felony charges against Jussie Smollett (can't stop thinking of Dave Chappelle).  She also dropped more felony charges than her predecessor, and despite saying she did so to focus on serious crimes, many of those she dropped were for homicides, sex crimes and other serious stuff.  This was more of a straight "get rid of her" vote.

I also totally voted "NO!!!" on the so-called "Fair Tax" that our failed governor JB Pritzker sought with the perennial lie "make the wealthy pay their fair share".  If that's all one knew about such a proposal, the best bet is to vote "no".  But this change to the state constitution would open give politicians carte blanche to raise taxes in any way they could on anyone they chose.  It's a divide and conquer strategy that makes a flat tax that much more beneficial for all, given any tax hike would have to be levied against everyone, regardless of income level.  That means the entire state would bitch, as opposed to a far smaller segment of the population...in this case, those of the higher income levels. 

And of course, I voted for Donald Trump for a second term.  This is essential to block the efforts of the radical left headed by Joe Biden and directed by the more extreme socialists/marxists who will be pulling his strings.  The track record of Trump is very good and no honest person would pretend otherwise.  The whining about his character is irrelevant and those flaws that raise the hackles of the sanctimonious don't mean squat compared to the failed policies his opponent will try to impose upon us and the harm they will cause. 

There is one argument that the dire warnings of a Biden win won't be any worse than the harm wrought by Obama or any other Democrat.  That's truly a nonsensical rationalization, as it clearly...blatantly...conflicts with the opposition to the "lesser of two evils" argument which drove my vote for Trump last time around.  It necessarily suggests that the lesser evil of Biden's limited success at moving his agenda is acceptable if we tell ourselves the worst case scenario is unlikely.  But it's not acceptable at all.  It still brings harm.

There's simply no legitimate argument for not voting for Trump any Christian can make that doesn't at the same time result in a far more problematic outcome for the American people, and as such a far less God-honoring result.  My conscience requires I do more than pretend I honor God by leaving Him to clean up a mess my vote seeks to prevent.  God will do what God will do regardless of my vote, but I'm still compelled by my faith to do that which honors Him.  THAT is accomplished by my vote for Trump.

Dan's Buffoonery Continued

 I haven't been able to get assurances that Dan won't delete my comments at his blog, so I'm continuing to finish my responses to his questions which I began to do at a previous post entitled "Dan's Recent Buffoonery".  I'll be doing so in the comments section of that post. 

But here, I wish to point out again how difficult it is to engage in simply conversation with the guy given all of his deflections, equivocations, distortions and other chicanery.  He's also a good one for loaded and leading questions asked as if a simply "yes" or "no" will be sufficient to fully express the respondent's position on the issue at hand.  It is not uncommon for Dan to whine about trying to get clarification when he's dodging questions.  Yet, he's not as gracious when opponents seek clarification...or simply respond according how the question is phrased, which provokes Dan to insist that one is avoiding a response.  It was how I came to have my initial responses saved and relocated to a post here at my own blog.  As can be seen, his first question was as follows:
 

" Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?"

My answer was that I acknowledged that the historians he selected ranked Trump poorly.  He said he didn't select them.  That's a strange thing to say, as if the historians forced their way onto his blog without his consent but happened to agree with his dislike for Trump.  This is Dan's logic.  Of course he selected this (and other) surveys and examples just as I select various sources to support my position.  It was a dumbass thing to say...which is common for him. 

But more importantly, it expresses his "poetic truth", a phenomenon of which I spoke in a more recent post.  He is so keen on believing what he wants to believe that he won't consider other possibilities with regard to his "evidence" and "data", and that's why he deleted my initial response.  I was willing to go piece by piece as I came upon these dishonest questions, but then he began doing his dance wherein he focuses on the irrelevant so as to avoid the substantive.  I did all I could to help him really go in circles and all the while just about pleaded for the aforementioned assurance...which never came.  So, after whining about not answering questions, which I had been doing before he deleted them, he, as he is wont to do, refused to answer that simply question about granting me that assurance. 

There followed other questions that I am interested in answering, and I'm not sure if I'll do so here or at the other post, though I'll likely leave it all there.  Doesn't matter.  I'm just killing time either way.

Poetic Truths

 The following link is about 47 minutes from a Mark Levin interview of the great Shelby Steele:  (CAUTION:  A BLACK VOICE TO WHOM LEFTIES INTO BLACK VOICES NEED TO LISTEN)

https://www.blazetv.com/watch/channel/series/series/bZ55M0eK8zTh-levintv-latest-episodes/episode/6-svjukqfxtktk-what-killed-michael-brown-ep-759

There's a spot during the interview where Steele refers to what he calls "poetic truth".  This is that which distinguishes "truths" that are not really accurate, but instead are more akin to a perspective influenced by a narrative.  What immediately came to mind was Dan Trabue's insistence that we must listen to black voices.  They are always specific black voices of his choosing despite his assurance he means all black voices.  Of course, he never comments on the black voices presented by either Craig or myself.  No.  He totally disregards those in favor of those who in reality are relating to us what Steele refers to as "poetic truths". 

Others have pointed out the distinction between reality and what Steele coined as "poetic truths".  Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Brandon Tatum and others.  That's a short list of black voices that don't interest either the Dan Trabues of the white population and the race-hustlers of the black population...neither of which truly have the welfare of the black community in mind.  Steele gets into why that is in this interview and no doubt in greater detail in the documentary highlighted within it.

While the interview and documentary alone are worthy of taking the time...and I strongly encourage readers to watch it...this notion of "poetic truth" also screams Dan Trabue.  I will not be able to read him referring to "reality" without thinking of "poetic truth", because that's totally what Trabue is doing...citing his own brand of poetic truth.  Dan's reality is self-serving.  That's typical of the so-called "progressive" and truly, every other form of leftist.  The sad part of it is in their conviction that their fantasy is indeed reality and by insisting on their conviction being real, they can sit pleased with the notion that their understanding of reality is legitimate and righteous, and it allows them to condescend to those who don't willingly and eagerly buy in to their fiction.  How dare they? 

Poetic truths is the balm for their itching ears. 

Can't Be Surprised

 I have come to pretty much ignore everything from Dan's troll, due to his never-ending childish, hateful and truly evil character and manner.  But now and then one stumbles upon a special piece of evidence that my description of him is accurate.  Here's one such piece...and you know what I mean by that:
 

"If Obama had paid off a porn star, or said he grabbed women by the pussy, he wouldn't have been nominated.  He wouldn't have been a Senator.  He would have been a State Senator.  Take all the days of Trump after and pile them on that."

Lefties think their opponents are like them.  It's typical of the low character individual to believe since he does it, then his opponents are likely to do it as well.  This isn't unusual necessarily.  If one acts a particular way, one generally leans toward the belief that one is acting normally or typically, and thus, others are similarly prone to acting in the same manner.  That's why good people get taken for rides so often.  

It's the same for the wicked.  If they are untrustworthy, for example, they won't trust anyone else, assuming everyone else is just likely to be as untrustworthy as they are.  Here, since Dan's troll agrees with attacking Trump as the left is wont to do, he assumes those on the other side of the divide act in the same manner.  But while that might be true for a few, it's hardly typical of that which is so common for the left...especially those like Dan and his troll...of which there are shamefully too many. 

For example, Dan's troll refers to Trump paying off a porn star.  As has been said before, and is far from uncommon among the wealthy, especially celebs, there are those who see them as targets of opportunity.  For those running for public office, or simply wish to maintain a good image, attempts at blackmail will compel the target to choose the payoff for reasons of expediency.  For a candidate for public office, to stifle the blackmailer's threat to expose the candidate to public scrutiny to behaviors real or fiction, especially in the eleventh hour of a campaign, a payoff to insure silence might be made.  Once the deal is made, and the election is over, any breech of contract or other new allegations won't be as damaging.  The target can better deal with the allegations at that time without concern to any campaign.  Was this the case with Trump?  Who knows.  Besides Trump and Stormy, that is.  All we know for sure is that a deal was made, she broke her promise after taking the money and the Trump-haters and lefty liars will continue to insist that the payoff means the affair took place.  They need people to believe an affair took place because their only goal is to make Trump look bad...because they have no way to truly overcome his good work for America...because a guy like Trump just can't be smarter than they are.

Then there's the lie about grabbing women by the crotch.  The sick, morally bankrupt left can't let this one go.  They need to believe, and have everyone else believe, that Trump admitted grabbing women in this manner.  The truth was never hidden.  The truth is that he never said he actually grabbed women in this manner, but that because of his celebrity and wealth, gold-diggers will allow that behavior from those who might do such things, in order to profit by the association.  Pretty much like lefties.

But here's the truth:  If Obama had paid off a whore for her silence, he still would have been elected State Senator because he's from Illinois and still would've maintained support of the Dem voters of the state.  He's a scumbag, and scumbags from Chicago play the game in a crooked manner:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/the_irs_the_nsa_and_obamas_dirty_tricks.html

https://stoneformayor.com/obamas-strategy-to-win-at-all-costs-violated-his-challengers-civil-rights/

https://humanevents.com/2012/08/01/ann-coulter-obamas-signature-move-unsealing-private-records/

If Obama survived dirty tricks as described in the above links, paying off a whore wouldn't have seen the light of day in Illinois.  It would've been reduced to scant rumors easily ignored, as Obama had ignored so many rumors his entire career.

The same is true about grabbing women.  First, if he actually was recorded as saying he grabbed women in the aforementioned manner, that too wouldn't have gotten media release.  The media always shields the Democrat.  However, if he had the same exact conversation with Billy Bush that Trump had had, the media would be all over it insisting that he never actually said he personally ever actually grabbed a woman in that manner, as the media...and liars like Dan and his troll...refuse to do.  The video of Trump is still available, no doubt.  I've posted it for Dan at least twice, if not more. 

Dan's troll is wrong (again) and the fact is that the right doesn't behave as the left does.  We clean up where we hold our rallies.  We seek the truth with a willingness to accept it, rather than a self-serving desire to spin it.  We don't defend or hide bad behavior of our own.  We are not the left, and at the risk of coming off like the Pharisee in the synagogue (Luke 18:9-14), I thank God.  May we never be so.

Dan's Recent Buffoonery

 What follows is from the comments section of what is still Dan's most current post.  (http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/09/seriously.html) The post itself is quite the joke, but as these things commonly stray, the following is Dan's response to my request that he supply data for his hateful, typically unChristian opinion of Trump.  In the comments section here, I will supply my responses to the first part of his response regarding historians, which is deleted because he does that when he can't respond to truth, or when he doesn't get the groveling response he demands.  I haven't gotten around to responding to the rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where's my data? You would know it if you didn't choose to blind yourself or surround yourself only with others who agree with your limited opinions.

Historians rate Trump poorly - as amongst the worst of presidents ever. This is true for conservative and liberal and moderate historians. You've seen that information amongst the historians who regularly rate presidents. Presumably, you haven't objected to their expertise back when they've rated Reagan pretty highly. There's no evidence that you have whatsoever to suggest that they just hate Trump for no reason or are all liberal plants or something like that.

Do you have ANY data that suggests anything to the contrary? That, aside from the historians cited, that most historians secretly LIKE Trump and think he's been great? No, you just don't. Have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Historians on Trump...

"Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/opinions/history-verdict-on-trump-devastating-dantonio/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/opinions/trump-impeachment-unprecedented-cobbs-longley-osgood-suri/index.html

+++++++++

In an unprecedented move in all of at least recent history, you've had hundreds of military and state department types of experts - generals, commanders, etc - condemn Trump as unfit and awful.

"He disdains expertise."

"Trump preferred to be briefed by Fox News..." (instead of military experts)

"He trusts only his own instincts..."

"Decisiveness is good, the generals agreed. But making decisions without considering facts is not."

"He resists coherent strategy."

I could go on, but read it yourself. HUNDREDS of military experts have condemned Trump as dangerously inept.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that this has not happened at least in our lifetimes? Do you suspect all these military experts are part of a plot? Or giving their own honest evaluations?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61341/61341-h/61341-h.htm

+++++

I'll start with just those two bits of information and informed opinion and these questions to you:

1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?

2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?

3. Do you acknowledge that hundreds of military leaders and state department leaders have spoken out and raised grave concerns about the ineptitude and unfitness of this buffoon you elected?

4. Do you acknowledge that there is not a similar group of hundreds of OTHER military leaders who have joined to speak in favor of Trump?

5. Do you acknowledge that this level of military and state department warnings about a sitting president are unprecedented, at least in our lifetime?

IF you want to comment here, it must be from a place of informed reason. You'll have to answer those questions if you want to comment on this post, Marshal.

"one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years"???

 The title of this post refers to the opinion of a defender of baby killing regarding the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I think it's pretty clear that what makes her "one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years" to those who believe Ginsburg actually is one is her pro-choice position, framed as "women's rights". 

But aside from that heinous position, can Ginsburg really be counted among that group?  "One of the greatest"?  Before any such title can be bestowed, it would help to review the purpose of a Supreme Court justice.  From Wisegeek:  "A Supreme Court Justice is a judge employed to decipher laws and ensure that the United States remains a land guided and governed by its most important body of law—the Constitution."  That's as decent a description as any can be and more than good enough here. 

Of course, in order to fulfill that obligation, a justice must have a good understanding of what the Constitution was created to do...what it means...why it exists.  Ginsburg was one of those goofy "living document" people, who felt the Constitution means whatever one needs it to mean.  This position allows a justice to legislate by forcing meaning into the Constitution that produces a desired result an activist justice favors. 

Ginsburg's low opinion of the Constitution is well documented.  She disabused Egypt of any thought of looking to it for ideas for how to craft their own, suggesting S. Africa's constitution is a better guide.  What could be more absurd? This piece from Cato back in 1993...

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ginsburgs-troubling-constitution

...provides a more detailed look at her bad judgement, and thus her failure to do her job as it should be done.  Right from the start, her view of what a justice is meant to do should have disqualified her from the bench in the first place.  It is NOT the role of a justice to legislate...AT ALL!  Yet her belief that a justice does have such a role is why she was nominated by Bill Clinton and why lefties today revere her as "one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years".  The irony is that why lefties believe her to be one is why she is one of worst of all time.

A Crisis of Conscience?

 I'm voting my conscience.  That's what I'm hearing from a few conservative Christians who have stated they either won't vote for Trump, or aren't likely to.  Fortunately their conscience won't let the cast a vote for the Biden ticket, but the reality is that not voting for Trump <i>is</i> a vote for the Biden ticket.  And just as voting for Trump is in reality not simply voting for Trump, but rather, for a more conservative administration, letting Biden win is voting for a severely socialist agenda that is unquestionably harmful to our nation. 

The fall back position for these who feel this way is that regardless of the outcome in November, God is sovereign and whomever is elected is basically put their by God.  The excuse is to avoid doing nothing that does not honor God.  In short, vote one's conscience.  The irony in that with regard to this election is the candidate for which these gentlemen cannot vote and still be cool with their conscience is the president who has done much to protect rights of conscience as regards things like abortion and the LGBT agenda.  Conversely, the party that opposes this president is strongly in favor of denying Christians their right to act according to their conscience...of forcing Christians and other people of faith to act contrary to the teachings of their faith in behalf of abortion and LGBT "rights".  What this means is that the very act of "voting my conscience" will result in a greatly higher likelihood that their conscience will not be considered when faced with acting in support of that which conflicts with their faith.  They'll be forced to abide under penalty of law. 

Worse, others will be as well.  This was easily predicted...by me as well as by smarter people, demonstrating just how obvious it was at the time...that the Constitutionally enumerated rights of the faithful will be subordinated to the invented "rights" of the immoral.  This certainly is that which my own conscience cannot allow.  Thus, my displeasure with a candidate with the character and personality of Donald Trump is far outweighed by my displeasure and horror at having even more cultural decay codified into law, which is exactly what is in store should the Biden ticket prevail.  

And this is the point of this post:  how can one vote one's conscience if that vote results in so much that is presumably in conflict with one's conscience?   Let's back up and look again at what the choice is.  Donald Trump and Republican policy versus Joe Biden and Democrat policy.  That's the choice in the simplest terms.  There is no "third party", "write in" or "not voting for president".  There is only those two choices, because there is no chance whatsoever of any other option coming to fruition.  There is no overwhelming support for any third party or write in that will result in anything more than allowing one or the other of the two major party candidate win.  Thus, a vote for either is a vote for Biden if one is normally inclined to vote for the Republican candidate.  As such, every non-vote (that's what third party, write-in or not voting is) is a vote for the guy one likes least.  The greater of two evils as it were...in this case, Biden.

And what will we get with a Biden win?  THAT is what must be considered and because one is allowing that by deciding not to vote for the only guy capable of defeating Biden and what his party represents, how does one square that with one's conscience if voting one's conscience is the argument?  The Democrats are the party of:

Abortion

Sexual immorality

Heavy regulation on business which stifles growth and expansion

Heavy taxes which restricts one's ability to live one's life due to having hard earned monies reduced

Entitlements, the cost of which our descendants will be paying off for generations

Porous borders and all the ills that come with that, including threats from criminals and terrorists, added expense due to uneducated, unskilled people with no ability to be productive on behalf of their new country.

More anarchistic morons protesting violently without any notion of what they want or how to get it without costing actual productive citizens more of their hard earned money.

Less ability for people of faith to live their lives according to that faith.

Greater loss of liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, association.

Less ability to protect one's self as more restrictions on gun ownership is codified.

A weakened military as Democrats are known for ignoring what's necessary to maintain and effective fighting force.

Anti-science policies such as the "Green New Deal" that are no more than new ways to redistribute the wealth of the producers for the sake of the takers.

Language distorted to mean whatever is needed by the left to push their agenda.

Socialism writ large.

These are just the overall problems a Biden win will impose upon us, and the list is neither comprehensively complete nor does it give one a clear notion of what any single point on the list means in detailed reality.  They're too broadly presented here and this post is not meant to give that detail, though it's easily found.  What I fear is that those who won't vote for Trump, despite their objections to the contrary, have not truly looked at what the Democrat Party is, so distracted are they with the comparatively insignificant foibles of one Donald J. Trump...foibles that in the grand scheme of things mean nothing, particularly at this stage and in light of his great track record thus far.  I do not support Trump's flaws.  God knows this.  Why would He not be honored by the reasons compelling my support for his presidency, and how could He possibly be honored by any Christian NOT voting for Trump given the alternative?  How can one's conscience not be screaming at the thought of what withholding a vote for Trump means to one's fellow Americans given what the Dems clearly have in store?

It doesn't matter what state one calls home and how blue it is.  There is only the choice between Trump/GOP and Biden/socialism.  No Christian can dismiss his duty to choose between the two and pretend to be honoring God. 

A man was on his roof while the flood waters rose.  He prayed that God would save him and as Donald Trump rowed up and offered a seat in his boat, the man waved him off saying, "God is sovereign and He will save me from the rising socialist waters and all the harm that will bring."  And the waters engulfed him.

Christians For Trump

Recently, I found myself arguing for the reelection of Donald Trump with a couple of fellows who are solid Christians.  I'm often in agreement with them, at least more often than not.  On the subject of Trump, not so much.  It seems neither of them are any more likely to vote for Trump in November than they were in Nov of 2016, which is to say, they didn't vote for him in Nov of 2016. 

They weren't the only ones, of course.  There's another who didn't vote for him and to all three, I offered reasons why I felt their decision was incredibly poor as well as contrary to what they should have done (in my humble opinion) as Christians.  Before going any further, I must make clear that I do not in any way consider their objections to Trump on par with those of, say, an idiot like Dan Trabue, whose claims of following Christ I find not only false, but highly objectionable.  The three about whom I speak are actually Christian men.

Rather than revisit my arguments, I instead have decided to offer the arguments of others who might hold some sway.

The first is Ralph Reed.  Reed has a new book out:  "For God And Country:  The Christian Case For Trump" in which he attempts to make the case that Trump "has been the most ardent and effective presidential defender of religious liberty and the pro-life cause since Ronald Reagan—and perhaps in U.S. history." (from the Amazon description of the book)

"In For God and Country, Reed reveals:
 

-The sincerity of President Trump’s defense of the Christian faith—and why he has delivered policy victories when other pro-Christian presidents haven’t 

-Why Trump is the most pro-Israel president in American history

-How liberals hope to demoralize Christians—and thus defeat Donald Trump and reverse his pro-life, pro-family, pro–religious freedom policies

-Why Never-Trump Christians naively preach de facto political surrender"

This last point I might argue against.  Rather, I would say that it is the consequence of not supporting Trump's presidency, though it might not factor into a defense of Trump for the purpose of convincing the three in question.  Indeed, the surrender if far worse than merely political.

Personally, I only know of Reed in a mostly political sense despite his connection to the Christian Coalition and the like.  And I haven't read the book.  I felt the mere fact that the book is out there indicates there are others of note who are making the case from a Christian perspective.  More compelling in that regard are the next two, beginning with Albert Mohler. 

Mohler was really against Trump the first time around.  He stated the very reasons many of us balked at the idea of a Trump presidency and like the three in question, he followed through by opposing his campaign in 2016.  But since then, he's come around for the reasons I felt were legitimate back then, and are very much more important now.  What follows are two links about his change of heart:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-the-head-of-the-southern-baptist-theological-seminary-came-around-to-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/04/16/souther-baptist-albert-mohler-to-vote-trump/

Finally, there's Wayne Grudem.  Grudem also had less than a favorable opinion of Trump back in 2016, though I don't recall if he said he voted for him or not.  I wanna say he did, but don't quote me.  In any case, he does indeed support him now and recently presented his case to a Christian friend in a letter that appeared at Townhall.com.  The link below is from American Thinker.com, but it contains a link to the letter within it.  The AT article is worth a read as well, but the letter is definitely essential for its detailed argument.  I like how Grudem refers to one's vote as a package deal, as that is truly how it must be regarded.  He also speaks to the point I made regarding the folly of third party voting.

https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2020/08/08/letter-to-an-antitrump-christian-friend-n2573909

All in all, the Christian move is indeed to vote for Trump.  Given the choices that matter, it's the only choice one has as a Christian who cares about his fellow man. 

UPDATE:  Originally, I neglected the link to the Wayne Grudem argument.  Sorry.

Toast

So, I gave him another chance.  feo allowed comments and he deleted the first one I posted without an honest response.  Instead, he chose to make his typical bullshit assertions with no supporting evidence.  He claims he's interested in "reasoned" dialogue.  He is not.  He's done.

Cancelling Is All The Left Has.

What is it about the left that they can't bear to hear opposing points of view?  Why is it do they close themselves off rather than engage when those opposing points of view are offered in earnest and sincerity?  It seems more than clear that the leftist finds free speech problematic.  Free speech means they will at times hear that which displeases them. 

What displeases them most is that which they cannot truly oppose truthfully.  This is what the "cancel culture" truly is...the stifling of truth.  Regardless of the medium, when the left fails to make their case...when it fails to overcome the weight of that which exposes them...they run and hide, or in the parlance of today, they "cancel" the opposition.  Conservative expression is constantly under assault by those who run social media platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and others.  Leftist news organizations, such as CNN and MSNBC present only "conservative" voices that align with their own, routinely hiring "NeverTrumpers" to parrot their own anti-Trump message, while never truly providing a seat for those who are truly conservative and can defend Trump's policies.  And why would they?  They can't overcome.

This "cancel culture" extends to the blogs as well, and we see that with our own Bobbsey Twins.  One doesn't allow for comments at all, because he doesn't possess the ability to debate like an adult anyway.  The other provides so long as one abides his every changing set of rules.  But step over the line that was never drawn in the beginning, and one is banished for the slightest infraction...not because the "crime" is so terrible, but because it provides the lefty host with the excuse he needs to avoid confronting that which he cannot overcome.  The worst part is his own hypocrisy as he engages in the very crimes he pretends are worthy of silencing his opponents. 

And it's not a new thing.  I've dealt with bloggers banning me for my opinions before.  It's quite routine.  And if it's not me being banned from theirs, they will flee mine as if they've been so horribly insulted, generally ignoring how insulting they've been by the manner in which they've attacked me more so than my position or argument. 

Canceling, stifling, ignoring, running away...these are common from the left and it demonstrates that they are not interested in changing hearts and minds that are strongly convicted in opposing beiefs.  They simply prefer to force compliance. 
The conservative offers the chance to convince and persuade.  He has no reason to fear being open to debate, because the conservative knows he wins regardless of the outcome.  If the conservative wins the debate, he's brought about understanding to the opponent that is a benefit to the opponents.  If the conservative loses a debate, understanding has been delivered to him and is a benefit to him by his enlightenment.

But the leftist isn't concerned with truth, but only what he wants truth to be.  You will comply with his invented truth or you will be silenced.  It's as simple as that and such an attitude benefits no one.

UPDATE:
There's more I wanted to say on this subject, and the link that follows is something about which I meant to mention:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/banning_comments_to_protect_the_fake_news_media_monopoly.html

The above refers to Yahoo and their current comment policy, which is, no more comments...at least for the foreseeable future.  Instead there's a "survey" to help them "serve you better".  If you had any familiarity with Yahoo and their "journalism", you'd know that they play fast and loose with the facts, as well as not being shy about injecting their own leftist points of view.  The result is a plethora of entertaining comments that are decidedly conservative in tone, to say the least.  Certainly they had their share of supporting comments, but in dealing with the articles that drew my attention, let's just say they didn't go over well.  (AOL is just the opposite.  Their commenters are incredibly leftist and mostly sufferers of TDS.  I've had a few comments denied for reasons I couldn't figure out.) 

Now, there are no comments while they, I would assume, try to figure out how to limit right-wingers from exposing their idiocy.  Again, lefties canceling because they're cowards.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the problem of job loss over issues that run contrary to the leftist dogma.  Frank Turek lost a gig over some homosexual seeing his non-job related blog posts supporting true marriage.  Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla after pressure following his donation in support of California's Prop 8.  Craig James was fired by Fox Sports over similar opposition.  Going back further, Guillermo Gonzalez lost a tenure position because he expressed a belief in Intelligent Design.  Chuck Todd banned climate "deniers" from expressing their positions on Meet The Press.  Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing" was literally cancelled despite it's top ratings because of it's conservative character.  The same with Rosanne Barr.  Pretty much any conservative expression will get you fired, dismissed, "cancelled".  The left has no spine for dealing with opposing points of view. 

In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh allows more time to left-wing callers to his show than he does those who agree with him, and Michael Medved pretty much doesn't take calls from those who agree, constantly inviting opponents to give it their best shot.  And even Steven Crowder has invited left-wingers on his show...some more than once...and even does "Change My Mind" episodes where he picks a topic and invites people on the street to convince him of an opposing viewpoint.

The left doesn't care if you agree or not.  They only demand compliance.  They don't have the spine to defend their positions.

Not The Enemy??

Dan Trabue likes to wet himself over President Trump's depiction of the press as the "enemy of the people".  I've already given plenty of examples in my posts here, a>, and here.  One would think that should be enough to make the case, but Dan still brings it up as if there's no way the phrase is in any way true at all.  It's idiotic given the plethora of misquotes, mistakes and misrepresentations of Trump's words and actions by the press.

Here's the latest example that showed up in my Facebook feed.  There have been others in recent months (the hydroxychloroquine nonsense is a good example) which have grown the list of lies about the president.  That's really ironic given how Dan likes to talk about how Trump lies all the time, even pointing to numbers by some running list of "lies" by WaPo! 

In any case, it never stops and Dan's excuse making for the press...that they make mistakes sometimes and other such crap...is just Dan lying, too.  He does that.  A lot. 

If any new examples rear their ugly heads...they no doubt will, given the dishonorable nature of the leftist media these days, I'll be posting them here for a while.  If I come across any from recent weeks, I'll add them, too. 

A media that purposely distorts...as in the examples above, especially the new one..., that fails to do their due diligence in getting all the facts right before going to press, that fails to correct their "errors" when discovered...by them and more likely by others..., that ignores more important stories, fails to ask more important questions...this is a media, a press, which is an enemy of the people. 

UPDATE:

Well...that  didn't take long...

Here's more

The Conversation: The Lefties Avoided It. What A Surprise.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.  -L.P. Hartley

This is likely my last post in this series.  It seems quite clear that the Bobbsey Twins do not truly wish to have "the Conversation" after all.  When Eric Holder called America "a Nation of Cowards" with regard to dealing with racial issues, he clearly was speaking of himself and the left half of the nation.  I have yet to hear of either of the two clowns regarding the "voices" I presented in posts of this series.  Dan claims we're only interested in those who validate our opinions, while lacking the courage to accept that our opinions are informed by those voices he finds less than compelling, despite their basis in fact and evidence.  "Hard data", evidently, is only important when it serves the lefty's purpose, not when it exposes the stupidity and falseness of the lefty position.

feo, on the other hand, prefers to engage in his typical practice of trying to post wholly off-topic comments where his claim of better understanding has an open forum for providing useful info and insights...except that he really doesn't have any.  Indeed, I have to stretch to include anything he says, but mostly because I'm compelled..."provoked" might be a better word...to address some of the goofy things he says that has any connection at all to the point of the post on the table.  *sigh*

So what I will do now is address the "words of wisdom" from one Caroline Randall Williams that have given both Dan and feo (as well as leftists in general) quite the tingle in their nether regions. 

Frankly, I find her words less than wise.  Rather, I find them overwrought and overly dramatic.  Imagine referring to one's skin as "rape-colored"!  Good gosh, can we all have a pity party together!!!  This woman speaks of "airbrushing" the past, as if the honoring of Confederates with statues and memorials...and allowing them to remain...ignores the sins of the past.  But her essay is the opposite side of that very same coin...she is highlighting the worst as if it was all some constant horror story.  This is not at all to diminish a damned thing about the conditions suffered by the average slave.  Absolutely not.  But to take pains to make it worse than it was, as if it wasn't bad enough without doing so, is far worse than pretending "it wasn't all that bad".  It's as if that period in history can't be discussed without mentioning the worst aspects of it...that indeed one MUST mention the worst aspects of it or by golly, you're "whitewashing" slavery!!  Nonsense. 

The very same people who hold this essay in such great esteem are also likely to be among those who accept the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemings story as true.  Yet, there is no evidence that supports it, and a great deal that makes the very notion pure fantasy.  Could this be the case with Edmund Pettus?  How can we confirm the story?  She claims DNA testing confirms she has white blood.  She doesn't say it's the blood of Edmund Pettus.  She just believes what great-grandfather Will believed...or claimed.  So do those who descended from Hemings believe their family history despite what evidence exists in conflict with that history.

But what of the more serious charge of rape?  The concept is that the no slave has any real consent so any sexual relations between slave and master is rape.  That's pretty convenient for the sob story Williams wishes to convey.  "Take pity on me.  I'm the result of rape."  But is it true?  How can it be confirmed with any certainty?  Personally, I have no skin in the game, so it really doesn't matter to me if it is true or not.  But if it's going to be put forth as true, it's a serious charge that requires more than hearsay.  What if great-great-granny saw sex with her master as a possible means to better treatment?  Well, just how were they treated exactly?  There are stories of Robert E. Lee being a very harsh master, to the degree that supposedly other slave holders thought he was unnecessarily strict.  Was this true of Pettus (if he was indeed the sex partner)? 

In my brief search to determine just what kind of slave owner Pettus was, I found some interesting things about his influence on the town of Selma and his work in making it thrive.  He was instrumental in Selma being known as a haven for blacks fleeing the Klan.  The point here is not that Pettus didn't rape or even have sexual intercourse with Williams' ancestor.  It's that there is nothing beyond their family history that I could find that indicates it ever took place.  Now, 150 years later, Williams insists her belief is true regardless of the lack of documentation of any kind. 

Williams goes on to ask who would dare insist she celebrate those who enslaved her ancestors?  I don't know than anyone would, is or intends to, nor do I believe that most people who prefer the memorials remain are "celebrating" them, either.  It seems an odd thing to suppose.  I don't necessarily celebrate Lincoln as much as remember who he was and what he did and what what he did meant for this country.  It's the same for most of the Confederate memorials.  Despite what they're positions were on slavery, those positions aren't the be all and end all of their lives.  Not all of what each of them did for their states is solely tied to any pro-slavery position they held as if there was nothing else.  Clearly, Pettus did more.  The same is true for most of them.  What did Williams do that we should regard her as a monument to anything, as if there are no monuments or memorials of greater value than her skin color?   These things aren't hidden from public access.  

In doing a quick research on Williams, I cam across this blog article noteworthy for also deferring to more scholarly research than merely family history.  Again, this doesn't mean Williams' story is absolutely false, but it again paints a picture that her lamentations would deflect objective observers from noticing.  (An interesting aside, I just saw a video wherein actor Don Cheadle finds that he was descended from slaves owned by an Indian tribe.  His ancestors were never owned by white people.  It can be found on YouTube.  I didn't think to save it when I came across it.)

There are some of us who wish to preserve history for our honest and objective edification.  There are others who would use history to push an agenda.  Williams is of this latter group, as are our two buffoonish fake Christians lefties and as are most of the black voices to whom they would have us lend an ear.   Worse, they would have us join them in referencing history to appease demands of a grievance group rather than to simply learn from it so as not to repeat it...hard to do when pulling down references to it is enabled by the spineless left. 

Thus, it is the left who is truly the cowards regarding this issue of race relations.  They look at history in an exploitative manner, as they look to exploit wherever doing so furthers their ideology.  And if the two fakes want to have a conversation, they'll have to provide the open forum in which to do so at their own blogs.  They've failed to prove they want such a thing having been given the open forum here. 

More Conversation: Possibly The Best Voice Out There

Independence Day just ended.  It is now the 5th.  Back to the conversation the left doesn't really want to have.  As we're told by "progressive" white guys to listen to black voices, and then admonished for only listening to conservative voices, as if we haven't heard the others, it seems clear that it is the "progressives" that have no interest in hearing all black voices out there.  In a previous post, I've provided a number of really solid black voices, most of which actually have substance and evidence carried and delivered by their voices.  Here, I am posting another from one of the best.  For Thomas Sowell, facts and evidence are paramount when it comes to suggesting "fixes" to what ails the black community.  This is a guy who knows marxism, having been a marxist himself in his younger days.  Now, at 90, he can make a leftist look stupid with very little effort, knowing them better than he knows himself, and of course, knowing the facts.

Among the problems plaguing the black community is education deficiency.  The left insists more money is the problem.  That's because the left is stupid.  Sowell's latest book, considered by himself as the most important of all the many he's written, is about charter schools and how the leftists that have run the education system in this country for decades have failed the minority student by ignoring the real needs in favor of spending other people's money...mostly on themselves. 

If the two champions of the black community, Dan and feo the false priest, truly care about black lives, they need to watch intently this video from start to finish and then buy Sowell's book, and definitely more of them.  They have no clue.  Sowell will provide them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3428&v=9boQrCPwMws&feature=emb_logo

I have no doubt they won't bother.  They prefer platitudes.

Continuing The Conversation: The Challenge

Over at Dan's blog, he challenged me to speak about Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance.  He got his panties in a wad after I stated that Hughes' poem, like MLK JR's speech of a previous post, were not relevant to the situation of race relations today.  I stand by that while he and his troll do nothing to defend the contrary opinion.  Like most on their side of the divide today, any disagreement, question, critique or objection to anything said by, or in defense of, the black community is racist. 

In any case, I decided to take up the challenge he laid before me in the comments section following the post in question.  Because Dan is not an honorable boy and can't be trusted to actually engage on an intellectual level (or what passes for one in his fevered imaginings), I must also post my response to him here.  Between the two of us, we haven't much of a blog following.  But by posting my response here, everyone will know that I did my part.  Should he choose not to engage, I will have further reason to believe his kids were most likely the result of a sperm donation because he clearly has no balls.  So what follows is my response, and despite it wasn't exactly how I wanted my next post to go, it does cover some of what I wanted to say in it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Harlem Renaissance was a time when black and white Americans alike “discovered” the vibrancy and uniqueness of black art, music, and especially, literature.  Large numbers of black artists could earn their livings and be critically acknowledged in their fields.  The distinction of black cultural heritage and its manifestation was in vogue during this period.  There was a strong communist influence among the Black intelligensia in this area (though it certainly wasn't unheard of in America in general at that time---Woodrow Wilson was a far left "progressive" after all).  And along with the proliferation of the N.A.A.C.P.  and the Urban League (begun in the 1910's), there was also a proliferation of licentiousness, with cabarets for homosexuals and transvestites common in its nightlife (which no doubt attracts Dan even more). 

"Good God have mercy on your poor, pitiful damned soul."

You shouldn't pray to the God for Whom you have no true devotion, and certainly not after presuming you can do His job.

But from the above arrogance, you go on to make your demands, as if they change the point.  Nonetheless, here we go:

"THEN, apologize for your various comments and maybe you can comment here and try to offer something rational, rather than something ignorant."

Until you find spine enough to demonstrate in what way my comments are ignorant or irrational...which means something more than simply asserting such because you don't like and can't counter what I say...then my comments are neither. 

"Their words ARE relevant. Of course. Just ask and listen to black people and other rational people."

Again, just saying someone agrees with you doesn't make it so.  An actual argument in defense of the proposition might.  Give it a try.  My argument is coming below. 

"That you want to pretend that their words are not still relevant because racism has been "solved" and things are all better now, does not make it so."

Not in the least an accurate reflection of anything I've ever said, here or elsehwere. 

"I'll give you ONE chance to give a review on the whole poem and tell me what you think it means."

It's no mystery.  In nutshell, it's simply saying what others have said and continue to say, which is that the ideals of American...the intention of what America was meant to be...haven't been realized.  Not at all a unique sentiment.  Most anyone can say it and not be wrong, except by doing so it demands a perfection the speaker himself hasn't attained, either.  But of course, despite Hughers mostly speaking as a black man, the poem doesn't speak only on behalf of the black community.  Like the typical leftist...and he was a socialist for sure, if not a full on communist...he was a social justice warrior and speaks for that cause with this poem.  Again, no mystery here.

"Why is this poem still so relevant and powerful today?"

This question is problematic.  It assumes I find it either.  I'm not sure you could find a majority of black people today even know who the guy is, much less know of this particular poem.  Certainly YOU find it both, yet you have to ignore the many advances in race relations (and other areas of American life) in order for it to be "still so relevant".  I'm sure you have no problem doing that.  Powerful and relevant for whom?   I mean besides yourself and other socialists?  The America of today is not the America of Hughes' time.  The conditions for the black community is not at all the same now as then.  I doubt that Hughes, like King, would not wonder what the hell the typical black activist is whining about.

"What makes it a classic poem?"

Again, "classic" to whom?  Certainly to social justice warriors, poets, perhaps and no doubt those among the leftist black variety.  But like those who influenced him as a writer and poet, his preference for "speaking normally" or in the character of the average person made him stand out and accessable.  It spoke to the conditions of the time from the perspective of a black leftist. 

"Do you think that it was ever a relevant poem, or was Hughes way off in his assessment of US history?"

Most poems are relevant to somebody.  This one was likely relevant to other leftists of his day more than to others who weren't leftists.  Like similar works of all eras, it was certainly worthless to those who took a rosier view of life and/or America...that is, those who are honest enough to acknowledge American isn't perfect, but still honestly recognize what it was meant to be, was at the time, and what it can be.  The thing is, here was a guy who lived during a time when racism was far more prevalent and blatant, and he earned his living doing what he loved to do.  Yet, poems like this are his whining about how bad a place American is.  He had none of the MANY advantages available to black people today, and STILL succeeded tremendously...writing poems!!! (among other things of course)  That would suggest his assessment, as indicated by this poem, is a bit off.

" Show me that you're not coming from a place of ignorance on Hughes..."

It's typical that you regard disagreement with you as "coming from a place of ignorance", as if you're opinions and position come from a place of great wisdom.  You don't feel the need to back up that attitude because that would take effort and and actual argument that is coherent and fact-based.  You want to believe that I've never heard of the guy simply because I don't hold him in the same high regard as you, especially in your bulshit pro-BLM, "Art's a racist" mode.   The fact is that I wouldn't need to know who he was to have an opinion of his work and whether or not it is relevant to today.  Unlike you, I can defend my opinion.

"...on what basis would we consider your crazy hunches that it's no longer relevant to be relevant?"

On the basis I mentioned already.  The conditions now are far improved over what the conditions were back in the days of either Hughes or King.  Of this there is no debate.  What lies at the heart of current whining is the false excuse of "racism", not a true "systemic" racism or even the blatant, widespread racism of their time.  If this were not true, how can test scores for black students of Harlem in the 1930 be equal to and sometime better than whites of nearby schools?  How could most black children be familiar with their fathers, since they were still living at home with Ma?  How could the out-of-wedlock childbirth rate be better than whites?  Yet today, none of this is the case in an America with FAR less racism (most whites bending over backwards to avoid having anyone think they're racist), equal opportunity laws, affirmative action, welfare up the wahzoo, and a host of other "legs up" available BECAUSE one is black.  And you want to tell me this poem is still relevant today?  That the King speech you posted is still relevant today?  Tell me how.

Now go ahead and delete this you pathetic, lying coward.  It's far easier than "listening" or having a conversation you pretend to want to have with those who reject the BLM, white guilt, white privilege bullshit narrative. 

Continuing The Conversation

Self-loathing, white-guilt, fake Christians like feo and Dan Trabue tell us we need to "listen to black voices".  What they mean, of course, even while denying it, is that we should listen to those black voices they find personally compelling...voices that not only move them personally, but validate their own far left notions about race in America.  They say this as if we haven't been listening for decades...since the time of Martin Luther King Jr. we've been listening.  There's been so much listening since that time that a host of policies have been implemented to address the concerns listed by those voices.  And still it's not enough.  It will never be enough for some, for some like to pretend they're furthering King's work, while in reality they share in the responsibility for the conditions about which contemporary "black voices" now refer.

I will be getting into some of King's words another time.  Words the above mentioned fakes have presented to make their white-guilt, pseudo-privileged, pseudo-sanctimonious arguments.  But for now, I am presenting a number of black voices that do not buy into what the fakes and their fake black leaders are selling.  They have better in mind for the black race and have stats and facts to back up their positions...something we never get from those to whom the two fakes insist we must listen.  What follows requires time, because most of what I've chosen is more than a few minutes long.  Close to an hour for a couple, a bit more or less for others.  Yet what you'll hear is a perspective that the fakes dismiss as "outliers", which isn't necessarily untrue.  But these "outliers" aren't speaking from emotion and myth and indoctrination handed down from a time when things should have been far worse but yet from which so many transcended nonetheless, leaving the majority of "voices" from today without excuse...because things are so much better.  Take the time if you really want to prove you care, lefty fakes.  Facts, truth and reality changed a few of those that are highlighted below.  In no particular order, I begin:

Talk about a guy who was down with the narrative! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Y35EpOiFc&feature=emb_rel_end

This next person is quite young as of the time of this interview.  He says a few things that make me believe he's still on his journey, but he's clearly very intelligent and may alter those points of concern.  Overall, I dig him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R6kUiKQkxc

The kids really need to listen to this black voice.  He's speaking to them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9wWF1_YFBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2hqL5KkHc

The great Walter Williams also had his journey from leftist to intelligent.  The first two cover some of the same things, but are both worth the time for those who claim it's important to listen to black voices...and actually mean it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzqsoM7-q4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_serzVQbU

It wouldn't be right to not include something by the great Thomas Sowell, a black voice that, like Williams, even black people need to hear and study.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho

The following I added because the interviewer could be Dan or the troll.  He's trying hard to get Washington to validate his white-guilt perceptions of the black struggle.  Denzel won't have any of it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXLCkDOaD4

Some more from Denzel and others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjJRfuVPRuY

Larry Elder on Ice Cube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzdzAaFsZks

-----This last one brings up an interesting question, one I've heard expressed a couple of times recently:  for all the black celebrities and politicians,  and all the "white privileged", white-guilt celebrities and politicians, how many of them live within the black communities where all the systemic racism is plaguing the people?  None of them do.  At best, they go in and pass out handouts of one form or another, (with some trying to actually mentor kids now and then...however that looks to them) but they all continue to support the same type of politicians who have done nothing for the last fifty years or more to actually improve things.-----

But I digress.  The voices above differ from those to whom Dan would have us listen by actually having real evidence and data to support their changes of heart.  They are truly "woke" in a way the asshats only pretend to be, and it's brought them hatred from those who find the truth to be inconvenient.  These people would have the voices Dan and feo find compelling to bring forth their evidence for what they believe and insist we believe, too.  It never happens.

And here's something else that won't happen.  Neither of the fakes...Dan and the troll...will watch these videos and bring forth anything that will truly contradict what these brilliant voices say.

The Conversation Begins. I'm MORE Than Willing To Have It.

Eric Holder once asserted that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race.  White-guilt wieners insist along with the race-hustlers that we must listen to black voices.  But who are the real cowards when it comes to such discussions, and who is it who is not truly listening?

For years we've been hearing those black voices tell us all sorts of things with regard to why they're so downtrodden.  For years we've been told it is the white people and their privilege that is the cause.  Yet, where's the evidence?  If we're to listen, why can we not question what we're told? 

I think it's clear that for the most part, what is said is mostly a matter of what is perceived to be true rather than what is.  Yet when we speak in response, when will the other side listen?  It seems they don't want to.  Here's an example:

Recently, Drew Brees reiterated his position that kneeling during the national anthem is something he can't support, that it is disrespectful to the flag.  The response to this is that it's not about the flag.  OK.  But it is about the nation for which it stands, and the original kneeler who so much provoked the current "conversation" we're "too cowardly" to have said otherwise:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Clearly, it's about the flag and the nation for which it stands.  Or isn't it?  I guess when people say it's about the flag, then it no longer is.  In any case, we hear what he's saying, and what he's saying is crap.  No one is oppressing black people and people of color.  Oh wait!!!  Let me insert the caveat here:  "Sure, there are still racists and always will be."  There.  Got that crap out of the way...as if it's in any way supportive of the "America is racist" bullshit!

To finish up the true objection to kneeling during anthems, it continues like this:  Football (or whatever professional sport) is the job.  The team owner, as well as the league, is the employer.  The people in the stands and watching on TV are the customers.  See where I'm going with this? 

---No one comes to a game to see some schmuck protest, nor are they concerned with whatever it is he's protesting.  It's not the time for it.  Those that think one shouldn't get upset with a brief protest like kneeling during the anthem, that it's not too much to ask for one to be allowed to do so, can pound sand up their ass.  How about if I show up to your birthday party and start preaching, or get up on a soapbox and pontificate about this, that or the other?  It's not the time or place and regardless of my sincere concerns about whatever the hell it is that bothers me, it would be appropriate to be told to shut the hell up and keep it to myself for another more appropriate time. 

---The right to protest does not give one liberty to protest absolutely anywhere at any time.  The Constitutional right to free speech refers to that which critiques the government, and as such, the appropriate place to protest is at the local governmental office, like the city, state or federal capitol.  Not a freakin' football game, concert or awards show.  At those venues, no one cares. 

---Asshat professional athletes have money enough to pay for other methods of expressing their ignorance and falsehoods, as well as legitimate grievances.  They can form organizations to foment unrest and the perpetuation of falsehoods or they can contribute their big bucks to already formed organizations that are already doing that.

---Asshat professional athletes and entertainers can use some of that wealth they've accumulated by being citizens of such a depraved, oppressive and racist nation to learn a few facts, study the issue and get educated before the open their big mouths and prove just how freakin' stupid they are. 

Our own false-priest turd, feo, tried to post an off-topic comment which was a quote from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

""So, maybe the black community's main concern right now isn't whether protesters are standing three or six feet apart or whether a few desperate souls steal some T-shirts or even set a police station on fire, but whether their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers will be murdered by cops or wannabe cops just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive."

Another stupid man, because this is exactly the lie believed by so many as if they need to do so in order to be in the club.  Those who don't abide it are "Oreos", "House niggers", "Uncle Toms".   Cops do NOT go around murdering black people, and they certainly don't do so "just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive".  It's patent nonsense put forth as true, and it is no more than an excuse for other issues.  "He only stopped me because I'm black." 

Here's the thing:  Because of such asinine assertions, white people, by and large, go WAY, WAY, WAY the hell out of their way to avoid giving any impression that they're racist.  (Even racists likely do so!) But it's fruitless to make such an effort.  Assholes will continue to accuse just as one of them, feo, does constantly.  Yet it shows how much effort is already been put forth by most white people...that is, the vast majority of them.  Some even go so far as to stupidly apologize for it despite never personally exhibiting any sign or symptom of a racist nature.  OH, the assholes will say, YOU don't even KNOW you're racist.  Very convenient.  Very much a lie told by liars. 

So this is the beginning of my conversation on race.  There will most definitely be more to come.  And we will see how it's not really a conversation they want.  It's something far more insidious.