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.