Yet Another Moronic Criticism Based On Ignorance By You-Know-Who

 In a recent post by Dan (April 20,2022), an off-topic point was allowed (because of who raised it) and then was demanded that I respond to it.  A GOP politician had said at a rally of some kind that Dr. Anthony Fauci should be executed for his crimes if convicted of them in a court of law.  Dan feigned outrage, as he is wont to do when a center-right person dares engage in hyperbole.  Initially, Dan demanded to know what crimes Fauci had committed.  When I offered an example or two, he then moved the goal post to "capital" crimes, which is not unreasonable given the politician had called for execution.  So I linked to an article which, with many links within it, spoke of a complaint brought to the International Criminal Court of the many violations of international laws and codes, such as the Nuremberg Code.  Among the many charged in this complain was Fauci, and rightly so.  

But as usual, Dan deleted the link to the article and responded with a Reuter's link of his own which did not address the complaint of which my link spoke.  This proved once again that Dan doesn't read the links of those who oppose him and then lies about it later.  Had he scrutinized my link, he could not have offered his unrelated response.  Instead, he pretended and continued demanding I present evidence of what he likes to refer to as "stupidly false claims", despite my already having done so.  Of course, if he deletes it, he can continue pretending proofs or evidence have not been offered at all, much less presented to directly and distinctly satisfy his challenge.  

But that's Dan for ya.  

So the question remains, is there anything for which Fauci is deserving of a death penalty?  That's debatable without a doubt and subject to our laws.  He could indeed be responsible for thousands of deaths and still not be eligible for execution depending on how the case was argue and adjudicated.  

But despite Dan's desire to believe such calls are a case of indicting someone due to being a political opponent alone, what Fauci has done, and because those in authority distinctly deferred to him and others like him in crafting policies which led to all manner of public suffering, it would seem to me that he is indeed culpable to a great degree, even if he is NOT executed.  Fauci can pretend he only recommended policy.  But no one paying attention would pretend he wasn't put in the position of dictating policy which was then implemented as a result of his recommendations.  That is to say, those we elected put this un-elected bureaucrat in charge of our lives, and he failed miserably.

Anyway, what exactly can be justly said about Fauci's actions which would justify a severe legal response?  The answers to that can be found in the complaint brought before the International Criminal Court.  Before I get to it, I must acknowledge it refers to that which is on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.  But it would not at all be a stretch that our own nation could have been a plaintiff as well, possibly as a member of a class action-type of suit.  Nonetheless, Fauci is named as an offender in the complaint which I now present:

https://www.riotimesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/icc-complaint-7-1.pdf

I don't know what's become of this attempt to hold responsible those who have inflicted all this suffering upon the world, and particularly our own people.  I've not had the opportunity to focus on it.  But nonetheless, it lists in great detail the many actions taken by Fauci and others who should be held accountable, specifically where other options were purposely denied us and where our freedoms were infringed upon.

Experts Dan Wishes Didn't Exist---There Are So Many Of Them

Over at Dan's blog (yeah, I know...why do I bother?), his most recent post from May 6 provoked my own of May 9.  That discussion...such as it is...continues, as was that at his.  The problem, of course, is that there can't be a real discussion at Dan's when he deletes whatever he can't confront.  It gets tiresome to take the time to respond only to have one's efforts deleted for the most cowardly and vacuous of reasons.  Thus, my time there is really time I could be spending with more worthwhile endeavors, such as seeing how long I can hold my breath, teaching the cat to talk, spitting for distance, etc.  So my visits there really indicate I've time to waste, and as it seems I'm leaning toward true retirement, I'll have more if it to waste if I so choose.  And while I'll endeavor to fill that extra time with more productive efforts, I'll no doubt still spend time on worthless pursuits, such as posting comments at Dan's.  After all, it's fun to see him act stupidly and if there's one thing he's really good at doing...

So anyway, at that post in the comments section, Dan once again exposes his true dishonest self as can be witnessed merely by reading the last dozen or so comments.  But right at the end is where he really shines...in his pathetic and fraudulent way. 

As I usually do, I push the anti-abortion position.  I do so for the obvious reason that what is "terminated" is the life of a person...a person like any of us.  That specific debate is still ongoing in my May 9 post.  And since those still in the womb are people...like any of us...they have the unalienable right to life.  Beyond that, however, is the fact that there really is no need to ever abort an unborn person in the first place.  Yet my "compromise" is that our laws should still reflect whatever slim possibility exists that a difficult pregnancy in which a woman's life is endangered might actually be saved by ripping limb from limb the child growing inside.  I think it's an easy compromise to make given how infinitesimal the possibility such a scenario would ever come to pass.  And even if it ever did, so many would not be so barbarically killed if abortion was limited to just those scenarios.  Still a heinous outcome, but an giant leap for mankind.  

So at this point in the discussion, two problems arise in Dan's feeble mind.  Who gets to decide whether or not it's necessary to abort?  The second question is, is it ever really necessary?  The second is the first question which must be resolved and in doing so, the first question is unnecessary.

Now, let's be clear.  If there is a case where the only means of saving the mother is to abort, clearly the mother gets to decide how to proceed.  I think that's not even an issue.  Who else would?  I knew a guy who claimed he would never kill another person, even if there was no other way of preventing that other person from killing him.  Pretty noble stuff and he has the right to make that call.  With that in mind, the same call is the mother's to make.  The problem is, though, is that really the a legitimate choice, or is the woman simply told that by her doctor?  So again, the first question is, is it ever necessary to abort in order to save the mother's life?  

Dan offered testimony by "experts".  Here, a definition is in order:  An "expert" in Dan's tiny brain, is any person who promotes that which Dan favors.  That is, if Dan finds a professor of 40 years who insists as Dan does that X=Y, that's an "expert" and a professor of 40 years who says X=Z is not.  Also, if he finds 10 "experts" who say X=Y, it's a fact if you can only produce one expert who says X=Z.  See how that works?  "Experts" are those who agree with Dan's leftist, progressive, fake Christian positions, and anyone with knowledge who doesn't isn't an expert, and one needs more experts than Dan for Dan to even suppose his "experts" are as full of crap as Dan is. 

So, Dan presented links of "experts" in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology who insist not only are abortions often necessary to save the lives of pregnant women, but that they've aborted innocent, defenseless people for that very reason.  And here's where Dan's fraudulence shines so brightly:  I've produced testimonies from professionals directly disputing this claim in the past.  But it doesn't matter how solidly one had proven one's case in the past...where Dan stopped engaging in those threads.  It only matters that one must go through the effort to do it every time Dan insists one must as if the issue had never been discussed before!!   

Of course, Dan's penchant for deleting comments when he's confronted with the very evidence he demands always looms large, so I decided to respond here to his demand that I provide expert testimony which contradicts the testimonies of his baby killers, rather than at his blog where he'd only delete me or cherry pick whatever he feels he can rebut.  So here we go:

First is one which I hope actually opens up.  It's very detailed and addresses far more than the question here on the table, and does so by citing many experts who deal with endangered pregnancies:

Abortion is Not Heal...pdf (289 KB)

From here, I will simply post a list of links which will each have testimonies from experts who revere human life even when it's still in the womb.  Some will be from sources Dan will no doubt crap upon simply because they're conservative, as if there are any leftist sources who would be so honest as to admit the truth about the issue.  But it's not the source, but the info contained therein and that info satisfies Dan's demand for evidence he desperately wishes didn't exist.  Worse, he claims he couldn't find such evidence himself, so he lies about even making the effort to discover the other side of the debate and truly consider it.  Note, these links come from a list I compiled for the purpose and contains a few things not directly related to Dan's petulant demand.  There's some repetitive aspects, but they all drive home the point that many in the field insist there's never a reason to abort.   All are informative in ways Dan wishes they weren't.

 https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/

 https://www.preciouslife.com/news/690/us-30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/   (note:  this one is related to the one preceding it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

https://texasrighttolife.com/former-abortionist-abortion-is-never-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-symposiums-findings-that-abortion-never-necessary-in-life-of-the-mother-exceptions-substantiate-personhood-amendments-in-us-169368836.html

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/February/04_opa_085.htm

I have one or two others which I need to review.  One is a bulk download of 37 PDF's related to the issue, but I haven't reviewed them to see if they're relevant to Dan's demand.  One other is a WaPo piece regarding the only high risk OB/GYN in central West Virginia.  The problem according to WaPo is a real shocker:  he's anti-abortion!!  Oh.  The.  Horror!!

Clearly, there are plenty of experts who do not provide Dan with what he needs to continue embracing immorality, heinous practices and simple idiocy. 

I Wonder If Jack Hellner Knows Dan Trabue

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/why_does_anyone_continue_to_treat_people_as_experts_when_they_are_so_consistently_wrong.html

The title of this post refers to the above article.  Dan constantly cites "experts" who do not present that which is affirmed by all other experts.  What Dan's "experts" do is validate Dan's positions on issues, because it's not evidence which matters to Dan, but greater numbers of people holding the same position which makes it true.  Yet "experts say" is often followed by "OOPS!!".  Dan ignores the "OOPS!!" to continue holding fast to that which was never true in the first place.  

What's most frustrating is Dan's inability to truly argue his position.  It's as if he has no real opinion of his own which is ever the result of any facts or science or...or anything.  The recent posts regarding abortion are a good example, as while he claims "we just don't know" if the unborn are possessed of the same right to life as even slugs like Dan, he also fails to provide evidence he himself possesses that right.  There are no experts to tell him, but only "experts" who agree.  

Experts exist for most all areas of human existence.  This is not the point.  The point is who is drawing attention and are they "expert" enough to be called an "expert".  Perhaps the problem is with those who refer to those with a degree of expertise as "experts".  Maybe if they didn't do that, the mention of "experts" wouldn't compel disinterest.  After the Covid fiasco, and Anthony Fauci (among a few others) called upon as "experts", it's less likely anyone will care to listen when the word is mentioned.  Of course Dan still will if the "expert" validates his opinion. 

Responding To Dan's "Philosophical Facts": A Worse Example of Bullshit Reasoning Will Be Hard To Find...Until Dan's Next Post

This could take a bit of time.  Not sure how quickly I'll finish it, but I regret I couldn't wait until after Mother's Day to begin.  No loving woman would ever murder her own child.  But those who have been up in arms over the leaked SCOTUS draft regarding the poorly decided Roe v Wade decision aren't loving people in the first place if defending the "right" to murder one's own unborn is important to them.  So I'll be responding to the fake Christian.  His vile blog post is here:

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion-facts.html

Open a second window and follow along.  Here's his first two sentences:

"Some facts about abortion.  These are objective, rational, demonstrable facts, no partisanship and  no need for disagreement."

With this we see again Dan isn't one to support anything he says, while he demands support for ANYTHING said by an opponent.  We'll now see which of what follows are "objective, rational demonstrable 'FACTS'".  (Here's where you'll have to follow along.  If I copy paste everything, this post with stretch quite a ways.)

1. Right off we see a falsehood.  Can one love babies or fetuses while at the same time protecting laws permitting them being brutally murdered in the womb?  It seems an obvious question to honest people, but then again, Dan thinks he can love the Lord while rejecting so much of His teaching, so...  The only way one could argue this first point is true is to argue pro-aborts disregard the unborn altogether, feeling nothing at all for them.  But I don't see that as any better.

2.  As far as "facts" go, this one doesn't come close.  Of course pro-aborts want to see kids murdered.  That's what abortion is, and they support being permitted to abort their children.  And if the point is that they don't want to murder their own child in the womb, but have no choice, that's a lie, too.

3.  This one is true, because most opponents of abortion know women are at great risk in choosing to abort.  But if abortion is murder...which it is...then what do we do with murderers now?  How many abortions should be tolerated by a single woman until she's seen as the mass murderer she is?  We typically execute mass murderers or sentence them to life in prison.  

4 & 5.  These are examples of irrelevance.  The fact that a human fetus is a human fetus is a new level of Captain Obvious redundancy.  Not only was it redundant to say, he said it twice.  But Dan does this kind of thing to pad his lists as if it makes the premise any more intelligent.  

But it only gets stupider as we go:

5a.  The only right in contention in the abortion debate is the right to life of the unborn person.  Thus, it's not about "human rights in every possible sense", which is just diversion and not a particularly intelligent attempt at it.  (Not surprising given the source)

5b.  We don't objectively, factually "know" that anyone has any rights.  We true Americans merely accept as self-evident that we do, especially the right to life, which is the only issue of importance in the abortion debate.

5c.  "The law" doesn't need to say a damned thing for it to be true that all people...born or soon to be in nine months or less...has the right to life.  Honest Christians, or at least honest people of any religion, accept this self-evident truth.  Since Dan is neither, one can understand how he might have a problem.

5d.  I don't give a flying rat's ass about "allah", "buddha" or the Koran has to say about it.  None of that has anything to do with the creation of this nation and it's laws and ideals.  But yes, God does say all human life is deserving of having that right protected as all are created in His Image and Likeness.  A real Christian...especially one who allegedly seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture... would never ask such a moronic question.

5e.  This is the hardest for Dan, for he is lacking greatly the ability to reason.  But given what we know about how human life is brought forth, reason absolutely insists the pre-born have the same unalienable right to life as even low-life cretins like Dan.  Indeed, more so. 

The stupid then continues from questions 6-9, as Dan begins again to speak of "rights" as opposed to "the right to life" which is the only right in contention in the abortion debate.  We don't need to pretend "kids driving cars" is an intelligent argument, just because Dan was stupid enough to add it in the mix.  We can just blow it off as the stupidity it is and leave it at that.  

Then he cites "Encyclopia.com" as if that is relevant, either.  It doesn't matter what any past law said or provided.  What matters is what is true.  If past laws were written to deny the full humanity of full persons, like black slaves or the unborn, we can't pretend such citations add credibility and validity to the position Dan is supporting.  Indeed, the issue here is a law on our books which may be overturned by this Supreme Court.  It would be just to do so as it is a heinous law which is oppressive to "the least of these" as Dan would say if he wasn't complicit in their murders.  I'm told oppression is to be opposed and there's nothing so oppressive as ripping a child limb from limb and crushing its head.

Finally, he gets to the only question which matters:

<i>"10. Okay, but what about the basic "right to life..."?  Even a one year old has that, right?  But does a fetus?  Does a fetus at 2 seeks old have that right?  At 20 weeks old?"</i>

He then goes into the usual bullshit dance typical of the pro-aborts:

11.  The fact is, we "do not know" why any of us has the right to life without God, Who explained we are all made in His image and likeness and it is that which explains the value each of our lives has.  But that does not limit it to the born in any way.  The moment of birth (now at risk by the pro-aborts) is an arbitrary line set by human beings who don't have the authority under God to dictate whose life has value and whose doesn't.

12.  It's not a matter of legality anymore than it was when the law allowed blacks to be enslaved.  Thus, what any state's law says...or any country's...is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the unborn are possessed of the same right to life as any of us fortunate enough to not have a murderer for a mother.

For honest people, especially honest Christian people (ACTUAL honest Christian people, not fake Christians like Dan) the right to life of all people is self-evident.  And even if the founders were not scientifically advanced enough to understand the full truth of human procreation (I doubt that was the case), we certainly have the scientific knowledge which supports the premise we were as we are when we were first conceived and as such we all had the right to life from that point in time. 

Dan then goes on to do what Dan always does, and that's to corrupt Scripture to appease his own agenda.  He cites Exodus 21 and perverts it as others have done to protect the ability to murder their own.  But it doesn't work as explained in the following link:

https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion

Note the author of that piece.  He's no piker.  Dan's troll tries to argue against it in the comments section.  Grab some popcorn and prepare for a good laugh if you're thinking about checking it out. 

"No," Dan says.  "The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to life."  But neither does it say Dan does.  What we can read is that we are not to murder.  It refers in Genesis to taking the life of "man", as in "mankind" as opposed to "only adult males".  It says we aren't to do this because we're created in His image.  No one would suggest it isn't speaking of women and children, too, but the pro-aborts pretend there's this imaginary line somewhere during the development of a child in utero when it's OK to rip it apart limb from limb like a good grace embracing Christian should. 

Again, it's self-evident to all honest people.  Dan has used the term "self-evident" for many other cases, but somehow this one is too tricky for him.  One who exists because a man and woman engaged in the very act intended to bring about another person is somehow not a person when it's inconvenient for either of the parents.  This is self-evidently selfishness of a most vile and heinous degree and of course it's right up Dan's alley.  He's totally into that degree of evil pretending "we can't know", while at the same time being certain he has the unalienable right to life!

13.  When convenient and profitable for Dan, Scripture is required to have exact wording in order for him to act like a Christian (and he's an incredibly bad actor!).  He can perceive all manner of teaching he insists is self-evident, or protected by his submission of the "it's my opinion" defense followed by the "if I'm mistaken on this one point, will it cost me my salvation?" plea (my, how many times he uses that one!), but then demand exact wording for that which he does not wish to be prohibited.  He demands exactness and specific wording from those who disagree with him, while pretending Scripture is imbued with enough ambiguity to grant him license to live apart from God's will and still claim he's living the Christian life. 

Dan thinks this question of the life of the unborn is somehow just as ambiguous, but it's just another vile pile of bullshit no honest person would ever give the time of day.  He believes no one has the right to murder him.  He believes no one has the right to murder a "gay" person, or a black person, or an illegal immigrant, though he can't provide any reason why that is true other than he believes it to be so.   In the meantime, he'll insist we are all obliged to defend those lives from "oppressors".  The hypocrisy is among the worst lies which can be told by anyone.  We're to stand for the lives of everyone BUT the soon to be born child, the most vulnerable, defenseless and innocent of our kind.  What kind of asshole takes a position like that and then pretends he's noble in leaving that decision to murder to the mother of the child?

So yes.  Dan DOES support murder.  He supports the murder of the unborn.  I don't know where he gets this "hate the fetus" crap.  I've never heard that said by a pro-child person.  The truth is that their view of the child in utero does rise to hatred, because they don't even regard the child as a person, just as Dems of old disregarded the black man, and just as nazis disregarded the Jew and others, and just how the islamist disregards both of them and the LGBT.  But at least those people could fight back or run away or hide.  The child is without completely. 

Dan recommends how we should oppose the murder of the unborn.  This contemptible piece of shit should instead reflect on what a piece of shit he is to dare suppose he can question another person's right to life, and worse, to question whether another person is a person.   One who claims to be a Christian and leaves the life of a child to the whims of selfish parents is no Christian.  He is pure evil.

A Day For Mom

 Happy Mother's Day to those women who actually had their kids.  The Day is for them, and for that they are most deserving.

Back In The Saddle!!

 With a few minor details to resolve, we are in our new abode in South Carolina.  The furniture took an extra week and a half to arrive, but we managed.  A new dining room table arrived yesterday and was assembled so that we could have our first meal on an actual table in two months.  (We donated our long held dining room set a month before moving)  I set up my desk top computer, but had issues with being able to log into my blog.  Quite some time ago, a new and foreign email ended up attached to my blog which prevented my signing on...though I never really sign out.  Now, after the move, I had to figure out how to get in as the main man of the blog.  That's resolved now, so if anyone has anything to say, I can actually see their comments in moderation and allow or delete them...as the case may be.  Now all I need is an actual desk, which was ordered, but was sent to my old address 950 miles away, along with a new bed frame.  FedEx finally picked up those packages from the foyer of our former building, and now we wait to see where it ends up and whether or not we'll have to re-order.  So my "some assembly required" hassles are not yet complete.  Beyond that, I need to call the cable company to help me get their remote to work on our TV as did the Comcast remote of yore.  The directions are easy enough to follow, but I'm getting no results.  Worse, the actual remote which came with the TV doesn't seem to do anything, so gosh darn it, I have to actually get out of the chair to turn it off and on an adjust the volume.  IT MIGHT AS WELL BE 1965!!!  Having tinnitus, I was able to finally get my remote headphones to work, so that's nice.  As our daughter is visiting, once she's left for home, I'll see about finding work.  While I can get by well enough without it, a part time gig would go along way toward keeping me in bullets and beer, so I'll have to suck it up for another six months to a year or so.   

Two weeks here and we're loving it.  The area's a bit congested, but aside from that, it's a lovely subdivision where our abode stands.  Twenty minutes from the airport, thirty from Charleston, forty-five to fifty from our favorite beach.  Rain's in the forecast, but we're hoping to spend some time at the beach on Saturday and going into Charleston for Mother's Day dinner and wandering on Sunday before Daughter must depart for home on Monday morn.  Life is good.

Anyway, with the nonsensical pro-immorality/disorder discussions going on at Craig's blog, I have thoughts for my next post related to that issue.  Any comments related to recent posts here will now be considered for posting.