Still More Sin Nature

 

The following was put together by Dan at his Blog of Lies and Perversions and I had bring it here so he couldn't delete my response.  I believe it was in the comments section of his Wendell Berry "Memorial"   on September 22, 2026 at 5:29 AM.  I’ll be adding my response to his selections after each, providing truths Dan ignores to pretend his beloved are actually saints and/or heroes.  However, I’m going to reverse the lists and begins with those Dan has condemned in his typically “erase grace” manner.

 

Conservative heroes about whom Dan asserts are actually bad and vulgar people, criminals and killers, and frankly, as a rule, just generally not that bright.

 

Trump (corrupt felon, sexual predator and war criminal)

It can definitely be said that Trump is “vulgar” in the original sense of the word, which refers to the common or ordinary man.  Despite his wealth and celebrity, he’s very much like most Americans.  Thus, Dan finds Americans to be vulgar in the more contemporary sense: “morally crude/offensive”, which describes Dan’s type quite well given that which he supports, defends, celebrates and enables.

One example of this is Dan’s defaulting to Trump’s conviction in a clearly kangaroo court, the purpose of which was to interfere in the upcoming election and deny Trump a legitimate contest out of pure hatred and spite.  That his kind have a legitimate reason for this attitude is unproven and without true basis.  As is so common of the truly vulgar fake Christian, one need not have evidence for a charge against an opponent, but only has the assertion of the charge for that charge to be fact. 

The charge of sexual predation is equally devoid of true substance, but only the word of almost a dozen women, two of whom are, by definition, whores, another his ex-wife who admitted her charges against him in her autobiography were false and driven by spite. (She supported him for president).  No others have any evidence making their claims against him credible in the least.  The real issue here is that Trump is a well known womanizer, though no known case of his alleged “predation” involved force, and his “prey” were willing accomplices in his immorality due to the potential windfall for them had he made any of them his main squeeze.  In other words, totally consensual affairs.  Trump’s public (and not so public) joking about women provide haters and graceless fake Louisville “Christians” ammo to exploit to perpetuate a fantasy about the man for partisan gain.

The “war criminal” charge is pure stupidity which also lacks hard evidence to make it worthy of the time of day.

Reagan (war criminal)

This also is the fantasy of leftist haters…for many because this former Democrat left the party after seeing the light.  The abjectly hateful make this charge because he made life hard for actual war criminals.  Reagan is the other side of the coin tossed to decide between whether it is he or Trump who gets the trophy for best president since 1955 (the year of my birth).  Both raised living conditions of all Americans through economic polices which led to growth.  Both fought to defeat real threats to our way of life.  Both revitalized a US military previous administrations allowed to decay.  Both elevated the spirit of patriotism among the populace, making it OK to love America again.

Kirk

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Dan’s referring to Charlie Kirk here.  It’s fashionable for progressives to hate on Charlie Kirk as if they actually have legitimate reason to do so.  This young man died at the hands of “trans” enabler, partially for speaking the truth about the lies of the “pro-trans” community activists, but also because he had a keen mind regarding all the issues upon which he debated.  As Kirk was not in any way actually bad or a vulgar person as Dan defines the word, nor was he in any way a criminal or killer, that leaves on the nonsensical notion that he was in some way “not that bright”.  But then, this comes from the imagination of Dan Trabue who can’t even defend his own positions in an honest, straightforward manner as if he truly believes his own nonsense.  Dan just hates, and he hates truth.  Kirk defended truth, and that’s enough to put him on Dan’s hit list of better people he wants others to hate along with him

Jan 6 felons (violent criminals)

Very few of the Jan 6 defendants were actually held or convicted for violent acts.  Of those who were, it’s highly questionable how many acted without provocation given the unprofessional actions of Capitol police.  Yet, the massive amounts of destruction and people killed during the many “mostly peaceful” protests of Dan’s kind provoke no consideration by the likes of Dan.

White men who shoot black men (violent criminals/murderers)

Are abjectly few in number, far outweighed by the murders and other attacks on white people by black men, as all reputable sources confirm.  And it doesn’t come close to the number of black men murdered by black men…also confirmed by law enforcement statistics.  Not to put too fine a point on it, this is just Dan padding his list with fantasy from the race baiters and race hustlers he stupidly regards as credible.

ICE kidnappers and murderers...

There are none. 

White "Jesus," in THEIR conservative words (ie, not actually Jesus)

Our conservative words speak accurately only of the Jesus of Scripture.  Only racist Jeff St. grace erasing fake Christians speak of a “white Jesus”.  The hippie Jesus of which such people speak bears only the most superficial of resemblances to the actual Jesus revealed to us in Scripture. 

Now we look at “Progressive saints/heroes”...about whom Dan regards as actually good people noted for their great love and stands for justice for all and human rights.

 

Wendell Berry

This is a guy I’m now still researching, but the early returns leave me hard pressed not to regard this guy as highly overrated.  What he brings to the table is exactly the same pretentious tripe which those like Dan find so enamoring.  I’ll be hitting the Charleston library soon to find a few tomes of this dude to slog through what no doubt will improve my ability to sleep, but I’m willing to given him a chance as a writer.  What I don’t expect to see is anything written which is worth more than making lefties feel good…nothing of substance upon which a legitimate responsible society can act in a corporate manner to make life better for all.  Here I offer three of the only articles I’ve found which directly find fault in the guy, and while I don’t think I’ll find anything which makes me hate the guy to any extent, I’m no confident I’ll find anything which is more the idealistic drivel which comes with no legitimate plan of action to improve our lot as Americans…that is, nothing which is not already known to honest people:

 https://www.plough.com/articles/the-hole-in-wendell-berrys-gospel

I found a response to this which didn’t negate the points of contention raised by this author.

https://faithandleadership.com/allen-t-stanton-why-i-hate-wendell-berry

https://allenstanton.substack.com/p/when-i-hated-wendell-berry-why-we

As you can see, these two are from the same dude, the second of which prompted by responses to the first.  As one raised in a basically rural area which grew into something far more, I can relate to much of what he says.  It should be understood that none of it should be taken as a claim that Berry is some kind of horror show Dan pretends is true of the previous list.  I just think that the labels “saint” or “hero” do not at all apply to this guy, regardless of how I eventually might come to regard him after reading some of his stuff.  If he was the man Dan pretends he is, I’m left wondering why a guy like me, who reads all sorts of stuff, is not well familiar with him.  At this point, I would simply suggest he’s just some dude who writes pretentious stuff and thinks having his plough pulled by a horse makes him more noble or saintly.  Not a bad guy…just not at all a great one.

Barack Obama

This one is hilarious.  This is a guy who’s greatest accomplishment was to increase the cost of health care on the passage of a bill we were told would lead to a reduction.  He’s a fraud and his shipments of cash to the mullahs of Iran led to countless deaths and these animals being closer to launching nuclear weapons.  He totally trashed race relations in this country (his wife being a total racist) and overall did next to nothing for the black community.  He did promote perversion, which isn’t hard to believe for a guy who wrote about homosexual fantasies, allowed a homosexual to pleasure his member orally while he toked on a crack pipe (twice) and whose relationship with two different homosexuals who allegedly committed suicide was ignored as not even a reality by sycophants in the media, and of course rejected as conservative conspiracy theories by those like Dan.  (In the meantime, keep in mind, negative allegations by those of Dan’s kind against conservatives are as fact simply because the allegations were made!

Dorothy Day (who wouldn't want to be called a saint!)

Socialist who distanced herself from the term after converting to Catholicism and continued being a socialist. 

Annie Dillard

Not much found as yet, but what I’ve found suggests more pretentious crap of the type which tingles the lady bits of those like Dan Trabue.  How such a person, even if personally enjoyed, can be regarded as either a saint or hero requires some truly substantive arguments.  Just how has anything she’s written resulted in the betterment of the general welfare.

Just as for Dan accusing right-wing figures of evil makes the claim of their evil a fact, so too does Dan’s worship of whomever he worships make the person worshiped a deity.  No evidence required.  Dan has spoken.

Jimmy Carter

I present the following written by a lefty, who clearly has more on the ball than a simp like Dan ever could have:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/11/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy-2/

Hard to read and come away believing the writer is a conservative.  To this I would add his posturing during and after his presidency.  Carrying his own luggage for posturing purposes when in fact the suitcase was empty.  Pretending he’s making a difference by wearing a sweater and turning down the White House thermostat.  Wasting several acres of farmable land on solar panels.  Dressing like a carpenter to hammer in a few nails for the camera where volunteers for Habitat of Humanity were doing  the actual work, and then leaving after the shots were taken.  Validating corrupted elections as If he had the ability to truly detect fraud and the power to then do something about it.

Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr

The vile, vulgar and outrageous evil of this guy has been documented by both Chad O. Jackson and Matt Walsh.  King was the perverse sexual predator Dan wishes Trump would be.  King physically abused women, as was confirmed by his own associates.  He was a communist, a plagiarist and not really a reverend.  He certainly was no Christian and rejected much of basic Christian doctrine.  Dan likes to call Trump a con artist.  Kind was the epitome of such a criminal and people like Dan just fall all over themselves like perfect useful idiot sheep when references to King come up. 

Gandhi

https://allthatsinteresting.com/gandhi-facts-quotes-dark-side#19

Yeah…Dan’s judgement of character is unsurpassed.

Jane Goodall

I found this one to be a strange addition.  Goodall’s work with chimps is well known, but as I refreshed my memory of her life and times there are the typical leftist environmental slop which always warm the cockles of many a progressive heart.  On one hand, I think her work was indeed quite cool.  On the other, I have big problems with anthropomorphism, and Janie’s big on it.  I don’t care that animals have feelings, especially when I’m grilling one up.  Animals exist primarily for human benefit.  It’s not noble or godly to deny the use of animals for the purpose of scientific research in the development of medicines or anything else which leads to saving human lives. 

And then there’s this:

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/jane-goodall-book-scandal-most-journalis/

Yet, she might be the least offensive on Dan’s list.

Jesus, in his own words

Now here’s one who is not, because the Jesus Dan pretends to worship is a Jesus of his own making.  Dan’s Jesus is a hippie.  And when Dan speaks of “Jesus, in his own words”, he’s referring only to those words of Jesus he likes, as well as words he can pervert to mean what he needs them to mean.

 

What’s most glaring about Dan’s lists is how it’s yet another manifestation of that which is all too routine…he inflates and elevates the character of his heroes and does just the opposite with regard to those he doesn’t regard as heroes at all.  You’ll note he calls his progressive heroes “saints” and doesn’t use that word for the conservatives.  This is a noted symptom of Dan’s sin nature, which inhibits his ability to be honest.

The reality is that Dan’s two lists are really one list comprised of sinners…people with sin natures (I’m naturally exempting the true Jesus of Scripture and ignoring Dan’s cartoon Jesus who only superficially resembles the true Jesus of Scripture).  But Dan goes way out of his way to focus on that which he believes are positive traits of his progressive heroes while totally ignoring their negatives, which for several of them are indeed severely negative, and conversely focuses on the negatives of the conservatives, inflating their “missteps” and “mark missing” while totally ignoring their documented beneficial works.  It’s as if he put this list together in order to admit he’s a hateful grace erasing liar.