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.