Dark Clouds Hovering

I've been hearing protestors are so loud they can be heard within the courthouse.  They intend to intimidate the jurors into finding an innocent kid guilty as if doing otherwise is some indication of "white privilege" or whatever crap these lefty race-hustlers are excreting now.  Why they've been allowed to congregate so closely to an official building, which after Jan 6 I'm given to believe is some sort of mortal sin, in order to engage in such intimidation is beyond my understanding.  It's not like Rittenhouse was beating a dude's head against the sidewalk for daring to watch over his community.  It's not like Rittenhouse was resisting arrest while high as a kite.  It's not like Rittenhouse struggled with a cop after strong-arming a convenience store worker.  It's not like Rittenhouse was struggling with cops after being confronted again for illegal cigarette sales.  It's not like Rittenhouse was resisting arrest for assaulting a woman and then going for a knife.  It's not like Rittenhouse was awakened while in a drunken stupor in a Wendy's drive-through lane and then resisted arrest.  No.  It's not like any of these situations where a low-life thug was shot or killed while cops were doing their sworn duty.  This kid was chased by rioting assholes, his life was threatened by them and he defended himself as is his God-given right.  

Now the media Dan defends pretends it would be different if he was a black kid, as if a black kid caught on film running for his life before defending against life-threatening attacks with lethal force would be treated any differently.  These morons seem to think everyone is a lefty.  

I'm for law enforcement and the National Guard repelling any rioters with whatever means their behavior provokes...from water cannons to rubber bullets to live ammunition if necessary.  No fires started, no buildings or other property damaged or stolen, no citizens assaulted.  If they can't truly "protest" PEACEFULLY whatever the hell they think is worthy of "protesting", then whatever results is self-inflicted.  And good riddance!

I hope the jury stands tall against threats made against them.  This is what the world has become...where good people must confront true evil even at the risk to their own persons simply for doing what circumstances require.  I'd hate to be in that position, but I hope I would have the stones to do what's necessary for the sake of law, order and the good of my community and/or nation.  

But this is what leftism has wrought.  They speak of "progressivism" but the reality is they are among the most backward, primitive and carnal people around.  Nothing at all "progressive" about a damned thing they do or hope to do.   They corrupt and despoil everything they touch and the result is MORE racism, MORE suffering, and MORE cultural decay...all from and because of them.  The left is fast becoming the very people God washed away with the Great Flood.  The rest of us must steal ourselves for what lies ahead if nothing is done to stop them.

Dan's Questions Answered In Full

 What follows are responses to questions Dan asked me in the comments section of his Nov 3 offering.  It's rather lengthy, but as he deletes all my comments these days because he hasn't the stones to actually deal with them, I decided to copy and paste them here before I post them there, where he'll no doubt delete them rather than rebut or debunk any of it like a man.  It refers to Jesus saying to the rich young man, an episode appearing in three of the Gospels, there is no one good but God.   It's pretty straightforward and therefore troubling to Dan, who can't seem to provide an alternative explanation for what Jesus meant, because Dan wants to believe he's good (despite his lying, heresies and support for immoral behaviors) and that he knows "good" people so therefore Jesus was wrong or something.  None of has anything to do with the post to which it's attached, but Dan digresses when he thinks he can score points doing so.  Anyway...

 

"Are you even reading what we're writing?"

Yes.  Question 1 answered.

"JESUS refers to people as GOOD."

Not in any of the verses you listed.  That's what I was asking you to provide.

"He commands people to DO GOOD."

Not the same as being good.  It's a goal to which we're to aspire and strive.

"CLEARLY, Jesus believed in Good people."

Even MORE CLEARLY, Jesus said there is no one good but God.  Why, one can actually find a verse where He says just that!

"BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and  see Good people."

BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see people WE pronounce as "good" people.  We've already covered that.  Still looking for Jesus referring to some specific person as "good".  You don't seem to have such a verse to present.

""Marshal... "Here again, you're doing no more than speaking of how we refer to each other relative to others.  Christ isn't doing that."

"SAYS WHO?"

Says me, based on the fact that it's exactly what you're doing.   

"I GET that YOU PERSONALLY, in your mind, when YOU read  this, YOU INTERPRET this to be Jesus is literally saying that ONLY GOD is Good in ANY WAY and that any people are NOT GOOD."

I'm not "interpreting".  I'm repeating what Scripture records Jesus as having said, which is that there is no one "good" but God.  But your addition to my words "in ANY WAY" seems very much like your lie about Lev 12:22.   

"YOUR are choosing to interpret it woodenly literally, even while you don't do the same for "poor" and other words."

I have the same sound and accurate understanding of this verse as I do every verse in which the word "poor" appears.  Can't say the same for you. 

"You don't gouge out your eyes as Jesus literally commanded." 

Now you're just lying again, because Jesus didn't tell anyone to gouge out their eyes.  EVER!  He merely said it would be better one did rather than sin through them and suffer eternal punishment or hell (whichever was the case in the passage where He mentioned eye-gouging).  Didn't you say you seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture?

"You don't take ALL words literally, but you are CHOOSING to interpret this one literally and literally is the ONLY way YOU personally are guessing is appropriate to interpret it."  

I never said I take ALL words literally.  That's what you want to believe I do.  I said I take Scripture  literally, or the teachings therein.  And again, I'm not "interpreting" this verse.  I'm repeating it.  There's no guess work involved or necessary because it's so crystal clear.  Perhaps it's your guilt over not being a good person that is the problem with your objection.  That I can understand.  None of us are.  It's just that some of us try to be, and you're a heretic.

"But just because YOU PERSONALLY think it doesn't mean that it doesn't mean that no one else's opinions are invalidated by your random, whimsical hunches."

"Whimsical hunches."  That funny as well as pathetically desperate.  My opinions are spot on until someone can persuade me otherwise.  That takes evidence.  Got any?

"Now, I'm done giving you grace."

OK, that's even funnier!  You delete my comments.  Where's the grace in that?  "I'm done giving you grace."  That's a stitch.

"Do you know any good people?"<i>

I know many people I refer to as "good".  Question 2 answered.

"I'm asking you do you know any good people as good is defined in the English language?  Answer the damn question."

I just did. Question 2 asked again and answered again.

"Define Good as you are using it. Give a definition."

That's a demand, not a question.  The issue isn't how I define the word.  The issue is that there is no one good but God, according to Jesus...someone you pretend to follow.

"Does that mean that others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?"

Compared to some, yes.  But it's only a reference...a means to describe someone's character.  I wouldn't use it to describe you, specifically, but I know plenty of people about whom I would use the word because they're better than most people.  But I believe what Christ says because...well...He's the Son of God.  I want Him to like me.

Question 3 answered.

"And if so, based on what?"

Actually, I'm sure I made this clear several times now, but what the hell...based on comparisons to other people and my understanding of what constitutes a good person generally speaking, though there is really no one good but God.

Question 4 answered.
 
"Your say so?"

Given you're asking me my opinion of people I know, yes.

Question 5 answered.

"Jesus regularly refers to good people..."<i>
Not that you've demonstrated.

"or humans doing good."

Doing good and being good are not the same.  Bad people can do good.  Indeed, given there is no one good but God, that clearly isn't the least bit uncommon.  He wants us to do good.  

"Do you think Jesus was speaking metaphorically in all those places?" 

No.  Question 6 answered.

"Which seems to suggest that any humans defining Good are only using their own made-up definitions.  Is that true for you, as well...or are you an exception?"

Doesn't suggest that in the least.  Everyone has there own ideas of who qualifies for the word.  Consider how many mothers of dead thugs cry about the thug being "a good boy".  And no, I'm not using a made up definition, but applying the actual definition to human beings, none of whom are actually good according to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ...who ought to know.  He is the Son of God, after all.  He's not totally dim.  Question 7 answered.  

"Jesus and other biblical writers referring to Good people or telling people to be good..."

The other biblical writers don't matter given the issue revolves around what Jesus said.  None of the verses you've provided satisfies the one question you're dodging...what did Jesus mean when He said there is no one good but God?  I gave you the only two possibilities (both of which I believe are true).  You think He was "messing" with the rich young man.  And now, you post a bunch of verses which do not provide an example of Him referring to any person as "good".  Fictional people referring to other fictional people as "good and faithful servant" is a specific person Christ Himself is referencing as "good".  Encouraging people to be good, isn't the same as saying anyone is good.  Speaking of how a good person behaves  (should behave, actually) isn't the same as saying some specific person is good.  

"(So, you're saying that God's a liar, Marshal. Got it.)(Or are you saying a man can be "BLAMELESS AND UPRIGHT" but still not Good??!)(The utter arrogance!)"

What's with all the parentheses?  It's not arrogance to speak the truth.  It's arrogance to say a sin isn't a sin, which is what you do.  Here, blameless and upright doesn't mean the same as not being a sinner or one with a sin nature, which a good person can't have.  

Question 8 answered.

Also, there's this: 

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.  Romans 5:7

This suggests a difference between righteousness and goodness, and thus, one can't be quick to regard "blameless and upright" as the same as "good"...especially since Jesus said there is no one good but God.  

"... and of course, I could go on and on."

Please don't...unless you actually have a verse that will prove your point.  If you do, why didn't you lead with it?  

"Now, about people doing good things, Marshal says, "Encouraging folks to be good or holy doesn't mean they are."

That is what MARSHAL thinks. But Jesus rebukes Marshal's foolishness, saying...

"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him"

So, who should we believe? Jesus or Marshal?

Marshal or our own eyes?"

Those last three are actually the same question, so I'm going to take the chance of calling them all Question 9 as I answer it now:

Jesus' words there doesn't rebuke me and thus, in this case Himself when He said there is no one good but God.  Once again, He is speaking of what a good man should or does do, not that there is a good man.  That is, if you want to be a good man, there first must be good stored up in you (as opposed to lies, heresies and support for immoral behaviors) in order to be able to bring out good things.

So Dan, you've totally failed yet again, pretending to have a different explanation for the especially clear and direct statement of Christ's, while not providing it at all, and then trying to pretend He meant something different by providing 13 verses which don't do what you said they do (and yet can go on and on).  

Jesus said there is no one good but God.  I know you believe yourself to be on par with God.  You often expect Him to subordinate His will to your liking.  But I choose to believe Jesus because I want Him to like me.  You want Him to change enough for you to like Him.  Good luck with that.

Rambling Musings

 In a recent post, our favorite Louisville leftist moron attacks the character of North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson for comments he made at a church on the subject of perversion forced upon the school kids of his state (and by extension, the nation).  He called it filth.  He did so because what he was referencing is filth.  Robinson provides a few snippets of the filth in this video response: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rMmQgBZIQ

Throughout the subsequent comments, Dan tries hard to defend the filth by joining in the unjust attacks on Robinson and the lies that he was attacking members of the LGBT community...those Dan loves referring to as "historically oppressed".  This stands as one of the first problems...lies, really...Dan piles up in his comments, not to mention the post itself.  

The LGBT community and their enablers...of which Dan is one of the latter and possibly the former given his out and proud support...love to demonize anyone who dares object to absolutely anything even remotely related to their agenda.  If you question a homosexual's necktie, then by golly, you're a hater and an oppressor with no regard for the "historically oppressed".  Of course, the reality is that this is untrue.  Just as one can enjoy the music of Elton John or the comedy of Ellen DeGeneres without advocating for their immoral and disordered desires and choices, it is also true that one can criticize those desires and choices without hating those people or wishing them harm.  Few conservatives do, though they seem to demand our hatred by their response to legitimate criticisms and objections.  Robinson was clearly attacking the practice of forcing their sexual habits upon kids in schools under the false guise of "sex education", which is a clinical instruction regarding the human reproductive system, not descriptions of homosexual...or even heterosexual...erotic sexual practices.  Again, check out the video for examples of what, for the activists and Dan Trabue, passes for "sex ed".  To insist they're deviants is being kind, to say nothing of accurate.

But that's not all we learn in the discussion.  At some point, Dan attacks conservatives as being somehow irrational fearful.  He cites a couple of lefty-leaning studies which ignore the nuances related to legitimate concerns regarding things like crime, terrorism, China and the like, while in the meantime, the left screams in terror at the thought of "climate change", "Covid-19" and "white supremacy".  Incredible.

Finally, as Dan hates that I refer to him as an intentional liar, he goes off in all sorts of panty wetting in protest of that which most anyone can see as a legit accusation.

Now, I know that some have suggested that calling him a liar is uncalled for if he truly believes the lies he tells.  But lies are lies, and when shown to be so, one is a liar for continually telling them.  This has been the legend of Dan Trabue, Liar Extraordinaire.   

So I asked a simple question to force him into choosing between truth and lie.  I reference "Caitlyn" Jenner and "Rachel" Levine and asked Dan if these two were men or women.  He said they were women, which is factually a lie and he knows this to be so.  He then whined about having answered directly, but he followed his "direct" answer with all manner of equivocation.  Then he chose to continue focusing on whether or not his answer was direct or not, while the most salient aspect of his answer is that it was an intentional lie.  

Of course, throughout this "discourse" he deleted my responses to his demands...as usual doing so despite my responses meeting his narrow and petulant criteria...and he again has proven himself childish and really not worth the time anymore.  More on that later.

One of his newest and most moronic practices is the constant references to "historically marginalized" people, and of course any criticism of them makes you an "oppressor".  This means if you criticize a low character woman like, say, Stormy Daniels for not only being true whore (one who trades sex for money) but also a slut (in this case, according to her, having sex with a man she knows is married), you are guilty of misogyny.  If you criticize LGBT activists who get schools to use pornographic comic books to teach kids to accept perversion, you're "homophobic".  Whores and homosexuals, you see, are "historically oppressed/marginalized" people.  

But if we look at more obviously oppressed people, say Jews, for example, and speak against them for their irrational support of the anti-Semitic Democratic Party, are you then a Jew-hater?  By Dan's way of thinking, that would be a "yes".

It's, of course, a lie.  Another of which Dan tells intentionally.  To criticize is not to hate, even if hate actually exists behind the critique...which we see when criticism comes from the left.  From most conservatives, hate of the practice, lie or policy is the point, not hate of the person...despite how it seems they really, really want us to hate them..."them" being the left, whose practices, lies and policies rational people do hate.  

A final point is this notion that somehow my descendants will look upon me as some kind of bigot for my Christian beliefs about LGBT people, black people, or whatever else Dan stupidly needs to believe I have wrong in order for him to be right.  If that would happen, then my descendants are just as stupid as Dan, fully given over to idiocy, lies and evil.  I would hate it if that is how my descendants turn out.  So far, it doesn't seem like it'll happen, but one never knows.  When so many are unwilling to step up and do the right thing as citizens of this country, allowing a moron to ascend to the presidency because the incumbent isn't perfect, doing next to nothing in between elections to compel proper behavior by our representatives...well...there's no telling how one's descendants will turn out.  There will come a time when I have no more ability to influence them and they'll be on their own.  I can only pray that God will be important to them in a real way which Dan only pretends is true of himself.  It will only be more difficult for them to do the right thing given the direction of the world right now, thanks to asshats like Dan.  

He's never been worth my time.  So many have written him off and denied him a forum at their blogs.  I won't say I won't continue posting comments at his.  My job is still one where I am left alone with little to do and no ability to do what I'd like (middle of the night when all are asleep and such), so commenting on line is something available to me, should there be a new post somewhere which interests me.  Dan provides because he's a moron always posting stupid crap.  But real "good faith" discourse...something of which he speaks but of which he isn't remotely capable...will only happen here and elsewhere.  Never at Dan's.  It's not how he rolls.  But he's a reflection of the worst of our kind, and seems proud to be so.  As such, he's a source for ideas and little else.

I Just Wish...

Somewhere around thirty years or so ago, I answered an ad for a singer in the Illinois Entertainer.  The band hired me straight off, I'm proud to say.  The drummer, Mike, is the best drummer I've ever seen.  Frankly, so was the lead guitar player, but this is about Mike.  

The band only lasted about a year...kinda typical for bands...but we had a couple gigs and considering the various bands I've fronted, this first was by far the best.  Mike was a big reason for that.  Not long after the band dissolved...kinda typical for bands...I hooked him up with my brother-in-law, and Mike was their drummer for a couple of decades at least, with periodic reassembling after they parted company.  

At one point, back toward the beginning, I got Mike hired where I worked at the time fixing typewriters (those are these things people used to use before computers).  Mike was a good worker.  Back then, getting high was routine...kinda typical for bands...and we'd get a buzz when certain tasks had us working together in the field.  When he was driving, he'd pull out a pair of drumsticks and hammer away at the dashboard at traffic lights (and sometimes while steering with his knee).  The dash was a mess, the vinyl having torn from the abuse.  Needless to say, drumming was always on his mind.

Mike had married his high school sweetheart, and they eventually had two girls. Then they eventually divorced.  Part that was Mike's musical interests, no doubt.  It could also be that Mike was always compulsive and impetuous with his spending.  He'd see, then buy.  I think he was probably always paying something off, as he always had new expensive stuff.  If it was not new drums, it was recording or sound equipment.  In the townhouse he and his second wife bought, the basement was decked out as a studio, where his various bands would play and record, and he'd make some extra bucks helping bands make demo tapes.  I had the pleasure about ten years ago of recording a couple of Christmas songs.  I had hoped many times to get back there to do more songs as well as a few with him, because he's a really good singer as well.

He had a third daughter with this second wife.  The girl was the apple of Mike's eye.  She took to the drums and continued to play as well.  He would often post videos of her in the studio.  She's really good.   

Last year was especially hard for Mike.  As a self-employed painter/decorator, Covid had really hurt his ability to earn.  Then, he suffered a brain aneurysm and needed surgery for that.  He had one helluva long scar across his hair line to remind him of it.  More recently, it was suggested he and the second wife were not getting on all that well, though I don't know that for sure. Then, his third daughter, now 14, revealed to him that she wishes to "transition" and become a boy.  I learned his oldest daughter had already done this.  

It's really a kick in the ass when you learn the hard way of just how despondent and distraught a close friend is.  About two hours ago, while I was still at work, my brother-in-law called me to tell me Mike had hung himself in his garage.  

Shit.

Hear These Black Voices!

 We're told we must listen to black voices.  With that admonition in mind, I wish to present two for your edification.  

The first is North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson.  This is a man who espouses conservative values on various issues, such as the 2nd Amendment.  Not long ago, when I first became aware of the man, I liked what I heard from him, but then read something that is less than ideal.  We normal people call that "human imperfection", but I don't recall what the problematic position, issue or opinion was, so I'll just leave it there, in order to acknowledge that I don't regard him as perfect and nothing more.  

Recently, Robinson has raised a stink among the deviant class for comments he made regarding the use of certain extremely vile and indoctrinating materials in N. Carolina schools, which seek to normalize the abnormal and perverse.  Oh, the outcry that went out among the activists and enablers of abomination!  He was accused of attacking the pure, noble and angelic homosexual and "transgender" population...those incredibly holy people who are nothing but a blessing to us lowly heterosexuals...especially us knuckle-dragging adherents of God's Will.  

Of course, the truth is that he did no such thing.  His position on these abhorrent masses is no different than any other conservative/conservative Christian, which is, while we acknowledge the disorder and immorality of their beliefs and behaviors, we allow they are still free Americans with the right to pursue their freedom, even if that freedom includes indulging in all manner of perversion and deviancy, which is what they're most interesting in protecting.  We normal people simply don't believe they are entitled to the special rights they've been granted.

But rather than once again going over that debate...a true good (conservative/Christian) versus evil (progressive/fake Christian and atheist) debate...I simply wish to focus on the crux of his opposition.  Robinson spoke out against the inclusion of homosexual/"transgender" filth in classrooms across his state (and of course, across our nation in general, ultimately).  It's bad enough that either of these disorders would be referred to as no different morally than normal human sexuality.  Indeed, that's filth all by itself.  But what Robinson was referencing was absolute porn exposed to school kids as "sex education".  The reality is that the materials are "how-to's" with regard to erotic sexual gratification, not clinical explanations for human procreation, which is the extent of what schools should dare provide to students of any age, from K-12.   What follows is a video he made to respond to the howling of the immoral assholes who dared pretend he was doing anything wrong by his opposition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rMmQgBZIQ

Our very own defender of counter Christian practices, Dan Trabue, was offered this video at least once...I believe at least twice, actually...and deleted it without comment, without argument, because like the lying activists he cherishes and joins, he prefers to pretend Robinson was doing nothing less than attacking "historically oppressed" people.  Give me a break.  What "oppression" LGBT people have experienced is the result of their choice to indulge their disordered fantasies.  Their enablers and defenders wish to pretend their unholy practices and desires are somehow akin to skin color, sex or ethnicity.  But then, they're hellish liars in defense of their immoral desires.

The next person is one Jason Whitlock.  This man came to my attention really within about the last six to nine months.  Tucker Carlson has had him on numerous times, though I'm not exactly certain that's the only or first place where I saw Whitlock.  (Of course to the leftists morons, the mere fact that JW appeared on Tucker Carlson's show is enough to write him off as an Uncle Tom or worse.  That's how lefties roll, them having no integrity, honesty, class or intelligent argument of any kind on any subject.)  He's spoken on several different subjects, and unlike the "black voices" we're told by "progressives" are so important, Whitlock is not likely to spew the BLM level crapola Lousiville lunatics believe is beyond reproach.  

In any case, Las Vegas Raiders coach (now "former") Jon Gruden spoke badly of a black man in an email to a friend ten years ago.  Those and other emails were caught up in some kind of investigation about some company's dirty deeds of some sort, though they were simply personal emails.  (There's a lesson there...there's nothing "personal" on the internet anymore...if there ever truly was...and certainly not when posted while at work or from/to work related email addresses.)  There were other comments he made, calling someone a "faggot", expressing his displeasure at how Jeff Fisher, while a coach himself, was pressured to draft an open homosexual, despite the player being less than pro-material, and for some topless pics of a cheerleader (don't know where he got those).  But the main thrust of Whitlock's comments were in reference to Gruden's comments about a black dude.  The following contains his perspective on the incident, and particularly on a response by former wide receiver, Randy Moss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaW59KDA3kY

What really struck me with Whitlock's response was how it mirrors what I've said numerous times in the past in relation to the use of pejoratives, including those of a "racial" nature, i.e., the hated "N" word (horror of horrors!).  Jason truly maintains the tried and true "sticks and stones" position which has been rejected in favor of socially destructive victimhood identity.  

Again, both these fine men are rather new to me.  Thus far, I'm impressed as hell with each of them.  They seem quite clearly to be the type of men of which we need far more in this nation, as opposed to the spineless, panty-wetting "girly men" of the left who have done so much harm to our culture.  Men.  Real men, and in the case of these two, two more "black voices" far more worth listening to than those the vile Dan Trabue prefers.  Indeed, they are black voices black men need to hear.   

Morons like Dan Trabue aren't interested in race, except to exploit it in the way lefties do.  They also do the same with the sexually disordered and immoral.  They can do know wrong which can be pointed out by conservatives, because the point is to defeat conservatives no matter what it takes to do so, and that includes pretending they're being hateful about people when expressing displeasure with behaviors.  That's because lies are important for achieving the "progressive" goal.  That goal evidently is the destruction of our culture.  These two black men aren't having any of it, and God bless them for it.

Note:  The Whitlock piece is from his show and is about 40-45 minutes, but he gets right into that which I reference right from the top.  I haven't listened beyond about 15 minutes of this particular episode. 

Our Butthead In Chief: Part The First

 I've really been wanting to get to this series about our Butthead-In-Chief.  The problem, though, is how many different angles one might take with such an endeavor.  It's a veritable cornucopia of bad.  A defender...assuming any actually exist...would be hard pressed to present any examples of good policy from this guy...or any in his administration.  

So where to begin?  I thought I would start from the beginning, as he immediately began signing all manner of executive orders after being sworn in.  A great deal of them...if not most of them...were simply reversing Trump policies, just because they were Trump policies.  Of those, I heard not one argument from him...or any of his people...regarding why the Trump policies he reversed should have been.  It's seems clear the only reason was that they were Trump policies and thus they must be bad.  The most galling aspect is how this putz acts like he knows they were bad, though he couldn't possibly articulate in just what way.  That's kind of his thing and always has been throughout his dismal career taking up space in the Senate.  He acts like he knows.  Like he's got it all figured out.  Like he's an old hand who has accomplished so much he can condescend to anyone.  I like how Clarence Thomas referred to Biden's act during his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice.  Biden just babbled about "knowing" because they were both lawyers.  But Biden's a moron and Thomas was stunned that this buffoon was trying to pretend he was knowledgeable while saying nothing to which Thomas could actually respond in a manner which would humor the guy and not look just as stupid doing it.  

But I digress.

So where to begin?  There's so much, but one thing that totally chaps my ass is this use of the IRS to pry into our personal effects.  Biden's proposed legislation would allow the IRS to have more information on bank accounts with more than $600.  If this isn't a breach of the 4th Amendment, I don't know what is.  It's a constant fishing expedition which is akin to presuming guilt of everyone and anyone, looking for wrongdoing on the premise they wish to ensure payment by rich folk.  I would assume most rich folk have accounts a bit larger than $600.  In any case, it seems to me that this is something which should require a warrant after providing evidence of wrongdoing.  

When Trump was president...and really, it is pretty much the case with all Republican presidents...the left whines about authoritarianism and despotism.  But this current administration has proven it is not the least bit interested in American principles such as those laid out in our Constitution.  This is just one more example.  

But this is what comes from voting Democrat.  This is what comes for pretending an effective president isn't deserving of a second term because of tweets and irrelevant, insignificant character flaws which have no real effect on anything.  This is what comes from pretending one's conscience won't allow one to vote for Trump despite the obvious consequence of allowing this moron Biden to become president, as if God is cool with such a conscious decision in the face of such a wealth of evidence that there can be no good to come of it.  It's like allowing a fire to be set in an inhabited building because the firemen party and whore about and suggesting the result is in God's Hands.  Those who refused to vote for Trump have purposely allowed this travesty to wreak havoc on our nation.  This legislation is but one example.  There's so much more that I fear I'll fall behind in recording it all. 

Waiting On The World To Change

 The title of this blog post is taken from one of the worst songs of this century (yeah, I know, it's still early), written and performed by John Mayer back in 2006.  When I first heard it, I found it to be a nice tune.  Then I began listening to the lyrics.  Doing so revealed what crap it is.  I don't know if it reflects Mayer's position or if he's commenting on how others feel.  But the message is crap and shameful.

There have been a number of times when I spoke about the notion that one's refusal to vote for Trump has been no better than complicity in the many sundry consequences we've suffered as a nation since the election was stolen back in November 2020.  To say one's intentions were good, or that one's conscience compelled that decision and thus absolves one from that complicity is an incredibly weak defense.  While God may be satisfied, despite the obvious truth, so plain to see and predict, of harmful result...with only the degree to which that would occur being the only question...the fact remained that harm would indeed befall us and those who denied the one man...flawed as he is...who stood in the way of those dire consequences and would have likely continued improvements for another four years are indeed culpable. 

My repeating that truth is not truly relevant to this post, but I intend to repeat it often and so I did.  The point of this post is the strange position I've seen expressed by two dudes from my FB friends list, who each were bloggers themselves and thus how I came to know of them in the first place.  I like them both, without any doubt.  I find both to be smart, insightful and politically and religiously conservative.  But of course that doesn't mean we're identical and on the subject I'm about to relate, we are in total disagreement. 

With the reality of last November's election and the many examples of fraud and irregularity which are only in doubt by the left, who's only concern was denying Trump a second term and the nation its liberty and rights, and for whom truth and honesty is never sacrosanct, many good people in America are expressing various degrees of disillusionment, disappointment and distress over what it means to our future and that of our progeny.  The integrity of our electoral system is justly regarded as non-existent now by so many.  Again, that's a justified opinion given what transpired during the last presidential campaign.  It's really hard to pretend otherwise.  But my position is that voting is still essential for a free people.  It's an obligation for a government of the people regardless of the many ways leftist forces will seek to rob us of a legitimate outcome...as is their history in this country.  

The sad decision by these two men...and I don't believe they're all that unique...is that because of the criminality of those who so clearly cheated in so many ways...the AZ audit has provided a nice list of findings of "irregularities"...is to refuse to participate in the process of voting.  One of them expressed words to the effect of "until things change", he would not vote for president again (perhaps vote at all, but for president absolutely).  The other fellow pretty much echoes the worthlessness of making the effort given how little has been done to deal with the cheating.

Of course, as I indicated, Arizona's audit is a good step, as it identified a variety of problems uncovered by an analysis of the Maricopa County results.  It would be foolish to presume that county is some kind of outlier, especially since we already know of one or two states who exploited the Covid-19 pandemic to ignore federal and state constitutions to alter election law, which made cheating easier and with that, the elevation of one of the stupidest men in American politics (which is saying something).  

But what of ourselves?  I've argued more than once that voting is the least of our obligations under our form of "government of/by/for the people".  Indeed, some do no more, casting a vote because of a preference for a party they cannot truly defend...either the party or the preference for it.  But even if we are actually paying attention and vetting candidates to the best of our ability, once the vote is cast and we're dealing with whomever had won, our job isn't finished until another two years goes by...assuming voting in the midterms is something one does.  No.  We're supposed to be far more involved than that!

We're seeing examples.  Many school boards are feeling the heat from parents over two particular travesties imposed upon their kids:  masking and other Covid-related nonsense, and the imposition of the falsehoods of Critical Race Theory and/or the 1619 Project.  But, you see, had those parents been more involved with their local school boards, how many districts would be run by moronic leftists harming our kids with their soulless, immoral agendas?  Depends on the character of the parents, no doubt, but at least these two policies would likely never have been imposed.

And that's what's missing on the federal level.  I won't argue against how badly the character of state and federal government has degraded.  I will argue that we the people could have done more to mitigate it, and we now, more than ever, need to step up like actual adults and do whatever we can to force the change which is necessary to stem the tide of stupidity which threatens us all.  Yeah, pray often.  But don't think "it's in God's Hands", when we're meant to do His Will, which means WE are His hands!  If we are truly concerned with His Will being done on earth, we must do His Will, and that doesn't mean doing nothing on a political level. 

We have busy lives.  We have a myriad of concerns monopolizing our attention in the day to day.  But to leave in the hands of politicians our lives...THAT is what we're truly doing when we do nothing but decide whether or not to vote.  It can't be helped as that is what voting is in this country:  Finding the best people to represent and/or lead us, but doing so on the basis of what WE believe is right and just.  And in doing so, we are not merely leaving things in God's Hands, but in theirs as well.  If we continue putting things into the hands of fools, God will likely allow us the consequences of that choice.  And the world upon which we await change will reflect that sorry abdication...as it is doing right now.