A Great Ruling From SCOTUS Aligns With American Principles!!

 It was a great day in discovering the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision against Harvard and the University of North Carolina for their racist affirmative action policy in admissions.  No longer will they be able to consider the race of a student applicant.  This is a boon to those kids who actually have proven themselves to be the creme de la creme of high school graduates and will no longer be passed over by those with lesser merit due to racial characteristics in order to meet nonsensical "diversity" quotas.  

From what I'm hearing, Harvard in particular is already crafting a work around in order to continue the fiction of "diversity is our strength", but at this writing I haven't the details to go into that one way or the other.  Given their recent history, I wouldn't be surprised if they went so far as to appeal the ruling...if that's even possible.

Affirmative action policy is racial discrimination in the other direction.  For whatever reason, Asian students are routinely at the top of the merit pecking order, surpassing all other racial groups, including the hated white kids.  But worse than that is what these policies have done to too many black students who weren't truly suited to the level and pace of institutions such as Harvard.  Even within a single racial group, kids learn at different paces and in different ways.   My own daughter, who spent her entire four years in college on the dean's list, had been "demoted" from a math class in high school which crushed her greatly given her own desire to achieve.  To be told she wasn't capable to keeping up in the highest level as devastating, but the eventual consequence was that she kicked ass in the "second best" class, as she was just on the cusp.  She might have done well enough in the toughest class, but she was aces due to the recommendation that she not be in the "Harvard" class.  This has been a problem for too many minorities whose race or ethnicity got them into the top universities, taking spots which students with far better GPAs were then denied.  Because, a school can't have too many Asians, right?  No matter how freaking smart they might be!  What would that do to their reputation for churning out the best and brightest!!!

As an aside, because of a teacher with whom my daughter clashed, she was placed in an English class which was somewhat remedial for her abilities.  The teacher didn't understand how this genius was placed in this class, and quickly got her into a more advanced English class where she belonged.  She would have been bored out of her mind and might have done poorly as a result of waiting around for the others to complete what she was able to accomplish in short order.  That is to say, she would not have been challenged, and this too is a consequence of being prohibited from placement due to the institution's desire to satisfy the woke morons of academia.  

In any case, this ruling likely only applies to universities.  Corporations can still pretend they're better off with a rainbow coalition (and by that I don't mean queers, though they are to be part of the the "diversity over merit" policy of any "progressive" company for whom profits and longevity apparently have no value.  Were I to be the top dog in a large corporation, I wouldn't care in the slightest if my entire work force looked like the Aryan Youth, so long as they were the best at what they do and made my company tops in the industry.  For that matter, I wouldn't give a flying rat's rump if the whole place was populated by black people so long as they were the best, too.  That's because I'd only hire based on quality of the applicants and no other reason (though if there'd be any dickheads, they'd be let go post haste and replaced with better).  

Years ago I applied for a job for which there were two open positions available.  They ultimately trained three of us and we all knew only two would survive.  I was too concerned with learning what I needed to know to compare myself with the other two, but eventually I was not the odd man out.  How much my striking good looks played a role in their decision I can't say, but I do know I proved myself capable.  That's how it's supposed to work if one wishes to have a successful company, and if one wishes their institution of higher learning be regarded as the best.  The ability of the workers and students is what matters and "diversity" is a scam into which only stupid people buy.  

Thus, I'm most pleased that the SCOTUS did the obvious here.  The dissenters...Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson...were horrified at the majority's ruling.  But then, they were diversity hires themselves, so it's not at all surprising that they chose to pretend a great injustice was perpetrated.  Affirmative Action had was always a bad idea, though I believe it was well intended.  But it never required an Einstein to see the problem of its own racism in reverse.  That's no way to deal with bad attitudes.  One simply stops and rejects them in favor of better.  It wouldn't have been so bad had the various fields of endeavor not lowered standards in order to provide a place for those who weren't actually capable, but instead were said to have been denied on racist grounds.  The quality of life thus dropped accordingly.  There was a time when I lived among a population almost entirely white (one black family on the other side of the block).  Merit was all that mattered.  How horrible it was for any of us who didn't measure up but were of the same race and thus had no race card to play!!  We actually had to work harder or find a different area of interest or work.  

Finally, I don't begrudge any quality individual who took advantage of favorable laws and policies to get to the top.  Clarence Thomas, I believe, claimed to have been one such person.  Thankfully he's brilliant anyway and may have been able to get where he is regardless.  But if a funky law is in place, one is an idiot to not take advantage if one can.   However, we're all better off when the funky law is rejected in favor of truth and common sense.  In this case, that's been done.  I hope Harvard, UNC and any other university who played that game will get on board.

Leftist Shamefulness: Borders Edition, Part One

This is not the post I intended to do next.   But Dan has again compelled me to change my plans due to his shamefulness and hate.  So this is in response to the comments section of this post, which is his lamentation about a Biden immigration move.  To get to the problem I saw, apparently Biden's move runs afoul of a 1980 Refugee Act, which I, to be honest, haven't studied in depth.  Basically, Dan's whine is the this act allows alleged refugees and asylum seekers to pass through countries which could offer them asylum to come here, and the fact that they made it to our borders means they get to enter and be welcomed without fear of deportation, regardless of where along our lengthy border they choose to enter.  That is, they're able to be allowed in even if they avoid legal ports of entry. 

I find this to be incredibly stupid, as it provides for all manner of abuses.  If one is being persecuted, and the next country across the border is a place where I can find sanctuary, that's the country where I'm obliged to seek asylum.  Dan insists, due to this goofy 1980's act, that they can ignore all other countries between their home and here which might provide them asylum in order that they can avail themselves of our racist threats all they like.  As Dan insists, it seems clear he wants all seeking "asylum" to come here only.  He's an idiot. 

So I will be going through comments he allowed me to post, and his less than accurate restatement of those he deleted to demonstrate the stupidity of leftist immigration policy and how shameful it is.  Let's begin:

As he deleted my initial response to his post, he says of me "that he disagrees with the 1980 Refugee Act - without giving any reason more than it was BS" and "it likely never anticipated what we now face along our border thanks to Biden and other open borders...'supporters'", and " He seemed to object that people could say they're fleeing danger when he doubts it."  Neither of these is close to an accurate reflection of my actual comment, except for what those who crafted the 1980 law expected would happen down the road.  There was nothing like the number of illegal border invaders in 1980 as there has been over the last ten to twenty years, and damn sure without a doubt what we've suffered since his presidential choice was inflicted upon us since Jan 21, 2021.  But while I said it was a BS bill, I didn't say only that.  What I stated at the outset of this post was a more fleshed out example of what I did say.  Dan jumps on anything he thinks will disparage those who disagree with his marxism.  Then, of course, I NEVER said anything even most liars would construe as what he said my objections truly are with regard to the invaders themselves.  

My position has been crystal clear for quite some time:  We're not obliged to accept as truthful every claim of people insisting they're fleeing danger, and more so, our government is absolutely obliged to make sure such claims are actually true.  Dan doesn't care if a claim of persecution is true or not, because to dare question such a claim spoils Dan's desire to posture as a compassionate Christian, which is just something Dan tries to exploit to push his marxist crap.  The primary obligation of the government of the United States of America is the people of the United States of America.  Our safety and welfare, not the safety and welfare of foreigners.  And any policy which fails to fully vet each and every foreigner seeking asylum here, to ensure they are not acting contrary to our laws, is a threat to the safety and welfare of the people this government must regard as of primary importance.  For those allowed to make a claim, they must be housed in a secure facility and NOT allowed free access to the nation until they are confirmed as actual refugees from legitimate harm.  None of this crap of assigning court dates too many ignore once allowed free movement into this country.  

"Marshal complained that progressive and rational people are concerned about actual white supremacy and nationalism in our nation and them asked why any refugees would want to come here."

Pretty damned logical question to actual rational people, I insist.  But of course Dan lies here, as I never described his ilk as "rational".  If he's going to quote me, he should actually quote what I actually say.  Here we see the shamefulness of his practice of deleting comments for whatever lame-assed reason he'll pull from his backside.  But the rest is, as I said, logical.  If the left insists we're such racist, nationalist assholes, how could anyone truly concerned for actual refugees do nothing to dissuade them from coming here.  How much safer will they be with all the racists and nationalists roaming about?  One of the two positions is a lie.  Either racism is a real issue here among those who wish for a secure border, or it's not.  Either this is a safer destination than their home, given our rampant racism, or it's not.  It can't be both.  Keep in mind, there are those who say our nation is not a safe place for foreigners, but it ain't due to "white nationalists" or "racists", but by thugs Dan also defends.  Dan follows with this moronic gem: 

"Ignoring the point that self-determination is a human right."

This statement was attached to the previous, and obviously it has no relation to it.  But I'll put that aside and just insist it is yet another concept Dan and his ilk corrupts to push his agenda.  Here, he's saying "self-determination" justifies ignoring the laws of our country regarding immigration.  We as a nation are not allowed to determine if we benefit in any way by the invasion of these people alleging they're fleeing harm.  But it doesn't stop with "refugees"...legit or otherwise.  No.  To Dan, it includes people who want to find a job, as if they were starving in their host countries.  Has anyone reading this observed any invaders who look like they missed a meal...who are wearing rags?  No.  To Dan, "self-determination" means "F**k the Americans and what they want!  They must subordinate their desires to OUR 'self-determination'!"  We're under no such obligation in any way, shape or form.  

"Marshal said he didn't care about other nations offering asylum or doing so in a way that wasn't safe for refugees..." 

Another intentional lie on Dan's part...which he does as much as his Biden does.   I said I didn't care that other nations don't provide to the same degree as we do.  If refugees insist other nations they passed through weren't safe enough, that doesn't mean they weren't safe enough to satisfy international law regarding where one should take refuge.  "Well, they're safe...just not as safe as the United States."  That's pretty easy to say.  But why should our nation simply accept that excuse for why they didn't take refuge there?  Again, morons like Dan don't care.  Morons like Dan are trying to posture as more caring...except where fellow Americans are concerned.  

"...that it's all about we who are here (read, "the white people like me who are here and don't want them here...")

Again, my point is that it's all about our government putting its own people first, and not pretending there's no risk to them by welcoming foreigners about whom nothing is known except whatever story they tell of themselves...no vetting...and allowing them to freely roam under the promise they'll show up for their court hearing to determine whether or not they qualify as refugees or asylum seekers.  Dan prefers we just assume there are no liars among the crowd, that they're all just innocent "victims of oppression" simply because they say they are.  

And of course, Dan the racist can't help accusing those with rational and fact-based opinions of racism, as if it matters at all to me from where any migrant comes and what race they might be, because...you know...embrace grace.

"...and ended with an appeal to national sovereignty, ignoring that a nation that is sovereign but turns away refugees is not a good nation."  

First, "national sovereignty" is no small thing.  It's the authority of a state to govern itself...it's "self-determination" which Dan believes is of primary importance for anyone but ourselves.  All nations claim this authority...this "right"...without which there is no nation.  

Then Dan lies by implying there's a specific call to turn away refugees, rather than close the border in order that we can in a more orderly fashion, determine who among those claiming to be refugees truly are.  This of course also calls into play what "refugee" means, or what constitutes a refugee to whom we might have any legitimate obligation...morally or otherwise.  Again, Dan is cool with simply accepting any person who claims to be one.  And to Dan there is no right belonging to any nation to dispute what constitutes a "refugee".  "I'm fleeing abject boredom!"  "No problem!  C'mon in!"  We're under no obligation to accept anyone without question.  Dan insists we must, or that we who aren't morons like him intend to deny those who are truly in danger.  Because...you know...embrace grace.

"Marshal also ignores that we HURTING for employees and WE would benefit from more workers coming here, if he's wanting to be just selfish about it and ignore the human rights side of the things."

As is so typical of the fact adverse left, we are NOT "hurting" for employees such that we need to allow unregulated invasions of foreigners to fill any void.  As with open borders proponents from both sides of the aisle, Dan ignores so much in pretending his is a rational argument:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/16/do-we-really-need-more-immigrant-workers/

In a very real sense, this argument represents another manner of artificially affecting the economy, most especially wages.  There's nothing selfish about being priced out of work due to invaders being hired at lower wages.  It's not a human rights issue to allow such to happen in order for posers like Dan to posture as caring, compassionate people while the lives of his own countrymen are disrupted.  

"And Marshal, I get that you personally don't care about the laws (and common sense) that ensure as a basic human right the liberty to seek asylum, but it IS the law."   

We often see Dan whine about "unjust laws", but where he finds a law just, we all should just accept that it is, which the 1980 law isn't quite.  But more importantly, aside from the fact that I haven't suggested ignoring or breaking any law like Dan allows the invaders to do, it's not a question of seeking asylum.  It's a question of ensuring those who insist they need it, those who insist they're refugees from some great danger, can prove it.  Again, Dan would have us be as moronic as he is and simply accept whatever the invader says is the truth.  In the meantime, screw the Americans killed in various ways by the hands of the invaders.  Like most lefties, Dan doesn't care about anyone, but truly cares least for his own.  Just let everyone in so the Trabue-type asshats can pretend they've done good, while people, including invaders as well, are harmed and exploited.  Our nation has always welcomed both legal immigrants and actual refugees seeking asylum.  I haven't said or done anything to oppose that.  

"I can't fathom WHO is opposed to people seeking asylum?" 

There's very little Dan can't fathom, and he refuses to acknowledge the truths of what he can.   So here again we see him lying, as the more than implicit message in his comment is that such opposition exists, choosing to pretend it's about actual asylum seekers as opposed to those coached to say they're asylum seekers when they're caught crossing the border illegally, or to simply seek out officials to whom they can pose as people fleeing danger.

"WHO is opposed to people leaving an impoverished area to try to find a less impoverished area to be able to support themselves?"  

No one I've ever met.  But we have protocols for that, and it doesn't include sneaking or barging in without regard for our sovereign borders and laws...or the private property of our fellow Americans.

"The right to self-determination is a basic human right.

Can you at least affirm that much?"

It's not at all at issue here.  That crap argument doesn't justify subordinating the self-determination of our nation.

" If the place - the nation - where you live became dangerous and you couldn't live there and feed yourself, would YOU want the freedom to move - immediately! - to some place that is safe and where you could feed yourself?"   

When you can pick out of that crowd who of the tens of thousands are fleeing actual danger directed specifically at them, who are without the ability to feed themselves (I've yet to see anyone who looks emaciated), then we'll talk.  For those who simply want or need a better gig, they can wait in line at the front door, like so many good people have done and still do.  There's an actual, legal definition of "refugee" in U.S. immigration law.  It goes like this:

(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.   

Pick out those from the tens of thousands at the border who match that definition.  Then we can talk about asylum, which looks like this:

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry   

Note the first and last point.  That seems to conflict with the 1980 Refugee Act, but it's from the USCIS website: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

I'm going to leave it there.  I'll be doing possibly two more on this issue depending on how long the post gets, but I wish to address Dan wetting his panties over comments I made at his blog.

 

An Example Of True GOP Shamefulness

What follows is a response to a response to a message from me to my member of Congress, Nancy Mace.  I moved here just in time to vote for her.  I never will again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently responded to a most recent email from you entitled, "Springtime In The Lowcountry", in which you proudly announced the introduction of "a bill called The Women’s Healthcare Anti-Death Penalty Construction Act to categorize the death penalty for women who seek an abortion as “cruel and unusual punishment,”" after which you said, "No woman should be sentenced to death for seeking an abortion, that’s just crazy."  In reply to my response, you emailed me the following:

"Rep. Mace believes it is outrageous to give more rights to rapists than women who've been raped. It's, quite frankly, an extreme and disgusting position to take. And you know what, the bill in SC that was proposed is worse than the Taliban. If you have an abortion you get 7 years in jail with the Taliban, but to the extreme lawmakers who proposed the SC bill that would execute women who have abortions, that's far far worse. It's abhorrent."

Before I respond to this response, I want to point out a major problem with the email, a linked story from a local NBC affiliate news site and first, a quote from the first paragraph:  "No woman should be sentenced to death for seeking an abortion, that’s just crazy."  I don't know that there is any jurisdiction who sentences anyone to death for seeking to murder someone.  What is at issue regards those women who actually went through with an abortion.  Is this a slip of the tongue, or an intentional distortion to more effectively demonize those who defend innocent life?  I don't believe anyone ever got the death penalty for trying to hire a hit man, or conspiring to murder, so why would you say that? 

Next, from the article to which you linked:

"It is part of the right against cruel and unusual punishment..." 

Capital punishment for murder is not considered cruel and unusual punishment in 27 states (though there's a moratorium in three of them).  That it is ostensibly considered cruel and unusual punishment in the other 23 states is absurd given it is no worse than the crime of murder itself, and the fact that the sentence is not hidden from public knowledge and thus, one who murders knows up front the punishment if found guilty, yet murdered anyway.  What's more, what punishment better fits the unjust taking of life if not CP?  How does one demonstrate compassion for the life of the innocent but by promising death to any who murders?  "We revere life to such a great extent that justice demands the life of one who murders."  That's not cruel and unusual.  It's justice for the dead and the dead's survivors.

Among the worst of murderers are those who murder children.  Even most who oppose CP have a harder time opposing CP for those who murder children.  And when that murderer is a parent of the child or children murdered, most people are more righteously outraged to an even far greater degree.  But when it comes to abortion, we're to ignore the FACT that what is being terminated by the pregnant woman is her own child and pretend that's not murder at all?  THAT is just crazy, not executing a woman who murders her own child.   Indeed, it is in no way "a manifest miscarriage of justice".  It IS justice.

And who else most qualifies for CP?  The hitman.  To take money to murder another will almost guarantee a death penalty sentence.  And your bill would remove that incentive to not murder for the hitmen involved in abortions...the "doctors" who perform this most heinous of human acts.  
It is a stain on the character of this nation, and more so on any of its people, who argues there's any difference between a person born versus one soon to be, to the extent they are willing to dispense with logic, science, truth and absolute compassion for life in order to rationalize the unjust termination of the most innocent and defenseless of our kind.  No one who presumes to identify as a "Constitutionalist" would dare attempt to argue against life in such a convoluted way.  Indeed, such a person is a liar of the worst kind.

" Such right is clearly established at law..."

Again, those who claim to be "Constitutionalists" cannot pretend this "established law" was established based on any known Constitutional principle, as the Dobbs decision clearly reminds us.  And then to rely on this sham of an argument further confirms the dishonesty of one who puts such forth.

  "“Executing a woman who chooses not to carry her rapist’s child to term is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment,”"

Actually, it's not even close to the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.  Here's a much more accurate example of cruel and unusual punishment (Scroll down to section "E".): 

 https://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/horror_of_abortion.htm

The "mother" who aborts and is sentenced to CP would not be subjected to any of these forms of cruel and unusual punishment to which she agrees to submit her child.  And for what is her child being punished?  For the "crime" of having been conceived.

"Life is sacred and should be valued. Executing women goes directly against that belief. We should, for the American people, reject extremism on both sides of the aisle."

A more egregious example of straight up lying and deception would be hard to find.  If you regard life as sacred and to be valued, then how can you allow the unjust murder of the unborn while never punishing those who murdered the child?  We execute murderers as a demonstration of our regard for life, as we insist that to murder demands that the murderer must also die.  One doesn't demonstrate regard for life while at the same time granting regard for the murderer who took it. 

As to "extremism", please explain how true regard for innocent life is in any way "extreme".  One needn't be an actual person of religious faith to understand how the defense of innocent life is pretty basic stuff for anyone who wishes to be regarded as a decent human being.  But you only want to consider the life of people who unjustly take innocent life...preferring to somehow still describe them as "innocent" or "victims of extremism"? 

(The following was not added to the message to Mace, but should have been, since it addresses the "pro-life=religious" canard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDLBwInFTdg&t=423s)

To further prove your contemptible dishonesty, you pretend it matters that a woman seeking an abortion may have been raped.  The hyperlink to H.R. 2430 does not provide the text for public viewing.  But nowhere in your email or the article to which it links makes any mention of rape in the bill, nor any reference to how a woman might become pregnant before having the child murdered by an abortionist on her behalf.  But as you seem to suggest that's the sole impetus for your concern in introducing a vile bill such as this, you might want to talk to any of the many people conceived during a rape for their input on the matter.  You can also find any number of women who's child was the result of their having been raped, yet like true women of honor, they didn't hold it against the children so conceived.  Sure, there are women who are so traumatized they can't get past the resemblance of the child's face to that of her attacker.  Others who feign such trauma.  They can all be aided in finding good psychological help in learning how to cope and to separate the child from the father.  They can also give the child up for adoption.  

Now, for my response to your response.

Who, aside from George Soros supported D.A.s and prosecutors, give rapists any rights at all, much less more rights than their victims?  Name these people.  No one who defends the innocent and defenseless unborn do.  If any were to have murdered their victim after raping her, he would without question be a dead man walking.  What kind of crap is that?

 But this issue concerns those who murder the unborn...not anyone who simply partook in its conception, unless of course the father was active in aiding and abetting in the abortion.  So NO ONE is suggesting such "an extreme and disgusting position" but you.  And I don't give a flying rat's ass what the Taliban does or what any other country does.  We're talking about the corrupt character of THIS country, a corrupt character of which I see no evidence of your efforts to improve.  We are not a "good people" when we abuse children and less so when we murder them at any age or at any stage of their development.  We are scum.  And by "we", I mean you and those like you.  It's abhorrent and outrageous to give more rights to women who've murdered their children than to the children they murdered in the womb.

You need to do a 180 on this crap sandwich.  It won't win you back my vote.  That's long gone now.  But a reversal by you expressing the facts, logic and truths your bill ignores might result in the lives of thousands of children saved.  It may also lead to women (and their men) being more mature and responsible.  But those who murder children must be punished severely.  OH!!!  That brings up one more point:  If you oppose executing these murderers, just what punishment do you suggest instead?  ANYTHING AT ALL? 

Leftist Shamefulness: Dan's Troll Edition

This is a special post for an incredible world class scumbag.  Apparently this demented asshole needs so badly to have his vile crap heard, he'll submit an example of his typical low, God-hating character to the comment section of a post about a far better man who is now passed, likely in God's Holy company...a place which is a very unlikely destination for the troll in question.  

Someday...  

Someday...

R.I.G.P., Eric. Rest In God's Peace.

 It is with great sadness that I report to you the passing of fellow blogger Eric Ashley on March 24, 2023 after having suffered a serious stroke on March 12.  

He hosted two blogs, Pearls & Lodestones as well as American Descent.  Due in part to failing eyesight, he hadn't posted much on either in some time.  The first was his original blog, where he opined on any number of topics.  He was one to take deep dives into subjects he felt compelled to discuss, and his insights on matters Christian and political were particularly fascinating.  As to the latter, American Descent was begun during the Obama years and was co-hosted by yours truly and one or two others he invited for the purpose.  We all had the ability to publish posts there, though most were his.  After that sad eight years ended, it waned.  I encouraged continuing despite better things happening as a result of Trump's election, as we both agreed the "Descent" was yet ongoing.  Now, of course it's far worse than the Obama years, so maybe I'll see if I can still post there and try to carry on in his memory.  We'll see.

His wife privileged me, through the use of his Facebook account (Eric and I were in contact there), with the news of his stroke and updates on his condition afterwards, until God called him home.  Let us pray God gives her comfort, and to his two sisters as well. 

He'll be missed.

Leftist Shamefulness--Perv Edition

I've begun and started over, "torn it up" and started over again at least a half-dozen times.  The problem I've been having is due to several reasons.  As it deals with the constant, never-ending shameful behavior of shameless leftists/progressives/socialists/Democrats (same things), there's a never ending supply of new examples which I feel compelled to include.  I've stored so many examples since Dan Trabue's Jan. 10th absurdity "Shame, Shame and Shame", I struggle to pick which ones to include.  To highlight them all would span at least a dozen posts.  I can do that.  I may.  But how do I begin?  

I've decided I'll begin with the arrogant reprobate himself and go from there.  His posts from that point to now are enough to fill several posts.  I'll try to be succinct, but I make no promises there.

To begin, I want to go to a recent post of his:   

http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2023/03/i-hate-your-religious-festivals-more.html

The title alone is shameful, but I'll get to that later.  Let's dive into the post itself.  He wastes no time, spewing crap from the jump.

"Not that it's likely to matter to people like the conservatives who need to hear this..."  There's really nothing Dan can say to conservatives they need to hear, unless it's something like "keep your feet off the coffee table".  No one should have their feet on the coffee table, regardless of political affiliation.  It's shameful for Dan to dare condescend to better, wiser, more intelligent people. 

" - the ones who routinely think they know what's best for everyone else, better than the experts, better than the people involved and their families and allies..."  When it comes to dealing with low character, low intellect people like Dan...and leftists in general...the typical conservative does know what's best, or more appropriately are more likely to know better regarding the foolhardy behaviors they advocate and defend.  It's not hard to see stupidity and know how to improve the state of the stupid.  One needn't even think hard in order to come up with a solid plan of action.  Where Dan is concerned, it's especially easy if how he describes things is anywhere near accurate...which is always in doubt given we're talking about Dan.  It's shameful of Dan to suggest he has accurate info about an issue, particularly when he can't provide any to prove it.

But what we know is best for everyone means ourselves included.  So there's that.  And it's shameful of Dan to imply conservatives are unaware of there own shortcomings, about which they typically strive to overcome or transcend, when pointing out clearly immoral and destructive behavior falsely and "self-servingly" portrayed as morally good or benign.

Then there's Dan's "experts".  My how he thinks citing unnamed experts wins the day!!  But there's a huge problem with citing "experts", particularly those who he needs to think provide the proof that validates leftist support for perversions and other forms of lefty nonsense.  (We're keying on perversion here, however, because of the blogpost to which I linked above)  All Dan thinks he needs to do is say, "experts say" and we're expected to fold up camp and hit the road.  But it doesn't work like that.  Dan is keen on demanding evidence...HARD DATA...and the like from conservative debate opponents in order to make any claim of any kind.  If we try to say "experts say", he demands we provide those experts and irrefutable evidence.  Of course it is never irrefutable if it contradicts Dan's side of an issue.  Indeed, all our experts are somehow fanatical religious zealots, though he doesn't even try to support THAT wild claim.  They just are because they disagree with behaviors he champions and about which I wouldn't be surprised to find he fantasizes.  Here's a bit about "experts" which justifies suspicions about Dan's:

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/when_not_to_trust_the_experts.html

It's shameful to cite unnamed "experts" when there are so incredibly few who actually do any research...never mind the poor quality of it, as it's only intended to support an ideology rather than seek truth...while the vast majority of Dan's "experts" merely parrot the crappy studies and research which doesn't do jack to make their case.

Anyway, moving one, Dan writes that he "attended a large rally last night with hundreds of  LGBTQ, Drag performers, preachers, church folk, city leaders and allies."  In other words, a pagan, Christ-hating religious festival.  Attending perv parties and deviancy townhalls to support the immoral and disordered is shameful.  He goes on to say he heard "that the LGBTQ community is telling anyone who's listening that they're living in terror about these anti-trans, anti-drag laws being pushed by conservatives" and that "these laws WILL kill LGBTQ people, including children"!!!  Wow! That's a shameful as hell lie!!  Now, I've no doubt they're living in terror.  They're mentally defective.  But they're also blatant liars, so perhaps the terror they feel is exposure.  But really.  Who cares if those who embrace sinful behaviors live in terror because of their choices?  Thieves live in terror of arrest.  Are there townhall rallies for them?

But of course, as every honest people understands fully, those aren't "anti-trans" "anti-drag" laws.  They're pro-children laws and they are vital for protecting the best interests of children against the pervert adults pressuring them to join the perv party.  These laws do nothing more than restrict exposing children to their lies about transitioning or grown men prancing about garishly costumed as hyper-sexed women being a good thing.  These laws have no means to kill anyone, particularly these pervs and the kids they corrupt.  It's their own disorder which kills them.  It's mortally shameful to suggest such a lie as truth.  But he goes on...

"They told us that the pretenses of the anti-drag laws are fallacious, built upon lies not supported by reality."  

Sure they did.  But that isn't true.  These laws are proposed because grown "men" prance about in front of children dressed as hyper-sexed caricatures of women...which is a major insult to women, as is men "transitioning" in order to pretend more easily they're actually women, as if they have any idea of what being a woman is all about.  Some have even shamefully deigned to explain to women what being a woman is like.   But the shamelessness just gets worse:

"In my own Kentucky, for instance, the conservative religious bigots"...bigoted against perversions Dan gleefully embraces.  That's a good manifestation of bigotry.  It's aligned with God's own bigotry against sin, and His is the best company in which anyone could ever be!...."are saying they have to protect children from sexually explicit performances like Drag Queen Story Hours (DOSH)... but that simply doesn't happen at DOSHs.  It's a lie meant to attack and demonize, which attacks actually DO cause harm."  So much wrong here.  First, there's no citation of any Kentucky ordinance which proves those fine child defending conservatives have any legit misunderstanding about what a "DOSH" is all about.  The egregiously shameful lie here is that it isn't a performance.  Of course it is.  First is the garish costuming as a hyper-sexed caricature of a woman.  They're presenting themselves as a woman.  They're "ACTING" the part of a hyper-sexed woman.  Then, they're "ACTING" as if they truly care about kids.  If that were so, then why the costume?  I dunno.  Maybe the little kids think the circus is in town!  With all that makeup and nonsensical attire, they do look like clowns more than actual women! 

Then of course there's this lie about righteous and truth-based criticisms of these perverts causing harm.  There's never any real evidence to support this wildly false claim.  Dan wouldn't tolerate such an intentional refusal to provide any, yet he never walks the talk.  

"One Drag Queen point out the false claims that they're "sexualizing" and "grooming" children, but as she testified - and the crowd roared in approval - she was NEVER groomed by any LGBTQ people, NEVER harmed by any LGBTQ people."

The above is hilarious!  First, the truly "false claim" here is Dan referring to this creepy perv dude as "she".  HE is not a "she", and it's a straight up intentional lie to say otherwise.  

Secondly, the response to the truthful charge that he's sexualizing children is his insistence he himself was never groomed by "LGBTQ" people, or never harmed by any.  So what?  What does that have to do with the molestation in which he now engages, even if it's true?  Answer: nothing.  He's grooming kids to buy into the agenda.  This is an unassailable fact.  There is no benefit to the kids to appear before them in their perv outfits and make up.  None.  

Thirdly, "and the crowd roared in approval"!!  Of what?  Of "testimony" they hear and pretend is true simply on the dude's expression of it.  What does Dan think these guys are going to say?  Of course, maybe what Dan thinks was a roar of approval was a roar of amusement!

Fourth, it doesn't require abuse by a perv for an emotionally weak individual to drift toward a manifestation of perversion.  The lack of a good father can be enough.  The lack of a father-figure at all can be enough.  Whatever drove these guys to their perversions is irrelevant beyond their therapy sessions.  What matters is that they choose to expose their perversion to small children with the intention of indoctrinating the children to accept perversion.

Dan then goes on to demonize Christianity...because he's really not a Christian.  He worships worldly things...as if Christians are wrong to steer the perverse away from their perverse intentions.  He says, 

"Let's talk about who's actually grooming!"

Uh...we are.  It's the pervs Dan loves more than anyone, likely because he wishes he could let his true self out.  But let's be real here:  "grooming" is done by every parent, every adult who has authority over kids to teach and guide them.  Good people, those not like Dan, "groom" kids to be good, upstanding Christian citizens, or something akin to it.  Dan and his kind groom kinds to be the opposite.  "Grooming", as the term is currently used today, clearly refers to leading kids to sin...something against which the Jesus Christ to Whom Dan only pays lip service sternly warns.  But Dan's a promoter and defender of such things.  He celebrates clear immorality as good.

"Many of the speakers talked about how they were so oppressed, demonized and reviled by conservatives, including those who said they love them - their family and church family - they they felt it would be better to just kill themselves."

This is a personal favorite lie to hear lefties tell.  First, to pretend that all these people are opposed by conservatives alone demands evidence Dan and his worshiped pervs will never provide.  Such evidence doesn't exist because none of these people care to back up that assertion.  To the false, any opposition can only be conservative because no lefty is put off by the lies of the agenda activists.  Yeah...right.

Secondly, Dan has yet to provide any testimony of any kind from any of these "oppressors and demonizers".  That is to say, how do we know these "oppressors" didn't do all they could to help these pervs cope with their perv compulsions without totally surrendering to them?  The immorality of their behavior is unassailable, but the left has decided to market those behaviors as morally good or benign, simply because the perpetrators are too weak to man up and reject them regardless of the ongoing temptation to indulge.  Thus, the left plays God and tells God His list of sinful behaviors is not worthy of respect.

Thirdly...and I've gone into this in detail in past discussions...these whiny pervs have not by a long shot suffered as has the millions of black slaves during the pre-Civil War years, and no scholarship exists to suggest suicide was a common remedy.  Indeed, it was extremely rare, and usually a case of taking an incredible chance at freedom, when success seemed very unlikely.  Yet Dan's angels, proclaiming a false courage given how little they're actually abused by conservatives, haven't the spine to endure while lacking the spine to overcome.  

This also brings up the notion that these people are somehow truly targeted for physical attack, though I don't believe mentioned it directly.  At the same time, the whine about being "oppressed" and "demonized" suggests attack to one degree or another, so I'll just go ahead and speak to the physical.  To that, I offer the following:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-the-left-claims-theres-an-epidemic-of-anti-trans-hate-crimes-theyre-lying-here-are-the-facts

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/the-left-is-lying-about-a-hatred-and-violence-epidemic-against-transgender-people/

The second was linked from the first.  The point of presenting it was to provide more evidence of the shameful lying by the activists for the cause...and the hapless, know-nothing enablers like Dan.  It really comes down to this:  They assert a claim and Dan swallows it like a hungry sheep.  I'd wager Dan hasn't done a bit of vetting of any of the crap he's ever posted or promoted as "proving" the lies he defends are actually facts.  Indeed, he goes on to say:

"As children, this is what conservative mistreatment had led them to.  According to them."

...and...

"...LGBTQ folks are their own best experts and that the actual experts agree with them..."

Too bad that's not how this works.  One needs evidence to support one's claim (at least that's what Danny-boy demands from those who disagree with his desperate hopes and wishes).  Having some sick, disordered person stand as his "own best expert" is laughable crap.  They can insist what they like, assert what they like, express any and every opinion they might have in pushing their disordered perversions, but none of that makes them an expert on anything beyond what they insist must be true or they'll stomp their feet.  

Dan next goes on with more bigotry against "old white religious conservatives", once again presuming there are no young ones, no black, Asian or Middle Eastern ones, no lefties and no atheists who accept the reality which is so in conflict with the lies of the LGBTQ agenda.  Shameful to say the very least.  

He also wants to believe the tide is turning and soon all will just love disorder and perversion and possibly become disordered perverts, too, I guess!  And why not, if Dan thinks they're just such good people?  He wants us to "stand with the marginalized and oppressed", which is how he refers to those indulging in and promoting immoral behavior.  These sad, pathetic sinners are "marginalized and oppressed" in the same way thieves, murderers, muggers, the lazy, the gluttonous, and so many other sinners are.  It's good to shun the unrepentant sinner and cast them out.  We're certainly not to lionize them, or pretend they're not the disordered immoral sinners they are.  That would be shameful of us, and I don't want to be anything like Dan.  

 I'm going to switch his last two bits:

"Choose to side with freedom, justice and decency.  Choose to side for children and families and healthy lives."

I'll get to the freedom bit in a moment.  But "justice"?  There's nothing just about enabling the demands of these people.  True justice would entail allowing bakers, florists and photographers to live and work as they see fit without being forced to bow down to perversion.  And "decency"?  These people are the epitome of indecency.  But Dan is keen on calling good evil and evil good.  It's what reprobates do.

As to siding with children, families and healthy lives, this is another laughable suggestion on his part given how everything he supports and enables is exactly the opposite.  It's shameful to pretend he actually gives a flying rat's ass about any of that while at the same time supporting those whose lives and demands are so destructive of all three.  

Finally,

"And it should go without saying that any hateful comments made here will be deleted."

This is Dan-speak for "don't disagree with me or I'll throw a hissy-fit and cancel you".  The contortions required to post there and NOT be regarded as being hateful is just too much.  It's shameful the way any and all contrary comments and opinions get deleted under the guise of defending people who don't read his blog and his bullshit about hatefulness.  The following is shamefully emblematic of the attitude of those like Dan and the pervs he regards as children of God:

 https://www.theblaze.com/news/gay-letter-ultimatum-dad-viral?xrs=RebelMouse_fb

 

Prayer Request For One Of Our Own

 Eric Ashley is a fellow Christian/conservative blogger who has been rather dormant of late due to a variety of reasons beyond his failing eyesight.  I think like many, he lost the fire some of us have to continue posting...which is fine.  His blogs are Pearls & Lodestones and American Descent.  The second is one to which I was a contributing poster and focused on the decay of our nation during the Obama years, though such a blog is far more important now thanks to Trump-haters.  Eric's posts were always well written, thoughtful, insightful and informative.  He is among those I lamented not seeing routinely on the blogs, so good is he at doing what we do.

Now, and I am remiss for not posting sooner, Eric has fallen prey to a stroke which put him in the hospital.  Perhaps his wife contacted you with this sad news through some form of social media, as she did with me and another former blogger with whom I engage on Facebook (and whose name I'll not divulge at this time out of courtesy).  

To get to it, he suffered this stroke earlier this week and was hospitalized, where surgery was performed to remove a blood clot from his brain, followed by blood thinners to dissolve what surgery couldn't get.  He's been able to communicate, though at the last update I got, it's through eye movement and gripping his wife's hand.  Prior to the surgery, he was able to recognize family members, he knew where he was and why, and that remained so after.  His physical manifestation has been a "pull" to the right...his head, for example...and facial distortions on the right side as well.  

At last communication with his wife there was no prognosis at that time on his recovery beyond having survived the surgery, and should I be granted this information as time passes, I will be updating this post or leaving it in the comments section.  So stayed tuned.  

So it goes without saying prayers for his speedy and full recovery are appreciated by Eric and his family, both for his and their sake.  May it be God's Will.

ADDITIONALLY:  I would be remiss if I didn't also request continued prayers for Neil Simpson...another very fine blogger...who is also dealing with serious health issues.  He speaks of it at his blog, Eternity Matters, which is on my blog roll.