And This Is Only About Illegal Invaders!

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/05/trying_to_get_through_to_my_liberal_friends.html

The above article is a great example of just how foolish the "progressives" are in their vice-like grip of stupid positions.  Because Trump said it in regard for the loyalty of his supporters, his detractors ran with it as an admission of truth, that there's nothing Trump can do which would separate him from his supporters.  No evil, no great mistake, no outlandish deception...No.  We'll just support him regardless.

But what the article presents is evidence of more projection by the left...that they will not stop supporting leftist politicians or policies no matter how much evidence is provided to expose the idiocy of such loyalty, while stating MAGA is will never abandon Trump regardless of any evil act he might perpetrate.  

And this is only about illegal invaders!  It really holds true on any issue one can imagine. My previous post gives a list which demonstrates the concept as well.  Craig's been providing even more evidence of this phenomenon also.  And what's truly amazing is how wildly idiotic the progressive politicians and their policies are that it's beyond me to make sense of how anyone can continue supporting them.

Divided House

 https://washingtonstand.com/article/empathy-disorder-the-key-difference-between-left-and-right

I've been sitting on this thought for awhile as I considered how to address it.  Still not sure about how to go about it, so I'm just going to shotgun it.  What matters most is the point itself, which is that there is a serious divide between the right and left in this country.  This division has been driven largely by the left as their ideology has become more and more twisted and perverse over the last several decades...one could say since the 1960s or perhaps the 50s.  It was during this time that the most drastic differences between right and left began to increase, with the right remaining more faithful to both the founding principles of the nation as well as of our Christian faith, and the left becoming more twisted and selfish, willing to pervert those principles to serve their more carnal interests. 

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/yes_leftists_are_evil_here_s_how_they_got_that_way_and_why_you_ll_never_change_them.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html 

 

Conservatives:  Truth and morality are fixed.  We must discover them and live accordingly.
"Progressives":  Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate.  They are what we need them to be.

The above illustrated distinction is pretty much the Alpha and Omega of the differences between right and left.  I have so many examples, but they are all truly variations on the above theme.  

Conservatives:  Discriminate between harmful/immoral and beneficial/moral behaviors.
"Progressives":  Call conservatives "bigots" for opposing harmful/immoral behaviors "progressives" favor in favor of beneficial/moral behaviors.

Conservatives:  When the GOP refuses to support Democrat budget proposals, Dems say "the GOP is holding America hostage!"
"Progressives:  When the Dems refuse to support GOP budget proposals, Dems say "the GOP is holding America hostage!"

Conservatives:  Seek elected office to improve the nation by making it more secure, more prosperous and safer for its law-abiding citizens.
"Progressives":  Seek elected office to impeach, arrest, imprison or inflict suffering upon Trump and his supporters.

Conservatives:  Believe the first duty of government is to its citizens.
"Progressives":  Don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=030mc-kn67w&t=3649s

The above video also speaks to the problem of "progressive" women as judges.

Conservatives:  Seek to persuade through reason, logic and facts.
"Progressives":  Seek to threaten for lack of a compelling argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC4TUjA4u_0

I could easily add so much more to this list, though there are so many more obvious differences (none to the credit of "progressives") which have been highlighted many times already, so I'll leave it here.  I'll just finish up by saying that what divides us these days is something malevolent which manifests in the character and behaviors of the typical "progressive".

Now THIS Is Interesting!

 I just came upon an interesting story:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/01/white_leftists_go_after_a_black_man_trying_to_start_a_business_in_their_neighborhood.html

Who do we know who lives in this city and constantly proclaims the goodness and virtue of "progressives"?   Hmm.  It seems there's someone.  It's like the name is on the tip of my tongue.

No.  Really.  It's someone who insists he stands up for minorities.  A real champion of the poor and marginalized.

It'll come to me.

Mark Missing

I've been reading some of Jesse's back-and-forths with feo and in them are found similar semantic games as are commonly played by Dan.  Jesse handles feo expertly, but like Dan and the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail, feo fails to recognize when he's been reduced to just a stump.

But it brought to my mind a recent favorite of Dan's in referring to "sin" by the definition of the word in the ancient languages in which it appears, and given I've time to kill, I thought I'd put virtual pen to virtual paper on the issue.

"Sin", in the ancient languages, is defined at least in part as "missing the mark".  Loosely explained, it refers mainly to archery.  The bullseye would be the mark, and the arrow hitting anything else (or nothing at all) would be "sin", or the missing of the mark, as it missed the bullseye, which is the mark.  That's all well and good, but it demands this is the only definition of the word or the only manner in which it was meant to be used, or the only manner it which it was ever applied.  Dan never offers any evidence or support that the word can only mean this specific thing, but let's run with it for a bit:

So "the mark" is something specific at which one aims one's arrow.  In practice or competition, it might be the typical target which commonly comes to mind (think "The Adventures of Robin Hood", starring Errol Flynn).  Once again, I refer to the bullseye as being the mark one intends to hit.  In both scenarios, we have different degrees consequence.  In practice, to miss the bull is pretty much absent of consequence beyond the miss itself.  It means nothing more except that more practice shots are required to eventually hit the bull and to hit it consistently.  Such consequence is no true big deal beyond that.  

But in competition, to miss the bull can mean losing the competition and failing to win any prize offered by proving one's self superior to the rest of the archers.  That's a greater consequence, as it also includes the practice time having been for nought, if no intention to compete ever again exists.  OR, it means MORE practice...and more intensive practice...must be put in if one intends to compete again, or simply if one intends to improve as an archer.

At this point, the consequences are relatively minor.  But what is archery but skill with the bow...which is a weapon...and for what purpose?  To kill, either in hunting or in war.  Miss the mark while hunting, and the consequence is to go hungry.  Miss the mark in war, and the consequence can be the enemy not missing his...which is you.  

Dan uses the term as if it's referring to a mistake...a big "Whoopsie!"...as if there was no intention to sin, or worse, that if we simply say, "Saahhh-reee!", all's well because...you know...grace or something.  

Now, to be sure, the High Priests would indeed offer blood sacrifices to God on behalf of the people for the atonement of their having "missed the mark", including when they did so unknowingly, which is truly to sin "unintentionally".  This penal substitutionary atonement for their sins was the consequence of having "missed the mark", and as imperfect a sacrifice of an even "without blemish" animal was, God's graceful forgiveness was bestowed as a result of that consequence, which was death.  

What then, is the "mark"?  Obedience to God.  God's Will.  However one chooses to put it, it is God.  God's "mark" is defined by Him for our benefit in Leviticus 19:2, wherein He tells His chosen (and by extension, Christians, too) "Be Holy, because I, the Lord your God, am Holy".  

That's the mark.  And strive as we might, we will fail plenty to be holy constantly.  But to sincerely seek to hit the mark always, we are forgiven our "misses" by our faith in Christ Who gave Himself as the Perfect Penal Substitutionary Atonement of ours "missing the mark" by virtue of having offered up Himself as the Perfect Lamb of God.

Let's move on.  What of those who ignore the target, or those who alter its size or in some other way choose the terms for what counts as hitting the mark or even if we need worry about taking up the bow in the first place?  This is what Dan defends.  Not merely sincerity in attempting to obey God's commands or to be holy.  Oh sure, he mentions such.  Constantly complaining that we're speaking of perfection only, and that eternal punishment is the consequence of merely being imperfect (as if compared to God's perfection, that's insignificant).  But that's diversion from the reality of his defending willful disregard for the target.  He's choosing to make the striving for obedience optional, or worse, assuming the authority to inflate the size of the target so as to make missing it impossible.  

And here's where Dan's notion of  "missing the mark" fails so obviously.  It's when he's defending the two most egregious examples of disregard for the Mark:  LGBTQ++++ ideology and infanticide (AKA, "abortion").  In these two examples, we see a clear and unmistakable disregard for the Will of God, as there is no arguing there exists a context where either can be perpetrated and not be in starkly in contradiction to His Will.  Yet, Dan will "admit" that he "might be mistaken" and won't be held accountable by "a just, loving and merciful God" for merely being mistaken.  What is plain here, however, is that Dan isn't "missing" any "mark".  He's not even aiming at it.  OR, he has erected his own target of his own choosing and of his own design and dares call it "God", so that he can continue to falsely proclaim himself "Christian".  

Of course, it must also be said that intention means everything when considering the written word.  How a word is defined is often a matter of its most common usage.  The question becomes, what did the ancient Biblical authors mean when it chose a word used in archery to describe disobedience to or rebellion against the Will of God?  Does this choice of words mitigate the incredible seriousness of disobedience and rebellion, or are we to truly believe that God isn't serious about encouraging us to "be holy"?  If "holy" is His perfection, and it is the "mark" to which we're to aim, our imperfection is a serious matter about which no one, including those like Dan and his craven ilk, should be so glibly dismissive.  What does God want and how can we know?  His Will revealed to us in Scripture is not cryptic on matters of human behavior, particularly these vile behaviors Dan defends and enables.  When Dan makes his "case" with regard "missing the mark", he is doing what he always does regarding God's Will and that's to pretend there's some mystery or ambiguity to it which allows for him to believe what no honest human being, Christian or not, could ever agree is true.  This attempt by him misses that mark entirely.

Lovers Of Life? I Don't Think So!

This past week it was revealed that the execrable JB Pritzker, failing governor of Illinois and laughingly considered an actual candidate for the Democrat campaign for president in '26, has passed a euthanasia bill in his state.  Many on the left...morons all for thinking this dude should be governor...hail this as a victory for "death with dignity".  That's funny.  Suicide is somehow "dignified".

The pat argument is that for those enduring horribly painful suffering, doctor assisted suicide is a "right" which everyone somehow has and, by golly, it's high time they were afforded this exit strategy to relieve them of their suffering.  

My father-in-law was no longer willing to live on by virtue of life-support measures...hooked up to machines which helped him breathe more easily...nor by being served hand and foot by his wife and family unable to do anything for himself.  This was the state to which ALS had led him slowly and he decided that if it was his time, then he will no longer deny Death his desire.  Thus, he chose to remove all life-support measures and see what happens, knowing that his end was damn near guaranteed.  He did indeed pass away as a result, with his family surrounding him.

So how is this different than euthanasia if death is so likely?  Well, he wasn't killed.  He was allowed to die if Death chose to take him.  Euthanasia means one is being killed, not "allowed to die".  "Red", as he was known to many (coincidentally, as was my actual father), did die with dignity because his ailment was taking him one way or another, with it only being a matter of when.  It should have and would have happened well before his decision were his life not supported by medical equipment.  

So that's the difference.  What Prickster has done is just another leftist life-taking measure.  Whereas he supports taking life just begun, he now allows life to be taken later in life.  That's so progressive, isn't it?  

Now, we have to wonder just how this will play out in the future.  I don't know the details of the bill...what limitations are written into it.  But I can't help but feel confident that this will be allowed for lots of people who are not suffering extreme and unrelenting pain.  I can't help but feel that it will simply lead to tons of suicides.  

One thing I have just read is that it requires that the death certificate of the patient not mention euthanasia...or the ingestion of drugs or however one is put down...as the cause of death, despite it being so.  No.  They're required to put whatever illness from which the patient suffered as the cause.  That is, coroners are required to lie.  

Again, "progressives"...who make lots of noise about opposing oppression, infringement no human rights and other highfalutin posturing...show they are not the lovers of life they want us to believe they are.  Abort the children, kill off the elderly and sick.  

But what else?  How about cashless bail and the release into the general population violent, often insane criminals who will again rape and murder?  How about defending the "right" of illegal invaders to remain in this country regardless of their character, just because Trump chose to do his duty and send them packing.? How about defending drug runners on the pretense Trump has no idea if they're drug runners or fisherman?  As we've seen in discussions at Craig's blog, what counts for abuses and oppression is really a matter of who is the abused and who is accused of abusing.  The reality is more often than not, the abusers and oppressors are the progressive left.

Stunning News!

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/no_nobody_on_the_right_is_celebrating_the_murder_of_director_rob_reiner.html

By now perhaps everyone who visits here has heard the news of the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife allegedly at the hands of their own son.  I can't imagine such a thing.  

What doesn't surprise me is the contrast between this senseless act and that perpetrated against Charlie Kirk.  I've seen nothing thus far which in any way mirrors or parallels the vile response by way too many lefties after Charlie's murder.  

Clearly, Rob Reiner was a political moron.  He was Trabue-level stupid in his regard for Trump, and possibly just as hateful.  His talent as regards film and entertainment was obvious.  I've enjoyed every move of his that I've seen, and that would be most of them...some of them immensely.  Now, as Monica Showalter said, we'll never see any new stuff from him.  

But that aside, there's no joy in conservatives at his passing.  Conservatives just don't operate that way.  It's among the many stark differences between us on a general level...and I would humbly say, to our credit.  Or perhaps more appropriately, to the discredit of the left, who seem to always, to one degree or another, speak in terms of us "dying off" or straight up killing us, depending upon the leftist with one is specifically engaged.  (And to the dismissal of some lefties, that's not at all unheard of.)

I just can't put my mind around what could possibly compel such a reaction to any issue which might arise between one person and another.  This came up with this tragic situation, as well as with the Brown University killings which also just happened over the weekend.  As to the Reiner issue, I would hope the son does some serious time, but will have his issues fully resolved whether his life ends in prison or he someday gets released.  

Very sad.  Very sad.

This Post Had No Title. Now It Does. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT LIKE US!

Note:  Yes, I changed the title of this post.  It seemed apropos.

I've been sitting on this for a while, and at this point it's almost just old news.  But two things compelled me to just go ahead and post it.  The first is that the initial link below is still relevant as all get out.  It was my initial inspiration for this post.  The second is Dan's most recent post as his Blog of Lies and Perversions, wherein he indulges in his well known psychotic and very unChristian grace embracing hatred of our president.  Dan continues to be the poster child for "All Which Is Wrong With America".  So here it is...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we all know, Dems in Dem states won elections.  Virginia, New Jersey and NYC all elected Dems for the various open offices on the ballot.  Not a one of them was won by a Dem of class and character.  Of course, those words...as well as words like "honor", "morality" and "honesty"...have no real value to either the political or religious left.  

In pondering the outcome of these elections, I felt compelled to write about them here and what it portends.  But that's kind of silly since what has occurred was what past elections had portended at the time.  Thus, things are moving in the worst way in the worst direction, slowed only by the great work of our president and a few conservative governors.  

So as I was trying to figure out how to express myself, I found a great piece which says much in my stead.  

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/results_are_in_american_leftists_willingly_embrace_evil.html

I was so impressed with the author's comprehensive analysis.  She really presented well so many of the vile things with which the left aligns themselves.  As an aside, I also appreciate the fact that she referred to George Floyd's death as "self-inflicted" as opposed to a murder, which is how even way too many conservatives describe it, simply because a poor justice system said so.

Moron Zamdani naturally gets most of the attention, as he is, by far, the most egregious winner among the leftist election victories.  It's amazing that in a city which was the target of an islamic attack which murdered 3000 Americans, most of whom were in the World Trade Center buildings destroyed in the assault, it's also a city comprised of so many Jews, who are still constantly targeted by islamists of the type Moron Zamdani just couldn't bring himself to condemn for their October 7, 2023 murder, rape and kidnapping spree.  I guess he views it as "the voice of the unheard" or some kind of "self-determination" migration into Israel from Gaza.  But he is representative of what the Democrat Party has become, and they have plenty of support from the stupider of the unwashed.

As regards that particular election, there's much which alarms, such as who celebrated his victory:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/hamas_linked_jew_hater_pours_out_the_congratulations_to_mamdani.html

And there are other things quite interesting, one of which suggests a huge problem with the 19th Amendment:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/11/almost_a_republican_sweep_last_night_if_only_men_voted.html