I just came upon this Matt Walsh video which is centered on the Lindsay Clancy case, wherein she strangled her three children, admitted it, blamed it on post-partum depression, and now has hordes of people rising to her defense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMP8iOUns5k
What provoked me to write another post is how it actually makes the argument of my last post even stronger than it already was. Understanding that Walsh's response to the many defenses of this woman will be regarded as just another example of the misogynist and patriarchal ramblings of a privileged white guy rather than the righteous outrage of a decent man against the leftist disregard for the true victims of Clancy's most heinous actions.
So how does it relate to my previous post? Well, Walsh cites the many women who have allied themselves with Clancy, including crowdfunding donations to the tune of around $900K or more. This is similar to support for Karmelo Anthony after he murdered a kid and for Luigi Mangione after he murdered. (Women are notorious for fawning over violent criminals! It's probably because they're historically abused and oppressed!)
This kind of hybristophilia or "empathy for the devil" or "moral disengagement" has already been found in those defending islam, including the most violent forms of it, from the stupidity of the "Light Bringer", Barry Obumble dismissing an islamist mass shooting by Maj. Nidal Hassan as mere "workplace violence", to all those morons stepping up to defend or minimize the Oct. 7, 2023 butchering, raping and murdering of 1200 Israelis (and Americans). Indeed, some actually speak of the felling of the World Trade Center Twin Towers as "deserved"!
Add to all this the routine release of violent criminals by mostly Democrat appointed judges (mostly women judges) and it's difficult to fathom that we should disregard the history and religious teachings of islam when it comes to whether or not we should allow them entry into our country. Indeed, this insanity elevates the threat level to outlandish heights!
No. People with absolute shit for brains, like Dan Trabue, can scold me all they like. They can pretend the jackass on which they ride is the moral high horse. But such people are as much a threat to this nation as would be the islamists they welcome with open arms, without any way to determine who will cut their heads off in front of their own families. Hyperbole? Don't be a dumbass!
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Arguments Are Less Legit Than I Thought!
No Legit Argument Against Muslim Ban
I never really expect that Dan will ever change his spots...that his character will ever improve and he will behave toward others as he demands they behave for him. That would be foolish. But now and then, especially when lacking better things to do or the motivation to find them, I do visit his Blog of Lies and Perversions to see what Lies and Perversions he's chosen to spew since my last visit. Often, the visit is compelled by his having visited other blogs without getting satisfaction for his nonsensical hunches, opinions and human traditions. (He'd have to visit a lefty blog for that!)
Anyway, there's a post referenced in one of my recent posts which is tied to recent discussions where he embarrasses himself as usual. A point of contention is his penchant for responding to intelligent, truthful and factual expressions about groups he favors with reference to alleged "past abuses and oppression". I say "alleged" because he's never specific about what he means. That doesn't matter as his true intention is to stifle or censor that which he cannot overcome. Thus, he seeks to appeal to his opponent by reminding his opponent of these unnamed "past abuses and oppression", as if past abuse is relative in any way to the point raised and defended by his opponent. Indeed, any and every criticism, regardless of its merit, ist verboten because the group meriting that criticism was abused and/or oppressed in the past. More so, the criticism itself is regarded by Dan as abuse and oppression, too!
Yeah. I know. He's a real freaking moron.
So, as I was clarifying my position, and doing so in the most "respectful, adult" manner, he nonetheless chose to delete my comments and do his bit where he responds to out of context snippets. He doesn't make his position any stronger by doing so, nor is he honest in the attempt because the context is missing due to his having deleted it. Naturally, my first inclination is to again provide clarity to that which he's corrupted to posture as "morally and rationally superior", as well as to condescend and disparage. In this case, after bouncing from one "abused and oppressed" group to another depending upon how difficult it was for him to counter the truths, facts and logic of my arguments, he fell upon islam and my position that all immigration of muslims to our nation should be suspended (and most muslims already here deported).
In supposing that there's actually something wrong with a Christian expecting his government to deny entry to the most violent and oppressive group of people in the world, with almost 1400 years of history to back up that charge and numerous examples in the here and now around the world, Dan pretends he's the rational one for supposing we must judge each muslim individually as if his "religion" doesn't encourage the very violence and oppression I expect my government to spare us. How does he do this? By citing an article about who is more violent: Christians or muslims. He expects me to "educate" myself with this:
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts
As we all know by now, Dan merely grabs whatever he thinks supports his position based on the title of the piece alone, never actually studying what he offers or vetting it for error or accuracy. One would think at this point he'd know that I will indeed check out what he presents. So I did. Here is how I responded:
Once again
you prove no intellectual curiosity to support your claims or objections
to mine. Your "Christian Century" link does not provide such
evidentiary support, and no 37-page pamphlet it references could. As is
your habit, you grabbed the first piece you found which only seems to
support your position without actually reviewing and researching it for
accuracy. Here's what I've found:
""Body Count: A Quantitative Review of Political Violence Across World Civilizations" is highly flawed
That
criticism is well-founded. The work appears to have serious
methodological problems that make its headline comparisons unreliable:
---Category error: It assigns deaths to broad religious or
civilizational identities, even though wars are usually driven by
states, regimes, political movements, nationalism, economic interests,
or strategic calculations—not simply religion.
---Problematic
attribution: Counting all deaths in a war against the religion of the
ruling society treats affiliation as causation. That can make ordinary
civilians, opponents, and even victims appear part of a religion’s “body
count.”
---Unclear definitions: “Political violence,” “religious
violence,” “civilization,” and “atheist” need precise operational
definitions. Especially problematic is treating ostensibly secular
communist regimes as an “atheist” category while classifying other
regimes by their majority religion.
---Questionable aggregation:
Combining estimates across thousands of years is highly sensitive to
missing records, changing population sizes, disputed casualty figures,
and inconsistent historical evidence.
---Weak documentation: The
bibliographic information identifies it as a short, 37-page 2009
publication, and available descriptions indicate that its estimates are
rough. Public reader critiques also point to inadequate sourcing and a
lack of a proper reference list—but those reviews are not themselves
peer-reviewed evidence.
---Selection and confirmation bias: A
framework that produces a ranked list of religions or civilizations
risks beginning with the conclusion it wants to demonstrate and then
fitting ambiguous cases into it.
The strongest objection is not
that every number must be wrong; it is that the categories do not
support the causal conclusions. At most, the study might estimate deaths
occurring under governments or populations associated with particular
civilizational labels. It cannot validly establish that Christianity,
Islam, atheism, or any other identity “killed” a given number of people
without a defensible causal model.
A better study would code
specific actors and mechanisms, distinguish combatant from civilian
deaths, report uncertainty ranges, preserve competing scholarly
estimates, normalize by population and time period, and avoid assigning
collective guilt to entire religions or civilizations."
It's you who's lacking in education, while totally devoid of sense, honesty, or Christian character.
It's like responding to the lefty's typical pro-"gay" parenting studies! It's just the conclusion which matters to those like Dan. Not how the author/researcher came to it.
But I stand by my position regarding muslims. It's too bad that some truly good people might be denied what our country has to offer. I don't know how we can be assured that this next muslim isn't the next guy who'll fly a plane into a building with hundreds of people in it for "allah!" We can't be assured that a person who's faith teaches lying to further the goals of the "faith" is truly the good dude he might appear to be. Why risk it? My people are more important to me than any foreigner, particularly those who come from muslim majority nations. Here's a little something which makes the point well:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/02/know-nothings-catholic-muslim-immigration-william-kilpatrick.html
ALREADY AN UPDATE!!!!
Wow! I've been watching this guy a few times in recent days. Harris Sultan, a "former" muslim, who's out of Australia, I believe, but seems to be enamored with that country as well as the U.S.A. and the U.K. He understands what Dan pretends isn't true and isn't a concern. He has a notion of what constitutes a "good" muslim and it's pretty much a "former" muslim. He opposes immigration of muslims because they do not hide what they want to see happen on a global scale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9QLybBXk6s
Friday, August 14, 2026
Dan Lies Yet Again
What follows are comments I submitted at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions under his post of Aug 9 (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-curse-to-fourth-generation.html). I don't know if he responded to them, or if he just did his typical deletion thing and then lied about what I said. I never scrolled down to the comments total to see if there's any change in that number one way or the other. When I finished submitting my comments, I just copied them to a file in anticipation of his eventual deletion of them (the probability of deletion is always extremely high, as it's easier for him than confronting that which he deletes), and now I've chosen to post them here. Refer to the link above to find out what nonsense provoked my response, or just pour through Craig's blog post and the subsequent comments there (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2026/08/monkey-see.html).
I should also mention an earlier post at Dan's Blog Of Lies And Perversions (https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2026/06/happy-pride-to-beloved-community.html) which is referenced both at Craig's blog and Dan's linked post of pompous poop above. So here we go:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You start right off with lies and fasehoods:
"As always, I'm engaged with conversations with conservatives who believe the best of the white privileged male protesters on days of infamy like the January 6th uprising or nearly every Pride Parade,..."
First is another example of your self-loathing, white-guilted racism against white people, as every white dude who expresses an opposing opinion must be "privileged" to dare speak at all. There's not a person who is born of this nation who is not privileged, some more than others in various ways, but none so much that they deserve the arrogant condescension inherent in every instance whereby liars like you label them "privileged white guys". Worse is that you can't even, nor even so much as make the slightest attempt to connect their skin color to their expressed opinion, as if ONLY white people feel as do those you attack without just cause.
There was no "uprising" on January 6, but only the concerns of decent Americans who were treated badly for daring to express their concerns. Indeed, video evidence proves that from the start, the most vitriolic among them...few in number...were rebuked by those decent people (see Ray Epps, clips of people seeking to restrain the more destructive among them...also few in number), and it got out of hand after the Pelosi people began lobbing tear gas and flash bangs into peaceful crowds of marchers.
Those who protest at "Pride" events are more often than not peaceful in their protests against the participants, particularly given the often lurid behaviors of pro-LGBTQ participants. They almost never (I'm being generous here in suggesting they might ever) get violent with anyone.
"...and one thing that I believe these people are missing is the context of oppressor and oppressed."
Not at all. You just need to believe this. What's missing is the relevance of past oppression having any bearing on the expressed positions of those who disagree with your kind, as it has absolutely no relevance at all.
"In one recent conversation, the conservative posted a video where there was a white guy protesting against abortion rights and health rights for women. In that example, the white anti-abortionist (in THAT example) remained fairly calm and low-key."
Again with the racism! What possible difference does it make what race the protester is? Answer this question for a change!
The lie here is that he wasn't protesting against "abortion rights and health rights for women." He was protesting against the unnecessary murder of people in utero, as there is no medical reason for ever having to do that. He was advocating for life in ways you never do, and in this case, seek to suppress his most righteous message on the basis of the fictitious "right to abortion" and the equally fallacious "health rights for women".
What's more, he didn't "remain" "fairly calm and low-key". He came calm and had no reason to elevate his emotions because his cause is just and those attacking him have no argument rationalizing their doing so.
"In another example, I had offered the story of the interaction (cited in a previous recent post here) of the six white nationalist men protesting at this year's Louisville Gay Pride Day."
And no where in that previous post, nor in your pearl clutching comments at Craig's blog and not in this post either, have you offered any evidence that these six were "nationalists" in any way, but only that because they were white and righteously opposing those at the "Pride" event, they then must be.
"In one, we're talking about rights for women, in the other, we're talking about equal rights and opportunities for LGBTQ folks and their allies"
No. That's what you're trying to make them both to be. The reality is the promotion, defense, celebration and enabling of infanticide and sexual immorality.
"In each of those cases it is vital to remember that we are talking about
groups who have been historically abused,
oppressed,
maligned,
demonized,
harmed, and
killed
on the one hand and the oppressors on the other."
This is a lie. Again, you're trying to make it about that in order to abdicate your obligation to address that actual protests and objections to the things like the sexual immorality and infanticide you promote, celebrate, defend and enable.
"...if the oppressed and their allies were to get loud and yell, we must remember there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women."
This is abjectly stupid and deceitful! Again, what relevance does past oppression have to the objections of those who protest against you privileged groups? And yes, those you defend are privileged. If you hit me with rocks last year, does that mean you're not allowed to deny me the ability to park my car on your lawn. Because you must remember there is a historic memory of abuses by you against me. How absurd you argument is! It's a dodge and nothing more.
"That makes it a charged situation for those on the side of the oppressed."
But of course, they're not even oppressed! You continue to assert that because some of them had been, then they must be accommodated in all things. That no one must ever oppose any demand for accommodation for even those things unrelated to having been oppressed.
"Trauma is a real thing caused by the real world history of abusive oppressors."
Any and every current "trauma" they experience/endure is totally self-inflicted.
"And in each of these cases, the oppression is not ancient history. It's still a fresh, recent thing, in our lifetimes only - and truly into our children's lifetimes - has it started to get a little bit better."
Yet, to whatever extent that's true at all, it's still wildly irrelevant. Public displays of celebration and lobbying by your "oppressed" people are demands for more privileges akin to the demand for reparations for slavery. There's no justification for it and past offenses aren't justifications. And it's not gotten "a little better"! It's gotten wildly insane and unjustified!
"If LGBTQ folks and their allies or women or others get their ire up and respond a bit frantically in the face of oppression rising back up, that's understandable."
No, it's not. But it is typical. Leftists always want to get violent when told their demands are the nonsense they are. And opposing their demands is not oppression at all, unless you can provide an example of any policy of oppression being proposed and in what way anyone would be truly "oppressed".
"We're talking about human rights and people are rightly, strongly and righteously emotionally defending human rights and warning against returning to days of oppression."
Another willful, intentionally told lie. It's not a matter of human rights at risk, nor about any "oppression" on the rise simply because your "oppressed" might not get yet another accommodation for which they are truly undeserving.
And the lies keep coming!
"In other words, even if the supporters of historic oppression remain relatively calm (and often, they don't), that's not to their credit. It doesn't win them any points."
Who are these "supporters of historic oppression" to whom you refer? You're now lying about those who oppose sexual immorality and infanticide as "supporters of historic oppression"??? What a slander! This is you demonizing better people again to defend those who aren't oppressed at all. What's more, those who oppose infanticide and sexual immorality aren't known for acting in any way other than calm. After all, they're typically not leftists/progressives!
"Picture Jesus pulling together a whip to drive out the money changers from the temple."
Another corruption of Scripture to defend immorality and murder! It's what we've come to expect from you. Here's a better analogy:
Imagine Jesus being crucified for preaching the Word of God against sexual immorality and infanticide. That's what YOU'RE doing by disparaging those who oppose what you celebrate, defend, enable and support. You're "crucifying" followers of Jesus who are defending and promoting HIS teachings. You're "martyring" His followers for the crime of telling the Truth. You seek to oppress them by lying about them and their message and intentions.
"Righteous burning active anger against oppression."
Another lie. It's UNrighteous burning anger against the truth and the fear that all others will wake up to it and accept it as the truth it is. Yet, none of that awakening seeks to oppress, but rather to end oppression...the oppression of sinful sexual desires and compulsions and more so, the oppression of the your kind against those in utero.
"God and reasonable people are rightfully outraged at oppression."
God has no truck with those you defend, celebrate, support and enable, nor with you for doing so. He and truly reasonable people are rightfully outraged at how badly your kind has brought moral decay to our culture.
"There was and continues to be active harm, ongoing harm caused by that oppression and it doesn't go away in a day."
None that you've ever identified, while at the same time you ignore true oppression, particularly the oppression of the unborn.
"Likewise the trauma experienced by all these other groups: women, LGBTQ folks, those with disabilities, immigrants."
Once again, you purposely place into your list those who do not belong...the disabled, as what they experience is not the result of anything unrelated to their disability. Women, "immigrants" (the lie that there's no distinguishing between those who come here according to our laws versus those who don't) and of course your beloved "LGBTQ" people. That's lying. It's like the fruit put on a list of vegetables with full knowledge it's not a vegetable.
"Those who would downplay the trauma from that oppression need to understand what they're asking when they're asking people to be calm in the face of oppression rising back up."
When you can identify specific examples of "oppression rising back up", that'll be the day. And yes, when decent and righteous people of character speak out against that what you falsely support as worthy of concern...speaking out against that which has no relation to any oppression, real or imagined....attacking them as "oppressors", "white privileged people" or worse, you expose yourself as the liar you are.
Now you'll delete some or all of my comments on the basis of your standard lies of disrespectful comments, when simply it's just because I shred your lies. You won't support your lies, or I would have addressed that support. Instead, you just lie, because that's how you roll.
Friday, August 07, 2026
Troll Attempt To Submit Lies For Publication
Some shithead...probably feo...who anonymously sent two submissions while calling me a "shithead" in the process (so most probably feo or some shithead very much like him)...thinks he brought the receipts regarding the latest jobs numbers and the other about grocery prices. This was clearly another attempt to disparage Trump, his party and their supporters as being solely responsible for the state of the economy. Lots of problems with this line or "reasoning".
The first is pretty obvious. The same people who pretend Trump is failing economically and who complain about things like gas and grocery prices, were total mutes when inflation was comparatively staggering during the reign of the "more fit man for president", Joe "Autopen" Biden. This isn't "whatabout-ism" but a reminder that when comparing now to then, we're not worse off even if we don't like the current state of the economy. Add to that the fact that the damage done by the Democrat Party isn't necessarily resolvable overnight (it could take two terms of intelligence or more).
The second is that most obvious problem is how the shithead does what lefties do: They run with the first headline if seems to support their hateful stupidity without any investigation to see if it's true. On Facebook, I see a lot of things by right-wingers that I question and some which I should have, though most of what I didn't was true in "spirit"...or to put it in another way, said the truth "in not so many words". We see this in things Dan says while at the same time he's insisting he didn't. One example was a meme claiming Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said her party can't win elections without illegals voting. It was a quote expressing that thought, but she never actually said what the quote insisted she did. However, it referenced her objection to the White House seeking to prevent Washington D.C. from allowing non-citizen voting in local elections, as if the real issue is interference in the will of the people by Trump. Now the details of what the executive branch can do with a federal district under the jurisdiction of Congress can be debated, but why oppose it as a member of Congress? Why not say, "hold on Donnie, we got this!" and deny D.C. from allowing that stupidity? Then, on top of that is the fact that AOC voted against the SAVE Act. Thus, the meme isn't mistaken about what AOC deny efforts to strengthen election integrity because it's harder to win elections without illegals. See how this works?
With that in mind, the notion that we suffered unexpected job losses as if an effect of a bad economy is lying. Most of those losses were governmental, which is what we want to see: government shrinking!
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/good-news-and-bad-news-on-jobs/
The third problem is the suggestion that we need the Dems in charge to make things better. That's also something only a shithead would suggest:
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/will-democrats-solve-the-affordability-crisis/
There's really no getting around it:
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/its-still-bidens-inflation/
But perceptions are corrupted by the left:
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/perception-and-reality-on-the-american-economy/
The left is too busy crying "ORANGE MAN BAD" than actually doing anything beneficial for the country. And the surge in communist/marxist/socialist influence in the Democrat Party won't result in benefits at all. The GOP...and even the Trump administration...is not blameless in the current state of the economy. But negative economic outcomes due to Republican policy or Trump action is not the same as Democrat economic stupidity. Doing the right things...especially if those things are intended to correct the obvious wrong things inflicted by Dems, can result in some discomfort while the right things take effect. Shitheads highlight the discomfort for personal gain.
Monday, July 20, 2026
Welcome To Dan's World!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g7Q9aJc8cw
The above episode of the Matt Walsh Show provides information both comical and disturbing. This is common with that upon which he reports and present. Some of this has been presented elsewhere and I'm sure it's likely been seen by many. It begins with him playing catch up after not having posted any videos for the last week or two, but he makes some mention of the ludicrous notion of casting a woman, Ellen Page, as a Greek warrior...because gangly, skinny women make great men in Hollywood these days. Most boys...and she does indeed look like a young boy...would have to stop eating to build the physic she has. There have already been tons of memes wherein she...in the role of Sinon...can't open a jar of pickles and things like that. She's posted social media comments berating normal, rational people who refuse to accept her playing a man, because according to her, they're uncomfortable with themselves. She's probably right. It's very likely the people she references are so uncomfortable with themselves that they've likely gone as far as removing body parts and ingested hormones to appear as member of the opposite sex. Welcome to Dan's world!
Walsh then goes on to speak of the "race" for the Maine Dem primary to replace Graham Platner as the Dem nominee to run for the Senate seat now held by Susan Collins (R). Of course, it's not a real primary as those who voted for Platner won't be voting for those seeking to replace him. Similar to the installment of Kamala Harris, who didn't run for or was voted to be the Dem nominee to replace Joe Biden, the Maine Democrat Party will select from these hopeful and to hell with the voters. Of course most alarming to normal, rational people is the inclusion of another person pretending to be of the opposite sex...some guy who calls himself "Ashley", who insists he has XX chromosomes, though test confirm they're XY, and claims he menstruates monthly and bleeds from his backside to prove it. Uh huh. That they give him the time of day rather than a court order to be institutionalized is common for those of the "beloved community". Welcome to Dan's world.
From there, Matt presents a story about another such member of that "community" who has a melt down because a cop insists or referring to him as "he". This one is so wacky, he's likely a high office holder in Dan's world. Welcome to it!
Then we get to hear about Moron Zomdummy who organized a World Cup watch party at Riker's Island for the inmates...because they're New Yorkers, darn it, and they're deserving! As Walsh reminds, imagine the victims of these people and how impressed they no doubt are to learn that those who oppressed them in any number of criminal ways are feted by the mayor, who opposes prisons for such people and too many cops to put them there. But that's not the wildest part, presented also are a few idiot women who actually weep with love for the mayor for doing that. They're just so enamored it brought them to tears. And here's what really chaps my ass: we get to hear from them (two at least, I believe) that he is more Christian than Christians.
Yeah. This Jew hating communist is more Christian than most Christians these stupid women know. This tells me they don't know any Christians. But such a claim is common in Dan's world. Dan's lesbian grannies are more Christian than many Christians Dan knows. He recently cited some muslim dude named Rumi and praised him in a similar fashion, coming just short of saying that. We hear this crap about atheists quite a bit, and even Dan's boy crush, James Talarico said that not long ago. And it's always said about someone who is far, far from it. It's said by morons to highlight how someone is a "nice guy" despite all the very non-Christian behaviors and beliefs of the person.
Welcome to Dan's world.
Friday, July 10, 2026
The "Progressives" Say Nothing To The Wrong Their Side Does
In light of Dan's insistence that it is our side who votes for and supports the wicked and incompetent, I off this nowhere near comprehensive list of countervailing evidence. It also points to Dan's claim that he calls out his own when they do wrong. Pretending he's capable of identifying wrong in the first place, I present this list someone posted on FB...almost all of which is verifiable. I may add to it later.