Campaign Season Concerns

 Here in S. Carolina, we're quickly approaching Election Day for the GOP primary.  The moronic early voting period is underway, but I remain convicted in my position that only one day should be allowed for voting, in person, unless a legitimate reason for an absentee ballot can be provided.  

This is state is considered by many to be the bluest red state in the nation.  All branches of the state government are Republican majorities.  We choosing a new governor, whether or not to replace Lindsey Graham (I hope we succeed) and in my 1st Congressional District, someone to replace Nancy Mace who is seeking to become our new governor (I'll not be voting for her).  I've been shamefully lax in keeping abreast of all that goes on in SC state government...the ins and outs, the who's who...though I am on the mailing lists of Mace, Graham and my other senator, Tim Scott (I like him generally, but overall, "the jury's still out").  

I've tried to find sources for info regarding GOP and/or conservative politicians and issues, and am not satisfied with what I've found thus far, with but one or two exceptions.  One source is one from whom I've received regular emails, but never got around to perusing them until just the other day.  I was impressed with what they do and will be looking more deeply into their info in the next few days (Election Day being fast approaching ---  June 9).  Others seem to be PACS or perhaps organizations supporting one guy against others, as they're basically attacking specific people.  For example, I'm hearing a lot about a candidate for the state AG who has been a Dem most of his life.  But he has a decent record for exposing corruption in the state legislature, getting indictments on five members who I believe are all Republicans.  That's fine, and given that's the party in the majority, it seems reasonable that GOP members might be scrutinized more intently than members of the party which has no real voice.  

Anyway, the organization who is attacking this guy doesn't attack either of the other two opponents.  Nor do they seem to say anything nice about them.  It's just attacking this one guy.  I heard the man speak at a meeting introducing him and a candidate for Comptroller and I like what he said well enough.  But to attack him for being a Dem most of his career with regard to this office doesn't strike me the same as a member of Congress or a presidential candidate flipping parties.  His main explanation was that he couldn't get into the gig without being in the Dem party.  Sounds fishy.  But then he also reminded that Reagan was a Dem and so was Trump.  Tulsi Gabbard was as well, and it seems perhaps RFK Jr no longer is a Dem these days.  

But the real issue and point of this post is the attack ads.  AND the promotional ads.  They're all worthless for one seeking to find the best option for these various offices.  It's not hard to accept that attack ads are less than accurate, they're misleading and are a shameful thing to do for a politician or his supporters who run the ad in lieu of legitimate reasons to support the guy doing the attacking.  Lindsey Graham likes to brag about the money he brought to the state.  But with what strings attached?  There are always strings attached.  

And when we look at promotion campaign ads, what I'm seeing with regards to this primary is that each candidate speaks of themselves in the same way the others do about themselves, with little difference between them.  They're all the conservative we want, need and deserve.  But finding details about their records (if they're already in government) or how they'll attempt to accomplish what they claim they will is next to impossible.  This latter point is especially important as I'm leaning toward those who are newcomers to politics.  But even there, the differences are slight, such as some promoting term limits while not all do.  (Such a position eliminates the candidate from my consideration.)

Then, when one goes to their websites (should they have one), one sees the exact same things as their campaign ads and brochures do.  Now, one exception to that is the guy for whom I'm currently most likely to vote for governor of SC...an outsider named Rom Reddy.  I went to his site and there's an AI option which will supply an answer to most any question based upon a collation of everything he's said about the subject.  That's pretty novel and I'm not sure how many have added such a thing to their own sites.  Overall, he's been far more informative about what he intends to do...and how he'll try to do it...than any other candidate I've ever seen for any office.  "I'll fight for your rights!" just doesn't tell me anything.

I do agree that this coming November election will be the most important, as over the last ten to twenty years, that claim...in my mind...becomes truer with every cycle.  I'm really interested in seeing Trump followed by another Republican (such as Vance, Rubio or DeSantis) who can and will keep the trend going in the right (no pun intended) direction.  This trend has seen Dems leaving that party of perversion and death.  Alan Desrshowitz is the latest example, as has been Tulsi Gabbard.  A very recent report states that support for SSM has been decreasing over the last five years.  Things like this are great to see and I think one can argue that the trend is picking up steam.  On every level of government, I wish to do what I can to support that trend continuing.  I need to see candidates step up and state boldly their intentions...their goals and how they plan to achieve them...and if they've been in office or some other level of government, I want to see their track record in its totality.  

Too much is at stake and I owe my children and grandchildren a safer, more prosperous and most importantly, a more moral nation. 

BVM. We Should LTT!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoEUV_UzOL8

More history the "progressives" don't know or don't want anyone to know.

I continue to watch more from Mr. Jackson, and so I add the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ypZkZFr8ws

The more of this I see and read, the more I see Dan as a product of it, which speaks volumes about why he says what he says and supports what he supports.  I've long regarded him as far, far left, using words like "socialist" or "marxist".  What I see in these videos only more solidly validates my impression of the guy as marxist as well in spite of his denials.  And Jackson's mention of  the "social gospel", "progressive" churches and the things they support (all of which Dan does as well) make it hard to miss the connection between his descriptions of it all and Dan.  There's another about W.E.B. Du Bois which should be equally enlightening, but it's another 1.5 hrs, so I'll save it for later.  Instead, here's a short one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hmRJhJz89Y

Yet another from Chad O. Jackson, this time only ten minutes in length, which addresses comparisons between the assassinations of MLK JR and Charlie Kirk.  The very idea of linking them at all is absurd given what we know of each.  Yet, "progressives" laud the sexual deviant, woman-beating MLK, while pretending Kirk was some kind of evil racist or more humorously, "homophobe".  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPCc1yberBg

Because I subscribed to Jackson's channel, I see lots of options for learning about what he's uncovered.  While I've not yet coughed up whatever cash is required to get his series on MLK, I can still see lots of what he does, watch interviews he gives and hosts, so there's no shortage of information which exposes Dan's "saint" as far more like what Dan accuses Trump of being than Trump has ever actually demonstrated himself to be.  What this means is that Dan is truly far more conned by marixts than I felt I already knew, and among the greatest con men is MLK JR himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTw-v2qenbs

I Wish They Didn't!

 I accidentally clicked on "Eternity Matters", the late Neil Simpson's blog, to sadly find out it is no longer in service.  That's too bad given how much great stuff he had posted over the years. I have to see if his FB page still exists and make an appeal to whomever in his family might see it, to reinstate his blog if it doesn't cost them anything.  I don't know how Wordpress operates, so perhaps it has something to do with that platform.  But to just leave it there would seem to me a blessing.  Now, it's sort of like if the family of Charles Dickens had stopped publishing his books or somehow managed to remove them from the public sphere.  Of course, his family is more than free to do what they like, but I'm not unlikely to look back through a blog archives and his was rich with good articles and information.

I just wanted to say it.

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 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.