Is it wrong to defend Hitler against false charges against him? It would seem so to listen to those on the left. How about unsubstantiated, unproven charges? Again, the left would have us do so.
According to my understanding of our American ideals (as set forth by our founders and supported by Christian principle), it is no less a lie when false charges are brought against an evil person that against the good.
The recent dust up over the Roy Moore candidacy is the perfect example. Let's assume that Roy is as racist, homophobic and...well...whatever else people thought of him before the allegations leveled against him in the eleventh hour of the race for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions. Do these flaws justify our knee-jerk acceptance as truth those allegations of sexual impropriety from forty years ago?
Now consider: from how I understand things, Roy Moore's "racism" is based on two things.
1. Some comment he made about how long it's been since America was great (or something to that effect). He said it goes way back to the days of slavery. This has led lefties to say that he wants us to return to slavery today. Yeah. I know. It's absurd to pretend that one means the other.
2. His position on the election of muslims in government. Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition. Our founders agreed. They, too, saw islam as incompatible with our way of life. That's not racist. That's pragmatic, realistic, logical. Incredibly common sensible.
Moore's "homophobia" is also based on his understanding of the facts about homosexuality. I've posted several posts dealing with the many lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based, and Moore simply has similar common sense positions.
It is not hate to deal in realities. One isn't necessarily hateful of another who is not worthy of selection for the baseball team. In the same way, one isn't hateful, or bigoted, of someone who isn't worthy of elected office or a marriage license based on truths used to reach the conclusion. Lefties would insist, however, that holding those positions are proofs of hate...because it's just easier to so insist.
The second point leads to a third area that led to Moore's rep as a bad dude: Decisions he made as a judge.
1. He opposed the Obergefell decisions as that which forces Alabaman county clerks to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But Moore understands two things of great importance here:
a) Those clerks are not working for the federal government, but the Alabaman governments (state, county, municipal) and are beholden to them, not the SCOTUS.
b) The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.
2. He stood firmly behind his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on public property. There is no Constitutional breech at play in doing so. Nothing in the Constitution forced him to remove the monument. Only those with a bad understanding of the first amendment did.
So these are the main areas of contention between Moore and those who use these situations to justify their hatred for him. How dare he stand in the way of saintly homosexuals!!! How dare he question the motives of angelic muslims who by their faith can lie at any time!!! How dare he have a sound understanding of Constitutional principles!!! The hatred that these positions provoked in the leftists meant that this guy could not fart out loud without being accused of some great evil.
Now come the allegations of sexual improprieties just before the actual vote was to take place. "We find the women credible" they said, without any actual reason to do so. No counter testimonies speaking to his character in a positive way would ever be considered credible now, and they weren't. There's no way to verify that the allegations were true, but solely due to already bad sentiment against him, Moore was guilty. And his crimes were made worse by the purposeful use of words chosen specifically to inflame negative passions against him. It's not enough to say that Moore dated young women, most of whom were over the age of consent. Let's call him a pedophile!!
During the course of this "scandal", I found two or three articles that spoke to Moore's upbringing and background, the application of the term "credible" to the women making the worst allegations, and one that listed a dozen women who offered themselves as character witnesses for Moore, some of them going back to those days forty years ago. None of it mattered once the allegations were out there marketed with the worst possible embellishments by those "reporting" them.
Falsehood wins. And those of us who insisted we wait until something akin to proof could be found were also victims of falsehood, as we were labeled as defending "a pervert", as if he was actually proven to be one. And we're the ugly ones. This is the character of the left today. Whatever it takes to push the agenda. Whatever it takes to demonize and defeat the opposition. Lies will do the trick nicely.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Sunday, December 10, 2017
An Open Letter To Dan About His Open Letter To Alabama
Dear Dan,
Having read your letter to Alabama, I felt it a better option to respond in kind here rather than at your blog. Hence, this letter to you. It will be pretty much the same kind of response I would post in the comments section under your nonsensical letter to Alabama, in terms of style. That is, copying the various statements one by one with my reply following.
"We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country..."
...mostly as a result of center-left forces pushing the culture toward perdition with too little resistance by the center-right.
" I was raised as an extremely conservative..." "this former raging-conservative"
In all the years we've been going at it, you've not once demonstrated a grasp of what it means to be either a political or theological conservative. It's just a word you throw around because you think it helps you to posture yourself as thoughtful. You do the same with the word "progressive" (as do most who refer to themselves by this term) as if it means you're doing something or supporting something new and more beneficial.
"If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil.""
This is true. You choose the greater evil every time. If you voted for Obama, you chose the greater evil. If you voted for Hillary or Bernie, you chose the greater evil. Go back farther. If you chose Al Gore or John Kerry, you chose the greater evils.
You define evil as it suits you and your posturing. This posturing is the support of evils of the kind you refuse to recognize as evil...such as abortion or homosexual behavior, or the confiscation of the wealth of the productive to name just a few...twisting these evils to appear as "progressive" and beneficial when they neither and never have been.
" It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines."
As much as I detested the sophomoric braggadocio of Donald Trump, and his infidelity and alleged adultery, it is absurd to consider these wicked characteristics as so horrid as to allow either a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders to prevail, when those two presented a far greater danger to the republic. To stand down from one's duty to country over such things and then pretend to be morally sound is no more than rank preening. I'm not impressed in the least, but rather disgusted by its falseness.
"But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies."
This is particularly egregious given the people you do support. Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist. Socialism is a lie. Obama and Hillary are a step or two away from admitting the same of themselves. Their own lies are well documented, but you've said nothing about them. Most of those lies are far worse than how many showed up for an inauguration, or how great one's tax plan is or any of the many insignificant things Trump has said that you add to the list as if they're akin to "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" or "our people died because of a video". The lies of Obama have helped to double the national debt.
And then of course there are your own lies...lies that are perpetuated by other so-called "progressives" regarding the aforementioned social issues. Your candidates spew them as a matter of party policy, and despite all evidence, you pretend they are truth and facts.
"When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."
No. He is suggesting a possible explanation as to why these allegations are being made at the eleventh hour of a political campaign in which he is solidly leading his opponent.
"He is saying that they many women who now have made these claims are liars. Period."
Why wouldn't he if the allegations are untrue? And really, he is only basically saying that the allegations are untrue. It is YOU, with your progressive Christian "grace" that chooses to interpret his denials as accusations of lying.
"Here we have many women who have independently and, so far as anyone knows, without any influence from the Democrats or "the media," made these allegations."
And by "many" you mean "three". Each of which have been found to be less than credible in their "recollections" after all. (Not saying it makes their claims untrue, but far less believable--if they ever were--than when first presented.)
" But based on what?"
Maybe on the fact that none of it happened. That would be a good basis for suspecting the claims are untrue or even outright lies. How can it be proven one way or the other?
"Why would they make up these stories? What do they have to gain by exposing themselves in this manner?"
Are you kiddin'?
"Look, I fully know that, in some extremely rare circumstances (and if you're not familiar, look at the research - it's a tiny minority), women have made false allegations about harassment/abuse. But these are the extreme minority."
You know nothing.
"IF you have one allegation made against you by a woman, maybe she's one of this tiny minority that have made false claims. But when you have five... eight (what is Trump up to, now, 20??)"
Three. You have three who have alleged Moore engaged in some form of abuse or sex with a minor. Each is suspicious for a variety of logical reasons. But hey! If we can up the number to 20, why not? Right Dan? That's called "grace", not casual lying.
"And then, when you add to that charge that these women are liars (a very serious charge!),"
More serious than charges of sexual abuse or statutory rape? Your shock and outrage is crap.
"...a new CBS News poll found that 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say..." "Based on what?"
Based on the low regard so many people have for the honesty and integrity of the the Democratic party and their media lapdogs. It's a bed you people made and you refuse to sleep in it, although you must despite having peed in it.
"I would not vote for a casual liar and Trump and Moore are casual liars."
As you reiterate this incredibly principled stance, I reiterate that you instead choose more egregious liars, those who think out their lies and plan to implement policy based upon them...lies you prefer to the truth despite all facts and evidence that has already exposed them as the lies they are. Because you're a flaming progressive and that's how you roll.
"People of Alabama, I'm asking you to not cross that line now...snip... Write in a vote. But don't cross that line."
Not that you want Jones to win, mind you. Only that you don't want that line crossed! Nonsense. The support of Jones for the aforementioned social issues and other left-wing policy lies is far better for the country than to continue to vote for someone strongly believed by his supporters to be a victim of a sham.
Should the people of Alabama take you up on this suggestion, it will only lead to more right-wing candidates being accused of evil behavior anytime they have a solid lead on the lefty who opposes them. Allegations and accusations are proof of nothing more than someone is alleging and accusing. What is known about Jones is far more harmful to the nation than what is alleged to have happened to three young women forty years ago.
"But with Trump and Moore, we have men who, by all the data we have available, are men who've abused, mistreated, oppressed or sexually assaulted or harassed women."
But that's the thing, you more-than-casual liar. You have no data that is stronger than allegation. That can't be good enough for honest people. There must be more based upon our American philosophy for judging guilt or innocence. Your pretense of honor is not fooling anyone.
"I don't need to know anything else about the candidate or his opponent if I know he has abused/mistreated women/girls."
But YOU don't "know" anything, especially about Moore, except that you dislike his positions on your favored sexual immorality. That's enough for you to gin up these allegations to known fact...which makes you a liar.
"When the stories about Bill Clinton came out, there were two... then three women"
More like eighteen.
"People of Alabama, the evidence against Trump and, now Moore, is greater than that against Clinton."
Bull. There is no comparison, except for perhaps Trump and Clinton, but even then, to say it's greater requires an in depth study for another post. Feel free to do so, but make sure you use actual evidence rather than progressive sources.
Your plea to the voters of Alabama is crap, Dan, and I'm not at all surprised by it. Your objections to Moore have nothing to do with these allegations from forty years ago, but are simply due to his accurate understanding of Scripture on human sexuality, his reasonable concern about voting for muslims for public office in our federal government and these allegations provide you with cover to encourage his supporters to abandon him in favor of someone who supports the same lies and abominations you do. That's no casual lie on your part. It's far more heinous.
Having read your letter to Alabama, I felt it a better option to respond in kind here rather than at your blog. Hence, this letter to you. It will be pretty much the same kind of response I would post in the comments section under your nonsensical letter to Alabama, in terms of style. That is, copying the various statements one by one with my reply following.
"We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country..."
...mostly as a result of center-left forces pushing the culture toward perdition with too little resistance by the center-right.
" I was raised as an extremely conservative..." "this former raging-conservative"
In all the years we've been going at it, you've not once demonstrated a grasp of what it means to be either a political or theological conservative. It's just a word you throw around because you think it helps you to posture yourself as thoughtful. You do the same with the word "progressive" (as do most who refer to themselves by this term) as if it means you're doing something or supporting something new and more beneficial.
"If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil.""
This is true. You choose the greater evil every time. If you voted for Obama, you chose the greater evil. If you voted for Hillary or Bernie, you chose the greater evil. Go back farther. If you chose Al Gore or John Kerry, you chose the greater evils.
You define evil as it suits you and your posturing. This posturing is the support of evils of the kind you refuse to recognize as evil...such as abortion or homosexual behavior, or the confiscation of the wealth of the productive to name just a few...twisting these evils to appear as "progressive" and beneficial when they neither and never have been.
" It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines."
As much as I detested the sophomoric braggadocio of Donald Trump, and his infidelity and alleged adultery, it is absurd to consider these wicked characteristics as so horrid as to allow either a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders to prevail, when those two presented a far greater danger to the republic. To stand down from one's duty to country over such things and then pretend to be morally sound is no more than rank preening. I'm not impressed in the least, but rather disgusted by its falseness.
"But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies."
This is particularly egregious given the people you do support. Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist. Socialism is a lie. Obama and Hillary are a step or two away from admitting the same of themselves. Their own lies are well documented, but you've said nothing about them. Most of those lies are far worse than how many showed up for an inauguration, or how great one's tax plan is or any of the many insignificant things Trump has said that you add to the list as if they're akin to "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" or "our people died because of a video". The lies of Obama have helped to double the national debt.
And then of course there are your own lies...lies that are perpetuated by other so-called "progressives" regarding the aforementioned social issues. Your candidates spew them as a matter of party policy, and despite all evidence, you pretend they are truth and facts.
"When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."
No. He is suggesting a possible explanation as to why these allegations are being made at the eleventh hour of a political campaign in which he is solidly leading his opponent.
"He is saying that they many women who now have made these claims are liars. Period."
Why wouldn't he if the allegations are untrue? And really, he is only basically saying that the allegations are untrue. It is YOU, with your progressive Christian "grace" that chooses to interpret his denials as accusations of lying.
"Here we have many women who have independently and, so far as anyone knows, without any influence from the Democrats or "the media," made these allegations."
And by "many" you mean "three". Each of which have been found to be less than credible in their "recollections" after all. (Not saying it makes their claims untrue, but far less believable--if they ever were--than when first presented.)
" But based on what?"
Maybe on the fact that none of it happened. That would be a good basis for suspecting the claims are untrue or even outright lies. How can it be proven one way or the other?
"Why would they make up these stories? What do they have to gain by exposing themselves in this manner?"
Are you kiddin'?
"Look, I fully know that, in some extremely rare circumstances (and if you're not familiar, look at the research - it's a tiny minority), women have made false allegations about harassment/abuse. But these are the extreme minority."
You know nothing.
"IF you have one allegation made against you by a woman, maybe she's one of this tiny minority that have made false claims. But when you have five... eight (what is Trump up to, now, 20??)"
Three. You have three who have alleged Moore engaged in some form of abuse or sex with a minor. Each is suspicious for a variety of logical reasons. But hey! If we can up the number to 20, why not? Right Dan? That's called "grace", not casual lying.
"And then, when you add to that charge that these women are liars (a very serious charge!),"
More serious than charges of sexual abuse or statutory rape? Your shock and outrage is crap.
"...a new CBS News poll found that 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say..." "Based on what?"
Based on the low regard so many people have for the honesty and integrity of the the Democratic party and their media lapdogs. It's a bed you people made and you refuse to sleep in it, although you must despite having peed in it.
"I would not vote for a casual liar and Trump and Moore are casual liars."
As you reiterate this incredibly principled stance, I reiterate that you instead choose more egregious liars, those who think out their lies and plan to implement policy based upon them...lies you prefer to the truth despite all facts and evidence that has already exposed them as the lies they are. Because you're a flaming progressive and that's how you roll.
"People of Alabama, I'm asking you to not cross that line now...snip... Write in a vote. But don't cross that line."
Not that you want Jones to win, mind you. Only that you don't want that line crossed! Nonsense. The support of Jones for the aforementioned social issues and other left-wing policy lies is far better for the country than to continue to vote for someone strongly believed by his supporters to be a victim of a sham.
Should the people of Alabama take you up on this suggestion, it will only lead to more right-wing candidates being accused of evil behavior anytime they have a solid lead on the lefty who opposes them. Allegations and accusations are proof of nothing more than someone is alleging and accusing. What is known about Jones is far more harmful to the nation than what is alleged to have happened to three young women forty years ago.
"But with Trump and Moore, we have men who, by all the data we have available, are men who've abused, mistreated, oppressed or sexually assaulted or harassed women."
But that's the thing, you more-than-casual liar. You have no data that is stronger than allegation. That can't be good enough for honest people. There must be more based upon our American philosophy for judging guilt or innocence. Your pretense of honor is not fooling anyone.
"I don't need to know anything else about the candidate or his opponent if I know he has abused/mistreated women/girls."
But YOU don't "know" anything, especially about Moore, except that you dislike his positions on your favored sexual immorality. That's enough for you to gin up these allegations to known fact...which makes you a liar.
"When the stories about Bill Clinton came out, there were two... then three women"
More like eighteen.
"People of Alabama, the evidence against Trump and, now Moore, is greater than that against Clinton."
Bull. There is no comparison, except for perhaps Trump and Clinton, but even then, to say it's greater requires an in depth study for another post. Feel free to do so, but make sure you use actual evidence rather than progressive sources.
Your plea to the voters of Alabama is crap, Dan, and I'm not at all surprised by it. Your objections to Moore have nothing to do with these allegations from forty years ago, but are simply due to his accurate understanding of Scripture on human sexuality, his reasonable concern about voting for muslims for public office in our federal government and these allegations provide you with cover to encourage his supporters to abandon him in favor of someone who supports the same lies and abominations you do. That's no casual lie on your part. It's far more heinous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)