We KNOW What Needs To Be Done! We Should Do it!

 Philadelphia has experienced a few nights worth of looting and pillaging by what appears to be hordes of black people most prominent in the criminality.  Despite how modern progressive assholes will take it, it's not uncommon. and I say that with great regret.  But I won't pretend there's any racial aspect at play at reporting the truth.  All the media presented images attest to the racial makeup of most of those involved. 

So what?  Does it matter?  No.  Not to those who merchandise is stolen...who stores are damaged to steal that merchandise.   And certainly not to those who are trying to do their jobs without risk of physical assault for daring to object.  

Here's where I stand on these incidents:

I don't give a flying FUCK about the perpetrators of these mobs of thugs smashing and grabbing.  I affirm the right of store owners, or their employees, to fire upon these assholes so that the notion that one can just do this sort of thing dissipates in the minds of the lowest of the low of our kind.  I don't give a FUCK what race the perpetrators are.  Anyone who enters a store wearing a "hoody" and a mask should expect a bullet or a very damaging blunt instrument employed to respond to their criminal actions.  I'd be happy to see a metal pipe violently struck against the shin of any thief.  Cripple him right there and then so that they cannot flee and they can easily be taken into custody when law enforcement shows up, however long that might take (let them writhe in pain for the duration).  

Some, mostly leftist dumbshits, will ask, "is that property worth the life of the person who steals it?"  I respond, "Is your life worth losing for the sake of taking my property?"  I'd much rather deal with a beggar than a thief...especially given how violent and aggressive today's thieves seem to be.

I saw a clip today of a two women robbing a store.  After leaving, one returned when she realized she left her cellphone behind.  He demand its return and the person on duty said he'd return it if she returned the merchandise her and her bitch cohort stole.  She assaulted the guy to get her phone back because how freakin' dare he keep her property!   FUCK these people, I say!!

This shit has to stop and I don't give a flying rat's ass how many thugs die in the process.  They serve no good purpose and threaten too many.  If they choose to leave the dark side provided by Dem policy and come into the light, I will welcome them.  Until they do, they should live life knowing there are targets on their bacs. 

NOW What?

Diane Feinstein has passed away.  R.I.P. Diane, but you should have been gone long ago.  I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but when it comes to my country, I won't pussy-foot around.  (Oh, jeez, Dan!!! Was that out of line???)  

I've been trying to find some piece of legislation she crafted and got passed which made a shit's worth of difference, and thus far found none.  I've heard some praise her for the 1994 assault weapons ban, as if it actually did anything, but as I go through her own website's list of accomplishments, there really nothing there which justifies her repeated re-election.  Dems are really easy to please, it seems. 

I have to say that I'm enamored to some extent with anyone who devotes their lives to public service.  The reality is that many who last so long in elected positions profit in doing so, and while my gut reaction is "more power to you", that only goes as far as they've done something good for the nation.  I'm just not seeing anything which is much more than fancy ribbons and bows.  

I once did a post after the passing of Ted Kennedy.  I now regret that since he was really just a complete scumbag who was incredibly undeserving of any praise.  While I would put Feinstein up as another like Mr. Chappaquiddick, her resume isn't all that great.  It's too bad.  I'd much rather lament her passing as a loss to the nation, but I can't see any reason to really do so.  Anyone of her age is on borrowed time, being on the short end of their lives.  While we can rightfully mourn her passing, that it came is not unexpected and to some extent, some would see anyone over, say, 85 as being gifted with each day they breathe.  The father of one of my best friends was just written up in the local paper for having reached the big 100.  He's said to still be sharp as a tack.  Diane wasn't, and with the report of people having to guide her into expressing a "Yes" vote suggests she was past her sell-by date. 

I can fully dig not wanting to cash it in...not wanting to throw in the towel despite the reality that one is no longer getting it done.  But those who pretend to love such people betray them by allowing them to go too long without doing a thing to try to convince them its over.  It's sad.  Worse is the affect on the nation of someone so beyond the pale voting on legislation.  As such, she will be held up as evidence in support of age limits for government office.  That's easy to do when one is offering up those who are negatively impacted by their age, and then suggesting that everyone that age is equally impacted in a negative way.  It's rather exploitative, if you ask me. 

But now what?  That's the title of this piece.  California governor Gavin Newsome is said to be in a bit of a quandary about appointing a replacement for his state, but without getting into any detail or discussion about that, he's stated a desire to appoint a black woman, because checking boxes is what dumbasses do.  Ability is always second place when a Dem appoints a moron to a post of any kind.  So long as he gets to choose, he no doubt will choose stupidly, because Democrats are stupid people.

Thus, the balance of power in the Senate is unlikely to change, unless Newsome choose poorly.  By that I mean he chooses who he believes will be Feinstein like, or "Newsome" like and then the person turns out to be intelligent.  

Sometimes I wonder how politics can possibly turn anyone off!  There are serious times, and every move by any politician has the potential to make a significant difference in the life of an average American.  The passing of Feinstein presents just such a possibility.  Hoping for the best here if futile, but seeing how it plays out will be interesting. 

GOOD GOLLY!!!

 Watched a good chunk of the GOP primary debates.  The second one, not having seen the first.  WHAT THE F**K!!!!!!!

Well, that's what debates are these days, aren't they?  Too many, including one of my likely candidates, Ron DeSantis, felt the need to pretend Trump needed to be there and was a coward for not.  Bullshit.  It was a crap sandwich and I saw nothing which made me think one of them was more worthy of my vote than the other.  That's not to say each wasn't more worthy than any of the abject clinical morons the Dems are suggesting might run, including the Moron In Chief that complete dumbasses actually suggested would be a better president than Trump before cheating hard enough to deny Trump a second term.  No.  The only Dems who were anywhere near close to being a decent choice for president left the party, because Democrats are assholes.  They need to certify as assholes just to be in the party, and need an ID card with a picture of themselves with an asshole where their face is supposed to be.  They don't want any of their people to be mistaken for anything other than an asshole. 

Here's what needs to be done in any future debate:  Those hosting and asking questions need a switch to prevent anyone not directly asked a question from being heard.  When someone says, "Before I answer that I'd like to respond to the previous question posed to whomever"  they should be cut off.  Or if they try that after answering the specific question posed to them, they should be cut off. 

There was a Latina who asked a couple of questions which were based on false premises.  I don't recall at the moment and don't care to research it.  It happened enough that I don't need to do so.  But, when someone was asked a question with one of these false premises mentioned, no one objected.  No one said "what you said isn't at all true".  That concerns me.  If each held to the rules, they had only a few minutes to respond, and others could chime in afterwards with an extremely small window of time to do so.  But the answer doesn't matter if the question is bullshit.  Those bullshit questions should have been called out.

There were  three asking questions.  Stuart Varney, Dana Perino and Ilia Calderon.  The first two are FoxNews people and the third is from Univision.  Calderon asked more bullshit questions during the period I watched (almost an hour).  She seemed to be the leftist of the bunch based on the stupid things she said in the run-ups to her questions.  That's fine.  She can ask what she likes in any way she chooses to ask.  But when she says something untrue, the respondent should be correcting her immediately and I don't believe I saw anyone do so during the period I watched.  That's not on Calderon, but on the candidates.  

The other two asked some questions specific to specific candidates, and I don't think any response was what I would have like to have heard in the manner I think is incredibly important for someone seeking my vote should have.  

Two candidates are from my state (my new home for the last 16 months), Nicki Haley and Tim Scott.  Should either emerge triumphant, I can cast my general election vote for them over any of the American hating clowns the Dems will put up for prez.  But each did something I find concerning.  One of the questions asked of DeSantis had to do with this question of some slaves having acquired skills while enslaved during the time prior to Emancipation.  This is one of the bullshit question from Calderon, and apparently DeSantis had acknowledged this fact not long ago.  Leftists and race-hustlers jumped on any who expressed this reality as if it meant the person who understands that fact is diminishing the immorality of slavery.  It's how they roll, because leftists are assholes and need to demonize good people in order to deceive the stupid.  Racial questions always put white people on the defensive, and more often than not, that's the point of asking them.  But DeSantis should have simply said, "Well, that's true, unless we're to believe slaves were only for the most menial of tasks and never trained to serve their masters in ways they could have exploited once freed for their own benefit."  That shuts down the race-baiting immediately.  I don't blame any white person over being taken aback by such questions, knowing what race-hustling assholes the leftists are, but someone needs to step up and ram it back down leftist throats.  It ain't hard.  Just don't respect such shit.

Tim Scott found it a subject to which he needed to respond and he lost me by not saying, "Cut that shit out!  Of COURSE slaves learned stuff which benefited them once emancipated!  What kind of moron would think otherwise and on what factual basis??"  But he didn't.  He felt it necessary to assert what we all know about slavery. 

Nicki Haley, on the other hand, thought she was scoring points by attacking others like DeSantis and Ramawamy.  In my book, she didn't.  She came off like a conservative Hillary.  We don't need that.  To his credit, Ramaswamy sought to remind all that everyone on stage were basically good people, and the real threat was Biden and the Democrap Party. 

Bergum didn't get a lot of attention, and it's too bad.  I don't see him rising from his humble state at this point, but he comported himself well.  He seems a fairly sharp guy, but too little is known about him and I don't think he did anything to draw more support to him.  

Pence....I can't get beyond his weak response as Indiana governor to the immoral blowback against a religious freedom act he should have pushed like a mad dog.  And his weakness when he had a chance to return electoral votes many found suspicious was a travesty.  

Chris Christie talks a good game and I'd have to research his record to see how accurately he presented it.  He had me for about a minute years ago, but then seemed to be a piece of shit from then on.  

Ramaswamy is always bold in his pronouncements, but I'm not totally sold on the guy for president despite liking him in general.

DeSantis was accused of being weak in the first debate, but in this one I found him to be very much like the Florida governor which drew me to him as a true leader.  His responses never went over time and he seemed very confident and strong.  I haven't seen any reviews, but I'd say he came out very well and should get a bump.

It's very difficult to get a sense of who is truly providing real plans for success.  There's a lot of flowery expressions, a lot of self-promotion, and way too much stuff which doesn't serve anyone.  That's what a primary debate is these days.  In short, a waste of time, though I don't think they should be eliminated.  I just want to see them improved so that I can get a sense of who is really worthy of my vote.  These debates don't lend enough for the purpose.  At least in the general, there are only two.  That's better for avoiding the problems inherent in so many on stage. 

So my opinion is this:  Out of this debate, DeSantis is the guy.  I hope, if there's a third, the field will be smaller and Trump will be among them prepared to inform us how things will be even better than the first time around.  I'm still torn between him and DeSantis, yet open to be convinced any of the others might be the best choice.  I don't see that happening, but it's crystal clear that either are a universe better than any asshole from the Democrat Party.  They've hurt us badly enough for quite some time and there's not a one whose name is put forth who won't further harm this nation.  Our only hope is from the GOP as weird as that is to say.  But it's true.  There's no hope for us with another Dem in the White House or in the majority of either House of Congress.   That's just the fact.

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!

As an employee, I've always enjoyed getting pay increases, whether it was a one time deal, and annual Christmas bonus or a straight up raise in my regular pay.   I'm like most people who believe that if it is possible, it would be nice for my employer to grant me yet more.  Also like most people, I believe I'm worth whatever I can get, for even at my worst moments, I still felt that I was overall, fulfilling my obligations and as such was an asset to the company.  While not necessarily being the most ass-busting employee in the house, I at least did what I could to ensure I was considered an asset.  

Unlike most, I didn't insist I should have more.  I never thought in terms of how much my company was making, how much those who owned or ran the company was  making.  That's because I saw my situation as a contract to which I agreed.  I work "so" hard and the company pays me a given amount for it.  

I've lobbied for more on occasion.  I would argue that my efforts made me an asset which seemed to me to be justification for more, and when refused I was, as most people would be, quite disappointed.  But I was still getting the amount to which I agreed when I agreed to take the gig.  I was getting what I was supposed to be getting as a result, given there was nothing I was promised I wasn't getting.  In some jobs, when I asked at the interview about how to increase my pay, some jobs had specific, though limited criteria, while others said something like, "Well, we'll see..." which told me not to expect anything other than the wage offered at the jump.  

As many know, the United Auto Workers are threatening (or maybe by now carrying through with that threat) to strike.  It's so nice to know that in these times of inflation, these unionists have no problem adding to it with another pressure.  But in listening to their "leader", UAW Prez Shawn Fain, he made a remark about the profits of the company somehow means he and those he pretends to represent are entitled to a larger piece of those profits, under the premise they helped get those profits.  

I think this is a bullshit argument.  It is expected that good employees means a healthy profit, but that's not the only means by which those profits are generated.  Indeed, that's not even among the most important one.  Each employee is expected to be a good one.  That's why they're offered a wage and compensation package in the first place...to do the job for which they were hired and to do it well.  They're not supposed to half-ass it.  They're supposed to have integrity and perform to the best of their ability because they agreed to when they took the gig, whether they expressed it in such terms or not.  That's what employment is.  No one goes into an interview and says, "Yeah, I'll take the job, but I won't bust my ass" or "I won't do it well".  Thus, if they were doing their part, and the company was paying what they promised to pay when they were hired, it doesn't matter how much profits the company makes.  The contract is fulfilled.  (Of course, if at the time of hiring a promise was made by the company to increase their pay when profits rose, that's another thing.)

But let's get back to that "We made you rich" argument used to whine for more.  Is that really true?  Not really.  Certainly not exactly.  Again, doing what was expected doesn't justify more pay.  Employees aren't hired to "make the company rich".  They're hired to do a specific task.  Who's ever been hired to "make me rich"?  Not me, and at my age, I can guarantee I've had more than few jobs in my life.  Never heard those terms before in a job interview.  What makes an employer rich?   A good business model and a good product or service.  Good management to keep the ship afloat in bad weather is another distinct factor.  Good employees who do their job as laid out upon hiring may be part of a good game plan, but it's just a part. 

The worst part of this is the expectation.  I love an employer who chooses to share the wealth.  But I have no right...nor does anyone else...to demand that he must.  That's just coveting and is too often demanded by those who do the least they can get away with.  How many of those employees are busting it all the time? 2%?  There seems to be a too common attitude that one is owed a job, and then having gotten one, that one is owed more based not on the terms to which both parties agreed, but based on whatever the employees demand must be paid based on things none of them had all that much to do with.  

As if that isn't bad enough, to then withhold one's services until demands are met, and somehow the employer is forced to keep the whiners on the roll, is damned near evil when you think about it.  Not only does it impact the income of the company, management, owners and any non-union personnel, but it negatively impact all peripheral businesses, such as suppliers and even local stores, restaurants and gas stations whose profits will suffer while these people aren't working because of the strikers?

So the company gives in and who pays the new wage?  The company?  Maybe.  But at some point, if not immediately, they'll pass those costs on to the customers of their products or services.  This will increase costs down the line, including the wages of those who now must pay more for the products of the company whose employees forced it to pay higher wages.  

And what if the company sales drop off or it's in some other way no longer making tons of money for any of a variety of reasons?  How many who went on strike will  step up and strike to reduce their wages? 

I don't like labor strikes.  Live within your means, save for a rainy day, develop other sources of income, seek a better paying job. 

Leftist Shamefulness: Word Abuse Edition Part the Second

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/09/when_is_a_child_not_a_child_when_sick_sex_is_involved.html

I was just going to add this to the original post below, but it's particularly perverse, that I thought I'd highlight it specifically.  The column says all that needs be said, but I'll just begin by saying it represents a most heinous example of how the left abuses words.  Here, what constitutes "adult" is determined by circumstances favorable and convenient for modern progressives over 21.  That is, if one needs a minor to be an adult, that minor is magically an adult.  If one needs a young person to be a child, then that older kid will still be a child.  We see this perversion manifest in a variety of ways, a few described in the article.  One thing's for certain, a lefty can't rag on Judge Roy Moore and still run this level of crap at the same time.  A lot of old timers need to apologize to the memory of Errol Flynn!

But this is where we're at.  We must constantly be vigilant for the next instance where the modern progressive will proclaim a word means something it never did...and truly never should.  

The left are truly vile.

Oh. The. HORROR!

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-reaffirms-that-unrepentant-homosexuals-adulterers-cannot-receive-communion/

I want to say before anything else that I did not read this article.  I only read the headline and first bit about the subject therein.  

Now I want to say how much I appreciate that anyone within Christendom would stand for the Will of God and not take the Eucharist so lightly as to ignore unrepentant sinners who stand before clergy administering the sacrament as if it's not big thing.  It is.  It should never be taken so lightly as it is in some of the more (*gack!*) "progressive" "Christian" churches.  Such churches put man before God, and that's not a good thing.

I've mentioned my time in a U.C.C. congregation...where I learned what a heretical denomination it is as I served there as Council President and Chairman of the Board of Elders, hoping to push the people to succeed from that denomination (to no avail whatsoever...they now have a female pastor.  Sad.)  There was a time when the subject of withholding Communion came up as it did nationally with regard to particular Democrats who promote abortion as a "legal right"...because as we know, one can't fully be a woman and not have the right to murder her own child.  I want to say it was specific to either Nancy Pelosi or then VP (or Senator) Joe Biden, but I can't be sure if it was even either one of those fake Roman Catholics.  Our pastor went out of his way to tut-tut the very notion of withholding.  "All are welcome", he intoned.  (In researching this question, it appears to have been Joe Biden who was refused in S. Carolina in 2019...at least the article I was reading was written then.  But that may mean my pastor was referring to someone else, or in 2019 Biden was refused the sacrament yet again.)

Of course, that's not at all Biblical.  The "progressives" don't take their "faith" seriously.  That's clear by virtue of all the many unBiblical stances they take on the social issues of the day.  And as if it wasn't bad enough they defend those issues, that defense leads to the young and the spiritually poor to believe indulgence in those sins is OK.  So it results in leading people to sin by legitimizing the bad behavior of those who won't be refused at the Altar. 

The "modern progressives" don't regard the sins they defend as sinful, and so you'll see the "modern progressive" clerics...many of whom are women, homosexuals...already themselves indulging or promoting/defending what is clearly forbidden, with their token allowance, "Sure...I could be mistaken"...passing out the bread and wine like it's franks and beer at the ball park to any who step up. 

Now, it must be remembered we're not talking about not partaking by sinners, as we're all sinners, with many of us in a constant struggle with our own sinful temptations and tendencies.  That's not what this is about.  This is about those who have no excuse for presuming they're good to go simply because many of them say, "Lord, Lord!"  This is about those who reject the clear teaching on the behaviors listed in the subtitle of the piece.  There's no doubt about the sinfulness of them (with perhaps one exception).  Such people do themselves a grave disservice not being more considerate of the Lord in mocking Him by their unjustified self-assurance.  They're worse than the Pharisee in the Temple thanking God he's not like the tax collector. 

A member of the clergy is right to deny the Eucharist to those who are openly in rebellion, such as the politician who defends the invented right to whack your kid before she's born.  Such a clergyman is using it as a teaching moment for the rest of the congregation, affirming the sinfulness of the behavior openly indulged by the denied.  He's letting the congregation know that God is not inclusive where the unrepentant and rebellious are concerned.  He's proclaiming just how serious it is to show such disregard for the Holiness of God were he to administer the Elements to the openly sinful.  I applaud those who will not put the world before God.

(Re: that "one exception".  The RCC has issues with contraception, and by that word I refer to any and all means of preventing conception.  The rhythm method is contraception and I don't know how that could be sinful between man and wife.  Knowing a woman's cycle and engaging in relations accordingly doesn't negate the "risk" of pregnancy 100%.  Only abstinence does and man and wife are not commanded to remain abstinent unless a child is desired.)

Leftist Shamefulness: The Confidence Game Edition

As he is a font of ideas for new posts for this blog, one of Dan's routine accusations about Donald Trump is that he is a "con man".  The charge is that this guy has been "conning" those of us who voted for him and may again.  Like so many words and concepts, it seems clear Dan doesn't understand the term "con man".  It's short for "confidence man".  From the New World Encyclopedia:

The term "confidence man" (usually shortened to "con"), first came into use in 1849, when the New York Herald published a story about the arrest of William Thompson, entitled "Arrest of the Confidence Man".  Thompson would approach strangers on the street, talk a while with them, and then ask if they had "confidence in [him] to trust [him] with [their] watch until to-morrow."  The victims would then give Thompson their expensive watches, believing him to be an acquaintance they didn't remember.

In it's most basic form, the con game cheats others by promising something which won't be delivered while the con man walks away with something of the person promised.  It requires a set up of the victim to make him believe he will also profit in some way but instead leaves him empty handed and out some cash.  The con man then walks away with the mark's cash without having delivered a thing for it.

It's hard to see where Trump has conned anyone.  First, most all candidates seek donations to their campaigns, so that's a wash.  But for the "confidence" placed in Trump as the president for whom they voted, what did they get in return?  Well, to name a few of the many things he did while president on behalf of the people, there was an expanding economy which produced more real jobs resulting in the lowest unemployment numbers since the 1960s and the lowest for blacks since they started keeping track of that specific group of people.  There was cheaper gasoline prices, largely due to bringing us to energy independence, which helps to keep consumer prices low, given fuel's impact on everything related to providing them.  There were no wars started.  There was a move toward stemming the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border which was working.  There was better trade agreements with foreign allies which also improved the economic picture.  There was the standing up to Russia, China, N. Korea and Iran, which made us safer.  There's much more and we got all that simply by voting for the guy and maybe donating a few shekels to his campaign.  

Aside from the gratitude of the people (except for Trump-hating asshats and American destroying leftists...who were assholes already), I don't see how Trump walked away with any of our stuff.  Where's the con?

Dan likes to believe Trump supporters believe whatever Trump tells them, when in fact most already believed as Trump, which was why he got so much support, and so much more in 2020.

Frankly, Trump's always done good for the "average American".  What follows are links describing aspect of his character that lying modern progressives (and really...does one need to add "lying" as if observant people don't already know modern progressives are inveterate, unrepentant liars??) refuse to acknowledge when related to them (because there's no way they'd ever dig to find such things):

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/2020/10/trump-has-performed-many-acts-of-kindness-letter.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-quiet-acts-kindness/

https://www.oann.com/video/pearsonsharpreports/president-trumps-history-of-random-acts-of-kindness/

https://townhall.com/columnists/frankpavone/2020/10/16/donald-j-trump-a-successful-president-and-a-really-nice-guy-n2578182

https://vaccineliberationarmy.com/trump-news/trumps-acts-of-kindness-that-few-people-know/

https://100percentfedup.com/media-ignores-trumps-random-acts-of-kindness-the-latest-from-facebook-is-a-doozy/

Most of these repeat a few stories, but in doing so have something the others might have missed.  And before any jackwagon wants to puff up his chest by noticing, there's one story Snopes found to be an urban legend applied to others before Trump.  But the rest, or the vast majority of them, have been confirmed and again, aside from the gratitude of those upon whom he demonstrated real grace (a word Dan doesn't get), I am unaware of him having taken anything from any of those in the stories such that they were worse than before they met him.

I dunno.  Maybe the con is still in progress.

Now let's look at another guy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/01/barack-obama-speaking-fees-economic-racial-justice

The above is from a true modern progressive.  That means he's a moron.  He's truly been conned by a true conman, as were so many of those from the black community.  I recall one woman rejoicing after the ascension of "the smartest man in the room" how happy she was to be getting "some of that Obama money!" And what were race relations like once Barely Obumble got into office?  The degradation noticeably to its current sad state (after a lull during the Trump years).

But I can be more specific about what a conman looks like:

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/06/tucker-carlson-interviews-obama-accuser-larry-sinclair/

Down near the bottom of this piece is the actual interview of Larry Sinclair by Tucker Carlson.  Sinclair is adamant in his description of Obama as a "grifter", which is another word for "conman".  He used the word "con" during the interview in reference to Obama.  His testimony is credible.  We know because Carlson refers to him as credible.  And we know that's all one needs to do to be credible is to have someone simply say you are.  We know this because that's how it works with Dan.  Of course in this case is that added bonus of actual names cited, dates and places, as well as the fact that he's be quite open about his personal life including criminal history.  

Yet Dan was and still is straight up conned by Obama.  As Carlson suggested toward the end, many voted for Obama simply because of the belief that his winning the election would result in improved race relations in this country, which never happened.  They conned themselves on that score. 

I believe that's the case with regard to Biden.  There's no honest person who paid attention even slightly during the last fifty years who would've thought Biden was a legit choice for president.  Even if the modern progressives actually believe their lies about Trump (who conned them into believing all that crap??), only morons could've thought we'd in any way be better off with a guy even the true conman Obama assured us we could leave it to Joe to f**k things up!  As such, I don't think Biden's smart enough to run a con.  He actually believes his own high opinion of himself.  I guess he conned himself, too.

The left is rife with conned victims.  Many Dem voters believe the GOP is for the greedy and the racist.  Then there's Obama and Biden and Sanders and Pelosi and so many more making big bucks off of being in politics.  Dem voters think their party cares about "the little guy".  Where is there any evidence of that?

The list of examples could stretch into its own series, and I may indeed post a "Teil Zwei" at some point.  But I'm confident I've drawn quite the contrast between an accused conman and an actual conman. 

OH!  I almost forgot.  Another conman...if one chooses to refer to this guy as an actual man...would be Danny-boy himself.  He's been trying to con people into believing he's a Christian for years!!

Leftist Shamefulness: Word Abuse Edition

This is a subject I've been wanting to address for some time.  As I stated in my last post, there's just so much horrific modern progressive harm being foisted upon the nation these days that it's hard to pick one example for analysis and discussion.  But a recent inappropriate description of two poll workers/election officials as "heroes" compelled my decision to move forward with this issue.  It happened...where else?...at Dan's blog ( http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2023/08/this-is-not-normal.html ) after lying about Rudy Giuliani "admitting" he lied about the two women.  He didn't, of course.  He simply said he wasn't going to contest their claim that he was.  It was a legal move by another from Trump's team who must cover every direction from which incoming fire is originates.  At this point in time, Dan's hypocritical refusal to support that truth claim has remained in force.  Instead, he offered all manner of nonsense to defend the two women.  I don't know if it can be proven that what Giuliani alleged is accurate, as it is unlikely he'll be given a fair chance to make the case, nor will it be likely we'll see the other side prove the two women were angelic in their implementing of their duties and did nothing wrong.  For this discussion, that's not the issue, but just the set up for it.

As I continued to do battle with Dan over that which he falsely insists on promoting as true, and with most of my comments unfairly deleted for rank bullshit reasons that are also mostly lies, he eventually saw fit to label these two poll workers as "heroes".  Therein lies the issue now on the table.

Apparently to Dan, these two are heroes for merely showing up to do the poll worker thing.  The job ain't dangerous.  They don't have to throw themselves on live grenades hurled in from the street through the window.  The building isn't being shelled, or attacked by BLM/antifa thugs.  They're just, ostensibly, counting ballots.

To be as fair as possible...you know, "embrace grace" and all...Dan points to their claims of having received death threats.  His "support" for this claim is that they live in the south, so racism.  Then he points to reports of "thousands and thousands" of death threats having been directed at an unknown number of election officials/poll workers.  Neither the smearing of the entirety of the southern states of the union, nor the allegations of what appears to be a really small number of people charged with threatening election officials, with only two, maybe three convicted of actually doing it, Dan's not offered anything remotely resembling actual evidence these women actually were threatened with death by anyone at any time.  They said it, the likely perpetrators in Dan's mind must be Trump supporters, so we've no reason to suspect two black women in the deep south are anything but perfect angels speaking truthfully after having been suspected of foul play in ballot counting.  Thus, they're "heroes".

(Side bar:  I tried to find out the names of poll workers in my state, in other states, anywhere in the country.  Aside from the top election officers in each of about a dozen counties in my state...bupkis.  Who is exposing the names of these people such that so many claim to be receiving death threats?  A Colorado case resulted in a guy from Lincoln Nebraska being sentence.  For threatening someone in Colorado.  How did he come to find someone in Colorado to threaten?)

Anyway, calling these women "heroes" for doing nothing truly heroic is not untypical of the modern progressive.  In this case it's Dan once again elevating one of his own to the status of one among the Heavenly Hosts, in order to contrast them with the evil Trump supporters.  Because in DanWorld, hoards of BLM/antifa thugs are "outliers", while a few right-wing miscreants are emblematic of the entirety of conservatism.  But hold that thought while we get back to the abuse of the word "hero".

Dan perverts this word the way leftists pervert so many other words.  We've seen what they done with "marriage" and "family".  Heck, you can do whatever you like and if you say you believe in Jesus, you're a Christian!  "Love" encompasses every act of lust to the leftist.  A man can be a woman simply by saying so.  Dan uses "pervert" as just another pejorative against Trump, while defending, celebrating, enabling and supporting true perversion in the form of LGBTQ+ behaviors.  Those are perversions by definition.  And naturally, one of the first words they bastardized was "gay".  

Then there are expressions or slogans, like "the War on Women" meant to assert that the right-wing is misogynistic for doing noble things like defending the right of the conceived to live because they're people, too.  There's the "Inflation Reduction Act" which the Liar In Chief admits wasn't about reducing inflation.  Most Dem bills they seek to pass are equally fraudulently named.  The "Equal Rights Act" isn't about equal rights.  Then of course, there's "toxic masculinity" which is a total invention meant to "put me in their place" so to speak.  It's a totally feminist fallacy.  It's used mostly when men do what men are supposed to do which can conflict with the agenda of the radical feminist.  And there was the lie promoted by modern progressives as the "Don't Say Gay Bill" which nowhere within it was the word "gay" in any way prohibited anywhere at any time.  As such, it was a GOP bill which the lying left chose to rename to stoke criticism and objection by the morally bankrupt and the stupid who won't investigate what their lefty overlords tell them.  

And that's really the point.  They mess with words and phrases to deceive.  If some GOP majority legislature chose to attempt to pass a "Ban Abortion" bill, it would be clearly a bill seeking to ban abortion.  They wouldn't, like Dems, dress up the name to make the lazy believe it was going to do something different than banning abortions.  The left does it constantly because the truth is not in them.  The truth is a great problem for them, now more than ever.

So getting back to individual words, I earlier mentioned BLM/antifa.  Their destructive and often murderous behavior was regarded as "mostly peaceful protests" and "the voice of the unheard".  A few hundred pissed off Americans at the Capitol are called "insurrectionists" and rare instances of property damage and physical assaults, most possibly responsive in nature.  Large groups of punks can rob merchants in broad daylight and the left regards it as "reparations", as if they have any such coming.  

I had intended to make a list of all the various ways the left perverts words.  I'm sure anyone who cares to comment can provide a number not listed here.  Heck, I could make a list of just the words DAN perverts!!  The point here is that it's a widespread and intentional strategy of the left to lie in this way in order to draw support for their America destroying policies.  

So here's what needs to be done:  When a lefty misuses a word in order to demean you or another of like mind, challenge him aggressively to justify the use of the word.  If they call a rich guy "greedy", force them to provide evidence of actual greed.  If you're called "racist" by one of them, demand the rationale.  You won't ever get it, because everyone's a racist now.  And that's the problem with the "hero" crap.  It alters the meaning and exclusive nature of the word, regardless of whether or not the word is "good" or "bad" in nature or its natural use.  I'm not a hero for showing up for work.  I'm a hero for taking a bullet for Dan. (No wait...that doesn't make me a "hero".  That makes me a moron.  But I digress.)

Words mean things.  Honest people use them to convey truth.  Then there's the modern progressive who uses words to push a vile agenda.   Always.   Don't let them get away with it. 

Which Way Should I Go? So Many Choices!

 I'm a little overwhelmed.  There's so much going on in the news that it's hard for me to keep up.  I'd like to comment on most everything I hear, see or read but there's just so much.  Between other blogs I like to visit, news sources of various types and just people talking, it's hard for me to decide on which I'd like to comment without something else coming up before I put fingers to keyboard.  

My series on the shamefulness of the shameless left is difficult given one single topic could provide fodder for a completely dedicated blog of its own to truly cover.  I'm not sure I didn't bite off more than I could choose with that one.  There's nothing of the left...the modern progressive...which isn't shameful and there's no end to the manifestations of their shamefulness.  It's like they're competing with each other to determine which of them is the most shameful.  

It could be just referencing all the stupid crap Dan Trabue says and supports.  That alone could be a separate blog just responding to his moronic heresies of his fake Christianity, or his vile hatred of Donald Trump and the GOP or his laughable defense of various progressive narratives and initiatives.

The disaster of the Biden administration, put in power after a fraudulent election rife with fraud can all by itself provide fodder for a renewed "American Descent" type blog (God rest Eric Ashley's kind soul!).  To think some people saw him as a panacea for the invented dangers of the Trump years is sheer insanity, given what an incompetent and waste of Congressional space that asshole has always been.  And now we have absolutely unequivocal proof of what a stupid, moronic asinine and asshole notion it was to suspect we could ever be better off with this putz in office instead of the beneficially effective Trump modern progressive lying assholes demonize as a pox on our nation.  Who could be more unfit for the presidency than Biden?  Obama was unfit compared to Trump.  BUSH was unfit compared to Trump.  

Then we have this:  Some Proud Boys guy named Biggs was given 17 years in prison for doing pretty much no harm of any kind on Jan 6, 2021 at the Capitol.  Terrorist enhancements by a Trump appointed judge (Trump's picks for his world were among his few, but serious mistakes) were leveled on this poor guy when his worst move was shaking a fence.  (Some reports suggest he helped to push one fence down.  Even so...) "Terrorists" brought down the World Trade Center.  They don't protest at school board meetings when their kids are exposed to filth and porn and homo crap.  They don't pray at baby murder abortion mills hoping to persuade "mothers" to let their children live.  They don't protest against the certification of potentially unlawful electoral ballots.  They do burn cities over the lie that racist cops are targeting black people and have "murdered" black people who were actually thugs being combative during a legitimate and justified detainment.  They do rob merchants in hoards in broad daylight. 

Even among those who actually destroyed things at the Capitol, who actually laid hands on cops (who acted badly first...they or the cops), there are none who should be treated as enemies of the state when the real enemies are those who f**ked with the election from the very beginning.  

Then there's the renewed calls for masking and "vaccinations" which someone pulled from their asses.  There's the asshat green energy liars.  There's the "trans" pervs and the worthless living on our streets, crapping on it, doing drugs and other vile things in front of kids and women.  

What this all is the the consequence of modern progressive ideology...the true and present danger to our nation.  How can I cover all the aspects...all the many manifestations of this abomination? 

I'm aging fast.  I'm far closer to the end than the beginning.  I have daughters and granddaughters.  What will become of them when I'm gone with these leftist assholes running free?  I know family and friends who support all this shit.  I'm willing to be forever estranged from every damned one of them in order to broach the subject in hopes of opening their eyes to the obvious they should already be seeing clearly.  Should they decide to avoid me from that point, so be it.  They hated Him first, so they will hate me as well for all the same and similar reasons. 

People like Dan are reprobates.  He's been given over to his corruption.  I need to believe there are those who can be drawn to Truth, even it's only truth, for the lack of either is killing us.  I'm ready now, anytime He wants to call me home.  Until then, I intend to be a real pain in the ass because there's no being Mr. Nice Guy anymore if we're to push the needle to the light.  Being nice won't get it done.

So what shall I post on next?  What of the many crimes of the left will I highlight?  Who will I piss off and what side of the divide will that person be?

I may take me some time before my next post in order to determine my direction.  I may be forever retired now and I may be more active than merely blogging.  I've much to think about in the coming months.