Arguments Are Less Legit Than I Thought!

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!

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

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.

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.

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.  

Don't Give Them Any Ideas!

 

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.

When millions of illegals were ushered in through the southern border, you said nothing!

When they abandoned millions of dollars worth of military equipment in Afghanistan, you said nothing!

When they flaunted a two-tier justice system, one for them and one for everyone else, you said nothing!

When they covered up the Hunter Biden laptop, you said nothing!

When they passed a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill that failed miserably, you said nothing!

When they forced Americans to take an untested vaccine, you said nothing!

When inflation crushed the middle class, you said nothing!

When they sent billions to Ukraine, you said nothing!

When chemicals polluted the water in East Palestine, Ohio and they ignored it, you said nothing!

When Americans were raped, robbed and murdered by illegals, you said nothing!

When they implanted Kamala as the presidential nominee without getting a single vote, you said nothing!

When billionaire and anti-American George Soros funded dozens of AG elections, you said nothing!

When they turned our classrooms into liberal indoctrination camps, you said nothing!

When they spent our tax dollars on inmates transition surgeries, you said nothing!

When they gave the citizens of Hawaii $700 after losing their entire city, you said nothing!

When they gave free money, food and 5-star hotel lodging to illegals, you said nothing!

When they came for our free speech, you said nothing!

When DEI weakened the military and put our national security at risk, you said nothing!

When they colluded with the media to push false reports, you said nothing!

When it was open season on law enforcement and criminals reigned, you said nothing!

When they weaponized the justice system to take down their political opponents, you said nothing!

When the bureaucrats took over the White House and ran the government, you said nothing!

When they covered up Biden's rapidly declining mental state, you said nothing!

When they groomed our kids in school and hid it from the parents, you said nothing!

When the drug epidemic exploded and 1000s died annually, you said nothing!

When they accosted the Jews on their campuses, you said nothing!

When they weaponized the intelligence agencies against Americans, you said nothing!

When they spent $45 million dollars on "Diversity and Inclusion" scholarships in Burma, you said nothing!

When they let men play women's sports, you said nothing!

When they chanted "Death to America" and burned our flag, you said nothing!

When they shut down our energy production and emboldened Russia, you said nothing!

When the crime rates in American cities increased, you said nothing!

While thousands of veterans were left to sleep out on the streets, you said nothing!

When 300,000 migrant children went missing and no one had a clue, you said nothing!

When Joe Biden pardoned his friends and family, you said nothing!

When they sent billions to Iran and inadvertently funded Hamas, you said nothing!

When men were celebrated for pretending to be women, you said nothing!

When they let a Chinese Spy Ballon sail across America, you said nothing!

When 50 intelligence agents all lied to bury the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation, you said nothing!

When American citizens were taken hostage and held for a year in Gaza, you said nothing!

When Facebook admitted, they conspired with the Biden administration to censor the truth, you said nothing!

When they cleaned the streets of San Francisco for the communist Chinese President Xi Jinping, you said nothing!

When Fauci and the WHO peddled covid 19 virus lies and covered up the origins, you said nothing!

When they sealed the January 6th commission files or "lost them", you said nothing!

You saw the corruption, the lies, the bad policy, the anti-American agenda and said nothing, so please spare us your crocodile tears and all your fake hysteria now. For 4 years you watched this country get run into the ground on all fronts and you said nothing!

Is Another 250 Even Possible?

That would depend upon who's ideology prevails.  Will it be a Constitutional republic, informed and influenced by conservative (as in "actual") Christian principles?  I've no doubt the founding fathers were of that sort, even if altered somewhat by the passing of these last 250 years.  Today, it's referred to by the worst of our people as "white Christian nationalism".  Those lovers of perversion and criminality who appropriate the Name of Jesus, if they even believe in Him at all, simply to legitimize their marxism and hatred of the ideals of our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.  They call themselves "progressives", as if their brand of idolatry and deviancy actually "progresses" us toward a more perfect union.

While these reprobates pretend there's a threat to the nation from "white Christian nationalists" ("Christian nationalists" isn't enough for their fear-mongering...they're compelled by their constant racism to insist these "nationalists" are "white" only if they exist at all), there has been many examples of extremists from the left winning wicked hearts and vacant minds.  Socialism is seen by too many as a better economic system than the capitalism which has lifted so many out of poverty.  It's like these chuckleheads aren't even aware Venezuela exists, much less that it's been destroyed economically in a single generation due to the very system they think they'd prefer.  Every time I hear one of their beloved political geniuses speak, I expect to hear a laugh track.  And it would certainly help if there was one so that at least some of the stupid might be less inclined to take their constant lying seriously! 

And this is what's so disturbing and of such great concern.  It's not that marxists promote marxist ideology in country.  It's that there are so many stupid enough to buy into it.  And the result is the suffering endured by so many in this country is a direct result of the leftism which was already infecting the nation before the left got as extreme as it's become.  But what does the left do?  They dare accuse their betters...actual patriotic Americans...conservatives...of doing the damage.  And more stupid people buy in.  

So while the liars pretend there's such a threat to our nation of "white Christian nationalists", the real threat is the left.  It's been so for quite some time and has only gotten worse.  If it isn't reined in, we'll be lucky to get 25 years, much less 250.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1545926486941695

 https://www.facebook.com/reel/2508560359589002

Newest Nattering Nabobs?

I've been seeing more and more nonsense from Tucker Carlson, a guy whose FoxNews show I watched fairly regularly.  Since he left, I've only caught the occasional episode of his podcast...or whatever it is...and two of them I watched compelled by comments showing up on certain forums regarding the guests he was interviewing...such as Nick Fuentes.  While I agreed with complaints that he didn't push back against some of most radical opinions expressed, I had felt that his purpose was simply to provide a forum to express those opinions in full for all to see, by which all could decide for themselves what to think about the guest in question.  

But as time went on, I kept hearing more nonsensical things coming from him regarding Trump and his actions regarding Iran.  So there's no confusion, I'm totally in support of Trump's actions to damage the ability of the Iranian regime to be a world-class, world wide pain in the ass and major threat to our nation and our strongest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.  To suggest that prior to our initial strike they were not a real "clear and present" danger to our existence is to be a total ostrich, except with one's head up one's own ass.  Forty-seven years of referring to us as the Great Satan and chants of "Death to America" should tell people something.  

Trump has long insisted that Iran should never have a nuke...particularly Iran as it now exists with truly evil people running that country.  Only a true moron would think we can ignore the threat they pose and expect that somewhere down the line they won't unleash a nuclear attack upon us or Israel...or anyone else they believe has it coming according to their twisted fake religious beliefs.  And so, Trump chose to make sure that their threats would be as empty as possible.  To that end he aligned with Bibe Netanyahu to strike them where it hurts, and as we did in Japan in the 1940s, he did it twice so they know he means business.  Now, aside from desperate actions to appear as if they're still the great danger they had been, Trump has pretty much neutered them and their nuclear capabilities are almost non-existent...and certainly nothing which threatens entire nations.

But some, like Carlson, have problems with destroying bad guys, apparently.  He even goes so far as to pretend he's doing Bibi's bidding and not acting on his own volition and understanding of the threat Iran poses.  (Which is it?  Is Trump Putin's pupper or Bibi's?  I need a score card!)  But anyone who doesn't think Trump's his own man is a buffoon and there's really no case to be made to the contrary.  He's even gone so far as to say that he's leaving the GOP over it, and claims if he's leaving others will as well over this.  But here's the thing, despite this claim that Trump's now an "America Last" president...a position held also by sour grapes Marjorie Taylor Greene, I once again insist that Trump's got it right as regards the need to make the mullahs heel, hopefully to the point that the people of Iran can take control and oust the bastards altogether.  The scum won't go away, but for the Iranians to do what they should've done forty years ago might require our continued efforts to keep whatever leadership the regime has left at bay.  

The worst part is hearing how Trump's righteous efforts might lead to many Republican voters to stay home in November.  This is "progressive" level stupid.  How many times does Trump have to prove he knows what he's doing before people will understand he's deserving of a degree of trust?  As with so many problems Trump has and is in the process of resolving, this Iranian thing is a mess of previous administrations' making and this can simply cannot be kicked down the road any longer.  

So some think Carlson is a total Jew-hater and paid stooge of Qatar and such.  I don't know and I don't care.  I do care that anyone will give him more attention than he has coming.  He doesn't know what Trump knows about dealing with either Israel OR Iran, and while he's free to speak his mind...such as it's become...he should be taken with a grain of salt until he can prove his recent wackiness isn't wackiness at all.  I still put my money on Trump.  He's given no reason for me to put it anywhere else, and those like Tucker haven't provided any.

I'm Really Bummed Out. R.I.P. Stacey King

Last night I learned of the passing of Chicago Bulls analyst Stacey King, who has been a fixture on the telecasts for something like twenty years.  He came off the bench for the Bulls during every year of their first "3-Peat", beginning with the 1990 season (King was drafted by the Bulls in the 1st round of the '89 draft---I believe I have these years correct).  

His knowledge of the game was beyond question, he was what's known as a "homer" and his banter between himself and regular play-by-play man, Adam Amin is legendary, as it was with prior long-time play-by-play man, Neil Funk.  What a joy to experience!  Even in recent years while the team has been total crap, he made watching the game "Must See TV", because of his wit and charm.  He would make me laugh my ass off and did so routinely.  

He was also known for the nicknames he gave Bulls players (Derrick Rose was the "Windy City Assassin"), as well as for the many catch phrases he coined.  One became the name of his podcast, the "Gimme The Hot Sauce" podcast..."the podcast the podcasters loved!"  Here's a small taste:

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

The Nationwide Insurance bit was with Neil Funk, and continued throughout his time on the broadcast with Adam Amin.  His relationships with both were palpably tight.  The love is evident.

Here's a longer tribute from the "Waddle and Silvy Show" on Chicago's ESPN affiliate (one of the two all sports stations on the radio, and one of the few shows I hated to miss (but often did because of my job):

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

In the above, Silvy (Marc Silverman) mentioned King in relation to other great Chicago sports broadcasters, like Jack Brickhouse, Harry Carey and others, rightly saying King belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of Chicago sports broadcasters.  I agree.

This one is an interview with Neil Funk on "The Mully and Haugh Show" on the Score, the other Chicago sports radio station:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyq2xQ9U65Y

I feel like posting more interviews with others who worked with him and likely will later.  But for now I'll leave it there.  This post is more for me than for any readers who aren't from the Chicago area.  What is another sad aspect of this sad news is that the Bulls have made big changes in management, a new coach will be selected soon, and they have the 4th and 15th pick in upcoming draft lottery.  I don't follow college sports as some do, but this is said to be an incredibly talent rich pool of selections, with the two likely picks at #4 likely to be a franchise-making player who can do much to turn this team around from the lowly scum they've been over the past five years.  Stacey King won't be around to witness it, and that hurts to know.  I'm gonna miss him.  Everyone the least bit familiar with him will.  

What follows is the last link I'll post, from CHSN, which broadcasts Bulls/White Sox/Blackhawk games.  It's lengthy and includes more examples of Stacey King's personality, which was the draw.  As was mentioned, even though the team was horrible over the last five years or so, King's color commentary and analysis, along with his wit and humor, made watching mediocrity "Must See TV".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oyrfQk7jQA

This post was mostly for myself.  After all, a "blog" is a "web log" and a log is like a diary, wherein one expresses that which matters to he/she who avail themselves of the log.  And given not everyone is a Bulls fan, or a basketball fan, it might be difficult to imagine how this guy could be embraced so warmly by all those had the least contact with him, including just watching him on TV or his podcasts or whatever.  But I do have a more personal situation in a sense.  There's some service which allows someone to purchase a greeting from a celebrity (I don't know if it's only sports, a Chicago thing or is more nationwide...I know of a hockey fan who received this specific gift from a hockey player).  My wife's brother bought one of these for his son who was away at college and it was a greeting from Stacey King.  He previewed it for us at his house, playing it on his TV and if I recall, it was to be a birthday gift.  There on the screen was Stacey King with a personal message to our nephew, Maximus,  It was about five (more like ten, I believe) minutes of encouragement and patented Stacey King humor which had us all in stitches.  He was truly treating Max like he knew him and from what all who worked with him attest, that's how he treated everyone.  

Stacey King.  One of God's best.  Rest In His Eternal Peace.

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.

Lovers Of Life? I Don't Think So!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stunning News!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very sad.  Very sad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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