Subscribe: Marshall Art's
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
blog  christian  comment  don  good  issue  lies  long  make  much  obama  people  point  things  time  trump  women 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Marshall Art's

Marshal Art's

...where I'm likely to ramble on most anything. My goal: To persuade or be persuaded.

Updated: 2018-02-07T16:19:56.356-06:00


More Than Just "A Little" Biased


One of Dan's nonsensical attacks on Trump is Trump's attacks on the press, and how anti-American and damaging to democracy it is for a sitting president to call out the press.  Despite Dan's ignoring of the facts I presented showing that his guy Obama was truly the malicious one in how he dealt with the press, Dan regards Trump's legitimate concern with blatant and hostile left-wing bias as somehow of greater concern.  He has provided no evidence that Obama's attacks worried him one bit, demonstrating that Dan is no better than those he defends.

In any case, I thought I'd provide some examples of liberal media bias and "fake news" that justifies Trump's criticisms, but also justifies the general mistrust of the media by the American people in general.  I doubt Dan will peruse these offerings, but at least he can't say no evidence exists that justifies those critiques and lack of trust.  Here ya go:

I really could have spent a lot more time gathering such stories.  These cover the issue from a variety of angles.  Personally,  I don't have a problem with a given news source deciding what story deserves its attention.  It would be great if they could be held to account when the general public finds out that their choices do not inform us in a manner that is most beneficial or informative (and truthfully so).  Fortunately, there are so many more sources available now than ever before.  But UNfortunately, this requires more diligence by the consumer to find sources that are trustworthy and dedicated to bringing news that is indeed most beneficial and informative (and truthfully so). 

The bottom line for the purpose of this post is that Dan's concern that Trump is wacky and a liar for calling out the press and for lamenting the proliferation of "fake news" is no more than scraping for evidence with which to indict Trump.  The more Dan can find to demonize Trump, the better, because Dan embraces grace.  

Count this as another area that Dan is completely wrong about Trump. 

Lefties Are Liars


Is it wrong to defend Hitler against false charges against him?  It would seem so to listen to those on the left.  How about unsubstantiated, unproven charges?  Again, the left would have us do so. According to my understanding of our American ideals (as set forth by our founders and supported by Christian principle), it is no less a lie when false charges are brought against an evil person that against the good. The recent dust up over the Roy Moore candidacy is the perfect example.  Let's assume that Roy is as racist, homophobic and...well...whatever else people thought of him before the allegations leveled against him in the eleventh hour of the race for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Do these flaws justify our knee-jerk acceptance as truth those allegations of sexual impropriety from forty years ago?  Now consider:  from how I understand things, Roy Moore's "racism" is based on two things. 1.  Some comment he made about how long it's been since America was great (or something to that effect).  He said it goes way back to the days of slavery.  This has led lefties to say that he wants us to return to slavery today.  Yeah.  I know.  It's absurd to pretend that one means the other. 2.  His position on the election of muslims in government.  Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition.  Our founders agreed.  They, too, saw islam as incompatible with our way of life.  That's not racist.  That's pragmatic, realistic, logical.  Incredibly common sensible. Moore's "homophobia" is also based on his understanding of the facts about homosexuality.  I've posted several posts dealing with the many lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based, and Moore simply has similar common sense positions. It is not hate to deal in realities.  One isn't necessarily hateful of another who is not worthy of selection for the baseball team.  In the same way, one isn't hateful, or bigoted, of someone who isn't worthy of elected office or a marriage license based on truths used to reach the conclusion.   Lefties would insist, however, that holding those positions are proofs of hate...because it's just easier to so insist.The second point leads to a third area that led to Moore's rep as a bad dude:  Decisions he made as a judge.1.  He opposed the Obergefell decisions as that which forces Alabaman county clerks to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.   But Moore understands two things of great importance here:a)  Those clerks are not working for the federal government, but the Alabaman governments (state, county, municipal) and are beholden to them, not the SCOTUS.b)  The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.2.  He stood firmly behind his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on public property.  There is no Constitutional breech at play in doing so.  Nothing in the Constitution forced him to remove the monument.  Only those with a bad understanding of the first amendment did. So these are the main areas of contention between Moore and those who use these situations to justify their hatred for him.  How dare he stand in the way of saintly homosexuals!!!  How dare he question the motives of angelic muslims who by their faith can lie at any time!!!   How dare he have a sound understanding of Constitutional principles!!!  The hatred that these positions provoked in the leftists meant that this guy could not fart out loud without being accused of some great evil.Now come the allegations of sexual improprieties just before the actual vote was to take place.  "We find the women credible" they said, without any actual reason to do so.  No counter testimonies speaking to his character in a positive way would ever be considered credible now, and they weren't.  There's no way to verify that the allegations were true, but sole[...]

An Open Letter To Dan About His Open Letter To Alabama


Dear Dan,Having read your letter to Alabama, I felt it a better option to respond in kind here rather than at your blog.  Hence, this letter to you.  It will be pretty much the same kind of response I would post in the comments section under your nonsensical letter to Alabama, in terms of style.  That is, copying the various statements one by one with my reply following."We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country..."...mostly as a result of center-left forces pushing the culture toward perdition with too little resistance by the center-right." I was raised as an extremely conservative..."  "this former raging-conservative"In all the years we've been going at it, you've not once demonstrated a grasp of what it means to be either a political or theological conservative.  It's just a word you throw around because you think it helps you to posture yourself as thoughtful.  You do the same with the word "progressive" (as do most who refer to themselves by this term) as if it means you're doing something or supporting something new and more beneficial.  "If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil.""This is true.  You choose the greater evil every time.  If you voted for Obama, you chose the greater evil.  If you voted for Hillary or Bernie, you chose the greater evil.  Go back farther.  If you chose Al Gore or John Kerry, you chose the greater evils. You define evil as it suits you and your posturing.  This posturing is the support of evils of the kind you refuse to recognize as evil...such as abortion or homosexual behavior, or the confiscation of the wealth of the productive to name just a few...twisting these evils to appear as "progressive" and beneficial when they neither and never have been." It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines."As much as I detested the sophomoric braggadocio of Donald Trump, and his infidelity and alleged adultery, it is absurd to consider these wicked characteristics as so horrid as to allow either a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders to prevail, when those two presented a far greater danger to the republic.  To stand down from one's duty to country over such things and then pretend to be morally sound is no more than rank preening.  I'm not impressed in the least, but rather disgusted by its falseness."But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies."This is particularly egregious given the people you do support.  Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist.  Socialism is a lie.  Obama and Hillary are a step or two away from admitting the same of themselves.  Their own lies are well documented, but you've said nothing about them.  Most of those lies are far worse than how many showed up for an inauguration, or how great one's tax plan is or any of the many insignificant things Trump has said that you add to the list as if they're akin to "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" or "our people died because of a video".  The lies of Obama have helped to double the national debt.  And then of course there are your own lies...lies that are perpetuated by other so-called "progressives" regarding the aforementioned social issues.  Your candidates spew them as a matter of party policy, and despite all evidence, you pretend they are truth and facts."When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."No.  He is suggesting a possible explanation as to why these allegations are being made at the elev[...]

Are The Democrats Embarrassed, Yet?


The title of this post is in direct response to Dan's post Is The GOP Embarrassed, Yet?.  In it, he refers to both Donald Trump and former judge Roy Moore, who just won a primary election in Alabama for the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Dan spews his usual hateful vitriol against Trump and provides the same for Moore.  He hates Moore because Moore is an actual Christian who knows and understands both Scripture and the U.S. Constitution as they were intended to be known and understood.  Doing so makes him vile and reprehensible in Dan's world.

And of course, Trump's evil personified as well as mentally unfit for office, because Dan saw a book by a couple dozen shrinks of unknown political persuasion who said so.  (Of course, saying homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so is delusional.)

But here's the thing.  I am embarrassed that the GOP couldn't promote a solid conservative properly to avoid the ascendancy of Donald Trump.  It had an excellent alternative in Ted Cruz, but he wasn't establishment enough.  That's embarrassing.  The GOP wanted someone more McCain-like, because that worked out so well with McCain.  It never understood that McCain didn't stand a chance until he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.  But she, too, isn't establishment enough to garner the support of a Mitch McConnell.

So it's embarrassing that a party with control, of all three of the movers and shakers, the House, Senate and presidency, can't get something as asinine and destructive as the Affordable Care Act repealed outright, or even replaced.  Indeed, it's embarrassing to me personally that the GOP wouldn't even try to make the case that total repeal alone was not only justified, but beneficial.  They allowed the lying left to insist that people will die and let them do it without response.  No.  They clearly didn't want ACA repealed, even though they had the votes to do it in 2015, lacking only the president's signature to make it so.  Having obtained that, they bailed on the idea in favor of ACA-light.  That's embarrassing.

And it's embarrassing that the GOP can't cobble together enough of the plethora of facts on any of the social issues of the day and produce a compelling argument for the sake of righteousness and the soul and character of our nation.  One would think it would be a relatively easy task given the indisputable nature of the facts that support conservative notions of virtue and morality.   But the GOP is too spineless in the face of BS allegations of racism, discrimination, misogyny and a host of other lies used by the left to appeal to the emotion, rather than to whatever mind exists in the heads of Dem voters.

But here's the thing.  Embarrassment only afflicts those who have a conscience.  For those who feel no shame, who reject the concept of guilt, except where it can be used to force compliance by those with said conscience, there is no embarrassment.  Yet there is plenty for which the left in general, and the Democratic Party and its supporters should feel great shame.  I'll be posting on that incredibly long list soon, though I doubt I'll be able to take the time and space for a complete list.  It'll just be too long.  A complete list is unnecessary to make the point.  Stay tuned.

Sorry. Guns Still Aren't The Problem.


The recent tragedy in Vegas has resulted, so very unfortunately, with the same old, same old.  The left are out insisting on "common sense" gun control as the means by which we can rid mankind of the kind of evil that resulted in so many dead and injured.  But as McVeigh and 19 muslims proved, there are many ways for madmen to kill lots of people.  So it ain't guns.  Never was and never will be.  Taking them from the rest of us only puts more people at risk with less hope of rescue.We hear again about "gun show loopholes", which do not truly exist as they are described by know-nothings.  And to the extent that gun shows have ever been tied to crime is only due to so-called "straw purchasing", which is already illegal.  It isn't possible to make what is illegal more illegal.  Someone on Facebook mentioned preventing the mentally ill from having guns, as if that hasn't been addressed already as well.  The true issue here is one of civil rights and when one is certified as being mentally ill and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms.  It isn't a simple thing to make such determinations, and certainly, as with no-fly lists, there would certainly be those who are wrongly regarded to be among those with whatever degree is decided upon to deny a person his Constitutional right to bear arms. Speaking of which, more than one person has suggested that anyone on a no-fly list should be denied.  But again, there have been many cases where someone is wrongly added to that list, and now, as if being wrongly denied the ability to travel by plane wouldn't be bad enough, a person would lose his right to self-defense, too. Of course the big thing now is bump stocks...a devise that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire multiple rounds quickly, almost like a fully automatic weapon.  They've been approved for sale because they don't actually convert such weapons to full auto, and few people even knew they existed before the Vegas tragedy.  It even appears as if the NRA is willing to stand down on this particular issue and allow the knee-jerk control freaks to outlaw them.  This doesn't deal with the issue of just how simple it would be to make a homemade version that would work just as well as the store bought, but such people never think beyond the self-serving politics in which they're engaging.  (And that means, no, I don't think they really care about saving lives.  I think they care about appearing to care about saving lives, or they'd deal with the real issue....which ain't guns.)And then there's the question of "need", or more precisely, lefties whining that they don't see any need for anyone to have an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, an AR15 style weapon (because they look scary) and in this case, a need for bump stocks that allow one to fire their weapon like it's a Tommy-gun.  The better question here is, who are these people to suggest they can impose their idea of "need" upon another as if they know each other person's personal situation.  I recall the riots after the Rodney King verdict where Korean store owners were on the roofs of their businesses with guns protecting their property.  I'd wager their need was real and legitimate.  But "need" is irrelevant.  It's called, the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. What's more, this whole gun-control thing smacks of bad parenting, where all the kids suffer because of the misbehavior of one sibling.  I hate that, and I hate it more on the adult level where it is even more common.  With this issue, it is especially heinous as it puts people at risk, just to politically posture one's self as "doing something".But then, guns ain't the problem, anyway.  Never were and never will be.  In the meantime, I'm posting links to a few relevant articles and vids.  They address this topic well.  Take the time. https://thefede[...]

No, I Meant YOU Should Embrace Grace, Not Me!


Just a quick post here to highlight curious practice of deleting legitimate comments by one who has complained about ill treatment after having been blocked from commenting at the blogs of Stan, Neil, Glenn, Mark and I don't know how many others.  Oh, how he whined when references to his positions were posted at any of these blogs!  Now, after having been accused of supporting and defending rapists, he deletes my comments posted to clarify my position and question how his charges expresses the spirit of "embrace grace"...a term he is quick to use at other blogs where his weak arguments are appropriately derided for being as weak and dishonest as they are. 

You'll note that at this here blog, I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, either upon myself or worse, my other of the only rules for engaging here that I have.  Even then, if such comments contain actual substance, I tend to copy such comments, delete them, but then re-post them with the childish vitriol either deleted or re-worded in brackets (this happens now and then when feo posts something that, for him, has just a bit of substance or something for which a response seems appropriate---a rarity).
Some would ask, why bother?  There are two reasons:

1.  I enjoy regular discourse a bit deeper than small talk.

2.  I much enjoy discourse with those who have opposing points of view.  And with those with invented religions to which they attach the word "Christian", there is much to discuss.

It's too bad, but leftists are notorious for running away...surrendering without actually conceding defeat.  Deleting comments is one manifestation of this trait.  And even if any of my comments are truly lacking in substance (as feo's routinely is), deleting them leaves one forced to take the word of he who deleted them...and that's a risky proposition, given the less than honest reasons given for deleting them in the first place.  I say, let others back you up by joining in and criticizing what I said.

I once deleted a comment of Mark's because I thought it was over the line in terms of crudeness.  His point could easily have been expressed differently to get the same thought across.  From that point, his deleted comment was referenced falsely by the person at issue here, and from that point I found it more practical to leave even the crude comments stand, so as to let people expose themselves as well as to let others respond if they felt like it.  And of course, to respond to what was actually said, not like Dan who responded as if Mark said something he never said.

I've mentioned all of the above in one way or another on more than one occasion.  I try to practice what I least here at my blog.  Dan does not.  When he runs up against that which he cannot counter, he quits, pretends he never saw it, accuses the commenter of bad behavior or he deletes.  And he certainly fails to ever "embrace grace"...whatever the hell that was ever supposed to mean.

For Hiram


Hiram is an occasional visitor to Dan Trabue's comedy blog.  He interjected a comment referencing an alleged "Catholic conservative" who writes tweets, columns and books and asked for insights on what I believe was   this article mainly, though I could be wrong.  If I am wrong, and Hiram was more concerned with something else written by this guy, I trust he will let me know and I'll do another post.  In the meantime, I'm going with this one because it seemed to relate to the topic of the thread in which his request appeared.  So...Michael Coren is typical of the "progressive" Christian, based on what the linked article implies.  He apparently has written a number of books, with the latest being entitled "Epiphany: A Christians' Change of Heart Over Same-Sex Marriage".  The article in question speaks of a "proposal by Trinity Western University of Langley, B.C., to establish a law school."  The issue revolves around a conflict between Canadian law which supports the travesty of SSM and the right of a religious school to impose standards upon its students...the disregard for which can lead to expulsion.  This is the typical conflict imposed by all states or nations that choose to support a behavior long considered immoral and abnormal.  In the good old U.S. of A., our Constitution acknowledges our right to express our faith as we see fit in all we do.  Such legal impositions such as state recognition of sexual immorality naturally causes hardship for people of faith and reason and naturally pits "rights" against each other.Such is the case with Trinity, as they seek to maintain standards of conduct among their students, faculty and employees.  It is their right to do so and as these standards are up front, open and easily found out by all who seek to spot among their community, the whine that they are "denying" or "discriminating" if homosexuality is akin to race or ludicrous.But worse, the hatred for those who uphold long held and time-tested standards of morality and virtue extends to the hiring of those who acquire their law degree through this university.  The problem is that British Columbia will, like Ontario, deny law licenses to graduates of Trinity's law program, simply because the school has moral expectations for their students!  It's not like graduates are obliged to ignore the law simply because they signed onto a covenant.  But just like in the case of Amy Coney Barrett, somehow leftists, and this Coren dude, can't believe that a Christian can uphold the law if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  In the case of BC and Ontario, apparently, they aren't even going to take the chance, as idiotic as the notion might be.  So what of Coren?  Early in the piece he makes the cheesy and woefully deceitful argument (though typical of the "progressive" Christian) that after His resurrection, Christ "went on again to not address sex, abortion, contraception, pornography or any of the other topics that seem to so obsess the Christian right. Odd, that."  Not odd at all, given three very significant factors:1.  Christ was known to uphold the commandments of the Father, encouraging obedience to them, including those regarding human sexuality, which prohibits various immoral expressions of it.  What this doofus refers to as "obsession" (another typical argument and equally false) is actually concern with the obsession of the immoral that has led to laws that codify immorality.  As sexual immorality is harmful to body, mind and soul, decent Christians are justified in opposing it where proponents seek to legitimize it.2.  Jewish law in the time of Christ resulted in sexual immorality not being as common as it otherwise might have been, and the punishment for being guilty of engaging in homosexual behavior was death, so it wasn'[...]

Is the G.O.P racist?


It ain't a trick question.  It's an irrational but widely held belief by those who oppose the GOP.  There is no real, true, honest (sorry for the redundancy) basis for the belief, but it proliferates.  Purposely.  It's a good lie to tell because it puts center-right people on the defensive and distracts from shortcomings of the left as the center-right wastes time explaining reality and/or distancing themselves from whatever provoked the charge in any given circumstance.Here's Dan Trabue commenting on the subject in the comments section attached to a recent post of his from August 26, 2017 at 10:11 PM:"WHEN it already appears that you are a party of racists, WHEN there is a literal history of you all being on the wrong side of racism, WHEN your presidential candidate repeatedly played to/appealed to racists, THEN you damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst. And that is why you all are viewed as the party of racists and racist supporters."The following is an even more egregious example of this blatant falsehood that Dan perpetuates.  It is the lie that provokes this post:"Not implying anything.I'm saying:1. The GOP has a racism problem. They are perceived by many to be harboring racists. This is just a point of fact.2. The GOP's racism problem didn't arise from nothing. It's based on real world events and words from conservative types.3. There ARE racists in the GOP/right wing, point of fact. Yes, it's also true that there are racists in the DNC/left wing, but not to the point that it's as big a problem as with the Right. We don't know how large the numbers of racists/nazis/scumbag types there are in the GOP, but it appears to be a significant number. Trump could not have won without the votes of racists/"alt-right"/nazis. 4. We warned you all (indeed, many conservatives warned us all) that Trump was invoking racist language and empowering racist groups back when he was campaigning. It was obvious enough/clear enough that many conservatives noted it. 5. And those warnings went unheeded, and now we have a president who has made nazis/KKK-types/racists feel comfortable and emboldened to crawl out from under their rocks. The nazis/racists will tell you that they have been emboldened by Trump and that "wing" of the conservative movement. So, while we don't know the number of racists/nazis/white supremacists in the party, they are having their day and their way with the Trump presidency. The GOP/Right Wing is in a crisis because of this maniac and is not doing enough to stop it.Disagree all you want, the data is there. I just hope enough of the Good Conservatives grow some spines and start taking courageous steps to (non-violently) end this fiasco. In the meantime, we on the Left will keep fighting racists and nazis, it's kind of what we do. I just hope you all can swallow your pride and join us at some point. Redeem yourselves.~DanAugust 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM"Sorry to have posted such a large chunk of his steaming pile, but it needs to be addressed.  But before I do, I have one more from Dan that I feel is relevant.  Speaking of those like himself, and ostensibly the progressive left in general, Dan, presumably with a straight face types:"We hate lies, we hate racism, we hate gross stupidity/ignorance in places of great authority."This is not at all true, as lies are essential to much of what the left, and Dan, promotes.  As regular readers (such as they may be) know, I've an ongoing series called "Agenda Lies" that speaks to just one issue championed by the left which details all the lies that led to an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.  The stupidity of the left is also blatant and obvious regarding that issue, and no more so than the stupidity of believing the rest of us are stupid enough to buy into the lies of those[...]

Dan Is Such A Brave Boy


...then Dan says to me,I said one chance, Marshall."One chance and one chance alone, Marshall. Do you agree that neo-nazis and KKK members and their comrades have lost the opportunity to be treated seriously, respectfully or to be met with anything but contempt?"THAT is the point of the post. Do you understand that this is the point of the post? Do you agree with the point of the post?"I can't put into words the comedic effect of condescension from someone of Dan's questionable character.   The reason for this hubris stems from my original comment after reading his post from Aug.13 called RESIST (yes, it was in caps and bold print, because he's serious, dammit!).  He finishes his post beginning with this line:"Good and moral people must always stand opposed to oppressors."...and that was what prompted my initial comment, which reads as follows:"And that's why I stand firmly opposed to abortionists and those who enable them. The horror and oppression of one group of selfish, anti-science monsters against the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind must be opposed at all costs, and those who stand with the very people who seek to legitimize the practice (the lion's share of the Democratic Party, for example) are heinous for doing so."It's like all these conservatives who try to mock those who value tolerance for being intolerant towards some. But who are we being intolerant towards? The intolerant."This is a lie. You are being intolerant against people who are intolerant of immoral sexual practices and against the support (legal, social, pseudo-religious) of those practices in all its you think you'll ever address intolerance by black groups any time soon, or are you just opposed to intolerance by "white boys"? Just wonderin'."Dan doesn't get the connection.  So, in his arrogance he condescends and demands an answer to a question I really shouldn't have to answer.  But I did.  He just didn't like it the answer I gave and deleted it. You see, the problem is that this post of Dan's constitutes the definition of low hanging fruit.  Indeed, the fruit no longer hangs but was lying there on the ground next to where Dan was sitting, rotting half eaten.  He just picked it up and apparently feels just so noble and courageous for saying the obvious.  My goodness, how righteous he is!  HE OPPOSES NAZIS AND THE KKK!!!!  He's a pip!There's so much wrong with his post and his many inane comments that followed in response to both Craig and myself.  And my initial response provides a few:1.  Dan is an oppressor himself, and an oppressor of the most vile kind.  He is an abortion supporter, recently claiming (sincerely or for effect---it doesn't matter, really) that he no longer finds abortion to be immoral.  Here's some perspective from a 2013 article.  Dan wants to get all self-righteous about neo-nazis and klansmen while defending that which has killed far more people than all white supremacists in the history of this nation.  He wants to posture himself as among the "good and moral people" of America.  Clearly my initial comment indicates that I clearly do oppose oppressors beyond just the Klan and neo-nazis.2.  He lied about conservatives being intolerant.  It's what the progressives do...because they don't understand conservatism at all, and because they need to demonize others in order to appear to be the morally superior faction while promoting immorality.  But while those bozos are intolerant of conservatives and Bible-believing Christians, we're intolerant of behaviors that are displeasing to Christians are supposed to be.3.  Dan takes great joy in referring to the Charlottesville protesters as "white boys".  I've never heard him refer to any of those stoked so hig[...]

Bad Time For A Movie Like This


With Friday's newspaper comes the entertainment section, in which new movies are reviewed.  This week, Kathryn Bigelow's new movie "Detroit" debuts.  It is called by movie critic Dan Gire, a "docudrama", which means it's a dramatic depiction of actual events surrounding the Detroit race riots of 1967.  I'm not intending to comment on Gire's slanted view of this movie...slanted in the sense that it regards this depiction to be the unvarnished truth rendered in an absolutely objective manner without regard to personal biases.  Whether police brutality was suffered by the black community in greater degree than by others (like hippies) is not a concern here (though they most assuredly were).  Whether or not the police overreacted to the response of the black community after a police raid on an illegal event (possibly, though "overreaction" to an entire community looting, burning and assaulting would be difficult to measure) is also not a concern.  Whether or not blacks overreacted to the police raid of said illegal event (Yes.  They most certainly did.), or were in any way justified in doing so (No.  They most certainly were not.  No one would be.), is as well another story.No.  Here, my concern is with the making of the film and the timing of its release.  I don't know when this film was conceived, nor when production of it began.  The best I can determine at this point was that it wasn't all that long ago given Bigelow's announcement in early 2016 that she intends to collaborate with Mark Boal on the film.  She's been a busy woman in recent years and sometimes these things can take quite some time to get from one's initial inspiration to actual release for public consumption.Bigelow, in one interview, stated she felt it time to enter into discussions involving race relations.  I don't know where she's been, but it seems to me that she's somewhat late to the party on that score given that Eric Holder chided us in 2009 for being "a nation of cowards" with regard to such discussions.  The thing is, not only are many of us willing and eager to get into such discussions, many of us are willing to be absolutely honest about it, including discussing the topic from a wide variety of angles.  Some of those angles are those others would prefer not be discussed.  For the purpose of this post, the point has to do with what impact a film like this will have on such discussions, as well as on the climate of race relations as it now stands.  This assumes the film is entirely accurate and honest as to the events of those riots in 1967.  That's in question given that some don't even want to use the term "riots" in favor of a more noble "rebellion".  Recent years have shown that arguing that all lives matter, in response to chants that black lives do, is itself a racist comment to some.  Exposing the numbers regarding who's doing what and in what percentages also results in outcry, as the truth interferes with a narrative by which some benefit.  I would suggest that this film will only make things worse in that regard.  It will validate some false opinions with which truth, facts and evidence are inconvenient.  It will be used to justify more attacks on cops, as if the attitudes of most people today remain unchanged from 50 years ago...which is blatant nonsense.I don't think the movie will tell us anything we didn't already know, except perhaps that the riots actually took place.  The young may not be aware.  But will they be enlightened, or further indoctrinated?  I don't know, but I don't think incendiary films like this are the way to bring it to their attention.  I hope we hear of no violence tied to any presentation of this film.  And should dialogue t[...]

Much Ado...


So way back in April of '07, when I began this blog, I had a notion for a title that reflected a major interest of mine...martial arts.  As my name is "Art", it seemed a natural to appropriate the term for the purpose.  After setting up the whole thing, that nagging feeling I had turned out to be provoked by a misspelling.  My mildly clever idea had been to use the term for a law enforcement officer, which as it turns out is often spelled as I had initially spelled it on my masthead (according to Wiki).  As I was new to the whole create-your-own-blog thing, and as Blogger was a bit different at the time, I wasn't keen on trying to figure out how to fix it.  So I left it.  Yet, I intended to one day fix it, because I didn't think it conveyed the clever idea as well as the more common spelling, and thus you see the blog is "renamed" MARSHAL ART'S.  (woo-freakin'-hoo)

I even have a concept in mind for graphics.  That requires actual sketches to get it right so that it looks good, and perhaps contracting with one or two other artists to do it for me, to see which version I prefer.  It would blend the western notion (Marshal Dillon) with the combat arts in the design.  What's in my head is way cool.  How long it'll take me to actually do it is another matter altogether.   Then of course I'll have to determine if I can actually import the pic to appear on my homepage.  Sounds like work.  I don't like work. 

You won't have to do anything different to get here, gentle reader, as evidenced by the fact that you got here.  And whoever is so compelled is free to engage in snark and mockery related to my misspelling my own name.  Just be prepared to suffer a virtual spinning back kick. 

Just as an aside, and for the purpose of needlessly expanding this post, I want to tell you a little story.  Back in the day, when I was full on martial-manic, a fellow karateka joked about our own TV show.  We only got as far as the intro, and it would be a martial artist cop show (like Walker: Texas Ranger became).  At our dojo, I was the only "Art" and this other dude was the only "Gary".  So, the voiceover would say, "MARSHAL ART!  and his sidekick (and as I would perform a side thrust kick, the camera would follow my foot panning over to), MAWASHI GARY! in..."(we never came up with an actual title)  A kick in Japanese, we were told, was pronounced (likely poorly) "geri".  A mawashi geri was translated as "roundhouse kick" or "round kick".  Hence the nickname of my associate, Gary, who would perform a roundhouse kick.  We even acted it out now and then for other eye-rolling students.   Oh, how we laughed.  "Marshal Art and his sidekick Mawashi Gary".  Those were the days.  He's in Houston now.  But anyway, that's whence the name of this blog originated and I'm sure you're all appropriately enthralled and enriched by the knowledge.

You're welcome.

And Then, Of Course, There's Dan


A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion.  This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic.  The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue:  is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother?  Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question.  He believes...scratch that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward.  It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes.  It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me.  I love red meat!).  It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins.  (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human.  From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being."  A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't.   It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent.  (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event)  I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings.  As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise.  Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven.  Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking.  This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being.  Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence.  Hair continues to grow.  Cells are replaced.  Damaged parts are[...]

From The Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"


As the title of this post implies, the topic is compelled by a nonsensical question posed by feo.  Before I get to it, there are two other statements he made on which I wish to comment.  Don't bother trying to find them, I've been deleting his comments due to restrictions placed upon him due to his ongoing hateful behavior.  But these comments and the questions I thought were worth saving until I had the time to compose a post about them that will demonstrate once again how foolish he insists on being.  Let's begin:"In christian theology marriage is a sacrament of the presence of God in the love two people have for each other."Remember, this is a guy who brags about his vast knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith and his overall intellectual superiority.  The above may be an example merely of hasty composition, but it's really not much of a definition.  That is, it wouldn't pass the editor's approval due to it's sloppiness and lack of precision.  Here's a far better definition:In Christian theology, the sacrament of marriage is the union of one man and one woman who, in the sight of God and for His glory, vow to love, honor and serve each other faithfully, forsaking all others, until death parts them.That's far more accurate a representation of what a Christian marriage is.   Indeed, that's what is actually is in fact."I like rubbing your nose in who you are given that you (sic)  spine bends that far back."Since the first time he's darkened this blog by his arrogant and condescending presence, as if he's ever presented reason to justify such attitudes, he has either failed to understand who I am, or, more likely, lacks the honesty to acknowledge who I am.  For example, despite repeated requests for evidence to support the charge, he likes to think I'm racist.  I've no doubt that's just his self-loathing white guilt talking and I pray that when he gets the psychological counseling he so desperately needs then that issue will be addressed as well as all the others.As to spine, I'm not sure exactly what he means there.  But he hasn't demonstrated he has the spine to engage in honest discourse without the nasty, hateful pettiness.  He likely is referring to his charge that I dodge his accusations or something to that effect.  An absurd charge to say the least.  It's a defensive tactic when faced with that which his "intellect" fails to provide a legitimate and compelling response.  I'd actually have to be an incredible coward to run from the lame and infantile rhetoric and accusations he constantly puts forth.  I mean, it's not like he offers up anything that I'd consider a real stumper.  And the question (more of a demand, really) to which I referred is a good example:"Try to explain to me how baking a cake for a gay wedding supports gay marriage but voting for a racist isn't supporting racism."No "trying" required, first of all.  To provide anything for the celebration of sexual immorality, which he refers to as "a 'gay' wedding", is to take part in the celebration.  That's obvious.  It doesn't matter whether one provides a product or service for free or if one charges for doing so.  It is taking part in the celebration either way.  Certainly, one's participation ends once the product or service is delivered, but taking part it is nonetheless.  Promoters of sexual immorality like to pretend that isn't the case, but the whole purpose of the product or service being requested is to celebrate that immoral and depraved union.  To provide that product or service acknowledges that the union of two of the same sex can actually be a marriage.  Such acknowledgement is su[...]

A Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"


Just a short note:  feo is not banned from this blog.  That's the first thing that needs to be said.   I am more than willing to engage with those of disparate positions and opinions and to provide the opportunity for such to fully present them.  That's never been a problem for me.  I welcome it more than agreement with the like-minded.

But feo isn't willing to engage.  From his first visit to this blog, he's done little more than assert, condescend, insult and attack, all without a shred of supporting evidence.  This is a guy who claims a vast educational background including seminary training.  His demeanor, prideful, arrogant and as I said, condescending, belies any claims of Christian devotion.  And like Dan, his support for sexual immorality and the murder of innocents also suggests otherwise.  As such, he has long since worn out his welcome as if his only goal is to be banned outright and with extreme prejudice.

But feo doesn't get to call the shots here.  Instead, he now has very strict guidelines for maintaining his welcome.  From this point forward, be it commenting on this post, or any future or past post, he is now required to be the kindest, most gracious and humble visitor to this blog.  No insults, no condescension, no arrogance, no profane or obscene talk or words of any kind.  The standards his ongoing, unrepentant behavior has invited has put him in a very special and unique category.  He must maintain these high standards even in the face of direct and purposeful attack and provocation directed at him by absolutely anyone else.  Any comment he posts that is in breach of these standards will result in the deletion of the comment as soon as I read it.

To all others, know that should you respond to a comment by feo that is anything less than saintly in tone, it may appear to be speaking to no one after feo's comment is deleted.  I may even delete your response as well, just for the sake of clarity.

feo needs to believe that I delete his comments because I'm afraid of the "facts" he presents, even though he doesn't post facts, or what he posts has no relevance to the topic.  And that's another standard he must uphold.  He is not free to commandeer a thread as he tries to do with too much frequency.  He is free to request that I cover a topic, but he is not free to go off on tangents or to attempt to start a new discussion unrelated to the topic at hand. 

I've always maintained that it isn't so much name-calling that's a problem in today's culture.  It's the unjustified name-calling.  That is, as an example, feo constantly calling me a racist without ever...EVER having offered even one bit of evidence in support of the charge.  Opposing, say, affirmative action policy, Barack Obama's presidency or rioting by blacks after a black thug is killed while committing a crime, is not evidence of racism in the least.  BUT, feo is allowed to say, in the nicest way possible (as judged by me), "I think your position is racist, and here's why..." which is likely to begin a legitimate back and forth (until he reverts to his usual prideful and hateful ways). 

As I type this, feo may well be posting his usual hateful drivel.  Those comments are not long for this blog.  I'm suggesting there will never again be a comment of feo's that does not get deleted, because he doesn't have the character to act as if he actually has the character of a Christian.   If anyone wants to start a pool, let me know here.

Obama Made Us Safer? Uh...


In a recent discussion from not too long ago, Dan assured us that Barry Obumble has made us safer.   While that's a laughable suggestion on its face, given the rise in terrorist activity here and abroad, I just saw this article that proves just how ludicrous the claim is.  While the article speaks specifically about the Democratic-led city of Chicago (led by former Obama co-hort Rahm Emanuel), it contains this gem as well:

"According to this FBI report, violent crime in the U.S. increased a little more than five percent the first half of last year." (2016)

Chicago, and two suburban cities, Elgin and Joliet, saw much larger increases in violent crime. 

The claim, therefore, that Obama somehow made us safer is not supported by law enforcement.

What's more, despite Obama's claim that no terrorist organization has attacked our nation during his administration, that's a hollow victory to say the least, given the several so-called "lone wolf" attacks, such as the Boston Marathon Bombers, the San Bernardino shootings and various other examples of islamist inspired murders. 

Chicago just hosted Obama's farewell address before adoring chumps to whom he could say anything and be believed as if he spoke the truth.  This article provides us with this morsel for our consumption:

"A few hours prior to the event and while people were arriving there was a carjacking and holdup involving a gun not too far from the venue."


And several miles from the Obamas' Chicago home, police reported two bodies found in a vacant South Side building."

Yeah.  He's made us so much safer.  I don't know how a 5% rise in violent crime translates into a safer nation. 


Jew Hater Obama and His UN Failure


Recent anti-Israel sentiments by the current administration does not surprise.  Not at all.  The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has always been contentious, to say the least.  But now, as he winds down his failed presidency, Obama can't help but engage in more hateful attacks against the only nation in the Middle East worth a damn.  There is no legitimate excuse for the behavior of our ambassador, which no doubt was the result of administration direction.  To have abstained from voting on this newest anti-Israel resolution is not only a departure from long-standing US policy, but a direct slap in the face of one of our greatest allies.  To pretend that building homes on what is actually Israeli land is the true issue preventing peace in the region is just one more indication of the stupidity and ignorance and deceit of Obama, his administration, the UN and the left in general.  The true obstruction to peace is the hate of the muslim world against Israel, and the Palestinian agenda that aims to destroy them.  This wish is shared by many in the muslim world and Obama has done much to appease it and by doing so, is complicit in all attempts to make that aim a reality.  His Iran deal is further proof.But one remarkably idiotic statement by his current buffoonish Secretary of State, John Kerry (oh, how happy I am that this crap-for-brains didn't win the presidency in '04) is this one...that Israel can be Jewish or it can be a democracy, but it can't be both.  Let's set aside the fact that it has been both throughout its brief history.  It is a mostly Jewish state that has democratically elected muslims in its Knesset.   How many Jews are in the governments of any muslim nation?  Might "zero" be to large a guess?  Israel's identity is inextricably tied to its Jewish history, even more so than is American to its Christian roots.  But what of those muslim nations, particularly those who pretend they are "Palestinians", as if that is a thing?  Are they not entirely muslim while not being anywhere close to democratic (except to the left who aren't bright enough to know what that even means)?  Where is Kerry's, and of course Obama's, admonition that the Pallies and the muslim world in general cease their "death to Israel" attitudes and behaviors in order to move toward a lasting peace?I'm already on record as ignoring the Palestinian's claims with regard to Israel, pre-1967 borders, right of return and their false claim to be a people that deserve a state of their own.  They deserve rebuke and opposition until such time as they prove that they can accept Israel and regard them as equals...and even then, they are entitled to nothing with regard to land that is rightfully and historically Israel.  But Israel is worthy of our support and alliance.  This administration has crapped on that relationship for too long and it is just one more reason why the end of the Obama years is a reason for great celebration, both domestically and worldwide.  UPDATE:  As I continued to read up on the details surrounding this issue, I came upon various videos and podcasts that explain how the entire claim of a "Palestinian people", as the term is now used in order to create a separate state, is total nonsense and one of the greatest lies perpetrated in human history.   There is no need for a "two-state solution", as there has already been a two-state solution in place for decades.  The following link is to a podcast wherein the history of the region is explained in great detail.  There is nothing within it th[...]

So Here We Are


OK.  So Trump won.  Now what?  So far, I see things I like and things I don't like.  His selections for most of his cabinet posts are pretty good, a few not so good, others I have yet to judge one way or another.  I'd love to see him appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State, if for no other reason than to see leftist head's explode like a 4th of July fireworks display (Oooh!  That's the kind I like!)  Though neither of them needed Bolton's help, JB would make Clinton and Kerry look like absolute idiots.  He's not a pushover and he knows foreign affairs far better than either of them.Not crazy about Trump's moves concerning either Carrier or Boeing.  With Carrier, it is really no different than what lefties do to keep large companies from leaving town.  They offer a deal.  While I like the the company isn't moving to Mexico, I'm hoping it doesn't mean that as president, Donnie will satisfy himself with picking winners and losers like Obama does.  The real goal is to remove the reasons that compel them to leave.  That means getting together with Congress to lower corporate tax rates and ease regulations everywhere it makes sense to do so.  That's about all a president can do or should do. From there, one must hope that there are unemployed people who will choose to work for any of these corporations that stay or return.  I recently heard that there are about half a million manufacturing jobs available right now that go unfilled.  These are good paying, skilled positions.  How many are offering on the job training, I don't know.  To what extent a president can influence work ethic, I hope Trump can figure out, because many of those who dropped out of the job market don't really wish to return at this point.  And the young aren't quite of the same cut as workers of previous generations, so remaining and returning companies are only part of the solution to unemployment.  But Trump has campaigned on making it easier for companies to stay and thrive, so let's hope he can have success on his end of the bargain.Boeing is a different deal.  And it's a deal between them and the those who ordered their talents in developing a new fleet for AirForceOne planes.  They aren't even contracted to build anything yet.  I just don't think it's as simple as saying "that's too much dough...forget it".  At the same time, it puts people on notice that Trump is concerned about costs for that which government intends to do.  So that's good.  I just hope he doesn't think he can simply oppose something superficially and expect that his will be done. Over at Dan's, he worries about Trump's truthfulness.  Remarks Trump made about landslide wins and millions of illegal votes have provoked Dan's concern.  I have trouble with Trump's liberal use of hyperbole, but mostly because of reactions to such as in the case of Dan.  When Trump doesn't weigh his words, he'll have to waste time clarifying or walking back from them.  That's just the type of crap the left loves, since it's easier than actually coming up with solutions to problems that actually make sense. But worse, Dan's concern is ludicrous given the deceit of the opposing party leaders.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  "Benghazi was the result of a video."  "I was pinned down by sniper fire in Bosnia."  and a host of other crap sandwiches served up by Obama, Clinton and others in the Democratic party.  They live on that stuff, draw in voter support by such stuff and have [...]

The Kids Are Alright


Over at Dan Trabue's blog, he often (almost always) posts that which provokes a response from me.  Now and then (almost always) he rebukes me for my observations, conclusions and perspectives on whatever topic, issue or report compels them.  Kinda goofy considering there's a place at the end inviting comments.

But this time, as his recent posts here and here  involve family, specifically his kids, I thought it best I post my wonderment here instead of there.

Now, first of all, I want to reiterate what a wonderful thing I believe it to be that his kids popped for the trip for the family to take that marvelous vacation.  I'm truly envious of him as well as very much happy for him.  How very cool indeed!

Now here's the "but"....

How is this remarkable good fortune not an example of "over-consumerism" against which Dan so often preaches?  Did he not make his position on the subject well known to his kids?  Did they ignore his teachings about simple living?  Was he informed of their plans before the arrangements were set so that he could gently reject their plans, encouraging them to instead make a donation to the poor in his name as a better use of the money so that Dan would not have to bear the shame of having more than so many unfortunates?

I only mean this with just a tad bit of snark.  After all, it isn't like such an expenditure wouldn't fall within the boundaries of opulence and hyper-consumption.  It's neither a need nor a simple pleasure to take such a trip.  I personally have no problem with enjoying the fruits of one's labor to experience as much of the world God created as money allows.  That would be nice stuff of all kinds, including Lamborghinis, large estates, a fine wardrobe, fine dining and of course, European vacations (if not a second or third residence there).

But not Dan.  He doesn't believe we're to have more than we need.  And that's the problem here, because who needs to go to Europe for a vacation?   Did I say how cool I think it is that he got to go, and to go courtesy of his kids?  Way cool!  Good for him.  But by his own beliefs, shouldn't he be ashamed?

Coming Attractions


In two recent posts
and, the intrepid and always faux-intellectual feo listed 15 points meant to testify to the greatness of one Barry Obama.  I've been wanting to take on this list, most if not all 15 points, in an effort to present the reality that is so hard for those like feo to take.  I don't know how long it will take me to get through them all, assuming I ever feel I need to do so, as my schedule leaves me little time to truly gather what I need to complete the task.  But in time I will indeed get most of them.  I may do two at once depending upon the nature of the given assertions, while others will surely require undivided attention.  I'm not sure if I'll take them in order, or by virtue of which is the most outrageous claim.  Nonetheless, the list gives me something to do until a more pressing issue compels me.  In the meantime, I will begin with the link below, which deals with the Great Unifier, who has done so much to divide us.

By The Numbers

2016-06-24T23:33:03.473-05:00 above is a short film put out by the Clarion Project about the actual numbers of those who claim to be "moderate" muslims versus the entirety if islam.  It demonstrates what many have been saying for some time with regards the notion that "not all" are extremists or jihadists or even in agreement with those who are.  It speaks to the incredible task of finding those among the muslim population who are actually more like us than not in terms of rejecting the vile and barbaric beliefs and practices that in recent days have resulted in the murder of 50 people in a club in Orlando, FL.  There was a recent post by leftist looney Dan T regarding what he hailed as a historic event to which someone from his church (if I recall correctly) was a part.  This conference saw itself as one that is "doing something" to end the violence associated with the teachings of islam...teachings which many claim are not truly the teachings of the "prophet" at all. Dan also has done much trash talking about Donald Trump and his call to halt immigration and the flow of refugees from countries with muslim majorities...countries known to have a large radical muslim population or are under radical muslim control.  This suggestion has also been put forth by people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and between the three of them the suggestion shows far more concern for the welfare of the American people than anything proposed or implemented by the current administration and those of his party seeking to step in when he thankfully steps out.  And about that... a curious thing.   In 2009, the Obama administration did exactly that which is proposed by those three with regard to halting the flow of refugees from, I believe, Syria.  Don't recall too many lefties whining about that being un-American, as if allowing just anyone into the country is what America, or immigration for that matter, is all about.  Immigration policy is not for the immigrant.  It's for the host nation who allows immigration.  It's for OUR benefit that we CHOOSE to let anyone into the country at all.  It is NOT anti-American to deny entry to anyone for any reason whatsoever.  Nor is it "unChristian" to totally seal off our borders until such time that we, based on reasons that make sense to our own national security and the benefit and general welfare of our own people, choose to open them up.  It has been the fashion to label Trump as racist for his stance on immigration and border control.  That is, it has been the fashion of the typical center-right hating liberal (not that Donnie is a conservative or anything) to so label anyone who dares suggest we take a step back until such time as we can secure those borders, improve the efficiency of our vetting process and find those who have overstayed their visas.  That isn't racism at all, regardless of who it is we want to more thoroughly scrutinize.  It's called "protecting our own people".  The boneheads who have failed to prevent terror attacks in this country (since Obama first became president) speak of needles in haystacks as regards finding the small percentage of scumbags willing and eager to perpetrate more Orlando crimes.  FBI Director Comey has even suggested some of the hay becomes needles.  Dan, Obama and other leftist pinheads want to bring in more hay and hope for the best.  They think our refusal to do so would incite more muslims to radicalize.  What a joke![...]

Toto, I've A Feeling We're Not In Kansas Any More.


What a sad time.  Coming to the end of an eight year period of idiocy by a guy poorly pretending to be a president, and what have we got?  The choice between bad and worse and the inability to decide which is which.  I am on record as insisting it is the duty of every American to vote...for every Christian to vote...that not voting is a vote for the worst of evils on the ballot (assuming more than two)...and that one cannot complain about the state of affairs when one did nothing to influence the direction of the state.  So now what do I do?  Assuming there's still a chance ol' Bernie can win the Democratic nomination, there's no way on God's green earth that I would ever vote for a socialist...especially one as goofy as this guy.  And Hillary?  Are you freaking kidding me?  At best she's four more years of Barry O!  Then there's the Trumpster.  We know what kind of hell hole we'll be in with either Bernie or Hillary.  Of that there's no doubt.  They simply CAN'T improve our situation.  But Donnie-boy is an unknown.  That is to say, we really don't know what he'll do given the fact that he hasn't given us a whole lot about which we can feel certain.  I'm not talking about getting things done, but about exactly what he'll try to get done.  He's walked back a lot of things he's asserted he will do.  I'm concerned about the guy's character, frankly, and despite what some who are said to know him well say, it's hard to feel good about a strip-club owner.  There's also his lack of concern for private property rights.  And we're just supposed to believe him that things will be better with him in charge, when a little insight as to how he intends to accomplish what he promises would go a long way toward instilling some confidence in those like myself who are not impressed with his "political incorrectness".  That alone is a big deal to me.  There's rejecting political correctness, and then there's being an ass.  There is no need to be the latter when claiming to favor the former.  In speaking to Megyn Kelly, he said he likely wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't acted and talked like he did.  I don't doubt it for a minute.  But being a clown is not what we need in a president, as Barry has proven.  (Indeed, pretending for a moment that he's actually conservative, he's the conservative Barry O, and his supporters are very much like Barry's were...and just as foolish.)He also told Kelly that if he fails to win the White House, he would regard his campaign as having been a great waste of time.  Two problems with this gem:  1.  He didn't use the word "failure" in regards know...FAILING to win the presidency, and 2.  Striving to serve the nation as its president, but failing to be elected is not a waste of time if one is truly concerned with doing the job I the first place.  His comments indicate an "it's all about me" attitude, which seems to be totally Trump.And that's another problem.  Many insist that he will surround himself with really good people.  I would hope so.  But my fear is that he will not abide their counsel.  He regards himself highly.  He's a legend in his own mind.  Will he truly take guidance from more expert people?  I could go on and on about all the things that make him a horrible choice.  As disappointed as I was with the American people for Obama, both with thos[...]

Agenda Lies 10: Nothing to Worry About


There is an insane push by the activists of the agenda that does not exist to force laws that require opening women/s rest rooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and the like to men who "self-identify" as women.  We are supposed to put aside the feelings of actual women on this matter and subordinate them to the demands of sexually perverse men.  We are told that there is nothing to worry about, women should just deal with it, because, after all, these men are women, too, and as such there is nothing about which any woman or girl should be alarmed. 

Oh, no.  There are separate stalls in restrooms and some locker rooms.  As there men are really women, they have no desire to do anything other than relieve themselves or change their clothes or try on clothes that won't look good on them no matter what because they aren't really women.  The real women will just have to accept that not all women look like women, and some really, really look like men, but if they say they're women, then by golly, they must be.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well...this link, and the video within it gives us examples of just what could go wrong.  They are EXACTLY examples of the very fears women, and their menfolk, have expressed, and what normal, honest people could easily foresee.  The link is an article by the incredible Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, and outfit that gives hope that Illinois isn't totally the leftist hellhole it has been trying to become for most of its existence. 

One particular story in the video (and there might be another, as the vid is a bit long----watch it all anyway) concerns a creep who in the guise of a woman attacked a woman at a women's shelter, the very place women at risk go to escape creeps who have or wish to attack them.

Of all the insane items on the LGBT agenda, it is hard to argue against this demand being the most insane.  I pity the scumbag who comes out of a women's restroom before my wife or daughter does.  I would consider his having been in there at the same time as a sex crime, with my womenfolk being the victims.  They don't belong in there, and the rest of us normal people have no obligation to acquiesce to their mental instability.  They can find all the enabling they need in an institution under the care of a serious mental health care provider.

Agenda Lies Opposed: Hope For The Culture Still Exists


It appears that not every major medical association has bought into the nonsensical "gender identity" narrative.  The
American College of Pediatricians apparently cares more about the welfare of America's children than they do the feelings, sensitivities and ideologies of the "trans" community.  Good for them, and better for the kids. 
For honest people not deluded by false rhetoric or cowed by the fascistic actions of the LGBT agenda activists, what is obvious is confirmed by the College.  For the "gender confused", it is not the body that's the problem.  Sensible people have been saying "Duh!" to that statement of fact for years.  And to refer to enabling as child abuse's about time.  It's as long overdue as was the admission that what has been happening to Christians by muslims is "genocidal". 

Our young have been inundated with all manner of immorality for quite some time.  It is a blessing that things are not far worse than they are now, though it's hard to imagine it could be much worse.  For some, it would have to be far worse before that some would begin to acknowledge what is so obvious. 

The enabling of the confused child by the radical sex activists, as well as their encouraging of children to "experiment" with their sexuality has indeed caused great harm.  Parents who are justifiably alarmed when their children "come out" are vilified and demonized if they don't accept totally the direction their children are heading, when the proper course of action is to encourage kids to refrain from indulging their compulsions in this area, and to guide them and reassure them until such time as they are adults and fully capable. 

As most kids will simply pass through this phase, it is abhorrent that anyone would dare demand that parents acquiesce to the child, rather than remind the child that they are obliged to acquiesce to their parents.  Too often we are told tales of children victimized by their parents because they "self-identified" as being of the sex opposite what their chromosomes prove they are.  We never hear the parents' side of the story.  But parents are right to care enough about their children to risk the wrath of the child.  Of course the kid will rebel.  They will say the parents are cruel.  These stories are put forth by enablers who care for the LGBT cause, not the welfare of the kids. 

We need more medical professionals "coming out" in favor of the truth about these things.  No more "tolerance" that puts kids at risk. 

R.I.P. Antonin


It is with great sadness that I learned that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.  I am saddened for him, naturally.  But worse is my sadness for our country to have lost such a great member of the Court, one who truly understands the Constitution and how and when it applies. 

We now have the threat of stupidity forced upon the nation to a greater degree than it has thus far been imposed.  Obama, the Idiot-in-Chief, the empty suit, the bane of our nation's existence, will no doubt select another brain-dead leftist to pervert the Constitution in the furtherance of leftist ideology.  I don't know if there are enough Senators wise enough to do the right thing in terms of who they are willing to confirm.  There should be no attempt to posture themselves as anything but committed to the most Constitutionally literate and devoted candidate for the appointment.  No more Sotomayors.  No more Ginsburgs.  No more Kennedys.  No more Breyers.  No more Kagans. 

We need another Scalia, another Thomas, another Alito.  At the very least, another no worse than Roberts.

We won't likely get one.  We'll get another idiot with an agenda far removed from that of the duty of a Supreme Court Justice. 

The passing of Antonin Scalia is a true American Tragedy for both the loss of possibly the wisest Justice we've seen since his appointment on September 26, 1986, as well as for the horror that will follow given who Obama will nominate to replace him. 

We are so screwed.

"De-Friended" Again!!


I don't know what it is about the left.  They are incredibly over-sensitive.

All sorts of stuff gets posted on Facebook.  Aside from that which speaks to personal events in the lives of those on one's friends list, there are many things related to the political.  One fellow seems to do nothing but post things from a conservative perspective.  I often wonder where he gets it all and how much time he spends posting it.  Naturally, listing hard to starboard as I do, I click the "Like" button on most of them.

But another dude posts things of a decidedly leftist nature.  Some of them provoke from me a response because, being of a leftist bent, they are so stupid and false.  I then go on to explain why.

This dude is someone who, for a time, was a band-mate.  His regular band is one of which I am a big fan.  I look forward to an opportunity to again be entertained by his band.  This dude, who I'll call "Rick", since that's his name, has recently taken his leave of me, Facebook-wise, due to a particularly goofy post to which I responded.  It was an idiotic quote from the idiotic Noam Chomsky.  To paraphrase (since I can't seem to find the post in question for some reason), "Everyone's talking about doing something about terrorism.  It's simple:  don't participate in terrorism."

Yeah.  That sounds profound to the left-leaning individual.  Shame on those who participated in terrorism by being victims of it!

So I contributed my two cents.  Such idiotic comments provoke responses from me more vitriolic than what is usual.  The result?  Rick was insulted.  Not long after, I found I was "de-friended".  That's too bad.  It was very recently when we both agreed that dialogue was important, and here he is cutting it off because he felt insulted.

Insulted.  The irony is strong with this one.  It apparently never occurred to him that his posts might be insulting to those the memes intend to insult.  One of his postings stated, "I think, therefore I am not a Republican."  Yeah.  Nothing insulting about that!  But this is typical of the leftist, whether the leftist realizes it or not.  They so often do that which they accuse the other of doing.  They so often ARE what they accuse the other of being.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that the dialogue is now suspended, if not ended.  Yet it remains open here, and I invite Rick, and his band-mate Jon (especially Jon) and his former band-mate Phil to  feel free to respond to anything they might find provokes them to do so here.  I welcome it as I always have.  I sincerely hope they do.  I sincerely fear they won't.  It's been at least a week since I've appealed to Rick and Jon without response.  Leftists always run away. (Except for Dan Trabue).