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

I'm All For It

 In one of Craig's recent posts, Dan felt compelled to weigh in with his usual vile hatred for our president.  The issue was the Trump administration's targeting of narco-terrorists from Venezuela running drugs toward our shores.  Our people would blow up their boats in international waters.  Dan was apparently fine with Biden's open border policies which allowed all manner of scumbag to bring their fentanyl and other drugs across our borders for distribution to stupid people as well as the unsuspecting.  It's said 100K died every year from such poisoning, and Dan had nothing much to say in protest.  If Trump opened the borders, instead of protecting his people as is his sworn duty, Dan would be seeking his impeachment and/or imprisonment because...you know...Must Hate Trump.  And Dan does indeed. 

There's absolutely no policy of Trump's which is above scrutiny.  It is fair, reasonable and frankly, the duty of every American to pay attention as closely as possible to discern what he's attempting to do and if it's a good thing or a bad thing.  

Trump has designated several radical and/or blatantly criminal organizations as terrorists.  With regard to assholes like Tren de Aragua, he has designated them as narco-terrorists who have availed themselves of Biden's stupidity and made for themselves a presence in this country.  Trump...being a regular guy who actually loves his country...wasn't cool with that.  Trump...being an actual man who doesn't like to mess around when serious shit hits the fan...chooses to do something about it.  Trump...being an actual man who doesn't bullshit about the seriousness of a problem and what must be done to resolve it...has chosen to go on the offensive against these most offensive people.  

Dan doesn't like that.  Oh...it's not because Dan cares about who might get 86'd.  Oh no!  It's because...you know...Must Hate Trump and anything and everything he does must be opposed because Dan, knowing nothing but Must Hate Trump, presumes he can criticize the best president we've had since Ronald Reagan...another great president Dan hated.  

Anyway, Dan demands people of intelligence join morons like him in pretending Trump is committing war crimes and such.  It takes a modern progressive asshat to suggest protecting the people of our nation against drug cartels and their deadly products is akin to war crimes, if an asshat is what you want, then Dan is definitely your huckleberry.  He's world class and card-carrying!

So Dan pretends the Trump gang has no way to know if those they've bombed out of the water are actually scumbags and by golly, the US Constitution requires the president to run on over to Dan's place and clear it with him, just as God Almighty needs to check with Dan about abominable sexual behaviors.  Thus, I did some checking and in seconds I came up with the following hard core, far right extremist conservative site (?) which lists the many ways our people can identify narco-terrorists Dan is so keen to defend against the evil Donald J. Trump:

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/detecting-drug-boats-9a18ba

Do these methods, tactics and tools ensure 100% certainty?  Probably not.  But I'd wager the probability of that lofty goal is far, far higher than a putz like Dan has the honor and integrity to concede.  These aren't Jeff St chuckle-heads running this administration, nor are they Biden or Obama administration buffoons, either.  They're actual America loving patriots who, while not being perfect, shouldn't be insulted by being mentioned in the same sentence with any of the aforementioned.  None of the other are or were serious players.  They're all posers and posturing frauds not worthy of recognition. 

Good people disagree with this policy.  Dan's not among them.  I applaud it and more than that, I support taking it to the assholes in ways that have true impact on their future intentions, if not their futures altogether.  When dealing with gangs like TDA and Hamas and a few others, nothing says "We're serious about solving this problem" like killing them.

Within our borders, we have laws which require proving someone is guilty before killing them, or in cases of killing them on the streets, agonizing process compels confirming no other recourse.  While this works great for those who are actually innocent, it puts law enforcement and the public at great risk and so much more often than not, law enforcement and neighbors are well aware of who the most dangerous assholes are.  The really bad guys murder publicly or leave the bodies out in the open as a warning.  This works in areas where LE is not truly concerned with E-ing the L or protecting the citizenry.  But good people can use a similar strategy to put fear where it belongs...in the black hearts of the evil.  

Trump is notable for understanding the necessity of this practice.  It's no good to say it incites the evil to be more evil because they're already evil.  As it stands, bad actors on the world stage are not keen to drawing Trump's attention by being assholes.  He made that known in his first time in office and he's done so again with the strike on Iran.  His righteous assaults on drug runners from a narco state is another example and it is absolutely necessary.  

The only problem with it is that it is not enough.  Evil must be vanquished for the good of us all.  There's way too much of it in the world and the evil thinks the world is theirs.  

Dan's good with that.  He's good with that so long as Trump ends up in jail.  

Neil Simpson. Rest In God's Eternal Peace.

Strangely, I consider myself fortunate to have noticed the Facebook announcement of the passing of my blogger friend and an incredible defender of the Faith, Neil Simpson.  I would have been exceedingly saddened to have found out long after the fact.  It was clear his end was nigh.  What a brave example to the rest of us how he faced the inevitable.  His battle raged for years, sometimes believing he was victorious, only to be once again besieged by the ravages of his increasingly oppressive illness.  

We've never met, but my grief is as no less than having lost someone with whom I was always face to face.  As with the passing of Eric Ashley, I feel this no less than I would a brother or life-long friend and it weighs heavy upon me.  Indeed, I'm crushed by the news as if he was blood.  Both these fine men were close geographically...within six to eight hours drive and I'm defeated knowing I could have never did.  Now I never can.  

Now there are only three left I would love to meet in person and despite the fact they are so much farther away, I want so much to meet and break bread and raise a glass with Craig, Glenn and Stan.  That would please me greatly and I know we would give it up for Neil and Eric and thank our Lord for knowing them, even if only online.  

In the Name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, may He welcome Neil (and Eric, too) into His everlasting presence.  May they both have heard Him say to them, "Well done, good and faithful servant."