Control of the Dictionary
Re: In Which Time Magazine Reports That We Have Always Been at War with Eastasia “Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed.”
Perfectly true, if you remember how these people define what a “person” is; that is, a status that can be given and taken away.
Eric
Eric, right. If you control all the words, you control all the people. Whatever they are.
Re: Time Magazine article. So, yes, up to the election, there was an all-out, well-coordinated, all hands on deck, whatever it takes, dishonest, manipulative, disinformation, misinformation, “mostly peaceful,” effort to defeat Trump. Obviously. And after the election, Trump and Giuliani and Wood and Powell and MyPillow Guy and Newsmax and OAN and Epochtimes, etc., have engaged in an all-out, manipulative, dishonest, disinformation, misinformation, whatever it takes, effort to claim that Trump won the election. These two happenings are not mutually exclusive. This is the world in which we live and the choices our Lord and God has left us with. We don’t live in a world of truth tellers who humbly recognize the Word and his authority, but in a world of “my truthers” who seek to impose their will on the world through their manipulative, dishonest, words. Trump is the master of this, who was beaten by the ungodly weapons he employs, but who does not accept a world in which his word and “truth” do not prevail. Hence, Stop the Steal, January 6th, Hang Pence, etc.
John
John, there is more than a little bit to agree with here. But keep in mind that there are responsible people who saw what was happening in the first instance, and yet who are automatically lumped in with the worst extremes of the second. And the bottom line is whether or not what Time acknowledged doing was “campaigning” or “interfering.” And it is possible to see that it was the latter without being an extremists.
At this point in history, it’s worth remembering those countries which best exemplify Democracy, government by the will of the people. I’m talking of course about Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the German Democratic Republic (now defunct, alas), and the People’s Republic of China. Even their names trumpet their commitment to true democracy (unlike those corrupt Western countries where a powerful elite exploits the common citizen for their own ends)
Andrew
Andrew, thanks for sharing. I think we were in danger of forgetting this.
“My biggest criticism of Trump is that he got rolled on the pandemic . . . Then, fourth, on the stolen election . . .The point is that someone in Trump’s position was likely in possession of far more evidence on this than any of us on the outside. I think it was likely, but in any case, he either had it or he didn’t have it. And this is the point of my criticism. If he had it, he should have done far more with it. If he didn’t have it, he shouldn’t have done as much as he did.” Two push backs on these two points:
1) The pandemic and the stolen election were not separate, unrelated events. They were part of a coordinated attack to destroy our country, and right now, it looks like it may work. Coordinated with whom? The answer is obvious: Chinese communists, in collusion with liberal and Democrat insiders, connived to unleash a bio-attack, use it as an excuse to give cover to mail-in voting, and then engaged in the single biggest coup-via-election-fraud this country has ever seen. The messaging was obviously coordinated, the timing is blatantly obvious as well, and it’s clear that there were people in place who were ready to execute the plan. This brings me to the second point:
2) It’s likely that Trump knew at least some of this, he probably figured out the rest, but he most likely found himself on an island with an absolute inability to do anything about other than to appeal to the already subjugated masses, which was fruitless. What do I mean by Trump on an island? Well, isn’t it interesting how most previous “staunch supporters” of Trump have all of a sudden turned out to be nothing more than wisps? It’s almost as if they abandoned him in his hour of critical need. Further, there is now emerging testimony of people in high places, Republicans even, who took active steps to work against Trump. I’d recommend Patrick Byrne’s recent first person account of his involvement as a good source of info.
So I don’t know that Trump should get criticism for this. By all rights, we should have already obliterated the Chinese government off the face of the earth and either expelled or imprisoned the liberal Democratic operatives who functioned as enemies of this country (and did so in publicly stated, explicit terms in many cases). But that didn’t happen, not because Trump “got rolled,” but because I believe the corruption you highlighted paragraphs earlier runs deeper than you know: throughout our elitist ruling class in the government, throughout military leadership, and throughout the federal bureaucracy. Add in the cowardice of those running this clown show against what are probably additional threats from China to release more, even deadlier bio agents, and you get the recipe for the false narrative we are seeing today.
Goodness, I can’t even get my own Senator (Tom Cotton) to admit to even a modicum of irregularities on election fraud! I mean, we have testimony about wireless transmitters in voting machines, confirmed IP packets being transmitted between said voting machines and various Chinese entities, and what not, but no, even the likes of Tom Cotton can only stand there and call claims of election fraud “lies”.
I don’t think that merits criticism of Trump in that area.
Guymon
Guymon, the fact remains that after a few weeks of foot-dragging, the president tried to get out in front of the panic and become the most fightinest pandemic president ever. I sympathize with the place he was in, but it was a failed strategy from the get-go.
In the Trump post-mortem article, I liked your sentence, “when Trump made the fatal decision to try to become the best pandemic president ever, he was trying to assume command of the mob that was coming to lynch him.” I agree with the overall conclusion; it was a critical & fatal error. I have to wonder, though: Was it an error born of a foolhardy attempt to control the mob? Or, was it an error born of ignorance with regard to scientific realities? If I had not read the Duesberg & Ellison book, I would probably have reacted much differently to the “pandemic.” Reason: the whole thing was so politically convenient, that I was immediately skeptical. . . but even in the face of extreme skepticism, I may have (err, probably would have) gone along with the “let’s be cautious mentality.” Knowing what I know now, I’m sort of ashamed to admit that—but I have a very high regard for hard evidence when it comes to decision-making. And frankly, before I would have been willing to utterly dismiss things that the CDC said, I needed evidence that the CDC was politically-motivated and had lied in the past. Being in possession of that evidence, I will gladly die on the hill of the truth that the evidence establishes. But I do not die on hills on the basis of extreme skepticism alone; life-and-death decisions must be evidence-based.
If I may dare to speculate for a moment, let’s say that neither President Trump nor any of the advisors whom he trusted were familiar with the evidence that Duesberg and Ellison documented. (Personally, I consider that unlikely, but nevertheless a realistic possibility; it never ceases to amaze me how many people, even in ultra-conservative circles, are unfamiliar with that evidence.) Result: Extreme skepticism results in his refusal to wear masks, but lack of evidence-in-hand prevents him from accusing the CDC of being the liars that they are. This rock-&-a-hard-place position led to the decision that you noted.
Did he make a serious error? Absolutely. And maybe, I am leaning too far in the direction of giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously have to wonder if, this time, even he failed to recognize the depth of the corruption that was opposing him. The CDC is physically removed just far enough from Washington to be relevant . . .
If it were not for a tidbit of personal history, I would think of Atlanta this way: “Yes, it’s a city, but it’s ‘in Georgia.'” It is only because my father was a lifelong employee of General Electric, that I am familiar with the fact that, when GE moved a couple of its major divisions to Atlanta, that city became the garden for a significant number of leftist transplants from the Northeast.
GE’s relocation, I believe, happened after Gallo’s tenure at the CDC; I am not saying that the corporate move had a causal effect on CDC politics. Rather, the point is that, even AFTER Atlanta fell prey to immigration from the left, I think a lot of Americans fail to perceive it as a place likely of extreme political corruption. President Trump probably knew better, or should have. But to what extent does he appreciate that the CDC has been corrupt and lying about viruses for decades?
Alicia
Alicia, thanks.
With all due respect, I don’t understand your comment on the issue of Trump, Pence and counting electoral votes. You seem to be painting a picture similar to that which the liberals painted regarding his COVID response. Which is to say, as if he could have personally faced it down in the middle of the street at high noon. I am not familiar with the details of the matter of which you are speaking, but my understanding is that Trump was just the chief executive, while Pence was presiding over the Senate. The whole matter seems to involve a lot of moving parts, which were already being jammed by members of his own party. As a result, I wonder of your characterization of Trump, in this instance, is fair. In some ways, it even seems reckless.
Iain
Iain, I don’t think it was reckless, and here is why. Pence had certain tools in his chest as president of the Senate. If he had used them, even in a mild way (e.g. delay for ten days), the establishment would have gone nuts, and we would have had a full-blown constitutional crisis. Moreover, Pence didn’t believe in the propriety of that tool. Trump had his own means of getting us to a constitutional crisis (e.g. martial law), and he did believe in the propriety of using it. But he didn’t, which is why I think the responsibility should stop with him. I am not saying he should have declared martial law. I am saying that if he had the evidence he claims, he should have brought everything to a head himself, instead of faulting someone like Pence for not bringing it to a head.
As a “Catholic” in what is currently the Franciscan swamp (as opposed to the other “swamps” that have bogged down the Israel of God under the New Covenant (passim the Israel of the Old) – maintaining with you and my brothers (and I guess I must add “sisters”) the truth of Sola Scriptura (properly understood as the final authority) and the gratuitous election to salvation of an elect chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son by the agency of the Holy Ghost through faith (I dare say “alone,” albeit fortified for and through this flesh by “sacraments” and sacramentals)—I have appreciated your sound ecumenical observations regarding the brotherhood (I suppose again I must add “sisterhood”) of all Christians who believe the Gospel no matter what the “high priests” say (à la Francis, Caiaphas).
And now I must tell you that your observations regarding the former president and The Circumstance are simply brilliant.
For what it’s worth . . . from a nobody among the washed masses, who simply wants you to know.
Thank you,
Mark
Mark, thank you. And given your most admirable qualifiers, it seems to me that you are not far from the kingdom.
Just a friendly suggestion to get on Telegram, along with Gab. Telegram being a great, safe, alternative to Twitter (where I and millions have been banned).
John
John, thanks. I haven’t checked that one out yet.
The Masks That Won’t Go Away
Pastor,
I know you have written at length about mask mandates—the legality, efficacy, symbolism, etc.—so I’m sure you’ve already, er, “covered” what I’m about to ask. How does one argue with brothers/sisters in Christ who are convinced that masking is either 1) a good thing, or 2) a lawful thing? Many times I hear the point that it’s “loving my neighbor” to wear a mask, not just because it provides a minuscule bump in actual protection (maybe) but because they *perceive* that it protects them. What do I do with this so that I’m not stymied by Precious Moments sentimentalism in my cold, black heart?
Malachi
Malachi, I would present that calculus back to them in stark terms. Suppose masks are worse than ineffectual, but that they also do more harm than good. The question should be posed like this: If given a choice between doing harm, but looking like you care, or doing good, but looking like you don’t care, which would you choose?
Life Goals
I have been going through your Biblical Finances (on the Canon App) and I have read your Ploductivity book. I have worked as an engineer for various corporations and I have always wondered is how to be faithful with my time at my job. That is, every company I have worked for would love if I worked 50-60 hours a week, and they have placed a work load on me that requires this. Other times, I feel as if I am trying to stretch out my work to 40 hours a week and not being very productive. In any instance, every company expects 40+ hours (“full time work”)—even though they have never said that. It just seems to be a custom.
On the family side, I am no less busy, so very often my job competes with my family for my time. I had thought about becoming a consultant (a big leap of faith), but what has stayed my hand is all of the consultants I know work even longer hours. It also seems like owning a business is no less time-consuming.
I find it is a question of ambition—ambition to be a father and husband versus ambition to be a provider and working for the Lord versus ambition to advance the church. How does one decide whether to work at one job or another—working no more than 40 hours? That seems arbitrary.
It’s a question I have wrestled with for a while that I have not quite been able to figure out.
Any word of advice would be greatly appreciated.
David
David, 40 hours should be thought of as “union hours.” You may not have control over your time if employed by someone else, but in your family work and in your church work, you should be able to determine what you give, not in hours, but in results. Keep the priorities you have, work hard where you are, and pray for God to move you if He wants you moved.
A Theonomy Question
I’m a high schooler in TN who has started to study the depth and richness of the law of God and its applicability today. However, there is one thing I really can’t seem to figure out: What to say when someone says Matthew 5:18 proves too much given a theonomic interpretation. I can make sense out of “fulfill” in 17 and Jesus’ conclusion in 19, but verse 18 is tricky. I’ve read Bahnsen’s exposition, but he doesn’t seem to quite answer the question. Or, maybe I just need to reread it. However, how would you reply to someone saying, given a theonomic interpretation, Matthew 5:18 “proves too much” (given that we really do think the ceremonial law is abolished [Ephesians 2:15])? Maybe it is unfair to assume you are thinking so similarly to me on this passage. However, I know you believe in the abiding validity of God’s law in its general equity. Could you help me out?
Richard
Richard, clearly the fulfillment of the ceremonial law looks different than the fulfillment of the moral law. But fulfilled is not synonymous with obliterated. Fulfilled results in obedience by other means. For example, Paul says that Christians still keep the (Passover) festival, but we do it by getting rid of the yeast of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:8). But we still keep the feast.
Name the Sin
I have been helped by your hamartiology section in your podcast and your insistence on the importance of words and their definitions. It is incredible to me how our society uses language as a tool of obstructing or distorting realities. Vice is swiftly swapped for virtue. Jealousy becomes an innocent insecurity, etc. My wife and I have been talking lately about the essential task of identifying the sin in certain behavior . . . especially with our children. I think maybe she heard this from your daughters, but she has been using the phrase, “name the sin.” Anyhow, this phrase sparked an idea . . . I think you should consider (you’re welcome) writing a book called, “Name that sin!” in which you would each chapter create a scenario with a main character who is engaged in a certain sin, but has identified it as something else. By the end of each chapter the sin is exposed and the person either repents and relationships are restored or refuses to repent and the consequences compile. (Btw. one of the aspects of Peter Leithart’s “wise words” that I so much appreciated was that, to the great horror of my children, some of the short stories had terrible endings. “yes kids, folly can kill” =)
Chuck
Chuck, thanks for the idea. To be frank, it is not like we were running short on ideas, but yours is a good one.
Whatever Happens
One of my prayers lately has been that, whatever happens, God would not allow our children to be taken from us, even though that seems like an obvious, and perhaps imminent step of the Leftist nanny state. I include with that the prayer that God would turn the Secularist’s hatred of children against them and use it to cause their children to start listening to us. I invite you and anyone who reads this to join me. The next step for me is grandchildren, although none are on the horizon yet. Anyway, it would be much easier to raise our children in the fear and admonition of Yahweh if we still have them.
Andrew
Andrew, good request.
Man Rampant
I’ve watched a fair bit of the Man Rampant series and I have a few observations and a couple of questions
First, your content is fresh and presented well; provocative but not preachy.
You and your guests are articulate but not overly heady which is hard to do dealing with the subjects you tackle. (I remember hearing someone say once that in Christian ministry for the most part, we feed sheep and not giraffes, and trying to drink from a fire hose gets you wet but doesn’t easily quench your thirst). This goes for not only Man Rampant but all of your material from Blog and Mablog to Ask Doug. All are innovative but well grounded.
My only criticism of Man Rampant is about your production values. A change of sets and location would make the material more digestible for the viewer. Also, a change a clothing would improve your look. Nothing drastic but blazers and v-neck sweaters get old after a while. I assume that someone on your staff has TV production experience because it is obvious that your programs are well done. I just think they need a little tweaking visually.
My questions are these. What are you sipping while doing the interviews. Bourbon, rum, brandy? And why. I am not opposed to drinking a bit of bourbon and I like craft beers. I’m just curios as to the thinking involved especially when many Christians do not drink and frown on those who do. Also in like manner smoking cigars. The same question, what was the thinking process behind it.? Not so much the doing of these liberties but broadcasting them without explanation. That said your voice is needed today because evangelicalism is a sinking boat . Long live the resistance. With respect
Tony
Tony, we are usually drinking whiskey or bourbon. The reason for doing it (without explanation) is to frame the discussion. We are Christians who are biblical absolutists, which is possible outside of cultural fundamentalism. On the set, we don’t have our own studio (yet). And on the way I dress, I am afraid they are just stuck with the way I dress. I just show up, and there we are.
Where Is Everybody?
I recently became aware of your work, and have now read several of your books, all very good even when I don’t agree with everything in them. I like well-argued points when they are backed up with Scripture, even if I am not completely convinced that the interpretation is right. At least we’re working with the right tools, the Word of God.
I especially liked the closing sentence to your work. After the election, the same became clear to me, though not in such eloquent words. I started a blog hoping to communicate some ideas as to how the church can transform itself to have a wider impact on culture starting with our own personal conduct and then working its way out to how we “do church” then how we can impact the broader culture.
I wonder if you recently had seen in the NYT an article detailing how various left-wing activist groups “on short notice” got 900 of their leaders on a Zoom call to chill out prior to the election.
I don’t really care what they were doing or why that’s questionable. What I found interesting is when I thought “What if I wanted to get 900 of the most influential evangelical leaders and thinkers that are in agreement with me together?” How could I do it? Where would I start?
What I’m getting at is I feel like those of us with a fire in our belly to have some larger influence on the culture (through reformation, not revolution) should have a place where we all congregate and share ideas. I am a lay leader of a small group in my church, so I have some impact there, but it’s pretty limited. All of us posting to our blogs and hoping the right people stumble across us seems like an ineffective strategy. Have you given any thought to this issue?
Jason
Jason, yes, I have. The problem is that in order to call a “summit,” you need to have someone with the moral authority to call one. Such that people come to it. That moral authority has to be enough to overcome ecclesiastical politics, turf jealousies, fear of being left out, etc. I don’t think we have that person yet, but if things continue to deteriorate, at some point we will.
I live in Melbourne, Victoria (Australia). Not only did we lead the world in strictest lock downs in 2020, we are now making a run to lead the way on faith persecution. Take a look at our newly voted for “Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020”.
Try searching the word “prayer” in it and see what you get.
All the while we are being told, “it won’t affect you”
Whilst you may not have heard this story you will be all too familiar with the play being run.
Appreciate your words of wisdom on fighting this madness.
Regards
Andrew
Andrew, thanks.
Wiley on Joseph
Our household got to be familiar with the writings of CR Wiley after Canon’s publication of his book, and we have been greatly benefited. Would you care to weigh in on his recurring theme (on social media, at least) of being critical of Joseph for laying the groundwork for slavery and serfdom for God’s people with the policies he enacted while governing Egypt? Not sure what to think of this, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone do much bashing of this particular patriarch!
Micah
Micah, it has been a while since I looked at that. At the very least, Joseph’s actions constitute a problem to be solved. The recons used to say that paganism is slavery, and so slavery was fitting for them, and that you can’t have freedom without worship of the true God. But it has been a while, and I might not be remembering the nuances.
Kids and Dinosaurs
This morning my 7 year old daughter was trying to resolve woolly mammoths, dinosaurs, and the first couple chapters of Genesis. I was proud of her for thinking so deeply but also realized that I was woefully unprepared. Do you have a short-list of materials you recommend on the subject?
Jordan
Jordon, just remember that you are asking this question of a young earth creationist. That said, I would start with something like this.
He Comes in Peace
I’m Roman Catholic, and I come in peace! Sincere question: what would “Chestertonian Calvinist” be, since Chesterton was utterly Catholic?
Gerry
Gerry, yes, he was. To answer your question, allow me to quote from an upcoming video in the Reformed Basics series:
G.K. Chesterton was a character who was renowned for his jovial and combative insights. He fought unbelief effectively, but he fought consistently like a cavalier and not like a thug. This is all admirable, but some might object and say that Chesterton was an Anglican who then became a Roman Catholic, and he never missed a chance to take a jab at Calvinists and Calvinism. Wouldn’t he be annoyed to find us appropriating his name in this way? Well, yes, and that is the first (and very Chestertonian) reason for doing it. But the second reason is that no other word will really describe what we are attempting.
Here is C.S. Lewis describing the early Puritans:
“But there is no understanding the period of the Reformation in England until we have grasped the fact that the quarrel between the Puritans and the Papists was not primarily a quarrel between rigorism and indulgence, and that, in so far as it was, the rigorism was on the Roman side. On many questions, and specially in their view of the marriage bed, the Puritans were the indulgent party; if we may without disrespect so use the name of a great Roman Catholic, a great writer, and a great man, they were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries” (C.S. Lewis, Selected Literary Essays, p. 116, emphasis mine).
For those of you rubbing your eyes in disbelief, according to C.S. Lewis, the early Puritans were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries. And they were this way long before Chesterton was born, and they were this way because of their essential grasp of the gospel of free grace.
Women Counselors
I listened to Women’s Ministries as Pestilence where you slighted women counselors. I’m not in disagreement with you, I’m just wondering, who should I turn to? I think I would likely benefit from some form of biblical counseling. I tried going to my pastor but he cut me off and gave me book recommendations. Women tend to listen more, but they almost listen too much. The sulking sessions typically just lead to more misery. I was just wondering if you could expand on your thought. I know that defeats the purpose of no quarter November but I was hoping you might make an exception for the weaker sex.
Miranda
Miranda, I am not at all against godly older women who give counsel (which my wife does quite a bit of). I am just against women counselors as a growth industry, which I believe tends to make things worse, not better. I would encourage you to find a godly older woman, one you respect, and ask to get together so that you can ask for some advice.
Advice From the Slammer
Wanted to amen your ‘Christians in the catacombs’ spiel. Had the distinct pleasure of spending 1.5 yrs in a federal prison camp a couple years ago. Best fellowship I’d had in many years. Sure, there was the time my ass was threatened with a whooping for putting the tater tots in the wrong compartment of the tray (nothing came of it). Then the time as head umpire of the 2 team softball league that I invoked the infield fly rule, and heard myself tell a guy half my age to shut up (couple hours after all the smoke stopped coming out of his ears, he told me I was right and apologized). I could go on.
Point is, it was a great place, and a place that knows the difference between real and fake Jesus people.
More stuff I can tell you later when they send you there. No worries.
Steve
Steve, yes, well, um, looking forward to it.
Theocratic Free Speech
The Theocratic Case for Free Speech | You should absolutely publish this book, as soon as you do the theological, systematic, biblical, exegetical, historical, grammatical, etc. groundwork for it! I will buy in a heartbeat!
Trey
Trey, thanks.
I’m the respondent to your article last week regarding free speech/freedom of religion, in which I asked you to please put more of the goods on the shelves if you have them. And so I want to thank you for doing that. Your article this week was helpful. As I read it, you describe the rudiments of what we might call a biblical pragmatism justification: do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. And also an account premised on the kind of internal governance which the Spirit of God produces in converted individuals and societies, rendering them capable of and safe for freedom. Clearly, questions still abound, which you acknowledge in several of your responses to letters this week. And so I pray the Lord blesses your mind and your pen as you seek to give deeper treatment to these questions in the days ahead. I think we’ll all benefit from it.
Adam
Adam, I really do want to dig into this one deeper. The subject really needs it.
A Disgruntled Voice
Trump: a Postmortem “Anything that contributed to the year 2020 being “quite the year”—by which I mean the pandemic, the masking orders, the lock downs, the riots, the race for a vaccine, the whole enchilada—was part of a concerted effort to make it impossible for Trump to gain a second term. Everything. All of it. The whole thing.”
So, what’s the theory here? The entire world faked a pandemic so that Trump would lose the election? They locked down in Iceland because they hate Trump so much? They closed down all the restaurants in the UK because they just can’t stand the thought of a second Trump term? Or, perhaps someone (somehow) hoodwinked Americans into thinking that other countries locked down from COVID, but really the rest of the world was business as usual.
I don’t want to misstate your position. But is that what you’re saying? That’s pretty extreme. Apart from seeing no evidence of that, I have a really hard time believing that the world revolves around American politics to that extent.
Serious question: do YOU ever budget for being wrong? I hope so, because you have an influence that far outstrips your expertise. You are a well-educated, well-read man, but you are not an expert in epidemiology, election law, first amendment law, or really any of the political subjects you opine on in this blog. That wouldn’t matter at all if you were some unknown attorney like me. But you are a minister of the gospel, which means that it should be the gospel you administer, not the latest political conspiracy theory.
I’m not saying you should “stay in your lane.” I understand that you have authority (perhaps the duty, sometimes) to speak out as a minister about what God’s word says about all kinds of political topics. But the Bible doesn’t say the election was stolen, or COVID is fake, or masks are evil and should be protested. And, believe it or not, those things just aren’t obvious to the rest of us. Yet you seem to push these issues sometimes harder (or at least more frequently) than you do the actual, biblical issues. You’ve traveled far afield from the Bible lately, and I would suggest that using your authority as a minister to propagate these claims comes dangerously close to false prophecy.
I’m reminded of a passage in The Screwtape Letters in which Screwtape says of Father Spike that the humans in his congregation are often puzzled with the range of his political views, while the demons are teaching him to say “the teaching of the Church is” when he really means “I’m almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort.” I trust that you also have the same fatal defect (in Screwtape’s world) as him.
For the record, I love the last bit on “The Only Way.” I heartily agree, I’m just saying you should apply these things to yourself.
Rob
Rob, let’s use equal weights and measures.
When I make a claim about the culture, or politics, I don’t just repeat the conclusions I read somewhere else. I set out my arguments, and I take a great deal of trouble to do so at great length. People can agree or disagree, and they do both. So much is standard, and iron sharpens iron. And yet, ignoring the arguments I have written, you simply assume that I am opining over ideas that flit through my head. You ask for my “evidence” for my claims, and so I would point you to numerous articles.
But you have made claims also, and so may I ask for your evidence? You say that you “trust” I have the same “fatal defect” as Lewis’s Father Spike. What is this trust based on? You claim also that I do not apply the gospel that I preach to myself? Evidence? You also assert that I am dangerously close to false prophecy. In short, you are making claims about someone’s personal honesty and integrity, and are doing so from many miles away. I am not objecting to the fact that you disagree with my arguments. That really is your prerogative. But you make suggestions about another individual’s soul from a great distance, and they are the kind of claims I would very hesitant to make with someone I was counseling, even if I had been meeting with them on a weekly basis for six months.
Doug, a simple question: Given that Donald Trump spent most of his life as a professional con artist, separating fools from their money, why would anyone believe him when he claims the election was stolen?
Kathleen, I certainly wouldn’t take his word for it. So let me just refer you to the article in Time magazine.
Is Time magazine a credible source?
Credible enough that it would not have run this story without solid verification. I have read it carefully, and I don’t see any admissions of election fraud as it is generally defined. What is clear is that many of the most powerful institutions in the country worked, singly and collectively. to suppress negative information about Biden and his son, to take advantage of the fact that mail-in voting always favors the Dems,. to keep the rising COVID death count front and center, and to make people hyper-critical of Trump’s boorish behavior by never letting an example go unreported. That being… Read more »
Now that, I think, is a fair point. The “most powerful institutions in the country” did unite to do what they could to get rid of Trump. But, that’s not election fraud. It’s not actually stealing an election. It’s using the media, bully pulpits, paid advertising and free speech to support your candidate. In other words, basic First Amendment.
The article also describes exactly the sort of conspiracy that would be necessary to carry out the sort of “widespread fraud” that was hitherto hard to imagine possible.
So, if anyone suggests that rigging the election was impossible, they’re behind the times. So to speak.
The establishment practices politics. Who knew? Cast yourself as an anti-establishment figure and the establishment opposes you. Who knew? Bottom line is just what you said; not election fraud. Steering the vote is not stealing an election, it is what political parties and their backers always attempt to do.
That said, is it not a just little bit disturbing what the powerful institutions are willing to do, and able to do when they act as a monolithic block, and is not the fact that they are all willing to so act in the first place something to think about?
JohnM,, let’s make the next fair point as well. Behind the scenes, mainstream Republicans were just as eager to be rid of Trump as the Democrats were. So it’s a fair point to ask why. And for those who love Trump because he put pro-lifers on the Supreme Court and kept Hillary from becoming president, it’s easy to forget that the last four years had lots of downside. He wrecked, maybe irreparably, our international prestige and destroyed international alliances his predecessors spent decades building. The riot on January 6, whether or not one believes he instigated it, did further major… Read more »
It’s striking how uninteresting the “international prestige” argument is. All the people you want to impress are bad guys.
Hang on a sec- are you pro-LGBT?
Hi Kathleen. Regarding one point you made above…where does the assessment of destroyed international alliances, wrecked international prestige, and damaged reputation come from? My first jaded thought was that clearly we’re not paying them (our international friends) enough…and I know that the Trump administration threatened to cut back even more. But then I went here: https://www.concernusa.org/story/foreign-aid-by-country/ I’m guessing we may differ on the value of the WHO, UN, Paris Accords, and NATO – all of whom might fit your description. Is there an article or series of them that you deem adequately describe our current position in the world? I… Read more »
Nathan, and JF, it’s not a matter of wanting to impress them, and yes, a lot of them are bad guys. It’s a matter of if you want to get things done you need allies. And we have a whole lot fewer of them now than we did four years ago. Foreign Affairs just had an article about how the third world is increasingly looking to China for leadership largely because of Trump, and that is not a good thing.
Thank you…I’ll take a look at the Foreign Affairs article.
I just did a quick perusal…and as I’m not a subscriber to Foreign Affairs, I just linked for a free Jonathan Kirshner article. There are a couple you might be referencing. When in his fourth paragraph Professor Kirshner writes this: “Level whatever criticisms you may about the often bloodstained hands of the American colossus on the world stage, but Trump’s foreign policy was different: shortsighted, transactional, mercurial, untrustworthy, boorish, personalist, and profoundly illiberal in rhetoric, disposition, and creed…” It seems pretty clear that he’s not trying to get Trump supporters to agree with him. Why is it bad for 3rd… Read more »
Nations looking outside their borders for leadership is a fairy tale. They look to forward their own interests, as they perceive them. Europe’s loyalty to America is so non-existent that we can’t even get NATO to keep their commitments to defense spending. And why? Cause they see nothing it for themselves. We can horse-trade with foreign countries whenever we need to. They’re not going to say “I see how this deal would benefit my country, but you had a really gross president awhile back, so no deal.” But back to the LGBT question. The elites who run the Western world… Read more »
It is not hard to understand why proprietors and customers alike want to shoo a snorting bull out of the china shop. Maybe the mass cooperative effort was a one-off. However, if it turns out to be the case that there are no longer any real competing interests within what we broadly call the establishment, that all the money and all the influence aligns under a common ideology (and not one amenable to Christianity or conservatism) and a common goal, leaving dissent no voice, no place to run, and no place to hide, then that is sinister. You’re right too,… Read more »
Kathleen, what label is placed on members in all three branches of the administration who deliberately did not follow US law? For example, we know from source documents that numerous individuals in the DOJ/FBI altered documents and lied to the FISA Court in attempts to strike at Trump. Their efforts led to the first impeachment. Those were violations of law; yet, they were not put in the dock to answer for their crimes. Are they: -Expressing their First Amendment rights -Doing what is best for America -Working behind the scenes to prevent the reelection of Trump -Turning a blind eye… Read more »
Solid verification. Believe the MSM. Or don’t, in which case never mind whatever Time magazine reported.
Perhaps the most chilling line in the Time article was the one about recruiting “armies of poll workers”. If all the cabal’s “influence” was done before election day, what was that about? But the cynical side of me goes further. There are two possible other purposes for the article. First, to plow the ground for verification of / bragging about actual fraud. Second, to stir up the right-wing radicals to more action. After all, in the couple of hours of “insurrection” there was in DC that day, there was hardly enough real action for the types of responses the left… Read more »
Given that Biden has spent practically his entire life as a rent-seeking con artist/ politician, why do you believe him? Also, whether the election was stolen or not (it was) has nothing to do with either man’s opinion.
I believe Biden when he said
“We have put together — I think — the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
And you seriously believe he actually said that? Because, of course, people engaged in criminal behavior always make admissions like that where they will be heard by people who will report them to the media. I mean, that’s what you would do if you were engaged in a criminal enterprise, right?
Kathleen, glad to see you admit the Democrat party is a criminal enterprise. And now, Joe Biden is enthroned as their Commander-In-Thief, surrounded by an army and miles of razor wire. Not bad for a guy who went from stealing a man’s wife, to stealing speeches, to stealing money, to stealing an election. Hey, did you know that, in addition to bragging about putting together the most extensive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics, the junta’s leader is also, by his own definition, a dictator? Yup, here’s what His Fraudulency had to say about executive orders when… Read more »
WJ, Do people even care if they tell the truth any more? When did conservatives decide to go fully post-truth and begin saying and believing whatever makes us feel good? For those scoring at home Trump issued 55 executive orders in 2017, Obama issued 39 executive orders in 2009, Bush issued 54 EOs in 2001, and Clinton issued 57 EOs in 1993. Biden has issued 29 EOs as of yesterday. This information is extremely easy to find from a number of sources. Trump issued 220 EOs in 4 years, Obama issued 276 in 8 years. Both are spikes compared with… Read more »
And I can’t edit, so I will point out my autocorrect induced typo here. “Both are spikes” should say “both are pikers.” I wouldnt usually bother, but it inverted the meaning of the sentence!
Demo, I’ll take your concerns about truth more seriously when you start calling out leftists for their lack of it. Until then, your double-standard is duly noted. As they say, silence is consent. However, in the interest of demonstrating that my claim, which is that Biden is a dictator by his own definition, does in fact stand, here are the number of executive orders for the last four presidents for the time period of Jan 20 to Feb 4 for each respective first year in office, for those scoring at home: – Trump: 8 – Obama: 9 – Bush: 2… Read more »
I agree. If Demo would call out Jonathan’s hysterical lies and parroting of the MSM’s Jan. 6 “insurrection” claims, that would be one thing. After all, not single person was killed by Trump supporters that day. (The claim that a police officer was beaten to death by a fire extinguisher has been debunked.) But no, Demo remained silent though he tried to moderately downplay BLM/Antifa actual terrorism before that. And on more than one occasion he’s defended Jonathan’s alleged Christianity–which is fully aligned with whatever the Washington (Com)Post and NPR say…and never calls out abortion, alphabet people or other clear… Read more »
If I am understanding you both correctly, Demo can’t be trusted to tell the truth about the comparative number of Executive Orders until he re-establishes his credentials as a Christian conservative. He must vilify the mainstream media, condemn BLM/Antifa with greater ferocity, agree to think of the Trump supporters at the Capitol as akin to the parties of genteel ladies who reverently tiptoe around Mount Vernon, and denounce his Christian friend Jonathan as a leftwing heretic. I can’t think of any stronger evidence to support Demo’s statement, a few weeks ago, that this board has become a toxic echo chamber.
Jillybean, fp here. I logged in with Google one time, and now the commenting system here thinks I’m a member and should replace all comments featuring my usual handle with my Google handle. With all due respect, you’re not understanding both of us correctly. But I do appreciate the tongue-in-cheek nature of your comment. Although, I must say that when I saw photos of those evil, horrible, awful, cigar-chomping, armed-to-the-teeth with their American hate-flags, rebel commando forces with their five-o’clock shadows staying between the lush, velvety ropes at the Capitol building acting all touristy like good little boys and girls,… Read more »
JP, no doubt. We don’t even need to invoke the terrible specter of Jonathan and his screaming fits of apoplexy; we have a real live example of Demo doing his impression of crickets on this very thread. Kathleen Liezinski parroted the tired, worn-out leftist trope that Trump is a “con artist” who “separates fools from their money”. No, that would be Bernie Madoff — who, by the way, was a Democrat. As President, Trump gave Americans a massive tax cut, which means, for those scoring at home, that people get to keep more of what they earn. Either Trump is… Read more »
Trump gave corporations a massive tax cut, and everyone else some lesser level of tax cut, and that maybe or not in net, depending on their circumstances. The major effect of the tax cut was to significantly increase the national debt Trump had said he wanted to, and could, reduce.
JohnM, there are two sides to every ledger. So, let’s examine your claim that the major effect of the tax cut was to significantly increase the national debt, shall we? Most of the provisions in Trump’s tax cut went into effect Jan 1, 2018. Using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, here are revenues by federal fiscal year (FY), which ends Sept. 30: – FY 2017: $3.32 trillion – FY 2018: $3.33 trillion – FY 2019: $3.46 trillion – FY 2020: $3.42 trillion For what it’s worth, the CBO’s revenue projection in March 2020 for FY 2020 was $3.63 trillion.… Read more »
Here’s an explanation:
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/spending-not-tax-cuts-driving-deficit
Here’s the response to your explanation:
fee DOT org/articles/the-cbos-budget-projections-are-worse-than-useless/
I’ll admit I’ve only read the title not the article – please check your link. Not sure if I will read it anyway though; if the gist of it is that the CBO budget projections are worse than useless, note: 1. You cited CBO data, so you must not have too much disregard for the CBO. 2. The CBO revenue projection for 2019 post TCJA was 3.5 trillion, which turned out to be pretty close to the actual 3.46 trillion figure – you could possibly even make allowance for rounding. There is no warrant for supposing the pre-TCJA projection of… Read more »
WJ (and JP too, I guess), A good doctor provides medicine for the presenting disease, not for the illness that he observes in a town three states over! I have observed a consistent infatuation with our political and cultural enemies that has led people on this board and many in my own church/life to be ridiculously credulous toward false and misleading information. The last thing this comment section needs is another commenter stupidly dog-piliing Jonathan when he posts here. But some basic fact checking appears to very much be on order. In order for conservatives (like me, believe it or… Read more »
“Note that it is a civil discussion because Jonathan cares about being correct and wasn’t arguing in bad faith.” So that’s why he’s often claimed others are lying…then doubles down when he lies himself? That’s why he lives in a 24/7 “orange man bad” world and refuses to call out leftist violence, LGBTQ+ madness and people literally celebrating abortion? That’s why he says nothing during months of rioting and violence then joins the inane “insurrection chorus” after Jan. 6? Those are just a few examples. He’s been doing that garbage and acting in bad faith for years. TLDR – a… Read more »
And if, as you say, truth is more important than denigration, then a more appropriate response for you, Demos (“I’m really a conservative! Honest! You’ve got to believe meeeeeeee!”) thenes1d, would have been to apologize for denigrating me — and, by extension, conservatives as a group — with your “deciding to go fully post-truth” and “stop spreading ignorance and lies” smears. Apparently, it’s OK for you to denigrate others all while decrying it. If only I could find the word to describe such a thing… Oh, and if you’re really interested in helping conservatives to make a difference, then here’s… Read more »
Huh? Are you suggesting that the video of him saying that is some kind of “deep fake” or something?
Of course, no one is claiming that Biden means to say these things. Only that his constant slips are very telling.
And then there’s the video of him boasting of extorting the Ukraines with $1B in aid if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating his son for corruption.
So no, I doubt he’d ever admit to criminal behavior on video. But he’d certainly boast about it and that’s what he was doing in the election video.
Ree et al.
This video gotcha stuff is absurd. It is the equivalent of saying that Trumo called white supremecists very fine people and refused to denounce the KKK. If you watch the whole video or read the transcript it is clear that Biden is referring to his campaigns efforts to combat “voter fraud” being committed by Republicans. Don’t play the game of lies.
Yeah, and when he mentioned the Harris administration, he was obviously really referring to a Biden/Harris administration. And when he referred to President-elect Harris, he was obviously really referring to Vice-President-elect Harris. He’s repeatedly obviously really referring to something other than what he says, but the kinds of mistakes he makes are still telling. In the case of Trump referring to “very fine people on both sides,” it wasn’t the same kind of thing. He didn’t mis-speak. One sentence was just blatantly taken out of context to claim that he expressed something he didn’t. That’s blatant lying. But reading meaning… Read more »
Nice what aboutism. But I don’t have to believe Biden; I can simply believe all the state election officials, Republican and Democrat alike, who stated that the election wasn’t stolen.
Ah, the only fallacy leftist know….and misapply to defend double standards. You’re talking about election officials who simply waived their hands and ignored hundreds of people under oath who saw fraud….and didn’t get into the source code of the software or do any real investigation of it or voting machines or myriad other issues, right? We’ll trust the “experts” who took the easy way out and kept getting their paychecks like good boys and girls (or whatever gender they are). Their party affiliation is irrelevant, especially given the lack of backbone of most current Republicans. Just threaten them with the… Read more »
Ever hear of Occam’s razor? Which is more likely, that elected Republican officials who themselves supported Trump ignored massive evidence of voter fraud, or that there wasn’t any voter fraud? Which is more likely, that hundreds of people saw and reported election fraud and nothing was done, or that there were no hundreds of people and a con artist named Trump made it up? The level of gullibility required to believe the election fraud claims is just breathtaking.
Never argue with an idiot; people watching can’t tell the difference.
KZ,
I’d encourage you to watch the video here (https://michaeljlindell.com/) and refute any specific fraud claim in objective detail. Only 1 in 4 votes this election cycle was delivered in-person on election day as was typically the norm. For bonus credit, please explain the gullibility angle you’re asserting citing objective logical data.
Even Amazon is fighting an internal push for mail-in balloting regarding unionization referendum. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-seeks-to-postpone-alabama-unionization-vote-11611339250?mod=e2tw)
The pillow guy? Really? Just goes to show you can lead the gullible to water but you can’t make them think.
“The level of gullibility required to believe the election fraud claims is just breathtaking.” Projection much? The level of gullibility to believe dozens of statistical anomalies and many things we’ve never seen before…then not question them “because fact checkers,” pathetically weak MSM debunking and “the courts didn’t find nuthin” is what’s breathtaking. For those who aren’t programmed, Occam’s razor led them to believe something was way off starting in the wee hours of the morning on Nov. 4. Again, if you want to throw around the term “con artist,” Biden is your man, along with his son Hunter and pal… Read more »
The point made in the second letter (from John) that Trumpist propaganda matches the leftist propaganda in dishonesty really needs wider acknowledgment. And no less needed is Doug’s reply that pointing out obvious leftist skullduggery shouldn’t get somebody called a quack.
There’s very little rationality or desire for truth in America today. It’s not easy to keep your feet under you when so few people are saying anything worth hearing.
In response to Rob, I am really getting sick of these kinds of claims. He said, “you are not an expert in epidemiology, election law, first amendment law, or really any of the political subjects you opine on in this blog”. Our founding father’s didn’t write down words like, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its… Read more »
100%. The tyranny of the expert is an awful trend and has really accelerated this past year. There’s no end to gaslighting or Orwellian brainwashing if we must rely on “experts” who rarely have any skin in the game (they’re tenured professors, gov’t bureaucrats, etc. who won’t get fired). They can tell us churches and businesses must close while shoulder-to-shoulder BLM rallies and George Floyd’s funeral (but not your grandom’s) are okay…because some scientist said so.
There is nothing wrong with expertise if it is genuine. I listened recently to James White doing what he does best – taking apart some revisionist interpretation that makes homosexuality OK. The English translation is usually enough to decide this, but White’s expertise in both Hebrew and Greek can firm up more precisely what the original languages said. Like seeing it in colour rather than black and white. Excellent stuff! When it comes to Corona, he does not have the same level of expertise. In fact I’m not sure he has much expertise at all, at best a moderately well-informed… Read more »
Rob’s punches were spot on and clearly left Doug staggering in the ring, desperately trying to hold himself up against the ropes. All I remember about Doug’s so-called “evidence” is citation from anonymous, pro-Trump, right-wing agitators who are, or were, accountable to nobody. Doug has done nothing but tossed grenades and machined gun to pieces his opponents without any regard for weight and balances–or the wellbeing of the spirit and soul those whom he was dismissing from afar. He has routinely used his website to score points and thrash those who disagree with him. He should have the grace to… Read more »
A caution regarding the Telegram app: End-to-end (E2E) encryption is not the default operation of the system. “Chats” on Telegram are securely encrypted while in transit between your devices and Telegram’s servers. Upon arrival at the Telegram servers, they are encrypted using MTProto (which cryptoanalysts do not award high marks) while at rest on the servers. Telegram (or anyone strong-arming them…) can read chat data since it handles the encryption/decryption of messages at the servers. With E2E encryption the service cannot read the messages. Only the sender and the recipient can read E2E encrypted messages. Any service that uses E2E… Read more »
But they hail from St. Petersburg (that’s the Russia berg, for you folks in Ria Linda) and currently abide in Dubai, so they must be trustworthy.
I would trust Russians or Chinese to be less interested in outing me for my subversive opinions than anyone in California.
You may be right about the Russians. Not so much about Chairman Xiden’s pals.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-cia-pick-was-president-of-think-tank-that-took-millions-from-chinese-communist-party-tied-entities-report
That’s a bit thick, ashv! You know at least one Californian who would have to be waterboarded for quite a long time before gasping “He’s a secret monarchist…he likes Charles Stuart better than Oliver Cromwell [and who doesn’t}…he thinks Voltaire’s precious free speech corrupts the simple peasantry and leads them straight to hell. Now will you turn the water off?” Would the daughter of a man who tried to go fight for Franco ever rat you out, even if one of her in-laws gets invited to have dinner with the Pelosis? O ye of little faith!
I was thinking of subversive opinions like “male and female He created them”.
“…whiskey or bourbon.” Not all whiskey is bourbon, but all bourbon is whiskey. I mean, you are concerned about the dictionary… right?
There’s the strict dictionary meaning of things, and there’s the way the words are usually used in common practice. People familiar with whiskey and bourbon know that bourbon is a type of whiskey, but they never actually call bourbon “whiskey,” so the distinction makes sense.
It’s like “wine or champagne.” Yes, champagne is a type of wine, but no one ever says “I’m having a glass of wine” when they’re drinking champagne. And if someone offered you “wine or champagne” and you said “According to the dictionary, champagne IS wine” they would think you very odd.
What is the Duesberg & Ellison book Alicia referred to?
She is referring to the “Duesberg hypothesis,” probably from the book “Inventing the AIDS Virus” (though Duesberg and Ellison had a nasty falling out and I dont think both names appear on any one book). The thesis is that HIV us harmless and AIDS Is primarily caused by drug use, not HIV. This was an interesting these in the early 90s when it originated, but it was clear by the late 90s that it was wrong. It is only held by cranks now…
I should add that Duesberg is a legit scientist and much of his critique of the medical research into AIDS in the 80s and early 90s was well founded. But, like many, he became too enamored with his brilliance and contrarian “courage” to update when it was obvious he was wrong. This sort of thing isn’t victimless, he was an advisor on AIDS to South Africa in the early 2000s and his directly likely led to thousands of extra AIDS deaths.
demosthenes1d in #236286:
Do tell.
WBL, meet mirror. ; – )
Hi Zero. So, you managed to find your Mommy’s phone again, huh?
“But of course you’re free to pick and choose what you believe to be Christian by what makes you feel comfortable. Right “We Be Libtards”?” Katie #236312
Out of the mouths of babes, WBL, out of the mouths of babes.
What evidence do you have that masks “make things worse?” Your argument goes…”suppose masks make things worse. Well, then let me use that ‘fact’ I just pulled from thin air to prove the point I’d like to make!” Your arguments consistently presume your opinions are facts, and then jump to tearing opposite opinions from there. Also, though you simply seem to write those off you disagree with, I am a “woman counselor,” and would love to know what Biblical truth you narrowly try to cling to that says its not Biblical…or is it iust more of what I see in… Read more »
Hello. This comment got me genuinely wondering about something: I have passed some of Mr Wilson’s posts to friends thinking they might enjoy them, and I have recv’d back similar responses as you wrote here. There are teachers I feel the same about, so I don’t listen to or read them. I’m honestly wondering why someone who feels as you do would spend time on this blog at all? I ask that respectfully.
Trying to understand friends who align themselves with his church and beliefs. You’re right, it’s not good… every time I read some thing in here I am astounded by the lack of grace, and The love of Jesus that I have known in church and through people. It doesn’t really matter, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to reconcile the things that are written in this blog with who I know Jesus to be. It breaks my heart that I have friends who believe this way, and other people in the world who believe this way. But yes, I… Read more »
Katie,
Just in case you’re interested in Doug Wilson’s history, here a source of info regarding his checkered past.
http://moscowid.net
I appreciate that. Thank you. It seems I am perhaps not the only one who sees this for what it is. What is so difficult are the friends who continue to go to his church and support the CREC in light of all of this. I’ve looked. I can’t find Christ here.
Hello Katie, I’m replying in order to make my best effort at practicing the truth in love. There is something about the way you’ve written that is at the core of many difficult discussions that I participate in. As it is Pastor Wilson’s blog, and one of a half dozen or so that I read, I appreciate Pastor Wilson’s weekly letter and answer section, and the open comments that follow. That you could even comment at all is a credit to his willingness to engage. Your first two words…”What evidence…” are a constant theme in this blog’s direction. Slightly changed,… Read more »
Thanks for your response to Katie. It was jarring to see the incongruity between the word “guest” under her name and the manner in which she voiced her opinion. I was pleased to see your gentle and appropriate response.
Ree – sorry for offending your sensibilities. Wouldn’t you say anything posted on the Internet is fair game?
I think that on a private blog on which the blogger willingly and graciously provides an open forum for people to speak their mind, including people who are pushing back against the blogger, should remember that they’re being invited into someone else’s “living room” so to speak. Therefore, while they’re free to share their opinion, they should consider their tone, recognizing that they are, indeed, a guest of the host they’re confronting. I’m sure you learned the meaning of good manners at home before you ever posted anything on the internet.
Well Ree, this isn’t a living room. Its a public forum online, and as is so important to you all (from my reading of this blog) I can use my free speach to vehemently disagree with someone who I believe is using God and the Bible to their own nastiness. I learned manners. But I also learned to stand up to bullies, speak the truth, question things that don’t seem right, and I am pretty sure if someone is tossing around vileness in the ways I’ve seen in these writings, I’m under no obligation to politly sit in the living… Read more »
Katie, It’s good to read your thoughts about this website. I find it absolutely incredible that supporters of Doug should rush to sit on you for daring to criticise him–especially as Doug does little else on this blog except demean, belittle, and make demeaning, juvenile remarks about all kinds of people with whom he disagrees. The problem as I see it is this: Doug lives in a provincial backwater, cut off from the cut-and-thrust of a cultured intellectual environment where he would not only have to behave differently, but also where is style of argumentation and so-called evidence based research… Read more »
Katie, does “woman counselor” mean one who counsels women (which counselor might be a man or a woman) or a woman who is a counselor, perhaps of men as well as other women? Not arguing with you about anything, just requesting further information.
Now – only regard if you have a sense of humor – are you whiny, and a woman, and a liberal, and a counselor, or are you a liberal counselor of whiny women, or are you a whiny counselor of liberal women?
I’m a man, conservative, sometimes whiny, and if not a counselor at least opinionated.
Katie in #236265:
If only Doug had more real Christian readers…
I don’t see anything different from me calling these ideas disgusting than so many of the things that he has said on this blog. Remember the time he justified calling women “cunty”? I really don’t know how me saying that that, and many of the other things he said, is disgusting, is less Christian than that. But of course you’re free to pick and choose what you believe to be Christian by what makes you feel comfortable. Right “We Be Libtards”? Obviously, the way that you lovingly and respectfully refer to other views “libtards”, shows that you are most definitely… Read more »
Katie, you started by asking what evidence there is that masks make things worse and then went into how you don’t appreciate what is posted on Blog and Mablog or the tone of the posters. Wearing masks for a virus is a form of modern superstition that the news and our leaders have pounded into our heads as Science. Virus particles are so small that they penetrate the filters of N95 masks with ease. To defeat the virus with filtering, you have to have a smaller filter size than the virus particle which is an expensive mask. The masks worn… Read more »
Katie,
Please ignore Dave or at least or at least take his pontifications with a grain of salt. He’s a self-appointed, non-credentialed expert in epidemiology & virology, plus a plethora of other disciplines. But, I think he does have a high school diploma.
As I’ve noted before, this is no longer the real Clay Crouch or any of the other 16 or so characters he/she plays on this blog. Clay recently donned 27 masks and achieved immortality, giving transhumanists and Great Reseters hope for a wonderfully dystopian, totalitarian and highly depopulated future. Clay was last scene on an Interstellar-like journey, screaming at crew members about the lack of wifi on the spacecraft.
Katie,
Conversely, please don’t ignore Clay, and take HIS pontifications as a gift of mirth. Clay is the only guy I know who can win both a humility contest and an irony contest with the same comment! 😏👍
Thanks adad0! I’ve noticed! 😊😉
Clay is back!
He bravely ran away a few weeks back after being soundly and roundly refuted regarding free speech restrictions.
Please Clay, regale us with how you have a PhD in Pop Culture, where you discovered great transcendental truths by comparing and contrasting the guttural moaning monosyllabic utterances of Brittney and Beyonce’ in SuperBowl Halftime performances. Grant we lowly uneducated mortals the benefit of your wisdom.
Hi Clay, It seems that you like to like to toss in a pot-shot from time to time, and to your credit it makes me ask – Why did he do that? But I’ve reread Dave’s post a few times now, and I think it’s one of his best. He addresses Katie reasonably, invites her to stay and participate, provides his reasons for his position, and even finds fault with the Christian church for recent acquiescence to culture. Dave’s reply makes me want to honor God and be a better Christian. Your reply makes me ask; “what’s really eating you?”… Read more »
Katie, Regarding the mask facts, please view the video at the top of this page: https://themodelhealthshow.com/maskfacts You can see how one must simply state their conviction on a matter and move on without diving into 30 minutes of exposition of a conviction in a blog to arrive at the actual point of an article. EVERYONE enjoys reading encyclopedias with all of the historical context and applicable footnotes, but blogs are neither the time nor the place for that. You’re not JUST a self-described “whiny woman liberal counselor”, you’re a Pharisaical “whiny woman liberal counselor” who doesn’t like name calling and… Read more »
For Gerry: https://youtu.be/fxUY-99TPRY
Andrew who wrote “Whatever Happens”,
I share the concern you brought up and am joining you in your prayer.
If Xiden & Co. really want fair elections and think they won one, why do they want to toss out all safeguards and ensure maximum chicanery in the future? That’s exactly what they’re trying to do. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17031/hr1-chaotic-elections Also, why do they need thousands of NG troops and fences with barbed wire…when the only ones causing any problems in D.C. now are “the idea” of Antifa and BLM, as they clash with cops and scream “Burn it all down!” Aren’t those supposed to be the good guys…though they committed many more magnitudes of damage during riots to property and humans than… Read more »
Doug, Have you ever considered writing a realistic novel that is for the lack of a better term “post apocalyptic” ? I keep seeing books like The Postman by David Brin, One Second After by William R. Forstchen and The Road by Cormac McCarthy, but none from a post-mil Christian perspective. Ride Sally Ride was fantastic! It proved you have the chops. You could do an digital only serial subscription similar to what Nate did with The Silent Bells. It would be easy to imagine a scenario that picks up with hyperinflation and a persecuted church, after a media driven… Read more »
Readers of Mablog: Listen to Senator Mitch McConnell’s speech (2/13) regarding Trump’s culpability for January 6. D.W. has been a dutiful towel boy for Trump during this whole post-election period.
Fred Banks