Patricia (Patti) Fox and Daniel Frick, photo op Christians, not Christian through action

What use is being baptized, declaring your Christianity, and looking forward to being used by God to make Heaven packed, when the one declaring this violates the teachings of the one in whose name she was just baptized in? 

I had asked Patricia (Patti) Fox what her plan was to help make Heaven packed. She made a post on her Facebook, after she got baptized, expressing willingness to "be used by God" to make Heaven a "packed place." To get her understanding of what she had just said, I asked a simple question. What was her plan to help make Heaven a packed place? 

She provided a one liner that didn't represent a response. Additionally, she got defensive with her response, and emphasized specific words in her statement. This is a typical response I would expect from someone who lacked knowledge of what they were talking about. In this case, Patricia (Patti) Fox reflected a lack of knowledge of Scripture, which is a crucial ingredient for anyone wanting to "make Heaven a packed place." 

So I provided a detailed response. Towards the end, I explained what Jesus called on his disciples to do. Christians are called to imbed God's commandments in their actions, to serve as an example for others, and to educate others, to bring others onto the right path. 

This is both directly and indirectly stated in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. 

When people who have walked crooked paths (sin) return to the path God laid out for humanity, we effectively bring people "to the Kingdom." The Kingdom of Heaven, and the Garden of Eden, are both states that people place themselves in when they walk the path that God laid for them, going neither to the left nor to the right. 

This is not a mystery, not even to leave it up to God to make the decision. The saying, "God helps those who help themselves" applies here. For God to use Patti to "help make Heaven packed," Patti must know what it takes for her to return to the right path, to teach others to go on the right path, and to encourage these others to teach others to do the same.

If Patricia Fox doesn't know how to do that, then she can't really be used to "make Heaven packed."

After Jesus got baptized in the Jordan River, he was brought to the wilderness where he fasted for 40 days. During that time, Satan tempted Jesus. Each time Satan did this, Jesus rebutted the former's temptations and reminded him of what was in scripture (Old Testament) for what to do in those situations. 

Unlike Jesus, however, Patricia Fox failed her post baptism test. 

In Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus preached about loving one's enemies. Loving one's enemies is specified, it also has broader definitions beyond one's enemy. The broader definition, what is also implied, addresses the "folks you favor versus folks you do not favor" concept... E.G., the in crowd versus the out crowd. Jesus made it clear that just as God shines the sun on the bad and on the good and provides rain for the fair and for the unfair, Jesus's followers should likewise provide equal treatment regardless of whether they favor or disfavor them.

Which brings us to Patricia (Patti) Fox and Daniel Frick her fiancé as of this posting.

As I asked the latter, what use is going to church when one's actions are inconsistent with scripture?   

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, o 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" - Matthew 7:21-23, real follower of Christ.

One of the concepts that Jesus was attacking was people going through the motions of worship, as defined by human tradition, rather than doing worship as defined by God. Being baptized and going to church does not do one good when they do not abide by God's precepts. 

God cares more about how we treat each other than on whether we go to church or not. God cares more about our following his precepts than whether someone goes to church or is baptized. An atheist that unknowingly abides by God's laws has a better shot at entering the Kingdom than a churchgoer whose actions are inconsistent with scripture. 

Patricia (Patti) Fox gets baptized, fails post baptism test

Patricia (Patti) Fox went onto Facebook and announced that she had just gotten baptized. She announced that she looked forward to God using her to make Heaven a packed place. 

I jumped on the thread and asked her what she planned to do to help make Heaven a packed place. I posted an image of David versus Goliath, with labels describing Scriptural context of the scene. 

Her response:

"Not my plans, but His. Hence "used by God". What a weird question and image."- Patti Fox

In the Gospels, Jesus clearly spells out how God could use us to "make Heaven a packed place." Both the Old Testament and the New Testament detail how people could "enter the Kingdom." 

One theme that keeps repeating throughout the Bible is the need to learn and do the commandments, and to teach others to learn and do the commandments. The latter being encouraged to also teach others to learn and do the commandments.

My response: 

In Genesis 2, God is described as breathing the breath of life into Man. This is not exhale, as we exhale, as God is spirit. One of the ancient words describing breath is "spiritus." God infused his spirit into humanity. 

Why? 

In the previous chapter, Genesis 1, God is described as doing work. He first creates light, then separates it from darkness. Light, in the beginning, is symbolic of God's definition of what is right, which he separated from darkness (sin, death, doing what is right in our eyes at the expense of what is right in God's). God subsequently works during the day and rests at night... Guided by what is right. 

Towards the end, humanity is created, and then the great commission... Genesis 1:28-30. The command to be fertile, to multiply, and to subdue the earth is not a command to have children and to increase our population. To be fertile is to be productive. To multiply is to be productive to create abundance. To subdue the earth is to render service to humanity via productivity and the abundance it creates. 

God ordered humanity to use our God given talents to be of service to humanity. This is God's intent and use for us. The following two verses describe two common professions at the time Scripture was written... Plant and animal husbandry. 

Since God is in us (his spirit), service to humanity is service to God. This is how God wants to be worshiped. 

In Genesis 2, Adam (humanity) is told which fruits he is to consume (God's law) and which one he is not to consume, the fruit of knowledge, the forbidden fruit (our interpretation of what is right at the expense of God's interpretation of what is right. 

Both these scenes form God's having us take over from what God started, it also establishes God's relationship with humanity, including God's intent for us. 

Now, Adam and Eve (humanity) decided to reinterpret what was right into something that contradicted what God defined as right (consumption of the forbidden fruit). This begins the interaction between God and humanity, where God consistently works to save humanity from sin. 

Herein comes one of the meanings of baptism. One of the meanings of water in Scripture is "God's wisdom." One of the meanings of its use in baptism is cleaning of sin. This is also done, via action, by abiding by God's commandments (wisdom through action). 

This brings us to the image that I brought up. God told Adam (humanity) that from dust he came to dust he shall return. One of the meanings of dust, in scripture, is humbleness, humility. For God to effectively use us, we must return to dust, or, as Jesus puts it, be as a child, also a symbol of humbleness. 

The story of David and Goliath repeats themes that run from the Old Testament and through the New Testament... God bringing us back to walking the path he laid out.  By being baptized, you've taken action to "return to dust." 

As for "how to make heaven more crowded." 

Jesus told the apostles/disciples, that they are to be a light for the world. He was telling them to abide by God's commandments, to embed those commandments in their actions, for all to see and emulate. It is not just good to know these commandments but not do them (hiding candles in the basket) but to walk the walk as an example to others, as Jesus was doing. 

Christians are being called to evangelize not just through educating others, but also through their actions. It is by getting others to turn from the path laid out through their interpretation of what is right back to what God interprets as being right that "heaven could be more crowded."

The last paragraph was the end of my response, to which I attached another biblical themed image.

Patricia (Patti) Fox essentially made a statement, that God would "use her to help make heaven a crowded place," without understanding how this can happen. Simply leaving it to chance, without understanding Scripture, is like trying to navigate without navigational aids or directions. This mindset also opens the person up to being misled regarding putting Scripture into action.

Her action, to block me, revealed lack of sincerity behind her getting baptized, and her lack of commitment to "being used by God to make Heaven a packed place." 

Daniel Frick, member of a church, violates God's commandments regarding treatment of "outsiders"

In response to my question, to Patricia (Patti) Fox, Daniel Frick posted a gif image showing in actors' facial expression that expressed confusion and "WTF." He provided no commentary. 

A real Christian, abiding by God's laws, would have attempted to understand what I was saying, if to even help Patti understand my question. Throughout Scripture, the prophets, later Jesus and the apostles, called on people to extend equal treatment towards others regardless of their favorability, familiarity, etc.

During our lives, Jesus would not show up wearing the most impressive imperial garments, nor would he show up to people wearing the most impressive warrior armaments while leading an army of angels. Revelation paints an image of him doing this, but it is presented metaphorically.

Instead, Jesus would show up via an outsider, via someone in "humble" condition, as an outcast, as an outsider, as a "society reject," someone that is avoided, etc.

For example:

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me." -- Matthew 25:40

To better draw out his intent, I responded to him right after I responded to Patricia Fox.

My response:

My post, statement and meme, were intended to test Patti's, and by extension your, understanding of scripture. Is that the kind of response I would expect from your congregation when asking a question related to God's intent, as well as show an image related to scripture? 

I've read the entire Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, more than once. I like to talk about Scripture and see where members of churches stand with their understanding of Scripture. After all, what use is going to church if there is a disconnect between action and God's word? How can one truly understand what God's intent for them is, for even throughout scripture, people were described as thinking that they were worshiping God, and doing his will, when in fact they were marching to the drumbeat of other deities?

So, I'm interested in your understanding of Scripture. In Luke 19:1-10, we have the story of a tax collector, Zacchaeus, who wanted to see Jesus. He climbed a sycamore tree to see Jesus, as he was short and couldn't see over the others. Jesus calls him down. Zacchaeus comes down, then declares that he would give to the poor, and that he would pay those he extorted 4 times what he took from them. 

What is your interpretation of this passage? 

The question marked the end of my response to him. How he would have responded to me would have demonstrated whether he was just "being a Christian" for social media and photo optics purposes, or if he was truly a Christian.

Patricia (Patti) Fox blocked me right after I responded to Frick and to her. I never saw what kind of response Daniel Frick gave, if he responded. 

When old man lack wisdom

I posted an article on This Ain't Hell/Valor Guardians. The article featured commentary made in the linked article regarding the overestimation of Russian strength. The author argued that we should supply the Ukrainians with what they needed to keep fighting the Russians.

One commenter, aGrim, posted a comment essentially accusing me of beating the war drums or encouraging war. Nowhere in my post, nor in the linked article, was information provided that would lead anybody to conclude that war was being encouraged. The theme of both my article, and the article that I linked to, was the continued support for Ukraine in terms of providing ammunition and other military equipment needed to push the Russian invaders out.

I responded to aGrim, calling him out for impugning me and for accusing me of doing things that a critical thinker would not have done had the read my article based on what I actually said. What most of the community did not understand is that aGrim and I had debated the issue of Russia invading Ukraine, and Ukraine's response, on other threads. This appeared to be a desperate attempt on his part to get me to stop posting about Ukraine related topics.

In response, other commenters jumped in and essentially simped for aGrim. They argued that perhaps it was the way I worded my article, that led people to their erroneous conclusions. They also claimed that I invited comment, then insulted those who did comment. They attempted to shift the blame instead of acknowledging their own shortcomings. 

My responses accurately called them out for what they were doing. This appeared to be the origin of their accusation of my "insulting" those who responded after "inviting them" to respond.  The mere existence of the comments section was my "actively inviting comments." Hypocritically, they ignored the fact that the comment response availability could be used to claim that they were inviting rebuttals, then getting mad at those who provided the rebuttals. 

One of the things that was supposed to have been "insulting":

Either aGrim failed to understand what I was saying, or he deliberately advanced a strawman argument knowing that he was making false accusations. Either way, he did not respond to my counter rebuttal. He did respond to the other posters on the same thread.  This is uncharacteristic of aGrim given the fact that he is one of those posters that do not know that they have lost the argument, and thus has the tendency to keep arguing.

Thus, aGrim's not responding to me indicated that my rebuttal was so on point; he knew better than to persist with his false claims. However, commenters Prior Service, SFC D, timactual, and Hate-me, jumped in and went in simp mode, insisting that it was the way I put the article together vice the failure of reading comprehension on their part.

Incidentally, this is how another commenter, commissar, accused the site of being a "cult." On other threads, commissar accused the entire site of being a "cult." When it came to the individuals addressed on this post, that accusation turned out to be accurate. Their arguments simply contradicted the facts, and like NPCs in a video game, they parroted each other's arguments at the expense of being objective. 

Mark Hutchins demonstrates lack of understanding of military information gathering

Mark Hutchins: Front lines do not get full intelligence, 

We are talking about the war in Ukraine. When it comes to kinetic action, and combat operations, those in the front lines are going to have a more detailed outlook on what is going on in the combat theater than someone who is higher up in rank and sitting back in the rear.

In the case of your "retired naval intelligence officer", he is far removed from what is going on with regards to boots on the ground. He is going to get selected information that is relevant to his duties. Naval intelligence focuses more on naval activities, we are talking about Army related areas. In most instances, an Army intelligence officer would have more privy to what is going on with regards to boots on the ground than the Naval intelligence officer.

Mark Hutchins: man you are out there, 

Sorry, you're the one who is taking, at face value, claims from someone who claimed to be a "retired naval intelligence officer." Do you not realize that there are Russian nationals pretending to be Americans, and adding specific credentials to their persona, to cause people like you to fall hook, line, and sinker for their propaganda? The video that you showed was in no way shape or form something I would expect from any intelligence community in the military.

Unlike you, I have relevant professional experience in this specific topic. I followed the war in Ukraine, religiously, since the Russians attempted a full-scale invasion back in February 2022. I have followed that war long enough to see and detect habits, behaviors, tactics, that the Russians will employ given specific actions. Enough of this information is available via people uploading videos straight from the front lines for you to see that you are being hoodwinked.

It is you that is way out there. You, having no experience with this topic, having apparently not searched for those videos on the Internet that would have told you what was actually going on, have no real credentials in this argument. All you are doing is running off with an opinion that you are emotionally vested in, powered only by your ego to keep pressing the argument.

Mark Hutchins: when on front lines in Iraq were you aware there were no weapons of mass destruction? 

There were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq; thus you are incorrect regarding WMD in Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction consist of biological, chemical, and radiological agents. Sarin, mustard, and blister agents were found in Iraq post invasion, and were used against coalition forces, and against Iraqi security forces, throughout the Iraq War. They are chemical agents; hence, they are WMD. WMD was found in Iraq. A couple of Iraqi security men in my AO got injured by blister laced IEDs right before I went on R&R leave. 

Understand that the way the media handled evidence of WMD in the 2000s is EXACTLY how they treated evidence of election fraud in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. Also, the New York Times, of all places, published an article of when US forces uncovered buried weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mark Hutchins falls for bio lab conspiracy

Mark Hutchins: Did you know of bio labs ? 

The reports of bio labs in Ukraine, where the US was allegedly creating new bio warfare weapons, are nothing but propaganda. In the aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine had Soviet biological laboratory research centers. The United States entered an agreement with Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians with containing and managing what was in these labs. The United States was not conducting biowarfare research in these labs.

Why would we be doing that? Effective 2014, Ukraine faced the risk of being completely invaded by the Russians. So, even if this nonsense theory was correct, it would not have been the case in the immediate aftermath of Russia taking Crimea in 2014. However, that theory was never correct.

One of the conspiracy whack jobs posted a part of an agreement regarding bio labs between United States and Ukraine. The conspiracy whack job claimed it was an agreement for the United States to engage in biowarfare research, or to support it. However, when I pulled up the document, it described what I just mentioned above. Nothing nefarious, no conspiracy, nothing like what the Russian propagandists have claimed regarding of "evidence."

Mark Hutchins: No you were not privy I'm sorry, 

This is incorrect. A lot of what the conspiracy whack jobs have said about Ukraine is arguably wrong. The two main people that I've seen advance the biological warfare laboratory nonsense are either Russian trolls or Western conspiracy whack jobs. Both groups rely on each other for strength and reach. Enough information exists online to prove these whack jobs incorrect regarding Ukraine bio research labs.

The only thing you should be sorry for is the fact that this information is something that you are privy to, via your access to the Internet. Yet, you choose to believe the nonsense people have fed you.

Mark Hutchins: when they roll out war plans they seek the intelligence not the front line, 

This is incorrect. When you roll out the war plans, you are rolling out something that is already out of date. New information is required and is obtained via multiple methods. Yes, what is going on in the front lines is key. You need what is going on with the front lines, or potential frontlines, before you send combat troops into the area.

Mark Hutchins: you have mistaken the knowledge needed to create planning offensive and defensive, 

Again, you are incorrect. My argument is based on firsthand experiences related to the topic that you and I have argued. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no military experience under your belt. You, not having that experience, are trying to lecture somebody who does have that experience and who is trying to correct you by informing you of what really happens. I told you what kind of knowledge is needed to create planning for offensive and defensive. Without information straight from the front lines, whatever plans you come up with are futile, incomplete, and do a disservice to those who must carry out the operations.

Mark Hutchins: how do seals know what to expect? Intelligence, 

Intelligence straight from the front lines, what you claim is not needed. Your "recently retired naval officer" was more than likely a desk jockey relying on open-source information in addition to Navy related information that he may have been privy to. This is assuming that this individual is who he claims to be, and is not a Russian troll. 

Mark Hutchins: sorry my friend, you are way off base and ilinformed

Again you, having no military experience under your belt, or having a lack of military deployment experience if you did serve, are trying to tell someone who not only has military experience but also has deployment experience where intelligence and carrying out plans are involved, that he is "way off base" and "ill informed."

Your narcissism is such that you do not see what you are doing here. You, having no experience, yet you told someone with experience in the debate topic that he is "incorrect" in response to your being told how things work in the real military.

Mark Hutchins would rather believe an internet stranger than an actual veteran

 

Mark Hutchins: Thank you for your service, what I find I have reviewed by retired recently naval intelligence officer who has had privy to what is generally not out for all

A recently retired naval intelligence officer is no longer going to be privy to sensitive, classified information that the rest of us would not be privy to. Access to classified material is on a need-to-know basis only. Whatever information he obtained that he was privy to, based on his need to know, you and others were not privy to based on a lack of clearance and on a lack of need to know.

Meaning, if this "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is divulging information that nobody else is privy to, due to a lack of classification and to a lack of a need to know, then that "recently retired naval intelligence officer" is violating classified material information handling procedures.

However, given the inconsistency between the video you referenced, and what I have seen for a fact is reality when it comes to the war in Ukraine, I highly doubt that the individual is who you claim he is, or who he wants you to think he is.

Unless that Naval officer is a SEAL, or someone who served on the front lines, you're going to get a desk jockey's interpretation of what is going on. We are talking about boots on the ground infantry maneuvers. I'm more qualified to talk about this than he is as we're dealing with infantry tactics. More than enough information has been uploaded to social media that the information that comes out on the news is old, stale, and sometimes misses the mark.

Mark Hutchins: Remember all signed the Minsk agreement except Ukraine, that's why we are here today, 

We are here today not because of the actions of the Ukrainians, but because of what the Russians did. The Russians sent their own military, under the auspices of being civilians, into the Donetsk and Luhansk areas, and they fabricated a false breakaway movement. The Russians were butthurt over the fact that the Ukrainians wanted to couple with the west rather than be influenced by the Russians. 

The Russians have an imperialistic mindset, and many of their oligarchs have not only consolidated the wealth in Russia, but they are also attempting to rob Ukraine of its wealth... The Russian occupied areas are industrial rich areas.

Mark Hutchins: there's alot that goes deeper

Yes, there is a lot that goes deeper, and unfortunately for both you, and for the "recently retired naval intelligence officer" have no access to "the deeper" aspect of this. What that individual did was cherry pick information, and then created a narrative based on that cherry picked information. He shows images from Ukraine where there are no signs of battle damage, and then follows that up with images from Israel showing battle damage. He draws a conclusion from that.

That is not what one would call an intelligence briefing. That is propaganda. If you want to dig deep, you must go outside Western media sources and see what the actual Russians and Ukrainians are saying. The Russians themselves, who opposed this war, accurately detailed why the Russians invaded. It had nothing to do with NATO, and nothing to do with "NAZIs." It had everything to do with Russian oligarchs wanting to expand their cash inflows. 

Demand Studios (Leaf Group Ltd.) defeats Demand Studios Sucks

Since my last series of rebuttals against some posters on Demand Studios Sucks, I regularly checked their website. Not long after the last series of posts that I had made in rebuttal to these individuals, the website started to slow down both with blog updates and with forum posts. Eventually, both the blog and the forums came to a complete stop. First it was days, then weeks, then months, and then years passing since the last posts.

During its final active months, the frequency of postings on Demand Studios Sucks dwindled, then dropped. One topic that sparked that site's community's interest was Demand Studios' (now Leaf Group) fate. Specifically, who would win, Demand Studios, or Demand Studios Sucks. Demand Studios eventually went through a change, to include a name change to Leaf Group as well as having stocks.

"Patrick," Demand Studios Sucks' owner, declared victory based on the name change alone. However, this was a phony victory. "Patrick," as well as the last remaining members on the site, became excited when it appeared that the stock, for what formally was Demand Studios, performed relatively poorly. However, Leaf Group continued to perform its mission years after Demand Studios Sucks "went silent." Their stock continued to go up and down depending on market conditions. 

Recently, while looking for the Demand Studios Sucks website, nothing showed up. Well, not what usually shows up when you click on the link leading to Demand Studios Sucks. The link leading to Demand Studios Sucks is still active, but what was once Demand Studios Sucks is not what you would see.

Instead, as of the time of this posting, if AI generated triple "X" mature adult content appeals to you, then Demand Studios Sucks is the website for you.

During my short participation on the website, and then during my subsequent back and forth with the members of Demand Studios Sucks, I noticed a common trait. They had the tendency to be emotional, vindictive, combative, etc. It appeared to be a website where individuals could complain about actual and alleged unfairness, and even mistreatment at the hands of Demand Studios. There was also a sense of "eat the young" mentality." 

Any kind of active solution to actually deal with Demand Studios, a constructive way to deal with them, was shut down or dismissed. In many instances, not even considered. "Patrick" even attempted to corner this niche by creating forums for the different content farms. The name of the forums was based on the name of the content farm site and the word "sucks." 

Could this website have continued to run, and be active, beyond its actual run? It is possible. The reality changed when algorithms, impacting content farm websites, changed. The gravy train stopped providing gravy. We had a bunch of writers facing a new reality to where their main or a significant source of income was threatened and eventually ended. 

This was a perfect opportunity to form a community of writers, with similar experiences, to share their knowledge and to help other writers in the community. "Patrick" could have steered the website, and the mission, towards one where writers can give and receive help and advice. This effort could potentially have led to a source of income. A community of writers could have been built, grown, and sustained based on their experiences with Demand Studios and with other similar sites. 

Multiple possibilities existed that "Patrick" could've steered the site, and community, towards accomplishing. However, creating a site for the purposes of venting and complaining guaranteed a short life. The reality is that the vast majority of people will move on from the subject of their complaints. They normally pursue other activities and "forget" about the topic of their complaint. Leaf Group (formally Demand Studios) made this adjustment and change. 

I also had my suspicions, still do, regarding who "Patrick" and some of the posters were. The site owner apparently wanted to project an image of a man. However, the tone, the demeanor, etc., indicated someone who was a woman. Towards the end of activity on the site, some of the commenters came across as "Patrick's" sock puppets. 

I would not be surprised if the final Demand Studios Sucks interactions on that site were between the puppeteer and the sock puppets... A "one person show" after everybody else had moved on. I also would not be surprised if the majority of those who wrote for Demand Studios, who subsequently participated in Demand Studios Sucks, had returned to brick-and-mortar operations at least until the pandemic.

Demand Studios Sucks' disappearance came with it the disappearance of the threads related to my arguments with certain members of that site. What still exists are my rebuttals to those on that site who foolishly chose to continue to argue with me. The smart thing for them to do would have been not to try to argue with me in the first place. Had that been the case, The disappearance of the Demand Studios Sucks website would have also resulted in the disappearance of the rebuttals to them that I generated and posted to this site. 

So, the reality is that both Demand Studios/Leaf Group and I defeated Demand Studios Sucks, and we won our respective engagements with a straight cut victory. In Leaf Group's case, they won against Demand Studios Sucks without even firing a shot in a contest they did not realize they were engaged in. 

I posted about Demand Studios Sucks commenters on this blog from 2011 to 2013. In one of the posts, I predicted that Demand Studios Sucks would end its run. The above is a partial explanation behind why I did not think that the Demand Studios Sucks community would last. 

Jeanne Jondreau points to George Santos lies, says nothing about lies from Biden et al.

Jeanne Jondreau: [Redacted] Have you seen the crooked politicians in Congress? 

I have been aware of crooked politicians for decades. They exist on both sides of the political aisle, despite the mainstream media's insistence on reporting corruption from the Republican side while ignoring corruption from the Democrat side.

This corruption blew wide open in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential Election. The Democratic Party, and their Republican in Name Only (RINO) allies showed their true colors, that they were truly corrupt, and that they were using their offices for personal enrichment. The Democrats have proven that they are all about power and that they care little about the regular people.

Jeanne Jondreau: The Founding Fathers may have wanted those with moral character, but that is not who is running the country. 

Because we have people like you, who base their voting decisions on emotions and opinion and not on the fact, what else did you expect to have? When people like you, and other Democrats/leftists, fall hook, line, and sinker, for nonsense and propaganda, and vote against the best interests of the country, what else did you expect to happen? How many times will people on your side of the argument keep voting for Democrat until they realize that the Democrats create the conditions that they complain about?

Jeanne Jondreau: George Santos has lied about everything he ever said, everyone knows it, he knows it, and, yet, he is still there. Unbelievable.

Yet, you say nothing about the corruption of the Democrats. George Santos is an amateur when compared to Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, the squad, and others. I have had to endure decades of watching the news where the media gives a pass to Democrat corruption but turn on anthill into a mountain or completely make something up regarding a Republican.

Your argument indicates that what you consider as "people with moral character" depends on your opinions of that individual and how consistent they are with the socialist/progressive agenda.

Mark Hutchins tells veteran with experience gathering tactical intelligence that he is wrong... About military intelligence

Another coward that responded then moved to block instead of being man enough to take the rebuttal. 

Mark Hutchins: Ok, I'm sorry you are feeling offended that your rank did not give you the privy info you so gallantly thought was Topps, 

Again, you demonstrate lack of knowledge of how military intelligence works. You do realize that it's the enlisted personnel that gather the intelligence, do you? They gather it, analyze it, then provide a bigger picture for the officers to review. 

Also, intelligence information is on a need-to-know basis, not on what rank you hold. Meaning, that "naval intelligence officer" that you reference is providing you opinion that is not based on military intelligence data. If he were providing such, he would be in hot water as you and others do not have a need to know of what he is talking about. 

I do not envy that naval intelligence officer's position, if he is what he claims to be; he would have been a desk jockey who spent a lot of time pouring through open-sourced data to put his power point briefings together... We called folks like him "power point rangers." 

Was he even in the Navy, I would not be surprised if this was a stolen valor case. Judging by the video, I would not be surprised if this individual is a Russian national.

Mark Hutchins: you have overestimated your knowledge by far, I understand your ego has been bruised but it's reality

Don't mistake my telling it like it is as "overestimating my knowledge." My knowledge is dead accurate, and based on firsthand experience. It's painfully obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about. Nope, ego is not working on my end, but on yours. My actions were not ego based, but on the fact that I take sadistic pleasure in proving people like you wrong, and then watching your reactions. 

You refused to answer my question about whether you served or not. Your responses make it painfully obvious that you didn't serve... Yet that didn't stop you from telling someone with firsthand experience gathering information in the military that he was "way off" and "ill informed."

James Shepherd (Facebook) demonstrates cowardice

James Shepherd: You claim to be educated 

Not a claim, but a statement of fact. It's a fact that I'm a doctoral candidate on the research phase of my program. A claim is something that is not proven and is subject to being tested for validity. 

James Shepherd: and then post a 100% bullshit meme. 

Yet, you did nothing to prove the meme "wrong", nothing. A meme is not BS simply because you claim it is. You have to PROVE it to be such which, by looking at your emotion driven rant, you have not done so. Thus, the argument presented in my meme still stands.

You also failed to post this specific response to my response containing the meme. You did this deliberately, assuming that I was not going to counter your argument, something that I did on that thread just as I've done here. 

James Shepherd: GTFOH. 

Retired Soldier, war veteran here. I have every right to exercise my first amendment rights, on that thread, here or elsewhere, rights I was willing to come back in a flag draped coffin for.  

The fact that you'd tell me to "get out of here," together with the rest of your comment, indicates someone who has anger issues, ego issues, and control issues. Your response is typical of that of someone who didn't get his way and is "pulling a tantrum" in response. 

James Shepherd: You're just another partisan moron [SELF-PROJECTION]

First, you failed to prove anything that I posted, either via the comment or via the meme, "wrong." All you've done was blow hot air out while demonstrating lack of restraint and lack of discipline on your part. 

Second, I don't comment, or argue, on a topic unless two conditions are simultaneously met:

1. I have extensive knowledge on the topic gained from firsthand experience and/or extensive study/research...

2. Those who disagree with me, or would disagree with me, have little to no knowledge of the debate topic. 

Both of these were met. You proved it with your own actions, choosing to issue insults and show anger, ego, and control issues rather than address the points that I advanced. You also dodged replying to me directly where I could respond to you on that thread. 

I've been debating against Democrats for 20 years, and this has been a part of my strategy. 

James Shepherd: that is merely repeating BS right wing talking points.. [SELF-PROJECTION] 

Speak for yourself. Again, I've been debating against Democrats, online, for 20 years. Your reaction here is nothing new, I've lost count of how many times I've had your very argument spewed in my direction throughout those two decades. 

It's like you guys are passing the same script around... Must be aged, yellowish, wrinkled, by now. You and others are like those non player characters in a video game who keep repeating the same script, no matter where these characters show up. 

Don't dismiss a fact based, reasoned, logical argument as "BS right wing talking points," especially when you're going to do so repeating the same leftist script I've come across over the past 20 years, and especially if you're going to fail to prove your claims beyond emotionally making them. 

James Shepherd: Stop trying to make everything a partisan issue 

On a post involving politics, related to an upcoming election, you should expect people to take one side of the argument or the other. 

James Shepherd: and you'll actually LEARN something.

Sorry, for me to learn something from someone, they actually have to know what they are talking about or doing. Again, you failed to prove your claims, other than ranting them. Also, do you honest to God expect me to do anything that you demand given how you responded to me? Guaranteed, the way you talked to me does nothing but further entrench me in my arguments and habits while making me more hostile to yours. Demonstrating tact goes a long way with me, learn it.  

Jeanne Jondreau misunderstands the concept of the Bible being written for the times

In response to a post, that people should let Scripture change them rather than attempt to change Scripture to meet the times, Jeanne Jondreau commented about the Bible being written for the times. Specifically, that it was written for ancient times, for an ancient audience, with the implication that relevant portions of the Bible are not applicable today. Jondreau also argued that the Bible should not be literally interpreted. 

Jeanne Jondreau was right where she did not intend to be, and she was wrong where she thought that she was right. As used in her argument, Jondreau implied that many parts of the Bible were intended for an ancient audience and not necessarily for modern ones. Additionally, by not taking the Bible literally, a pathway is open to liberally interpret what Scripture says. This assumption also opens the way to dismiss certain parts of the Bible. 

However, Jeanne Jondreau gets it wrong given that the Bible is jampacked with metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc. to get a point across. The underlying meanings are still applicable today. 

Many of the metaphors and storylines appealed to the audiences at that time. For example, the use of fire. Many Christians today believe that fire is associated with Satan. However, reading in context of the entire Bible, the fire metaphor leverages the use of fire in industry and everyday living during that time. Fire was a valuable tool. 

Tourists going through the ruins of Pompeii would see evidence of the ancients use of fire. Fire was used for cooking. Work smiths created a final product utilizing furnace fires as a part of the production process to arrive at a finished product. A common theme involving mention of fire in Scripture leverages most commonly understood concepts regarding the utility of fire in ancient times. 

In the Old Testament, people "doing what was right in their own eyes" as opposed to what God defined as right, where metaphorically described as "burning." Their lives were much harder than what they needed to be. To improve their lives, they had to abandon their interpretation of what was right in favor of doing what God defined as right. 

One underlying theme in this description is captured in a common Internet saying, "Life is tough, but it is tougher when you are stupid." This theme utilizes the image of a work smith using a furnace to solidify "perfection." God is described as the work smith, and humanity is described as the product. For example, the exile is described as "a furnace" aimed at purging impurities from the Judeans just as a metalsmith purged impurity from liquefied metal. 

This is just but one example of how the descriptions in the Bible address themes that are relevant today. For example, a person who genuinely cares about others in the workplace, who gives credit where credit is due, who does not steal credit from others, who helps others achieve their goals, is more likely to have a better time at work to include endorsements for promotion, pay raises, and retention. However, a person who takes credit for someone else's work, who blames people for things that they did not do, who throws people under the bus to make himself/herself look better, is a person who contributes to the erosion of worker morale in an organization. People have turnover intention, or fire back with counter incivility, and do things that work against efficient operations and against the organization's ability to meet its objectives. 

Scripture addresses human nature that is still relevant today. Understanding the Bible, from the perspective of someone who lived during that time period, makes this evident.

Jeanne Jondreau, pulling the Christian card while failing to play the part

There's nothing Christian about judging people without the benefit of the facts. The fact that you posted these memes, and your statements, rendering judgment without knowing what you are talking about, contradicts Scripture... There's a big difference between following Jesus of Nazareth and your actions. learn the difference instead of showing a meme telling people to learn the difference. It's painfully obvious to me that you have not read the entirety of the Holy Bible. It's also painfully obvious that you like to post Christian related comments and images on Facebook while failing to act the part. 

The thread starter deleted the thread, sparing you from the balance of the blistering fact check scrutiny that you were about to be subjected to. It's a good thing that I saved this for posting on my blog. 

 Jeanne Jondreau: During the Civil War, the Democrats were slave owners. Yes, that was sad to find out. 

This is the only thing that you said that was correct.

Jeanne Jondreau: But, now, it has all switched. 

That's a myth, partly based on the argument on how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Democrat controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat President.

Support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just over 80% among Republicans, and just under 70% among Democrats. Democrat Senators, 21 of them, set a record filibuster at the time attempting to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican support for the bill contributed to breaking the deadlock, ending the filibuster, and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the White House to be signed into law. 

The myth is that racist Democrats transferred to the Republican Party to protest the Democrat vote. That makes as much sense as moving from Florida to Alaska to protest Florida winters. Out of the 21 Senators, only one transferred to the Republican Party, one senator is not going to change the entire party. The other 20 remained with the Democrats. 

Jeanne Jondreau: I can't remember what year I read that happening. 

You won't remember, because it never happened.

Jeanne Jondreau: Tell me, 

I did, see above. 

Jeanne Jondreau: you know so much. 

I've been a history buff for over four decades, and have argued this and other topics against Democrats for 20 years. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So here we are. The Republicans have picked up where the Democrats left off in the South. 

This is a spectacularly incorrect statement. You do realize that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have been passed had it not been for Republicans, do you? Again, support from the Republican side was over 80%, it was 21 Democrat Senators that attempted to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until the 1990s until the South became solidly and consistently Republican. 

Jeanne Jondreau: So I am liberal Dem used to be a Repub during the Civil War. Chew on that for awhile.

First, you're making that statement based on your erroneous understanding of US History. Both Democrats and Republicans in the 19th Century would've seen your argument as an abomination. In the 20th Century, the Democratic Party shifted towards the extreme left, socialism and communism. The Republicans, on the other hand, did not adopt the policies of the Democratic Party... That's a BS myth. 

Second, the policies of the Democratic Party, both before and after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, go counter to the conservative principles of the Republican Party. Racism goes against conservative principles. It speaks volumes when numerous Blacks have walked into Republican rallies, and found out that the idea that the Republicans are "racist" is just a myth. 

If you want to find out who the Democrats truly are, listen to what they say about the Republicans. 

Fake video of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Cortez conversation is floating around

Someone spliced together different videos and utilized manipulation to create a false conversation, with false statements, to mislead audiences. There apparently is an attempt to discredit James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. This phony video, when utilized by the unsuspecting, opens an entire group for discrediting. 

The false statements making up the phony conversation:

Nancy Pelosi: I have given a shoot to kill order for any breach of the speaker's lobby. Every one of these maggots must be prosecuted. Yes, I agree, no more protests in our Capitol.

Nancy Pelosi: We must send a signal to the American people that we are in charge...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Listen sweetheart, let the men handle this. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): Are you even listening to me?

Alexandria Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): Why don't you let me finish?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): ... Congressional staffers were almost killed! I thought I was going to die!!!!

Joe Biden (To Alexandria Cortez): ... This is an adult discussion...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (To Joe Biden): The public doesn't fear us anymore, and you better do something!

Nancy Pelosi (to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): What am I supposed to do?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to Nancy Pelosi): Do you fucking job, Nancy! 

Pelosi: Alexandria, let's both be patient and respectful of each other's ideas.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: No... No... No...

Joe Biden: Let's take a step back and look at the big picture.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Joe, I don't really have anything to say to you. If we don't make sure those who perpetrated this mayhem are brought to justice, we are all dead!

Nancy Pelosi: This was a mostly peaceful protest.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I don't care why the were there, violence, non violence, doesn't matter. We can't allow those who showed up to get away with it.

This is all nonsense.