Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Purge them

Published

on

As a nation and a civilized people, it seems we’re going backwards, not forwards. In 2008, Barack Obama swept into power, along with a newly-energized Democratic Party fresh from 8 years of attacking President George W. Bush and six years of bloody wars.

We knew Obama was questionable on issues of hate, racism and violence, as he faithfully attended black supremacist, anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright’s church. We knew Obama was schooled in Saul Alinsky tactics of community organizing. We knew he won both of his previous elections (before president) by knocking out his competition to run essentially unopposed. He had no voting record in the Senate to speak of–he only served a single partial term.

Obama turned out to be everything conservatives feared. He involved himself in race relations at every opportunity, always speaking about unity, but always fomenting division in his slanted views. I fervently believe that Obama’s eight years produced more police anxiety, brutality, and paranoia than there existed at any time since the early 1970s directed toward African Americans.

Now we have another political cypher in the White House, who came from a different path, without the Harvard Law pedigree, but with billions in the bank and unmatched name recognition. I believe President Trump doesn’t have a racially biased bone in his body, but he has a soft spot for police–law & order.

The left reacted by manufacturing every possible hate crime instigated by Donald Trump’s win. At the same time, they themselves resorted to violence when it served their purposes. From Arizona to Berkeley, they’ve used violence as a method to exercise a heckler’s veto over free speech, and to get camera time on the news.

Even in Washington, D.C., I witnessed camera crews setting up while “demonstrators” milled about shouting curses at inauguration guests. When the crews were ready, they started breaking windows and torching limousines.

The media has been no better at combatting this, since an enormous majority of them sympathize with the left’s causes. They’ve dutifully printed or broadcast every accusation of racism, Islamophobia and violence against LGBT individuals. Most of those accusations have turned out to be false, or even completely staged. Retractions always happened many pages back, if at all.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t genuine white racists, anti-Semites and violent homophobes out there. They certainly exist. But they’re not mainstream–or at least they shouldn’t be.

The toxic witches-brew we’ve seen has inevitably led to real political violence on a devastating scale: A man with a rifle shooting at Republican Members of Congress and their staffs on a baseball field. Now we’ve got actors talking about assassination (par for the stupid course) and Democratic officials saying they’re “glad Scalise was shot.”

My God. Are we barbarians?

There is only one answer. It’s one I don’t consider lightly because I believe free speech is precious. I don’t agree with college campuses shutting out speakers because they don’t agree with their viewpoint. I don’t agree with limiting opinion in the workplace. But there is no room for inciting political violence in a civilized nation, in the media, and in government.

Purge them.

Purge them all. Anyone who has ever condoned, incited, or agreed with violent means to promote a political aim should be removed from any government, political party, or media job–if they don’t recant publicly.

Yes, I know this rings very similar to the antics of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It rings a lot like McCarthyism. But some guardrails are necessary to keep a civil society from breaking down into Lord of the Flies.

(As an aside, the HUAC was chaired by a Texas Democrat, Martin Dies, and sponsored in 1934 by New York Democrat Samuel Dickstein. Sen. Joe McCarthy’s anti-communism was related, but not directly tied to, the HUAC. Red-baiting was in fact a bipartisan tradition in the Cold War.)

I’m not calling for witch hunts. In age of the Internet, witch hunts aren’t required, as most statements are archived forever in digital form. If, and to the degree they exist, they should be repudiated by those who made them, or those individuals should face political humiliation, reduced employment options, and general criticism by a culture preferring to live in some form of peaceful society.

CNN did this with Reza Aslan for simply calling the president a “piece of s**t,” something he had done consistently since well before the election. Granted, that’s a nasty term to use for the POTUS, but it’s at least free speech, and far less than calls for “resistance” that can easily be interpreted as “insurrection.”

Phil Montag, the Nebraska Democrat who cheered Rep. Steve Scalise’s shooting, was fired by the state’s Democratic Party, where he was a technology chair. But others in the media and in political jobs have continued on, without bothering to edit themselves or express remorse in any way.

Television and newspaper editors continue to publish salacious pieces and loaded headlines only to “modify” them later. And the White House laughs and eggs them on. We can’t do much about Trump’s White House. If he wants to pour gasoline on the fire, it will just burn hotter–Obama did this for eight years without a single main stream media outlet calling him on it (with the possible exception of solidarity when he tried to remove Fox News from the White House).

But we should not let this trend continue. The heckler’s veto has to end, and become civilized society’s veto. We have that right, to veto individuals who, by their position, actions and speech, would make our nation more prone to violence and barbarism.

If we don’t take this into our hands through peaceful, civilized means using the power at our disposal, then it will be taken out of our hands through violent means.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Daniel Greenfield discusses Jamie Glazov’s book “Jihadist Psychopath”

Published

on

Daniel Greenfield discusses Jamie Glazovs book Jihadist Psychopath

Jamie Glazov, managing editor of FrontPage Magazine and host of The Glazov Gang, has written a book that political commentator Dennis Prager says is “one of the most important books of the present time.” That book is “Jihadist Psychopath” and I just ordered a copy for myself.

Daniel Greenfield, Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, made a video about the book that prompted me to order it. Both men are respected defenders of freedom and watchmen over the threat of jihad in America, Israel, and around the world.

As he is wont to do, Greenfield points to leftist politicians as enablers of the jihadists by turning a blind eye to the rise of sharia law across America.

“These servants of the people, public servants, they’re actually masters of the people. They prefer to dictate than to be dictated to. Now, of course, Islamic terrorists will, in their own time, dictate to them. They will dictate to them using Islamic sharia law, but as far as the left is concerned for the moment, these are the people who need them, who are badly, desperately in need of being defended and protected and of course will happily trade their votes in exchange for getting a few benefits on the side.”

He continues on, examining the book’s sober pronouncements of intolerance of anything and anyone who does not bow to sharia law. To jihadists, there is only one acceptable way to live and all other perspectives must be subjugated or eliminated.

“Islamic terrorists have no attraction for anything really positive in life,” Greenfield continues. “They’re drawn to destruction. They’re drawn to emptiness because they themselves are empty. They’re hollow, and that is a central principle of Jamie Glazov’s excellent book.”

Patriots ranging from Steven Emerson to John Bolton are publicly recommending this book. I ordered my copy after watching Greenfield’s video. Freedom-loving Americans should watch it and consider reading “Jihadist Psychopath” by Jamie Glazov.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Matt Walsh speaks out on #CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

Published

on

Matt Walsh speaks out on CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

When white Catholic students wearing MAGA hats are caught on video face-to-face with Native Americans on one side and Black Hebrew Israelites on the other, they’re definitely bigoted white supremacist hatemongers who went out looking for minorities to persecute. At least that’s how mainstream media and a good chunk of social media reacted when they saw the initial videos and images of smirking MAGA children.

But that’s not how it went down. It was the exact opposite of how it went down.

When the story first broke, I saw many of my fellow conservatives on Twitter scolding the kids while the progressive gangs attacked them. I held my tongue. It’s not because I don’t speak out against bigotry regardless of which side of the political, religious, or cultural aisle it comes from, but something seemed fishy. Other than having a disconcerting smirk, I didn’t see anything in the kids that resembled the type of bigoted outbursts we’ve seen in the past from actual white supremacists, Antifa, or other hate groups.

It seemed staged. As it turned out, it wasn’t quite staged, per se, but it was manufactured by the two “victim” groups who went after the MAGA kids, not the other way around. As political and religious commentator Matt Walsh asked, were they supposed to drop down to the fetal position when approached by the two groups?

Hot takes on social and legacy media are often based on incomplete pictures. Before people get outraged and attack others over perceptions based on partial evidence, perhaps we should wait until the whole story comes to light. Just a thought.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?

Published

on

Does Matthew 2229-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch

Extra-Biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch are often frowned upon by churches. Some see 1 Enoch as fake. Others say it’s a good historical reference but not inspired. The Ethiopian Bible includes it as scripture. Should we read it?

To understand the answer to this question, we need to consider three things. First, it was referenced as holy by many of the early church fathers, but was excluded from official canon. Second, Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.

Many who oppose the validity of Enoch say that it was written after the Book of Jude because the it includes the quote that Jude references, but fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which most scholars date to before Jude was born.

The scripture in question is Matthew 22:29-30:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Nowhere in the 66 Books of the Bible does it say angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. What did Jesus mean when he said “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” in reference to the angels not marrying?

Here is 1 Enoch 15:5-7:

5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

Hmm.

As with anything regarding extra-Biblical texts, I must urge caution. Many who believe 1 Enoch is authentic refute the authenticity of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Then, there’s the question of inspiration and protection of the text. Many Christians believe the Bible has been able to survive and flourish despite so many attempts to disrupt it is because it has been protected over the millennia. If that’s the case, why was Enoch not included the whole time?

The answer to this question, to those who believe in its authenticity, may be found in the first two verses of the manuscript.

1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3 for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:

If Enoch is real, it’s meant for a later generation living in the day of tribulation. If it’s a fake, then it’s intended to deceive those in the end times. Either way, it’s understandable that it would not be included in most Bibles.

I tend to believe 1 Enoch is legitimate, but not to the point that I would teach on it. Not yet. Much more prayer and study is required before I would ever risk misleading anyone.

Nevertheless, the reference in Matthew 22 is compelling.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report