Connect with us

Culture and Religion

I voted for Trump: Don’t generalize me as an ethno-nationalist, I weep for all life

Published

on

In the weeks and days leading up to November 8, 2016, I, like many Americans, had a very difficult time. I felt that, in the end, if I didn’t vote, I really had no right to voice my opinion on the outcome. My reasoning stems from my own view that a vote is like an investment. When I take the time to vote, I am making an investment. Logically, we expect an investment to have a positive return. Likewise, if I don’t make the investment, then how can I have any criticisms of others for their investment? I don’t find any shame in my logic and I stand by it. We can all make bad investments and as long as we learn from those, then some good comes along.

When I chose to cast my vote, it was very specifically against Hillary Clinton. I understood the damage and corruption she would be capable of: 1) as a Washington insider, 2) being an extremely competent politician, 3) willing to deceive absolutely anyone, and 4) having such a corrupted history, she could throw anyone under the bus without flinching. The body count that seems to follow the Clinton legacy simply cannot be ignored. I felt that not voting or casting a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein was a potential point for Hillary. The only way I could ensure voting against the Clinton regime was to vote for Donald Trump. How could I look anyone in the eye, though, and tell them, “I voted for Donald Trump?” I couldn’t.

I fought with this for weeks. I decided that, for others, I could not blame for not voting. I heard from voters across the country that could not, in good conscience, vote for Trump because of moral issues. I get that and I fault them not for their decision. There was no good side in this election – at least, not when it came to the people themselves. I decided I would look at the platforms instead of the candidates. As a (then) Republican, I knew that there were three points in the Republican National Committee’s platform that I would be voting for:

  1. Protecting human life (pro-life).
  2. Defending traditional marriage.
  3. Support for Israel.

I didn’t simply ignore all the faults Donald Trump had – the baggage he carries is extremely visible. None of us are without fault, however. One fault or twenty, we are “all created by the same God.” So, yes, I feel a sting every time Trump tweets because I know that, although I was voting against Hillary and for principles, my vote put him in office. Yes, I shake my head and, yes, I bear a burden. But, like any bad investment, I should be able to learn from it and keep going. I have and I will.

What I did not expect is to be generalized as an ethno-nationalist or white supremacist because of my vote (much less my skin color). The events that transpired over the weekend in Charlottesville, VA, undoubtedly, have opened anew the wounds of ethno-centric divisions in this country. I detest the word race in reference to people. Ethnos or ethnic are appropriate terms. Race became prevalent following theories of evolution and derived from Darwinian thinking. And, based on that (faulty) thinking, others have been able to use race as a means to inject inequality and promulgate, facilitate and commit mass murder.

Saturday, the news of Charlottesville hit hard. I was only somewhat aware of the “Unite the Right” demonstration. I did not know who was involved or for what reasons. I am fully aware now. Where do I begin? I detest ethno-nationalism to my core. Ethnic supremacy is an abomination and is unequivocally not a conservative (or even right-wing) principle. No one can say they value all life (as supported by the RNC platform) and be a white-nationalist. Whatever the organization or movement – Nazi, KKK, or any that promotes one ethnicity above another – no member or supporter can truthfully claim they value life, rights or equality. Most importantly, none of these can rightfully claim to be true ambassadors of Jesus Christ!

I did not expect it necessary that I should, once again, be required to make a public statement denouncing, not only the violence, but the root of the violence. It seems that I, along with millions who voted for Trump, and millions more simply for the color of our skin, must make the statement. I did not expect to be lumped in with the handful of hate-mongers that we witnessed on Saturday. Yet, here I am.

The fact that Trump does not irrevocably denounce, by name, the groups and people involved who have claimed support for the President only emboldens them. Donald Trump has given ethno-nationalists a stage and I fault him for that. There simply is no excuse for either side – David Duke and his ilk or Antifa. I refuse to take sides. Both are wrong. For the alt-right, David Duke and the KKK, to claim any legitimacy as Republicans, conservatives or Christians, is a flat out deception. I cannot make it any clearer than that. The fact that my vote enabled another to give a stage upon which this vile group may march is probably the deepest sting I suffer.

Although Trump won under the Republican platform, he is not conservative. He is a Republican in name only – like many others in Congress. As a matter of fact, reading the preamble to the RNC platform, there are a mere few who demonstrate any understanding of what they say they stand for. The party itself no longer represents or defends the values it says are the basis for its being. This is truly a sad state of affairs for this Republic and further overshadows the principles upon which I cast my vote.

Life, being the most precious gift we are afforded, seems to be of so little value to so many people. That is what divides this nation. It makes me weep.

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