Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

An interesting follow-on from the GOP convention, and many bad things happening in the world.

Gay rights activists have not traditionally found a political home on the right. Yet gay activist and alternative-right icon Milo Yiannopoulus wants to change that, arguing that while the Republican party may not love homosexuality, Islam wants gays dead, and therefore gay people should support Trump (who Milo calls “Daddy”).

This was the theme of “WAKE UP,” billed as “the most fab party at the RNC,” which brought Milo together with controversial activist Pamela Geller who has gained notoriety for her “Draw Mohammed”cartoon competition as well as billboards in New York which read: “In the war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The event was panned by media outlets such as Salon in a piece which shrugged off the event as a “virulently anti-Islam party at the RNC” and The Nation, which slammed it as “Islamophobes, White Supremacists, and Gays for Trump—the Alt-Right Arrives at the RNC.”

Teen Vogue said the event “perpetuates Islamophobia.” The Nation’s piece revealed the alarmingly open presence of white nationalists at the event and the seemingly small numbers of gay people who showed up.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who spoke at the event, referred to Europe as “Eurabia” and said, “Islam is the problem.”

If they would have looked to France, they would have seen that gay support for the far right has already happened there. In 2015 a national scandal occurred when it emerged that the winner of France’s largest gay magazine’s beauty contest was an outspoken supporter of France’s right wing Front Nationale.

As early as 2012, 26% of the gay community in Paris supported the Front Nationale, as opposed to 16% of straight people.

The rationale is startlingly simple. Milo’s cult status as an online provocateur has been generated by making controversial statements and pushing the accepted boundaries of discussion. He has been able to tap into the large and growing alt-right movement — a disparate collection of mostly young white males who support socially liberal policies but who hold the left in contempt for their perceived abandonment of liberal values when it comes to human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam.

Because of this, Milo and others make the argument that only the right will stand up to defend gay people against Islamist extremism.

The movement also partially consists of white nationalists and racists, who are able to maintain their foothold because they have consistently spoken out against radical Islam (and indeed Islam in general.)

Put simply, people would rather be racist than dead.

That’s very true, of course, even very socially conservatives don’t want to kill gays. They may want to ‘cure’ them or ‘convert’ them or something of that nature, but they universally realize that conversion at the muzzle of a gun is likely to be insincere, and invalid.

Personally, I would be more pleased if the gay activists would realize that many of us, on the right, simply don’t care, in civil manners about any groups, our quest is for individual rights for each and every one. What Martin Luther King referred to as the content of the character, rather than the color of the skin (and we could easily add sexual preference to that). That underpins all of our belief structure, including the free market.

However the ideology in question is not Islam, as Geert Wilders would argue, but is Islamism, the theocratic political project which seeks to impose the religion of Islam over everyone in the world and implementsharia governance, complete with hudud punishments. This ideology does threaten the freedoms of all Americans.

Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is not only morally wrong, but also facilitates the very thinking propagated by the Islamic State and other Islamist groups –- by dividing the world into two camps, Muslims and non-Muslims.

However, the refusal of the elites around the world — with a few notable exceptions such as the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron — to correctly name and challenge the issue has created a vacuum.

People know there is a problem and know that it needs to be tackled.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) object to billboards calling on Muslims to talk to the FBI if they become suspicious of terrorism, when President Obama and Hillary Clinton point blank refuse to name the ideology at fault, people will start to draw their own conclusions about who is to blame and take action accordingly.

via Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

And so our elites themselves have prepared the battleground for the battle between the west, and not our real enemy radical Islam, but Islam itself, and quite possibly our own elites, as well. But we should forestall that, for defeating the wrong army is not victory. We need discernment in our leaders as much as we need courage enough to see and identify the enemy. And yes, there is one, and no it is not Islam. It is radical Islam, and when we fight this battle, we will do enough inadvertent damage to Islam, without confusing Islam itself with it in our minds.

This is the mistake that our political leadership (all across the west) makes. The west will be defended in the end, but there should be enough leadership to show that proper targeting will save many, many lives, on both sides.

I see little reason to fear radical Islam once proper defense measures are put in place, ones that do not overly infringe on our desiderata: individual freedom. But we have leadership that appears to be using radical Islam as a means to control their own populations, rather than defend our civilization. That is unlikely to end well for them, for us, or for Islam.


About NEO
Lineman, Electrician, Industrial Control technician, Staking Engineer, Inspector, Quality Assurance Manager, Chief Operations Officer

11 Responses to Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

  1. It simply amazes me how really racist the Left and Liberalism has become… pure stupidity! And how can we measure evil if we cannot see the truth of moral and spiritual righteousness, we cannot! And make no mistake, historical Christianity came from both continental and medieval Europe, with the Reformation and England, and of course this includes the Irish awakening, with Archbishop James Ussher and The Irish Articles, 1615. And from here too came later American Christianity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • NEO says:

      Always was, in truth, at least back to Wilson. Sad though that so many have bought into it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • § 85. THE IRISH ARTICLES. A.D. 1615.

      Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland. With a Life of the Author, and an Account of his Writings. By Charles Richard Elrington, D.D. Dublin, 1847, 16 Vols. See Vol. I. pp.38 sqq. and Appendix IV.

      Ch. Hardwick: A History of the Articles of Religion, pp.181 sqq., 351 sqq.

      James Seaton Reid, D.D.: History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Belfast, 1834, 3 vols.

      W. D. Killen, D.D. (Presb. Prof. of Eccles. Hist. at Belfast): The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. London, 1875, 2 vols. (Vol. I. pp.492 sqq.; Vol. II. pp.17 sqq.)

      The Irish Articles are printed in Vol. III. pp.526 sqq. of this work, in Dr. Elrington’s Life of Ussher (Vol. I. Append. IV.), in Hardwick (Append. VI.), and in Killen (Vol. I. Append. III.).

      The Protestant clergy in Ireland accepted the English Prayer-Book in 1560. Whether the Elizabethan Articles of Religion were also adopted is uncertain. At all events, they did not fully satisfy the rigorous Calvinism which came to prevail there for a period even more extensively than in England, and which found an advocate in an Irish scholar and prelate of commanding character and learning.

      The first Convocation of the Irish Protestant clergy, which took place after the model of the English Convocation, adopted a doctrinal formula of its own, under the title ‘Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the rest of the clergy of Ireland, in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year of our Lord God 1615, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and the establishing of consent touching true religion.’

      They were drawn up by James Ussher, head of the theological faculty and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, afterwards Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland. He was born in 1580, died 1656, and was buried in Westminster Abbey by order of Cromwell. He was the greatest theological and antiquarian scholar of the Episcopal Church of his age, and was highly esteemed by Churchmen and Puritans, being a connecting link between the contending parties. He was elected into the Westminster Assembly of Divines, but the King’s prohibition and his loyalty to the cause of the crown and episcopacy forbade him to attend. He had an extraordinary familiarity with Biblical and patristic literature, and, together with his friend Vossius of Holland, he laid the foundation for a critical investigation of the oecumenical creeds. Whether formally commissioned by the Convocation or not, he must, from his position, have had the principal share in the preparation of those Articles. They are ‘in strict conformity with the opinions he entertained at that period of his life.’

      By a decree of the Synod appended to the Dublin Articles, they were to be a rule of public doctrine, and any minister who should publicly teach any doctrine contrary to them, and after due admonition should refuse to conform, was to be ‘silenced and deprived of all spiritual promotions.’ The Viceroy of Ireland, in the name of King James, gave his approval. James, with all his high notions of episcopacy and hatred of Puritanism, was a Calvinist in theology, and countenanced the Synod of Dort. It is stated that the adoption of this Confession induced Calvinistic ministers of Scotland to settle in Ireland.

      But in the reign of Charles I. and his adviser, Archbishop Laud, a reaction set in against Calvinism. An Irish Convocation in 1635, under the lead of the Earl of Strafford, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and his chaplain, John Bramhall (one of the ablest High-Church Episcopalians, who was made Bishop of Londonderry, 1634, and Archbishop of Armagh, 1661 — died, 1663), adopted the Thirty-nine Articles ‘for the manifestation of agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments.’ This act was intended quietly to set aside the Irish Articles; and hence they were ignored in the canons adopted by that convocation. Ussher, however, who continued to adhere to Calvinism, though on terms of friendship with Laud, required subscription to both series, and in a contemporary letter to Dr. Ward he says: ‘The Articles of Religion agreed upon in our former Synod, anno 1615, we let stand as we did before. But for the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England, we have received and approved your Articles also, concluded in the year 1562, as you may see in the first of our Canons.’ After the Restoration the Dublin Articles seem to have been lost sight of, and no mention was made of them when, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the English and Irish establishments were consolidated into ‘the United Church of England and Ireland.’

      The Irish Articles are one hundred and four in number, arranged under nineteen heads. They are a clear and succinct system of divinity, in full harmony with Calvinism, excepting the doctrine of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown (which is retained from the English Articles). They incorporate the substance of the Thirty-nine Articles and the Lambeth Articles, but are more systematic and complete. They teach absolute predestination and perseverance, denounce the Pope as Antichrist, inculcate the Puritan view of Sabbath observance, and make no mention of three orders in the ministry, nor of the necessity of episcopal ordination. In all these particulars they prepared the way for the doctrinal standards of the Westminster Assembly. They were the chief basis of the Westminster Confession, as is evident from the general order, the headings of chapters and subdivisions, and the almost literal agreement of language in the statement of several of the most important doctrines.

      *Allow me to put this historic piece up for those that might care? The historical essence of English speaking Christianity NEEDS to be seen, again! (Fr. R.)




        • This is worth the read: John Frame’s quote on Creeds, etc.

          “Technical theology does not represent anything deeper or more authoritative than the biblical canon itself. On the contrary, technical theology always sacrifices some biblical meaning to make some biblical points more vivid to the reader. That sacrifice is not wrong. We must sacrifice something in our teaching, since we cannot say everything at once. But we must never assume that a theological system will teach us anything more than Scripture itself. Theology is application, not discovery of some new teaching.” – John Frame, Scripture & Theology (Quote from the book: Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, P&R, 1987)

          Thanks to let me post here! 🙂


  2. I understand the differences between religious Islam and Islamism, aka political Islam, and try to respect the differences in my writings. It is difficult to do so, however, in view of the substantial numbers of Muslims who favor Sharia law and practices that most of us in the West consider abhorrent. Clarion Project is a big part of the Islamic reform movement. Here’s a Clarion Project video breaking out the numbers on what Muslims worldwide believe.

    Islamists and their enablers are fond of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations. Hillary Clinton’s choice for Vice President, Tim Kaine, has many connections with both and derives substantial support from their advocates. President Obama’s “go to” group for interaction with Muslims is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which he deems the voice of American Muslims. He rejects reformist groups such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy. CAIR representatives are frequent guests at the White House; reform-minded Muslims are not invited.

    There is no apparent reason to believe, or even to hope, that if Hillary Clinton becomes President she will substitute reform-minded Muslims for CAIR, et al.

    Liked by 2 people

    • NEO says:

      I try to as well, it’s an important distinction.

      Sadly, I agree completely on Clinton. It’s one of the things that makes me think that, however reluctantly, I’ll end up voting for Trump.


  3. JessicaHof says:

    All gay people want is the right to do what straight people can in terms of marriage and legal rights in terms of inheritance, and the only reason so many of them allied with the liberals was that the liberals agreed with that – but being individualists and often entrepreneurial, many gays are not natural bed fellows with the left on things like tax and regulation. No gay person with a working sense of self-preservation would be anything other than horrified at radical Islam – hell, some Republicans might not like gay people, but no one suggested throwing them off a high building. Trump is on to something here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NEO says:

      I agree, and it strikes me as nonsensical for conservatives to get involved on that civilly. In religious terms it might be different, but that doesn’t fly on government here, at least for me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I am old enough to quite remember when the general essence of human sexually was left to the individual and of course marriage. But those days are gone now in modernity & postmodernity. But being a Christian minister and Anglican priest/presbyter, and one still involved somewhat in being a hospital chaplain, I actually still hear more one on one pastoral discussions and even confessions on sexuality and sexual problems! But, I would generally agree with NEO that this subject should be left alone, save of course again to the depth of the Judeo-Christian religious place. But sadly it is pressing itself into the general populace, and surely our young people. So we Christians simply but profoundly must engage to some degree. But surely, and I mean surely, there can be really no defense for the religious equality of homosexuality, NOT if we are going to be lead by biblical revelation! It is from the OT to the New a moral sin, and can lead to the loss of God. Again, if we miss this, then we simply miss the Moral Law of God biblically & theologically! (Leviticus 18: 22 ; Romans 1: 18-32 / 1 Cor. 6: 9-11, etc.) And yes, I know the Gay Community especially is quite tired of hearing these verses, but this is simply the Moral Law and Revelation of God therein! And incest, voyeurism, adultery, homosexuality and bestiality characterize a degenerate society. They show the unrenewed and unrestrained heart (Jer. 17: 9). As was the essence of an ancient Egypt and throughout Canaan! It is a solemn warning to Western nations and society with our liberal and relativistic outlook. But have God’s standards of life and holiness changed? (James 1: 17)

      Finally, the old statement comes to mind, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin! And again of course we are ALL sinners! And so let us all grapple with our personal sins!


  4. Pingback: Gays, the Left, Terrorism, and a bit on Oil | nebraskaenergyobserver

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s