“Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.”
Proverbs 9:8-9 ESV
A while back, someone posted on Facebook, “if you post in defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, I will block you.” This is probably not a direct quote, but it encompasses the gist. I had been having political discussions with this person, and several of their friends, over the course of several years. I have considered them all as friends, and each are very intelligent, but they all have had an unwillingness to acknowledge demonstrable facts if they refute their opinions about political matters.
While I was certain that Rittenhouse was innocent of the charges he was being accused of, I chose not to respond. As this, “friend,” and I had conversed for several years about political matters, he had demonstrated little, to no humility, and I have had no correspondence with him since the comment about Rittenhouse, (more than a year.)
With the revelation of the Rittenhouse Jury’s verdict, I wondered if he had changed his mind, had he been convinced by the evidence, or if he was clinging to his ignorant prejudices? I sent an email, and I will quote our email exchanges, because I believe in, “teachable moments,” as made famous by the great Rush Limbaugh. I think that some, if not many that might read this exchange, could benefit from a bird’s eye view of a discussion between a scoffer, and a concerned citizen.
You may wonder how I might be convinced of Rittenhouse’s innocence before the trial? Could I be guilty of ignorant prejudices?
Among others, I listen to the “Glenn Beck” podcast daily. Elijah Schaffer Is a reporter with “The Blaze.” He had gone to Kenosha early, to report on the riots. Elijah had met Kyle Rittenhouse, and interviewed him, long before Kyle was attacked. Kyle had explained why he was in Kenosha, and why he had the rifle. Elijah told the Glenn Beck listening audience about it on an episode of the radio show.
Then, when Kyle was forced to defend his life with his rifle, Elijah was an eye witness. He also reported this incident on the radio show. Elijah showed no evidence that he was pro-gun, or pro-violence, he simply appeared to be reporting on the incidences of violence, an at great physical rick to his own life.
You Now have a little background to set the context of the dialog that I will copy and paste from my email archives, to this post.
“God bless you.
A while back I read a post from you that showed up in my FB Timeline. You said, and I paraphrase, that if anyone posted in defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, you would block their access to your news feed.
This statement, along with your multi-year tendency to give greater respect to the opinions of certain people, than proven facts, caused me to suspend my reading of anything that you might post. I have prayed, and watched my email for any emails from you, but I have not received anything. It appears that you have decided to "cancel" me.
As evidence and truth, on so many political matters, continues to find cracks in the fortress of Democrat censorship, being daily revealed to the public, I have hoped to find that you have given up your persistence in defending the indefensible, and demonizing the righteous. If you have done so, it has not found its way to my email address.
Are you still refusing to listen to, or read any of the facts concerning the Kyle Rittenhouse self defense incident?
I find it curious that a “Christian” would oppose the support of someone that was attacked by members of a violent, anti-American, Marxist organization, and forced to apply deadly force in his own defense.
ISAEAH 5:20 discourages the promotion of untruth as truth, and the accusation of truth as untruth. How can someone who believes in the grace, and mercy of God, (who is truth,) have no compassion for the victims of violent crime? I am perplexed.
I first heard of Kyle Rittenhouse long before he was forced to shoot anyone. He was interviewed by Elijah Schafer, and Elijah reported of his arrival to Kenosha on the Glenn Beck show. Elijah was reporting on the violence in Kenosha, and had met him. He had wondered why Kyle had come to the area at such a time. Kyle told him that he was there to help the victims of the violence, and had brought his rifle in case it was needed to fend off attackers.
When Kyle was forced to shoot, Elijah was less than ten feet away, saw the whole incident, and reported that on the Glenn Beck show, at the time.
Now that the prosecution’s star witness, and video footage, has corroborated Rittenhouse’s account of the shootings, that they were in self defense, and it has been revealed that all three of those shot by Rittenhouse were convicted, violent criminals, are you still unconcerned for his personal, civil rights?
If you are unaware of the most recent revelations on the Rittenhouse matter please see the video at this link, as the prosecution proves beyond a doubt that Kyle shot in self defense;
On the 11/15/2021 episode of the Mark Levin show, Mark addresses the modern American media in the beginning of the show. He then goes into what has been taking place in the Rittenhouse trial. I encourage you to put biases aside and listen to this show. I can not force you to, and my hope is not that you be forced, it is that you might choose to educate yourself more fully than you might already be.
Truth is truth, and lies are lies, no matter the prominence of the truth-teller, or the liar. I wonder if you believe it pleases God if we refuse to consider the truth, in favor of our preferred opinion? Once again, I reference Isiah 5:20
I wonder if you have any compassion for the victims of the anarchists, and Marxists who violently attacked innocent citizens of Kenosha, and/or destroyed their homes, and businesses? People that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha for the purpose of aiding.
I am not judging you, I leave that to the LORD.
HE is the one and only righteous judge, and HIS judgement will prevail. I implore you to apply God’s judgement to your own beliefs. I am simply concerned for you, personally. I love you, whether you like me or not. I want the best for you. In order for any of us to receive God’s blessings, we must disciple ourselves after the truths, principals, commandments, and examples in the Bible. I hope to encourage you in that direction. If we refuse to submit to God's commandments, and judgements, any blessings, or benefits that we receive come from sources other than God.
God bless you, Dave
I have not gone back to check, but I recall saying “Don’t be surprised if I block..” rather than saying outright that I would. This neither here nor there, though.
I followed the trial and read a lot about the law that surrounds self defense, particularly in Wisconsin. I agree with jury’s Not Guilty verdicts, at least based on the case the prosecution presented.
While I don’t believe that his actions rise to the level of criminality, I do believe that he should not have been there cosplaying armed medic, and that his choice to do so gives him a level of moral responsibility for their deaths.
I haven’t cancelled you, and the mention of “cancelling” suggests to me that you are much more well acquainted with a fictional version of me that you have crafted in your mind rather than me.
When you question whether I have any compassion for victims of violence, it rings incredibly hollow when you say you love me and wish the best for me. If that is the case, then please stop sending me these emails about politics. That is the way in which I would feel most loved. These emails read much more like attacks than anything remotely resembling love. In fact, I fully expect you to say in response that my email is somehow out of the Rules for Radicals playbook or something, which is usually the response you give to these emails.
I haven’t emailed you back, and I have largely stopped posting political content on Facebook, because I have instead chosen to invest that time and energy into my marriage and my trade. I highly recommend this strategy.
I will reiterate. I agree with the Not Guilty verdicts, and I ask you to please stop sending these political emails. I’m happy to talk about other things with you, but not this subject.
Thank you for answering my email, and clarifying that you have allowed available evidence of what happened pertaining to the deaths of the two criminals, and the wounding of a third in Kenosha to convince you that Kyle is not guilty of all charges.
You wrote, “When you question whether I have any compassion for victims of violence, it rings incredibly hollow when you say you love me and wish the best for me. If that is the case, then please stop sending me these emails about politics. That is the way in which I would feel most loved. These emails read much more like attacks than anything remotely resembling love. In fact, I fully expect you to say in response that my email is somehow out of the Rules for Radicals playbook or something, which is usually the response you give to these emails.”
With regard to,
“it rings incredibly hollow when you say you love me and wish the best for me.”
“If that is the case, then please stop sending me these emails about politics.”
It is not loving to withhold truth because it is unaccepted, we, as Christians, are to speak the truth in love. That is all I have ever done with you. You have often resisted facts, and evidence, in favor of echoing others’ opinions. Love, and truth cannot abide that conduct. I have not emailed you since, 8/20/2020. It seems a little disingenuous for you to suggest that I am badgering you with “political” emails.
“In fact, I fully expect you to say in response that my email is somehow out of the Rules for Radicals playbook or something, which is usually the response you give to these emails.”
Amazingly, I have never mentioned Saul Alinsky, or his, “Rules for Radicals” to you. I have only made such references to .… When he obviously was using Alinsky rules to gain the upper hand, dishonestly, to distract me from the pertinent facts. I have never mentioned those conversations to anyone, not even my wife, because I respect the privacy of others. The fact that you are aware of these statements confirms that …. has no such respect for me.
Love is not necessarily polite. It is dependent upon truth. If truth is not loved, respected, acknowledged, or even tolerated, it IS loving to point it out.
“I do believe that he should not have been there cosplaying armed medic, and that his choice to do so gives him a level of moral responsibility for their deaths.”
How is it that you are authorized to determine how he attempts to protect, and defend the citizens of the town in which he works, and his father lives, from the criminal thugs that descended upon that community, and why do you seem to assign little responsibility for their deaths to their own criminal intent to sow discord, and violence on innocent citizens, including Kyle Rittenhouse.
I will leave that judgement to God, and Jesus Christ.
I am happy to know that with you, in the Rittenhouse case, you have allowed truth to prevail.
God bless you, Dave”
“I’m not one to defend …., but he hasn’t said a word to me about you or any private conversations you may have had. I simply read the conversation that was in a very public Facebook comment thread where you guys got into it.
I have made my request known to you about stopping the political emails. If you choose to ignore it by sending any more political emails, I will block your email addresses.
“Thanks for the clarification on Alinsky. I had forgotten that it came up on FB. I don't read much on that commie platform anymore.
You wrote, "f you choose to ignore it by sending any more political emails, I will block your email addresses." This looks an awful lot like the post you claimed that you had not posted concerning Rittenhouse.
Just so you know, I sent the last email before I knew you had sent this ultimatum. Sorry.
I guess that I've already been banned. So be it.
God bless you, Dave”
As I continued to think about the text of your email, it occurred to me that much of it appears to be meant as criticisms, or maybe even as insults. I hope that I’m in error, and will proceed as though I am.
“When you question whether I have any compassion for victims of violence, it rings incredibly hollow when you say you love me and wish the best for me. If that is the case, then please stop sending me these emails about politics.”
So please tell me if you actually likened receiving an email about political matters that you would rather not consider, with being beaten, stabbed, threatened, or having your home, or business destroyed?
“That is the way in which I would feel most loved. These emails read much more like attacks than anything remotely resembling love.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, you believe that it is more loving to allow someone to wander into oncoming traffic, rather than to risk offending them by alerting them to the impending danger?
A small number of Germans were believers in what Hitler had in mind. Many of the remaining Germans didn’t want to offend their countrymen by opposing the NAZIs, until it was too late to stop it.
Most of the citizens of Russia, and many other Soviet states were not on board with Marxism, or Leninism, but by ignoring the threat until they had been disarmed, they had no method of defense.
The same has been true in Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, etc.
If the USA is to be protected from the red wave that believe that they have the USA in check-mate, it will take a little discomfort.
I am fully confident in the truth, both spiritual, and physical, and will probably check on your humility from time to time, because I care about you, whether you believe it or not.
God bless you, Dave”
Now that you have read this exchange, I’ll point out a few things that you may not have noticed.
When he mocked me with, “In fact, I fully expect you to say in response that my email is somehow out of the Rules for Radicals playbook or something, which is usually the response you give to these emails,” he was referring to posts that you have not read, but in this comment he is using Radical Rules 4&5.
Alinsky Rules 4&5; The fourth rule carries with it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
It must be considered that these rules are both an offensive weapon, and a defense mechanism, and my friend has employed them here.
It is possible that he is not intentionally seeking to offend me, and defend against me by the implementation of these Alinsky rules, but he has either absorbed them through the company he keeps, or he naturally thinks like Saul Alinsky. I am not concerned with which it is, I simply hope to defend against it by exposing it. Truth is the best defense.
When he wrote,
When you question whether I have any compassion for victims of violence, it rings incredibly hollow when you say you love me and wish the best for me. If that is the case, then please stop sending me these emails about politics. That is the way in which I would feel most loved.”
He omitted part of my statement, effectively equating his dislike for confronting real violence with my reference to physical, and mortal violence.
I had written,
“I wonder if you have any compassion for the victims of the anarchists, and Marxists who violently attacked innocent citizens of Kenosha, and/or destroyed their homes, and businesses? People that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha for the purpose of aiding.”
Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules For Radicals,” is a text book for destroying the United States of America, and its principals have been taught to millions of unsuspecting American by way of the public education system. We ignore this fact to our peril.
\I hope the reader will find this useful toward saving our republic.
God bless you, Dave