Columns

Columns

Riots in France: Coming to America Next?

Riots in France: Coming to America Next?

By Erik Rush •

Many reading this will be familiar with the 2001 nature documentary series “The Blue Planet” and “Blue Planet II,” which aired in 2017. Produced by the BBC, both have been hailed as among the greatest documentaries ever made on our oceans. It is difficult to argue against this, given the time and meticulousness that went into the production of both series.

Unfortunately, like most nature documentaries produced in recent years (as well as a great deal of wholly unrelated media), the Blue Planet series pay gratuitous deference to the environmentalist movement in the form of alarmist propaganda embedded within the installments: “Unfortunately, vistas like these may soon become a thing of the past due to climate change…” [author paraphrase].

While we may roll our eyes at such doomsaying tripe, it is insidious little tidbits like these which often do sway uninitiated viewers, who are unable to read between the lines: “So vote for liberals and socialists, because they care about the planet…”

Of course, the initiated viewer of such fare knows that the liberals and socialists they’d be voting for don’t care any more for the planet than they do for ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped, the sexually abused, or any other group they’ve managed to coax into their tent. Here, they’re simply seeking the support of those who are concerned about the environment in order to cement their power.

This brings us to the current public unrest in France. For the last couple of weeks, hundreds of thousands of protestors all over the country have been demonstrating against President Emmanuel Macron’s green policies and onerous increases on fossil fuel taxes.

The demonstrations have garnered a fair amount of coverage in the press, since it involves a major Western nation essentially blowing up. However, considering that it does involve a major Western nation essentially blowing up, it hasn’t gotten nearly as much coverage as it deserves.

Why? Because it involves a major Western nation essentially blowing up due to its citizens’ opposition to socialistic policies.

While the demonstrations in France started out reasonably peacefully, they have become increasingly violent over time, with current damage estimates at around $1 billion. French police have employed tear gas and water cannons against demonstrators, and well over 1,000 of these have been taken into custody. Several deaths have been reported, including an 80-year-old woman in Marseille who died after being struck in the face with a tear gas canister.

Macron has been widely criticized for having a detached attitude toward protestor complaints which, due to the scope of the demonstrations, have far wider support than those who’ve taken it to the streets. The international press reported that Macron literally disappeared over the past weekend, and his subsequent appeals to the French people have ranged from impassioned to authoritarian to incoherent; on Monday, the beleaguered Macron pleaded with French employers to give workers a bonus, presumably in order to settle things down.

Well, this is socialism. It was sold to Europeans over the last several decades—much in the same manner in which it’s currently being sold to Americans—but Europeans are discovering that they don’t much like it. In principle, many still defend socialism, particularly if they’re young and ignorant, but in practice, it’s killing them.

In 2015, globalist elites and the grifters who run the European Union passed the Paris Agreement, a vehicle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under the Paris Agreement, each of 196 subscribed nations must “determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming.”

While some nations are offering more resistance to this measure than others (President Donald Trump has expressed his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement), obviously it has been seen by politicians in some nations as license to really put the screws to the people in the name of the environment.

When the latest thirty cent tax on diesel fuel hit in France, as press reports indicated, the rioting began.

I doubt that I need to point out that this will be a sign of things to come in America if we fail to stem the tide of socialism here. Culturally, Europe, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom have been rocketing down the toilet at breakneck speed for some time; now, things are starting to fall apart in terms of these ostensibly free societies being able to sustain socialist systems.

As we know, they can’t—not without the wholesale oppression of their citizens. At such a time, they become totalitarian regimes—which is the intended outcome. Green policies, carbon taxes and the like are no more than a money-grubbing, government-bloating con; the idea is that when those who’ve voted for all of these wonderful, nanny-state measures wake up one morning and find nooses around their necks, it will be too late to save themselves.

When I see such things as the violence in France, or the French university protests of 2009, or the ongoing demonstrations against illegal immigration in Germany, I often think of our Second Amendment. Why? Because it’s become clear that there are no lengths to which socialist power players will go, it’s just a question of how far they’re willing to go at a particular time.

In the context of how European socialism has evolved, it’s easy to see why leftists in America are so intent upon getting firearms out of the hands of private citizens. At this particular time, were our government to emulate that of Macron’s in the name of a U.N. environmental mandate, the protestors would probably be armed.

Which is as it should be.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Left’s Narcissism: A Clear And Present Danger

The Left’s Narcissism: A Clear And Present Danger

By Erik Rush

Human beings have a tendency to ignore or deny potential threats, often until these have manifested in clear and present dangers to individuals or communities. This is a natural trait, since most conscientious people do not relish conflict, and often acknowledging a threat necessitates engaging in conflict in order to neutralize said threat.

It is even easier to ignore or deny potential threats when these are being actively concealed by other parties—often, those agencies which present the threat at hand—which is what’s currently going on in our society.
Given the results of the recent midterm election, it has become clear that despite revelations concerning Deep State interests and the dubious paradigm of the two-party system, voters and rank-and-file Americans (not all of whom do vote) remain largely unaware of how monstrous the end game of the political left is. It is imperative that the majority of America’s electorate and those who’ve remained on the sidelines become aware of this end game.

To that end, I thought it would be useful to highlight a few recent examples of grotesque, unabashed narcissism on the part of some prominent leftists. Since these examples probably border on clinical psychological dysfunction (if they don’t actually qualify as such), most people will not be able to identify with them; in fact, many will likely experience a primal revulsion at the antisocial and indulgent aspects thereof.

In this respect, perhaps we should be grateful that leftists are indeed sufficiently arrogant that concealing the abhorrent features of their doctrine seldom occurs to them.

Submitted for your consideration: First we have CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill, who told the United Nations last week that Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian state, and advocated for Palestinians’ use of violence against Israel. Leaving aside the question of why a consummate hack like Hill should be allowed to address that ostensibly august body, as an acknowledged leftist media spokeschimp, his tacit approval of murder and terrorist tactics should speak for itself. Further, the question of what sort of a person believes that they can do this with impunity looms large.

Dr. Hill, whom I’ve longed to dismantle on live television for some time, is one of those post-Affirmative Action-era mediocrities who excelled in academia after institutions of higher education began bestowing degrees in such concentrations as “blackness.” For some reason, he eschews articulating precisely in which discipline his Ph.D. is, even on his website. Whether explicitly advocating for socialism, or proliferating the notion of institutional white racism in rabid fashion, his expressed doctrinal leanings are always profoundly anti-American, but he gets away with it—as did a recent president of ours—because he’s black.

Next, there’s New York’s Democratic Socialist Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. During an event last week, she claimed that progressives’ recent electoral victories—including her own—were akin to the 1969 moon landing and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am naturally reluctant to pigeonhole New Yorkers as dullards since I was born and raised in New York, but when people like Hillary Clinton or a perpetually-grinning idiot like Ocasio-Cortez get elected in that state, it tends to give me pause. We saw during the last administration where electing someone to high office based on nothing but the cult of personality could take us, and it was a decidedly scary place. But I digress.

Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks immediately brought to mind the blatantly narcissistic utterances of Sonia Sotomayor who, as a Supreme Court nominee in 2009, said that a “wise Latina” such as herself would make a better Justice than some old white guy.

I wonder if Sotomayor thinks she’s humble as well…

Finally, there’s the good ol’ Rev. Al Sharpton, who recently announced that he had sold the rights to his life story for just over a half-million bucks—to his own charity, the National Action Network. While it’s likely that this occurred because there are very few organizations willing to risk that kind of money of this slob’s life story (there being very few people who want to hear it), the point is that you’d think a guy with Sharpton’s history of shady financial dealings and money troubles would want to keep his head down. Alas, his ego, and probably his ongoing need for capital got the better of him.

At this point, I’ll as ask of the reader what I’d like to ask each and every American adult: Could you ever see yourself acting with such a lack of introspection, arrogance and self-aggrandizing motives, and do you believe that those who behave in this manner ought to determine the destiny of our nation?

Clearly, the narcissism of the left knows no bounds, and that’s the message we need to get out to our neighbors. Narcissists are manifestly dangerous people in positions of power, and there are altogether too many of them currently in politics. Ideally, driving this point home with sufficient force could even engage a significant number of those who don’t vote.

Obviously, people such as those in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s uber-progressive New York congressional district are a lost cause, but as we have seen, this by no means represents a majority of the electorate. I believe that enlightening this majority—namely, unaffiliated voters—is truly the only way in which we will avert the ultimate wholesale usurpation of our republic by global socialists at home, a prospect representing horrors which are beyond many Americans’ ability to conceptualize.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The New Left: Petty and Dangerous

The New Left: Petty and Dangerous

By Erik Rush •

Well, it appears that there’s no fruit hanging too low for the political left to take a swing, and it becomes clearer with every news cycle that they’re far too self-involved and arrogant to consider that an overwhelming majority of our citizens might one day come to the conclusion that their absolute political disenfranchisement would be best for us all.

As I’ve indicated repeatedly, I came to this conclusion quite some time ago.

One of the more feeble of the left’s recent attempts to demonize President Donald Trump has been by proxy: That of generally disparaging First Lady Melania Trump’s choice of White House Christmas decorations.

As the popular humorist Dave Barry has been wont to say on occasion, I am absolutely not making this up.

This week, the First Lady unveiled the White House’s Christmas décor and was immediately censured by the press, activists and online trolls for the aesthetics of the theme. This is the second year they’ve done this, and on both occasions, the criticism has been grasping, specious and trivial. In the case of the press, it further underscores a lack of concern for their credibility, a topic I covered last week in this space.

Is there any profit to pointing out that such trivialities were of little concern to our last president’s detractors, and that this emphasizes the pettiness and lack of character of the left? Only for those who aren’t yet aware that those on the left are essentially in the service of evil, I suppose.

While the left’s assessment that the First Lady ought to be caned for her taste leads to scoffs and shaking of heads from the rest of us, of course there are other activities in which they are engaged that are equally petty and craven, but far more grave.

Like their attempts to make political hay out of the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump sending emails to White House personnel using a personal email account in 2017, for example. According to the Bird Cage Liner of Record (The Washington Post), this was in violation of federal records rules, in the estimation of “people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.”

Which could be just about anyone who can read, of course.

Those who have been critical of the press treatment of the Trumps (myself included) have pointed to the hypocrisy of this conduct, especially in light of the press’ sycophantic dedication to the last person who occupied the White House. This is obviously a valid argument considering their relative lack of interest in the Hillary Clinton email server investigation. During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton used a private email server for official communications, rather than her official State Department email account.

To further highlight the hypocrisy in play, the Post actually referenced Donald Trump having made an issue of the Clinton email server scandal in his 2016 campaign. Further, the publication drew parallels between this and Ivanka’s email activities, summarily affirming the impropriety of Clinton’s actions whilst remaining unwilling to actually condemn her for them.

Now, I realize that Ivanka Trump is not a powerful cabinet official, as Clinton was, nor did she take great pains to cover up the nature of her communications, as Clinton did. FBI investigations haven’t uncovered emails containing classified information in Ivanka’s communications, nor any market “Secret” or “Top Secret,” as was the case with Hillary Clinton.

Still, it is quite likely that this issue is going to be drilled down to the full extent of the Beltway’s ability to do so (as opposed to the fullest extent of the law). The email server in question is also used by Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, whom the left hates almost as much as the president. The revelation of his daughter’s behavior vis-à-vis email reportedly did concern advisers to President Trump, who feared that it would indeed be compared to Hillary Clinton’s personal email use.

The take-away from all this is more than just the hypocrisy and double standards of the left (the press in particular). It verifies the fact that despite his widespread support, the president is operating in a town full of crooked lawyers who hate his guts, and he knows it. To some extent, Trump is perpetually walking on eggshells. Party affiliation means little to nothing in this environment, and his dedication to setting right as much as he can will mean even less if he is forced from office for something or other that would be wholly overlooked had he the political temperament of his odious predecessor.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

By Erik Rush •

Even when Donald Trump was running for president, it was pretty evident that the establishment press was biased against him. The reason for this is not hard to discern; Trump was appealing not only to a majority of Americans, but he was doing so with values and proposals that are antithetical to the radical leftist doctrine that has become orthodoxy in newsrooms.

There is simply no debating that the press remains vehemently opposed to President Trump, moreso than they were opposed to candidate Trump. Even Politico reported on a 2016 Quinnipiac University poll which revealed that during the campaign, fifty-five percent of likely voters surveyed said the media were biased against Trump.

Since Trump’s election, this bias has become even more palpable. During the Obama administration, we witnessed a press that was slavishly devoted to the president, dedicatedly shielding him from all criticism and furtively overlooking his many deficiencies. Now, we are being treated to the opposite side of the coin.

Because the press, as the single most powerful advocate for the radical left, is now expressing hatred (which the left does so well) rather than love, as they did with Barack Obama, their obsession is even more plain, their vitriol more potent and capacious. Professionalism, ethics, maturity, and of course civility, have all been cast to the wind. These days, the most prominent press operatives (network newscasters covering the White House, for example) have become little more than smug, belligerent thugs.

To some observers, it is disgusting. To others, humorous. To some, it engenders pathos at a once-great bastion of free speech and bulwark against tyranny having given itself over to whoredom.

To still others, it is baffling: Much of the criticism being leveled by observers and pundits has to do with the press having lost credibility, and being likely to lose even more if they continue to evidence such extreme bias. Those commenting are often perplexed as to how little value those in the press appear to place on their credibility, and how they could risk endangering it in this manner.

I’d like to put this argument to rest once and for all with the assertion that the question of credibility as it pertains to the press is wholly immaterial. Yes, the press has long since lost its credibility in the eyes of those who employ critical thinking, and who viewed the press in its traditional role. This doesn’t matter to the press as a whole any longer, since credibility went hand-in-hand with the established mission of the press—at least as it was understood for 200 years.

Today, those who comprise the establishment press are not at all concerned with that mission. Over the last few decades, we have seen far left ideologues insinuate themselves into every position and area therein, much in the same way they have insinuated themselves into other influential sectors of our society. It’s been a long-held stratagem of leftists since early in the last century.

Thus, such things as safeguarding liberty and holding institutions accountable are no longer even on the average journalist’s radar, let alone that of CNN’s Jim Acosta.

To be clear, this phenomenon did not come about during the Obama administration, nor because of Donald Trump’s election—it’s just that this generation of shameless leftist press operatives have come into their own during this period. Those who’ve recently criticized the press on the grounds of credibility also noticed that this expression of leftist bias has been incremental.

The single-minded devotion to political ideology on the part of the press is also the reason that advancing the leftist agenda trumps even financial solvency. For many years, we’ve seen major television news networks losing viewers and newspapers losing readers. Those in the press maintain that this is largely due to technology, but that’s a crock. The fact is that many news consumers saw the writing on the wall, and didn’t care to be propagandized.

Those in the press know the truth too, and they know who their audience is. It is no longer the average news-consuming American, as it was 50 years ago. Now, their audience is the impressionable, those who don’t know that the press has become nothing but a megalithic propaganda bureau. Their mission is to keep the impressionable, the misinformed, and true-believing rank-and-file leftists fired up.
This is why the intonations of the press have become so shrill. They simply don’t care about credibility anymore. Thus, criticizing them on this point is an exercise in futility.

As far as the press vendetta against President Trump goes, their beef is twofold. First, they know that Trump, his followers, and their case against the Deep State represent the greatest existential threat the left has ever faced in America, so naturally they’re going to go after the president with vigor.

Second: If you ask a leftist to succinctly quantify the nation’s pain, or even the world’s pain, you’re likely to get an answer along the lines of “rich, white people.” Well, this certainly makes the president an easy target, because there are few people richer and whiter than Donald Trump.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
America’s Social Malaise: The Solution is Spiritual

America’s Social Malaise: The Solution is Spiritual

By Erik Rush •

Recently, I was struck by a profound parallel between our nation and the addict (to hard drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling etc.). It’s nothing as superficial as both being “hooked” on destructive, fleeting or worldly things, as ancient wisdom from the Bible to the Buddha admonish people to avoid. This runs far deeper, although the fundamental nature of the analogue is so stark that I’m surprised I didn’t see it sooner. I’ve never hidden the fact that I’ve had some experience with addiction, and it’s not because I was formally educated in it as an area of study.

The addict develops such a compelling physical and/or psychological affinity for their substance or activity of choice that the obsession crowds out nearly all other concerns. We’ve heard of the studies in which laboratory animals are offered some addictive substance ad libitum (as much as they care to consume). The animals ultimately choose the given substance over food, water, and even sex. Finally, they die.

Addiction in humans produces markedly deleterious effects, as we have seen illustrated in countless press reports and medical studies over the years. While all addictions don’t necessarily kill, most carry the potential for ruining lives, marriages, families, and businesses. In the early 1970s, the federal government and medical community began to recognize alcoholism and drug abuse as having components of mental illness; the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III,V) now classifies both as mental illnesses. What ultimately caused these bodies to do so is the fact that addictions are so compelling that they displace the basic survival instinct.

It has been known since at least the early Twentieth Century that the medical community (including specialists in psychology) have been able to accomplish precious little in ameliorating the suffering of addicts, even those who desperately wish to change their behavior. Yet they’ve continued to press on in their ineffective treatment modalities, expanding on them and ultimately giving rise to thousands of treatment centers, an industry which, like many others, thrives on the business of repeat customers.

In the mid-1930s, a concept discovered by a few lay people and acknowledged by some members of the medical community began to take hold: Treatment for addictions which were based upon spiritual principles were far more successful in keeping addicts recovered in the long term than anything medicine or psychology had to offer. In fact, this was even corroborated by eminent psychologists like Carl Jung.

Now, we’re not talking mere religion. Many addicts have been deeply religious, and many an alcoholic or hard drug addict have made tearful entreaties to the heavens for help as realization of their plight took hold, praying to be “struck sober.” I suppose that in theory this is possible, but I’ve yet to see it occur. What they discovered in the 1930s was that the correct application of spiritual principles was necessary in order to bring about the desired change in the addict.

How does this correlate to America and the widespread social malaise we’ve seen proliferating since the latter decades of the Twentieth Century? Glad you asked.

It is readily apparent that while most Americans are still professing Christians, the numbers of practicing Christians has fallen dramatically in recent decades. This has been in part due to the emergent cult of narcissism that began during the 1960s and which has been fueled by the political left. The church itself was infiltrated by such apostate doctrines as Black Liberation Theology and Social Justice Christianity, which have their roots in Marxism. Many of the millions of Christians who remain, even in denominational churches, have become lukewarm, to use biblical terminology. Finally, the tolerance of leftists’ open hostility toward Christians has cowed many believers, as well as having demonized the Church at large.

Thus, the spiritual development of many Christians has suffered. Additionally, those among Americans who profess to be “spiritual, but not religious,” or who hold more esoteric spiritual beliefs, are often monumentally shallow, self-seeking, pretentious middle class dilettantes.
All this has given rise on a collective level to the same spiritual emptiness from which addicts universally suffer, and which is ultimately filled with dangerous and unhealthy things.

The toll this has taken in every sector of this nation cannot be underestimated. When I was growing up just outside the Bronx in New York, a third grader could dash out of the house after school or on a summer day; their mothers would have no idea of their whereabouts, and no one was worried after or scolded unless they showed up late for dinner. This sort of behavior has been unheard-of in most communities for years now; children of that age have been snatched from their front yards in broad daylight, in full view of their playmates, to be found raped and murdered miles away and days later.

Decades ago, a corrupt politician or corporate chieftain was simply interested in becoming wealthy. Now, they’re perfectly willing to sell America out to the Chinese or Islamist interests in the process, not to mention the vast majority of politicians who have sold us all out in favor of an America transformed into a squalid, euro-socialist toilet.

I could go on with examples ad infinitum, but I will submit that it is the erosion of our moral foundation, brought on by an abandonment of spiritual principles, which has given rise to all these phenomena.

Concerning the correct application of spiritual principles as it applies to America and her collective “recovery”: Our nation has never been perfectly uniform in its spiritual alignment, but for nearly 200 years, we were all pulling in pretty much the same direction. Sadly, that direction has been lost.

Like the addict, until we take the first step and acknowledge the problem, we will continue in our vain attempts to fill that spiritual void with dangerous and unhealthy things.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The Lurking Oxymoron in America’s “Criminal Justice” System

The Lurking Oxymoron in America’s “Criminal Justice” System

By Erik Rush •

Today, I would like to address aspects of our criminal justice system. Many of my readers are not likely to be intimately familiar with these (unless they happen to work in the criminal justice system) since their behaviors never resulted in them being charged with any crime. Others may have been involved in “youthful indiscretions,” or have friends or relatives who are or were incarcerated.
I investigated incarceration rates and the high percentage of blacks who wind up serving time extensively for my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession; between this and my formal education in criminal justice, I believe I am qualified to speak on the topic.

Also, since the issue is tangential to my last two columns in this space, I thought that this would be an appropriate time to broach the subject.
As pointed out by experts and in the press, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any developed nation. Now, why would a country which fancies itself the freest in the world should hold such a position? Some among the experts say that this is because as a nation with so many liberties, it is a simply function of human nature that individuals would attempt to push the envelope, resulting in more transgressions under the law, and thus more incarceration.

While this argument may have some validity, it is probably a rather small factor in the relevant dynamic. There are several factors which play into America’s high rate of incarceration, some of which are more pernicious than others and indeed, quite insidious. There are also a few that contribute to the high rate of incarceration and recidivism which may not merely be factors of bureaucracy, poorly-executed policy (good intentions gone bad), or ignorance of human behavior on the part of those in the criminal justice system, but rather, calculation and the self-serving motives of individuals and organizations inside and outside the criminal justice system.

It is said that once an incarcerated individual has finished serving their sentence (whether released, paroled, or completing probation), they have “paid their debt to society.” Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Those with a criminal record – even if their offenses were not violent – are often faced with compromised civil liberties, little access to employment, and the stigma of having been incarcerated.
This is particularly noteworthy when one considers that we are a nation so deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian doctrines such as forgiveness.

Hearkening back to last week’s column, which discussed apathy, ignorance, and intellectual indolence on the part of the public, many Americans, when faced with questions of crime and punishment and egged on by activists and self-serving law-and-order politicians, respond with the unthinking refrain, “Lock the dirtbags up!” This without any knowledge whatsoever of precisely what qualifies as a “dirtbag” according to the criminal justice system itself. Prosecutors routinely heap an inordinate number of charges upon alleged offenders, hoping to intimidate defendants into plea deals which are often nearly as disadvantageous to them as risking conviction after trial.

As well as conventions like permanently rescinding the Second Amendment rights of many nonviolent offenders, our nation also incarcerates individuals for myriad offenses for which other developed nations employ things like house arrest and other methodologies that actually serve to incentivize offenders toward not offending again – and it’s usually far less expensive than the financial outlay for incarcerating people.

Almost fifty percent of those incarcerated in the U.S. are in prisons for drug-related offenses. Many of these don’t involve other crimes (robbery, assault, etc.). As I indicated in my column of August 16, 2017, while there is still great debate over the “mental illness” aspect of addiction (despite the federal government and medical community having acknowledged this component decades ago), it is clearly not a crime problem, but a function of individual and social malaise.

Object lessons such as some Scandinavian countries and cities like Richmond, Virginia abound, where forward-thinking lawmakers and law enforcement officials have reduced overall recidivism rates and saved millions of dollars by employing proven addiction recovery protocols, rather than attempting to incarcerate away drug use.

Then, there’s the phenomenon to which has been much discussion has been given, and that’s the practice of incarcerating people for nonviolent and petty offenses, after which they come out of prison hardened and with even more nefarious intent and criminal skills than when they went in.

Finally, there’s the profit motive. I’ve visited penal institutions (voluntarily) and was chilled to see such things as commercial catering services, video visitation services, and kiosks resembling ATMs where friends and relatives can put money into prisoners’ commissary accounts, allowing them to purchase various items while inside. All of these are sold to inmates, their loved ones, and the public as convenience, of course – but someone is making a pretty penny on all of it.

It occurs to me that an interesting project for an investigative journalist might be looking into whether or not entities with a financial motive in ensuring high rates of incarceration engage in the widespread lobbying of lawmakers at the state, federal, and local levels to bring about harsher sentences for low-level and nonviolent crimes. After all, industries of all types lobby for all manner of laws and regulations that they believe will prove favorable to their endeavors, so it only stands to reason that the aforementioned business entities might do the same despite the questionable ethics involved.

The foregoing are but more examples of societal conventions that few ever consider, but which potentially threaten the liberties of all Americans (not just the “dirtbags”). They cannot be expected to change until the citizenry has adequate knowledge of the problems at hand, and then becomes sufficiently motivated to advocate for change.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Public Apathy and the Erosion of our Liberties

Public Apathy and the Erosion of our Liberties

By Erik Rush •

Last week in this space, primarily citing firearms laws and the nascent surveillance state in America, I criticized some on both the right and the left for their tendency to accept an inordinate degree of government intervention in certain areas when it served their particular ideology, and Americans’ overall penchant for denial with regard to emerging government tyranny. Finally, I asserted that if we are to survive as a free nation – possibly even restoring some of the rights that have been usurped or diluted by our government – then we are going to have to become far more scrupulous with regard to our vigilance against tyranny, as well as becoming better informed as to what our constitutional rights actually are.

Despite much relief on the part of conservative and libertarian types following the election of Donald Trump and his proclivity for respecting constitutional law in more areas than most of his predecessors in recent memory, we must be (or become) aware that we are still in a fight for our lives, constitutionally-speaking, and that progressivism is very much alive and well in America.

Today I would like to challenge Americans’ tendency to summarily accept the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, such as certain laws and conventions. There are many dangers associated with such behavior; an extreme example might be German citizens in the 1940s who had nothing in particular against Jews, but who turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo simply because it was “the law of the land.” When people become slaves to the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, there is a very real danger of their losing their humanity.

American citizens have been living in a sort of retrogressive groove in this sense for at least a century, as they accept or ignore the myriad laws and dictates of regulatory agencies which chip away their individual liberties.

There are any number of laws and conventions I might use to illustrate this, but some will resonate more readily than others either due to their gravity, or because they have come to light in the recent past.

Firearms laws are far and away among the most dangerous of these. I have repeatedly cited the fact that even those gun control measures which most Americans deem “reasonable” have severely eroded our Second Amendment rights, as well as often containing insidious “poison pills” therein which restrict Americans’ right to keep and bear arms far more than the ostensible intention sold to the public at the time of their implementation. I have pointed out that federal law bars many people who have been convicted of nonviolent crimes as well as people who have been institutionalized for any mental issues, voluntarily or involuntarily (a woman’s nervous breakdown after a rape, for example), from ever owning or possessing firearms or ammunition. Look it up.

A “controversial” sheriff recently declared that the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit that any citizen needs, and in fact there are twelve states in which the law reflects this. And then there are the Oath Keepers, a constitutionally-conscious organization of law enforcement personnel which is active in every state in the Union; some of its members will refrain from arresting individuals whom they discover carrying concealed firearms without a permit despite the law, unless they happen to have outstanding warrants or something of that nature.

A little-known fact is that the first gun control laws in America had their roots in racist practices, as Oath Keepers Board of Directors member Gregg McWhirter points out in his article “Gun Control is Racism.”

Among the dangerous conventions which Americans tend to “let slide” is that of the inequality in application of the law when it comes to those in power. As I illustrated many times here during the presidency of Barack Obama, there were many in the higher echelons of our national government who were aware that Obama’s birth certificate (the one released on the White House website in April 2011) was created from whole digital cloth. I ascertained this within a half hour after downloading the document myself. This is a crime under federal law as regards individuals employing such information in order to attain high office. Yet, the matter was never brought to light by anyone in government, Republican or Democrat.

There’s also a crime on the books called Misprision of felony (18 U.S. Code § 4), which states that anyone possessing knowledge of a felony, and who conceals that fact, is committing a felony. Thus, there are possibly dozens of high-ranking government officials and lawmakers past and present who skated on this issue, whereas you or I would have been doing the perp walk.
Then, there is the recent sexual harassment scandal that escalated into revelations concerning the fact that taxpayers have been funding hush money payments to the victims of sexual harassment at the hands of members of Congress for years. Finally, there are the plethora of illegal and unethical activities in which the Hillary Clinton campaign engaged in torpedoing Bernie Sanders’s bid for the Democratic nomination and attempting to defeat Donald Trump.

I could go on and on, but these are just a (very) few of the literally innumerable examples of illegality and misfeasance for which most corporate chieftains – and certainly average citizens – would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This dangerous and increasingly employed double standard will continue to be the status quo until public outrage, similar to that which got Donald Trump elected, is applied to the erosion of our liberties.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Public safety: Be careful what you wish for

Public safety: Be careful what you wish for

By Erik Rush •

In the wake of the February 14 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, the debate over gun violence, gun control, and the Second Amendment has been enflamed anew, with those on the right scrambling to preserve and defend firearms rights, and those on the left protesting and regurgitating baseless anti-gun propaganda on a dizzying scale.

Of course, we’ve had all of these arguments before, which I have addressed many times in this space. For those on the left, captained by progressive politicos who wish to render Americans unable to defend themselves against tyranny (the sole reason for the existence of the Second Amendment), useful idiots and the well-meaning deluded are rallying to manifest the impossible dream of a country without guns, except for those in the hands of the military, law enforcement, and those of sufficient stature and wealth to engage private security firms – you know, politicians, Hollywood celebrities and such.

It doesn’t seem to matter that statistics from around the world bear out that gun violence – as well as violent crime in general – typically skyrocket and remain high in scenarios in which firearms in the hands of the public are prohibited or severely restricted. Those on the left handily ignore the fact that even in the former Soviet Union – one of the most hard-line totalitarian regimes in history – criminals were still readily able to obtain firearms. The fact that in nearly all cases – at least in Western nations – more guns in the hands of private citizens typically result in less crime committed with firearms rather than more, is largely ignored and is seldom presented as an argument by gun rights supporters.

I recently read Robert Draper’s article “They are Watching You” in the February 2018 edition of National Geographic, which addresses the proliferation of surveillance technology and the scope of its use on a global scale. NatGeo, which is generally on board with everything espoused by the hard left (from histrionics over man-made climate change to the propriety of gender-bending politics), did allow Draper some latitude when it came to peripherally examining the ethics and morality of government agencies summarily invading individuals’ privacy ostensibly for the good of the collective.

Indeed, the NatGeo issue itself was entitled “The New Big Brother,” and featured other fare on surveillance – but as we know, it is quite common for those on both the left and the right to demonstrate a dangerous tendency to accept government intrusion as long as they believe it will serve their particular ideological bent. Draper does cite both Orwell and Huxley in his comparisons to emerging Western surveillance states, as well as the ubiquitous character of technology in the hands of private organizations and individuals; indeed, there have been high-profile instances wherein misfeasance and criminality on the part of government representatives have been exposed by technology in the hands of private citizens, such as the 1991 beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police.

That said, one still cannot render a convincing argument that surveillance technology in the hands of private citizens poses a greater threat to government or our liberty than the reverse.

“Even less quantifiable, but far more vexing, are the billions of images of unsuspecting citizens captured by facial recognition technology and stored in law enforcement and private-sector databases over which our control is practically nonexistent.”

– Robert Draper, “They are Watching You” National Geographic, February 2018

As we know, it has been argued that even the rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., which of course became a national concern on September 11, 2001, may have been entirely orchestrated by globalist progressives in our own government seeking to create a climate in which the citizenry would not only accept, but welcome the advent of the surveillance state. Whether or not one subscribes to “9/11 Truther” hypotheses, at this juncture, it should be clear to any thinking American that many of those who’ve held the some of the more powerful positions in our national government are entirely capable of such action.

The point I am trying to make here is that there are still far too many Americans who possess an “it can’t happen here” attitude with regard to government tyranny, when if nothing else, the last ten years of political machinations have demonstrated that it most assuredly can. Certain measures initiated by the ostensibly conservative George W. Bush administration (the Patriot Act among them) to combat the aforementioned Islamist extremism problem were welcomed by many on the right, but these paved the way for monumental abuses by the Obama administration, most notably the domestic spying scandal that came to light in 2013.

On the bright side of the privacy issue, people are waking up to the potential for government intrusion into their personal affairs. For example, American consumers have been signing up in droves for a utility called the Defense Enabling and Assisting Framework (or DEAF), a State-of-the-Art digital security technology that protects cell phone communications. It bears mentioning that many of the company’s current subscribers are law enforcement bureaus and personnel.

Still, despite revelations concerning closeted faux conservatives in the Republican party, the domestic spying scandal, and the militarization of federal agencies – some of which contributed to the election of Donald Trump as our president, it is clear that Americans are going to have to become far, far more scrupulous with regard to what power they give to government, whether it be local, state, or federal – or more accurately, what power they allow government to appropriate.

In short: Be careful what you wish for.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

By Erik Rush •

I must confess to having been utterly stupefied by news that Democrat functionaries had in fact been those in collusion with Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging the campaign of Donald Trump in the 2016 general election after having crafted the narrative that the Trump campaign had colluded with said Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

On numerous occasions over the years, I have cited the phenomenon of projection with regard to the modus operandi of those on the political left. Projection is the practice of accusing an opponent of engaging in unsavory acts in which one is themselves engaging. Students in the field of psychology usually learn about projection during their first undergraduate semester, and while engaging in projection is not indicative of any kind of psychological pathology per se, it does indicate a mind that operates on a very superficial or base level, and there are several forms of mental pathology that do include projection as a symptom.

This is one reason I shudder when leftists level charges of conservatives being violent, or having a secret desire to kill off all liberals; given this proclivity for projection coupled with the murderous history of leftist regimes, only an extremely dense or imprudent individual would let such accusations slide by without sober consideration.

To recap: toward the end of last week, we learned that the law firm that represented the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee secured the services of two organizations which were ostensibly engaged to investigate alleged Russian hacking into DNC servers, but which also reportedly amassed “intelligence” that gave rise to the now-discredited dossier claiming that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian interests. The aggregation of this so-called intelligence itself evidences collusion with Russian interests by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the Obama administration.

It has been established that shady Russian operatives approached the Trump campaign in 2016 on the pretext of their having “dirt” on Hillary Clinton which might have proved useful to Trump. It now appears that these were in fact dispatched by the Clinton campaign so that the Trump campaign might later be accused of having met with shady Russian operatives.

So, back to the original cause for my stupefaction: Could these leftist power players really be so mindblowingly stupid that they would call attention to the very illegal acts they had committed by making baseless accusations of the very same acts against a political opponent?

While there are certainly prominent players on the left who’ve demonstrated that they’re only one or two notches above being out-and-out mental defectives (Reps. Hank Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters spring to mind), we can be reasonably certain that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and those in their inner circles are not among these.

So, what was the motivation if not stupidity?

Some may posit that in attempting to frame Trump for collusion with Russia, these parties were acting out of desperation, since much of the hyperbole we’ve heard against the Trump administration in recent months has indeed been born of desperation ̶ but the more preposterous and incendiary offerings we’ve heard have typically been floated by lower-level Democrat operatives, the press, and the aforementioned borderline mental defectives I mentioned.

The answer to my question is, I believe, more unfortunate than mere stupidity, and represents far more danger to this nation in the long term.

I believe that in the case of such as the Clintons (Bill and Hillary, to be clear), the DNC, and Obama, while concocting their nefarious designs, the notion of being held accountable at some later time simply does not exist. Think about it: When have these entities ever been held accountable for anything? We can look to the multiple scandals in which the Clintons have been involved, going back to their time in Arkansas and the White House. We can look to the serial treason, illegal governance, and conspiracies on the part of the Obama administration (and in which Hillary Clinton was party to crimes).

Finally, we can look to the complicity of high-ranking Republicans in obscuring or ignoring these transgressions. In general, even the most noxious of these far left operatives can count on powerful Republicans to come to their aid when necessary in the name of preserving the Beltway and Deep State cultures of corruption.

The common denominator is that there has never been a calling to account for any of the perpetrators.

In short: They just don’t care. Progressive politicos believe they can get away with anything, and the evidence indicates that they do so with very good reason. In the Russia-collusion case, we might look to an Obama-appointed judge and former Obama donor, who just ordered the banking records of Fusion GPS sealed (this being one of the outfits engaged by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, whose “intelligence” contributed to the Trump dossier). The measure effectively insulates Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI from further scrutiny with regard to the ongoing investigation.

All things considered, I fear that the depth of entrenchment of these scoundrels indicates that it will take far more than a determined Trump administration to extricate the more putrefactive elements from the proverbial Washington swamp. Further, I fear what “far more” portends, and if the American people will even have the belly for it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments