Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

Dem Contenders’ Laughable, Massive Giveaways

By Erik Rush •

The hyperbole, histrionics and aggressive selling of socialism to the masses over the last two years belies the fact that the political establishment and those on the left are desperate and scared as hell. As I’ve articulated previously in this space (and more than once), these folks rightly arrived at the conclusion that the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 was not only a mandate against the socialist policies of Trump’s predecessor, but an indicator that the electorate is waking up to the lie of the two-party system and that it is likely to become increasingly difficult for mainstream politicians to deceive voters via the machinations and boilerplate rhetoric of the past.

As such—and because progressives don’t have much that’s real to offer—they’re pulling out all the stops; this is reflected in part by some of the proposals being made by the legion of possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. As will surprise few, these consist of some of the biggest giveaways ever conceived by political candidates. Subsidized college tuition (I won’t insult readers by using the term “free”), universal student loan forgiveness and “Medicare for all” are just a few.

These are calculated to appeal to those who could care less about the overall standard of living in America, as long as they “get theirs”—this group being a fast-growing segment of our increasingly narcissistic, uninformed society.

Among the mind-bogglingly unaffordable proposals being floated are reparations for blacks for slavery. On April 8, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill that would study the concept of reparations for descendants of slaves. Booker said that the bill is “a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country.”

The persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in America is an utter fiction (unless one takes into account the uncomfy bed progressives have made for blacks), but blacks and rank-and-file liberals have been convinced that these are endemic to our nation.

The idea of reparations for slavery has been floated before. Outside of those who summarily endorse anything proposed toward compensating blacks for their suffering, and blacks who would eagerly take a check regardless of the long-term cost to them or the nation at large, most people tended to come down on the side of the idea being demonstrably stupid.

First off, there isn’t a black person alive today who suffered under the institution of slavery, so how would one determine to whom reparations should be paid?

Then, we have to consider the basis for paying reparations. Is it “generational trauma”—the implied cultural effects of being black in a nation in which blacks were once second-class citizens? This obviously represents a perilous degree of abstraction, but if it is the case, we must then consider the question of degree: An 80 year-old black person has obviously experienced far more in the way of the cultural vestiges of slavery than an 18 year-old, so shouldn’t the octogenarian get a bigger check?

For that matter, shouldn’t I get a bigger check than the 18 year-old, since I was born at a time when there were far fewer opportunities for blacks than there are today—or does the fact that I’m of mixed race “cancel things out” and exempt me?

Would everyone in America who “looks black” be awarded reparations, or would they be required to submit a genealogy in order to establish that they were descended from a slave of record?

Perhaps blacks would be awarded reparations based upon the percentage of “black blood” they possessed. Considering Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, it occurs to me that this would open the door to a whole lotta fraud.

Would naturalized blacks from Africa and the West Indies and/or their descendants be included in this grand plan? If not, how could they be reliably excluded in a nation that can’t even keep the integrity of its voter rolls? Again, the potential for fraud looms large.

Then, where do these reparations come from? If the resources are to come out of taxpayer dollars, would all blacks then be exempted from paying federal income taxes? I mean, leaving aside the inequity attendant to paying reparations at all, I don’t see any reason why working blacks should contribute toward paying reparations to other blacks.

There’s another important question to consider: If we accept the premise that the descendants of slaves are deserving of reparations despite never having suffered under the institution of slavery, does this not open the door to the reciprocal argument—that whites should be held accountable for the actions of those who participated in maintaining the institution of slavery, despite never having done so themselves?

While the idea of reparations for slavery may be laughable on its face, it must nevertheless be taken seriously, since there are definitely enough propagandized blacks and foolish whites among us to make this a reality given the right (or wrong) combination of a Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

By Erik Rush •

They label their opponents as racists—one of the most odious things a person can be thought of in America—with absolutely no substantiation for the charge, and they do it unceasingly. When words fail, they violently attack those with whom they disagree. Indeed, they routinely countenance violence yet, in passive-aggressive stance, bleat like helpless, wretched victims when their opponents take the offensive, or even suggest taking the offensive.

In the workplace, they take improper liberties with their subordinates and engage in fraud in order to get their children into high-profile universities. Their captains of industry conspire to corner emerging markets and then scheme to marginalize vast segments of the populace and business interests in order to advance their malignant political agenda, then lie to Congress when questioned about it. They conspire to flood the country with illegal immigrants and emigrés from hostile nations in order to skew elections in their favor and to foment civil unrest.

It is quite clear at this point that the political left has determined that the ends justify the means in coalescing their political power. The rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play have been discarded.

Their leaders are aware that all of the foregoing behavior is merely a strategy: They know that their political opponents don’t merit the charges leveled against them, and that their own followers’ behavior is manifestly antisocial.

Their followers—far left voters and activists—are the true believers, however. They’ve been convinced that pretty much everyone right-of-center are so noxious and dangerous that they must be overcome by any means necessary.

The problem here is that such “true believers” can be marshaled to commit singularly heinous acts ahead of the rise of a regime that would enroll statutory stormtroopers to do its bidding. We’ve seen this occur before in countries that have been subjugated by socialists, and it never ends well. The dehumanization of political opponents inevitably sets the stage for atrocities.

So, let’s examine a purely hypothetical scenario for context: What if conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists began to operate in the same manner? Meaning that, suppose this segment determined that the ends do indeed justify the means, and that the rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play should be discarded as a point of prudence, considering that their opponents have done so.
Further, suppose that these people—who do outnumber radical leftists on the order of fifteen-to-one—reasoned that since leftists managed to murder, maim and enslave nearly a half-billion people during the last century, and that American leftists are precisely following the playbook of past and present socialist regimes, they probably ought not take any chances.

Suppose these patriots decided, given the above, that militant action ought to remain on the table; that, considering the wholesale infiltration of our government by socialists, Islamists, and assorted leftist radicals, we are at war even if our woefully-compromised federal government refuses to acknowledge it.

Perhaps such individuals would organize, as some fringe left wing groups have done. They might begin to engage in counterintelligence operations against openly seditious lawmakers and other operatives, bringing their subversive actions into focus for the general population, which the establishment press obviously will not do.

Perhaps some seasoned former military types of this mindset might organize clandestinely, and prominent leftists would begin to suffer very unfortunate mishaps. Let’s say that these individuals possessed such proficiency that there were seldom signs of foul play, and never anyone to perp walk before the eager cameras of the press.

It goes almost without saying that actions even remotely resembling these would be seized upon by the left as having been committed by right wing extremists. Concerning this question, I would offer up the fact that since those on the left have demonstrated little compunction as regards trying to frame those on the right for violence and hate crimes, right wing groups would have little trouble dismissing any accusations as potential frame jobs.

Now, leaving aside the ugly atmosphere that this kind of behavior would create and the inherent dangers involved (the potential for escalating civil unrest and blowback from law enforcement, for example), the likely result is that those on the left would become far less vocal, less confrontational, and less effective. The reason for this is because—as we have seen demonstrated time and again— extreme cowardice is in their nature. They would see the political right going on the offensive giving rise to a more level playing field, and they already know that they cannot compete on a level playing field. The knowledge that their political opponents were now willing to respond in kind to provocation would utterly neutralize the left’s ground game, which would be a decidedly good thing.

It’s probable than none of this will come to pass however, because conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists respect the rule of law, ethics and concepts of fair play. We don’t intimidate our opponents into silence, and we do not employ the last resort (violence) as a first measure, which has served us well.

My only hope is that in the long term, this deportment can survive the machinations of socialists, who clearly do not share these values with us.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

By Erik Rush •

In dealing with the general public, emotional blackmail is one of the chief weapons in the arsenal of the political left. For decades now, hyperbolic appeals to Americans’ emotions have been employed not only to sway individuals in the interest of issues and causes, but to shape our opinions and our worldview as well.

An object lesson in this phenomenon came to the fore just this week, when press reports featured a scene in the new Netflix documentary “Our Planet,” which is presented by British naturalist David Attenborough (who produced the acclaimed “Blue Planet” documentaries for the BBC). Though Attenborough has produced some great stuff, he is nevertheless a very politically-active anthropogenic climate change guru who believes that human beings should feel “jolly guilty” over the damage we’re allegedly doing to our planet.

The attention that “Our Planet” recently garnered has to do with a scene in the documentary involving walruses. Yes, walruses. In the film, there is a disturbing scene which takes place in the Bering Strait, where filmmakers captured a large group of Pacific walruses climbing high, rocky cliffs en masse, well away from their normal seaside habitats. As one might imagine, these two-ton, cumbersome creatures that don’t even have proper feet do not fare very well in this alien environment, and many of the animals wind up falling from the cliffs and perishing.

Inevitably, the first question that strikes the viewer is why these animals would engage in this behavior—and Attenborough is more than happy to tell us. The actions of these free-climbing walruses are put down to their normal icy habitat dwindling due to climate change. As their peril is detailed, we can envision hordes of nervous walruses standing atop unsteady, ever-shrinking ice sheets, then panicking and charging up the cliffs to their doom.

Considering all of the speculation that goes along with the documentary producers’ assessment coupled with their obvious agenda, I’ve a feeling that they possess no more insight into why the walruses behaved in this manner than you do—but let’s not let the lack of facts obscure the political objective here.

While this goes hand-in-hand with the invective leftists routinely employ to shame their opponents into capitulation—accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like—emotional blackmail goes beyond the pressure of mere invective. The key component here is in impressing upon the target that they are harming someone or something if they do not summarily accept whatever proposal is being advanced by the left: If you don’t buy into anthropogenic climate change, you’re harming the planet. If you don’t buy into the proposal that America is an institutionally racist nation, you’re harming ethnic minorities. If you don’t buy into open borders, you’re harming poor little Pablo and his family who only want a better life.

Get it?

With regard to people as individuals, things become even more emotionally-charged and less rational. In the world of liberals, there’s nothing worse than hurting someone’s feelings, saying or doing something that has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves. Thus, if you don’t buy into the LBGTQ agenda, you’re damaging the self-esteem of LGBTQ people. If you don’t buy into Islamophilia, you’re hurting the feelings of those who follow Islam. If you don’t buy into the idea of reparations for blacks, you’re minimizing their collective suffering, which of course will make blacks feel bad.

And so on.

Emotional blackmail has served the left very well over the years. Since few want to be thought of as the type of person who would wantonly harm another person or destroy something of intrinsic value, if the invective doesn’t get them, the prospect of a guilty conscience often does.
I am convinced that millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.

Similarly, I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former congressman Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.
Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.

In the case of Polis, there is an even more insidious and dangerous dynamic at work here: Countless Americans have accepted the notion that homosexuality does not represent one being morally compromised because they’ve been told that harboring such a belief would make them bigots (as well as hurting homosexuals’ feelings). Coloradoans’ summary denial that homosexuals are a morally compromised lot has effectively allowed a morally compromised individual to run their state.

As one may have noted, there’s no shortage of emotional engagement these days, particularly on the part of the left. Reckless accusations of “racist!” barked at pretty much anyone liberals don’t like these days, wholly unsubstantiated claims that white nationalism is on the rise and other racialist propaganda have the potential to shame voters into making some decidedly perilous decisions over the next few years.
Outside of enlightening as many Americans as possible regarding the nature of this phenomenon, there really isn’t much that can be done to combat it. I may come up with something more constructive in the future, but right now I have a walrus burger waiting.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

Blacks Blind to Their Own Cultural Enslavement

By Erik Rush •

Considering the media firestorm surrounding actor Jussie Smollett being charged and subsequently released for perpetrating a potentially dangerous hate crime hoax, I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in with some race-related reality to give some context.

Jussie Smollett is probably too young to understand how his actions dishonored those who sacrificed in the cause of racial equality over the course of our nation’s existence. In school, I imagine he wasn’t taught anything remotely resembling reality on the subject of history, particularly in this area. Factor in Smollett having been raised in the entertainment industry from childhood, and we can see how unlikely it is that any sense of moral obligation he might have harbored could have survived.

As distasteful as it is for me, I occasionally engage in “media slumming,” this meaning that I expose myself to media that I would never watch for enjoyment in order to remain informed as to what’s going on in media venues. I don’t have broadcast television, nor do I participate in the ripoff of cable TV, but I do have streaming services through which I can glean a fairly decent representation of what’s afoot in broadcast TV.

Similar to the inescapability of superfluous homoerotica, pro-LGBTQ messages and anti-Trump snark pervading TV and films these days, the America-as-an-institutionally-racist-nation message has also taken on new life over the last couple of years. Case in point: Over just the last year, I’ve viewed more TV dramas than I can count in which characters bemoan Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and a host of other real-life black Americans being murdered by racist cops.

Such laments are abject mythology, but when one is in that passive mode of being plugged into the brainsucker box for entertainment purposes, the ensuing effects can be quite insidious.

I was having a discussion with some people on social media the other day on the topic of how the genres of hip-hop and rap debase black people, particularly black women. I offered that while I certainly concur with this assessment, it’s only a small part of the ongoing campaign of the left—and to some extent, our government—to keep blacks culturally enslaved. This is actually a theory I began developing in my teens, when I saw the music being marketed to blacks becoming less mainstream and increasingly geared toward hedonistic and narcissistic themes. Perhaps I noticed this because I’m a lifelong musician, as opposed to being remarkably intuitive.

I paused bemusedly after having employed the phrase “cultural enslavement.” I don’t know If I coined it then and there, and I don’t need the credit, but it’s bloody brilliant regardless.

Cultural enslavement is essentially what the political left has imposed upon blacks since the Civil Rights Movement. I have written previously about some of the federal government’s efforts to keep blacks on the proverbial plantation as popular sentiment around the existing racial inequities in America began to change; these included F.D.R. and Harry Truman conspiring with unions to use entitlement programs to keep black men from taking union jobs, and of course the deleterious effects entitlement programs have had on black families in general.
It’s been said that prior to the Civil Rights Movement, blacks were probably one of the most socially conservative groups in America. Occasionally, someone will point out how stable black communities and families were prior to this period, when wholesale government intervention into race-related issues and the explosion of entitlement programs took place. This is certainly accurate, despite leftists being quick to offer catty little mincing retorts in these cases: So, are you saying that blacks were better off under Jim Crow and segregation—hmm..?

I often proffer the argument that America is not an institutionally racist nation in the sense that black activists and liberals maintain it is. America is indeed an institutionally racist nation however, in the sense that since the Civil Rights Movement (which I’m using as a temporal landmark, not a cause), blacks’ identity has been dictated by liberal whites and their black lackeys, and this has been actualized largely through the entertainment industry. I went into great detail on this topic in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”

In short, since the late 1960s, blacks in America have learned how to behave and who to be from TV sitcoms, films and the music industry.
Of even more significance is the fact that blacks have learned from these media sources how to relate to other racial groups, and how other racial groups relate to them. The worldview they adopted as a result has been extremely disadvantageous to them, and was predicated upon the desire of influential liberals to influence how blacks relate to just about everything.

More recently, young blacks have been indoctrinated en masse into the sociopathic culture of the lowest-of-the-low in the black community: Criminals. In addition to the gratuitous use of profanity, more often than not the themes of rap and hip-hop purveyors are narcissistic in the extreme, antisocial, anti-authority, misogynistic and racist. The attitudes represented within these themes have been adopted by young blacks in the same manner in which young whites assume the attitudes of their music idols.

Unlike Mötley Cruë however, which promoted the abstract if morally ambiguous “Sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ Rock ‘n’ Roll” lifestyle, in their lyrics, rappers routinely showcase their disdain for authority, multiple baby mamas, dealing drugs, and killing people—even police.

The cure? As simplistic as it may sound, like so many of the threats we face from the hard left, it’s going to come down to people waking up to the reality of what’s going on. In the case of black Americans, with so many remaining mired in the orthodoxy of the left and the Democrat Party, I see this as being a particularly difficult if not an extremely unlikely proposition.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The 2 Reasons Obama Criminalized Intel Agencies

The 2 Reasons Obama Criminalized Intel Agencies

By Erik Rush •

Amidst the saturnalia which ensued over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe being unable to determine just how often President Donald Trump beats his wife, it was gratifying to hear more sober interpretations of Sunday’s announcement by Attorney General William Barr.
First, it would probably be appropriate to clarify that there is no evidence, nor has there ever been evidence presented that the President beats his wife. In this case, there haven’t even been accusations thereof, as far as I know—but my satirical framing of the issue is quite germane to the topic of baseless accusations and irrelevant conclusions.

On Monday, listeners to both Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s radio shows were treated to a bit of the unexpected in their opening monologues, juxtaposed against the jubilation attendant to the Mueller probe being unable to tie the Trump campaign to collusion with Russia in order to rig the 2016 presidential election. Both hosts offered admonitions (for their listeners not to exult in the non-findings of the probe) which bordered on chastisement.

In Limbaugh’s case, it was a directive for his listeners not to be too happy about the findings since we knew from the outset that there was no such collusion. As Limbaugh sees it, this development only opens the door for Democrats to pursue any and all other measures they see as having the potential to bring Trump down. Barr’s announcement wasn’t hours old before leftist operatives and the press (a bit of redundancy there) began the “just because Mueller couldn’t find anything, doesn’t mean there’s nothing there” mantra. Mr. Hannity’s monologue was similar, and even more emotive.

One quote from Mr. Limbaugh, which he refined for Tuesday’s show, encapsulated the nature of the Mueller probe more succinctly and accurately than anything I’ve heard, and clarifies precisely why festivities are not in order.

“[T]he counterintelligence apparatus of the United States of America, the entire counterintelligence apparatus — this would be the FBI counterintel, the CIA, the NSA, the vaunted so-called intelligence agencies — were all repositioned and retooled for one express purpose, and that was to reverse the election results of 2016.”

– Rush Limbaugh, March 26, 2019

Limbaugh also expanded on the fact that President Trump has acknowledged that the repositioning of these resources for this purpose “traces back to the Obama administration.” I accept this proposal, and that these designs likely had two principal purposes:

1. To compromise if not neutralize Trump as a going political concern, and/or
2. To serve as misdirection from the array of high crimes committed by elements of the Obama administration.

Considered as objectively as someone in my position can consider it, a cursory look at any dozen or so untoward actions of the Obama administration by an incoming administration with no dog in the fight would have suggested that these things merited a real close look, probably by a special prosecutor. In an environment in which we had a press unfettered by ingrained leftist ideology and objectives, such a body would have practically forced the new administration to look into such things as Benghazi, the Fast and Furious gun scandal, Uranium One, John Brennan and the CIA’s involvement in the rise of ISIS, the widespread misuse of government surveillance, and of course, Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server.

What Mr. Limbaugh’s comment regarding our counterintelligence apparatus essentially means is that government agencies were weaponized—or more accurately, criminalized—in order to carry out a criminal act, this being the reversal of the 2016 election.

Part of what has irked Limbaugh, Hannity and many others throughout this debacle is the personal carnage that took place in the wake of this “investigation.”

Six Trump associates were charged in the Mueller probe, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and former Trump adviser Roger Stone. Other parties were charged and similarly intimidated, threatened and otherwise squeezed by Mueller’s tainted team, including author Jerome Corsi, who refused to plead guilty to lying to investigators about wanting to contact WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange during the 2016 election.

Many of these people were essentially ruined; in the case of Corsi, this hits very close to home, since he is a colleague. Some of these folks made deals with the Devil in the face of imprisonment and threats against their families simply because they did not have the financial resources to fight the charges. Who is going to affect restitution for these men?

I can’t help but think of the obscenity represented by abject gangesters being empowered to this degree within our government, the cavalier manner in which they believe they can destroy people’s lives in the pursuit of their aims, and how things might have transpired had I been unlucky enough to have asked the wrong questions of the wrong people in 2016 and suddenly found Mueller’s minions at my door, sigmoidoscopes at the ready.

These are criminal activities to be sure, and the only reason they are not being acknowledged as such is because the foxes are running the henhouse. As Limbaugh and Hannity pointed out all week, the press is quite complicit in this criminality, and should be held similarly accountable.

If nothing else, the Mueller probe has demonstrated that we are being governed by a criminal cabal that not only feels at liberty to unlawfully target a sitting president, but to pursue any charges it likes against any citizen that will further this objective.

Is this an America we’re willing to put up with?

I’ll leave the reader to determine what the appropriate course of action against such a body might be. I’m fairly certain that mine wouldn’t get past my editor.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Will Dems’ Pro-Socialist Rhetoric Torpedo 2020 Bids?

Will Dems’ Pro-Socialist Rhetoric Torpedo 2020 Bids?

By Erik Rush •

In a piece for The Atlantic published on March 10, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel admonished Democrats to dial back their pro-socialist rhetoric, his rationale being that their vociferous advocacy for socialism in recent months has the potential to spook the American electorate, driving voters into the camp of President Donald Trump and ensuring his re-election in 2020.

Emanuel definitely has a salient point in this argument, inasmuch as Trump’s election in 2016 was a mandate against the hard left policies of the Obama administration in the first place. It is easy to understand the urgency on the part of Democratic power players to re-claim their political ground; the irony lies in their manifest inability to see that this urgency is driving their overreach (and counter-intuitively bringing about what they don’t want, if Emanuel is correct in his reasoning).

Still, why would Emanuel, a hardened leftist elite, a political ninja and one of the most evil men ever to grace American politics, seek to stifle pro-socialist rhetoric considering he has been one of the most influential Democrat power players out there?

Well, it’s precisely because he is such an adept politician. Emanuel is reportedly stepping down after two terms as mayor of Chicago, but his career boasts his having been a key operative in Bill Clinton’s administration and chief of staff under Barack Obama from 2009 to 2010. Many argued that his early departure from the Obama White House (along with several other cabinet-level appointees) was an act of self-preservation born out of his knowledge that Obama was going to push the envelope dangerously far politically, and that a less prominent but secure and lucrative position—such as mayor of Chicago—might suit him better than federal prison.

It is likely that Rahm Emanuel was responsible for the ouster of Obama’s Green Jobs Czar Van Jones in September of 2009. Jones, a long-time Obama cohort and family friend, had been a little too vocal about his communist leanings and telegraphing White House policy; Jones even stooped to calling Republicans “assholes” publicly.

It is just this sort of honesty on the part of more radical Democrat operatives that Emanuel knew would not play well with the American people. For decades, communists and others on the far left have known and stated that since America was the wealthiest nation on the planet, the ascendency of leftists in government would have to be handled delicately; in other words, they knew that their operatives would have to misrepresent themselves in order to gain acceptance by the electorate.

This is why we have people like Barack Obama marketing themselves as moderate Democrats when they’re running for office, and double agents like Michael Bloomberg bearing an “R” after their names.

Though there’s little doubt that the oratory of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warms the cockles of his skeevy little heart, Rahm Emanuel knows what so many of his political opponents and detractors know: that a majority of the American people do not embrace socialism, and that consequently, any strategy must be one that facilitates their one day “waking up” to a socialist America—long past the point where this outcome could have been prevented.

We can recall how carefully measured most of Barack Obama’s rhetoric was during his presidency, even if the content was inflammatory or divisive. Emanuel (and therefore, the Obama White House in 2009) knew that Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America could absolutely not be construed by the electorate as amounting to socialist ascendency. Emanuel is probably as aware as anyone reading this that realization on the part of voters that this was in fact the case is why Donald Trump occupies the White House today.

As recently pointed out by Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, Emanuel also knows that policies currently being touted by some of its presidential contenders and younger members—reparations for slavery, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college tuition and a 70% tax rate on high earners—are extremely unpopular, and that Democrats don’t yet have the numbers to aggressively support such measures without terrifying informed voters and those who are still stinging from the economic turbulence of the last twelve years.

While the Democratic Party—and progressives in general—tend to do a lot better in maintaining cohesiveness within their base than the GOP, the warnings of those inside and outside the party that far left Democrat operatives may be trying to go “too far too fast” are quite astute, and do evidence political wisdom.

Just don’t tell Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Too many Americans have yet to see past the sugar-coating progressives have put on socialism in recent years, so the more terrified they are of it, so much the better.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Third Reich Redux: Don’t Say We Weren’t Warned

Third Reich Redux: Don’t Say We Weren’t Warned

By Erik Rush •

As widely reported in the press and widely discussed on social media venues, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey indicated that nearly two-thirds of registered voters believe that the Democratic Party supports socialism; further, that a whopping 56% of those aged 18-24 and 48% of those aged 25-34 favor a “mostly socialist” system.

Now, for those who may be exclaiming that it’s time to put a fork in America “because we’re done,” the latter two stats are admittedly pretty worrisome, even if one factors in the unreliability of some polls due to selective sampling and subjective interpretation. The numbers in question are even up from those of a 2016 Harvard University survey of adults between the ages 18 and 29 which reported that 51% of these did not support capitalism, with only 33% percent stating that they supported socialism instead.

This is not entirely surprising, of course; since 2016, those in younger demographics have been subjected to an unprecedented degree of leftist propaganda aimed squarely at them. Then there’s the fact that many of those in the 18-24 group are necessarily mired in academia, which is lousy with agenda-driven leftists of every stripe. As we’ve seen over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult for young adults to even function, let alone express dissenting political views, in the halls of higher education.

On the interpretation-as-a-factor side, there’s been a lot of discussion around the dynamic behind Millennials and those coming up behind them increasingly gravitating toward socialism. Discounting my unkind comments regarding Millennials last week in this space (I’ll admit it, they were unkind), it is indeed appropriate to consider such aspects as the perception of socialism on the part of these younger demographics, as well as their perception of capitalism (which in many cases is colored by the same propaganda that draws them toward socialism).

Case in point: An article on the 2016 Harvard study in The New American offered that “Millennials’ antipathy toward capitalism is misplaced frustration at the crony capitalism, corporatism, and socialistic systems that have hijacked a once free market. Furthermore, the study’s findings may simply underscore what has already been revealed in previous surveys — that Millennials do not actually know what capitalism or socialism mean.”

Quite likely, considering from whom many of them have been getting their information. Indeed, an assessment of capitalism from your average college professor is likely to be about as favorable as one of black people from your average white supremacist.

Still, the reality is that it doesn’t matter if these folks are misguided, deluded, propagandized of if they happen to be well-informed, true-believing socialists. The political power players in America have known for a long time what the numbers at the polls need to look like in order for them to gain ascendency and relegate notions of self-governance and Constitutional law to the dustbin of history. Despite the populist backlash against the over-reach of the Obama administration (which brought Donald Trump to the presidency), they’ve been rapidly approaching those numbers for some time.

As we know, it’s a “done deal” that socialists and other far left elements control the D.C. Beltway. Even most GOP lawmakers have resigned themselves to this, if they aren’t themselves complicit in the agenda of socialist encroachment. These agencies control the mechanism of government and can deftly manipulate the rule of law.

As one might imagine, this leaves “our side,” as it were, at a distinct disadvantage.

When the left decided to target former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) for ouster, they used some of the same methodology they’re currently using in their attempts to remove President Trump: leveling barrages of charges in the hope that one, even though minor, might stick.

No less than 84 ethics charges were filed by Democrats against Gingrich during his term as Speaker. Finally, in 1997, the House officially reprimanded Gingrich for claiming tax-exempt status for a college course he taught that the Democrats argued was run for political purposes. Gingrich’s reputation was sufficiently sullied that while his seat wasn’t threatened, he knew it had essentially destroyed his effectiveness as Speaker. He resigned from Congress in 1999.

While President Trump is a world class tactician, far and away surpassing anyone in the Beltway, it is still possible that this ploy could work and torpedo his presidency. Those who believe that referring to the actions of Beltway anti-Trumpers as a “coup” is hyperbole are whistling in the dark, because an attempted coup is exactly what this represents.

As a rule conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalist types eschew verbosity. We make our case and move on. Conversely, those on the left epitomize verbosity; they hammer their targets and audiences with their rhetoric, operating under the premise that the more something is repeated—preferably at high volume—the more likely it is that said target or audience will buy into it. “Repeat a lie often enough,” and all that.

Thus, prudence dictates that we will have to operate outside the confines of our character, or “comfort zone,” to employ a pop culture appellation. This means that repetition and aggressive reference to the worst aspects of socialism within our rhetorical model is imperative. The high-profile leftists operatives whom we alternately scorn and ridicule are indeed latter-day Hitlers and Goebbels; their dedicated followers, Brownshirts who will most assuredly graduate from beating opponents at rallies and on college campuses to executing pogroms when and if their leaders secure unfettered power.

We know how they operate, and in our hearts, we know that their orthodoxy is manifestly evil. If our children and grandchildren wind up spending their last days in concentration camps, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Will Jussie Smollett be Held Accountable?

Will Jussie Smollett be Held Accountable?

By Erik Rush

Hours before Jussie Smollet turned himself in to Chicago authorities, this commentary appeared in WND.

When black singer, actor and gay activist Jussie Smollett was allegedly assaulted in Chicago on Jan 29, the act was widely denounced across the political continuum. While those of more measured rhetoric called for the prosecution of those involved, many prominent leftists immediately blamed the incident on a culture of intolerance that, they say, is being advanced by President Donald Trump.
Once upon a time, those in the public eye took great care with regard to what they said in public, if only as a point of credibility. Things aren’t always as they appear, and being seen as having rushed to judgment during a media firestorm just doesn’t speak to one’s intelligence. Despite this, very few of those alleging a Trump connection to the Smollett attack exercised such restraint; histrionics ruled the day once this story broke.

Now, when the Jussie Smollett story did break, there were some who considered the possibility that the attack had been staged, either by leftist operatives or by Smollett himself, in order to lend credence to the threadbare claim that America is an institutionally racist nation, and that having elected a bigot like Trump proved this. Very few who courted this idea articulated their hypotheses, and those who did were rather low key about it.

Why would anyone think that Smollett or the politically-kindred might stage such an attack, particularly considering the prevailing sensitivities in America around issues of race and intolerance in general? Because given the left’s track record, this is precisely the sort of craven, deceitful act that is in keeping with their sinister character.

As many are now aware, the Smollett story began to unravel over the weekend when the news of Chicago police examining new evidence connected to the alleged assault came to the fore. It quickly became evident—unless we have a really elaborate conspiracy within a conspiracy here—that Jussie Smollett himself paid two extras from his Fox TV show “Empire” to carry out the “attack,” expressly to gin up racial tensions attendant to the current campaign against the president and his supporters.

So let’s say we acknowledge that Smollett is an individual of low character simply because he’s a dedicated lefty. Why would someone who’s secured an enviable position in such a competitive industry court the ignominy of having been beaten up on the street, as well as being condemned as a hate crime hoaxer should his perfidy be discovered?

Let not those of us who condemn the left for their summary and cavalier appraisal of others (particularly us) fall short in our understanding of what makes them tick.

Once again, we must look to character. Jussie Smollett has been in the entertainment business since he was ten years old, acting in many films such as “The Mighty Ducks” and Rob Reiner’s “North.” As I have attested from personal experience, those who become ensconced in that insular entertainment industry bubble from an early age often become singularly scary people. The tragic lives and deaths of many once-popular child stars stands as testimony to this fact. Those who survive can become even scarier with regard to their worldview and perceptions of themselves.

Thus, it isn’t too difficult to see how a popular but perhaps deeply insecure young actor might choose two aspects of his public persona—his ethnicity and his sexual orientation—and qualify them in such a manner as to engender public sympathy. Further, to do so in a way that would advance a favored political agenda.

In support of this argument, it is now being reported by news sources in Chicago that Smollett’s motivation for staging the January 29 “attack” may have been the failure of an earlier staged incident to gain the desired media traction. Apparently (according to CBS 2 Chicago), a letter containing a white powder of some sort addressed to Smollett was delivered to a Chicago set where “Empire” was filming just days before the January 29 staged assault.

At this point, even some of the prominent lefties who supported Smollett have articulated their disgust with his alleged actions, and I applaud them for this. There are good reasons why our nation holds certain sensitivities around race, and it’s because many good people have sacrificed over many years to improve race relations and conditions for the once-disenfranchised. A spoiled, middle-class puke like Smollett wouldn’t be aware of this, partly because he wasn’t around at that time, and because accurate representations of our history are no longer taught in schools.

Smollett has now “lawyered-up,” expressing the requisite outrage and mortification through his attorneys and pointing to his further victimization via accusations that he orchestrated the assault.
An attack such as the one Smollett claimed had been perpetrated upon him is a serious crime which carries heavy penalties. Fraudulently reporting such a crime is also a criminal offense, with very good reason. The potential for dangerous escalation in the wake of such charges is very real.

It has become abundantly clear in recent years that laws, rules and ethics hold no sway over those on the left. Those quaint conventions are for the “little people,” not them. This of course would provide further motivation for Smollett having staged the January 29 incident, but it also gives rise to the question of whether or not he will be held accountable in any manner if he is indeed found to be culpable.

While the Chicago authorities and the FBI are said to be investigating the “white powder” letter and the January 29 attack, there’s no telling whether or not these will lead to a just disposition. In the meantime, the producers of “Empire” and the network (Fox Broadcasting) announced this week that they intend to keep Smollett on as a series regular.

Originally published in WorldNetDailyate crime

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Defeat Socialists Now—Before it’s Too Late

Defeat Socialists Now—Before it’s Too Late

By Erik Rush •

Recently, I found myself puzzling over the social media post of a self-identified conservative. This individual questioned why so many people fear the political left these days given the rise of populism (which resulted in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency) and the fact that prominent operatives on the left are employing histrionics, slander and depraved rhetoric to a degree that—as this individual postulated—they can’t help but alienate an increasing number of Americans, thus decreasing their future chances at the ballot box.

While I certainly appreciate the “glass half full” perspective of such a person, it is at times like this in which I wonder if I’m the one who perceives the dark designs of socialists in America and their single-minded determination for what they are. I for one will readily admit to being more fearful of socialist ascendency in this country right now than I was when Barack Obama was president—and I was pretty damned fearful then.

Yes, it is true that Donald Trump was elected to the office of President because a preponderance of voters were disgusted with the political status quo and the lies of the parasites we’ve been sending to Washington for decades. I suspect that many of those who voted for Trump were also beginning to perceive that the two-party system has become a lie, that the Democrat Party has become overwhelmingly socialist in the operative sense, and that the Republican Party exists to provide little more than an impotent foil against them, misdirecting their base as socialists on the Democrat side gain more and more ground.

Yet, inasmuch as an animal in the wild can become considerably more dangerous when it is cornered, I believe that the left has become similarly more dangerous because of the threat of President Trump and the populist leanings of the electorate. While radicals of many stripes were empowered by the solidarity they enjoyed with the White House when Obama was president, we have nevertheless seen a dramatic expansion of their efforts and an amplification of their rhetoric since Trump became president. The phenomenon of “democratic socialism” presently being marketed by the left like a “Tickle Me Elmo” doll or the newest X-Box certainly evidences this. Under Obama, they were comfortable and assured. Now, they’re desperate and terrified.

Even more disturbing is how evident the insinuation of radicals at the highest levels of our government has become. While the moronic blathering of an aging actress that “Make America Great Again” ball caps are “the new KKK hood” and the pitiful contention on the part of Kamala Harris that an attack on a young black actor in Chicago was somehow Trump’s fault may be emblematic of the left’s penchant for hyperbole and deceit, they’re still just individuals voicing baseless charges.

The degree to which the machinery of our government has become compromised however, should chill the reader to the bone.

Case in point: As pointed out by Fox News’ Sean Hannity this week, the arrest and charging of longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone for allegedly lying to Congress in the “Russian collusion” investigation is far more of an existential threat to liberty and the rule of law in America than anything that emanates from the mouth of any agenda-driven or dull-normal leftist.

Many have recognized the disparity between the vigor with which our government (in the person of special counsel Robert Mueller) has prosecuted this investigation and the complete absence thereof when it came to, as Hannity notes, “all the people we know who lied to Congress—former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, the folks who lied to the FISA court and years of scandals like Fast and Furious, IRS targeting conservatives and Hillary Clinton [during her illegal email server investigation].”
The foregoing only addresses those who lied to Congress. Even a partial list of high crimes committed by Obama and his surrogates would put me well over the word count for this column.

The fact that those in control of most of the federal government and thus the Department of Justice are preferentially applying the rule of law to serve their statist agenda carries the potential for the most dangerous of developments. Beltway Deep-Staters have repeatedly ignored high crimes on the part of their operatives, but they are clearly intent upon cherry-picking the law until they find some basis upon which to remove this president, even if the charges they ultimately level against him amount to the political equivalent of jaywalking.

Once they have succeeded in doing so, there will be nothing to stop them from freely persecuting those whom they are already demonizing in a systematic manner, and to an alarming degree: Trump’s supporters, who obviously number in the millions. The wholesale persecution of millions of people has never been a problem for leftists, however, as we’ve seen over the last hundred years. Their rabid base, small though it may be, has evidenced that it is up for the challenge.

The bottom line is that we can acknowledge the scope of this threat and begin crushing socialists in America ruthlessly, or we can be ‘civilized’ and wait for them to finish coalescing their power and come for us.

When I come to the defense of Donald Trump, it isn’t because I have a particular affinity for the man or his policies, though most are far superior to those of the last several administrations. I do so because if Americans are looking for someone in high office who is working to stem the tide of socialism, at present, President Trump is the only game in town.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns