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
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
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
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
GOP Progressives Forced to Come Clean

GOP Progressives Forced to Come Clean

By Erik Rush •

Like so many Democrat Party politicos who have shamelessly revealed themselves to be hard-line socialists in recent months (with a few radical communists thrown in for good measure) we are now seeing power players among Republicans who once sold themselves as rock-ribbed conservatives revealing themselves as big-government socialists as well.

This phenomenon is manifesting itself in two ways: One is in the spate of GOP lawmakers who have seen the writing on the wall as regards the war on the political class catalyzed by the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and who have announced that they will not seek re-election.

This war on the political class is in the process of a highly-vigorous escalation in the form of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon and his quest to unseat establishment Republican lawmakers. One amusing byproduct of this campaign and public disgust over Republican lawmakers’ intransigence is Sen. Mitch McConnell’s attempt to salvage his political career by falling into line with the administration over tax reform amidst calls for his ouster as Senate Majority Leader.

The second hallmark of this phenomenon has to do with high-profile Republicans who have jumped on the bandwagon of those accusing President Trump of fostering imprudent public policy. A week ago, former president George W. Bush lambasted President Trump in this area. Using words such as “nationalism” and “nativism,” Bush asserted that “We cannot wish globalism away.”

Perhaps not, but I’d wager we could beat it to death with the Constitution…

Bush’s condemnation came just a few days after Senator John McCain (R-AZ) dressed down Trump in similar fashion. Then, in the Wall Street Journal this week, former Bush administration Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove slammed Steve Bannon and his efforts to unseat progressive Republican senators up for reelection in 2018, accusing Bannon of waging “jihad against incumbent Republicans.”

Rove – once considered by the Republican base to be an arch-conservative – obviously isn’t.

One thing I found particularly sickening was that these GOP luminaries have also taken to chiming in with the far left in advancing the notion that President Trump is somehow promoting racism and bigotry, as Bush did in his speech last Thursday. Attendant to this, these Republicans have apparently adopted the strategy of reinventing themselves, a common go-to for progressives, and one which definitely serves to identify them as progressives. We are now hearing language referencing the GOP (or America, depending on the discussion) having to “recover our own identity” (as Bush suggested), reaffirm our values, and embrace our rich history and tradition of immigration.

Inasmuch as many of these Republicans were once considered conservatives by the Republican base, we can now see that they are attempting to redefine conservatism in the same manner in which leftists redefined terms like “liberalism,” “progressivism,” and even “democracy” over the years in order to manipulate public perception. Apparently, socialists now get to call themselves “progressives,” progressives get to call themselves “conservatives,” and anyone espousing that which was formerly known as conservatism is a knuckle-dragging, bigoted, reactionary scoundrel of the lowest order. By extension, the degenerative social and political agendas of the political left can now be considered mainstream, I suppose.

Another eerie similarity between these impassioned Republicans and their Democrat counterparts is the uniformity of message. What they’re articulating relative to the current administration is almost identical to what is being voiced by the most radical of the political left.

Chief among conservatives’ complaints about Bush’s speech last week was that the former president did not once in eight years see fit to speak out against the serial treason, unconstitutional governance, and autocracy of the Obama administration, yet he felt compelled to join the former jihadi-in-chief in condemning Trump. This coupled with Bush’s refusal to defend his own administration against the onslaught of leftist calumnies leveled against it while he was in office speaks to the dirty little secret of which so many Americans became aware over the last few years, and which motivated them to elect a president who was a true outsider.

The dirty little secret is of course that all of the GOP politicos we’re discussing, the crestfallen Republicans who have elected not to seek re-election, Democrat lawmakers, the press, and assorted Deep Staters are all one big, happy family. Bush’s refusal to defend his own administration against the left set the stage for Obama’s election, and this was by design. Now, we can see that the resistance of GOP lawmakers to the Trump agenda as evidencing their true allegiance – not to their constituents, nor their party, nor their offices, nor even to money. Their allegiance is to the Beltway system, a system that represents an ongoing transfer of power from the American people to government.

So, like him or not, Steve Bannon’s jihad, Crusade – or whatever one wishes to call it – against establishment Republicans is most assuredly a necessary one, and it stands to reason that the establishment press, as well as Democrat and Republican politicos alike, are characterizing him as Lucifer’s evil twin. The political landscape being what it is at present, it is doubtful that the furtive machinations of these misadventurous Republicans will escape the notice of too many voters, and this is a very good thing.

The ironic upside? For the first time in recent memory, Democrats and Republicans in Washington are nearly all on the same page!

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Hollywood Sexploitation Revealed: Why Now?

Hollywood Sexploitation Revealed: Why Now?

By Erik Rush •

While some of the newsworthy items covered over the last year have been a long time coming (as in welcomed by many), as I intimated here last week, some of them were bound to give rise to some apprehension on the part of the public simply due to their scope.

Obviously, Donald Trump being elected to the presidency last November was one of these. Another is reflected in a preponderance of establishment Republicans having proven themselves to be closeted socialists; as a result, the GOP is now at war with itself. This manifested chiefly in the lack of cooperation between Republican lawmakers and the president, which gave rise to the galvanizing of conservative activists to combat them.

Another story that’s gotten major traction: Despite the widespread inculcation of racialist doctrine and intimidation to which the American people have been subjected, their response to escalating instances of grandstanding by race-baiting agitators has become increasingly intolerant (and when I say “intolerant,” I mean that in a good way). This has been evidenced by public blowback following uninformed, disrespectful activism on the part of Colin Kaepernick and those who’ve chosen to emulate him, and the National Football League’s abysmal handling of the situation.

Finally, we have the recent Hollywood sex scandal eruption, which began with allegations in a New Yorker exposé that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein committed sexual harassment against actresses and females in his employ over a period of decades. While a few in the entertainment industry have queued up to defend Weinstein or to conceal his alleged crimes, these have been few and far between compared to those who are coming forward with horror stories related to his acts, as well as a culture of sexual predation within the movie industry.

Additionally, since Weinstein was a Democrat mega-donor, not only have his donations to certain powerful Democrats come into question, but the so have the close relationships of suspected Hollywood sexual predators and powerful Democrats, a few of the latter being suspected or established sexual predators themselves.

I was both shocked and appalled when less recently, several prominent former child actors revealed the widespread sexual abuse of child and teen actors in Hollywood. More shocking and appalling than the fact of this phenomenon was that widespread investigations were not initiated in light of it. After all, there were highly-publicized congressional hearings over content (profanity, misogyny, and such) in the recording industry in 1985, and others over a few Major League baseball players using performance-enhancing drugs in 2005. Did the institutional practice of Hollywood power players raping children not merit something similar?

The scars that such abuse leaves on a child can be all but indelible; concerning some of the disgusting accounts of rape, sodomization, and other acts related by these former child stars, it is highly likely that this resulted in much of the dysfunction they experienced in later life. Had we as a society become so inured to the existence of pedophilia, I wondered, that we could give such atrocities a pass?

During the former administration (which gave implied license to all manner of subversive activities across several sectors), Barack Obama was once heard publicly lauding the efforts of Hollywood in setting a moral tone for the nation, so it stands to reason that this would not have been a period of moral reckoning. What currently puzzles some observers however, is the fact that the Weinstein affair has catalyzed a tsunami of indignation on the part of Hollywood insiders with regard to the sexual culture of their industry. Typically, those on the left are well-practiced at keeping their mouths shut and “taking one for the team” if it means furtherance of the leftist agenda at large (such as prominent feminists remaining silent as regards the left cozying up to notoriously misogynistic Islamists).

This has obviously not been the case concerning those in Hollywood who have elected to reveal their sexual exploitation at the hands of Hollywood bigwigs and even prominent actors. The number of well-known and well-loved movie industry icons coming under suspicion of sexual misconduct is increasing almost daily, despite the fact that for decades, it has been the practice of the press and Hollywood to systematically bury such stories.
One explanation might be that while most Hollywood celebrities are notorious lefties, they are not political ideologues in the same sense as Gloria Steinem or Al Sharpton. It could be as simple as these performers having grown sick of the dysfunctional status quo that has been in place in their industry for so long.

We know that the leftist agenda is antithetical to the sanctity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever dynamic is driving performers to reveal their experience with sexual exploitation in Hollywood on this scale and at this time, it’s clear that like many who voted for Trump last November, quality of life ̶ or a deficiency therein ̶ is the common denominator.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
GOP, Media Chickens Come Home to Roost

GOP, Media Chickens Come Home to Roost

By Erik Rush •

After having touched off the controversy over former president Barack Obama’s ties to militant preacher Jeremiah Wright in February 2007, I doubt that I’ll ever look at the adage regarding one’s chickens coming home to roost in the same way again.

For the uninitiated: throughout the 2008 election season, the Rev. Wright story gave rise to several now-iconic video clips of the flamboyant Chicago pastor going on various anti-American, anti-white, and anti-Semitic rants, all of which were cited by conservative analysts as evidence of Obama’s lack of fitness to hold the highest office in the land.

One of the video clips, recorded shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation, featured Rev. Wright asserting before his congregation (which at the time included Obama and his family) that the attacks were a herald of “America’s chickens [are] coming home to roost.” As justification, Wright pointed to the United States having allegedly usurped lands from Native American tribes, its military excursions in Grenada, Panama, and Libya, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as other instances of what he called “state terrorism.”

We are now seeing instances of chickens coming home to roost across the political continuum. While some of these may be gratifying, others are giving rise to a certain uneasiness for reasons that will become apparent.
In one case, we have widespread condemnation of Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein following a New Yorker exposé which revealed that he committed sexual harassment against numerous women over the span of decades, and that the incidents had been buried via hefty financial settlements. Weinstein has been a Democrat mega-donor for years, so conservative pundits quickly capitalized on how the story epitomized the hypocrisy of the left. Days after the scandal broke, the porcine and rather unhygienic-looking Weinstein was ousted from the film company he helped to found, and which still bears his name.

Since the Weinstein story had its genesis in The New Yorker, it was summarily accepted by those on the left, and thus certain Hollywood celebrities were compelled to respond to the story. On Monday, actor George Clooney, who reportedly received his “first big break” in a movie from Weinstein, said “I’ve known Harvey for 20 years,” but that he had “never seen any of this behavior—ever.”

Which, oddly enough, is nearly word-for-word the response Obama articulated many times in 2008 regarding his former pastor’s militant tirades.

Other than the political angle ̶ which shames those on the left vis-à-vis their ostensible stance on the sexual exploitation of women ̶ neither Weinstein’s behavior nor his status as a grotesque stereotype of Hollywood excess are anything new. Whether we’re talking about silent film actor Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle killing ‎Virginia Rappe with a wine bottle in 1921 (he did not beat her to death with it), MGM kingpin Louis B. Mayer’s serial sexual abuse of Judy Garland throughout the 1930s, director Roman Polanski sodomizing a 13 year-old girl and then skipping the country for decades, or the revelations of child sexual abuse in Hollywood brought to light by a number of prominent child actors over the last few years, it is apparent that the powerful in Hollywood have always exhibited an abysmal level of moral rectitude.

This top-down amorality permeates all levels of the entertainment industry, and explains why it was perfectly natural for those in Hollywood to sign on to the degenerative social agenda of the political left.

Another recent roosting media chicken involved ESPN’s Jemele Hill. On Sept. 11, the blithely ignorant black network host said on Twitter that President Donald Trump is “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/other white supremacists,” but a more recent social media outing actually got her suspended from the network. Earlier this week, she responded to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement that his players would be benched if they disrespected the flag by tweeting the suggestion that Americans should boycott teams like the Dallas Cowboys over such action.

On the political side ̶ as if Hollywood and pro sports haven’t become eminently political lately ̶ there have been widespread calls for Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) to resign following his statement this week confirming that establishment Republican lawmakers wanted to nullify the November 2016 election which resulted in Trump ascending to the presidency, as well as a New York Times piece in which the senator belittled the president with great relish, then attempted to backpedal with regard to related comments when confronted.

The fact is that Western socialists seek to undo nearly 250 years of societal evolution through a retrogressive movement back to oligarchical rule, and the lion’s share of Republican elected officials in America have been complicit in this effort. Literally dozens of Republican representatives and senators richly deserve to be “primaried” out of office at the earliest possible opportunity for their collusion in this area.

The Corker fiasco will likely give rise to a certain apprehension on the part of Republican voters because it involves a Republican. The sports media upheavals will give pause to voters in general because of the high profile of pro sports. I would point out however, that no one ever said draining the swamp would be painless.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Las Vegas and the Left’s Dangerous Amorality

Las Vegas and the Left’s Dangerous Amorality

By Erik Rush •

One of the first admonitions that came from cooler heads in the hours following Stephen Paddock’s deadly shooting rampage at a country music festival in Las Vegas last Sunday night was a recommendation that those analyzing the incident refrain from politicizing the tragedy. It didn’t take long however, for liberal politicos (including those in the press) to cast aside this counsel in favor of wholesale politicization of the shootings.
My thinking on the matter is that considering the magnitude and nature of the tragedy, the avoidance of politicizing same would be prudent unless the perpetrator himself was attempting to make a some sort of political statement in carrying out the assault, but this has not been reliably established.

As one may have noticed, conspiracy theories concerning Paddock’s rampage abound. There have been as yet unsubstantiated reports that Paddock converted to a radical form of Islam at some point, as well as other reports of multiple shooters and the like. While lack of an apparent motive and information in general as regards Mr. Paddock could speak volumes, it could simply be indicative of measures he took to keep his life ̶ and subsequently, his intention to kill a lot of people ̶ a secret.

Although it would behoove anyone seeking the truth to take heed of the word “unsubstantiated” as regards some of the more controversial reports, it would also be wise to take a couple of other items into consideration: One, it’s been established that clandestine groups both inside and outside of government have been known to cultivate unbalanced individuals and fanatics to carry out such attacks as instruments of their agenda advancement. The second is that the left is operating under extreme duress, as I have indicated in this space many times since Donald Trump’s election; this has already given rise to all manner of desperate action on the part of the left.

On Monday night, late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel made several false statements about gun laws, presumably to precipitate efforts on the part of Washington lawmakers to impose increased gun control measures. Hillary Clinton offered up some truly embarrassing statements relating to firearms and firearms laws, and claimed that the availability of firearms was some sort of dark conservative-Republican- National Rifle Association (NRA) conspiracy. She also criticized a “slow and creaky” infrastructure for firearms background checks.

The ever-mouthy, squat Hollywood goblin Lena Dunham said on social media that there was “no way not to politicize” the incident, and that Paddock’s shooting orgy was “about gender & race as well as access to guns.” I won’t even attempt to unravel that bit of logic.

NBC’s Tom Brokaw, instead of reporting the news, admonished citizens to organize against the NRA. Actress and perennial moron Alyssa Milano tweeted a link to “a list of the members of the House and Senate, and their twitter handles, that have taken money from the NRA.” A large and lively bunch of Hollywood ignoramuses weighed in with similar advice vis-à-vis the NRA, and a Drexel University professor blamed the shootings on a supposed narrative of white victimization advanced by ̶ you guessed it ̶ President Trump and his surrogates.

I’m actually somewhat surprised that country music itself hasn’t been cited by the left as a catalyst for this sort of violence, but I suppose there’s still time for that.

Let’s not mince words here: Those on the left who are driving the exploitation of the Las Vegas massacre to advance gun control are not interested in measures that might reduce gun violence, because no manner of precautions are capable of deterring a determined perpetrator with a gun ̶ or a knife, a bomb, or any other weapon one might obtain or devise. They are interested in neutralizing the Second Amendment and disarming the American people. Hillary Clinton and her ilk would probably adore a nationwide ban on firearms and electronic gunpowder sniffers in every home (wherein a “hot” reading would result in a visit from the local SWAT team), all to ensure our safety, of course.

Potential conspiracies and the progressive wet dream of an unarmed populace aside, my observation this week speaks to the recurring theme that the true believers among liberals (as opposed to the deluded, who simply lack epistemic reference for their beliefs) have become dangerously amoral people. One of the most offensive yet telling reactions to the Las Vegas shootings came from Hayley Geftman-Gold, a CBS senior counsel who said on Facebook that she was “not even sympathetic [to the shooting victims because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Geftman-Gold was quickly sacked by CBS, but she wasn’t the only person on the left to publicly articulate that correlation. She was however, the only one audacious enough to suggest that the killed and injured country music fans ̶ being Republican gun-toters and by logical extension, likely Trump supporters ̶ had it coming.

I would submit that this level of callousness and inhumanity has become commonplace among the aforementioned liberal true believers. Liberal politicos and the press have worked tirelessly to dehumanize their political opponents and, while even many conservatives might disbelieve, I think that this is in preparation for some truly draconian social engineering measures in future. These people are the sort who would turn their neighbors in to police state authorities, even if they knew that in so doing they would consign said neighbors to enslavement, torture, and death in concentration camps.

The response of those on the left to the Las Vegas shootings illustrate once more that they should be regarded as our mortal enemies, as opposed to fellow citizens with a somewhat divergent political viewpoint.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

By Erik Rush •

While it is clear that desperation is the prime motivator for those on the political left having dramatically amplified their subversive and incendiary rhetoric in recent months, it must be acknowledged by those who do not share their views that this deportment is manifestly dangerous, represents a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and merits amelioration by methods and measures that, at this time, may have yet to be revealed.

It is my belief that those on the political left have forfeited their right to participation in the political process and free speech (particularly pertaining to the overly-broad understanding of the latter as it relates to the Constitution) because one of their chief objectives is to strip all dissenters of those very rights. I will continue to articulate this as progressives, socialists and radical leftists continue to augment their efforts to corrupt and debase our society and our culture at every conceivable level.

At this point, we are familiar with the agonizingly incessant efforts on the part of the left to characterize President Donald Trump, his surrogates, his supporters, and those who favor his wife’s taste in footwear as white supremacists despite there being no evidence whatsoever in support of such claims. We’ve also witnessed the increasing audacity of the noxious individuals and groups who have spoken out against those who hold traditional values, law enforcement, America in general ̶ well, pretty much anything or anyone that represents a divergence from leftist orthodoxy. Further, leftists are becoming less and less inhibited with regard to advocating for violence as a means to their ends.

Recently, a media firestorm ensued when a tweet by Michael Isaacson, an adjunct professor at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and self-proclaimed anti-fascist activist, came to light. Isaacson, an Antifa leader who oozes self-satisfied arrogance and looks like a refugee from an 80s British techno-rock video, posted on Twitter that it was “a privilege [for him] to teach future dead cops.” Though subsequently disciplined by the college, this twerp was nevertheless granted even more face time on Fox News to spew his poisonous drivel than he’d been given the week before.

Meanwhile on CNN, last Friday, Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill spoke out on the controversy over ESPN anchor Jemele Hill’s comments referencing President Trump as a white supremacist. Dr. Hill (another utter boob who has been legitimized via far too much face time on Fox) claimed that the White House’s call for her to be fired was an abuse of power, and that President Trump is “absolutely” a white supremacist.

Popular culture’s “infinite monkey theorem” holds that given enough time, a chimpanzee typing at random would eventually produce a literary masterpiece. Apparently, the equivalent in Dr. Hill was somehow able to write a passable doctoral dissertation. While Hill may claim that Trump is a white supremacist, what weight does such a statement really have considering that this affirmative action professor, judging by his years of absurd insights and regurgitated socialist canon, obviously possesses only a rudimentary consciousness? It’s like taking to heart the words of a five year-old who calls his parent a “big fat poop head” during a tantrum. Such arguments simply have no teeth. Previously, Hill relegated his inane on-camera blather to boilerplate leftist doctrine however, accusing the president of being a white supremacist far surpasses claims that this accusation was “over the top.”

All of this bleating about white supremacists in our midst would be laughable if not for the potential for significant numbers of news viewers ultimately subscribing to the notion, if for no other reason than leftists are aggressively employing the maxim of their illustrious progenitor, National Socialist propagandist Joseph Goebbels (“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”).

While use of the white supremacist label may be born of desperation, there is still a very real danger that it could “become the truth.” We saw something similar occur during the presidency of George W. Bush, when his administration patently refused to defend itself against any of the calumnious slings and arrows of the left. As a result, public opinion swung much farther against Republican elected officials than was merited, and this was reflected in the 2008 general election.

“From the Soviet Union to Cuba, Venezuela — wherever socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation, and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.”

– President Donald Trump, Sept. 19

Although it’s no surprise that the establishment press and mouthy radicals are trashing the speech President Trump gave this week at the United Nations, I don’t know if the sympathies he expressed in the above quote could have been put better or more succinctly. The slanderous accusations of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, pauperophobia, and other misanthropic leanings are all devices the left is using to foment cultural Balkanization as one gateway toward implementing a socialist state in America.

Inasmuch as it has been established that socialism in all its forms is pernicious and evil, as well as being wholly antithetical to the rule of law and the deeply-rooted traditions and institutions of this nation, the prudent citizen should conclude that efforts to advance this political doctrine must be mitigated with all due alacrity.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns