El Paso & Beyond: It’s Not Guns, it’s Moral Ambivalence

El Paso & Beyond: It’s Not Guns, it’s Moral Ambivalence

By Erik Rush •

A disclaimer condemning the wanton mass murder of people in public places shouldn’t be necessary here, yet it is, lest craven leftists seize upon the opportunity to cast this columnist and this publication as endorsing mass murder. Once upon a time in America, it was universally understood that all citizens reviled such action.

These days, I’m not so sure.

So, let me take a moment to officially condemn the actions of Patrick Crusius who, on the morning of August 3, entered a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and commenced a shooting spree that left 22 dead and 24 injured.

It was inevitable that an angry white idiot would pick up a gun and seek out a bunch of Latinos to murder given the climate of racial tension that has been cultivated by the political left and the ongoing situation at our southern border. This may sound somewhat harsh, but if you look at the aggregate of mass shootings in recent decades and the motives of the perpetrators in context, it is far easier to understand.

While the 2019 influx of undocumented migrants laying claim to economic asylum (there’s no such thing) and the 2014 tsunami of undocumented migrants doing likewise both received a great deal of press, the ultimate dispositions of the migrants in question were handled quite differently by the administrations of Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama. While the latter’s policy was one of clandestine assimilation, Trump has made no bones about the fact that these people have no legitimate reason to cross our southern border, and ought to be returned from whence they came, post haste.

This of course has given rise to increased charges by the left of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of the president and his supporters, despite the issue having nothing whatsoever to do with race. At present, there is a campaign under weigh on the part of leftists to draw a direct link between Trump’s rhetoric addressing illegal migrants and the El Paso massacre. An opinion piece from The New York Times masquerading as news on Aug. 4 and entitled “El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language” essentially framed President Trump’s rhetoric as “marching orders” for Patrick Crusius. This is being echoed by far left lawmakers, most notably Joaquin Castro (D-TX).

There’s little doubt that there are a whole lot of white, ordinarily law-abiding firearms owners in the Southwest who are infuriated regarding the porosity of our southern border. It is likely that some have even cultivated antipathy toward Latinos as a result of the economic and social conditions that have arisen as a result of illegal immigration in the region. It is probable however, that nearly all of them realize the decades-long refusal of our federal government to effectively address the issue has played a far larger role in this than the desire of people to enter the country illegally, whatever their reason. Thus, they are aware that gunning down a bunch of Latinos would not only display a high degree of moral ambivalence, but it wouldn’t even address the root of the problem. Further, it would serve to validate the baseless bleating of the left as regards white Americans’ inherent proclivity for racism.

It’s generally imprudent for people such as myself to prematurely issue commentary during the “fog of war” which immediately follows acts of mass violence, as inaccurate information abounds, some of which is intentionally crafted. Suffice it to say that Crusius’s reported statements to law enforcement and his actions following the shootings were markedly incoherent. While his manifesto, posted online prior to the shootings, is definitely racist, it smacks of a person of limited intellect who was operating far more out of anger and cognitive dissonance than an understanding of the dynamics of the border situation.

As far as the El Paso massacre representing a tide of Trump-fostered white nationalism, that argument simply has no teeth. White nationalists have zero political power in this country, and that isn’t likely to change. There were however, 32 mass shootings during Barack Obama’s tenure as president, which included a Muslim man who killed 50 gay people in Orlando, Florida, and a Muslim couple who killed 14 people and wounded 22 others in San Bernardino, California. Muslims, as venerated by our former president and as a favored class of the left, have far more political clout that white nationalists.

Yet violence committed by Muslims and far-left perpetrators (such as the Aug. 4 Dayton, Ohio shootings or the 2017 Congressional baseball shootings) are never framed by the press or Beltway politicos as a national crisis, because it does not serve their purposes.

Finally, as regards the public’s access to firearms, I would point out that there is no correlation between the accessibility of firearms and mass shootings, because that accessibility has always existed. For most of our nation’s history, spree killings with firearms were unknown. If anything, firearms have become increasingly less accessible to citizens over the last 50 years due to knee-jerk legislation which invariably follows high-profile gun crimes.

There is however, an easily-drawn correlation between the increasing climate of moral ambivalence we’ve seen over the last 60 years and the proliferation of mass shootings. Much of what I’ve written in this space over the years has reflected societal dysfunction that has arisen directly from our increasing climate of moral ambivalence.

During a speech at the 2018 National Rifle Association (NRA) convention, Texas Governor Greg Abbott asserted that “[t]he problem is not guns, it’s hearts without God.”

This may sound simplistic, but it speaks volumes.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

By Erik Rush •

At present, there are a lot of people shaking their heads at the alacrity with which accusations of racism are currently being bandied about. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that baseless charges of racism undermine legitimate ones. Another is the potential for serious conflict given the sensitivities many Americans still possess on the subject. Finally, it dishonors those Americans who struggled against institutional racism throughout our history, some paying the ultimate price.

In the case of President Donald Trump alone, to date literally hundreds of politicos, activists and celebrities have accused him of racism. Many have done so repeatedly, despite the fact that in nearly four years as president and decades in the public eye, not one person has been able to present one scintilla of evidence that Trump is a racist. Some have gone so far as to claim that all of the president’s supporters are racists. This is eminently laughable, because if we count those who do support Trump, we’re easily talking about at least half our adult population.

While the political left would like the casual observer to believe that the uptick in racial tension we’re seeing is top-down and coming from the culture of the Trump administration, it actually began during the early days of the Obama administration.

How Obama and his surrogates deliberately stoked the fires of racial tension was chronicled in great detail in this space during his tenure as president. From Obama’s claims that police “acted stupidly” when they arrested his friend Henry Louis Gates, Jr., through former Attorney General Eric Holder’s interference in the dispositions of the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin shootings and much, much more, Obama set the stage for re-establishing the idea that we are an institutionally racist nation—something I even said he was likely to do in my book, Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal—America’s Racial Obsession.

Thus, the increase in racial tensions we’ve seen since Donald Trump became president is only a continuation of that campaign. It would have continued unabated even if Hillary Clinton had become president, only with a different face.

A major objective of the left is division, and we can see via the relevant timeline and the dynamics at hand that although Trump became a handy scapegoat for charges of racism, the hyperbole and accusations were born of the left’s fear and desperation in the face of the electorate’s rejection of Beltway politics and socialist policies.

Last week in this space, I detailed the story of a segment of white small business owners in New York City who are currently being driven out of business by far left racist activism. The requisite research for the article proved unequivocally that this campaign was well under weigh in 2015, which indicates that its inception came about long before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the GOP nomination.

The article also referenced an even broader emergent and pernicious counter-culture of anti-white bias wherein whites no longer have to demonstrate racist proclivities in order to be considered racists. It is clear that, via the press, activism and the entertainment media, the left seeks to inculcate the belief into every American of color that racism is somehow “built into” every area and system within our society.

Phrases such as “decolonization,” “structural racism” and “implicit bias” are now worming their way into common use among fringe leftists—unfortunately, that appellation includes just about every politically-active individual in our larger cities these days.

Since many people of color have been corralled over the years into enclaves in which progressives hold political power, many have bought into the mantra of an institutionally racist America. As a result, racial hypersensitivity is at an all-time high. Earlier this month, a prominent young black Chicago broadcaster lost her ever-lovin’ mind on social media over a sticker a private individual had on their vehicle. In part, the sticker depicted a noose, but so eager was this incomprehensibly ignorant snowflake to attribute it to nascent white nationalism that she didn’t bother to research the item, which is actually a protest sticker against gasoline prices that’s sold in convenience stores. It is borne by untold thousands of vehicles owned by people of all shades across the country.

This race-baiting has already gotten well out-of-hand and, as I’ve said previously, being cowed into silence by the left is not a sustainable modality in which to operate. The race-baiters are not only despicable beyond description, they are a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and they must be fought.

For Trump’s part, I am confident that he will continue to handle his racialist detractors brilliantly, as he did recently in revealing the political duplicity of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and the worsening squalor and corruption in his Maryland district.

For our part, we must continue to stand firmly by the truth that the only thing racism is “built into” these days is the playbook of the political left, and act accordingly.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

By Erik Rush •

There is currently a war being waged in New York City in the area of reproductive health, and it involves that city’s community of doulas. For those unfamiliar with precisely what a doula does, I’m going to suggest that the reader look it up in the interest of brevity. In a recent Netflix special, Asian-American comedian Ali Wong described the doula as “a white hippie witch that blows quinoa into your p**** to Keyser Soze all the pain away” during childbirth—and the tone of Wong’s reference is actually quite germane to the topic at hand.
The war of which I speak reflects in microcosm the larger war of cultural subversion that is being conducted by the radical left across every geographic and demographic area in America. As we have seen, there is no tactic too depraved to be employed in this pursuit, and these unethical and occasionally criminal antics are being supported, rather than condemned, by government and a sympathetic establishment press.
A July 19 article in New York magazine celebrated the fact that last month, “a bill quietly passed through the New York State Legislature that puts birth workers, commonly known as doulas, on a path to becoming professionalized in the eyes of the state.” Considering the intrusiveness of New York’s emergent nanny state policies and its legislature’s proclivity for passing laws that legalize such things as infanticide, this is a prospect that should terrify any doula. Indeed, some doulas and doula certification organizations are alarmed for these reasons, and because the bill was passed with minimal input from the doula community. The bill’s language is also confusing and the description of its reach and requisite certification requirements are equally obscure.
Far more disturbing is the culture of activism that has sprung up within this profession. The New York magazine article discusses such topics as a shortage of “doulas of color” and the high instance of maternal mortality among women of color, but it addresses these in the context of institutional racism somehow being at the root of these problems.
Digging deeper, it is plain to see that this activism—all arrayed in the finery of deep concern for expectant mothers—is nevertheless being driven by far left racist and racialist activists, and is clearly intended to promote racial division.
Ancient Song Doula Services, an extremely active organization cited in the article, is advertised as one “focused on providing services to women of color and low-income women.” It also provides various forms of certification for doulas. Granted that doula services and doula education should be widely available for women of color and low-income women, but a close examination of Ancient Song’s website evidences the outfit as being the Trinity United Church of doula advocacy and education. Their “Our Focus” page states that their goal is “to shift the narrative and address implicit bias and racism within maternal and reproductive health.”
Such language is of course part and parcel of far left racial orthodoxy, and one finds that in the culture of New York City, the idea of a woman of color being attended by a white doula is increasingly being framed as inherently racist. Perusing the various articles and advocacy websites reveals that these activists are of the mind that institutional racism is rampant in America; the rhetoric being bandied about in these places could have easily come from the mouth of Rep. Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez (D-NY) or Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
It gets worse. The activism of those ostensibly advocating for women of color and low-income women has been vigorously targeting and demonizing white and “cisgendered” doulas for professional destruction—unless they have acknowledged the innate evil of their whiteness and demonstrably embraced the LGBTQ agenda in its entirety.
Katy McFadden, a Brooklyn doula, blogger and self-described “reproductive justice activist and maternal-infant health expert,” is one of the latter. Employing such phraseology as “White Saviorism,” “Toxic White Optimism” and “Negligent Racial Discrimination” on her blog, McFadden reveals herself to be one of those disgustingly “guilty” white liberals who has bought into the prevailing and potent New York brand of leftist doctrine, hook, line and sinker. Her blog boasts that she has partnered with Ancient Song Doula Services to “understand white supremacy” and “organize against it.”
It gets even worse. Not only are white and ideologically-errant doulas being singled out, but there is a spirited ongoing effort to include “trans” individuals within the doula community. This means that if you are a pregnant woman who requests an appointment with a doula, you are increasingly likely to have Bernie show up dressed as Brenda, rather than Brenda herself. Social media now features “queer birthworker” groups; chat rooms and message boards covering the local industry are now abuzz with the wisdom of “trans” doulas, “trans non-binary doulas of color,” and other LGBTQ-isms.
The New York magazine article even quotes a self-described breastfeeding advocate and doula whom, upon the author’s investigation, was discovered to be a male transvestite.
Some of these people appear to be at least as dedicated to demonizing white, biologically female doulas as they are to promoting their own inclusion in the industry. Their disdain for whites and “binary” individuals is quite fervent; their tone and character more resembles that of Antifa than a community of conscientious birth workers.
Where it get really weird is in the budding advocacy for expectant trans individuals. I shudder to think who these people might be, but in similar fashion to the New York magazine article, pregnant people are typically referenced in discussions among these folks, rather than pregnant women.
As a result, many established white doulas in New York City have lost their livelihood over the last couple of years. Some may not even know why. Those who provided the dizzying volume of material from which this article is derived are reticent to go on the record, given the vicious nature of the activism attendant to this phenomenon.
Like the gangsterism currently being employed by tech giants to marginalize everyone right of center on a global scale, the New York “reproductive rights” activists referenced here are engaging in behavior that is not only unethical, but probably qualifies as racketeering.
This is all sad and ironic, given that the women in New York who pioneered this work did so out of compassion and a desire to serve in their chosen vocation. If the character of people driving this activism at present is any indication, considering the legendary corruption and bureaucracy endemic to New York, many of the women about whom activists are allegedly so concerned are likely to wind up being served by insincere, incompetent and possibly dangerous individuals.
Unfortunately, since it’s New York, we probably shouldn’t expect anyone in government or law enforcement to address the issue until women of color in New York start suffering adverse health issues—and even then, it’s likely that these will be attributed to the racism of whites, rather than the racism of the left.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

Dems’ ‘Poison Pill’ Pandering to Black Americans

By Erik Rush •

It’s hardly a secret that those in the field of 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls are pulling out all the stops with some of the most outrageous giveaway proposals in order to coalesce support among intellectually indolent identity groups. Some of these are being rehashed—such as pledges to institute reparations for slavery for black Americans—but inasmuch as all are being presented as newly-minted, and some folks may not be of sufficient age to have seen them proposed in the past, revealing these for what they truly are is, at this juncture, a prudent measure.

Most of the grander schemes that far left Democrats propose have the redistribution of wealth (confiscation of taxpayer dollars) as a major objective, although this is never discussed. Those with the most rudimentary understanding of economics know that universal “free” healthcare or higher education would lead to economic stagnation the likes of which we’ve never seen; those proposing these policies simply hope that the economic folly and dire consequences will be handily overlooked in light of the enticing promises of free stuff.

Pete Buttigieg, the celebrated mayor of South Bend, Indiana whose chief qualification for political office is apparently a proclivity for preferring sexual relations with other males, is one of those vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. On his campaign website, Mayor Pete has rolled out a comprehensive plan for ameliorating all of the woes of blacks in America. Called “The Douglass Plan” (after former slave, social reformer and statesman Frederick Douglass), it promises to resolve or advance such issues as health equity and justice, schools, black history, criminal justice reform, equal employment and business opportunity, public health, infrastructure, environmental justice, voting rights, the Electoral College and fair political representation—all as they relate to black Americans.

Curiously, all of this is framed as though these are issues about which Buttigieg is uniquely enlightened and uniquely qualified to address.

Apart from the shameless usurpation of Douglass’s name (as an escaped slave, Douglass himself was vehemently anti-Democrat, that being the party of slavery at the time), the page reads like one of those interminably long web ads for some cheesy weight loss program or plutonium-powered flashlight. Like Obamacare, if one reads between the lines, it’s easy to see the stealth money and power grabs therein.
More significant than the grandiosity and narcissism inherent to this plan is the fact that all of the problems cited on Buttigieg’s webpage from which black Americans suffer can be directly traced back to the policies of liberal Democrats. Further, most of them were instituted expressly to keep blacks socially and economically disenfranchised—and seeking aid from their Democrat overlords—in perpetuity.

An even more outlandish and dangerous policy proposal has been made by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). Two weeks ago, Harris unveiled a $100 billion plan she promised to advance as president to increase black homeownership. Speaking at the 2019 Essence Festival in New Orleans on June 6, Harris called home ownership “historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country,” and pledged to “remove barriers that black Americans face when they go to qualify for a home loan.”

This “investment” by the federal government (taxpayers) “to put homeownership within the reach for those who live in redlined communities” may sound attractive to struggling black families who’ve been convinced that rich whites are the reason they can’t afford to own a home or who aren’t aware that redlining (race-based lending criteria) is illegal, but there’s an even bigger problem here than Harris’s duplicity or the inordinate percentage of economically-challenged blacks:

It’s already been tried, and with disastrous results.

Nearly all Americans who can read remember the subprime mortgage crisis and the economic implosion of 2008, from which many are still recovering. This can be directly traced to The Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 federal law ostensibly designed to encourage banks to help meet the needs of low- and moderate-income borrowers. The law was repeatedly tweaked by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers and administrations over the ensuing 30 years, largely to ingratiate politicos to those low- and moderate-income borrowers, but the machinations of some involved had far more sinister motives.

As I and others noted repeatedly during the Obama years, The Community Reinvestment Act was horribly abused by certain lawmakers and activists, some of whom were closely following the Cloward-Piven strategy of Orchestrated Crisis. This was a protocol that called for overloading the public welfare system in order to precipitate an economic crisis so profound that it would lead to a replacement of our government with a hard line socialist one.

Subsequently, irresponsible mortgage lending—particularly to lower-income ethnic minorities and the marginally solvent—was encouraged, and many banks were threatened with litigation by unscrupulous lawmakers and activist groups if they failed to comply. Some of these groups (most notably, The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN) had very close ties to the Obama cabal, and some were card-carrying communists. The financial crisis which came to a head in October 2008 following widespread defaults on these loans had worldwide implications and, despite the economic woes suffered by millions as a result, certain Democrat apparatchiks cashed out to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the fray.

To this day, the only economists who contend that The Community Reinvestment Act did not play a major part in this crisis are those firmly ensconced in the far left camp.

Long story short: In addition to the tiresome Democrat refrain of soliciting money and power in order to fix problems that they have in fact created for black Americans, the potential for devastating consequences attendant to superficially attractive proposals such as the ones floated by Buttigieg and Harris are clear. Many of these have, as Cloward, Piven and their acolytes acknowledged, hastening the fall of capitalism as their chief objective.

Which, as we know, is what the left has always been about…

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
What ‘Tolerance’ Has Wrought (and it’s Quite Sick)

What ‘Tolerance’ Has Wrought (and it’s Quite Sick)

By Erik Rush •

It is nearly impossible for one not to note that the scandal surrounding billionaire Jeffrey Epstein being charged with the sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy comes on the heels of a veritable tsunami of recent news stories highlighting various forms of sexual deviance and misconduct which are either being advanced or committed, respectively, by those on the left.

Part of the reason for this is that there are now enough potent alternative media sources addressing stories like these (the establishment press will do nothing but run interference for criminal offenders on the left as they extol the virtues of sexual deviance), and because the political left is so vigorously pushing this doctrine of evil that it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to escape it.

In recent months, we’ve been treated to such news items as “trans” men molesting girls in ladies’ rooms, more and more aspects of sexual deviance being taught in schools, the introduction of bills that would soften criminal penalties for pedophiles and several instances of very high-profile liberals being prosecuted for sex crimes against children. Some of these have been so disturbing that even the establishment press didn’t pass on them.

In the wake of the 2017 Harvey Weinstein scandal and the advent of the MeToo Movement, the public was alerted to the fact that some of the sexual misconduct being perpetrated by Hollywood types was against children, as former child stars came forward to attest to having been serially molested and/or raped by adults in the industry. Inasmuch as Hollywood has designated itself the arbiter of morality and culture in America—and that their dictates are often followed by the mindless—this is particularly troubling.

In an interview last week, former Disney star Bella Thorne discussed her years of molestation and rape at the hands of adults in the entertainment industry. Thorne’s claims are singularly horrifying; she recounts numerous instances of being forced into full-on intercourse from the age of 6, with those around her doing nothing despite possessing full knowledge of what was going on.
Leaving aside the inevitable physical injury resulting from adults having sex with children, there is no escaping the deep inculcation of emotional and psychological trauma attendant to same, and that this persists for the victim’s lifetime. Anyone who maintains otherwise is simply lying.

Despite this, the underhanded push for normalizing pedophilia marches on. In October 2014, Rutgers law professor Margo Kaplan penned an op-ed for The New York Times contending that pedophiles suffer from a disorder, and thence ought not be prosecuted as criminals. For those who are old enough to remember, the process of normalizing homosexuality in our society ran the very same course, in that it began with de-stigmatizing said behavior. As I pointed out in last week’s column, The American Psychological Association (APA) itself has been forced to backpedal on its sporadic efforts to normalize pedophilia after public outcry and the resistance of some mental health professionals.

Here, I believe it is important to address the deportment of the majority—or morally-grounded, conscientious Americans—in this context. The political left has been uncannily successful in driving narratives and re-qualifying normalcy, and this is only because we’ve allowed them to do so.

When the LGBTQ lobby began pushing for legitimizing “gay marriage,” all of the censure within that discussion fell upon the majority who questioned the wisdom of the measure, rather than the miniscule faction that sought to buck a societal convention that has existed for thousands—I repeat, thousands—of years. This not only flies in the face of common sense, but it’s completely illogical.

As a result, we now have political candidates proudly flaunting their deviance, trotting out their same-sex partners during campaign events—and winning elections.

In the near future, we can expect that those of us who resist the proliferation of gay children and teens, preteen “drag queens” and the normalization of pederasty and pedophilia will be branded by the left as a bunch of big fat meanies for our disapproval. It is we who will be accused of seeking to harm these children, rather than that charge falling upon those who wish to serially rape them.

At this juncture, I must ask: When did we become a society wherein we reflexively capitulated to destructive public policy with nothing but “accept it or we’ll call you names” being the impetus for our yielding to a disgusting and damaging agenda?

In millennia past, and until very recently in America, most communities would welcome the summary execution of a child rapist. The fact that we have thus far acceded to the demands of the left on the topic of sexual morality in the name of tolerance illustrates that we are well on our way down the slippery slope to a fundamentally sick society. The fact that the left can engage in their advocacy for extreme perversion so shamelessly says more about us than it does about them at this point, and what it says isn’t good.

This is what tolerance, as the left qualifies it, has wrought. The sickness described herein represents who the left is, and what they want for all of us.

Wake up, America. It’s not about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms—and it never has been.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Leftist Sensibilities Are Destroying Our Youth

Leftist Sensibilities Are Destroying Our Youth

By Erik Rush •

One TV show depicts a little girl who’s been worked into such a frenzy by her teachers about climate change that she has an anxiety attack over fears that the Earth will become a sterile moonscape within her lifetime. Another features a group of mostly black, lower-income high school students who get to visit the offices of the State Department after winning an essay contest. Upon arriving, they are greeted by a black staff member of the Secretary of State who congratulates them over their accomplishment, especially considering the racism in America that dogs their every step and aspiration.

In my column last week, I cited the moral ambivalence fostered primarily by the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s as a major causative factor for the rise in societal dysfunction illustrated by such things as skyrocketing rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancy, drug addiction and increased rates of depression and suicide, particularly among children and younger people. Further, that since much of the new leftist-fostered sensibilities targeted sexual behavior, it has given rise to higher instances of sexual dysfunction, most recently exemplified by gender-confused children who claim to be LGBTQ individuals and the showcasing of child and preteen “drag queens.”

The most significant and sobering aspect of this phenomenon—as I asserted in my column—is that all of this has risen to the level of a major public health concern.

The American Psychological Association (APA) and consequently mental health practitioners at large have not revealed nor supported any studies addressing the proliferation of the dysfunction I mentioned above in this context. This is because these entities are largely on board with the leftist social engineering that’s taken place over the last 50 years. In fact, the APA itself has been forced to backpedal with regard to certain assessments and recommendations it has made over the last 20 years, as some of these appeared to legitimize deeply aberrant sexual behavior, such as pedophilia.

There is however, plenty of anecdotal and testimonial evidence supporting the contention that the amoral drift our society has taken in recent decades has been harmful, and I don’t think Americans need biased, agenda-driven organizations to inform them of things that they can plainly see.

I took my own sample from among some mental health practitioners (whom I will not name for reasons that should be obvious) that I’m sure the reader will find illuminating. The one and only question I posed wasn’t leading in that it did not indict anyone for anything. Simply put, I asked these professionals if they had any insight into why there had been such an increased incidence of depression, anxiety disorders and suicide amongst young people and children in recent years.

I was somewhat surprised to hear them respond quickly, stating that the answer was quite simple. To a man/woman, they said that young people have increasingly been raised on messages of hopelessness and presented with scenarios in which their future survival was in very real jeopardy.

Hearkening back to the linked article at the beginning of this column, this makes a great deal of sense. Despite the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed during the Cold War, the tension and occasional militant outbursts of the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and other contentious social issues of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a prevailing undercurrent of hope that we as a nation would overcome these things. This held true even for the press, entertainment media and many activists of that period.

This is no longer the case. As indicated at the outset of this column, today, young people—particularly school children—are being barraged with messages carrying even darker overtones than those to which kids were exposed vis-a-vis nuclear war in the 1960s. Today, children are being told that climate change will make the planet uninhabitable within a very short span of years. If you’re a black or brown child, you’re told that if rich white people don’t manage to somehow consign you to a life of poverty or incarceration, the police are quite likely to kill you. Kids who’ve succumbed to messages of sexual ambivalence and gender confusion are warned of a heterosexual majority which seeks to oppress them in a variety of ways. Then there’s the fact that around 50% more of these kids are coming from broken homes than 50 years ago.

Finally, there are the dim prospects attendant to getting a good education, which used to be touted as a young person’s ticket to success. Children today are regularly treated to examples of young adults protesting in the streets over having been saddled with obscene amounts of student loan debt and an increasingly capricious job market.

The press and the media are fully on board with all of this doomsaying, and one can only imagine that liberal parents of young children are reinforcing these messages.

So I ask you: Who wouldn’t become anxious or depressed behind all that?

My children are now adults, but I do recall having to do occasional damage control around some alarmist or activist message imparted by liberal schoolteachers. Obviously things have become far worse in the ensuing years.

I’ve never been a liberal. I could see when I was 18 that the leftist sensibilities which were being widely adopted would have a deleterious effect on America as a nation. Still, it is decidedly chilling to see the things I feared actually coming about, and to see the depths of moral and intellectual depravity in which those on the left are willing to engage.

Thus, I have determined that liberalism, progressivism, socialism—call them what you will—are not concepts which ought to be tolerated in the tradition of our inclusivity as a nation or over misinterpretations of the First Amendment. They are cancer; they are seditious poison which must be neutralized by any means necessary, lest we fall as a nation, and ultimately as individuals with a well-developed sense of what “humanity” really means.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Normalizing Sexual Deviance: Kids Must be Protected

Normalizing Sexual Deviance: Kids Must be Protected

By Erik Rush •

According to a recent report issued by the State Department, the United States has been ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for human trafficking. In an interview with Fox News, the United States Institute Against Human Trafficking (USIAHT) co-founder Geoff Rogers said that “a multitude of kids” are being sold as sex slaves today in America, and that these children are American-born, with 50% to 60% of them coming from the foster care industry.

“The United States is the number one consumer of sex worldwide,” Rogers said. “So we are driving the demand as a society.”
In a recent opinion piece for Fox News, writer Carol Roth chided the magazine Teen Vogue for surreptitiously endorsing prostitution as a career choice for young women. Earlier this month, the Christian Post featured an article about a mother in Washington state who was physically removed by police from a public library that was hosting a “Teen Pride” event. The woman reported that she witnessed what amounted to hours of child “grooming,” with free exhibitor items that included condoms, sex lubricant and bookmarks shaped like penises that carried lewd messages.

In recent months, we’ve been treated to a proliferation of news stories addressing the phenomenon of so-called transgender children and “drag kids,” as well as an increase in the incidence of individuals being prosecuted for crimes related to pedophilia and for the possession of child pornography.

Some may recall the recent heartbreaking news story about a Noa Pothoven, the 17-year-old girl in the Netherlands who opted for suicide earlier this month after years of mental anguish following repeated rapes as a child. At around the same time, a very telling article surfaced which featured a former Children of God cult member who didn’t believe that the late actor River Phoenix’s childhood with the sex cult was to blame for his death.

Phoenix died of a drug overdose at the age of 23, and he readily admitted that he was around four years old when he first had sex while in the cult. Might his use of the extremely dangerous drug cocktail that killed him have had something to do with emotional scarring?
The former cult member said in the article that “[I]t would be a causal fallacy with not enough information to infer that a few formative years were damaging enough to cause a drug overdose as a young adult.”

I beg to differ.

Over the last few years, I’ve had the opportunity to do extensive research on an unrelated project pertaining to unresolved trauma, particularly in children. After consulting with quite a few mental health professionals and researchers, I was horrified to learn that seriously traumatizing a child is a remarkably easy thing to do. For a young child, something as seemingly innocuous as a cross word from a teacher having a bad day or a health care provider with a poor bedside manner can result in years of neurosis. More systematized trauma—such as that associated with having a drug addicted or alcoholic parent—can lead to crippling mental and emotional conditions that often lead to profoundly tragic outcomes.

Leaving aside religious arguments and standards of morality, the central problem here concerning our collective moral deportment is that we as a nation have bought into the fallacious premise that morality in general and sexual morality are not only matters of choice, but that this choice is a personal liberty with which no one has the right to interfere.

Here, I would use the emerging controversy over vaccinations as an object lesson. While I fully comprehend the misgivings harbored by those who have become suspicious as regards vaccination programs, the fact is that compulsory vaccination programs came about as a result of public health concerns. In the effort to maintain a population free of life-threatening communicable diseases, one cannot have a segment of that population refusing to take available precautions to prevent such diseases.

Similarly, we as a nation can no longer afford to abide significant numbers of individuals engaging in behaviors that pose a public health threat.

In my column of May 29 in this space, I outlined the methods that the political left employed to break down sexual mores and to sexualize children during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. These are still very much in play, and the game has escalated.

The permissiveness and moral ambiguity that has taken hold in America since the Sexual Revolution now amounts to a major public health concern, even if it is not recognized as such. This is not only because sexual libertinism can give rise to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies (although this is certainly true), but because it strikes at the heart of families. In so doing, it has manifested mental and emotional dysfunction on a dizzying scale.

A recent study claimed that diagnoses of major depression have risen by 33 percent since 2013 alone. This rate is rising even more rapidly among millennials and younger people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the suicide rate for white children and teens between 10 and 17 was up 70% between 2006 and 2016. While nonwhite children and teens tend to kill themselves less often than white youth, the rate of increase was even higher, at 77%. Finally, the epidemic of illicit drug use we have seen over the last 50 years can reasonably be factored into this picture as an effect of the overall societal malaise.

Numbers like these reflect a decline in social cohesiveness in this country, and this can be most closely observed in families, which have been the primary and intended target of the political left since the middle of the last century. There can be little doubt that a divorce rate which skyrocketed to 50% in the decades following 1970 contributed to the dysfunction in children who were raised in broken homes.

I don’t expect too much buy-in to these concepts just yet, because if science’s understanding of the human brain and mind is in its infancy, its understanding of unresolved trauma and its effects is in its embryonic stage. As such, and because aspects of this phenomenon are part of a politically-driven program of social engineering, the average citizen is simply not aware of the ramifications.

We can only surmise that, as with other deviant practices the political left has sought to legitimize and protect, the ostensible choice of children to engage in sex with adults is going to be framed as a right that should not be interfered with, and that ironically, opposing same will make child-hating bigots out of those in opposition.

In my view, it is time to rally to the defense of our children, the toxic invective of leftists be damned. As I write this, there are already public policy organizations claiming that adult/child sex is not harmful to children, and pushing for the “normalization” of pedophilia.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
A ‘Perfect Storm’ for Socialism’s Demise?

A ‘Perfect Storm’ for Socialism’s Demise?

By Erik Rush •

Were the stakes not so high, it would be tempting to laugh at the pathos of the Democratic Party as it prepares to take on President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign leviathan. Since some of us still retain the vestiges of superstition, I’ll dispense with smug musings, and because to do so would be far more in keeping with the deportment of the opposition.

There are a whole lot of things which speak to the desperation of Democrats and leftists at large, and these have been in evidence since Trump was elected. While it’s not something liberty-loving Americans can take to the bank just yet, at times one wonders just how much the shrill tones and hyperbole of the left will hurt Democrats in the next election. The public’s en masse desertion of traditional venues speaks to the public’s increasing distrust of these organizations, which can only be a disadvantage to Democrat candidates running in 2020.

There has also been the well-publicized internal struggle within Democratic Party factions. While the idea of impeaching the President may appeal to rabid leftists within the party, polling has shown that this is thoroughly unpopular. Thus, those in the Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez (D-NY) axis of the party and the draconian socialism proposed by newbies like Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) are a definite liability. Old guard power players like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are walking a very fine line between alienating lifelong Democrats who do not support socialism, and alienating leftists, who now represent a significant voting bloc within the party.

The theme of this election cycle is quickly shaping up to be one of capitalism versus socialism and, as radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said this past Monday, that’s probably a good thing.

Despite the major TV news networks still enjoying a well-established communications infrastructure (even if they’re not enjoying viewers), skewed polling that shows the corrupt and creepy Joe Biden pasting Trump in the election and the tireless bleating of every Democrat politico in the country, many are developing a gut instinct that the 2020 election results are going to reflect a Trump landslide so humiliating to the left that it will spell their inevitable decline as a going political concern.

It appears that even more likely voters are paying attention and informing themselves than in 2016, and that Democrats retaking the House of Representatives in 2018 may simply have reflected Democrats getting serious about the Trump threat and exploiting the dullards and miscreants who inhabit districts such as those taken by Ocascio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Among the ridiculously packed field of Democrat presidential hopefuls, we are seeing an abysmal turnout at their rallies and fundraising events, whereas the president is enjoying an almost Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1965 buzz at his own events. At President Trump’s campaign launch in Orlando this week, his supporters began showing up at the venue nearly two days early; on the morning of the event, there had been more people waiting for a longer period of time than for all of the Democratic hopefuls thus far.

As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out, there has probably never been a more opportune time for showcasing the dismal failure of socialism, particularly in the Western world. Right now, we have the quintessential capitalist serving as our president who, in a very short time, has positively energized our economy. Among likely voters and Trump supporters, the number who self-identify as former Democrats has to be producing tension on the Democrat side, particularly because many of these are millennials. One can only surmise that alternative media venues are picking up the viewers, readers and listeners that outfits like CNN can’t manage to keep.

The elephant in the room (no pun intended… really) is one which probably distresses Democrats far more than Trump’s camp, this being that although few are willing to articulate that a large measure of Trump’s support is due to the socialist policies of Barack Obama, this also stymies the efforts of any Democratic candidate who would point to Obama’s governance as a good reason to support them.

The case against socialism is also evident on the international stage. The influx of inassimilable migrants orchestrated by European politicians has rendered many urban areas dangerous for locals; these people having been sold out by their leaders is apparent to any American who isn’t still drinking the establishment press Kool-Aid. Despite a characteristic lack of coverage by the press, Venezuela’s economic implosion—which has impacted the entire region—makes this nation the poster child for socialism’s lack of viability.

While all of these developments are encouraging and indeed may be the harbinger of another Trump victory, we must remain mindful of the left’s success to date, their tenaciousness and the fact that this socialist ascendency has been in the works for 100 years. The class of people who recently voted for Ocascio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib will most assuredly be voting in the next election, as will any illegal immigrants who manage to evade the current administration’s ICE net. We can also expect to see strong representation among dead voters and those who plan to vote early and often.

Finally, we cannot forget the short memory that the electorate tends to have, nor the superficial appraisals they often give political candidates. By this I mean that we will for some time remain vulnerable to the machinations of the left, particularly in the area of identity politics. Should Trump leave office in 2025 with a booming economy, high approval numbers and a happy electorate, we will still be in danger of being hoodwinked by the next cleverly-marketed ethnic candidate or “favored” minority who runs as a centrist, but whose allegiance is to socialism.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Why Opposing the LGBTQ Agenda is Not Bigotry

Why Opposing the LGBTQ Agenda is Not Bigotry

By Erik Rush •

Back in April of this year, Michael W. Chapman penned a column for CNS about Ana Samuel, Ph.D., the research scholar and pro-traditional marriage activist who warned 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg that his homosexual ideology is “dangerous to the nation.” Samuel maintains that while civility is paramount in the debate over this issue, she also asserts that her following (representing millions of mothers with traditional family values) will resist “policies that assault our values, harm our families, and hurt our children.”
Ms. Samuel is a notable figure, not only because she is dynamic and well-educated, but because she is Latina, and therefore is bucking the system to which a majority of Americans of Latin descent hold allegiance. Samuel happens to be the daughter of Mexican immigrants and her husband is an Argentine immigrant. The couple have six children.

It is a sad commentary that with the “normalization” of homosexuality in the public square, even many conservative Americans have either accepted the notion that the attendant ideology (as Samuel put it) is not harmful to society at large, or they just don’t press the point anymore.

There is a distinct difference between being tolerant of people in the LGBTQ camp and summary acceptance of every notion advanced by leftist mouthpieces ostensibly advocating for them. By the same token, there is a distinct difference between people who self-identify as LGBTQ and those who claim to represent them, i.e., politicos and activists, since these have widely divergent objectives.

As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the political left successfully inculcated moral ambivalence into millions of young people through the propaganda and so-called sexual sensibilities that came out of the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s. They simply denied the fact that sexual libertinism was harmful to society at large, and stigmatized anyone who disagreed.

Similarly, leftists have chipped away at the sensibilities of the public as regards homosexuals. Tolerance for people in the LGBTQ camp has become synonymous with the summary acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda, lock, stock and barrel—and some of it is decidedly frightening as well as disgusting.

Pre-teen “drag kids” are now being showcased in media and at LGBTQ events, and we are admonished to embrace them or be branded as bigots. We are also supposed to accept the idea that these children came up with the idea all on their own, as opposed to having been groomed by activists, media and twisted individuals around them. Finally, it is demanded that we capitulate to the preposterous idea that this lifestyle does no harm to these children.

But the left has always been duplicitous, stealthy and craven. We were told in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision that abortion would only occur in the most extreme of circumstances. Now, aborted baby parts have become a cottage industry, and leftists in some states have widened the criteria to qualify babies that are literally in the birth canal as abortable. We were told in the 1960s that sexual libertinism wasn’t harmful; it was just a lifestyle choice that we all ought to accept. Fifty years later, as I said in my earlier column, the results speak for themselves.

We were also told when “gay rights” became “a thing” in the 1970s that it was unfair, even bigoted, to suggest that homosexual men have a penchant for pederasty. Yet, now we can find preteen “drag boys” at Pride parades; when they are showcased, these are invariably surrounded by homosexual men—usually pretty skeevy-looking ones at that.

The bottom line is this: The leftist power structure, which claims to advocate for minorities of every stripe, has no such interest. Their chief objectives are to sow division amongst various groups while grooming the population at large for every manner of maladjustment they can conceive, whether drug addiction, sexual dysfunction, or the idolatry of Earth worship, to name but a few.

The danger of a guy like Pete Buttigieg (and the difference between him and his “husband” versus a homosexual couple living quietly in their community) is that Buttigieg is a socialist activist promoting the LGBTQ agenda. As such, he already knows that his ideology is dangerous—at least in the eyes of those who hold traditional values.

Do not doubt that the LGBTQ agenda has as much to do with the civil rights of LGBTQ people as the agenda of reparations for blacks has to do with the long-term well-being of black Americans—this being none at all.

Like Dr. Ana Samuel, we need to start making the distinction between people in minority groups and the socialist power structure which exploits them—and fast. Following this, we need to act accordingly. If you oppose the preteen drag queen festival being proposed at your child’s public school, you know that this is not the same thing as being in favor of shipping homosexuals off to concentration camps.

So, help to organize the protest against that dragfest, or attend it in accordance with your conscience—but be prepared to defend yourself. When words fail, leftists are very quick to resort to violence.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns