Columns

Columns

Barack Obama IS ISIS

obama_isis1Over the weekend, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) declared the establishment of a new Islamic nation, or caliphate, encompassing conquered portions of eastern Syria and northern Iraq. Demanding allegiance from Muslims worldwide, a spokesman for ISIS announced that the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was the new caliph. There’s little chance that this took place on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan by accident.

I’m not holding my breath for an apology from those who charged that articulating concerns over the advent of an caliphate was a right-wing conspiracy theory advanced to foment Islamophobia, by the way.

Other Islamic nations in the region are concerned, and they ought to be. ISIS supporters are distributing propaganda on social media indicating its next targets are Jordan and Saudi Arabia; the destruction of Israel is on the agenda as well, of course. Several graphic representations of the group’s intended areas of conquest are circulating online, one showing a region that stretches from western Africa to Indonesia, including Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India.

While the outrage of Americans is growing over a major border crisis orchestrated by the Obama administration, a plethora of serious scandals and the unfathomable level of deceit and impudent overreach of this president, the rest of the world has to be considering the import of events in the Middle East. The snappy, new, black uniforms, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and belt-fed weapons visible in countless photos of ISIS members only underscore what I already know – and what world leaders must also know.

On Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah criticized ISIS and its Iraq campaign, calling them “a handful of terrorists” who have been “lured in by false calls.” According to The Times of Israel, the ultra-conservative Sunni Gulf kingdom is fortifying the 505 mile border it shares with Iraq. Earlier, we learned of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s willingness to work with outside enterprises – even the U.S. – to stem the tide of ISIS.

How, I wonder, is Russian President Vladimir Putin – who supports Bashar al-Assad in Syria and against whom Obama has backed neo-Nazi factions in Ukraine – interpreting events in Syria and Iraq? Or the Chinese, who have exponentially increased their economic stake on the African continent in recent years? I can’t imagine leaders in the European Union taking anything but a dim view of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Sunni Muslim fanatics who behead other Sunni Muslims for not being “militant enough.”

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

How to ‘fundamentally transform’ Barack Obama

During a discussion of current events with a very knowledgeable colleague, we turned to the subject of just how many in Congress are realizing that they were deceived by Barack Obama and that we are in deep trouble with this president, as opposed to those who advocate his policies, are so narcissistic that they’ve no real concern for the direction in which he is taking this nation, or are mind-blowingly stupid.

obama-changeAs unlikely as it may seem, we have learned over the years (the last few in particular) that there are indeed some lawmakers who are mind-blowingly stupid. There are also those who have been in Congress for so long that diapers may be in order, if they are not utilizing them already. Some I believe are simply intellectually indolent and don’t keep themselves informed. It’s just a job to them – a job they can become quite wealthy doing but don’t feel compelled to do particularly well.

There are, of course, lawmakers in the Democratic Party who are lifelong progressives, or Marxists, if you prefer. If you’re interested, there’s an extensive dossier on each and every one of them in Trevor Loudon’s book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.” Despite having become a powerful force within the party, they by no means represent the majority of our elected officials.

No, we’re talking about Republican officeholders who are now starting to use words like “orchestrated” and “criminal” to describe the administration’s actions. We’re also talking about Democrats who, while they may not be employing these terms as yet, they’re certainly thinking them. Believe it or not, there are liberals in Congress who are not progressives, who did not wish to see America’s economy in this downward spiral, our national security compromised, our stature on the international stage devastated and emerging tyranny.

It has become apparent to those on the House Ways and Means Committee, for example (whose members heard testimony this week on the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative nonprofits), that this administration is essentially a criminal enterprise, probably qualifying for prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This will never happen, since our oleaginous attorney general, Eric Holder, is the valued and powerful consigliere of the crime family – but there’s more than one way to skin a cat, or a pack of communists, as the case may be.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Is Obama’s treason finally being recognized?

Erik Rush sees president facilitating new rise of caliphate

By now, we are quite familiar with the exploits of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the fact that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was released from detention by the Obama administration in 2009. These savages have cut a swath from northern Syria through northern Iraq, engaging in the most grotesque mass murder along the way, and by all accounts – including photographs and video footage of their own making – reveling in doing so.

bloody_hands1While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.

As I have said before, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.

Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.

As reported in WND this week, ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan; this has been confirmed not only by officials in Jordan, but in both the German and British press.

Are Americans now expected to believe that ISIS is among the “moderate” Muslim factions the administration has maintained it is imperative to support, for which Obama went to the lengths of first clandestinely arming and supplying, and then unilaterally amending U.S. law so that he might do so overtly?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Hillary’s real ‘Hard Choices’ could be her undoing

Hillary Clinton Reads From Her New Memoir In New York CityOne wonders if Hillary Clinton and her minions are aware that their job in presenting her as a viable presidential candidate will be far more difficult than it was for Barack Obama’s handlers. Even though he had the disadvantage of being profoundly inexperienced, at least he was an unknown commodity. Hillary Clinton is not.

Over the last week, the former first lady and secretary of state has been hawking her latest book, “Hard Choices,” which the New York Times called “a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.”

Well, consider the source. I suppose the surgeon who’s performed 10,000 surgeries and lost every patient could be said to have “wide-ranging experience.”

Clinton’s book is very obviously meant to “soften up the ground” for her presidential run. Per her discussions with the press, it is evident that her intent is damage control pertaining to her role in the Benghazi scandal and to distance herself from the more damaging Obama policies that necessarily remain foremost in the minds of Americans.

Hillary’s detractors rightly point out her inexperience, but one thing at which she is well-practiced is political fluency. Some of her statements have been positively laughable, such as the claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, and that Benghazi was a good reason for her to run for president, as opposed to not. The answers do come quickly, however; there is none of the hemming and hawing we get from Obama on the rare occasions he’s been caught off-teleprompter.

Still, selling Hillary to an electorate that, if somewhat superficial in many aspects, is at least aware that she’s fairly close to Obama in policy and ideology won’t be easy. I mean, if you’re a liberal or independent who’s fed up with Obama, why would you want to elect someone formerly in his Cabinet?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama’s Bergdahl Ruse: All in a Day’s Work

bergdahl2As the reader has no doubt noticed, the story of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release from captivity by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan is currently front-and-center in the news. Bergdahl had been held captive since June 2009 and was released on May 31. In exchange for Bergdahl’s release, the Obama administration freed five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay.

The release of Bergdahl and the Gitmo detainees immediately became steeped in controversy. Some soldiers who had served with Bergdahl claim that he deserted (or was at least AWOL) prior to his capture in 2009, and this appears to be supported by the Army. The Obama administration and the State Department on the other hand, assert that Bergdahl was captured, making him technically a prisoner of war. Some members of Congress allege that the White House broke the law by not giving them a required 30 days notice of the impending release of the Gitmo detainees.

At present, my morbid curiosity is pondering the question of how many among the conservative press and politicos are more or less clueless with regard to the underlying implications of this affair and its function as a distraction from more grave matters, how many are being professionally irresponsible, and how many are simply posturing.

It isn’t as though the questions, concerns and criticisms being leveled aren’t valid ones. The issue of the imprudence of negotiating with terrorists and the precedent this sets, releasing extremely dangerous Taliban assets in exchange for someone who may be a deserter and Islamist sympathizer, and the questionable legality of the administration’s actions cannot be ignored. The administration’s having arranged for Bergdahl’s release while Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi languishes in a Mexican prison is also a profound slap in the face to America and the military, which ought to be discussed, if for no other reason than to neutralize White House propaganda.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Wright book: Apologetics for a dark apostle?

revwright1Susan Williams Smith, one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s acolytes, has penned a book about the controversial clergyman whose congregant of 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, currently resides in the White House. It’s generally accepted that this was no thanks to Wright himself, nor Yours Truly, who broke the story of their association on Fox News in 2007.

Full disclosure: I haven’t read the book, nor do I intend to. However, according the New Pittsburgh Courier Online (which presumably employs someone who has read it), “The Book of Jeremiah: The Life and Ministry of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.” is not a biography of Wright, a history of his former church (Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago), nor is it about the relationship between Obama and Wright.

“It is, however, an attempt to show what Wright’s ministry was, by showing what he preached and why, connecting his words to the historical and cultural context out of which he and those to whom he preached came. She compares and relates his prophetic voice with the prophetic voices of biblical and modern-day prophets, in the hope of revealing the true Wright, the man she knows, to whom there is much more than a couple of 30-second sound bites.” – New Pittsburgh Courier Online

That all sounds very nice, but what is the book really about? Well, given that is was written by Smith, who was first an ardent admirer of Wright, then an intern at Trinity, finally becoming an ordained minister in the same “theological school” in which Wright preached, it is likely that in this tribute, Smith is acting as an apologist for Black Liberation Theology. This is the apostate creed founded in the 1960s by Dr. James Cone and has since been advanced by many radical and even militant black preachers.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

It’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’ if there’s a real conspiracy

Star-Chamber

“The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. …”

– Father Merrin, “The Exorcist”

On May 15, the foundering fish-wrap Newsweek magazine ran a story by Kurt Eichenwald entitled “The Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy Theories are a Clear and Present Danger, ” which apparently sought to single-handedly debunk every so-called conspiracy theory ever devised while attempting to reinforce the existence of a vast right-wing conspiracy intended to undo all of the good that’s ever been done in the world.

Leading off with the revolt against an “award-winning plan to provide guidance for private-sector developers” designated a “communist plot” by the woefully unenlightened residents of Baldwin County, Alabama, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s condemnation of “death panels” under Obamacare, Eichenwald bemoans the supposed proliferation of conspiracy theories, the abject stupidity of their adherents, and furtively touts the kind, wise and benevolent agenda of global elites.

What Eichenwald misses (or simply denies) is the fact that a conspiracy theory isn’t a conspiracy theory if there’s a real conspiracy at work.

The “award-winning plan” to which he refers was indeed a United Nations Agenda 21 design. Like Smart Meters mandated in municipalities and then installed in private homes while local law enforcement stands menacingly by, there are literally hundreds of Agenda 21 “suggestions” in regulatory queues across America, sponsored politically and financially by radical local politicians and ideological millionaires. In my community, we certainly know who they are.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Boko Hokum: Distraction on a global scale

bokoharam1Let it not be said that I don’t feel for the plight of the nearly 300 Nigerian high-school girls kidnapped by the Islamist group Boko Haram; indeed, anyone with a conscience ought to empathize with them and their duly distraught families. That said, the abduction of these girls and, sadly, their fates (should rescue efforts fail) pale in comparison to the atrocities committed across the world daily against women by Muslim men “in the name of Allah.”

At least two components of this tragic comedy are worthy of examination. One is the blatant and shameless distraction coming directly out of the White House and Hillary Clinton camp. Michelle Obama hit social media with her Twitter hashtag campaign; Clinton followed suit shortly thereafter.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the investigation into the Benghazi attack could topple the Obama administration, and then some. Clinton’s presidential ambitions could be irreparably damaged, depending on the outcome. So, both have ample motivation for diverting public attention from Benghazi. They, the press and powerful Democrats are attempting to set the stage for this investigation to be downplayed as much as possible; this is to say nothing of more subtle manipulation of the process in which the administration will no doubt engage.

Even assuming that Rep. Trey Gowdy and the other committee members are dogged in their efforts, the administration could sabotage and obfuscate the process into oblivion. Will the investigation be able to penetrate the cover-up and reveal the administration’s diabolical Middle East policy? Will the administration’s “Benghazi version” of Lois Lerner be offered up for castigation that will be every bit as unimpressive and ineffectual as that meted out to Attorney General Eric “You don’t wanna go there, buddy” Holder for his contempt of Congress?

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Will Benghazi committee consider the T-word?

IRS officials face the House Oversight Committee in Washington,       DC.The primal revulsion felt when one pulls back a wall or floorboard to discover an unimaginable accumulation of vermin bristling beneath is difficult to describe. Whether it’s a seething mass of scattering cockroaches, mice, or rats, even those who aren’t squeamish concerning such creatures may find themselves fighting a combination of nausea and the fight-or-flight reaction.

I sincerely hope that Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and his colleagues on the newly minted congressional select committee tasked with investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, have the belly for what they will most certainly uncover if they are duly committed to finding the truth. This is because there is so much more to this debacle than most engaged conservatives know, let alone the average American news consumer.

We’ll presume for a moment that the craven protestations of Democrat politicos (like former Obama White House senior adviser David Plouffe), the limited (or at least biased) coverage this exercise is likely to garner from much of the establishment press and the impediments presented by the White House do not deter the committee in any significant sense, and that it is the committee’s will which determine the outcome.

Benghazi isn’t simply about the cover-up of a terrorist attack in order to save an election; it’s not even about gun-running, although the latter did play a large role. It’s about a nefarious foreign policy that would qualify as criminal in nature under both U.S. and international law – provided that this committee is not fainthearted in its duty.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns