Columns

Columns

What Donald Sterling and Obama have in common

DonaldSterling1I was somewhat torn between addressing a titillating though marginally relevant issue that’s at the forefront of the news, versus one that should be the top story in every American newsroom (if not worldwide) but which is receiving comparatively minimal attention.

On the one hand, we have controversial race-related remarks made by L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling, its comparison to controversial race-related remarks made by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has been involved in a tense standoff with federal authorities over cattle grazing rights, and the social relevance of these two affairs.

On the other, there are recently-publicized revelations made by the Citizens Committee on Benghazi that the Obama administration intentionally allowed arms to flow to al-Qaida-linked militants who opposed Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, and emails published by the group Judicial Watch detailing the administration’s efforts to deceive the American people in the wake of the Sept. 11 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound by advancing the narrative that the siege resulting in the deaths of four Americans was the result of an anti-Islamic Internet video.

With regard to Benghazi and the treason of the president and his minions, we now have a well-established watchdog organization and a group of seasoned, respected military and government former officials confirming that which many have suspected for some time. Yet, while this information has received attention from some in the conservative press, it has been wholly ignored by the establishment press and paid token lip-service by ineffectual Republican lawmakers who ought to be putting it front-and-center in the public debate.

In my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession, I detailed that during my formative years, those in my multicultural peer group used every racial epithet imaginable – and some we even made up – on a regular basis. The qualifier for “racist speech,” speech meant to injure, was always the intention behind it. Today, the mere utterance of a racial epithet or dated term, even in context or quoting another person, can relegate one to “racist” status in the eye of the public.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Glenn Beck is wrong on Bundy Ranch issue

bundy-ranch-us-flagLast week, talk-show host and budding media mogul Glenn Beck excoriated those among the supporters of government-beleaguered rancher Cliven Bundy who were “crying for revolution, insurrection and a call to arms, ” admonishing anyone of that mindset to stop listening to him and following him on social media. He also articulated that those among his fans who took exception to his criticism of some Bundy supporters were not real fans.

Beck has done a lot of great work, and I support and admire his call to follow God and the ethos of men like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, but I do have a problem with his delivery and the practical application of his message to real-life, real-time situations such as that which Cliven Bundy and his family faced.

In truth, I believe that Beck probably alienated more people than he may have intended. Now, it’s clear that there were some dedicated knuckleheads among those who assembled at the Bundy Ranch, some of those who proposed using women and children as human shields, for example. However, the broadcaster’s blanket criticism of the demonstrators’ deportment and their relative disorganization came off as somewhat impulsive, and even conceited.

Beck maintained that he didn’t think grazing rights were a sufficient cause to challenge the federal government in such an overt manner and pointed out that the catalyst for the affair was the rancher failing to pay duly owed grazing fees.

Here I must take exception. As someone who regularly details the federal government’s overreach and incremental inculcation of big-government progressivism into its policies over the last hundred years, Beck has to know that the plethora of laws and regulations implemented in this area relate directly to the kind of control against which he speaks on a daily basis.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Failing to Make The Connection

Guest column by Dr. Jim Garrow

corruption1On an almost daily basis we are hit with the huge numbers that government deals in. Billions and trillions of dollars are such large amounts that they become a haze and a fog that allows something quite unfortunate to take place. We forget that each dollar came out of the pocket of one of us. Yes, each dollar was taken from my earnings or your earnings. It could have bought me a coffee or in some centers paid a bus fare or at least been used for something that I chose. It is an individual’s property, taken and then used supposedly for the public good.

Here is where we make the error that allows the public squandering of money to take place and the public itself to be lulled into a stupor of non recognition. We lose sight of what these large dollars represent. And the only way to get it back into a perspective that represents reality is to bring it back down to a personal level.

We need to look at our collective loss as a personal thing. Let me illustrate this.

A billion dollars is 1000 million dollars. We all recognize that 1 of those millions is a lot of money. But how much money is 1 of those millions if it is taken out of the pockets of the 20 families on my block and only my side of the street? What if we thought  of all 100 people living in those houses and boiled it down to what each person lost. That amounts to $10,000 per resident. That’s a lot of good that could have been done. Mrs. Keogh could have had that hip replaced, and Mr. Bond could have had the new glasses and his nephew visiting more than once every couple of years. Mrs. Kowalski could eat three meals every day instead of only two on her meager pension after Walt’s passing. There is so much variety of need that could be solved based on the application of our money out of our pockets to our neighbors and ourselves.

I am making this suggestion after having just been advising folks doing forensic audits of the books of First Nations tribes that have been plundered by their leadership, and the theft of a lot of money. We boiled it down to individuals who lost things, personal needs that should have been met but weren’t because the funds weren’t there. Its really called “victim impact assessments.”

On the whole we are all victims, and in the aggregate we all suffer loss of one sort or the other. Things that we should have received, we don’t, because the funds were stolen or diverted from where it could have and should have gone, into the pockets of some crony or some company or some politician. The loss needs to become personal before we realize the enormity of the problem that we are facing.

Stop the theft in government, look at our personal losses, blame the ones responsible and seek remedies that work. Personal remedies that return to individuals the dignity that was stolen from them by government politicians and bureaucrats. When we see that dollar as our own, we can get mad because if left to us, we would have used it wisely, saved it, invested it or made good use of it. We don’t throw our personal money away, we are wiser than that. Remember that “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

Is our government a fool? I know I didn’t need to ask the obvious question because the answer has already been given, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Thank you Forrest.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

The Bundy Ranch: From My Perspective

by Dr. Jim Garrow

I want to thank Mr. Obama once again for firing me in October. By setting me free he has enabled me to speak the truth about what I know and the many circumstances that my work for the United States provided me with. That of course is limited by my oath and the very carefully crafted set of guidelines that my lawyers provided me with to keep on the right side of the oath and the other details of my working agreement. I had no idea how well written that agreement was when I signed it back in 1969.

The current and continuing situation with the Harry Reid fiefdom of Nevada had me involved from 2006 when I was approached by the President of Canadian Solar to work with them to find suitable land and circumstances in America for which two purposes could be met.

  1. Building a manufacturing facility to produce solar panels, and
  2. Building solar farms.

Now, why was I asked by the President of Canadian Solar and his Vice President of Marketing to help? Because I had a reputation in Guelph Ontario Canada (headquarters of Canadian Solar) for my connections to the Chinese leadership and as a man who could put things together and get things done. Because of connections I had we arranged a meeting with the Lt Gov of Michigan to discuss what government assistance and cooperation might be available for the 2 above listed purposes. The same thing was done with Nevada with different players.

But as you now know, all roads lead to Harry Reid. In the meantime the ownership of Canadian Solar changed and the Chinese moved in as 100% owners with intentions of moving forward quickly with the Nevada connections and dropping the Michigan endeavor. Canadian Solar and the currently identified American solar company working with Harry Reid are all owned in the background by the Peoples Republic of China in total irrespective of what names you might see appearing on the ownership of certain LLC combinations. That is how it is done for China.

So China wanted land and Harry Reid saw to it. Bundy was merely collateral damage until America awakened from its slumber and said “wait a minute.”

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Harry Reid, Dems selling out the Southwest

Harry Reid, Dems selling out the Southwest

harryreid1Tuesday of last week, astute observers of politics were treated to an object lesson in the elitism and unbridled audacity of those ostensibly governing us in the form of Attorney General Eric Holder’s heated exchange with Rep. Louis Gohmert during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. The next day, Holder, apparently still smarting from the exchange, whined to an audience at the opening day of Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) Conference in New York City about the shabby treatment he and our poor excuse for a president have received from Republicans in Congress.

Holder’s intimation at the NAN conference was that this is due to Republicans’ racism, but later denied that this is what he’d been trying to say. Of course the damage had been done; the press, Democratic politicos and career civil-rights hustlers came out in force to blast Republicans for their racist tendencies.

This week, we are witnessing more of the same elitism and unbridled audacity, though in a different vein, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In the aftermath of federal agents withdrawing from the Nevada property of rancher Cliven Bundy, Reid commented to students at the University of Nevada that “… it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

Rancher Bundy has been involved in a decades-long dispute with the federal government over his cattle’s grazing rights. His family has been grazing their cattle on public lands since the late 1800s, but Bundy claims that increasingly onerous regulations and fee structures imposed by the federal government have forced some 57 ranchers in the county out of business in recent years.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

What happens when you give radicals an inch

ericholder1Every day, Americans receive object lessons in the mind-blowing audacity of the criminals who make up the Obama administration. Indeed, radicals and progressives of prominence simply exude audacity and impudence overall, advancing their immoral and illegal agenda as though the rule of law and the Constitution simply did not exist.

Occasionally, we’re treated to “one for the books,” as it were.

During a House Judiciary Committee Hearing this week, Attorney General Eric Holder became irate when Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, suggested that being in contempt of Congress was “not a big deal” to the attorney general. Gohmert was reacting to a perceived lack of forthrightness in Holder’s testimony, referring, or course, to Holder being held in contempt of Congress in June 2012 over the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal.

“You don’t want to go there, buddy,” Holder responded. “You don’t want to go there, OK?”

I don’t want to go there?” Gohmert replied.

Holder went on to qualify his position, claiming that Gohmert’s assumption was erroneous, but what rankles is the attorney general’s belligerence in reaction to the representative’s statement, which reflects said audacity and impudence.

You don’t want to go there? My response, had I been Gohmert, would have been unprintable here and would have made history with regard to a congressional hearing. Where, I wonder, does this corrupt, criminal radical in a suit get the gall to address a representative of the people is such a manner?

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Ukraine crisis: How Obama chose chaos over courage

maxresdefaultIf the reader will recall, President Obama came under fire in March 2012 when, during a meeting in Seoul, South Korea, he told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to inform his successor (Vladimir Putin) that he would have “more flexibility” after the November election to address the contentious issue of European missile defense to Russia’s liking. The statement was picked up by a microphone neither leader knew was on at the time. Those who took exception to Obama’s comments were concerned with the president both telegraphing political weakness to the Russian government as well as his duplicity in deferring the issue until such time as he no longer had to answer to American voters.

With regard to the tenuous standoff currently taking place – the European Union, Ukraine and the U.S. versus Russia – forget for the moment Russian president Vladimir Putin’s alleged desires to restore the Soviet Union to its former dubious glory, or to become “Supreme czar of all the Russias.” Forget Russia’s arguably valid concerns over an ultra-nationalist, Nazi-influenced ascendant regime in Ukraine and the arguably strategically sound measures Putin has taken in light of the uprisings there. Finally, let us set aside the plausible argument that Putin, Obama and EU leaders are, as some have suggested, acting out scenes in a play whose final act will solidify the power of global elites for all time.

For the moment, let us examine President Obama’s hand in the Ukraine crisis and the failures both strategic and diplomatic that, in my view, ought to relegate all of the subsequent bluster to fodder for stand-up comedy.

Apart from military entanglements, the chief ostensible concern among U.S. and EU leaders is the result of Europe having allowed itself to become reliant on natural gas they receive from Russia by way of Crimea, the long-disputed territory and strategic seaport recently annexed by Russia. With Russia in direct control of the flow of natural gas, obviously any political tension between Europe and the Russian Federation could dramatically affect both the comfort and the economy of Europeans.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

The conservative press: Too easy on Obama

obama_sshIt’s a foregone conclusion that the liberal press (mainstream media, establishment press) will never admit that our miserable excuse for a president even possesses normal human frailties, let alone gross character defects. Across the industry, I would say that this is largely rooted in a combination of ideological kinship, ignorance, fear, or top-down directives, depending on the case.

I’m also aware that some journalists and press outlets have been reticent to report negative information about Barack Obama over fears of being attacked for being racist, as inane a concept as this remains.

All of the above, of course, could apply in the practical sense to our elected officials as well, but we have grown to expect a certain level of duplicity on their part. This is not to justify their actions – particularly now, when some have bordered on treason – but the purpose of the press has always been in safeguarding our liberties through their function. This is largely why so many Americans have yet to come to the conclusion that the establishment press has become a subversive propaganda arm for the political left. People still trust them.

But what about the conservative press (the “new media” or “alternative press”)? Despite the power this body has been able to successfully wield, in the face of the grave and dangerous actions of the Obama administration and the deteriorating geopolitical landscape, too much of their coverage remains disappointingly superficial.

For example: I have noted that many conservative press outlets have gotten caught up in this theatrical bluster between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. This is no different a tack than that taken by their liberal media counterparts. It occurs to me that the interests of global peace as well as our domestic situation (with this president) might be better addressed by examining the actions Obama has taken to precipitate that crisis.

Read more…

I’m also aware that some journalists and press outlets have been reticent to report negative information about Barack Obama over fears of being attacked for being racist, as inane a concept as this remains.

All of the above, of course, could apply in the practical sense to our elected officials as well, but we have grown to expect a certain level of duplicity on their part. This is not to justify their actions – particularly now, when some have bordered on treason – but the purpose of the press has always been in safeguarding our liberties through their function. This is largely why so many Americans have yet to come to the conclusion that the establishment press has become a subversive propaganda arm for the political left. People still trust them.

But what about the conservative press (the “new media” or “alternative press”)? Despite the power this body has been able to successfully wield, in the face of the grave and dangerous actions of the Obama administration and the deteriorating geopolitical landscape, too much of their coverage remains disappointingly superficial.

For example: I have noted that many conservative press outlets have gotten caught up in this theatrical bluster between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. This is no different a tack than that taken by their liberal media counterparts. It occurs to me that the interests of global peace as well as our domestic situation (with this president) might be better addressed by examining the actions Obama has taken to precipitate that crisis.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/the-conservative-press-too-easy-on-obama/#oQZHYH1tjXfBKEto.99

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

The ruling class unmasked – on YouTube?

The recent YouTube video by a young woman that was featured on a colleague’s website got me thinking about the progress patriots are making against the Obama administration and the oligarchs in Washington. Carey Wedler’s video, “Why I’m burning my last bridge with Obama, ” has enjoyed quite a few views and chronicles the 20-something’s journey from liberal Obama groupie to what I’d call a quasi-libertarian at this point. She still has a ways to go.

In this video, the terminally cute Wedler, who is wearing a faded Obama T-shirt, discusses why she is disillusioned – nay, profoundly disgusted – with our president. She proceeds to rattle off a pretty accurate litany of some of the president’s more public shortfalls (though by no means his most egregious), then proceeds to doff the shirt and burn it with a propane torch. She doesn’t look old enough to have voted for Obama in 2008, but offers a photo of herself – wearing the new, unfaded and unburned Obama shirt – and her friends celebrating on the night of his first electoral victory, so who am I to call her a liar?

After the pyrotechnics, Wedler further excoriates our richly deserving chief executive, then explains that our government has become so corrupted that the American people are pretty much screwed (I’m paraphrasing). She claims in her Comments section that she would never again vote for a liberal or a conservative, since the efforts appear to garner the same results for the nation, its allies and the world in general.

With regard to her account of Obama’s crimes, all I can say is “You don’t know the half of it, lady.” Then, I would take issue with the wholesale conviction of liberals and conservatives.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns