Columns

Columns

The 2 Reasons Obama Criminalized Intel Agencies

The 2 Reasons Obama Criminalized Intel Agencies

By Erik Rush •

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

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

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

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

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

– Rush Limbaugh, March 26, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

Will Dems’ Pro-Socialist Rhetoric Torpedo 2020 Bids?

By Erik Rush •

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

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

By Erik Rush •

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

Will Jussie Smollett be Held Accountable?

By Erik Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDailyate crime

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

Defeat Socialists Now—Before it’s Too Late

By Erik Rush •

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

By Erik Rush •

If one was to ask the average leftist (as opposed to the few who occasionally read something) who shot Trayvon Martin in 2012, their answer would probably be something along the lines of “a white cop.” In fact, many who are not dedicated lefties might return the same answer, so thorough was the press at proffering that narrative.

The truth is that George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, is a self-identified Latino who looks about as much like a white guy as I do. Neither was Zimmerman a police officer; he was a neighborhood watch coordinator with a concealed carry permit.

I was singularly horrified at the time that the fake news campaign (before the term “fake news” was even coined) depicting Zimmerman as some sort of blond Asgardian prowling the neighborhood with his warhammer and looking for black children to smash, was not only as brazen as it was, but that it got sufficient traction to effectively transform Zimmerman into a white cop in the eyes of so many.

Thus, it should be no surprise that I find the current media firestorm over the Covington Catholic High School students who have been targeted by the left over alleged racist behavior after a tense encounter with a Native American activist on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last week almost passé. Sure, the students from the Kentucky high school behaved impeccably and did nothing any casual observer would find untoward—but none of that matters. They were white (well, most of them were), and some were wearing “Make America Great Again” swag, so they must have committed some subtle hate crime. If not, they surely intended to.

So the positively Orwellian coverage of this non-story is nothing at all new. Since Barack Obama publicly charged that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts “acted stupidly” when they arrested his pal Henry Louis Gates Jr. in 2009, the left and the establishment press have attempted to foment racial tension at every opportunity. Bereft of a viable opportunity, they’ve shown that they’re quite capable of making up stories out of whole cloth. Even with the benign intent of the Covington students having become apparent, the left continues to try new ways to affix the racist label onto the young men. President Donald Trump’s defense of the students, while appropriate, has of course only fanned the flames of the left’s ire.

As has become typical following one of these racially-charged incidents, prominent leftists came out of the woodwork, spouting their boilerplate foul invective against the students. One of those who weighed in was Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn). She is one of two freshman Muslim congresswomen who’ve been roundly disparaging America, the President, and his policies since the midterm election. Apparently, Omar overstepped and is now facing harsh criticism for going after the Covington students on a social media venue.

Back in the days when President Obama was regularly hosting Islamists at the White House and then scrubbing the visitor logs, many of us began to engage in discussions of why Islam and those on the far left seemed to be hitting it off so well, particularly since some of the identity groups under the umbrella of the left (women and gays in particular) don’t fare at all well in Islamic societies.

Some said it was simple: Both have the common goal of dismantling the representative republican model of government in America.

While this is certainly true, I think the affinity runs a bit deeper.

I’ve made no bones about the fact that my charity and tolerance with respect to Islam are extremely limited. Islam and the model of Western society are wholly incompatible, and anyone who argues otherwise is either deluding themselves, or they are attempting to delude others. I do not believe that Muslims should be allowed to hold office in America. I do not believe that there are “peaceful” Muslims, unless one counts those who would give their militant brethren sway but prefer not to take up the sword themselves. Nowhere in the 1400-year history of this creed do we see evidence of Muslims playing well with others in the long-term.

Nor do I believe that Islam ought to be venerated simply because it is old, or because it claims to be an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism or Christianity. Islam is not a religion; it is a social system with a religious component.

Similarly, leftism in the West is very much akin to a social system with a religious component. Like Islam, leftism has stringent social controls—on thought and speech, for example. We can see this quite clearly in the doctrine vociferously espoused by the left. To run afoul of these results in swift and terrible retribution from leftists at large. As in the Islamic world, this retribution can even encompass corporal punishment.

In the Islamic world, Islam is the State, and the State is Islamic. This is very much the case with the left—or at least, how those on the left would like to see things shake out in that religion is to be supplanted with socialism (the “religion” of the State). Leftism even has its own pantheon of deities, if you will, in the special interests its devotees venerate: the environment, and the various identity groups leftists ostensibly defend being among these.

Once could expound upon these similarities more deeply, and they would become more numerous and eerie with the telling. The most significant one is this: in the end, both Islam and leftism (socialism) are incompatible with our system of governance. Both find themselves at odds with the Bill of Rights on a regular basis and ironically, both have found a platform for their subversive poison due to dangerous but commonly accepted misinterpretations thereof.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Transmania’ and the Subversion of Masculinity

‘Transmania’ and the Subversion of Masculinity

By Erik Rush •

A couple of weeks ago, a talk radio host in my local market began discussing a brewing controversy around a local library district’s plans to host a “Drag Queen Story Hour” this month for children aged 2-8. This obscene event is in fact part of a highly-organized nationwide campaign spearheaded by a San Francisco-based group ostensibly “geared toward promoting inclusivity and diversity,” according to a local newspaper.

The proliferation of pro-trans propaganda has given rise to coverage of child drag queens in the alternative press and how they are being exploited by the LGBTQ lobby. One story covered a 10-year-old Canadian boy who was recently featured in a very disturbing alternative culture magazine article. In said article, the young lad poses in a photograph with a naked adult drag queen.

So, when did a child appearing in media with a naked man cease to be considered child porn? This remains to be determined, I suppose.

In a revolting but not entirely surprising move, the American Psychological Association (APA) publicly released a report this month stating that “traditional masculinity” is “harmful” and can lead to “homophobia” and sexual harassment. Given the APA’s track record in contributing to the normalization of deviant behavior in recent years, I’m not quite sure why many who should know better continue to validate the organization as an arbiter of healthy psychological paradigms.

For the last couple of decades or so, “the experts” (mainly LGBTQ activists, the press and the APA) have maintained that homosexual men are not predisposed to pederasty or sexual predation; further, that pedophilia, homosexuality and transvestitism are discrete behaviors and that their participants never cross the line from one to another. These summary decrees were meant to soften the blow (no pun intended) attendant to homosexuality being normalized in the eyes of the general public.

This wisdom is going the way of earlier debunked conventions which held that women never lie about rape and that children never lie about molestation. As we’ve learned, occasionally these things do occur.

Over the last two weeks, Democratic Party megadonor Ed Buck has been embroiled in a media firestorm over the highly-suspicious deaths of two men in his Los Angeles County home. Much of the controversy has been attendant to Buck’s status as a friend to powerful Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and top California politicians among them) and the apparent reticence of the criminal justice system to pursue the cases. Many have charged that the latter is due to Buck’s standing and the fact that the deceased men were black.

The sinister nature of these deaths due to methamphetamine overdoses and the accounts of other parties who claim to have narrowly escaped similar fates in Buck’s company however, merit closer scrutiny in this context.

It’s obviously unseemly (at least to most people at present) that a high-profile donor to political heavyweights from any party would fancy illicit drug and sex parties, regardless of the race or gender of the participants. Buck’s alleged practices also have the trappings of an unhealthy fetish; the consent of the participants has come into question, which is even more alarming.

Were one to postulate that a lot of gay men would simply adore having a bevy of prepubescent drag queens flitting about their homes and attending to their every wish, with no worry over legal repercussions, and that the push toward normalizing transvestitism among men and boys is intended to manifest a future in which such things are accepted and commonplace, LGBTQ activists would laugh (or more accurately, titter), accusing such a person of being an alarmist as well as a bigot.

On the other hand, were one to have warned 30 years ago against the specter of transgender bathrooms, “gay marriage” and arcane hate speech laws, the same LGBTQ activists would also have laughed and leveled similar charges. They know from experience that all it takes is sufficient time and the requisite softening-up of the public with propaganda, and ultimately, we’ll swallow anything (again, no pun intended).

When one examines the behavior of an Ed Buck, the rhetoric of Barack Obama’s anti-bullying czar Kevin Jennings or LGBTQ activist Dan Savage, it becomes clear that the lines concerning acceptable behavior are very easily blurred once one enters the LGBTQ realm.

It is painfully obvious (in fact, excruciatingly so) that the entertainment industry is fully on board with “transmania,” male-bashing and generally promoting sexual ambivalence, since they are aggressively producing fare dedicated to normalizing deviant behavior. A great deal of this is aimed squarely at children. It is also obvious that the various efforts in this area across entertainment, academia, and the press are being executed in concert with one another.

While we’re being bludgeoned with the innocuousness of youth transvestitism and such concepts as “toxic masculinity,” “hypermasculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity,” it is important to realize that all of this is part of the left’s war against traditional gender roles, which has been going on since the 1960s. Since the last century, radical leftists have acknowledged that the family is the lynch pin of society, and that compromising the family was essential in their gaining political preeminence in America. Their various campaigns advancing sexual ambivalence over the years have had a great deal of success, and each successively more appalling measure is intended to breed increasing societal dysfunction, thus making the population far easier to control than a population of morally-grounded individuals who know what gender they are.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Even Socialists Follow the Money

Even Socialists Follow the Money

By Erik Rush •

When an individual litigates against another individual or an organization for damages, one of the first things attorneys for the defendant(s) will do is determine the plaintiff’s need for capital. If the plaintiff is flush, it tends to negate the perception and the likelihood that they’re in it for the money, whereas many a frivolous civil complaint has been lodged by plaintiffs who were sorely in need of money.

In a brief filed two weeks ago in federal court by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, it was revealed that Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could face murder or manslaughter charges if the company is found negligent in the case of recent wildfires that have ravaged that state.

With the caveat that PG&E most certainly should face charges if they were somehow negligent in the case of the wildfires, bear in mind that there could be a vast difference between the company having been negligent, and being found negligent in the estimation of quirky California law.

California is broke. Several municipalities in the state have sought bankruptcy protection over the last decade or so, and California’s fiscal woes have been apparent to even the most casual observer for at least that long. As in other large, liberal-run states across the U.S., lavish salaries and pensions for municipal workers have contributed significantly to financial shortfalls. In California’s case, an almost slavish devotion to accommodating millions of illegal aliens from south of the border have added billions to that state’s expenditures and economic deficits.

For decades, we’ve seen California voters exhibit a profound naiveté in their assent to politicians’ pie-in-the-sky governance, particularly in the area of superficial, “feel good” legislation, entitlements, and deference to the environmental agenda. California’s resources are vast (particularly in the agricultural realm), but as I recently stated here, no resources of any type or measure can offset a sufficient degree of taxing financial obligations. It’s a simple matter of mathematics.

Unfortunately, given the knee-jerk, “stick it to the corporation” mentality so many under-informed citizens hold, the climate is often ripe for government agencies to fleece companies like PG&E. Should they escape the ignominy of murder charges, PG&E will probably be more than happy to face a civil suit and cough up a pile of cash to the state.

We all know how this plays out in the end, much in the same way it does when any business is hit with hefty, unexpected expenses: They pass it on to their customers, who already feel that they’re being gouged—and the cycle continues.

While “follow the money” may sound like a cynical refrain, money is obviously a central motivator in many areas of human endeavor where a viable economy exists. Ironically, it is doubly significant when dealing with socialist power players as they seek to usurp control of key economic sectors.

This was the sole motivation behind the passage of Obamacare and is behind the ongoing push for a “one-payer” government-controlled health care system in America. For those who doubt the validity of this assessment vis-à-vis California and PG&E, bear in mind that it was a prominent California Democrat who floated the idea of the state taking over oil companies in 2008.

As I said last week in this space,the usurpation of power and resources (money) from the private sector is also the motivation behind some extremely radical environmentally-focused legislation being advanced by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). While it isn’t likely to get passed given the character of the current administration, in the eyes of Beltway socialists, it’s still quite important to get people used to the idea of living with less for the sake of the planet—normalizing these radical concepts, if you will. For more on how this plays out, a web search on the “green riots” in France should be most enlightening.

In the end, socialism doesn’t so much represent a struggle between workers and capitalists, or the haves versus the have-nots, or even between two competing economic systems. It’s simply the device presently being employed by a group of like-minded megalomaniacs seeking to abolish modern concepts of self-governance and democracy.

We already know how rapacious our federal government and many state governments can be through something as simple as a breakdown of financial disbursements for each gallon of gasoline Americans purchase. Factor in socialist objectives, and we have a level of greed surpassing anything of which leftists accuse corporations.

What’s truly frightening is that we have come to a place where a U.S. lawmaker can proffer the notion of a marginal tax rate as high as 70% with a straight face, and without fear of being dragged into the street and strung up by an angry mob.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Why Ocasio-Cortez is Allowed to Carry the Ball

Why Ocasio-Cortez is Allowed to Carry the Ball

By Erik Rush •

Amidst the hubbub of Democrats taking over the House of Representatives and their excitement over the prospect of really being able to stick it to President Donald Trump, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is calling for the creation of what she calls “Green New Deal” legislation, an insane collection of far left wet dreams ostensibly addressing environmental issues, but which would send the economy into a tailspin. At a recent town hall meeting, Ocasio-Cortez announced that “This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation.”

With the first two having been economic dumpster fires and the last usurped and horribly perverted by the far left, you do the math.
Ocasio-Cortez has pledged to push this agenda as the firebrand far left outsider in her party (ignoring for a moment the oxymoron attendant to being far left and an outsider in the Democratic Party). Among the measures that Ocasio-Cortez favors are the elimination of all fossil-fuel-powered electricity, compulsory upgrades of all residential and industrial buildings for state-of-the-art energy efficiency and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from essentially everything.

One does not have to be an economist to get the idea that such measures would make the Bush-Obama economic crisis look like a house party. All of these have their genesis in baseless junk climate science coupled with the feelgood component of saving the planet, but are simply part and parcel of the globalist agenda to transfer power and wealth to the political class.

Before you laugh, do consider for a moment that Ocasio-Cortez already has the support of key congressional Democrats and a host of other Congress critters for this proposal.

Here’s my take on this: Whether or not Ocasio-Cortez gains any ground with this hideous legislative package (it could die in the Senate and of course the President has veto power), the reason this starry-eyed socialist is spearheading the strategy is quite clear.

In addition to her youth and comeliness, Ocasio-Cortez has been tapped to deliver this grotesquely deformed offspring because she’s Latina. While this may seem dubious to those of us who don’t play the game of identity politics, we—as well as non-ideological unaffiliated voters—would be gravely remiss if we did not consider Ocasio-Cortez and her plans in light of the previous administration.

If Ocasio-Cortez does gain ground with her “Green New Deal” legislation, it would not be the first time a cult of personality ethnic darling was given carte blanche to sabotage the economy by virtue of nothing other than their status as an ethnic minority. The power players on the left are keenly aware that Americans still hold deep sensitivities around issues of ethnicity. They know that some of these are quite irrational, and thus can be very effectively exploited. This is why they so frequently employ race-based invective against their political opponents, and why the “racist!” refrain is so often is so often heard even before other measures fail.

If you consider the aggregate of grounds upon which people vote for candidates, Barack Obama was elected as our president in 2008 for no other reason than his status as an ethnic minority. His high crimes and unconstitutional measures, and those of certain of his surrogates and cabinet members were overlooked by his detractors for the same reason. Even his political opponents were loath to criticize or condemn him despite his gross deficiencies because none wanted to risk being labeled as racists; indeed, this was borne out with any who did dare to do so.
We have this dynamic to thank for the passage of Obamacare, which is financially damaging (if not crippling) Americans to this day. Crimes attendant to the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, the IRS nonprofit-targeting scandal, the NSA domestic spying scandal, Benghazi and a host of others were handily ignored on the same basis.

Most importantly, it was known well in advance of his election by avowed lefties and closeted socialists in the GOP that Obama would be given this latitude simply because he was black. This is why he was positioned to run for the office in the first place. A Deep State agenda, with Obama as the wedge.

The same rationale can be applied to why the Beltway machine was so threatened by Herman Cain during the 2012 election cycle, and why they saw it as an imperative to take him out of the running decisively and early on. Like Donald Trump, Cain was a true outsider and worse, he was black. In their eyes, it was entirely conceivable that voters might jump one black ship for another, because it was already plain at the time that Obama’s governance was abysmal. A vote for Cain would have allowed voters to save face in the name of diversity, but his election would have derailed the statist agenda for at least four years.

So, a sex scandal was concocted to knock Herman Cain off of the campaign trail, and it worked. Those who followed the story may recollect strong indicators that the Cain sex scandal originated with GOP operatives rather than Democrats.

Personally, I tend to resist the notion that so many voters evaluate political candidates this superficially, but the fact is that many do—and politicians know this. While we may scoff at the idea that a cute freshman Latina representative who is nevertheless inexperienced and wholly ignorant of real economic processes might succeed in upending our economy through manifestly imprudent, socialistic legislative measures simply because she’s a cute freshman Latina representative, history has already told us that this is entirely plausible.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns