barack obama

Barry’s New Job

Barry’s New Job

Dr. Jim Garrow

It didn’t take long for the saying to kick in – you know the one about “Idle hands are the devils workshop.” The leader of 27% of America is getting ready to put it into high gear and join the rabble on the front lines of the fight against all things American. He is just waiting for the right timing, the right mob and clearance from his Secret Service handlers to ensure that he looks wild and free while being tethered to the safety and security of his well-armed group of eight. Then he can really get into it, surrounded by eager young thugs, ready to rock and roll against “the man.”

Remember “the man?” Up until January, Obama had been “the man” for the past eight years. Like peeling back the onion, the underlying layer of Barry Soetoro was just waiting to be revealed. Transitioning from being the leader of the free world to being the commie-inspired agitator. I’m waiting for him to make the error of referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggle for equal rights for blacks. Mrs. King can then put a hurt on him with the truth of how he is in no way, style or fashion anything like the dearly-departed Reverend. That would be a classic battle come to think of it. All style versus all reality. The Poser versus the Champion. Obama might be better off thinking that one through a little more.

If folks ever got hold of the notion that he is merely an actor putting forth a characterization versus the track record of a real champion of the people like Dr. King, his goose would be cooked.

As the walls go up around the suburban home of the previous President, the metaphor of contraction, of protectionism, of trying to be the common man behind a moat and a bridge and battlements is pretty hard to hide. “Hypocrazy” is my word for it. The hypocrite whose reality is a far cry from what his press clippings would indicate, hiding behind the wall of separation while trying to convince the world that his is just one of us. The picture is worth a thousand words and I can’t wait to see if we will get some cell phone movies from the first public protest encounter showing folks being herded and shoved in order for the perfect photo op showing Barry as the man of the people. I hope no one is trampled or killed while trying to get a selfie with Barack, the man of the people. If things get really rough, Barry can always head back to Hawaii and put his feet up, throwing back a couple of Coors Lites while munching on fresh pineapple, writing his next book by Bill Ayers and Company.

Educator and former intelligence operative Dr. Jim Garrow was the runner-up to President Barack Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Pink Pagoda, an organization started by Dr. Garrow, is responsible for having saved the lives of over 40,000 Chinese baby girls from China’s one-child policy.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 2 comments
Obama Swan Song Epitomizes The Left’s Character

Obama Swan Song Epitomizes The Left’s Character

By Erik Rush

Earlier this week, my WND colleague Jesse Lee Peterson penned a thorough enumeration of actions taken by Barack Hussein Obama since the November general election to do as much damage to the nation (as we understand it) as well as to delegitimize the presidency of President-Elect Donald Trump prior to his inauguration later this month.

Shortly after the election, I admonished readers of this feature not to be surprised at anything the left comes up with to that end between now and the day Obama leaves office, and Peterson’s column handily provided bullet points for that argument.
During a weekend appearance on Fox News, pollster Frank Luntz dubbed Obama’s campaign of executive orders, slandering of Russia, and attempted sabotage of Trump during his final days as president an “F-You tour.”

Most prominent among Obama’s actions has been his harrying of Russia vis-à-vis accusations that her government somehow influenced the November election in Donald Trump’s favor through digital means despite any evidence whatsoever of this having taken place. Relying as always upon the complicit establishment press to back him up, Obama took punitive steps against Russia in the form of sanctions and the expulsion of some of its diplomats from the U.S., a futile but insulting move calculated to antagonize rather than penalize.
Would Obama would be perfectly happy to catalyze World War III through these antics? Probably – but if there’s anything the left’s radical icon Saul Alinsky stressed, it was patience. Chances are that Obama is looking forward to his days as a celebrated elder statesman and the opportunities this will present for furthering his destructive mission.

It is noteworthy that earlier this week, incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referenced the massive 2015 hack wherein – among other things – millions of federal employees had their unique fingerprint records stolen. While U.S. officials accused China of initiating that event, there were never any repercussions for the Chinese government. This is significant not only because the hacking event was well-publicized, but because some in the Western intelligence community suspected that this was done with the full countenance and cooperation of the administration.

Obama’s federal land grabs and clandestine importation of yet more unvetted Muslims into American cities further validate the contention that these actions are deliberately spiteful. Rest assured that we can look forward to more of this sort of thing prior to Inauguration Day.

One may recall that a hallmark of the Obama administration has been its habit of doubling-down on questionable policies and criminal procedures when confronted, threatened, or when one of its dark machinations are brought to light. When Border Patrol officer Brian Terry was killed by drug cartel soldiers in 2010, thus revealing the motivation behind the administration’s Fast and Furious gun running operation (this being to foster a widespread and irrational fear of firearms via turning our southern border states into a war zone), Obama and his minions did not dial back their actions. Rather, they proceeded to exploit each and every subsequent crime in which a firearm was employed as evidence of the need to incorporate draconian firearms measures into law. Some suspect that the administration may even have orchestrated a high-profile gun crime or three to drive home the point; it is difficult to make this determination, since the principals in these incidents are, and are likely to remain, quite dead.

Obama’s current exploits are certainly consistent with regard to this particular modus operandi.

What kind of person would feverishly engage in actions so demonstrably harmful to our national security, domestic tranquility, and which fly in the face of the rule of law?

Some of us have been addressing this question for the last eight years. The answer? A malignant narcissist who, as I said last week in this space, possesses the belief that his worldview is so superior to all others that he has the right to impose it upon everyone else. Factor therein a deep hatred of America (as we understand it) and we have a ruthless, ends-justify-the-means dictator who has not been recognized as such only due to the treachery of the press and the American progressive-socialist machine which it serves.

Another answer: The sort of person who can smarmily lie time and again regarding his having saved millions of American jobs while half of our workforce is out of work, or about his signature health care law having covered millions of uninsured Americans when in fact the law has forced millions into the federal system of substandard medical care.

Yet another answer: A person whose policies directly led to the deaths, maiming, and enslavement of tens of thousands of souls across the Middle East and Africa, and who could sleep like a baby after deliberately leaving American diplomatic personnel to die at the hands of jihadis one night in Benghazi, Libya.

The widespread baseless accusations, fearmongering, and despotism in which Obama has engaged since the election underscore who he is at his core: An ill-bred, horribly maladjusted and arguably psychopathic low-level street organizer and catty, vindictive bath house homosexual who has been allowed to believe his own publicity for far too long.

More importantly, his presidency is emblematic of the sort of person that American progressives would choose to lead them for eight years.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

By Erik Rush

While substituting for radio talk-show host Glenn Beck last week, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David Clarke pointed to the manifestly unsuitable presidential candidate that was Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and compared the reaction of Obama detractors to his election with leftists’ response to the recent election of real estate mogul and media personality Donald Trump to the presidency.

Despite deep concerns many had over Obama’s political deficiencies in 2008, Clarke noted that when Obama won the presidency, his political opponents did not claim that Obama had somehow stolen the election. They did not whine about shadowy foreign groups having helped him win, even though a very compelling case could be made that this did in fact occur through the influence of certain Saudi agencies at particular stages of his career. They did not protest in the streets. They did not produce fearmongering public service announcements asking Democratic electors to flip their votes or refuse to certify Obama’s victory. They did not appear on television and radio news and talk shows presenting entirely baseless, utterly preposterous charges against the new president-elect, though the truth about his lack of fitness to hold any high office would have horrified a preponderance of the voting public had they been aware of it.

For my part, I don’t recall any of that occurring either, nor do I remember Obama supporters being beaten at rallies by supporters of John McCain in 2008, or college freshmen being driven out of school by bullying over their support for Obama, (as was Bryn Mawr College student Andi Moritz over her support for Donald Trump).

In the case of Trump’s recent election, Sheriff Clarke opined, leftists engaged in each and every one of these craven acts. As most readers know, Sheriff Clarke is a black man; while this ought not matter in terms of his articulating the truth, it is significant in light of the fact that most black Americans have been so brainwashed by progressives that their cognitive processes with regard to political, social and cultural issues often suggest a sort of mental retardation.

Also last week, a few conservative pundits commented on recent remarks made by another black American, our outgoing abysmal excuse for a first lady, Michelle Obama. Addressing Trump’s impending presidency and her perception of our nation without her husband at the helm, Mrs. Obama’s statements came off as boilerplate sour grapes on the part of a racialist who is incapable of admitting that conditions are appreciably better for blacks today than they were in 1955.

The woman who once said that she’d felt no pride in being an American until her husband was nominated for president is singing the same song again now that her gravy train ride is about over, whining about blacks’ ongoing struggle against alleged institutional racism. This despite her family having lived lives that few Americans of any color ever get to live.

The fact is that “enough” is never enough for those on the left. This mental modality has been imparted to nearly everyone in that region of the political continuum, even those who do not understand the stratagem behind their socialist overlords having employed it.

For example, nearly all of the black Americans who still vote for Democrats in the 90 percents, from celebrities to welfare queens, hold to Michelle Obama’s viewpoint to varying degrees. At this juncture, one could gift each and every black American with $1 billion, tax-free (due reparation, some would surely argue), and they would continue citing their alleged oppression. Partying in rarified venues with rap stars and other liberal billionaires, they would claim that their lot in life could be just a little bit better if not for the pernicious institutional racism that still exists in America.

So what’s the beef? It’s obviously not about money. Despite being ostensible haters of capitalism, leftists are among the most money-grubbing individuals on the planet – but if it were truly about money, their vociferousness would abate once they’d achieved material success. If it were about money, Bill and Hillary Clinton, former Vice-President Al Gore and even billionaire currency manipulator and former Nazi collaborator George Soros would have ceased whining once their own economic security was assured.

But they never do …

So it’s not money they really crave – it’s power. The profoundly narcissistic concept that their worldview is superior to all others and that they have the right to impose it upon everyone else has very little to do with any intellectual appraisal of socialism; in the absence of such a system, they would have gravitated to some other political philosophy, probably equally as odious, and attempted to impose that one upon the populace. Even many rank-and-file liberals subscribe to socialism’s unethical and intrusive doctrines because of the power they envision sharing, and we’ve seen them revel in components thereof that have been implemented to one degree or another: telling their fellow citizens that they may no longer speak or worship freely, own guns, smoke tobacco, or consume what their leaders have deemed is too much sugar for one’s own good.

The desire to ruthlessly wield such power not only runs counter to the long-established law of our land (namely, the Constitution), it is a pursuit that bespeaks a character that is fundamentally evil.

Moving forward in the spirit of America’s rage against the socialist political machine (which led to Donald Trump’s election), I will continue to point out that having set us on this path is not a First Amendment right to which liberals and socialists are entitled. It is amoral, and it is treason. This must first become recognition on a popular level, and finally, conventional wisdom.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Imperious Progressives: Shameless Sore Losers

Imperious Progressives: Shameless Sore Losers

By Erik Rush

There’s very little that epitomizes the subversive deportment of powerful progressives – as well as their elitist, narcissistic perspective – more than Barack Hussein Obama’s description of the Electoral College as “a vestige” and “a carryover from an earlier vision of how our federal government was going to work.” This sage wisdom came in support of a campaign that was on at the time to convince Republican electors to disregard the outcome of our recent general election and deny Donald Trump the presidency when they cast their official ballots.

Also last week, a host of Hollywood celebrities, no doubt at the behest of losing Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton and the White House, voiced their support for the move to confound the Electoral College certification via a truly embarrassing public service announcement.

Now, we’re aware that Obama and other progressives hold a similarly dim view of the Constitution as they do the Electoral College, although few would be rash enough to articulate this publicly. Obama has previously criticized aspects of the Constitution, citing things he might have included or excluded at its inception, but he’s never suggested that he would scrap the entire document, which his description of the Electoral College before reporters at a White House press conference last week appears to recommend with regard to that body.

Frustration, outrage, and desperation make for curious behaviors however, and Obama’s above referenced words surely illustrate this.

Early in the last century, political elites who considered themselves intellectually superior and more worldly than the men who founded this nation determined that a massive, paternalistic federal government – with their class at the helm – would be a far better governmental model for the modern age than that of the constitutional republic. Their condescension and disdain for ordinary folk were both symptoms of this, and drove their justification for that point of view. The only question was how to bring it about in such a way that they would not be hung for treason en masse.

Factor in the radicalism of certain political aspirants who came of age during the 1960s and 1970s, their racialist hatred of the old, white, wig-wearing slave owners who founded America, and an unhealthy dose of malignant narcissism, and we can readily understand Obama’s words.

On December 12, conservative radio talk shows were abuzz with discussions of Obama having announced that he was ordering a review into hacking aimed at influencing U.S. elections. This is ironic for a few reasons, not the least of which being the documented reports of election tampering having taken place during the 2012 general election and the 2008 Democratic primaries, which favored Obama and contributed to his re-election in 2012 and his nomination in 2008, respectively.

This represented the most baseless sort of “fake news” that the left has (ironically) been decrying for weeks. Tangential to the announcement of Obama’s decree, a slew of wholly unsubstantiated news reports emerged contending that Russia had somehow influenced the election in Trump’s favor. How the Russians supposedly accomplished this remains a mystery; in truth, the purpose the accusation was to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, or to derail the electoral certification entirely. This was an intended if feeble objective of Obama’s words vis-à-vis the Electoral College.

Reports surfaced which cited anonymous officials in the Central Intelligence Agency who accused Russia of hacking the election. For those who may be wondering since when CIA officials had to be anonymous in bandying about accusations of foreign subterfuge, such incredulity is well-placed. This inconsistency is indicative of these accusations (likely crafted in the office of CIA chief, Obama pal and alleged Muslim convert John Brennan) being, for wont of a more delicate term, utter dog squeeze.

A major irony has to do with this issue arising after Obama’s October assurances to the public that there was no danger of fraud being an issue in the November election. Another irony lies in Obama’s action in light of then-candidate Donald Trump having raised the issue of possible election fraud back in October. President Obathhouse did in fact roundly chastise Trump for being a weenie who was attempting to set the stage for an electoral crisis in the event that he did not win the presidency. Still another is illustrated in the Obama administration having been involved in widespread and illegal overseas regime change, particularly their overt attempts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during Israel’s 2015 election.

To liberals and socialists in positions of influence, the rules are never the same for the unwashed as they are for the exalted – if they apply at all. Denying voters their duly elected President would be of no more consequence than denying citizens their rights under the Constitution, which they seek to do on a regular basis. It is for this reason that liberals and socialists should be disenfranchised and excluded from the political process entirely.

These attempts to sabotage Trump’s presidency before he even takes the Oath of Office speak to a desperation that throws caution to the wind with regard to potentially exposing their subversive nature. Their deep conceit however, precludes the recognition that one reason Trump was elected in the first place had to do in a large measure with the public being fed up with the byproducts of that subversive nature.

This deficiency on their part represents a decided advantage that we, their political opponents, have over them should we prove prudent enough to exploit it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Obama’s Last Licks: What We Can Expect

Obama’s Last Licks: What We Can Expect

By Erik Rush

Now that America’s dalliance with her celebrated First Black President is nearing an end, there are those who are breathing a collective sigh of relief that we will no longer be subjected to his treasonous and dangerous antics. This may be premature however, but I’ll get to the particulars of that claim shortly.

One of the things demonstrated in the outcome of the recent general election was the relative tolerance most Americans had with regard to the fundamentally corrupt and criminal administration of Barack Hussein Obama due to the racialist conditioning to which Americans have been exposed. Over the last eight years, pundits and other observers have noted the tendency for the public to dissociate Obama from his policies, and the dynamic of this phenomenon remained a mystery to many.

It may seem dubious that so many would have given Obama a pass on the many brazen instances of illegality and subterfuge attendant to nearly every act and policy he executed, but the aggregate of analysis more than suggests that this is precisely what occurred.

During his presidency, lawmakers and politically engaged voters alike have been loath to challenge or criticize Obama when he addressed issues or policies directly, as they associated this with the concept that opposing him was opposing his ethnicity. This of course was reinforced by Obama supporters, the press, and the left in general. When Obama policies brought ruin to our economy, domestic tranquility, national security, or international standing and a political firestorm ensued, people openly condemned said policies while Obama calculatedly aided in the dissociation through his silence.

As it stands now, it is likely that a majority of Americans – even those well-informed among Trump voters – profoundly relieved that Hillary Clinton will not be our next president, are willing to have Obama go quietly with his legacy preserved for all time.

Despite this, Obama may not choose to do so.

The election of Donald Trump has indeed thrown the left into a tailspin. Considering the known modus operandi of this president and administration, particularly their proclivity for doubling-down on disagreeable policies when confronted or threatened, we would do well to assume that measures may be taken to secure what dubious gains they’ve made and to plant a few political roadside bombs for the Trump administration.

While Obama might choose to run the clock out on his disastrous presidency and do relatively little, there’s still nothing I would put past this group with regard to getting in some “last licks.”

For example, it’s likely that assassinations of police officers over the last week or so have been no more than maladjusted reprobates who took the election of Donald Trump to be an endorsement or mandate relating to the alleged institutional racism in America with which Trump has been associated. Since police have been characterized as the jack-booted enforcers of such policies, it stands to reason that such individuals might decide to take it out on law enforcement.

Or these killings might have been directly though subtly orchestrated by the bath house refugee currently occupying the White House, or one of his surrogates.

Over the top? No more so than any of my postulations to date concerning this administration – and definitely not a stretch considering the orchestration that actually did take place between the White House and the Black Lives Matter and other radical groups, or Eric Holder’s Department of Justice orchestrating protests against George Zimmerman using taxpayer money, or DOJ surrogates organizing protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, or rioters in Baltimore, or that department’s covert attempt to subvert the Second Amendment through the Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

On a scale larger than murdering a few police officers, Obama’s real “last licks” could prove just as sinister. Bear in mind that he will remain President until past mid-January. During that time, he retains the power to bring about events that could be truly cataclysmic, or to shore up the machinery of treachery and terrorism that he worked so hard to establish over the last eight years.

The flood of Muslim “refugees” from areas in the world that Obama himself destabilized has included thousands of individuals who were essentially granted access to the U.S. via Obama decree. Realistically, he has the capability of clandestinely importing even more of these people between now and January.

It would be quite in keeping with the character of this administration to surreptitiously foment widespread racial violence, for example, between now and Inauguration Day, as an ostensible reaction to the election of a man who has been characterized as a racist. This has already been accomplished by the administration on smaller scales over the last few years through contrived responses to police shootings of black individuals that were framed as race-motivated police brutality.

Considering how Trump has been represented by the left as regards immigration, far left Latino groups such as La Raza and other “return to Mexico” claimants might be enrolled to touch off violence in border states. This could conceivably spread to major cities, with blacks, Latinos and college students already enrolled in the anti-Trump Astroturf backlash causing mayhem on an unprecedented scale.

While the election of Donald Trump was obviously not an endorsement of the odious values ascribed to him by the left, it most certainly was a repudiation of everything Obama, particularly if one factors in the racial components attendant to his rise to power. Donald Trump gave Americans the opportunity to unequivocally repudiate Obama without articulating their repudiation.

This has very evidently been extremely hard for the left to endure, so we ought not be surprised at anything they come up with between now and the day Obama leaves office.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 4 comments
Hail the Truth-Tellers, Whoever They Are

Hail the Truth-Tellers, Whoever They Are

“ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He is the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”

– Donald Trump, Aug. 10, 2016

I readily admit to the petty indulgence of having been amused by the outrage on the part of the political left regarding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s August 10 claim that Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama established the terrorist group-cum-caliphate-founder, ISIS.

Perhaps most prominent among those was MSNBC commentator and resident angina patient Chris Matthews who, appearing on a panel with fellow hacks Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and others, expressed emotions ranging from mock hilarity to genuine apoplexy over Trump’s assertion. Matthews also sputtered vague, convoluted accusations against former Vice President Dick Cheney, naming him as the real founder of ISIS.

While those on the left (like the MSNBC crew) treated the contention that Clinton and Obama created ISIS like a desperate, specious ploy or unthinking sandbox invective on Trump’s part, the fact is that Trump’s charge could not be more true. Even recent fact-checking amongst some liberal news outlets has lent credence to the notion that the policies of the Obama White House when Clinton served as Secretary of State led to the rise of ISIS.

Regular readers of this column will be sufficiently acquainted with the machinations of the White House from 2011 on to add specificity to Trump’s charge: This being that the genesis of the ISIS group was a deliberate move on the part of the Obama administration, as was its overall facilitation of Islamist ascendency in the Middle East. It could take days to exhaustively catalog the articles on WND alone which reference the numerous smoking guns pertaining to the administration’s nurturing of the nascent ISIS and its previous incarnations. These and other media, including international press, unequivocally damn the White House and powerful members of Congress in this area.

If we had a true Fourth Estate in our establishment press (mainstream media) that held government institutions objectively accountable instead of somnambulistically abetting the advent of international socialism, its members would have been asking and subsequently answering such questions as how and why ISIS came about, as did many of us. It would have become clear among these hypothetical journalists that the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton heading up the State Department, created ISIS quite intentionally to serve as the shock troops for Islamist headway in the region. The funded them, armed them, trained them, and cultivated an environment wherein they could thrive.

Circumstantially, it is apparent to all but the dimmest individuals that the White House has been singularly dedicated to supplanting stable secular governments in majority Muslim nations with militant Muslim regimes. It is also evident that Islamists in Egypt, Syria, Libya and other nations in the Middle East and Africa did not spontaneously mobilize and realize the gains they have made in recent years by their own devices, or they would have done so prior to the installation of Obama as the American president.

Indeed, Obama not only founded ISIS, but is the common denominator with regard to the surge in Muslim militancy worldwide. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton played a major role in implementing policy.

So, there are some among us who are gratified to hear the unvarnished truth vis-à-vis ISIS, Islamic militancy, and the roles Obama and Clinton played, no matter who happens to be uttering that truth. Regardless of one’s opinion of Donald Trump as a human being, candidate, celebrity, or potential president, his conveyance of this truth is significant.

“This is in some ways is the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan in that it really does set the stage for a debate about what’s threatening us and what we should do about it…”

– Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Aug. 15, 2016

In addition to his frank assessment of how ISIS came to be, Trump’s Youngstown, Ohio speech of August 15 presented former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with the opportunity to opine on the likely foreign policy of a President Trump as it would relate to ISIS and militant Islam. Monday on Fox News, Gingrich invoked Ronald Reagan as he lionized Trump and lauded his prospective game plan for dispatching ISIS.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Gingrich as a human being, establishment Republican, or potential Trump cabinet member, his words carry great weight simply due to his status. Given this election cycle, which is setting precedents for surrealism, deceit, and sundry potential perils, the former Speaker’s decision to carry a truthful message is reason to be thankful, and perhaps even optimistic.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Blacks VS. Cops: ‘Alinsky’ Obama’s Doing

Blacks VS. Cops: ‘Alinsky’ Obama’s Doing

I had occasion to listen to a little talk radio yesterday, a couple of prominent hosts’ take on Barack Hussein Obama’s oratory at the memorial for the police officers slain in Dallas last week. Host Mark Levin was positively livid at how Obama insisted on purveying the “science is settled” argument regarding America being an institutionally racist nation in light of the venue, and how vile and despicable this opportunism was. Of course, I couldn’t have agreed more. Sean Hannity blamed Obama for stoking the fires of racial tension with his tendency to “rush to judgment” (his words) concerning instances of conflict between blacks and police.

While Obama has indeed stoked the fires of racism, rest assured that there have been no rushes to judgment involved whatsoever.

I’m not going to suggest that some months ago, Obama got on his infamous phone and told a minion to cultivate a cell of riled-up black activists, get them armed and insert them into the protest that would be ready to go on the next occasion that the police shooting of a black individual found its way into the national news cycle.

But for all practical purposes, it might as well have gone down in precisely that fashion.

Apropos the high-profile police shootings of black men in recent weeks: There may have been elements of criminality on the part of the cops involved in at least one of these instances, but as we’ve learned, innocence or guilt on the part of law enforcement officers in these cases hardly matters in the current political climate.

It’s undeniable that there is a direct correlation relative to Obama and the increase in tensions between blacks and law enforcement. In every instance during his presidency where a high-profile story of conflict between police and a black American captured the headlines, Obama’s response served to deepen blacks’ resentment not only at the police, but at the big, bad boogeyman of institutional racism, which by his accounts is as pervasive as it was in 1930.

But Obama didn’t say the things he’s said because he’s a buffoon. He said them expressly to deepen blacks’ resentment at the police and whites in general. There are two reasons for this. One has to do with the juvenile sense of retribution political radicals such as Obama feel; they believe that whites must collectively suffer in one form or another for the sins of their fathers.

The other has to do with the tactical objectives of international socialist power players inside and outside of Washington. In America, the strategies involved in grooming America for inclusion into the statist global leviathan over which they will ruthlessly rule with cartoony glee are partly rooted in the writings of iconic communist Saul Alinsky. This odious puke wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals,” which is a holy tome to people like Obama, Hillary Clinton and other notable “progressives.”

Ironically, Alinsky’s second “rule” essentially declares that there are no rules:

“The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

– Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”

Alinsky then goes on to cite the brutal acts carried out by those in the European anti-Nazi underground during World War II as blanket justification for assassinations, terrorism, destruction of property, bombings, kidnappings and the sacrifice of innocents in their pursuit of socialist goals in America.

Of course, in meeting with the Black Lives Matter group in the face of anti-police violence, Bathhouse Barry was attempting to legitimize this racist organization that has repeatedly advocated for the murder of police officers. In the meantime, he postures before the cameras, offering even more inflammatory rhetoric – whilst pushing for nationalization of police departments and more dilution of law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment protections.

In my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession, I pointed out that in the cases of police contacting black individuals with which I am personally familiar – and there are many – almost invariably, the latter responded with a marked belligerence to the initial contact. This is because of the paranoia and resentment that has been effectively inculcated into blacks culturally via education, activism, media, and the press.

Naturally, police officers sometimes react to this with a deportment of over-caution and a degree of fear.

As we are also seeing occur with international socialist leaders in Europe who are allowing the influx of hostile foreign Muslims into their nations, the Obama cabal has been gradually destabilizing American society by fostering enmity between blacks and law enforcement, as well as through the importation of our own crop of hostile Muslims and parasitic émigrés from south of the border.

Why have international socialist leaders set upon this course? Two reasons: political power – the emerging international socialist state – and ideology. In their Marxist racialism, they believe that the culturally bankrupt around the world should have their chance at abusing the evil Westerners (read whites) who exploited them and societies that are essentially troupes of monkeys as compared with those in the West ought to have nuclear weapons just because Western nations do.

Once the domestic unrest our leaders have generated escalates and gives rise to sufficient fear on the part of Americans, their expectation is that we will cry for security – much as we cried for health-care reform after the same socialists drove up the cost of health care over the course of a few decades. Many will actually welcome the draconian measures government will employ – with great reluctance, of course – in order to ensure that “security.”

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Obama’s Cuban ‘Communist Summit’

Obama’s Cuban ‘Communist Summit’

Sometimes it’s a little difficult to discern in precisely what vein black civil rights activist Cornel West’s political leanings lie, because he typically delivers his oratory in an eccentric stream-of-consciousness style. Some might call it “bullcrap.” In the main, West has always been an ardent leftist, keeping alive the idea that the capitalist system with its cloistered, shadowy (and usually white) power players dedicated to keeping the masses down.

One thing that bears mentioning is that West has never been a hateful individual, and that does count for something. I do however, have a bit of difficulty with people who infuse rhetoric into discussions that is likely to raise ire, and then admonish listeners not to hate their enemy.

On CBS’ “60 Minutes” program last Sunday, correspondent James Brown interviewed Cornel West. Among other things, they discussed the Black Lives Matters movement in the context of recent racial tensions in America. Referencing Black Lives Matters, West intoned:

“I think that’s a marvelous new militancy that has to do with courage, vision. The fundamental challenge always is, will their rage be channeled through hatred and revenge… or though love and justice? You got to push them toward love and justice.”

Well, that’s all very nice, but how does one impel to “love and justice” millions of people who have been whipped into a frenzy over the perception that their destiny is being forged by dark white overlords who would just as soon see them languishing in barb wire enclosed ghettoes patrolled by black-clad tactical assault teams?
Well, West didn’t say, but the refrain is still the same: The rich are evil, the downtrodden are noble, and leftism would save the day if only given the chance. It’s what he’s been saying for the last 40 years. As such, West is now recognized as something of a sage in the activist community.

This week, our illustrious president Barack Hussein Obama visited the communist island nation of Cuba. This of course gave rise to much contention, as the visit sort of symbolizes the success of the pernicious Obama agenda.

Since he’s an America-hating, socialist swine, Obama eagerly entertained criticism of America from Cuban President Raul Castro on the issues of race relations and economic inequality. In a sense, it is amusing that the tinhorn dictator of this Third World latrine would have the temerity to criticize America on those points, since race relations and economic inequality in Cuba are handled with the same heavy hand as other concerns. In other words: Don’t talk about it or they’ll find you in a culvert with four bullets in the back of your head.

Speaking as I have before to race relations in that sunny communist paradise: The Cuban people run from white to black, ethnically-speaking, owing to colonization, the slave trade, and so forth. Despite the oh-so-equitable leveling effect of communism however, the stratification of power and influence still runs along racial lines, with whites (like the Castros) at the top, browns in the middle, and blacks on the bottom. You will never see a Cuban with black skin holding a position of power or authority in the Cuban government.

This is one of the reasons I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus, the toadying pack of leftist lawmakers who have traveled to Cuba and returned to laud its nonexistent achievements, are either dizzyingly stupid or fundamentally evil.

A few controversies – other than Obama visiting Cuba in the first place – reared their heads surrounding the trip. One involved the U.S. delegation in Cuba posing for a photo in front of a well-known statue of the homicidal communist revolutionary Ché Guevara. A good cross section of the disgust expressed by online personalities both prominent and otherwise is posted here.


Another bit of business had to do with a story I’ve been following for a long time. As reported by Fox News, Col. Rick Fuentes, superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, posted a video to a social media site late last week in which he reminded readers that Cuba has long been a haven for American leftist dissidents, fugitive cop killers and terrorists.

One of the most prominent of these is Joanne Chesimard, a former Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army member. Chesimard, who became a hero to American radicals under the asinine Africanized pseudonym Assata Shakur, was convicted in the killing of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in 1973. She later escaped custody and fled to Cuba.

There was a time in this nation when the likes of Chesimard, her accomplices, and anyone who held solidarity with them were considered unbalanced at best, treasonous and dangerous at worst. Despite the injustices that Americans sought to right during the Civil Rights Movement, most did not believe that militancy was the way, and that those who resorted to it were succumbing to their own hatred and anger, rather than a reasoned need for such methods. Similarly, communist governments were viewed as being captained by little more than common criminals.

Having permitted the ongoing infusion of moral relativism into Americans’ collective worldview, tolerance of the radical left, and finally the political rise to power of people like Barack Obama, perceptions changed. These scum, whether the Castros or the American criminals for whom they have provided sanctuary, are now viewed as brothers-in-arms by Obama, his cabinet, his surrogates, and millions of propagandized useful idiots who celebrate socialist sabotage and the rapid decline of America.

The enflamed and contentious campaign season we’re seeing indicates that the purulent minority who have captured our government and key areas of communications do not represent the perspective of most Americans. It’s that simple.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Where’s Rep. Joe Wilson When We Need Him?

Where’s Rep. Joe Wilson When We Need Him?

On several occasions since January 2009, I commented on my surprise at the speed with which Barack Hussein Obama began implementing his radical political agenda. By late 2009, it was evident to the astute that this Obama fellow was going to be really bad news – even worse than our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, to whom some quickly drew comparisons.

Thus, it wasn’t only unsurprising but gratifying to many when, on Sept. 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted “You lie!” during a speech before a joint session of Congress while Obama attempted to assuage the concerns of those who believed that White House health-care reform proposals would insure illegal immigrants.

Wilson was right, of course; as he would occur on innumerable occasions in the future, Obama was being willfully deceptive.

On Feb. 5 of this year, as Obama held court in the White House press room, he had the temerity to assert that the U.S. unemployment rate dropping to 4.9 percent was proof that his laughable “economic recovery” is a success.

The problem? As pointed out by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh later that day, the White House is now using use “first time” unemployment calculations as its chief indicator for reporting on overall unemployment. The “first time” unemployment rate only reflects those who have become unemployed for the first time, and within a very short period that the administration itself sets. Not only does this serve to artificially and dramatically reduce the unemployment rate, but the government can pretty much adjust that rate to whatever they want it to be by further manipulating that already constricted temporal band.

So, the unemployment numbers as stated by Obama are a lie.

As I asked in an earlier column: With 96 million of out of a labor force of 158 million not working, what is the real unemployment rate? Do the math.

Then, as reported in WND, last Wednesday Obama stood before cameras in a Baltimore mosque and declared that “Muslim-Americans keep us safe.” Speaking at the Islamic Society of Baltimore (a mosque with ties to terrorism), Obama conveyed a gobful of Islamic apologist drivel, including his reference to an entirely theoretical handful of generic Muslim-American stalwarts who supposedly “keep us safe” while millions of their brethren plot our destruction.

“Muslim-Americans keep us safe. … They are our police. They are our firefighters. They’re in [the Department of] Homeland Security.”

– Barack Hussein Obama, Feb. 3, 2016

Yes, laughing boy – there are Muslim covert operatives in the Department of Homeland Security because you put them there to undermine our national security from within.

Obama compounded this lie with even more lies, among them his claim of “fact” that the word “Islam” means “peace,” when it is common knowledge that the literal translation of the word is “submission,” as WND columnist Dennis Prager pointed out.

Ready … Set … You LIE!

Indeed – where’s Rep. Wilson when we need him?

There are occasions upon which I fear more than usual that the time for legislative or electoral remedies to the endemic corruption and treason of our government officials has long since passed. The same can be said for western European nations, whose citizens value the traditional precepts of American society, which they have sought to emulate to varying degrees over the years.

This commonality gives rise to something I believe it would behoove Americans to recognize and take to heart: We in America are not simply dealing with a criminal administration and deeply corrupt culture in Washington while we observe the unfolding chaos in Europe. We are dealing with rapidly encroaching international socialism across the West. This might be more aptly designated “InterNational Socialism” so that people might make the very real connection between this doctrine and the national socialists (Nazis) of Hitler’s Third Reich.

Islam has always been a scourge upon civilization. It is is a primitive creed tailored to the sensibilities of those who are culturally more kindred to australopithecines than to Australians. As has been proven over 14 centuries, these retrograde societies always gravitate more toward perverse patriarchy and barbarism than industry or spirituality. This is why, contrary to progressive revisionist history, Muslims have never created anything. If you want to get into a metaphysical argument, I’ll maintain that if Judaism and Christianity came from the drawing board of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then Islam’s origins are almost certainly Luciferian.

To international socialists, however, Islam’s function is to present a sufficient threat to necessitate, in Americans’ eyes, the surrender of all of our rights under the Constitution. The cavalier, summary admittance of hundreds of thousands of Muslim “refugees” into Europe and the U.S. is simply the means by which ruling elites are hastening the plan to achieve sufficient numbers of Muslims to effectively manifest that threat.

Barack Obama’s perennially Orwellian rhetoric is not only a function of his political designs; it is an integral component to international socialist subjugation of the West. To the rational mind, it appears that this can only end in chaos, but the chaos itself is meant to give rise to the global socialist state – or at least a hard-line socialist collective of developed nations.

For my part, I can say that an insurrection in America – which would at least carry some hope of defeating the international socialists and their Islamist surrogates – would be far superior to Americans existing in the state of fear and increasing bedlam to which citizens are being subjected in Scandinavia and Germany, with the grimy followers of a verminous cult raping and pillaging at will, and the vile creatures who govern rushing to excuse this behavior at every available opportunity.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments