barack obama

Crediting Trump with Obama’s Crimes

Crediting Trump with Obama’s Crimes

Here’s another one from the “Laughable if it Wasn’t So Deadly Serious” Department: By now, we’re quite familiar with the phenomenon of the left coordinating its deceitful talking points. Naturally, the most offensive aspect of this is that the American press echoes White House talking points verbatim.

Having a press establishment that is little more than a public relations vehicle for the Obama administration is one thing; hearing coverage that is increasingly so diametrically opposed to reality that it is obviously intended for the intellectually compromised just adds insult to injury.

What follows includes a prominent journalist, a state governor, and a Hollywood mogul advancing talking points that are far too similar to have been original thought.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, veteran journalist Ted Koppel bemoaned the popular success of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, then accused him of acting as “the Recruiter-in-Chief for ISIS” because some of his proposed policies will alienate Muslims. Koppel’s reasoning was that Muslims are going to get ticked off at Trump’s rhetoric and go join ISIS, which will pose an increased threat to America.

Inane logic to be sure, but if the left can get Americans to believe it, it could hurt Trump.

Next item: Early this week on MSNBC, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went ballistic on Trump, claiming that he is a “recruitment poster for ISIS.” Norman Lear, long-time left wing activist and creator of the 1970s TV sitcom “All in the Family” recently told an audience that Donald Trump scares him more than ISIS. He also did his level best to equate such things as “hate speech” and “Islamophobia” with conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who represents for our Republic.

Full disclosure: I get trashed on a regular basis by Right Wing Watch, a web presence of People for the American Way, an activist group Lear founded in 1981. I describe Lear’s vast and enduring contributions to cultural rot and racist propaganda in my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.

What’s ironic of course is that these leftist hacks are projecting upon Trump that of which their exalted bringer of fundamental transformation is guilty: A relationship to ISIS.

Although beltway politicians, the press, and the Obama administration do fear Donald Trump, demonizing him over his stance on Muslims isn’t just about knocking him out of the race for the GOP nomination.

Advancing the idea that Muslims are going to get ticked off at what a presidential candidate says and join ISIS en masse is meant to engender fear in Americans, and promulgates the thoroughly disproven theory that appeasing Muslims will make them be nice to us.

Overall, the objective for the Obama administration and its co-conspirators is to inculcate into Americans the belief that Islam is just another religion that deserves the same protections as any other established religion, despite the increasing militancy of Muslims worldwide over the last several decades.

The truth is that Islam is no more “just another religion” that the Soviet Union was “just another Western democracy.”

Sayest thou: “But Erik – the Soviet Union was neither Western nor a democracy.”

Precisely – and neither is Islam a religion in either the operational or the constitutional sense. Fourteen centuries of Muslim history coupled with the aforementioned increase in militancy illustrate this point better than anything I could articulate.

Part of the mission of Obama and establishment elites in fundamentally transforming America includes establishing a politically-active Muslim population that is able to influence politics electorally, just as has occurred in several European nations.

Those bringing this about know that they don’t have the fifty years European socialists had to boil the frog. This is why Obama has been clandestinely importing Muslims into the U.S., and is intent upon bringing in as many more as possible, as quickly as possible. They’re also terrified that Americans – with that pesky affinity for liberty – are already starting to balk at the program. As we know, Donald Trump’s more controversial campaign stances merely reflect the sentiments of fed-up Americans.

One may recall our radical affirmative action Attorney General Loretta Lynch having recently floated the notion that the U.S. Justice Department was going to prosecute anyone who advocated violent action against Muslims. That didn’t go over so well, and a couple of prominent politicians did just that and dared Lynch to prosecute them.

First, these facilitators for Islam would have Americans accept Muslims on terms that Muslims themselves dictate. They also wish Americans to fear Muslims’ volatile nature. Ultimately, speaking out against Muslims in any manner will become unlawful. At present, the facilitators are attempting to engender grave doubt concerning Americans’ right and resolve to neutralize Islam and militant Muslims through whatever measures citizens of a sane nation might deem appropriate in the present situation. Should I refrain from using deadly force in defending my wife against a Muslim rapist? I might get prosecuted for a hate crime. We can’t run that story on the pedophiliac prostitution gang because they’re Muslims…

I don’t have to enumerate the horrors Americans will face if we do not politically neuter Islam in America, and soon; all one has to do is look to the chaos currently being visited upon Europe and Scandinavia by Muslims.

The deception being proffered by the left regarding Islam is a work of dark fiction. It has been made clear that an active concern on our part over potentially alienating Muslims is a manifestly unintelligent, suicidal pursuit, and a strategy that is dramatically more offensive is definitely in order.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Prosecute Barack Obama

Prosecute Barack Obama

Based on the marked proliferation of press reports coming out of the world’s developed nations and the statements of government officials therein, it appears as though nearly everyone except for the American citizenry (or at least average American news consumers) are aware that members of our government and their powerful confederates engaged in a far-reaching international money-laundering scheme dedicated to financing Islamic terrorists abroad.

It also remains unknown to fat, happy Americans on the proverbial hamster wheel that dozens of government, military and intelligence personnel have either been harassed, prosecuted and/or imprisoned by our government for attempting to bring its illegal activities (terrorist funding and illegal domestic surveillance among them) to light.

Finally, among many quite verifiable charges of which most Americans appear to have extremely limited knowledge include that the White House:

  • first clandestinely, then later with the cooperation of members of Congress, supplied funds, training and weaponry to Islamic terrorists abroad, including the ISIS (or Islamic State) group;
  • catalyzed the 2011 “Arab Spring” and the downfall of standing governments in Egypt and Libya;
  • was singularly responsible for the rise of the brutal and genocidal regime of Muslim Brotherhood thug Mohamed Morsi to power in Egypt;
  • utilized the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, as a way station for the illegal transportation of weapons to Islamist groups in Syria, subsequently either allowing the facility to be attacked on Sept. 11, 2012, or bringing about said attack in order to obliterate evidence of this treason;
  • is currently conducting an elaborate counterfeit military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which it in fact supports;
  • has used the aforementioned counterfeit military campaign to spawn chaos within the region, thereby compounding the current orchestrated “refugee crisis” in Europe, which the administration clearly desires to expand to the continental United States for the purpose of further destabilizing America domestically;
  • facilitated the rise of nationalist neo-Nazis to power in Ukraine in 2013, in violation of the Constitution and international law (but in keeping with its Hitlerian character and objectives), and to this end engaged in widespread black operations, counterintelligence programs and campaigns of murder calculated to destabilize Ukraine and implicate the Russian government;
  • is attempting to frame recent military action on the part of the Russian government in support of Syria (the only one to have damaged ISIS and stemmed its momentum) as Russian aggression and interference in the region.

While American analysts and commentators have engaged in a great deal of speculation with regard to these issues over the past few years, outside of the U.S. they have all become more or less common knowledge among governments, press and intelligence interests. Recently, many have been publicly corroborated by government officials and press in Russia and Europe (whereas the Middle Eastern press has been reporting on these stories for two years or more).

There’s a saying that goes something like this (and I am definitely paraphrasing): “If you meet one idiot during the course of the day, that’s no big deal, but if you meet more than three, it might be time to take a look at your own behavior.”

Which means that if it is only our government and the American press that are maintaining the narratives advanced by the Obama administration out of all of the other sources around the globe that contradict them, then it might be time to consider the possibility that these other sources are telling the truth and that the Obama administration is lying through its teeth.

Internationally, the turning point was Sept. 28, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. On that day, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech essentially calling out the Obama regime for its crimes, if not enumerating them. In this light, and in the ensuing climate it helped to create, Russia’s subsequent military aid to the Assad government in Syria could only be seen by the world as an effort to prevent its destruction by Obama, as has occurred with other governments in the region.

Putin correctly pointed out that White House policies have served to destabilize the entire Middle East as well as vast regions in Africa, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands.

The good news is that due to this confluence of events, more people in America and the West are waking up to the deeply diabolical nature of the Obama administration every day.

There are also other things that have recently emerged, which are adding to the atmosphere of global suspicion aimed at the White House. We have smoking guns in the form of evidence presented by government and intelligence personnel who have managed to get their evidence out without being killed or imprisoned, whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden (who recently released new hard evidence of the administration’s crimes) and international researchers who have publicized government campaigns of psychological operations and counterintelligence programs against average citizens.

A new film, “Silenced,” by Academy Award-nominated director James Spione, deals with Washington’s increasingly draconian policies concerning whistleblowers and the catastrophic toll taken on those who have dared to question our government’s national security policy. This holds the promise of enlightening even more as to the Obama regime’s criminality.

Slowly, the truth is being unearthed for the world to see, and this is that Barack Hussein Obama and his Cabinet, past and present, are war criminals of a particularly malevolent order.

In the interest of restoring the republic however, it is imperative that Obama and his sordid pantheon of demons are not allowed to cheerfully pass the torch to the next equally corrupt administration in January 2017. They all must be brought to justice, and in a very public way, whatever the cost.


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Conservative Talker at War With Himself

The Conservative Talker at War With Himself

It was last Friday, the 14th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on America by Islamists, and the third anniversary of the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. I was listening to a conservative talking head whom I once respected rail about Senate Republicans telegraphing their intention to allow President Obama’s Iran deal to go through, and how weak the GOP leadership has been in their failure to hold Obama in abeyance. He went on to characterize Obama’s Iran policy as naïve and foolish.

That same day, I also read a post by another conservative media personality that wound up being featured by some prominent online news sources. The post, as well as some bizarre, incongruent statements this person made in the days leading up to it were of a decidedly dismal tone.

I’m not trying to pick a fight, nor am I irrevocably condemning these individuals, because they’ve done more good than a lot of people. In the latter case, we’re looking at a man who did things in his industry no one should have been expected nor able to do, especially these days. He started a streaming video network that gained enough momentum to become a cable television network, woke many Americans up to the machinations of our enemies and to the spiritual foundation of this nation, and did it all while battling some pretty serious health problems.

One of the most significant things he has articulated is that Americans must humble themselves before God if we wish to preserve this nation. With that I cannot agree more strongly, and I wish more prominent conservatives would do likewise.

Yet, by this man’s own testimony, he’s terribly disillusioned with where he is. Not with where the nation is, not with where his industry is – at this point, it’s a given that those are in the crapper – but where he is.

Now, why might that be..?

I’ll take a stab at it, and wager a lot that this assessment is correct: It’s because he’s not telling the truth anymore, and he knows it.

I don’t mean that he’s lying. What I mean is that his passion for setting America straight has become largely theoretical in that he appears to have become just another corporate media guy with a corporate media guy’s agenda. This may seem out of character, but it’s his out of character behavior of late (such as openly insulting certain individuals a lot of his fans respect and then apologizing, publishing disheartening posts, and intimating that he should withdraw from public life) that’s disturbing. For someone who had been a model of consistency, I imagine it has given some of his fans pause.

For someone who had been at the forefront of saying what needed to be said despite the risks, I found it disconcerting that whenever the topic of our odious chief executive’s true origins or eligibility arose on his show, this fellow and his on-air sidekicks would spend the next five minutes giggling – giggling – over the absurdity of anyone even considering the issues.

I don’t intend to drag us down the eligibility rabbit-hole right now, but it has been incontrovertibly established that Obama provided fraudulent identity documents to the Democratic National Committee in 2008, that high-level individuals in the DNC abetted the fraud, and that the long-form birth certificate released in 2011 is a forgery.

It is also indisputable that Obama’s allegiance is not to this nation, but to an amalgam of Marxist and Islamist ideologies and interests, including big-money Muslim concerns here and overseas who contributed in no small way to his ascendancy. Barack Obama catalyzed the Arab Spring and established ISIS as surely as John F. Kennedy launched the Peace Corps.

It has become equally clear that many high-ranking Republicans have been complicit – not weak and ineffectual, but complicit – with regard to Obama’s crimes.

But the commentator and the media mogul I mentioned aren’t talking about any of that.

It’s one thing to discuss how Obama hung out with radicals and had a black militant pastor, and how the GOP leadership has been wholly inadequate in dealing with him. But if one has a fan base of millions and they’re not discussing Obama’s serial acts of treason, then what’s the point?

If such persons can’t grasp and articulate that Obama wants a nuclear Iran in order to further destabilize the region – destabilization being an effort to which he has been steadfastly dedicated – then they’re utterly useless.

If commentators whine about what weaklings Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are, but they’re not openly discussing the complicity of high-ranking Republicans in facilitating the Benghazi attack and ongoing coverup, aiding Obama in financing, arming, and training ISIS and other terrorist groups, as well as advancing hardcore socialism whilst wearing conservative’s clothing, then they’re just as superficial and dishonest as every other so-called conservative who won’t go there.

If a conservative news outlet runs stories on the White House cooking the books on estimations of the ISIS terror group’s military strength from the viewpoint of the administration attempting to frame their efforts against ISIS more favorably, rather than their deliberately deceiving the international community to allow ISIS time to gain the strength of an army – which we now know has occurred – then they’re worse than the establishment press.

Yes… I guess I can see how someone with a conscience might consider withdrawing from public life if some factor or factors arose that, in their estimation, precluded their speaking the truth any longer – especially with the stakes as high as they are.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

There have been some pretty potent reactions in the alternative press to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s WND column of July 1, “Hillary’s secret war.” In it, the judge analyzes a shocking interview with an international arms dealer that centers around the man’s dealings with the State Department under Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence in the same vein that has surfaced through other sources, Clinton’s destruction of emails covering that period and testimony she gave at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January of 2013.

Napolitano is one of the first of his stature and background in the law to pull no punches pertaining to the former secretary of state’s criminality. Yet despite his usual unambiguous legal opinions – or judgments, if you will – written and broadcast, here he doesn’t provide any, instead leaving the reader to digest the weighty revelations.

I could almost hear the Judge intone to his readers: You’re smart; you figure it out. What do we typically do with people who commit serial criminal offenses?

Writing for last week, Mark Tapson made a case for arresting and charging Ms. Clinton, as well as expressing an almost passionate yearning that this would take place with all due speed.

Judge Napolitano’s column ends with the following:

“Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?”

Strong words, and Napolitano certainly echoes my sentiments. The urgency contained in that final paragraph reminded me of an editorial comment I made elsewhere just this past weekend. This one addressed the Obama State Department denying visas to Assyrian Christians who were in imminent danger of persecution from the ISIS terror group several weeks ago, while continuing to allow every potential jihadi who wishes it entry into the United States:

“When will Americans – American Christians in particular – stand up and demand that … Barack Hussein Obama II be dragged from the White House in chains?”

Strong words? I suppose – but certainly in keeping with the opinions I usually express here.

Back to Judge Napolitano’s pointed questions, specifically the last one. Does Hillary Clinton think American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and elect her president? For me, that gave rise to yet another question: Why are she and the president still walking around free, committing crimes and lying their faces off about them on a daily basis?

The answer to that one might very well answer the last question posed by the judge.

Here’s the reasoning: It would be very easy for American voters to overlook Clinton’s criminal behavior if they didn’t know about it in the first place.

Why wouldn’t voters put Hillary Clinton in the White House if her crimes are systematically overlooked by the press and the Republican leadership in the same manner Barack Obama’s identity fraud, lack of a valid birth certificate, forged Selective Service registration, invalid Social Security number, sealed academic records, ties to criminals, terrorists, radicals, and racists, and possible ties to several Chicago murders were systematically overlooked by the press and by Republicans during the 2008 election cycle?

Bereft of such information as discussed in the judge’s column, revealed in the Fox News investigation he references, other evidence gleaned by unbiased news sources and by Congress, American voters would have little more than the Clinton hype machine and shallow cult of personality upon which to base their estimations of her. Add to that an establishment press fawning over her in the same obsequious manner as they fawned over Obama in 2008, and she’s well on her way to the White House.

And wouldn’t it’d be so cool for America to finally have her first woman president?

Within days of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, I voiced my concern that as opposed to having botched or nixed a rescue of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who perished, the White House might actually have orchestrated the event to erase (or at least obscure) evidence of their criminal activities with regard to arming terrorists, which was indeed occurring at the time.

Should this have been the case, the order certainly would not have come from Hillary Clinton. Testimony has been given asserting that agents of the later deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were participants in the Benghazi attack. Obama himself bulldozed the way for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood thugs into Cairo. Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been extremely close with Morsi and the ‘Brotherhood for years – in the case of the Clintons, it’s been decades.

That’s likely one of the reasons Egyptian-born Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department and current campaign staffer, has been doing her share to stonewall the probe into the Benghazi massacre. Abedin comes from a good, solid Muslim Brotherhood family, and while her attorney insists that she’s been “searching her personal records,” she still hasn’t turned over documents that the House Select Committee on Benghazi claims could clarify questions about the origins of the bogus “anti-Islam YouTube video” memorandum the White House used to explain the motive for the attack.

Perhaps Abedin inadvertently saved her work files on Hillary’s email server …

Last Friday, Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said that his organization’s independent investigation produced evidence that Hillary Clinton herself was instrumental in crafting the counterfeit Benghazi talking points, as opposed to simply reciting the false narrative.

None of this information, however, is reaching the voters Judge Napolitano referenced. I am certainly not offering this to discredit the Judge’s estimation of this case in any way, but the titanic mound of damning evidence against the president, Ms. Clinton and scores of complicit White House appointees that is so familiar to WND readers and other astute citizens is wholly unknown to the vast majority of Americans who will cast votes in 2016. Think about that.

Like the facts which should have rendered Barack Obama unelectable in 2008, this evidence could very well remain unknown to them, giving Ms. Clinton an excellent shot at the presidency.

In the current radically corrupted political climate, why wouldn’t we expect such a thing to occur?

Originally published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns


[This commentary was originally published in The New Media Journal on February 21, 2007, and was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright.]

How many Americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was the member of a church that professed the following credo?

  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the White Community
  3. Commitment to the White Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

The question is rhetorical, of course. The answer is that such a candidate wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher (apologies to America’s animal rescue and public safety personnel) let alone President, because that candidate would be instantly branded a racist, among the most vile and frightening of white supremacists.

And those holding the branding irons would be 100% right.

Yet, in the “About” section of the U.S. Senate website for Barack Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois and contender for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, it states that Obama and his family “live on Chicago’s South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.”


Well, to say that the Trinity United Church of Christ ( is afrocentric in the extreme would be a gross understatement. It’s not simply afrocentric, it’s African-centric. In fact, one could argue that this organization worships things African to a far greater degree than they do Christ, and gives the impression of being a separatist “church” in the same vein as do certain supremacist “white brethren” churches — or even Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Shocking? An overstatement? An overreaction?

One can see for oneself on the Trinity United Church website, which is replete with confirmation of what I present here. What follows is an excerpt from their Mission Statement:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the Black Community
  3. Commitment to the Black Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.”

Sound familiar? Of course it is, since it’s identical to the 12-point list at the beginning of this column — the one from the theoretical white supremacist candidate’s church; the only difference is the substitution of the word “Black” for “White.”

Trinity United Church of Christ’s congregation also claims to hold to a “10-point Vision” which is similarly afrocentric, or if you will, separatist. Again, like the Nation of Islam, a white separatist church or the Branch Davidians, Trinity United more resembles a cult than a church. Only this one has as one of its most prominent members a serious contender for the White House.

And George W. Bush’s born-again Christian status scares people?

These revelations, of course shed all the light we need on Obama’s inscrutability; since before he announced his candidacy, both the Right and Left have commented on the lack of information vis-à-vis just who Barack Obama is and what he’s about.

From The Chicago Tribune, February 06, 2007, Column: Against Middleclassness? by Rich Lowry. “Vallmer Jordan, a church member who helped draft the precepts, said they were designed to empower the black community and counter a value system imposed by whites. ‘The big question mark was racism,’ he said. ‘Black disempowerment was an integral part of that historical value system. It became increasingly apparent to me that we black people had not developed our own value system . . . to help us overcome all we knew we had to battle.'”

“A value system imposed by whites…” Is Jordan speaking of the value system that kept families together and promoted morality, industry and integrity, or the one imposed by liberal dependency pimps since the Civil Rights Movement?

True enough that many blacks did abandon values; again, this was due to the corruption of the black clergy by white socialists and their black foremen. Trinity United seems to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Gravitation toward an Africanized “year-round Kwanzaa”-based pseudo-Christianity seems less of a solution than returning to the moral and social conservatism Blacks held prior to the aforementioned socialists gaining their stranglehold in the black community.

So is Obama seeking to be our first black president, or our first stealth black nationalist president? You see, were he a run-of-the-mill insincere Christian of convenience like Bill Clinton, Obama might belong to a run-of-the-mill, lukewarm, large nondescript church. But he doesn’t. He belongs to a church which is (as I indicated before) blatantly afrocentric and even suggests the supremacy of Africa’s descendants in America.

Granted that the Left will have no qualms about this highly questionable affiliation, but what about all of the American swing voters to whom Obama has built broad appeal by presenting himself as sort of a generic, open-minded moderate Democrat (as Bill Clinton also did, by the way)? Are they going to go for a candidate whose heart is actually closer to that of a refined Black Panther?

Trinity United clearly embraces things African above things American. The content of their website makes this undeniably clear. Aside from this tack being divisive, separatist and calls into question its adherents’ identification as Americans, if they’re looking for values, they — and Obama — would be better served by looking to modern political conservatives and traditional Christianity than retrograde African precepts and the Democrat Party.

Obama’s affiliation with this church, if I must call it that, should be as alarming to the American voter as a Republican candidate for president belonging to the Aryan Brethren Church of Christ. Any argument against this assertion is politically-correct delusion, reverse discrimination and a hypocrisy — a very dangerous one.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
If Obama Loves America, I’m a Pole Dancer

If Obama Loves America, I’m a Pole Dancer

A couple of things came into the realm of public discussion over the last week that were almost providential in their timing: statements by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressing President Barack Obama’s sentiments toward America and a series of assertions referencing Islam made by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Last week during a private GOP dinner event, Giuliani reportedly stated that he didn’t believe President Obama loves America. This resulted in criticism of the former mayor and, of course, a few charges of racism, but it also initiated a wide discussion of what Obama’s sentiments toward this country actually might be.

Last weekend, Johnson told “Fox News Sunday” that President Obama’s decision not to refer to atrocities committed by the ISIS (ISIL, Islamic State) terror group as demonstrating a form of “radical Islam” (instead using the term “violent extremism” to describe such actions) was due to the entreaties of some in the Muslim community. This would tend to suggest that Obama was either weak or inordinately sympathetic to our enemies.

Later in the week at Obama’s dubious Countering Violent Extremism summit, Johnson asserted that it was part of the administration’s job to “give voice to the plight of Muslims and the discrimination that they face.”

Regarding Obama’s choice of words referencing Islamist terrorism, Johnson said on Sunday: “The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ‘ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion.’” Johnson added that Muslim leaders argue Islam is about peace and brotherhood, and resent ISIS sullying that image.

Anyone who has been paying attention (or reading this column for any length of time) is aware that the indignation of Muslim leaders in this area is part of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya. This refers to using deception (lying) to infidels to advance the cause of Islam, and it has been practiced for centuries.

So, the claims of Muslim leaders that terror groups are hijacking their religion is a deception of which Jeh Johnson is either ignorant or actively promoting at the behest of our president, who is most assuredly dedicated to Islamist ascendency.

Now, let us address Jeh Johnson’s claim of discrimination that Muslims in America supposedly face. In addition to being a false premise (or blatant misrepresentation) in the context of civil rights vis-à-vis ethnic and religious minorities’ struggles in America, it is yet another deception. This deception is calculated to buy time and, of course, to compromise our defenses. Islamist clerics, leaders and pundits quite often claim oppression and discrimination as they proffer arguments of Islam being about peace and brotherhood; however, when put off balance in a discussion (which is surprisingly easy to do), they lose their composure and begin to rail about the supremacy of Islam and the destruction of Israel and America. I have seen this passive-aggressive drama played out countless times.

While politicos, pundits and the man in the street agonize over why Obama refuses to identify Islamic terrorism as such, or if he loves America or not, the answer is hiding in plain sight. It is the dirty little secret that was kept so well from the American people, the one that would have precluded Barack Hussein Obama ever being elected president of the United States of America.

It is also the reason Obama’s critics employ terms such as “incompetent” and “clueless” to describe his policies, instead of “sabotage” and “treason.”

The secret is that Obama and nearly all in his employ despise America and the entire model of Western society. This includes democratic republicanism, capitalism, as well as Judeo-Christian principles and values. A large measure of their antipathy is also due to the fact that they consider this paradigm an Anglo-European (white) paradigm.

Obama and his ilk are an amalgam of radicals in the ’60s mold, whether Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Structural Marxists, black and Latino nationalists, Marxist feminists, Nation of Islam, or Sunni Muslim Islamists. All of these groups are intensely hateful, and all embrace the short historical worldview that the Evil Old White Man (those of northern European descent) has been exploiting nonwhites for centuries, it is time for this to come to an end, and it is their mission – nay, their destiny – to bring this end about.

They view America as the white man’s “signature creation” – so of course America has to go.

The sentiments of a Barack Obama (or an Eric Holder, Van Jones, etc.), therefore, will always lie with the Islamists, who they perceive as having been exploited and oppressed by the Anglo-European capitalist colonialist Judeo-Christian leviathan. Their sentiments will always lie with the urban black street thug rather than their law-abiding white victim, because it is the white victim who is in part responsible for the black thug’s pain.

In their worldview, all Americans – most especially those of northern European descent – share in the blame for years of America’s dominance on the world stage and must be made to submit collective restitution in one form or another for the crimes perpetrated on their behalf by their government, corporations and the military.

Obama’s use of terms such as “grievances” and “resentments” to describe the conditions and attitudes of people in countries that incubate terrorism is indicative of this Marxist-based victimology. In so doing, what Obama intimates is that these conditions and attitudes were ultimately brought about by the oppression and economic exploitation of said nations by the West over the last century or so. We’re the reason their lot in life sucks, and so we are obligated to do something about it – thus the administration’s references to jobs and economic investment.

Offering social reforms to combat terrorism, as Obama did at the summit, is not only patently insane, but shows how deeply entrenched he is in this paradigm, whether he honestly believes that jobs programs will stultify the proliferation of terrorism, or he is just using this line of reasoning as a deception for the gullible.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

MERRY CHRISTMAS! Egypt Indicts Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Merry Christmas, America! Indeed, it looks like someone’s chickens are coming home to roost…

As reported by the Western Center for Journalism, in two separate criminal complaints, Egyptian lawmakers have charged Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the Egyptian government.

Over the last week, we’ve been covering the story of the Turkish press having reported the testimony of ousted Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Mahmood. She has testified to President Obama and Hillary Clinton having been complicit in the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and in efforts to overthrow the current leader of Egypt, General Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi.

What we want to know is: Who’s going to be the first journalist in the Washington Press Corps to ask Obama about these charges?

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in News