democratic socialism

A “Cold Civil War” We Absolutely Must Win

A “Cold Civil War” We Absolutely Must Win

By Erik Rush •

Last Friday on his radio show, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that America is in the middle of a “Cold Civil War” whose origins lie in Democrat attempts to oust President Donald Trump and preserve the culture of corruption in Washington.
While this is most certainly true, it is important that those who acknowledge this are mindful of the fact that despite the ceaseless incendiary rhetoric and abject hatred aimed at Trump, the president is really just a symbolic representation of the political left’s real enemy: The American people.

Most recently, House Democrats stepped up their efforts to impeach the president despite their inability to cite even one high crime or misdemeanor he has allegedly committed. This was largely catalyzed by the White House’s public focus on Democratic presidential hopeful and former vice president Joe Biden’s involvement in corruption stemming from his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China and Ukraine. Recent inquiries and press coverage surrounding a telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, supposedly spurred on by a shadowy whistleblower, proved to be little more than a diversion calculated to obfuscate the former vice president’s questionable role in his son’s business.

I could spend all day enumerating and dismantling the lies, calumnies and projection Democrats and the hard left have put forth in their quest to tarnish Trump’s presidency in recent months, but I’d like to return to Mr. Limbaugh’s statement for a moment.

The Cold War represented the period of geopolitical tension between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union which lasted from shortly after World War II through 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. The nomenclature was derived from the fact that despite there having been no direct military engagement between the two sides, pretty much everything else that goes on between warring nations was going on; military buildups, proxy wars, espionage, sabotage and the like. All that would have been needed at the time was an initial military strike or declaration of war, and the game would have been on. Since this would have likely resulted in a global exchange of nuclear weapons, it is fortunate that none of these things occurred.

Considering that the primary distinction between a “cold war” and a real war is the lack of actual fighting, it may be helpful to examine the sentiments and the similarities common to both the Cold War of the post WWII era and the “Cold Civil War” referenced by Mr. Limbaugh.
The first commonality that occurs to me is that during the Cold War, the U.S. was pitted against a communist regime, the USSR. During this period, it was clear to nearly all Americans that we were resisting a political system so odious and amoral that the risk of nuclear annihilation during the course of our efforts to overcome this regime was quite acceptable.

In other words, nearly all Americans would have rather gone down fighting than “go communist.” There was very little that either side was unwilling to do to prevail over the other, short of triggering actual military engagement. Despite this, we did come close a few times.

The second concerns the methods and strategies employed by the USSR during the Cold War. While these were common to many communist regimes of the era (such as China, North Korea and Cuba), they became familiar to all Americans during this period. The charges of Soviet premiers and other officials against America, our leaders and our people were so fallacious and patently bizarre that they became fodder for the jokes of stand-up comedians, and were even ridiculed in the American press.

They were also a pointed and ongoing lesson in the abject immorality of the political left. During the height of the Cold War (chiefly, the 1960s through the mid-1980s), Americans who embraced leftist politics were regarded as fringe elements who, while troublesome, were unlikely to amass any real political power.

What’s unfortunate here is that despite the fringe designation, leftists were patiently and quite effectively doing just that.

As we know, the election of Donald Trump represented a popular rejection of encroaching socialistic policies and the corrupt status quo in Washington. Between this and Trump’s efforts to expose and dismantle that corrupt culture and elements of the Deep State, leftists have become undone, at least in the mental and emotional sense. Having been so patient over the previous 100 years, and having made substantial gains in ensuring their ascendency during the Obama administration, between the stakes involved and their mounting fear and desperation, it is clear that their strategy has become a do-or-die proposition.

The abject immorality of American left’s methods perfectly echoes those of leftist Cold War regimes, and their operatives are now shamelessly supporting policies and measures so antithetical to our traditions, the Constitution and the rule of law that merely suggesting them 50 years ago would have resulted in the suggesting party or parties being placed on an FBI watch list or worse.

On Monday, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris argued on CNN that President Trump’s Twitter account ought to be suspended. Harris cited the president’s unacceptable rhetoric as a rationale for such a move, but the real motivation lies in the Democratic leadership’s knowledge that Trump is killing them on social media and has been doing so since he before he took office.

Last week, perhaps in a bid to re-energize his flagging presidential campaign, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) told an audience at Kent State University that only the government should be trusted with guns. O’Rourke, who said “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” at the most recent Democratic debate, apparently doesn’t recall or doesn’t care that it was National Guard soldiers acting at the behest of the federal government who killed four people and left nine others injured at an infamous 1970 protest at that very university.

Add to this the increasing lawlessness of the left’s special interest groups, leftists both rich and poor, and leftist politicos unapologetically telegraphing their intention to install a fascistic socialist regime sooner or later, and the battle lines in this “Cold Civil War” have been clearly drawn.

These hard-line progressives and “Democratic Socialists” are neither; they’re communists, and as far as I’m concerned, a scorched Earth is still preferable to communism.

Given that, we had better find a way to effectively and completely disenfranchise leftists in America, and the only person in power currently making overtures toward doing so is our president. As economically-savvy as Trump is, I’m sure he’s aware that unlike the USSR, we can’t depend upon American leftists simply running out of money anytime soon.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
A ‘Perfect Storm’ for Socialism’s Demise?

A ‘Perfect Storm’ for Socialism’s Demise?

By Erik Rush •

Were the stakes not so high, it would be tempting to laugh at the pathos of the Democratic Party as it prepares to take on President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign leviathan. Since some of us still retain the vestiges of superstition, I’ll dispense with smug musings, and because to do so would be far more in keeping with the deportment of the opposition.

There are a whole lot of things which speak to the desperation of Democrats and leftists at large, and these have been in evidence since Trump was elected. While it’s not something liberty-loving Americans can take to the bank just yet, at times one wonders just how much the shrill tones and hyperbole of the left will hurt Democrats in the next election. The public’s en masse desertion of traditional venues speaks to the public’s increasing distrust of these organizations, which can only be a disadvantage to Democrat candidates running in 2020.

There has also been the well-publicized internal struggle within Democratic Party factions. While the idea of impeaching the President may appeal to rabid leftists within the party, polling has shown that this is thoroughly unpopular. Thus, those in the Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez (D-NY) axis of the party and the draconian socialism proposed by newbies like Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) are a definite liability. Old guard power players like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are walking a very fine line between alienating lifelong Democrats who do not support socialism, and alienating leftists, who now represent a significant voting bloc within the party.

The theme of this election cycle is quickly shaping up to be one of capitalism versus socialism and, as radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said this past Monday, that’s probably a good thing.

Despite the major TV news networks still enjoying a well-established communications infrastructure (even if they’re not enjoying viewers), skewed polling that shows the corrupt and creepy Joe Biden pasting Trump in the election and the tireless bleating of every Democrat politico in the country, many are developing a gut instinct that the 2020 election results are going to reflect a Trump landslide so humiliating to the left that it will spell their inevitable decline as a going political concern.

It appears that even more likely voters are paying attention and informing themselves than in 2016, and that Democrats retaking the House of Representatives in 2018 may simply have reflected Democrats getting serious about the Trump threat and exploiting the dullards and miscreants who inhabit districts such as those taken by Ocascio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Among the ridiculously packed field of Democrat presidential hopefuls, we are seeing an abysmal turnout at their rallies and fundraising events, whereas the president is enjoying an almost Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1965 buzz at his own events. At President Trump’s campaign launch in Orlando this week, his supporters began showing up at the venue nearly two days early; on the morning of the event, there had been more people waiting for a longer period of time than for all of the Democratic hopefuls thus far.

As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out, there has probably never been a more opportune time for showcasing the dismal failure of socialism, particularly in the Western world. Right now, we have the quintessential capitalist serving as our president who, in a very short time, has positively energized our economy. Among likely voters and Trump supporters, the number who self-identify as former Democrats has to be producing tension on the Democrat side, particularly because many of these are millennials. One can only surmise that alternative media venues are picking up the viewers, readers and listeners that outfits like CNN can’t manage to keep.

The elephant in the room (no pun intended… really) is one which probably distresses Democrats far more than Trump’s camp, this being that although few are willing to articulate that a large measure of Trump’s support is due to the socialist policies of Barack Obama, this also stymies the efforts of any Democratic candidate who would point to Obama’s governance as a good reason to support them.

The case against socialism is also evident on the international stage. The influx of inassimilable migrants orchestrated by European politicians has rendered many urban areas dangerous for locals; these people having been sold out by their leaders is apparent to any American who isn’t still drinking the establishment press Kool-Aid. Despite a characteristic lack of coverage by the press, Venezuela’s economic implosion—which has impacted the entire region—makes this nation the poster child for socialism’s lack of viability.

While all of these developments are encouraging and indeed may be the harbinger of another Trump victory, we must remain mindful of the left’s success to date, their tenaciousness and the fact that this socialist ascendency has been in the works for 100 years. The class of people who recently voted for Ocascio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib will most assuredly be voting in the next election, as will any illegal immigrants who manage to evade the current administration’s ICE net. We can also expect to see strong representation among dead voters and those who plan to vote early and often.

Finally, we cannot forget the short memory that the electorate tends to have, nor the superficial appraisals they often give political candidates. By this I mean that we will for some time remain vulnerable to the machinations of the left, particularly in the area of identity politics. Should Trump leave office in 2025 with a booming economy, high approval numbers and a happy electorate, we will still be in danger of being hoodwinked by the next cleverly-marketed ethnic candidate or “favored” minority who runs as a centrist, but whose allegiance is to socialism.

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
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