Donald Trump

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
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
Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

By Erik Rush •

Even when Donald Trump was running for president, it was pretty evident that the establishment press was biased against him. The reason for this is not hard to discern; Trump was appealing not only to a majority of Americans, but he was doing so with values and proposals that are antithetical to the radical leftist doctrine that has become orthodoxy in newsrooms.

There is simply no debating that the press remains vehemently opposed to President Trump, moreso than they were opposed to candidate Trump. Even Politico reported on a 2016 Quinnipiac University poll which revealed that during the campaign, fifty-five percent of likely voters surveyed said the media were biased against Trump.

Since Trump’s election, this bias has become even more palpable. During the Obama administration, we witnessed a press that was slavishly devoted to the president, dedicatedly shielding him from all criticism and furtively overlooking his many deficiencies. Now, we are being treated to the opposite side of the coin.

Because the press, as the single most powerful advocate for the radical left, is now expressing hatred (which the left does so well) rather than love, as they did with Barack Obama, their obsession is even more plain, their vitriol more potent and capacious. Professionalism, ethics, maturity, and of course civility, have all been cast to the wind. These days, the most prominent press operatives (network newscasters covering the White House, for example) have become little more than smug, belligerent thugs.

To some observers, it is disgusting. To others, humorous. To some, it engenders pathos at a once-great bastion of free speech and bulwark against tyranny having given itself over to whoredom.

To still others, it is baffling: Much of the criticism being leveled by observers and pundits has to do with the press having lost credibility, and being likely to lose even more if they continue to evidence such extreme bias. Those commenting are often perplexed as to how little value those in the press appear to place on their credibility, and how they could risk endangering it in this manner.

I’d like to put this argument to rest once and for all with the assertion that the question of credibility as it pertains to the press is wholly immaterial. Yes, the press has long since lost its credibility in the eyes of those who employ critical thinking, and who viewed the press in its traditional role. This doesn’t matter to the press as a whole any longer, since credibility went hand-in-hand with the established mission of the press—at least as it was understood for 200 years.

Today, those who comprise the establishment press are not at all concerned with that mission. Over the last few decades, we have seen far left ideologues insinuate themselves into every position and area therein, much in the same way they have insinuated themselves into other influential sectors of our society. It’s been a long-held stratagem of leftists since early in the last century.

Thus, such things as safeguarding liberty and holding institutions accountable are no longer even on the average journalist’s radar, let alone that of CNN’s Jim Acosta.

To be clear, this phenomenon did not come about during the Obama administration, nor because of Donald Trump’s election—it’s just that this generation of shameless leftist press operatives have come into their own during this period. Those who’ve recently criticized the press on the grounds of credibility also noticed that this expression of leftist bias has been incremental.

The single-minded devotion to political ideology on the part of the press is also the reason that advancing the leftist agenda trumps even financial solvency. For many years, we’ve seen major television news networks losing viewers and newspapers losing readers. Those in the press maintain that this is largely due to technology, but that’s a crock. The fact is that many news consumers saw the writing on the wall, and didn’t care to be propagandized.

Those in the press know the truth too, and they know who their audience is. It is no longer the average news-consuming American, as it was 50 years ago. Now, their audience is the impressionable, those who don’t know that the press has become nothing but a megalithic propaganda bureau. Their mission is to keep the impressionable, the misinformed, and true-believing rank-and-file leftists fired up.
This is why the intonations of the press have become so shrill. They simply don’t care about credibility anymore. Thus, criticizing them on this point is an exercise in futility.

As far as the press vendetta against President Trump goes, their beef is twofold. First, they know that Trump, his followers, and their case against the Deep State represent the greatest existential threat the left has ever faced in America, so naturally they’re going to go after the president with vigor.

Second: If you ask a leftist to succinctly quantify the nation’s pain, or even the world’s pain, you’re likely to get an answer along the lines of “rich, white people.” Well, this certainly makes the president an easy target, because there are few people richer and whiter than Donald Trump.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

By Erik Rush •

I must confess to having been utterly stupefied by news that Democrat functionaries had in fact been those in collusion with Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging the campaign of Donald Trump in the 2016 general election after having crafted the narrative that the Trump campaign had colluded with said Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

On numerous occasions over the years, I have cited the phenomenon of projection with regard to the modus operandi of those on the political left. Projection is the practice of accusing an opponent of engaging in unsavory acts in which one is themselves engaging. Students in the field of psychology usually learn about projection during their first undergraduate semester, and while engaging in projection is not indicative of any kind of psychological pathology per se, it does indicate a mind that operates on a very superficial or base level, and there are several forms of mental pathology that do include projection as a symptom.

This is one reason I shudder when leftists level charges of conservatives being violent, or having a secret desire to kill off all liberals; given this proclivity for projection coupled with the murderous history of leftist regimes, only an extremely dense or imprudent individual would let such accusations slide by without sober consideration.

To recap: toward the end of last week, we learned that the law firm that represented the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee secured the services of two organizations which were ostensibly engaged to investigate alleged Russian hacking into DNC servers, but which also reportedly amassed “intelligence” that gave rise to the now-discredited dossier claiming that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian interests. The aggregation of this so-called intelligence itself evidences collusion with Russian interests by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the Obama administration.

It has been established that shady Russian operatives approached the Trump campaign in 2016 on the pretext of their having “dirt” on Hillary Clinton which might have proved useful to Trump. It now appears that these were in fact dispatched by the Clinton campaign so that the Trump campaign might later be accused of having met with shady Russian operatives.

So, back to the original cause for my stupefaction: Could these leftist power players really be so mindblowingly stupid that they would call attention to the very illegal acts they had committed by making baseless accusations of the very same acts against a political opponent?

While there are certainly prominent players on the left who’ve demonstrated that they’re only one or two notches above being out-and-out mental defectives (Reps. Hank Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters spring to mind), we can be reasonably certain that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and those in their inner circles are not among these.

So, what was the motivation if not stupidity?

Some may posit that in attempting to frame Trump for collusion with Russia, these parties were acting out of desperation, since much of the hyperbole we’ve heard against the Trump administration in recent months has indeed been born of desperation ̶ but the more preposterous and incendiary offerings we’ve heard have typically been floated by lower-level Democrat operatives, the press, and the aforementioned borderline mental defectives I mentioned.

The answer to my question is, I believe, more unfortunate than mere stupidity, and represents far more danger to this nation in the long term.

I believe that in the case of such as the Clintons (Bill and Hillary, to be clear), the DNC, and Obama, while concocting their nefarious designs, the notion of being held accountable at some later time simply does not exist. Think about it: When have these entities ever been held accountable for anything? We can look to the multiple scandals in which the Clintons have been involved, going back to their time in Arkansas and the White House. We can look to the serial treason, illegal governance, and conspiracies on the part of the Obama administration (and in which Hillary Clinton was party to crimes).

Finally, we can look to the complicity of high-ranking Republicans in obscuring or ignoring these transgressions. In general, even the most noxious of these far left operatives can count on powerful Republicans to come to their aid when necessary in the name of preserving the Beltway and Deep State cultures of corruption.

The common denominator is that there has never been a calling to account for any of the perpetrators.

In short: They just don’t care. Progressive politicos believe they can get away with anything, and the evidence indicates that they do so with very good reason. In the Russia-collusion case, we might look to an Obama-appointed judge and former Obama donor, who just ordered the banking records of Fusion GPS sealed (this being one of the outfits engaged by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, whose “intelligence” contributed to the Trump dossier). The measure effectively insulates Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI from further scrutiny with regard to the ongoing investigation.

All things considered, I fear that the depth of entrenchment of these scoundrels indicates that it will take far more than a determined Trump administration to extricate the more putrefactive elements from the proverbial Washington swamp. Further, I fear what “far more” portends, and if the American people will even have the belly for it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

By Erik Rush •

While it is clear that desperation is the prime motivator for those on the political left having dramatically amplified their subversive and incendiary rhetoric in recent months, it must be acknowledged by those who do not share their views that this deportment is manifestly dangerous, represents a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and merits amelioration by methods and measures that, at this time, may have yet to be revealed.

It is my belief that those on the political left have forfeited their right to participation in the political process and free speech (particularly pertaining to the overly-broad understanding of the latter as it relates to the Constitution) because one of their chief objectives is to strip all dissenters of those very rights. I will continue to articulate this as progressives, socialists and radical leftists continue to augment their efforts to corrupt and debase our society and our culture at every conceivable level.

At this point, we are familiar with the agonizingly incessant efforts on the part of the left to characterize President Donald Trump, his surrogates, his supporters, and those who favor his wife’s taste in footwear as white supremacists despite there being no evidence whatsoever in support of such claims. We’ve also witnessed the increasing audacity of the noxious individuals and groups who have spoken out against those who hold traditional values, law enforcement, America in general ̶ well, pretty much anything or anyone that represents a divergence from leftist orthodoxy. Further, leftists are becoming less and less inhibited with regard to advocating for violence as a means to their ends.

Recently, a media firestorm ensued when a tweet by Michael Isaacson, an adjunct professor at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and self-proclaimed anti-fascist activist, came to light. Isaacson, an Antifa leader who oozes self-satisfied arrogance and looks like a refugee from an 80s British techno-rock video, posted on Twitter that it was “a privilege [for him] to teach future dead cops.” Though subsequently disciplined by the college, this twerp was nevertheless granted even more face time on Fox News to spew his poisonous drivel than he’d been given the week before.

Meanwhile on CNN, last Friday, Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill spoke out on the controversy over ESPN anchor Jemele Hill’s comments referencing President Trump as a white supremacist. Dr. Hill (another utter boob who has been legitimized via far too much face time on Fox) claimed that the White House’s call for her to be fired was an abuse of power, and that President Trump is “absolutely” a white supremacist.

Popular culture’s “infinite monkey theorem” holds that given enough time, a chimpanzee typing at random would eventually produce a literary masterpiece. Apparently, the equivalent in Dr. Hill was somehow able to write a passable doctoral dissertation. While Hill may claim that Trump is a white supremacist, what weight does such a statement really have considering that this affirmative action professor, judging by his years of absurd insights and regurgitated socialist canon, obviously possesses only a rudimentary consciousness? It’s like taking to heart the words of a five year-old who calls his parent a “big fat poop head” during a tantrum. Such arguments simply have no teeth. Previously, Hill relegated his inane on-camera blather to boilerplate leftist doctrine however, accusing the president of being a white supremacist far surpasses claims that this accusation was “over the top.”

All of this bleating about white supremacists in our midst would be laughable if not for the potential for significant numbers of news viewers ultimately subscribing to the notion, if for no other reason than leftists are aggressively employing the maxim of their illustrious progenitor, National Socialist propagandist Joseph Goebbels (“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”).

While use of the white supremacist label may be born of desperation, there is still a very real danger that it could “become the truth.” We saw something similar occur during the presidency of George W. Bush, when his administration patently refused to defend itself against any of the calumnious slings and arrows of the left. As a result, public opinion swung much farther against Republican elected officials than was merited, and this was reflected in the 2008 general election.

“From the Soviet Union to Cuba, Venezuela — wherever socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation, and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.”

– President Donald Trump, Sept. 19

Although it’s no surprise that the establishment press and mouthy radicals are trashing the speech President Trump gave this week at the United Nations, I don’t know if the sympathies he expressed in the above quote could have been put better or more succinctly. The slanderous accusations of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, pauperophobia, and other misanthropic leanings are all devices the left is using to foment cultural Balkanization as one gateway toward implementing a socialist state in America.

Inasmuch as it has been established that socialism in all its forms is pernicious and evil, as well as being wholly antithetical to the rule of law and the deeply-rooted traditions and institutions of this nation, the prudent citizen should conclude that efforts to advance this political doctrine must be mitigated with all due alacrity.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Why the Left Fears Trump’s ‘Twitter Pulpit’

Why the Left Fears Trump’s ‘Twitter Pulpit’

By Erik Rush •

Last Sunday on CNN, the network’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta said that President Donald Trump’s tweet of a video that featured him wrestling an individual with a computer-generated CNN logo for a head was “going to lead to a journalist being hurt.”

As readers are likely aware, CNN has been at war with Trump since the week of his inauguration when, in an unprecedented move, the new president called out the network for being a purveyor of fake news.

Since the wrestling video tweet, many on the left, in the establishment press, and even some Republicans have been engaging in a prodigious degree of hyperbole, claiming that Trump’s tweet of the video was tantamount to an incitement to violence, and might lead to journalists getting injured or killed. Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Republican strategist Ana Navarro said Trump’s tweets about the press were likely to “get somebody killed in the media.” On Monday’s “MSNBC Live,” anchor Katy Tur said that Trump is effectively advocating violence against reporters.

Also on Sunday, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman took a wild stab at ginning up racialist sentiment over the tweet when he attempted to draw a connection between Trump’s alleged bigotry and the alleged creator of the wrestling video, who allegedly posted offensive content online in the past.

Obviously, the political left in America has conveniently chosen not to distinguish between satire (like the wrestling tweet) and the many outright incitements to violence in which they have engaged in recent months, and which some argue could have helped prompt James T. Hodgkinson to open fire on Republican lawmakers at a congressional baseball practice last month.

Of course, the left’s complaints are illustrative of the hypocrisy and projection to which I recently referred in this space, since it has been well-established that it is the left which typically acts out with violence, rather than the right.
Considering the Virginia congressional baseball practice shooting and the left’s penchant for fabricating news stories, it occurred to me that all they would have to do to ostensibly validate their claims would be to stage an active shooter situation or some other form of violence at a press venue. One can only pray that they do not purpose to capitalize on this opportunity, but it would certainly be in keeping with their character.

It is apparent that the establishment press can’t take the heat in being called on their deceitfulness and fraud, since they typically react to Trump’s condemnation of their actions like overdressed sixteenth-century European nobles confronted by a mob of angry peasants brandishing rusty farm implements. Still, it is important to realize that they are responding in this manner not because they are dishonest, double standard-embracing, effete snobs with infantile sensibilities, nor even because they know that Trump is speaking the truth.

When news outlets feature President Trump charging them with proffering fake news, they know that many viewers will believe it by default. A feature of the bully pulpit, regardless of who happens to hold the office, is that the voice of an American president is louder than anyone else’s simply because they are the American president.
In addition to the left’s stark dread over the prospect that Trump’s election signified a fundamental change in the course of politics in America, their current dismay lies in their knowledge of the power of the bully pulpit coupled with the potency of social media (in this case, Twitter). The call for Trump to stop tweeting because they deem it “un-presidential” is merely a pretext, an attempt to camouflage that fear.

Now, the left is faced with a president who is by no means bashful with regard to exploiting social media venues such as Twitter. Barack Obama and his surrogates employed social media quite deftly; however, Obama made great pretense toward appearing “presidential,” so the frequency and tone of his tweets were greatly attenuated compared to Trump’s.

Trump’s tone and proclivity for hitting back twice as hard when attacked reflects the New York street fighter who came up having to deal with the New York political and bureaucratic machine. If one owns so much as one rental property or a small business in New York City, one has to deal with gangsters; if not real, live Mafiosi, then operatives who behave in a modality nearly indistinguishable from same. Imagine how tough and savvy an individual has to be in order to realize huge success in real estate development in such an environment.

Though our president may not look like a street fighter, this is what he is, and it is to America’s benefit. Voters elected Trump because they were tired of presidents collectively sodomizing the electorate whilst appearing eminently presidential. Evidently, they were willing to take a chance on one who was willing to roll around in the gutter with his enemies, beat them at their own game, and emerge with his hand-stitched silk business suit virtually unsoiled.

In order to understand the degree and the nature of the histrionics over President Trump’s use of social media, one must understand that the political left perceives it as a harbinger of the wholesale demise of their monopoly on the news and a potential negation of decades of progressive momentum in America. It’s that simple.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Egypt and U.S.: Different Revolutions, Similar Players

Egypt and U.S.: Different Revolutions, Similar Players

By Erik Rush

There are at least a couple of interesting parallels between the current political dynamic in America and that which existed in Egypt in 2013 when, one year after that nation’s Obama administration-supported Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi took power, an estimated 14 million Egyptians took to the streets of Cairo, calling for Morsi to resign.

We obviously do things a bit differently in America than in Egypt; Americans did not take steps to oust a sitting president, but rather expressed their distaste for an increasingly intrusive and corrupt system via their votes in the last general election, that which brought Donald Trump to the presidency.

Like Egypt in 2011, when mass demonstrations toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak, Americans were pretty sick of the status quo in 2008, and they elected Barack Obama. Once in power however, both Obama and Morsi took their elections as a mandate to initiate the most severe of their ideological initiatives, which ultimately resulted in a popular backlash. The reaction was quite a bit more tempered in the case of Obama due to the differences in our political systems and Obama’s status as America’s celebrated First Black President, so voters’ ire was directed more at the system than at his administration. This posture was arguably more appropriate, since Obama was a symptom of the malady rather than the malady itself.

The more sinister parallel concerned the transfer of power in Egypt and America within the time periods of 2011 to 2013 and 2017, respectively. As one may recall, when it became apparent that the Morsi regime in Egypt was not going to survive (while 14 million spoke quite loudly, it still took the Egyptian military to extricate him from office), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jetted off to Egypt at Obama’s behest to place pressure on the new government of General Abd El-Fattah El-Sisi to release Morsi and his accomplices from jail and re-install them. Who gave a rip if Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood thugs were raping women and crucifying Christians and political opponents in the streets? Obama went through a great deal of trouble to bring about the Arab Spring, and Beltway heavies (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who had a decades-long relationship with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood) wanted Morsi back in power.

As we’ve seen, it is vermin like McCain and Graham who have been among the most vociferous among Republicans in opposing the agenda of President Trump, which ought to be no surprise given what’s been outlined above. The left’s attacks on Trump have been relentless, and the process has become increasingly surreal. At this juncture, the Deity Himself descending on Washington in clouds, lightning, and booming voice to decisively exonerate Trump as regards the ongoing accusations of collusion with Russia to fix last November’s election would not satisfy progressive elites or their deluded followers. They would persist in their accusations, as well as reinforcing them with new ones, such as the recent allegation that Trump is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution because certain foreigners are staying in his D.C. hotel.

There are probably very few Americans who voted for Trump who are aware of the strides our president is making toward actualizing his objectives and the potential they have for improving our collective lot in life due to the salacious distractions being advanced by the political left. Many of Trump’s accomplishments indeed have the potential to dramatically enhance the state of our economy and national security, but unfortunately these are being overshadowed by the craven rhetoric and aforementioned distractions proffered by Beltway elites, whether the likes of John McCain, the inarticulate dullard Maxine Waters (D-CA), the apoplectic Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), or our gutless House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Finally, the elites (Republican and Democrat) who are going after Trump with such vigor are the very same ones who spared no expense in political capital to shield our previous president and his minions from accountability attendant to their multitudinous crimes and serial treason over eight years. As these putrescent parasites pursue the desires of their diseased minds and position us to be dangerously vulnerable to psychotic, bearded foreign monkeys, tattooed gang-bangers from south of the border (knowing that their own families and communities will never be placed at similar risk), and other sundry hazards, in the short term they devote themselves to taking down a duly-elected president with utterly baseless charges when they ought to dedicate their efforts toward prosecuting the last one.

It is my sincere hope that the abysmal deportment of radical Democrats, progressive Republicans, and assorted Deep Staters over the last six months will drive home once and for all the point that these are the clearest and most present dangers to our nation, and that Americans will continue to vote accordingly.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Conservatives Aid in the Left’s Agenda by Reacting To It

Conservatives Aid in the Left’s Agenda by Reacting To It

By David Risselada

Kathy Griffin is now blaming Donald Trump and his family for the potential loss of her career. Like a typical liberal she is taking no responsibility for her actions and redirecting the consequences of her rude and crude behavior onto others. She is doing what the left does best, playing the victim of an oppressive intolerant society who doesn’t allow for dissenting view points. Of course, we all know this is a bunch of baloney; however, by reacting to it at all we are allowing the left to win the battle in the ever going war against free speech and in some ways, we are accelerating their victory.

We are not dealing with rational people here. The left does not share the same moral base as those on the right. To them there simply is no right or wrong and because of this, there is no shame in anything they do. If you remember, Saul Alinsky taught his followers that believing in principles was for the weak hearted and an unwillingness to corrupt themselves for the greater good meant they didn’t care about their cause. To be specific he said the following-

“In action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent with both one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of personal salvation; he doesn’t care enough for the people to be corrupted for them.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.)

 
In other words, Kathy Griffin and others on the left do not care that they are hypocrites. They have a specific goal in mind that furthers their agenda and that goal is the destruction of free speech and in general, conservatism. Of course, people will be asking how Griffin’s photo of Trump’s decapitated head would aid in the destruction of free speech. After all, her ability to pose with such a photo is the epitome of what the First Amendment stands for. The protection of speech that others find offensive. Isn’t it? While the left is on a rampage across the nation against speech they find offensive, our rallying call has been defending the First Amendment because it protects speech others find offensive. The First Amendment was meant to protect free, political speech that could be used to hold government accountable in order to preserve the people’s liberty. Conservatives typically defend free speech fervently, even when they know the speech is being used to discredit America. In this case however, they have conservatives demanding that Griffin be boycotted, arrested, and fired because her photo was so offensive. In other words, they have turned many on the right into complete hypocrites who can’t live up to the values they allegedly espouse to. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech that liberals find offensive, it protects everyone’s speech.
This is a deliberate tactic of the Alinsky left and it kills us every time. The following is the fourth rule of tactics in Rules For Radicals.
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.)
 
Many people fail to realize that the left gets away with what they do because many of their actions are designed to do exactly this, use our values and rules against us. It is very easy to label the right as hypocrites and extremists when we are always crying for free speech then demand the boycotting of someone because they do something we find offensive. All that does is aid the left’s agenda of proving a concept like free speech isn’t constructive. You can’t label the left as hypocrites because they have no shame in what they do and they don’t claim to have values in the same manner that those on the right do. As suggested in the first quote in this article, they are willing to fall to any level if they believe their actions will advance the agenda of destroying conservatism.
Many people probably believe what Kathy Griffin did was so over the top and offensive that it should be viewed as a threat to the president. While it was vile and telling of her character she didn’t do anything illegal. All throughout the previous administration pictures of Obama hanging for treason were regularly shared by conservative groups on Facebook pages. How is this any different? Like so many other instances our reaction tells people that this isn’t ok because it is being done to our guy this time, allowing the left to not only label us as hypocrites but play the phony victim game as well.
The worst thing we as conservatives can do is give this any credibility by reacting to it. Let them show their vile disgusting selves and the self evident truth of who they are and what their agenda is will be revealed. These people can take any reaction and use it to their advantage. By reacting to their antics we are giving them the opportunity to keep the pressure on and force us in a reactionary mode when what we should be doing is letting them show us who they really are.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Is Trump a ‘Transcendent’ President?

Is Trump a ‘Transcendent’ President?

By Erik Rush

Those conservatives, and particularly prominent conservative pundits, who have insisted upon second-guessing President Donald Trump’s recent decisions to unleash our military toward the objective of reestablishing America’s preeminence on the world stage utterly sicken me. It’s been well-established that Mr. Trump is not an ideological conservative, but it escapes me why even an ideological conservative would go to such lengths to criticize Trump for achieving more arguably conservative measures in 80 days than most presidents achieve in four years.

On April 6, the United States launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack that had killed dozens of civilians. Even Trump’s most vociferous liberal detractors found it difficult to criticize him for ordering the strike, given the atrocious nature and scope of Syria’s act.

On April 13, the United States launched a military strike on an ISIS target in Afghanistan employing the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat. The mission was a marked success in that dozens of ISIS operatives were dispatched, but even moreso in that no civilians were killed.

In both cases, the derisive chorus of conservative “never Trumpers” could be heard far and wide. This sort of criticism has by no means been limited to military action taken by this administration.

I can understand that the world is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that the United States is back in the game as a going concern in geopolitics. I can understand the desperate astroturf demonstrations of leftists demanding Trump release his tax returns so that they can verify his collusion with the Russians to steal the 2016 general election. What I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around is the discomfiture of conservatives, particularly influential ones, when so many of the items on their wish list are being checked off by this non-conservative president on a daily basis.

These armchair quarterbacks, who have probably never been in a schoolyard scrap (let alone a fistfight) in their lives, seem to have forgotten how low this nation was brought when Barack Hussein Obama postured us in a collective ankle grab for eight years, his serial treason, and how these still threaten our well-being as a nation.

If President Trump had ordered thermonuclear devices be detonated over Damascus, Pyongyang, and Teheran, I would have applauded. Obviously, this would have sent a sharp message to our enemies that we were back in the game with a vengeance, as well as decisively neutralizing three of our enemies. To those who would deem this response as horrible and beastly on my part, I would remind them of the rationale behind America having dropped two thermonuclear devices on Japan during World War II. America’s estimated cost in blood and treasure for not doing so is ostensibly what drove the decision to drop the bombs. How is this any different from the dynamic in currently in play with regard to America’s enemies, particularly after the gains they made under our previous president?

I probably would not have voted for Jack Kennedy for President in 1960, but I would have been doing handsprings when he cut taxes and made Khrushchev blink over the Cuban Missile Crisis. Those were the days when we could at least count on both Democrat and Republican presidents to prioritize the best interests of our nation over all else. These days, we can count on the Democrat to dramatically compromise those interests, as well as most Republicans – and that is why Trump was elected in the first place.

The concepts of transformational versus transactional leadership are often discussed in business schools and the business world. American presidents have been assessed in terms of their being either transformational or transactional leaders based upon their leadership dynamic.

Transactional presidents are typically understood as leaders who govern employing quid pro quos between themselves and their followers, or between themselves and other influential government entities, a President and Congress, for example. A transformational president would be one who identifies badly needed change, creates a vision for that change, inspires his constituency with that vision, and actualizes the requisite change with his constituency (followers and other influential government entities).

Ronald Reagan is generally considered to have been a transformational president. Barack Obama has been characterized as one, although this designation is probably based more upon the hope of his inordinately zealous adherents and the establishment press than what history is likely to support.

I would submit that Donald Trump has the potential to bring into being the concept of a transcendent president, one who employs a synthesis of the above leadership styles and whose ideology, if any, transcends the existing paradigm. While Trump is clearly not a political ideologue, he has obviously acted with the best interests of this nation in mind, and that is not something we are used to seeing in a president of any stripe in quite a long time.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns