Donald Trump

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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
Prosecute Soros for Sedition

Prosecute Soros for Sedition

By Erik Rush

The recent protests against President Donald Trump and his policies pertaining to Muslim émigrés present a valuable object lesson regarding contrived popular misrepresentations of First Amendment liberties. Here, we are able to see examples of individuals and organizations engaging in seditious behavior that is commonly tolerated due to fallacious construals of the First Amendment advanced by American socialists.

Aspects of these interpretations have become conventional wisdom among our citizenry; disingenuously ignoring the error of such versions of constitutional law has been the job of agenda-driven legal experts and the press. Such things as court cases which successfully argued for the right to burn the American flag as a form of protected political expression legitimized the “America Sucks” culture, thereby paving the way for open sedition as an acceptable activity.

Peaceful protests on a large scale were employed to give rise to certain changes that needed to come about during the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, leftists have attempted to use them in their attempts to bring about all manner of malignant social and political change, hoping in each case to capture the same flavor of the 1960s protests and ascribe legitimacy to their causes. This is precisely what we are seeing at present, although the protests seldom remain peaceful.

We have learned that organizations tied to uber-socialist billionaire activist George Soros have had a hand in driving anti-Trump protests since his election, as have certain Islamist groups. The latter is certainly no surprise, since it reflects the 1400 year-old Islamic tradition of insidiously ingratiating Islam to host nations with one hand whilst preparing to slide the scimitar in with the other. All we need do is look to Europe to see how this develops just a little farther down the road we’re on, with riots, no-go-zones, mass rapes, and demands for conversion to Islam having become commonplace.

Recently, the terrorism-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), helped launch demonstrations protesting Trump’s recent executive orders concerning the entry of unvetted refugees from some Islamic nations into the United States. Leftists and the press have supported these efforts in their hyperbolic criticism of Trump’s “Muslim ban,” despite the fact that the President has only temporarily suspended unfettered access to the U.S. for citizens from seven highly-destabilized Islamic nations.

During the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, Islamists had the most powerful friends in Washington, and made great headway in their efforts to establish policy and insinuate their operatives within our political infrastructure. In cases such as this, our tradition of religious tolerance has worked against us. Because Islam is considered a religion (though it is actually a pernicious, predatory social system with a religious component), it has enjoyed the benefits of a religion under the Constitution despite being diametrically opposed to the Constitution, as well as being at odds with Western civilization in general.

Factor in the fallacious belief held by some of our leaders that Islam is inherently peaceful, and we have the situation at hand. Prominent opponents of Trump’s measures (Sen. Chuck Schumer and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spring to mind) are currently proffering the same pro-Islam propaganda as did Barack Obama and his collaborators during the last administration.

As we have seen, this mass brainwashing can prove quite effective. There are Britons, Scandinavians, and European natives who continue to defend Islam in the manner of its American supporters despite the fact that Muslims have already transformed their nations into manifestly dangerous places.

It is highly unlikely that a real ban on Islam will become a reality anytime soon, but considering history and the empirical evidence at hand, President Trump could get away with criminalizing organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR (as some prudent nations have done), pointing to their actions and such phenomena as the jihadi training camps on our soil which the federal government has chosen to ignore to date, and of which the left and the establishment press simply deny existence.

In the case of George Soros, there are ample devices under the law that could be used to neutralize him if we moved away from the paradigm of tolerating the “America Sucks” culture. He has used his billions to institutionalize sedition on a variety of fronts, was instrumental in getting Obama elected to the presidency, and tried his level best to do the same for Hillary Clinton.

Soros became an American citizen in December of 1961, but the Hungarian-born former World War II Nazi collaborator could easily be stripped of his citizenship on any number of grounds and unceremoniously deposited back on Hungarian soil if our leaders found sufficient vertebral fortitude to initiate the requisite proceedings. Tying up his financial holdings and confounding the efforts of his shell organizations would put a stop to many detrimental processes that Soros has in place.

Rather than consciously engaging in sedition, a certain number of the protesters currently being engaged in these Islamophilic rallies are simply well-intentioned if profoundly ignorant and unaware of their own exploitation. Many more have been bought and paid for by the organizers however, who can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Trump Spanks the Press: Get Used to it, Girlie-Boys

Trump Spanks the Press: Get Used to it, Girlie-Boys

By Erik Rush

Ever since President-Elect Donald Trump reacted to press allegations concerning lurid sex acts and Russia hacking the November election by collectively bending the Washington press corps over and doing the predictable thing (figuratively speaking of course), far-left politicos have come to resemble a gaggle of frail, scrawny older men in period costume clinging to one another and squealing in girlish terror while being menaced by the cast of “The Expendables.”

Like anthropogenic climate change, stories of Russia hacking the November election and making Donald Trump our President-Elect have been thoroughly debunked, but these have by design already grown legs enough to gain some traction – at least amongst the blisteringly stupid. As in the case of anthropogenic climate change dogma, those purveying it don’t actually believe the lies; cultivating a segment of society that actually does believe them and that is substantial enough to affect change is the true objective.

Since Trump’s election – and even moreso since his schooling of the press last week – the left has been in a state of abject meltdown as regards any prudent strategy, with dedicated lefties articulating the truly outlandish in their attempts to paint Trump as a B-movie villain who ascended to the presidency through some sort of arcane dark magic, novel technology, or mass mind control technique, and who must be stopped at all cost.

Considering that liberals were oh-so-keen to remind us on many occasions that Obama was a duly-elected chief executive despite the fact that he routinely used the Constitution as bath tissue, destroyed our health care system, sabotaged our economy, and fire-hosed Miracle-Gro® onto radical Islam, one would think that they might at least wait to see what Trump did in his first few months as President before passing judgment. Not a chance.

Now, the left doesn’t fear and despise Donald Trump because he is an ideological conservative, because as we know, Donald Trump is not an ideological conservative. In fact, an ideological conservative president from among the field of Republican candidates Trump faced in the primaries last year (and there were one or two) might have been easier for progressives to hold in abeyance because such an individual could have been more inclined to adhere to the Beltway decorum that has aided in keeping socialist policies alive.

In this regard, Donald Trump is a different breed of cat, and one that is apparently immune to the rhetorical poison arrows loosed by progressives. Rather than cowering like a wee lass at press conferences, Trump comes out swinging – or ready to bend them over, as the case may be. He is like the prize fighter who knows that going for the knockout is a far better strategy than trying to out-point his opponent and hoping the judges will appreciate his technique and finesse.

In short, the left is terrified that like Obama, Trump is going to do as he pleases as President, only in his case it will be to the benefit of America rather than to her detriment. This has made them even more desperate and careless in their speech, and the farther left they are along the political continuum, the more desperate and careless their speech is proving to be. Spinning bizarre and fanciful calumnies and making petulant demands for conciliation when they are at a political disadvantage (nothing new; they’re just doing more of it at present) illustrate their present distraction.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), continuing the piteous spectacle of cashing in on his former glory as a civil rights leader (though this status is debatable), told NBC News’ Chuck Todd last week that he doesn’t see Donald Trump as a legitimate commander-in-chief following Russia’s nonexistent interference in the November election, and that he would skip Trump’s inauguration. While this might make him a hero in the eyes of the aforementioned blisteringly stupid, to others he simply comes across as a pasty old fool, a sad, aging black caricature in the school of the imbecilic Maxine Waters and the treacherous, subversive Elijah Cummings.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), continuing the piteous spectacle of cashing in on his former glory as a war hero (though this status is also debatable), told Fox News’ Martha McCallum this week that he was leaning toward voting to confirm Trump’s Secretary of State pick, former Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. There had been doubts as to whether McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would do so due to Tillerson’s alleged chummy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Calling Putin a “butcher” and a “thug,” McCain nevertheless voiced an apparent intent to support Trump’s nominee. This is quite ironic considering McCain’s work in recent years at the behest of one Barack Hussein Obama toward keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt and bringing the butchering thugs ISIS into power in Iraq and Syria. In truth, McCain should be standing trial for treason alongside Obama, Hillary Clinton, Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, and a host of politicos and private sector traitors from both parties who helped to facilitate those developments in the Middle East. McCain’s actions also typify the endemic corruption and treasonous modality that have become standard operating procedure in Beltway politics.

The left’s deportment over the last few weeks serve to reinforce what I’ve maintained for some time, and what I will continue to articulate: Dedicated progressives are a vile breed, whatever letters they happen to have in parentheses after their names. They are patient and well-entrenched however, so stamping out their influence is going to be a job bigger than any president. In a very real sense, our work is just beginning.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment