Donald Trump

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
Deranged Democrats Plot Sabotage, Criminal Activity for Trump Inauguration

Deranged Democrats Plot Sabotage, Criminal Activity for Trump Inauguration

By Jim Kouri

In a newly released video, renowned investigative journalist James O’Keefe continued his far reaching probe of the allegedly deranged Democratic Party’s connections to anti-Trump, anti-GOP activities many of which border on criminal action, perhaps even acts of terrorism.

O’Keefe is credited with bringing down President Barack Obama’s top supporter known as ACORN, as well as uncovering Democratic Party contractors’ use of shady tactics to sabotage the campaign of now President-elect Donald Trump.

The young man who calls himself a citizen journalist has uncovered members of a secret organization calling themselves the DC Anti-Fascist Coalition who are planning several acts including an attack using Butanoic acid — also known as Butyric acid —  at the National Press Club during the Deploraball event scheduled for the evening of Thursday January 19.

The substance has in the past been used as a “stink bomb” by animal-rights groups to disrupt whaling crews, as well as by pro-life activists to disrupt operations at abortion clinics.

Although the evidence doesn’t point to any direct connection with the Democratic Party or its minions in the news media, some suspect that those members of the U.S. Congress such as Rep. John Lewis (pictured above), Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Rep. Keith Ellison, are boycotting the inauguration on Friday because they are aware that there will be violent incidents by Democrat-supported protesters and want to maintain their deniability.

“Anyone who is a student of history recognizes these anti-Trumpers as being very much like the Nazi Party ‘Brown Shirts’ who created havoc that helped the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Also, look for these people to seek creating a ‘martyr’ to hold up to the people of American with the help of less-than-honest news media organizations,” said former NYPD detective and U.S. Marine Michael Snopes.

SECURITY FOR INAUGURATION

According to news analysis by former law enforcement official, Jim Kouri, appearing on the Conservative Base,  security surrounding the inauguration of Donald Trump is proving to be the most challenging in recent history, according to senior officials involved in its planning, largely because of the same forces of political rancor that shaped the race for the presidency.

The dozens of government and contracted agencies responsible for security at the Jan. 20 festivities are preparing for the possibility of large numbers of protesters pouring into the capital, along with what may be nearly 1 million supporters of Trump. For example, there is talk of one group of anti-Trump “potheads” who are claiming they will handout thousands of marijuana “joints” for protesters to smoke while protesting the inauguration.

In 2009, Obama’s inauguration was the first transfer of power in the post-9/11 era — and the first in which an African-American was taking the oath of office. Obama faced a rash of racist threats, as well as concerns about a terrorist plot that ultimately proved unfounded but sent the president-elect and top aides scrambling on the eve of his swearing-in.

Even so, Obama did not face the kind of large-scale protests expected to greet Trump when he officially arrives in Washington. The 2009 crowd of nearly 2 million people, a record, included few, if any, protesters and did not lead to a single arrest, according to Christopher T. Geldart, the director of homeland security for the District of Columbia.

A vast planning board of intelligence analysts, military personnel, and law enforcement officers numbering in the tens of thousands will be working to protect the inauguration and related activities.

In total, more than three dozen different agencies spread out across the capital will be working to prevent the occasion from becoming a platform for individuals or groups looking to do harm. Their work, begun months ago, has taken on a new urgency since Election Day and will soon include the imposition of a security perimeter around the Capitol, the Mall, and large parts of the city.

Soldiers and airmen from the South Dakota National Guard are preparing for joint support of the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Jan. 20, 2017, according to Air Force Master Sgt. Christopher Stewart.

“They will join hundreds of National Guardsmen from across the country to assist with security, crowd control and traffic management throughout the national capital region when President-elect Donald J. Trump takes the oath as the 45th president of the United States,” Sgt. Stewart wrote. “This joint service security group is preparing with refresher training on the safe and secure movement of civilians prior to, during and after inauguration events.”

“The purpose of the training is so that the two branches can blend together and work together as a cohesive team,” said Army Sgt. Kurtis Brown, 235th Military Police Company team leader. “For a joint operation like the Presidential Inauguration we all want to be on the same page.”

Instructors from a local air ambulance service provided medical training on Dec. 3 that was focused on medical issues civilians might develop at the inauguration.

“The practice was needed and beneficial to all of us, said Air Force Lt. Kristopher King,” 114th Security Forces chief of information protection. “It’s a great opportunity to make sure everyone is speaking the same language and using the same techniques.”

The costs of security alone are expected to exceed $100 million.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. He’s formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, a columnist, and a contributor to the nationally syndicated talk-radio program, the Chuck Wilder Show.. He’s former chief of police at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at St. Peter’s University and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Jim writes for Conservative Base.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Inauguration Day: Donald Trump to Be World’s Primary Target for Terrorists, Radicals and Crazies

Inauguration Day: Donald Trump to Be World’s Primary Target for Terrorists, Radicals and Crazies

By Jim Kouri

Historians have noted — in most cases, with pride — that the peaceful transfer of power that has occurred on every U.S. Inauguration Day is a hallmark of this nation’s democracy. But according to the political insider Josh Brernbaum, in addition to launching an attack on President Donald Trump’s inauguration, ISIS has recruited multiple English-speaking jihadists — many of them women — to reach out to the infidels with their death threats.

“ISIS is angry over the results of the American election that brought to power a President who they believe will give no quarter in the war on Islamic terrorists. They are also angry that in the waning months of his administration, President [Barack Obama] is taking credit for what others are doing in Mosul (Iraq) and Aleppo (Syria). He has also allowed U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to fester,” said former counter-terrorism operative Milton Sedgewick, now working as a security contractor.

Security services in European countries are also facing a new paradigm: an upswing in the number of female jihadists who are recruited by ISIS to engage in terrorists acts, according to Homeland Security News Wire.

trumpfopSecurity surrounding the inauguration of Donald Trump is proving to be the most challenging in recent history, according to senior officials involved in its planning, largely because of the same forces of political rancor that shaped the race for the presidency.

The dozens of government and contracted agencies responsible for security at the Jan. 20 festivities are preparing for the possibility of large numbers of protesters pouring into the capital, along with what may be nearly 1 million supporters of Trump. For example, there is talk of one group of anti-Trump “potheads” who are claiming they will handout thousands of marijuana “joints” for protesters to smoke while protesting the inauguration.

In 2009, Obama’s inauguration was the first transfer of power in the post-9/11 era — and the first in which an African-American was taking the oath of office. Obama faced a rash of racist threats, as well as concerns about a terrorist plot that ultimately proved unfounded but sent the president-elect and top aides scrambling on the eve of his swearing-in.

Even so, Obama did not face the kind of large-scale protests expected to greet Trump when he officially arrives in Washington. The 2009 crowd of nearly 2 million people, a record, included few, if any, protesters and did not lead to a single arrest, according to Christopher T. Geldart, the director of homeland security for the District of Columbia.

A vast planning board of intelligence analysts, military personnel, and law enforcement officers numbering in the tens of thousands will be working to protect the inauguration and related activities.

In total, more than three dozen different agencies spread out across the capital will be working to prevent the occasion from becoming a platform for individuals or groups looking to do harm. Their work, begun months ago, has taken on a new urgency since Election Day and will soon include the imposition of a security perimeter around the Capitol, the Mall, and large parts of the city.

Soldiers and airmen from the South Dakota National Guard are preparing for joint support of the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Jan. 20, 2017, according to Air Force Master Sgt. Christopher Stewart.

“They will join hundreds of National Guardsmen from across the country to assist with security, crowd control and traffic management throughout the national capital region when President-elect Donald J. Trump takes the oath as the 45th president of the United States,” Sgt. Stewart wrote. “This joint service security group is preparing with refresher training on the safe and secure movement of civilians prior to, during and after inauguration events.”

“The purpose of the training is so that the two branches can blend together and work together as a cohesive team,” said Army Sgt. Kurtis Brown, 235th Military Police Company team leader. “For a joint operation like the Presidential Inauguration we all want to be on the same page.”

Instructors from a local air ambulance service provided medical training on Dec. 3 that was focused on medical issues civilians might develop at the inauguration.

“The practice was needed and beneficial to all of us, said Air Force Lt. Kristopher King,” 114th Security Forces chief of information protection. “It’s a great opportunity to make sure everyone is speaking the same language and using the same techniques.”

The costs of security alone are expected to exceed $100 million.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. He’s formerly Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, a columnist, and a contributor to the nationally syndicated talk-radio program, the Chuck Wilder Show.. He’s former chief of police at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at St. Peter’s University and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.
Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Obama Swan Song Epitomizes The Left’s Character

Obama Swan Song Epitomizes The Left’s Character

By Erik Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

Imperious Progressives: Shameless Sore Losers

By Erik Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Trump Missing Danger of Real Election Rigging

Trump Missing Danger of Real Election Rigging

Over the last week, members of the establishment press have seethed with mock outrage over accusations by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) that the upcoming general election is being “rigged by the national media.” Since the two began making these claims, obsequious pundits and television talking heads on the left have, with decidedly spooky overtones, unilaterally adopted the label “dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric” to characterize these claims. Amidst all of this, the press has enthusiastically reported on certain feeble allegations that Trump is a misogynistic reprobate with an Andrew “Dice” Clay deportment toward women.

When the liberal press begins to squeal like a 1950’s cartoon housewife treed atop a chair due to the mouse scurrying around her kitchen floor, one can pretty much rest assured that the charges to which they’re reacting are more than well-founded.

To regular readers of this column and millions who will be casting votes for Trump and Pence next month, it is well known that the establishment press corps (that’s pronounced “core” rather than “corpse”) is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to advancing the international socialist agenda. In 2008, we witnessed their wholesale deception of voters with regard to the character of one Barack Hussein Obama. During his presidency, we’ve seen this group run interference for every illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional act he and his co-conspirators have committed. Now, they’re pulling out all the stops, since they’re backing a known criminal in Hillary Rodham Clinton; worse, they are faced with an electorate that is, at least in part, more aware of her character than they were of Obama’s eight years ago.

That said, I am far less concerned with press claims that Trump parboils preemies for lunch than the very real possibility that the upcoming election could be literally rigged by the progressive-socialist establishment through the use of technology, mass election fraud, and good old thug tactics.

Most have forgotten this by now (if ever they were aware of it to start with), but the 2008 Democratic primary was marked by massive, organized election fraud. During the 2012 election, there were widespread and confirmed instances of election fraud related by voters and voting machine technical personnel; these reported that voting machines were flipping votes for Republican nominee Mitt Romney to incumbent Barack Obama. In other instances, entire precincts reported zero votes for Romney, a statistical impossibility.
We also recall the outcry on the part of the Romney campaign and GOP leaders in the wake of these crimes after Obama won a second term.

Wait… that’s right – there wasn’t any. Isn’t that curious?

As with each and every atrocity committed by the Obama administration, as well as those recently revealed as having been committed by Hillary Clinton and her husband, not one meaningful response to systematic election fraud on the part of Democrats has ever been made by Republican leaders. Nor have they ever criticized the Democrat proclivity for vehemently resisting efforts to reinforce the integrity of the voting process. How strange that their priorities in this area appear to be identical to those of the press. At present, we’re even hearing some GOP leaders all but endorse Hillary Clinton, citing the aforementioned feeble allegations against Donald Trump.

In the meantime, the press continues to release polling data that allegedly shows Clinton and Trump in a nose-to-nose race. How very interesting, considering the anecdotal evidence: Huge Trump rallies versus pathetic ones for Clinton, public data dumps revealing Clinton’s crimes, and a demonstrable antipathy toward the political status quo amongst Democrat, Republican and independent voters alike.
In order to understand the true political lay of the land at present, one must ask oneself but one question: How did Donald Trump win the Republican nomination in the first place, a prospect that was almost laughable a year ago?

If one wants to discuss ancient video of Trump, they might consider clips of the candidate being interviewed on television talk shows 20 or 30 years ago. Many of these make it apparent that he has known what ails America politically for a very long time, and he is articulating the remedies right now. His talk of “draining the swamp” of those in the political class who compromise Americans’ liberties, trade, our economy, our international standing, and our national security evidences this wisdom. These are the things against which average Americans are currently railing (whether they know it or not), and Trump acknowledging them when no one else in the political arena is doing so reflects his knowledge of the scope of change our nation will have to undergo in order to preserve the Republic.

Should Ms. Clinton win the presidency through propaganda and election fraud, we can be sure that their stealth socialist accomplices in the GOP will simply treat it like an honest win and don the “aw, shucks; better luck next time” mantle. They will continue to play the foil to Democrats as the latter spearheads the push toward America’s initiation into a fascistic socialist mega-state.

In such a case, it is likely that the blinders will come off, and millions of voters will suddenly comprehend the scope of change our nation needs to undergo in order to preserve the Republic – but by that time, it will almost certainly be too late.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Springsteen and Soros and Blacks – Oh, My!

Springsteen and Soros and Blacks – Oh, My!

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, marginally talented loudmouth rock icon Bruce Springsteen excoriated Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, calling him a “moron” and accusing Trump of offering “simple answers to very complex problems.”

Statements like this in the context of addressing political issues always make me laugh, because this convention is not only fallacious, but by design cultivates the perception amongst the public that they’re not capable of wrapping their enfeebled brains around such concepts, which are best left to the savvier, albeit profoundly corrupt ruling class. Springsteen, in his boundless ignorance, aids in perpetuating a belief that promises to dramatically reduce the chances of any of his fans ever realizing his level of success in any endeavor.

In actuality, the best answers to political problems are always very straightforward ones; comprehending the problems themselves is quite simple, really.

Escalating racial tensions that have come to the fore over the last eight years, and particularly over the last several months, have taken on special significance in light of the current election cycle. While the languid campaign of Hillary Clinton continues to regurgitate the same nebulous, failed remedies for the malaise affecting black communities and the institutional racism which is allegedly so pervasive in America, the political left has maintained that Donald Trump is an ardent racist despite the lack of any such charges having arisen against Clinton’s Republican challenger throughout his decades in the public eye.

It’s been established that the spike in racial tensions is a device of the Obama administration, which has systematically fueled the fires of racial animosity through Barack Obama’s opportunistic, inflammatory rhetoric. Policies telegraphed via Obama’s radical sympathies and pre-White House associations with radical black political organizations served to embolden militant blacks and set the stage for the tragic comedy that began to unfold almost from the day Obama was inaugurated. White House coordination with these groups, whether clandestinely or through government departments (like the actions of Eric Holder’s Justice Department in Ferguson, Missouri following Michael Brown’s shooting by a police officer) aided the process.

Grossly embellished accounts of alleged racism proffered by groups like Black Lives Matter, the press, the administration, and such gems as NAACP chapter heads being funded by and shilling for former Nazi collaborator and leading globalist George Soros effectively nurtured a climate of racial antipathy that now rivals periods in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

As we have seen, leftist activists, politicos, and the press seized upon the shooting of an armed black man in Charlotte, N.C. by a black police officer last week. This resulted in blacks in that city rioting over several nights, citing race-based police brutality. How the shooting of an armed black man by a black police officer reflects race-based police brutality has puzzled a great many people, but it should not be altogether surprising given the agenda in play. If the actions of George Zimmerman (who was neither white nor a law enforcement officer) could be characterized as reflecting race-based police brutality after he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense in 2012, then why not the actions of a black police officer? In this age of the truth having no bearing on the argument at hand, then the fact that Keith Lamont Scott was killed by a black cop and not a white one is but a pesky, irrelevant detail.

As a result of the foregoing, conservative pundits from every sector of media have weighed in with in-depth analyses of recent events in this vein, as well as their potential effect on the upcoming election. Somewhat frustrating from the perspective of a desire to see a de-escalation of racial tensions and an increasing understanding of the designs of the left vis-à-vis race relations has been the shallow, obtuse approach of many of these conservative interests. Starting from scratch as it were, in their attempts to identify and analyze pertinent race-related issues that I identified and analyzed some time ago in my book Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession, they are actually forestalling a widespread understanding of the left’s objectives pertaining to race.

Earlier this week, my WND colleague Mychal Massie detailed the real reason for the Charlotte riots. Others noted the fact that while blacks were rioting in Charlotte over an incident in which an armed black man was shot by a black cop, the case of an unarmed black man shot by a white cop in Tulsa, Oklahoma during the same week generated comparatively little public outcry.

While some put this down to election cycle politics, I believe that this phenomenon can be explained in part by the left’s desire to reduce the efficacy of police departments in areas where there are large black populations. In so doing, more and more such communities will begin to resemble cities like Chicago and Detroit, where blacks are being gunned down by other blacks in staggering numbers, and law enforcement is hamstrung. Thus, the chaos, fear, and resentment in black communities can be handily perpetuated as leftist politicos continue to deliberately misidentify the causes and conditions.

Election season politics notwithstanding, the most precise appraisal of the racialist demagoguery we are currently witnessing is that it reflects the left’s efforts toward cultural balkanization (with the objective of coalescing political power through the action of discrete minority groups), fomenting civil unrest (with the objective of necessitating police state protocols), and the standardization of police policies and procedures to favor the leftist paradigm (with the ultimate goal of nationalizing police departments themselves).

You see, Bruce? Not so complex after all…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Media’s Mission: Coronate Vilest Candidate Ever

Media’s Mission: Coronate Vilest Candidate Ever

Radio talk host Rush Limbaugh made an important point on Monday when he stated that the establishment press (mainstream media) is almost singularly spearheading the presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The candidate is keeping a surprisingly low profile, leaving her surrogates in the press to focus on diminishing her opponent on a daily basis.

Now, we realize that the press almost singularly spearheaded the presidential campaign of one Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, but in that case the candidate was spry enough to participate vigorously in his campaign, rather than being held together with duct tape and arcane incantations like the funereal billionaire Montgomery Burns in “The Simpsons.” Obama was under less scrutiny than Clinton currently faces, but in this case, the press must endure despite the candidate’s near-absence from the campaign itself.

In a large measure, the treachery of the press is even more stark now than it was in the case of Obama because Clinton already has a legacy of serial treason. Limbaugh went on to point out that largely as a result of the press, very few of those voting for her will have a meaningful working knowledge of her record.

Then, considering the superficiality of the electorate in general, it is likely that many will vote for Clinton because they feel it’s time we had a woman President (just as in 2008 they felt it was time we had a black one).

This got me to thinking that it would be wonderful if reality represented to our senses a truly objective view of what people – in this case, political candidates – were like, as opposed to their carefully-crafted, subjective physical representations.

For example: Say a guy named Donald Trump ran for President and he was giving a campaign speech. To our voter, Trump might appear as a carny barker, with a loud overcoat, huge bow tie and top hat. He would be loud too, and his verbiage might occasionally be clumsy or even insulting.

While this appearance might be something of a distraction, voters would still be allowed to evaluate his message despite the stereotypical visage. Ironically however, it wouldn’t give voters any more insight to Trump’s integrity than they have now, or than they have concerning any candidate. Just like a traditional carny barker, what a candidate says sounds good, but will the attraction be all that they’ve promised? Trump comes across in this manner anyway; even his proponents admit that he’s loud, sometimes boorish, and trips on his tongue with regularity.

That said, the carny barker does not always stretch the truth, and sometimes, the attraction is well worthwhile.

In this alternative reality scenario, Hillary Clinton would be a completely different story. Objective reality would probably represent her appearance as an amorphous, grayish-green entity with only occasional glimpses of her leering face and trendy designer apparel peeking through the goo. Festering boils, sores, and other lesions would populate a shifting, gelatinous corpulence. Groups of diseased genitalia and excretory organs might form in random areas on her glistening skin, migrating across its surface and occasionally engaging each other in horrid fashion. Even to the non-religious person, her appearance would be truly evocative of a creature from Hell, a vision to make even the late H.R. Giger cringe.

Clinton’s campaign speech would be a disturbing cacophony of insane squeals, gibbering laughter, and profanities punctuated with her trademark shrill yammering. Audibly bursting abscesses and purulent excretions emanating from her would give rise to a stench of sufficient putridity to induce immediate vomiting in most individuals, thus it’s unlikely that many would dash off to cast votes for the slithering obscenity.

Unfortunately, the electorate doesn’t have the benefit of such insight, and the power of America’s incomprehensibly corrupt press cannot be underestimated. Ms. Clinton could be clinically dead for six weeks before the election and the press might still manage to get her elected. For now, they focus on a mission similar to their mission in 2008: Nothing is going to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton, nor should anything prevent this momentous and historic event.

We are on the verge of electing our First Woman President – it matters little that she is the most fundamentally evil individual ever to seek the office.

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

Hail the Truth-Tellers, Whoever They Are

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

– Donald Trump, Aug. 10, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns