Donald Trump

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
‘Creative Destruction,’ Trump, and America’s Big Opportunity

‘Creative Destruction,’ Trump, and America’s Big Opportunity

Those of sufficient age in America are aware that this election cycle is setting all manner of precedents. On the Democrat side, we have the first woman candidate for President, one who pretty much has a lock on that party’s nomination; her only real rival was an avowed communist, but one with a healthy following of cheering Epsilons who held the paradoxical belief that more socialism, not less, would ameliorate the damage done by decades of encroaching socialism. Both of these factors certainly meet the requirement for precedent-setting.

On the Republican side, we have the billionaire real estate mogul and media icon with legendary hair and a New York accent: Donald Trump, the political outsider who officially clinched the Republican nomination for President on Tuesday. For purposes of this discussion, we will dispense with the myriad reasons – some of which may be valid – that many have for maintaining it will be a mighty cold day when they cast a vote for The Donald, as he’s come to be known over the years.

The reason for this confluence of events? Well, what essentially occurred is that the center-right (a majority in America) woke up to the fact that we no longer have a two party system; we have one party representing the radical left (Democrat), and one stealth progressive party (Republican) that exists only to provide a foil for the former. Both parties stand for advancing international socialism – the only argument between them being how quickly we will get there.
And as we can see, Americans don’t much care for this arrangement…

When I recognized this awakening (which is occurring to varying degrees across the Western world) for what it was, I also realized the importance of Americans understanding why the Trump phenomenon came about, and how we might capitalize on it should he win the presidency. I believe this is at least as important as Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in the general election, assuming the two do face off in November.

Enter WND’s Ilana Mercer, a paleolibertarian (or classical liberal) columnist and author of the new book, ”The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” For the uninitiated: Creative Destruction is a term most familiar to business students and economists; it was coined by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, and refers to the process of economic growth spurred by radical innovation which displaces (destroys) established paradigms, products, and even entire industries by giving rise to ones which are more efficient, effective, or desirable with regard to end users. The demise of the buggy whip and typewriter markets could be seen as having been casualties of Creative Destruction.

Thus, Mercer’s reference to Creative Destruction is an apt analogue – or at least a potential one – for the opportunity America now has with the political ascendency of Donald Trump. For example: As I’ve said on occasion, from the outset of his campaign, Trump made the biased and intractable establishment press his “bitch” in the sense that no matter how much those therein loathed the real estate mogul and wished to ignore him, they found this impossible. To add insult to injury, all of their tried-and-true efforts to diminish him backfired miserably. The author articulates this process quite a bit less colloquially, of course.

Perhaps it is the scary-smart Mercer’s status as a non-conservative ideologue, or as a non-native to America that made her uniquely qualified to write this book. As she demonstrated in her last offering, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” she is well-familiar with the process of international socialists employing race politics to bring a nation to ruin, a methodology widely cited by the Trump campaign as being used by leftists vis-à-vis illegal immigration, and more recently pertaining to the resurgence of tensions between blacks and law enforcement in America.

In “The Trump Revolution,” Mercer gets at precisely what I would like people to understand relative to the Trump phenom. “Donald J. Trump is smashing an enmeshed political spoils system to bits,” she intones, and indeed, this system and the necrotizing societal parasites who benefit from it deserve in the moral sense to be smashed, and must be neutralized – at least, if conscientious, freedom-loving Americans along the political continuum wish to preserve the Republic.

With each chapter, Ilana Mercer provides a point-by-point strategy as to how Trump should capitalize on his success if elected, referencing key areas that the ostensible conservative leaders (both politicians and otherwise) have deftly avoided in recent years, primarily because they aren’t really conservatives. Expanded lists of dos and don’ts illustrate that which will aid in making America great again, versus that which will only serve to perpetuate the status quo and the electorate’s dangerously superficial perception, both of which ultimately empower elites in government and their shadowy benefactors.

“The Trump Revolution” is a great read; enlightening, thorough, interspersed with the author’s trademark acerbic wit, and lots of it. Whether or not The Donald gets around to consulting this book when forming his policy, it would behoove all Americans – indeed, all Westerners – to do so, if only from a prudent tactical perspective.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Western Nationalism: The Fear Factor

Western Nationalism: The Fear Factor

In practical terms, I suppose the only disagreements I’ve had lately with so-called “New World Order” conspiracy theorists have to do with some of the alleged shadowy participants cited in the plot for global domination, and the charge that the plot itself is somehow secret.

Addressing the second contention first, several key indicators of a sinister global cabal seeking to radically transform Western civilization have revealed themselves over the last few years, and even more clearly in recent months. While many analysts predicted future economic and social chaos as the European Union came into existence, it is only now that those prophecies have come to pass that the motives of European elites are clear. Obviously the Brexit movement, which seeks to extricate the United Kingdom from the swirling morass of economic and cultural disintegration that is the EU, has been a direct result of the negative effects of that nation’s membership in that doomed alliance. In America, the insurgencies within our two major political parties and the rise of Donald Trump are instances of American citizens balking at the effects of unfettered immigration, political correctness, and economic policies that compromise both America’s advantage and its sovereignty.

The point being that while conspiracy theorists’ NWO concerns have been proved valid, there hasn’t been anything particularly secret about the agenda or its implementation. While most powerful politicians have always had even more powerful private interests behind them, in this case, most of the players are known to political analysts and astute news consumers.

With regard to NWO theorists’ designation of these malevolent forces – Zionist bankers, Freemasons, and so forth – in the operational sense, these distinctions are moot. We have seen the methods at work across the West, and we know who among Western leaders have sponsored policies that compromised the sovereignty and long-term survival of their nations.

Islam has a design for global domination; in fact, one might argue that Islam itself is a design for global domination. In this context, I am not suggesting that Islam is even a key player in this scenario; rather that Islam’s innate militancy is being exploited in order to further specific objectives of the West’s elites.

The extent to which the American electorate is revolting should not be underestimated, despite this extent being minimized by the leftist press and the elite establishment. A resurgence of nationalistic tendencies is occurring in Europe, but there is scant mention of this in the European press, save for the charges of bigotry aimed at perturbed native populations.

To the cause of expanding the knowledge base of millions of frustrated and angry Americans voters (who were frustrated and angry long before Donald Trump decided to run for President), it is important that more of us recognize some common indicators and their relevance in establishing an international socialist leviathan.

Among the more prominent methods employed by both European and American governments have been:

  • Gravitation from republican-democratic governance toward oligarchical collectivism,
  • Amalgamation of economies and governments to serve the agenda of those in government and their cronies at the expense of the majority of citizens,
  • Politicians’ facilitation of mass migration into their nations by culturally-incompatible populations,
  • Summary denial of the detrimental effects of their policies, whether it’s exploding unemployment rates or increased instances of terrorism,
  • And attendant to these, the summary denial of Islamic doctrine as a motivating factor for the widespread increase in Islamist violence.

If nothing else, the continuity of method suggests a continuity of purpose. The shamelessness of those who govern in the West and the surreal distance from the truth of that which emanates from their lips has directly resulted in the popular political uprisings occurring in Europe and America.

Moving forward, it would be highly useful if those among the American electorate who understand the gravity of our situation seek to understand as well the continuity of purpose shared by American politicians and their European counterparts. It is also essential that we as individuals recognize why citizens across North America and Europe are taking such a hard look at their governance.

This is because, whether or not they comprehend the machinations as well as dedicated news junkies, these millions are responding in this manner because the road they’re traveling has begun to terrify them.

Unfortunately, though it can be a highly effective motivator, fear can also be a dangerous and unpredictable one.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Would Trump Hold Corrupt Elites Accountable?

Would Trump Hold Corrupt Elites Accountable?

The latest in the ongoing saga of real estate mogul Donald Trump’s quest to secure the presidency has given rise to an interesting and deceptively revealing phenomenon. For those unfamiliar: Trump University, a venture set up by Trump in 2005, offered real estate investment training programs. A group of students who alleged that they were defrauded by the outfit are in the process of suing Trump.

Par for the course with regard to the left and the establishment press, some comments recently lodged by the GOP candidate and directed at the trial judge have elicited a firestorm of rhetoric because they referenced the judge’s ethnicity.

Heaven forefend…

Federal judge Gonzalo Curiel is overseeing the Trump U case, and he is Latino. Trump has claimed that Curiel has “an absolute conflict” (of interest) in the case for this reason.

Indelicate though Trump’s rhetoric may be at times – and it most definitely is – it would probably have been more prudent for him to cite Curiel’s political affiliations as tangential to his ethnicity, because that is a far more damning indictment of the judge than anything being leveled against Trump due to his comments.

What wasn’t reported right away relative to this story was Curiel’s connection to the National Council of La Raza, an indisputably subversive, racist organization which advocates for the return of the U.S. southwest to Mexico so that the region can become a Third World toilet just like Mexico. “La Raza” translates to “The Race,” and this name itself suggests that this group should have been stigmatized out of existence long ago. That did not occur, because nonwhites are allowed to be as racist as they like here in America.

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which sponsors extreme pro-illegal immigrant causes.

And he’s a federal judge. Does anyone detect a dangerous status quo here?

So, Curiel’s association with La Raza does indeed reveal “an absolute conflict” with regard to his presiding over a case against a defendant who intends to build an anti-illegal immigrant fence along our southern border if elected.

But defending Trump is not my objective here. One more anecdote and I’ll get to that…

This week, WND reported on the case of Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney, who was stymied in his efforts to alert his superiors to the infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the Department. While this is certainly newsworthy, it is not new, inasmuch as over the last few years, online venues from WND to social media have featured the Obama administration’s program of insinuating Islamists into sensitive positions in the federal government.

This, too is obviously a dangerous status quo.

Which brings us back to Donald Trump. I have maintained that with regard to the candidate – as with any candidate – we won’t know if he plans to be faithful to his campaign promises until he is in office. Even if Trump did hold to his vows to seal our southern border to illegal immigrants, dial back the suicidal economic policies and foreign trade agreements of his predecessors, and shore up our national security infrastructure, there are some pretty significant underlying issues that I tend to think he might not address at all – although given the mandate of his election, he certainly could.

For example, I seriously doubt that a Trump Justice Department would launch an aggressive investigation into the dealings between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, or into the dealings between Bill and Hillary Clinton and those same groups. I doubt that Trump would aggressively pursue prosecution of Eric Holder and other Obama appointees in relation to crimes that the Obama Justice Department is furtively “waiting out” until after the next president takes office.

I doubt that Trump would attempt to get to the bottom of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, or the treason committed by those in the White House and Congress attendant to the arming of “vetted Syrian rebels” (read “ISIS”) who were being supplied through Benghazi.

I also doubt that Trump would engage world leaders in prosecuting Mr. Obama and his surrogates for war crimes relating to White House actions in the Middle East, Africa, and Ukraine. Nor do I think that a President Trump would mobilize the Executive branch and law enforcement to neutralize socialist activism in general, activist judges like Gonzalo Curiel, or Islamist activism, since doing so might overshadow or compromise other aspects of his agenda.

I don’t believe that Trump approves of the aforementioned measures taken or policies executed by the Obama White House and beltway elites, but I think that because of the level at which he operates, he would be more likely to focus on the issues specific to his campaign pledges.

Unfortunately, I do not think that Trump, like most of the electorate, is disposed to engaging in an analysis of why the issues that are so important to them became issues at all. How did we get here? A few bad policy decisions? Hardly – it is the result of a decades-long strategy to debase America and fold it into a megalithic global socialist mediocrity, and I don’t think that Trump or the electorate yet realize this.

If next January, we had a president who was truly willing to do some major housekeeping in Washington – complete with the dire ramifications to hundreds of people in government past and present, finance, lobbying, and industry – would the American people stand by that president? Because even with a president willing to make hard and even unpopular decisions – rest assured that in the ensuing four to eight years, the elitists who caused the pain to which voters are currently responding with their affinity for Donald Trump will be eagerly poised to sweep away any advances he makes in the interim and re-establish their international socialist agenda once he is gone.

Remember… the “Reagan Revolution” died the moment Ronald Reagan left office…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Donald Trump and the ‘Pain Principle’

Donald Trump and the ‘Pain Principle’

There are some among my friends and esteemed colleagues who claim that they absolutely will not vote for billionaire Donald Trump should he officially secure the GOP nomination at the Republican convention later this year because he is not a real conservative with a proven conservative track record. Others asserted that they absolutely would not have voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz if he had secured the GOP nomination because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States as stipulated in Article II, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

In these assessments, my friends and esteemed colleagues are essentially correct. This does not mean that I would refuse to vote for either of these men on principle, however.

So, does this mean that I’m unprincipled?

Well, let us for a moment examine the principles involved in such decisions in general (rather than my own principles). There were indeed substantive arguments against both Trump and Cruz as nominees – and by “substantive,” I mean other than those which start out with the spectre of a Trump presidency being a cataclysm of biblical proportions, or that Cruz is a miserable person whose father was the gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Those are not substantive arguments.

There is also no substantive argument that either of these men could possibly be an inferior choice compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and I realize that there are those in the Republican Party who have said just that.

Now that socialist policies have rendered over thirty percent of Americans aged 18 to 26 sufficiently brainwashed that they claim to favor socialism over capitalism and the democratic process, we have arrived at a place where nearly half of voting Americans will knowingly vote for an openly socialist candidate. Never mind the half-billion people killed and millions more maimed and enslaved by socialists during the last century, or the readily apparent failure of socialism in Europe and Scandinavia; American socialists are smarter than those dopes, and they’ll do socialism better than everyone else has.

Here’s a principle to consider: In an election between a socialist and a non-socialist, it is our civic duty to keep the socialist out of office whether or not we are particularly fond of their opponent.

Actually, it is quite easy to understand the motivator behind so many Republican, Democrat, and swing voters having gravitated toward Donald Trump (who is preaching a nationalistic message), or Ted Cruz (who actually is a firebreathing conservative).

That motivator is pain.

The fact that presidential elections are won based primarily on economic factors has been known to voters and candidates alike for decades. In electing Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, America boarded a bullet train to Destination Socialism; in the ensuing eight years, the destructive effects of rapidly-encroaching socialism upon individuals and families became starkly apparent, as did the inaction of establishment Republicans in ameliorating those effects. Half of our workforce is out of work, millions have lost jobs and homes, and Obama’s regulatory and trade policies continue to exacerbate our economic woes. In a manner befitting a Soviet Premier, the saboteur in the White House lauds his economic policies and the glorious state of the economy – unchallenged by the press or his ostensible Republican opponents, of course.

Voters correctly surmise that a Hillary Clinton presidency or that of an establishment Republican will only bring more of the same.

In short, voters in increasing numbers are coming to the conclusion that we effectively have a one-party system wherein Democrat politicians are vigorously driving the international socialist agenda, with Republican politicians simply providing a face-saving foil (which I have referred to previously in this space as “token resistance”) against Democrats.

The fact is that a significant number of American voters – perhaps even a majority – don’t want anyone from either party who represents the establishment becoming our next president. These people would vote for you, or me, or an Airedale if they thought we had a good chance against Hillary Clinton. One has to be able to set aside emotionally-based prejudices toward Donald Trump in order to adequately appreciate this logic.

Additionally, the deportment of those once considered conservatives, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and commentator William Kristol, has gone a long way to clarifying the term “neocon” for those who remained unsure of precisely what a neocon is: A progressive (socialist) establishment Republican masquerading as a genuine conservative.

Finally, the petulance of self-described conservative voters who vehemently oppose Trump has illustrated their ignorance and ideological inconsistency. Pundits from Rush Limbaugh to David Horowitz have pointed out the disingenuousness of conservative voters who cite the Constitution as the inerrant Word of God, yet advocate stealing the nomination from Trump by any means necessary because they think he’s an icky guy.

Psychologists maintain that for human beings, the avoidance of pain is a much more effective motivator than the prospect of pleasure. Political analysts have long said essentially the same thing through citing economic factors over ideology as voters’ prime motivator.

If Donald Trump wins the presidency, it will pretty much validate these claims once and for all, whether or not Trump follows up on his campaign promises – and that is a question we face during every general election, no matter who becomes the new President-elect.

 

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Real Culprits in Eligibility Flap

The Real Culprits in Eligibility Flap

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

– Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

To an extent, I am somewhat surprised to see the issue of eligibility for the office of president of the United States rearing its head at this point in time for reasons that shall become evident presently. On the one hand, in light of the fraud perpetuated by Barack Hussein Obama and his surrogates in this area, it is easy to understand that those for whom the rule of law still carries weight would want to to ensure that such a thing never occurs again.

On the other hand, it is apparent – at least to me – that both the Democratic and Republican parties have resolved to play fast and loose with the issue of eligibility, and it seems unlikely that they will switch gears and clarify what constitutes eligibility in the middle of an election cycle.

The lingering question relative to eligibility is that of what constitutes a natural born citizen as proscribed in Article II, discounting the summary proclamations of Obama minions, ethically compromised lawmakers and members of the press. Two schools of thought have emerged and are now being debated, indeed even more vigorously than they were in 2008: The “living Constitution” interpretation versus the “originalist” view.

As we’ve seen, the “living” paradigm often translates into support for whatever those who are advocating for something desire a constitutional article or clause to mean. The “originalist” view (which argues for designations more in keeping with those of America’s founders), though more stringent, is unfortunately even less clear on the topic of eligibility.

Many legalistic arguments have been written over the years concerning what our nation’s founders believed a natural born citizen was, but none has been codified into law. For many years, conventional wisdom held that a natural born citizen was someone born of parents who were U.S. citizens. Although an individual’s place of birth itself has given rise to debate over the last eight years, in the past, this point was practically immaterial; no one would have ever suggested that a child born to an American couple on vacation in Egypt was a natural born Egyptian.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has brought the question to light again in recent weeks as regards the eligibility of fellow GOP contender and conservative favorite Ted Cruz. A few days ago, a Houston attorney filed a federal lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility for the office of president on the basis that Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. GOP hopefuls Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal have faced similar questions concerning their eligibility.

As noted by the New York Daily News, many grass-roots conservatives are averse to arguments charging Cruz’s ineligibility; Trump discovered this last Saturday when he got booed for raising the issue at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention.

Is this because the aforementioned grass-roots conservatives are ignorant of Article II? Is it because they don’t care, considering Cruz’s conservative credentials and the fact that the issue of Obama’s eligibility remains unresolved? Perhaps they believe that if the establishment has decided to skirt eligibility requirements, then Cruz ought to have a shot.

In another camp, there are constitutional conservatives who have been active for a long time in advancing awareness of Article II and what they consider to be Obama’s ineligibility. Despite their respect for Cruz as a senator and a conservative, they are bound and determined to see that he never gets the Republican nomination.

To the consternation of many conservatives, last week radio talk-show host and attorney Mark Levin asserted that both Cruz and Obama are natural born citizens by virtue of their mothers having been U.S. citizens, and thus are both eligible to hold the office of president. Many find this absurd on its face, given the reasoning that the Constitution’s framers used for including Article II. The idea that these men would have accepted matrilineally-descended natural born citizenship is a major stretch, given how patriarchal society was in the 1790s, and this is reflected in political writings of the day.

Further, as some have argued, in Levin’s view, one could have an “eligible” candidate born of an American mother and foreign father who is by all appearances a fiercely loyal American, and another with the same credentials dedicated to the destruction of the Republic.

The core problem with eligibility at present is this: The distinct lack of clarity around the definition of what a natural born citizen actually is from a legal standpoint is due solely to the craven deportment of the leadership in both parties. The push for such clarity has been deftly avoided for decades because both parties feared that in establishing clear legal parameters for eligibility, the politically-adroit-though-ineligible scumbag they were potentially excluding might one day be their own presidential hopeful.

Given the character of a preponderance of our lawmakers and government officials as starkly revealed over the last several years, Americans have no reason nor right to be surprised by this monumentally egregious lapse of ethics on their part.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Crediting Trump with Obama’s Crimes

Crediting Trump with Obama’s Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Why the Left Fears Me

Why the Left Fears Me

Earlier this week, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump came under intense fire over his proposal to initiate a hiatus of entries into the U.S. for Muslims, including refugees, tourists and some Muslim American citizens. His is similar to a policy employed by President Roosevelt during World War II pertaining to those of German, Italian and Japanese descent. At that time, the government had no way of knowing who among those might be Axis sympathizers or operatives.

While I am not a Trump supporter, and have numerous suspicions as to why he is in the race for the nomination at all, his rationale is quite sound and obviously has precedent.

Trump’s willingness to speak frankly on this and other key topics has resonated with many Americans who, as we already know, are far more concerned about terrorism, the economic and social impact of unfettered illegal immigration, and corruption in government than they are concerned about climate change, economic injustice and “safe spaces” for radicals, racists and deviants on college campuses.

I can always tell I’ve hit a nerve when something I’ve written causes the left-wing websites to go berserk in their efforts to ridicule me following its publication. When anyone hits a nerve, we typically see more hyperbole, mischaracterization and ridiculous extrapolations than usual from the left. By hitting a nerve, I mean articulating concepts truly threatening to the agenda of the left.

Black conservatives tend to grind on those aforementioned leftist nerves by their very existence; this is why such vigorous efforts are made by the left to marginalize them. Part of this stems from leftists’ thinly veiled racism; they resent black conservatives for not “minding their place” by rejecting liberal doctrine and liberals’ largesse.

Another factor is a fallacy or stereotype the left itself created, and which is a component of negrophilia: The notion that black Americans possess some mysterious, sage wisdom originating in their unique collective experience on this continent.

Following this line of reasoning, it’s all well and good for a right-wing nut job like me and my ilk to howl at the moon about communists and conspiracies, but it’s an entirely different proposition if people start seriously considering what we have to say.

Sadly, there are too many well-known conservatives (black, white and other) who never merit the scrutiny of the left because their analysis remains extraordinarily superficial. Although I don’t see anything particularly brave in doing it, I am not afraid to say what a preponderance of the evidence suggests. There are certain issues upon which I and a select few others expound which would be extremely damaging to the left’s agenda if people were to begin considering them to any meaningful degree.

A big problem the left has right now is that their lies have grown so big – and one of the biggest has to do with the nature of Islam.

Judging from how establishment Republicans reacted to Donald Trump’s proposal, we can also see that dhimmitude is endemic among this group. Indeed, many influential Republicans are at least as politically compromised due to their involvement with Islamist front groups as are influential Democrats.

Say – speaking strictly hypothetically, of course – I went even further than Trump and stated that “Muslims are garbage, and we don’t need them here under any circumstances.” Not only would the left have a field day, but those establishment Republicans and even some conservatives would balk. Hold on now – we can’t consign over a billion people to the status of garbage!

But why not? If I said “White supremacists are garbage,” I would be hard-pressed to find anyone to disagree with me. What is white supremacy? In short, it’s a pernicious belief system that embodies the inhumane. Many would concur that its followers are “garbage” in the colloquial sense.

What is Islam? It, too, is a belief system – one that advances xenophobia, institutional deception, murder, rape, extortion, slavery, pedophilia and a host of other grievous affronts to the human spirit – an embodiment of the inhumane.

If we’re being honest with ourselves, it doesn’t matter if five guys goose-stepping in circles in a garage down the block or a billion people worldwide subscribe to something; if it embodies the inhumane, we want no part of it. The only agencies that continue to doggedly insist that Islam is a benign religion meriting protection under the First Amendment are those in collusion with Islamists.

Why should the left have a cat if I disrespect Muslims in such an impudent manner? Who cares what one big fat narrow-minded meanie and Islamophobic bigot has to say, anyhow?

Well, imagine all of America suddenly becoming aware of what a dire threat Islam truly is. Their first question would be: Who left us so vulnerable to those of that vile creed in the first place? Then, they would start looking at the great many calamities for which America has been put at risk, and who is responsible. Ultimately, they would get to the causation of discrete hazards such as the recent rise in ethnic tensions, the advancement of sexual ambiguity, the shameless proliferation of crony capitalism, the weaponizing of government against the people, the marginalization of Christians and the insinuation of enemy operatives into sensitive security positions in our government, to name just a few.

The ensuing momentum of that mass of angry Americans on the march could entirely crush not only the radical left, but progressivism as well.

The left, the Obama administration and progressive Republicans know that a climate wherein Donald Trump is doing so well in his bid for the GOP nomination not in spite of, but because he is saying the things he is saying suggests that a few more prominent voices joining those such as mine could lead to the undoing of a hundred years of their evil work.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Daytime-TV Decorum Plagues Political Process

Daytime-TV Decorum Plagues Political Process

I will admit to experiencing mild annoyance at the prospect of featuring billionaire TV personality and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump here two weeks in a row, but I believe that doing so will serve us well in illustrating both the abject corruption that has overtaken our party system and the press, and their brazen (as opposed to subtle) attempts to manipulate the electorate.

Last week during the Republican candidates’ debate, it became apparent that elements of the Republican Party brass had enrolled Fox News as a proxy in their efforts to drive Trump out of the running. Given the sentiments expressed by GOP contenders in recent weeks, it is obvious that this is one of their higher priorities. During the last election cycle, they used a good old-fashioned bimbo eruption to eliminate Herman Cain; at the time, he was perceived as a credible threat by the GOP establishment, as is Trump at present.

Such action may not be necessary with regard to Trump; it is altogether possible that he’s only interested in the business objective of increasing his visibility, which he did successfully the last time around. I know some may not appreciate hearing this, since the tycoon is articulating America’s current problems quite well and consequently has ingratiated himself to a lot of people.

That said, I do not know Trump’s real objectives; what’s important is that the RNC believes he is a danger to their plans for the nomination (which probably involve ramming Jeb Bush down the throats of rank-and-file Republicans as the nominee).

All right, so Fox News proved once and for all that it is the “GOP Leadership Channel” of sorts – but we’d pretty much come to that realization already, hadn’t we? Like the GOP leadership, it appears that Fox has been offering token resistance to the far left and big-government progressives to lull mainstream America into a false sense of security – the belief that communists and big-government progressives don’t really control the press in its entirety.

When it comes to advancing conservatism, or even balancing the scales away from the inordinate influence the far left has gained over the last several years under Obama, however, Fox has come up far short. We may identify with one or two of their hosts, but no matter how outraged they get, the network isn’t going to change its overall policy, and it isn’t going to countenance discussion of the most glaring instances of criminality and corruption at the highest levels of our government. They’ll continue to trot out Karl Rove and other establishment GOP hacks who claim they’re conservatives, so that by default that’s where the bar for conservatism will rest for those gullible enough to believe them.

In addressing such manipulation, we come full circle – back to Donald Trump. The antipathy evidenced by the Fox anchors (yes, Megyn Kelly in particular) toward Trump during the debate was painfully evident and had the GOP’s fingerprints all over it – but let me pose this question: A week later, don’t you think we have bigger fish to fry than the Donald Trump-Megyn Kelly feud?

Well, of course we do – but Kelly’s inane “War on Women” debate questions, how Trump responded, his serial excoriation of Kelly on Twitter, how Kelly responded, the wrath of the pundits, what each and every one of the other GOP presidential wannabes opined, and whether Trump ought to apologize is nothing but bread and circuses – distracting bafflegab calculated to keep Americans operating in a superficial, Daytime-TV modality.

Instead, how about applying a little critical analysis to the fact that a few of those rock-ribbed conservative heroes over whom some folks are all a-twitter supported Premier Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens?

How about examining why, a year after a double-Y chromosome psycho teen thug robbed a store, attacked a cop and got killed for his efforts, the community of propagandized, community-organized residents where it occurred have nothing better to do than hold protracted demonstrations in honor of the double-Y chromosome psycho teen thug?

Or how about we engage a little gray matter in considering the orange water sluggishly churning down the Animas River in Colorado after a 3 million gallon toxic waste spill perpetrated not by some shadowy, money-grubbing corporation, but by President Obama’s out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency?

Anyone want to consult the guys in Vegas on the odds of the EPA, with all of their scientific acumen and technological resources, bringing about something on that scale accidentally?

While we’re at it, should we discuss how the EPA and other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management have unilaterally and unconstitutionally exercised unwarranted authority over citizens and the private sector, and armed their personnel with military-grade firepower?

If we get bored with that, we could always talk about the growing influence of al-Qaida and ISIS in the Middle East thanks to our Islamist-in-Chief, or the implications of the Iran nuke deal the weasels in the GOP leadership will never address despite their macho bluster, or we might confer over the indictable offenses with which Hillary Clinton hasn’t been charged. …

But why bother with all that rubbish when we could have so much more fun talking about the effect of the lunar cycle on Megyn Kelly’s professional deportment, The Donald’s hair, or whether they’ll sign Jerry Springer and Kim Kardashian to moderate the next round of debates?

 

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns