Election 2016

Obama’s Last Licks: What We Can Expect

Obama’s Last Licks: What We Can Expect

By Erik Rush

Now that America’s dalliance with her celebrated First Black President is nearing an end, there are those who are breathing a collective sigh of relief that we will no longer be subjected to his treasonous and dangerous antics. This may be premature however, but I’ll get to the particulars of that claim shortly.

One of the things demonstrated in the outcome of the recent general election was the relative tolerance most Americans had with regard to the fundamentally corrupt and criminal administration of Barack Hussein Obama due to the racialist conditioning to which Americans have been exposed. Over the last eight years, pundits and other observers have noted the tendency for the public to dissociate Obama from his policies, and the dynamic of this phenomenon remained a mystery to many.

It may seem dubious that so many would have given Obama a pass on the many brazen instances of illegality and subterfuge attendant to nearly every act and policy he executed, but the aggregate of analysis more than suggests that this is precisely what occurred.

During his presidency, lawmakers and politically engaged voters alike have been loath to challenge or criticize Obama when he addressed issues or policies directly, as they associated this with the concept that opposing him was opposing his ethnicity. This of course was reinforced by Obama supporters, the press, and the left in general. When Obama policies brought ruin to our economy, domestic tranquility, national security, or international standing and a political firestorm ensued, people openly condemned said policies while Obama calculatedly aided in the dissociation through his silence.

As it stands now, it is likely that a majority of Americans – even those well-informed among Trump voters – profoundly relieved that Hillary Clinton will not be our next president, are willing to have Obama go quietly with his legacy preserved for all time.

Despite this, Obama may not choose to do so.

The election of Donald Trump has indeed thrown the left into a tailspin. Considering the known modus operandi of this president and administration, particularly their proclivity for doubling-down on disagreeable policies when confronted or threatened, we would do well to assume that measures may be taken to secure what dubious gains they’ve made and to plant a few political roadside bombs for the Trump administration.

While Obama might choose to run the clock out on his disastrous presidency and do relatively little, there’s still nothing I would put past this group with regard to getting in some “last licks.”

For example, it’s likely that assassinations of police officers over the last week or so have been no more than maladjusted reprobates who took the election of Donald Trump to be an endorsement or mandate relating to the alleged institutional racism in America with which Trump has been associated. Since police have been characterized as the jack-booted enforcers of such policies, it stands to reason that such individuals might decide to take it out on law enforcement.

Or these killings might have been directly though subtly orchestrated by the bath house refugee currently occupying the White House, or one of his surrogates.

Over the top? No more so than any of my postulations to date concerning this administration – and definitely not a stretch considering the orchestration that actually did take place between the White House and the Black Lives Matter and other radical groups, or Eric Holder’s Department of Justice orchestrating protests against George Zimmerman using taxpayer money, or DOJ surrogates organizing protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, or rioters in Baltimore, or that department’s covert attempt to subvert the Second Amendment through the Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

On a scale larger than murdering a few police officers, Obama’s real “last licks” could prove just as sinister. Bear in mind that he will remain President until past mid-January. During that time, he retains the power to bring about events that could be truly cataclysmic, or to shore up the machinery of treachery and terrorism that he worked so hard to establish over the last eight years.

The flood of Muslim “refugees” from areas in the world that Obama himself destabilized has included thousands of individuals who were essentially granted access to the U.S. via Obama decree. Realistically, he has the capability of clandestinely importing even more of these people between now and January.

It would be quite in keeping with the character of this administration to surreptitiously foment widespread racial violence, for example, between now and Inauguration Day, as an ostensible reaction to the election of a man who has been characterized as a racist. This has already been accomplished by the administration on smaller scales over the last few years through contrived responses to police shootings of black individuals that were framed as race-motivated police brutality.

Considering how Trump has been represented by the left as regards immigration, far left Latino groups such as La Raza and other “return to Mexico” claimants might be enrolled to touch off violence in border states. This could conceivably spread to major cities, with blacks, Latinos and college students already enrolled in the anti-Trump Astroturf backlash causing mayhem on an unprecedented scale.

While the election of Donald Trump was obviously not an endorsement of the odious values ascribed to him by the left, it most certainly was a repudiation of everything Obama, particularly if one factors in the racial components attendant to his rise to power. Donald Trump gave Americans the opportunity to unequivocally repudiate Obama without articulating their repudiation.

This has very evidently been extremely hard for the left to endure, so we ought not be surprised at anything they come up with between now and the day Obama leaves office.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

by Erik Rush

One of the most important take-aways from the recent election which resulted in real estate mogul Donald Trump becoming President-Elect did not coalesce until after Trump was declared the winner. While the election cycle certainly gave rise to more than its share of subterfuge and illegal shenanigans (they don’t sound quite so threatening when you call them “shenanigans”), it has been the post-election reaction on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters and the political left in general that is most noteworthy.

I dearly hope that all of those who voted for Donald Trump for the reasons we’ve been discussing throughout the campaign have taken note of the truly toxic, juvenile response that the left has offered to his election. Demands for the electoral college to change its vote as though the result was a bad call at a Little League game, fake news stories about Trump’s potential cabinet picks, and the possibility of a radical Muslim being tapped for the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee are among the inane institutional responses, but some of the individual rejoinders have actually been rather frightening.

For example, it is nearly incomprehensible that certain prominent entertainers who are in the public eye continually and whose audiences often include young people and children, opted to the use of some of the most odious and disempowering verbiage to accentuate their displeasure with Trump’s election. There’s certainly a place for irreverence in entertainment, but the tsunami of profanity, threats of suicide, and portends of imminent doom issued publicly by dozens of Hollywood celebrities and music industry icons evidenced not only a childish worldview, but fundamentally infantile mental processes that ought not be envied nor emulated by any thinking individual.

The thousands of inarticulate babies who took to the streets in some American cities when Clinton’s loss became apparent may seem par for the course to those familiar with the character of the left, but to many of the millions who voted for Trump for practical rather than political reasons, those demonstrations and the moronic rhetoric of dejected, infantile left wing brats should be a wake-up call regarding the decidedly base, puerile level at which these people operate.

Then, there is the fact that mobs of dejected, infantile left wing brats seldom do much of their own accord. Their passion is usually ginned-up by some group of individuals or organization with an agenda, and this has been no different.

Among the pre-election Wikileaks high-level document dumps were emails which revealed strategies involving the left wing organization MoveOn.org. This outfit is a major vehicle for the Hungarian-born billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros, who has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image.

MoveOn.org has made no bones about its efforts to foment unrest in the wake of Trump’s election. Last Wednesday, the organization issued a press release announcing the multi-city demonstrations. “The gatherings—organized by MoveOn.org and allies—will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible,” the statement read in part.

Utterly baseless charges aside, at this point it should be clear that the America which these reprobates still believe is possible – a morally ambivalent, Balkanized, insolvent, neutered America – is only the desire of a miniscule faction of deviants, George Soros and his ilk, Beltway elites, and their corps of celebrity morons.

One aspect of the post-election controversy has been rather gratifying, and I hope that this also is not lost on those Trump voters who are anxious about the nation getting its bearings as a new administration takes power. I refer to the many conversations that concerned citizens are now having on social media, talk radio, blogs, and amongst themselves regarding issues that are symptomatic of the reasons they voted for Trump in the first place. These go beyond what were major talking points during the campaigning, but which are all-important as they relate to the corruption, greed, and power-brokering that’s been the hallmark of our government for too long.

Over the past few days, I’ve heard more questions such as these from average Americans than I’ve heard over the course of several years. Although I am paraphrasing, it doesn’t get any more germane than this when one considers the sort of promises Donald Trump made as a candidate:

Why, for example, do we have a Hungarian-born former Nazi collaborator who, naturalized citizen or not, has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image?

By extension, why do we allow the openly subversive to freely act to the detriment of constitutional authority on the basis of perverted interpretations of the First Amendment when we should be prosecuting, imprisoning, and in some cases, deporting such entities?

Why do we have expansionist federal agencies that have increasingly and unilaterally exercised powers not bestowed upon them by the Constitution, such as the seizure of property and assets, and the unlawful imprisonment of American citizens?

Why do we allow incestuous and detrimental relationships to exist between certain federal agencies and those in the private sector, such as key industries and banking, or allow members of Congress to engage in activities like insider trading, which would land the rest of us in prison?

Wouldn’t now be a very good time to consider an investigation of the current administration given the Cyclopean heap of evidence that its principals committed not only treason, but war crimes and crimes against humanity?

These questions and others are the ones we should be asking of the nascent Trump administration going forward, rather than engaging in echo chamber discussions around what the new President might do about jobs, trade, and national security.

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
Are Voters Too Stupid to Save Themselves?

Are Voters Too Stupid to Save Themselves?

America will be hearing quite a bit less from me regarding the imperative of defeating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton than they heard in 2008 regarding the imperative of defeating Barack Hussein Obama. There are two chief reasons for this: One is that in light of my having broken the story nationally pertaining to Obama’s ties to radical preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the racialist doctrine of his church in Chicago on February 28, 2007, some in the press were quite interested in what I had to say at the time. Since there’s no analogue for this relative to the current election cycle, there’s been less to capitalize on vis-à-vis media exposure.

The second reason has to do with the comparative track records of Obama and Clinton at the outset of their campaigns, and the questionable wisdom of appealing to an electorate that may have already reached the point of no return in its ignorance and delusion.

While a few people such as myself and Sean Hannity were shouting from the rooftops in 2008 about how Obama had telegraphed his evil intentions via many questionable associations, his books, and his rhetoric, he had no track record to speak of in 2008. As a result, many voters simply gave him the benefit of the doubt. To some extent, this is understandable.

It has probably become painfully obvious that Clinton is enjoying the same benefit (as did Obama in 2008) of an establishment press that is wholly invested in advancing the international socialist agenda. Recent displays of sycophantism on the part of presidential debate moderators should handily lay to rest any arguments against this conclusion.

Granted that there was more fanfare on the part of the press surrounding Obama’s ascendancy, his being America’s heralded First Black President and all, whereas there is more damage control going on pertaining to Clinton’s campaign. The objective is the same, however: Get an otherwise unelectable, virulently radical leftist elected to the office of President of the United States.

As an aside: For those who may be wondering why I employ the phrase “international socialist” as opposed to the more widely-used “global socialist,” this is because the methods and nature of global elites are proving to be identical to those of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (or Nazi Party) which came to power in Germany during just prior to World War II. So, it’s truly ironic that prominent liberals have taken to characterizing Hillary Clinton’s Republican opponent and his surrogates as Nazis.

Unlike candidate Obama in 2008 however, Hillary Clinton has already forged a legacy of deceit, predatory opportunism, and unbridled greed. Long before Ms. Clinton violated the Espionage Act in her influence peddling, lost $6 billion in State Department funds, bleached illegal email servers, or practically ordered the executions of those who perished at Benghazi, it was common knowledge to millions of Americans that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had lied, cheated, stolen and perhaps even killed their way to fortune and glory. Recent email server scandal revelations are underscoring the fact that her actions as Secretary of State rivaled those of America’s most corrupt political operatives and organized crime figures.

Hence the need for damage control. Voters – even those who are planning to vote for GOP nominee Donald Trump in a few weeks – may not be aware of the depth of evil and extent of the danger that Hillary Clinton represents, or the scope of complicity on the part of most lawmakers in our government, or the fallacy of the two-party system, but they’ve known Hillary Clinton to be crooked for decades.

The 2008 subprime mortgage debacle, the home foreclosure epidemic, the 94 million Americans out of work, the millions of new Medicaid recipients, the explosion in the homeless population, the rising cost of living, the increase in terrorist attacks on our soil, moral ambivalence, trade imbalances, and ongoing cultural Balkanization – all of this has been the work of such as Clinton, Obama, and their stealth co-conspirators in the GOP. Neither the Constitution, capitalism, colonialism, the Judeo-Christian ethos, nor traditional values gave rise to these things; it has all been due to the influence of progressive-socialist policies.

Considering the foregoing, the idea that there is a very substantial contingent of the American electorate still willing to elect Clinton is sobering at best, and horrifying at worst. When we look at Hillary Clinton at rallies or debates, leering into the cameras with bug eyes and Jack Nicholson’s frozen Joker smirk, I believe we are looking into the face of sheer madness.

That aside, Clinton’s lack of comeliness is probably the least of her liabilities. Despite all the efforts of the press, at this point the empirical evidence should speak for itself. If it does not – and, barring widespread election fraud, we will know the answer in November – then it will be apparent that Americans’ capacity for self-delusion has overcome their basic instinct for self-preservation.

And that is a horrifying prospect indeed.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
If We Hadn’t Surrendered the Reins of Government

If We Hadn’t Surrendered the Reins of Government

I suppose that in a perfect world, Americans would not be consigned to a choice between P.T. Barnum and the villain Ursula from Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” when they went to the ballots this November. Then again, in a perfect world, Americans would have retained the reins of government rather than abdicating their civic responsibilities and allowing the nation to descend into oligarchical socialist rule with all that this implies – the slim pickings in the area of presidential candidates being but one aspect thereof.

During the primary season, some commentators pointed out the drastic circumstances that gave rise to the face-off on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. While Clinton may be a known quantity despite the tonnage of political baggage she carries, Sanders was an outright communist, which alarmed many given the substantial following he had amassed.

On the Republican side, there was the pantheon of largely establishment operatives. A lot of people are still trying to fathom how GOP nominee Donald Trump managed to overcome this lot with relative ease (This belies current polls which reflect a close race between Clinton and Trump in November, but that’s another issue).

In analyzing this phenomenon, let us take a look at some of the establishment Republican presidential candidates of the recent past, winners and losers, hopefully garnering a clearer picture of how we got here.
In 1988, we were given George H.W. Bush who was practically anointed, being the Vice-President of a phenomenally successful President. In these cases, the electorate generally presumes such a candidate will, if elected, follow in the footsteps of their predecessor in terms of policy. This “Bush 41” did not do, raising taxes, compromising the Second Amendment, and throwing up on Japanese delegates, something Reagan wisely avoided.

In 1996, the GOP de-mothballed longtime Kansas senator Bob Dole to run against Bill Clinton. Dole, unlike Reagan despite his age in 1980, was clearly a politician who had seen better days.

“Knock, knock.”

“Who’s there?”

“It’s the RNC. We need you to run for President.”

“But I don’t feel like it. I’m tired. I was really thinking of retiring soon…”

“Well, you’re probably gonna lose anyway, but your party needs you, so shut off the Britney Spears record and get dressed…”

Between Dole being decidedly two-dimensional, a clear moderate, and his creepy proclivity for referring to himself in the third person, it’s hardly a mystery that he lost to Clinton, who by then was a seasoned pro with decent polling numbers.

George W. Bush – “Bush 43” – wisely held to what earns Republican presidential candidates wins. He sold himself as a firebreathing conservative, even though he was anything but a conservative. Second in spending only to Barack Obama, Bush also expanded the scope of the Community Reinvestment Act; this factored largely in the 2008 global financial implosion, from which Americans are still suffering.

Senator and former “war hero” John McCain was definitely another “seen better days” guy, and it’s likely that he, like Dole, was perceived as a candidate who probably didn’t have much of a future outside the Senate, and so was an appropriate sacrifice (to lose in a presidential race). There’s a certain irony in this, since the Obama administration later managed to handily exploit McCain’s influence in its bid to expand Islamist influence in the Middle East through the creation of ISIS.

In 2012, we were offered former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, running against the incumbent Obama. How Romney got to be the nominee was puzzling, since he was was at the bottom of my list in 2008, and again in 2012, as well as being at the bottom of the list of every conservative I knew in 2012. Having spearheaded the progenitor of Obamacare in Massachusetts, Romney was clearly no conservative. Apart from some controversy over his being a Mormon (which in theory ought to have little consequence), Romney was little more than a good-looking white guy in a suit, and I believe that this was a fundamental liability at that time.

So now we have Donald Trump as the GOP nominee. Trump is obviously not a part of the Republican establishment machine, although it isn’t clear whether or not he’s been allowed to get there by the GOP establishment in some obscure strategy to secure a Clinton win. Leaving that possibility aside, Trump is an outsider who has – at least at face value – terrified the establishment right and left with his ability to relate to those who have suffered mightily at the hands of ruling elites. This suffering to which I refer cannot be underestimated. It is not a matter of some folks being perturbed at the slightly higher tax rates which got Bush 41 ousted; we’re talking about 94 million people out of 186 million sidelined in the workforce. Anyone who cannot assess the significance of such numbers is not capable of cogently evaluating our present situation.

Still, there seem to be conscientious Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians who see more significance in Donald Trump having donated money to both Republican and Democrat interests over the years than the fact that Hillary Clinton committed serial treason in her role as Secretary of State, or that she and her husband have had a decades-long, profitable relationship with the enemies of this nation, or that through the Clinton Foundation, the two have made hundreds of millions of dollars criminally compromising our foreign policy. These people, though perhaps well-intentioned, often display the same myopic self-righteousness and subjectivity in their arguments as dedicated liberals.

This is obviously disturbing from the viewpoint of evaluating the potential outcome of the upcoming election, but more importantly it calls into question the character of some whom we count as brothers and sisters in arms.

And as we learned during the administration of Bill Clinton, character does indeed count.

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
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 Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The Problem is SOCIALISM… SAY it!

The speed with which socialism can take an economy or government from viability to ruin is nothing short of astounding. When socialist regimes have widespread support or a mandate (or perceive that they have one or both), they enjoy the latitude to bring about this destruction even more quickly.

Last weekend, around 3.6 million Brazilians took to the streets to demand that socialist President Dilma Rousseff resign or face impeachment. Both Rousseff and Brazil’s former president – Lula da Silva, another socialist – have been implicated in a $3 billion ripoff of public funds engineered through Petrobras, the state-run oil company.

In Venezuela, another South American socialist paradise, the specter of corruption looms closer to home, with the everyday nightmare of grocery shopping making international headlines on a fairly regular basis these days. Between falling oil prices hobbling the oil-rich nation’s economy and the fact that socialists don’t know how to run anything other than into the ground, Venezuela’s supermarkets are usually empty, or have such long lines that patrons can literally spend an entire day shopping for food.

To add insult to injury, ID cards, birth certificates and fingerprint scanners are the methods by which an intrusive State ensures that only authorized shoppers are purchasing groceries in the right amount, and on the right day. In these state-run supermarkets, food is extremely inexpensive – unfortunately, it’s also extremely scarce. Black market food abounds, but it is ridiculously overpriced – a week’s pay for a steak, by one account.

Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, successor to the late proto-human socialist champion Hugo Chavez, explains away the endemic scarcity with the usual boilerplate leftist bilge: Smugglers who resell Venezuelan goods abroad, thieves and black market operatives have somehow managed to abscond with most of Venezuela’s food.

Tyrants, oligarchs, low literacy and the influence of Soviet-backed communist revolutionaries in the last century led to more popular acceptance of socialism in Latin American nations than in other parts of the hemisphere. In fairly well-developed countries such as Brazil and Venezuela, which began to come into their own economically over the last few decades, citizens have seen a curious trend of economic stultification that can be traced largely to their affinity for electing socialist politicians.

Socialists are cool, you see; they care about people, unlike those me-firster capitalist types. This argument plays well the younger and dumber one happens to be, on any continent.

Not to intimate that people in Latin America are stupid, but in some of these nations, centuries of the aforementioned tyrants and oligarchs maintaining a Napoleonic paradigm of governance deliberately sustained peasant castes and fostered poor education. Rigid class systems and vast chasms between impoverished majorities and entrenched, wealthy dynasties are among the reasons that this region was ripe for the insinuation of socialism and communism.

So, through no fault of their own, many in Latin America were far more susceptible to the con that is socialism than their neighbors to the north. They’re the region’s low information voters, and they were quite receptive to the socialist message, which promised them a way out from under the yoke of the oligarchs. It was an empty promise, but for ascendant socialist regimes, it’s all about securing power. Once that’s done, they renege on their promises and blame the international capitalist community – or smugglers, thieves, and black market operatives – for thwarting their noble designs.

In the United States, and Europe to a lesser extent, socialists simply dispensed with calling it “socialism.” Although Americans retained a healthy fear of communism throughout the 20th century, by the early 1900s, the framework for statism (socialism) was already being laid by monumentally conceited progressive politicians who had decided that their intellect and insight surpassed that of America’s founders. Today, while few of our elected officials would label themselves socialists, nearly all are effectively socialists based on their allegiance to the pantheon of bipartisan oligarchs. They sold phony altruism to the middle class, class envy and entitlements to the disaffected. Politicians threw restraint to the wind and began promising voters everything short of immortality.

While it may not appear so on its face, a rejection of socialism is the central issue of the present election cycle. The anger, outrage and disgust being expressed by voters is in response to pain; after several decades of encroaching socialism, the results of its attendant policies are now placing startling numbers of Americans in real adversity. If I were to make a list, I would probably start with the 96 million people – around half of the American workforce – who are out of work. (To me, this appears to exceed the government’s reported 5 percent unemployment rate, but I’ve never been that good at math).

While the two current GOP front-runners may not be articulating the evils of socialism and detailing how it has brought America to this unenviable juncture, what they are saying speaks to the symptoms, and this is why their words resonate with so many voters.

Last week in this space, I expressed frustration that no one among the GOP field is putting the name (socialism) to our pain. The fact that I am not a campaign strategist aside, I believe that this sorely needs to be done, because too many voters couldn’t even summarize what socialism is if asked. As in Hosea 4:6, Americans “perish for lack of knowledge.”

It isn’t enough to bray about the need to return to constitutional governance; if we are to extricate socialists from government, rank-and-file voters must know how to recognize them, and recognize the con. Only when Americans understand why socialism is antithetical to the rule of law and why it necessarily elicits a putrefactive effect on societies can they implement the necessary measures against it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Who are the Real Knuckle-Dragging Troglodytes?

Who are the Real Knuckle-Dragging Troglodytes?

Now that the Iowa caucuses are behind us, I suspect that we can count on this election season to become even more hyperbolic all the way around. I am basing this on the trends I’ve seen to date, with the increasingly bizarre deportment of all concerned. Conservative voters and pragmatists are aware that the stakes are higher than they’ve ever been, taking into account the incomprehensible damage that has been done to this nation by the current administration.

Meanwhile, the election cycle is showcasing two of the most dangerous leftists the Democratic Party could conjure up as presidential hopefuls: the larcenous, ambulating obscenity Hillary Clinton – who is probably more personally evil than anyone in the Obama cabal – and the geriatric Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom the conservative press references as a socialist, though his political views are more closely aligned with communism.

While I am well aware that many voters’ assessment of candidates is a function of the biased reporting of the establishment press, on one level I am astounded that either Clinton or Sanders would be capable of garnering more than a few dozen votes in the general election. Given their unabashed socialism, it is hard to reconcile so many Americans’ failure to see that it is precisely such policies that have brought America so low. Indeed, it is not outside the realm of possibility that despite her many crimes, the porcine former secretary of state may well, like some psychopathic Muppet, adroitly joke and gape her way into the presidency, from which lofty perch she will administer the coup de grâce to a cowering Lady Liberty.

Whomever their favorite candidates might be at present, in general, conservative Republican voters wish to secure a GOP nominee who is not going to govern as another RINO establishment crony capitalist Washington beltway insider. As the guy for whom the term “progressive” carries a similar connotation to “registered sex offender,” I can definitely empathize.

Informed conservatives realize that if we do elect another “campaign conservative” who winds up governing as a progressive (George W. Bush being a stellar example), becoming dedicated preppers may be the last slim hope for long-term quality of life.

Getting back to subjective evaluations of hyperbole: While it has served him well to a great extent, the biggest demonstrable liability Iowa runner-up Donald Trump has could be his penchant for frankness. Across the board, whether one examines his television persona or his political one, the common denominator has been his willingness to frame issues in the bluntest terms he can think of.

Though image-conscious billionaires have the resources to keep themselves looking pretty well-preserved, Trump is an old-school guy and hearkens back to the time when you could call women “broads” and no one would get offended. Today such colloquialisms are readily seized upon by the nauseatingly squishy, politically correct press as confirmation that one is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte for whom we should definitely not consider voting.

Ted Cruz, who won Iowa despite having been behind Trump for many weeks, is also not far behind him with regard to being a dangerous reactionary, as far as the press is concerned. Both have been called nasty, Nazis, racists and portrayed as men who desire to destroy America for no apparent reason, and with no quantification of this destruction cited. These days, such exaggeration is calculated to influence only the woefully misinformed and genuine knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Liberal power players believe that the latter group encompasses most Americans, by the way.

Largely, Donald Trump has been called to task for his frankness in articulating the threats posed by Islamists, particularly on our soil, and the slow economic death represented by allowing nearly unfettered illegal immigration (we don’t need to go into how, for very good reasons, this has resonated with millions of Americans). Ted Cruz has been similarly mischaracterized by the press because he is by most accounts a real conservative who may actually enact some of the policies Trump has outlined (such as closing radicalized mosques and enacting authentic immigration enforcement), though he’s left it to Trump to communicate them.

Engendering squeamish, outraged reactions to frankness and harsh language (excluding the outright profane, which liberals relish) has been a key weapon in the left’s arsenal in recent years. One can flout the Constitution, alienate our allies, embolden our enemies, commit treason, engage in crimes against humanity, sell baby parts and subvert all notions of morality – but say something unflattering about people who want to kill us all and you’re beyond redemption.

Well, this back-and-forth between candidates and each other, as well as members of the press, is definitely nothing new. People would know this if American history were still taught in our schools. During the election season of 1800 (wherein President John Adams ran against Vice President Thomas Jefferson), the president of Yale University wrote that if Jefferson became president, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” During the same period, influential journalist James Callender wrote that Adams “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.” In the 1828 presidential campaign, supporters of John Quincy Adams published materials calling opponent Andrew Jackson’s mother a prostitute and his wife an adulteress.

If anything, it would appear that political campaigning has become more civilized over the years rather than less so. This is something voters would do well to put into perspective, as well as the bigger picture – this being that our avaricious, whorish, entrenched political class has navigated us to the brink of such delights as another world war, collective economic destitution, and generational enslavement, to name but a few.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns