fake news

Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

By Erik Rush •

If one was to ask the average leftist (as opposed to the few who occasionally read something) who shot Trayvon Martin in 2012, their answer would probably be something along the lines of “a white cop.” In fact, many who are not dedicated lefties might return the same answer, so thorough was the press at proffering that narrative.

The truth is that George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, is a self-identified Latino who looks about as much like a white guy as I do. Neither was Zimmerman a police officer; he was a neighborhood watch coordinator with a concealed carry permit.

I was singularly horrified at the time that the fake news campaign (before the term “fake news” was even coined) depicting Zimmerman as some sort of blond Asgardian prowling the neighborhood with his warhammer and looking for black children to smash, was not only as brazen as it was, but that it got sufficient traction to effectively transform Zimmerman into a white cop in the eyes of so many.

Thus, it should be no surprise that I find the current media firestorm over the Covington Catholic High School students who have been targeted by the left over alleged racist behavior after a tense encounter with a Native American activist on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last week almost passé. Sure, the students from the Kentucky high school behaved impeccably and did nothing any casual observer would find untoward—but none of that matters. They were white (well, most of them were), and some were wearing “Make America Great Again” swag, so they must have committed some subtle hate crime. If not, they surely intended to.

So the positively Orwellian coverage of this non-story is nothing at all new. Since Barack Obama publicly charged that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts “acted stupidly” when they arrested his pal Henry Louis Gates Jr. in 2009, the left and the establishment press have attempted to foment racial tension at every opportunity. Bereft of a viable opportunity, they’ve shown that they’re quite capable of making up stories out of whole cloth. Even with the benign intent of the Covington students having become apparent, the left continues to try new ways to affix the racist label onto the young men. President Donald Trump’s defense of the students, while appropriate, has of course only fanned the flames of the left’s ire.

As has become typical following one of these racially-charged incidents, prominent leftists came out of the woodwork, spouting their boilerplate foul invective against the students. One of those who weighed in was Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn). She is one of two freshman Muslim congresswomen who’ve been roundly disparaging America, the President, and his policies since the midterm election. Apparently, Omar overstepped and is now facing harsh criticism for going after the Covington students on a social media venue.

Back in the days when President Obama was regularly hosting Islamists at the White House and then scrubbing the visitor logs, many of us began to engage in discussions of why Islam and those on the far left seemed to be hitting it off so well, particularly since some of the identity groups under the umbrella of the left (women and gays in particular) don’t fare at all well in Islamic societies.

Some said it was simple: Both have the common goal of dismantling the representative republican model of government in America.

While this is certainly true, I think the affinity runs a bit deeper.

I’ve made no bones about the fact that my charity and tolerance with respect to Islam are extremely limited. Islam and the model of Western society are wholly incompatible, and anyone who argues otherwise is either deluding themselves, or they are attempting to delude others. I do not believe that Muslims should be allowed to hold office in America. I do not believe that there are “peaceful” Muslims, unless one counts those who would give their militant brethren sway but prefer not to take up the sword themselves. Nowhere in the 1400-year history of this creed do we see evidence of Muslims playing well with others in the long-term.

Nor do I believe that Islam ought to be venerated simply because it is old, or because it claims to be an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism or Christianity. Islam is not a religion; it is a social system with a religious component.

Similarly, leftism in the West is very much akin to a social system with a religious component. Like Islam, leftism has stringent social controls—on thought and speech, for example. We can see this quite clearly in the doctrine vociferously espoused by the left. To run afoul of these results in swift and terrible retribution from leftists at large. As in the Islamic world, this retribution can even encompass corporal punishment.

In the Islamic world, Islam is the State, and the State is Islamic. This is very much the case with the left—or at least, how those on the left would like to see things shake out in that religion is to be supplanted with socialism (the “religion” of the State). Leftism even has its own pantheon of deities, if you will, in the special interests its devotees venerate: the environment, and the various identity groups leftists ostensibly defend being among these.

Once could expound upon these similarities more deeply, and they would become more numerous and eerie with the telling. The most significant one is this: in the end, both Islam and leftism (socialism) are incompatible with our system of governance. Both find themselves at odds with the Bill of Rights on a regular basis and ironically, both have found a platform for their subversive poison due to dangerous but commonly accepted misinterpretations thereof.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

Imperious Progressives: Shameless Sore Losers

By Erik Rush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns