hillary clinton

Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

Subversive Progressives Think They’re Bulletproof

By Erik Rush •

I must confess to having been utterly stupefied by news that Democrat functionaries had in fact been those in collusion with Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging the campaign of Donald Trump in the 2016 general election after having crafted the narrative that the Trump campaign had colluded with said Russian operatives with the objective of sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

On numerous occasions over the years, I have cited the phenomenon of projection with regard to the modus operandi of those on the political left. Projection is the practice of accusing an opponent of engaging in unsavory acts in which one is themselves engaging. Students in the field of psychology usually learn about projection during their first undergraduate semester, and while engaging in projection is not indicative of any kind of psychological pathology per se, it does indicate a mind that operates on a very superficial or base level, and there are several forms of mental pathology that do include projection as a symptom.

This is one reason I shudder when leftists level charges of conservatives being violent, or having a secret desire to kill off all liberals; given this proclivity for projection coupled with the murderous history of leftist regimes, only an extremely dense or imprudent individual would let such accusations slide by without sober consideration.

To recap: toward the end of last week, we learned that the law firm that represented the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee secured the services of two organizations which were ostensibly engaged to investigate alleged Russian hacking into DNC servers, but which also reportedly amassed “intelligence” that gave rise to the now-discredited dossier claiming that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian interests. The aggregation of this so-called intelligence itself evidences collusion with Russian interests by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the Obama administration.

It has been established that shady Russian operatives approached the Trump campaign in 2016 on the pretext of their having “dirt” on Hillary Clinton which might have proved useful to Trump. It now appears that these were in fact dispatched by the Clinton campaign so that the Trump campaign might later be accused of having met with shady Russian operatives.

So, back to the original cause for my stupefaction: Could these leftist power players really be so mindblowingly stupid that they would call attention to the very illegal acts they had committed by making baseless accusations of the very same acts against a political opponent?

While there are certainly prominent players on the left who’ve demonstrated that they’re only one or two notches above being out-and-out mental defectives (Reps. Hank Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters spring to mind), we can be reasonably certain that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and those in their inner circles are not among these.

So, what was the motivation if not stupidity?

Some may posit that in attempting to frame Trump for collusion with Russia, these parties were acting out of desperation, since much of the hyperbole we’ve heard against the Trump administration in recent months has indeed been born of desperation ̶ but the more preposterous and incendiary offerings we’ve heard have typically been floated by lower-level Democrat operatives, the press, and the aforementioned borderline mental defectives I mentioned.

The answer to my question is, I believe, more unfortunate than mere stupidity, and represents far more danger to this nation in the long term.

I believe that in the case of such as the Clintons (Bill and Hillary, to be clear), the DNC, and Obama, while concocting their nefarious designs, the notion of being held accountable at some later time simply does not exist. Think about it: When have these entities ever been held accountable for anything? We can look to the multiple scandals in which the Clintons have been involved, going back to their time in Arkansas and the White House. We can look to the serial treason, illegal governance, and conspiracies on the part of the Obama administration (and in which Hillary Clinton was party to crimes).

Finally, we can look to the complicity of high-ranking Republicans in obscuring or ignoring these transgressions. In general, even the most noxious of these far left operatives can count on powerful Republicans to come to their aid when necessary in the name of preserving the Beltway and Deep State cultures of corruption.

The common denominator is that there has never been a calling to account for any of the perpetrators.

In short: They just don’t care. Progressive politicos believe they can get away with anything, and the evidence indicates that they do so with very good reason. In the Russia-collusion case, we might look to an Obama-appointed judge and former Obama donor, who just ordered the banking records of Fusion GPS sealed (this being one of the outfits engaged by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, whose “intelligence” contributed to the Trump dossier). The measure effectively insulates Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the FBI from further scrutiny with regard to the ongoing investigation.

All things considered, I fear that the depth of entrenchment of these scoundrels indicates that it will take far more than a determined Trump administration to extricate the more putrefactive elements from the proverbial Washington swamp. Further, I fear what “far more” portends, and if the American people will even have the belly for it.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Comey: The Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?

Comey: The Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?

UNITED STATES v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, et. al.

The defendants stand accused of violating Section 1 of the Federal Criminal Code, which provides: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”

Further, the defendants are accused of violations of international statutes defined in 1950 by the Nuremberg Tribunal; to wit, Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a) as follows:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The defendants, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, Valerie June Jarrett, Chelsea Victoria Clinton, Huma Mahmood Abedin, James Brian Comey…

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey announced last week that the FBI would reopen the criminal probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server, igniting widespread panic and controversy in the face of a days-away general election.

It is a rare event indeed when a high-ranking official, elected or appointed, takes action out of purely altruistic or noble reasons. I do not believe for one second that FBI agents stumbled upon new evidence during the course of their investigation into the illicit sexting scandal centered around disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and that this compelled Comey to reopen the investigation – only that the evidence is being cited as justification for doing so.

I have addressed the fact here on several occasions that Bill and Hillary Clinton have had a decades-long relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization sworn to subjugating the United States and the rest of the Western World. Both of Huma Abedin’s parents are influential players in this organization. Since his political ascendency, Barack Obama has also had a very close affiliation with the group; in fact, Obama and Clinton’s State Department effectively facilitated the ‘Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt.

I have also postulated that were a proper investigation conducted, perhaps dozens of political appointees, elected officials, and sundry operatives from both the Republican and Democrat parties and administrations past and present would be tried for treason attendant to their actions involving Islamists and U.S. Middle East policy. The criminality and rapaciousness of the Clinton crime family (an appropriate appellation given its possible vulnerability under RICO statutes) has been evident for years, glaringly so over the last several. These have simply been shielded, ignored, and overlooked by complicit or compromised individuals in high places.

In recent weeks, we have been made aware that certain career agents in the FBI were outraged when Comey elected not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, citing criminality without intent, as though Clinton and her surrogates had inadvertently committed serial felonies. In all probability, James Comey was given a choice between being the demonized bearer of bad news in the short term, or ultimately being a co-defendant, facing charges that might put him in prison for the rest of his life.

At this juncture, it is difficult to determine how far and how fast the FBI investigation will proceed, or if it will result in Hillary Clinton’s position becoming untenable whether or not she is elected President. We may never see the email Clinton sent to Huma Abedin demanding that Sheik Yerbouti cut a check for $10 million to the Clinton Foundation if he wanted State Department juice behind him in some effort to dramatically compromise U.S. national security, or her email reading “Let ‘em burn” to military personnel awaiting orders to render aid to our personnel under siege in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. We may never see resignations, indictments, or convictions resulting from the reopening of this investigation – or we may get to witness processions of orange jumpsuits doing perp walks and the entire corrupt Beltway culture laid waste.

Obviously, as reported by WND’s Jerome Corsi, Clinton’s forwarding of classified information to an unsecured Yahoo! email account owned by Abedin for later dissemination by America’s Islamist enemies is a treasonable offense, and it is quite possible that acts such as this were going to be brought to light by parties in the FBI whether Comey or radical affirmative action attorney General Loretta Lynch thought it was a good idea or not.

It is possible that the computer supposedly shared by Abedin and Weiner is the smoking gun in this case. It is also entirely possible that Weiner, as some like political biographer Ed Klein have suggested, cut a leniency deal with the FBI to provide access to this computer given that he may be facing prison over his child sexting case – but I do not believe that the evidence on this device is anything new to that law enforcement organization.

While the political lay of the land in Washington remains obscure to many Americans, it is always uppermost in the minds of those in positions such as Comey. Though he serves at the pleasure of the President, he is not a made member of either the Clinton or the Obama crime families. Ironically, it was this trait and his credibility as a squeaky-clean career FBI man that made him attractive to the White House.

As we know, Bill and Hillary Clinton typically expect their minions not only to let themselves be thrown under the bus, they often expect said minions to dive under the bus without waiting to be thrown. There’s an axiom that involves a person doing the right thing for the wrong reason; perhaps in James Comey, the Clintons finally ran up against someone whose sense of self-preservation superseded political loyalty.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Time to Choose: Representative Government or Thugocracy?

Time to Choose: Representative Government or Thugocracy?

I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system…

– Hillary Clinton

The first salvo from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (or rather, her answer to the first question posed by Fox News’ Chris Wallace to her and Donald Trump at the third presidential debate) was as chilling as it was an exemplar of hypocrisy.

Those on the left are quite fond of leveling the accusation against conservatives of employing “dog whistle politics,” rhetoric that allegedly contains hidden or esoteric derogatory messaging which targets a specific subgroup within the opposition. Ms. Clinton’s response to Wallace’s question (where they wanted to see the Supreme Court take the country, and their views on how the Constitution ought to be interpreted) however, was representative of this tactic.

While women’s rights and those of the LGBT community may seem to be a curious focus for the Court (since objectively, women wouldn’t appear to be particularly oppressed given that one has been nominated to run for President, and the LGBT community accounts for less than 5% of the American population), Clinton’s answer revealed the focus she believes the court should have once she becomes empress.

“Women’s rights” is of course “dog whistle” for unfettered abortion, even late-term abortion, which is essentially infanticide via dismemberment. “LGBT rights” is “dog whistle” for disenfranchising the majority of Americans who hold traditional values, primarily Christians. Leveraging a vocal minority of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender individuals whom the left has whipped into a froth against Christians is the methodology that was employed to negate the political power of Christians in Europe and Canada. A direct assault via legislation in this area would not work in the U.S. (at least not at present) however, judicial rulings could effectively bring about the same result.

Let us leave aside for a moment the fact that judicial activism is unethical and skirts the Constitution, and that Clinton’s overall objectives are manifestly evil. Hillary Clinton’s stated priorities for the Supreme Court are a clear indicator of her desire to use the Court as a bludgeon against the Constitution and individual liberties, rather than allowing it to perform its designated function. The hypocrisy attendant to Clinton citing the rights of women and homosexuals when she is beholden via financial contributions to nations which institutionally persecute and murder members of these groups remains plain for all to see, despite being conveniently ignored by the press.

Clinton’s reference to “powerful corporations and the wealthy” and the malign influence of that sinister conservative organization, Citizens United, was of course another exercise in blatant hypocrisy. Clinton is quite wealthy, and corrupt or otherwise compromised powerful corporations have been instrumental in bringing about the designs of American socialists. Even if Citizens United was a vehicle for “dark, unaccountable money,” the scope of its influence would pale next to the subversive designs of the Muslim Brotherhood, with which Bill and Hillary Clinton have been partnered for decades, or the myriad tentacles of organizations funded by George Soros, the former Nazi collaborator dedicated to advancing oligarchical collectivism in America, someone with whom the Clintons also have a long association.

One need not attempt to decipher the thinly-veiled intent behind Clinton’s debate rhetoric to discern what a Hillary Clinton presidency might look like. Her actions to date – and particularly those in the pursuit of seeking that office – should suffice quite nicely. Despite the craven complicity of the establishment press (mainstream media), there is ample evidence for even the most indolent news consumer to reach the conclusion that she and the Democratic leviathan supporting her, and which facilitated Barack Obama’s rise to power, are fundamentally malignant.

In recent days, we’ve become aware of all manner of unethical conspiracies and outright criminality that’s been brought to bear in getting Clinton elected, from Democrat officials tampering with the outcome of the illegal email server investigation, to the oversampling of key demographics in polling in order to enhance the public perception of Clinton’s popularity, to the recent revelation of criminally prosecutable actions on the part of the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the White House.

The bottom line here is that Hillary Clinton represents a class of people who transcend even the loathed archetypal modern politician in their rapaciousness and amorality. What all Americans – not just voters, and not just Republicans – need to realize is that leaders at the highest levels in the Republican Party are every bit as culpable as the gutter operatives of the Democrat Party who pay miscreants to dress up as ducks, instigate fistfights at opposition rallies and, yes – even vote for their candidates.

The burning question is this: In the end, are we to be governed by the will of the people, or are we going to continue pretending that we have a representative government, when we are in effect being ruled by abject thugs operating behind a faux veneer of government?

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
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, 0 comments
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, 0 comments
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, 1 comment
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, 0 comments
Netflix Series Foreshadows Hillary’s Ruthlessness

Netflix Series Foreshadows Hillary’s Ruthlessness

Well, it appears to be the week of superficiality. On Tuesday, FBI director James Comey announced at a press conference that he would not recommend an indictment against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton relating to her private email server scandal. According to Comey, Clinton (who also features prominently in Revelation 17 in the Bible) was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified email while she was Secretary of State, but showed no intent to break the law.

Obviously this is about as superficial an assessment of Clinton’s actions as one might concoct, based on what anyone who has been following this story closely already knows. This harridan is a ruthless, obscene, amoral criminal, but she just might wind up our next president anyway, if for no other reason than the electorate is simply not being made aware of the breadth and depth of her evil.

So, since we’re being superficial, this week I thought I’d go with something that exemplifies superficiality: Television; or more specifically, the review of a television show.

I don’t normally do reviews, but like millions of Americans who’ve dispensed with cable and satellite television subscriptions because we find it offensive to pay for Al Jazeera and other offal we wouldn’t watch with a grenade launcher poised at our heads, I have a digital antenna to pick up the few local news stations I can get here in the Rocky Mountain foothills so I’ll know when the barrage of Iranian ICBMs is about to commence.

As an entertainment alternative, I occasionally binge watch Netflix. Obviously, I’m picky even within that milieu, or I wouldn’t have given up subscription broadcast television to start with. One of the productions I really enjoyed was “Hell on Wheels,” the AMC series centered around the exploits of a former Confederate officer who headed west to work on the railroad.

The series depicts the conditions and the period reasonably faithfully (as recounted by history) without too much in the way of Hollywood anti-values incorporated therein, and it is very well done all the way around. There are both admirable and loathsome characters among all of the groups represented: the capitalists, the military personnel and former military personnel, prostitutes, Native Americans, freed slaves, Chinese and Irish immigrants, and Mormons.

One of the phenomena with which I was both fascinated and irritated (and with which all Americans should identify these days) was the series’ representation of the federal government and Union military forces that advanced the agenda of the former across the western territories. Their ruthlessness for the sake of ruthlessness was legendary, and we are aware of this because the effects thereof are still being felt today.

Leaving aside the abominable treatment Native Americans received during America’s westward expansion (for example), “Hell on Wheels” illustrated the axiom that power corrupts very well, whether portraying the stuffy, brandy-sipping railroad magnate abusing his workers, or the expatriate Chinese entrepreneur rapaciously exploiting his peasant countrymen – but it was the series’ characterization of the federal government that stood out in my mind.

In “Hell on Wheels,” the representatives of our federal government not only mercilessly implemented policies calculated to tame the frontier and bring indigent “savages” (Native Americans) under its sway, but danced a brutal flamenco all over the rights of those building the railroads in the region, landowners, and individuals as well.

This is demonstrated in part through the character of the Wyoming territorial governor John Campbell (played by Jake Weber) who, among many other scummy acts, uses his influence to buy up choice parcels of land around Cheyenne, Wyoming for his own personal aggrandizement. In this pursuit, he bullies the press, businessmen, and even local ladies of the night, ordering his deputies to vandalize a newspaper office, beat a saloon owner, and once fabricating charges against half of the men in town – including the president of the Union Pacific railroad – and barricading them in a church because the jail is too small to hold them all.

Campbell’s interpretation of the law in these matters, as evidenced via his own words, is essentially whatever he says it is, as is expedient relative to his mandate from Washington and his own ambitions and prejudices.

Sound familiar?

History confirms this deportment of policy makers of that era, and how it handily set the stage for politicians’ avaricious adventures of the following century – the narcissistic progressives for whom the Constitution was far more of an obstacle than a revered guide to just and moral governance.

The TV series illustrated not only the truism that power corrupts, but the conceit of those in the federal government at that time, and the emerging institutions therein which sought to gradually suppress the political power of both individuals and business, which had once effectively served to hold the federal government in check (In our day, many elements among these have been enrolled through guile and enticing subsidies to aid the federal government in its dirty work).

The pass on Hillary Clinton carries grave implications, not because it is being executed by those in the employ of the equally nefarious Obama administration, but because her crimes (which are a matter of public record even if the FBI chose to gloss over them) have also been tacitly endorsed by her ostensible political opponents – i.e., the Republican leadership – through their refusal to even acknowledge them. This is a stark indicator of the nascent statist megalith which has been 100 years in the making finally coming into its own.

In the aforementioned television series and the Clinton-Obama axis, we have dark cabals with no reservations with regard to ignoring the law or sweeping away opponents both large and small through subterfuge, intimidation, or even murder like so many crumbs on a dining table – and we have every reason to fear.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Benghazi Report: More ‘Business as Usual’

Benghazi Report: More ‘Business as Usual’

Many will remember the 1993 HBO film “And the Band Played On, ” based on the best-selling book “And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic” by Randy Shilts. The movie centers around a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who becomes involved in HIV/AIDS research at the inception of the epidemic in the 1980s.

The film was largely an indictment of politics within the biomedical research community; in short, the message was that “business as usual” ultimately led to innumerable AIDS deaths as politicians tested and re-tested the way the wind was blowing regarding public opinion on the disease, and prominent researchers prioritized preserving their egos, reputations, and professional legacies.

This week, a Republican-led House committee released a report the on the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terror attack, citing the Obama administration’s numerous missteps before, during and after the incident. The report claims that top administration officials such as then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama hedged, waffled, and measured their public response for hours, during which time military assets waited to deploy to Libya in order to rescue U.S. staff in Benghazi.

The first military personnel did not arrive until more than 13 hours after the attack began. As a result, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department information officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty perished.

The committee found the grossest breaches of protocol, obfuscation, misrepresentations, extraordinarily lame excuses, outright lies, and what appeared on its face to be abject incompetence on the part of the White House, State Department, and intelligence agencies. Panetta told the committee that “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi, despite dozens of desperate requests from Ambassador Stevens for enhanced security in the months prior.

Yet, there’s precious little revealed by the committee that was unknown to those following the Benghazi story. In fact, most of what the committee revealed was indeed known within a few months after the attack as a result of Middle Eastern press outlets and those directly or peripherally involved with our government’s business in Libya.

While there’s an attitude of “gotcha” in the conservative press, the report that they call “damning” gives no indication that the committee got any closer to the real reasons why our government failed to expeditiously aid those at the besieged compound. Such explanations as “intelligence failures” simply aren’t plausible. This deficiency is likely due to the extent of abject criminality behind the lack of response to the attack. For example, news pieces and commentaries following the Benghazi attack which discussed the covert Middle East arms transportation network established by the Obama administration’s CIA (to supply Islamists in Syria and for which Benghazi was a hub) and the incestuous involvement of congressional leaders, parties in the intelligence community, and private security interests are literally too many to list.

So the Benghazi report represents nothing but business as usual. Triumphant establishment press claims that the committee found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton bear this out. In the meantime, the woman who likely committed hanging offenses in the prosecution of the Benghazi response is busily marketing herself as the next “Tickle Me Elmo” – the irresistibly lovable, “gotta have” Democratic candidate President.

While 51 black citizens were injured and 7 killed over the weekend by gunfire in Chicago, a city lousy with gun control measures that’s being deftly managed by Obama’s former bath house buddy Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s communist attorney general Loretta Lynch advances her plan to make thousands of Justice Department workers submit to mandatory training calculated to eliminate “implicit biases” in their law enforcement judgment and avoid racially-motivated police actions.

In the press, liberal economists manage to maintain straight faces as they cite creative statistics and indicators which say that Barack Obama in fact did reduce the national deficit as he said he would in 2008, and that we have a robust economy – right now – as a result of his policies.

And so on. Business as usual…

Over the last couple of years, I’ve seen the homeless population in the city in which I live explode, and we’re not talking about a major urban center here. I’ve seen the lines at food banks and public assistance offices trailing out into the street, with increasing numbers of people in official work attire alongside the unlocal parasites the government demands that we feed; this indicating that while the former may have work, they clearly don’t have enough work. There’s no doubt that this is occurring across America, but we’re not likely to see much related news coverage anytime soon.

And of course, I’ve repeatedly cited the fuzzy math that allows America to have a 5% unemployment rate with 94 million unemployed out of a 180 million work force.

But it’s still business as usual…

“Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our diplomats and development officials who go into dangerous places around the world pursuing American values, interests, and our security. And I said this when I testified for 11 hours that no one has thought more about or lost more sleep over the lives that we lost, the four Americans, which was devastating… I’ll leave it to others to characterize this report, but I think it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on.”

– Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2016

So, what do these analogues and this analysis prove, if anything? They prove that despite the popular political uprisings we are seeing across the Western world, governing elites are proceeding against implicit and explicit mandates, advancing their international socialist megalith as though it was being universally welcomed by the governed.

They also prove that these parties are among the vilest of living beings. Hillary Clinton’s shameless, disgusting statement in response to the Benghazi report epitomizes this fact.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments