hillary clinton

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
Hillary’s Real Links to Terrorists and Nazis

Hillary’s Real Links to Terrorists and Nazis

By Erik Rush

Last week, retired Major League Baseball pitcher and analyst for ESPN Curt Schilling was suspended by the sports network for posting a “controversial” meme about Muslims on Twitter. The tweet in question allegedly compared Muslims to Nazis via a quote that said in part, “Only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis …”

Which is, is one may have surmised, quite accurate.

Most people have heard of the phenomenon of “projection.” Rather than being a generic descriptor, this term originates in the field of psychology. It refers to the practice of an individual transferring – or “projecting” – objectionable traits they possess onto others. It’s a defense mechanism. Right now, I’d imagine some have just made the connection between this psychoanalytical theory and the character of innumerable arguments made by leftists.

Over the last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton engaged in some rather blatant projection at which we shall have a look.

At an Aug. 27 campaign stop in Cleveland, Ms. Clinton leveled the charge that the current lineup of Republican presidential candidates hold views on women’s issues that are akin to those of terrorist groups.

Was this outrageous? Extreme? Well, we’re talking Clintons here, so probably not.

The next day, before an audience in Minneapolis, Clinton employed verbiage evocative of the Holocaust to slander the GOP field. Suggesting that these scoundrels wish to “pull people out of their homes” and put these illegal immigrants in “boxcars,” she was no doubt attempting to reduce the candidates to the status of Nazis in the eyes of voters.

These were, as White House correspondent Keith Koffler stated, “obvious references to the German roundups of Jews in the last 1930s and early 1940s.” He also claimed that Clinton “knows exactly what she’s doing … whatever it takes to win mentality, devoid of scruple or any sense of decorum or morality.”

Or rather: Standard Clinton Operating Procedure.

Hillary’s comparison of Republican candidates to terrorists was outrageous (by civilized standards, not a Clinton’s) and slanderous, but it was not tactically sound, being a “glass house” offensive. In other words, her comparison threw the door open wide to a discussion of the Clinton Foundation taking millions of dollars in donations from terrorist-supporting, misogynistic primitives.

Which is what qualifies her words as projection.

As for her subsequent comparison of the GOP candidates to Nazis, Clinton’s relationship with the aforementioned well-heeled misogynistic primitives is actually the tie-in.

It is well and proper to scrutinize the Clinton Foundation’s donor list, their practices and whether donors paid for political influence when Ms. Clinton was secretary of state. It is also appropriate that we point out the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton taking money (via the foundation) from entities that grossly violate principles she ostensibly upholds.

But why not pursue this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion?

Once again I turn to Chuck Morse’s book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini,” an analysis of the working relationship between Islamists and Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The book illustrates the philosophical kinship between the Nazis and their Islamist contemporaries, as well as their cooperation after World War II.

Hitler’s friend Haj Amin al-Husseini was the leader of Arab Palestine during World War II; Nazi Germany shipped arms to Arab insurgents in Palestine, and al-Husseini aided the Nazis in the recruitment of Eastern European Muslims to fight in German SS units. He also had a hand in urging the Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in Europe to transport Jews to death camps.

After the war, Al-Husseini would mentor the next generation of Arab Islamists (one was PLO leader and terrorist Yasser Arafat) in his role as leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jerusalem.

Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama has been instrumental in the Muslim Brotherhood advancing its goals worldwide. Many Americans probably accept his relationship with them, or rationalize it away due to notions of political correctness or Obama’s familial ties to Islam.

The same accepting, rationalizing Americans would probably be surprised to learn that Bill and Hillary Clinton have enjoyed a very profitable, decades-long relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a wealth of evidence substantiating this; the depth and breadth of the Clintons’ dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood – whose stated mandate is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” – is truly astonishing.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the wellspring from which all Sunni Muslim and Wahabbist terror organizations flow. Further, aside from their historical hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, Nazi philosophy that was inculcated through their association with the Third Reich is now well-ingrained into the belief system of these groups.

So, Hillary Clinton knows a great deal about terrorists and Nazis; she and Bill have been collaborating with them for years. In projecting onto Republicans, the (perhaps calculated) risk she took was that they might exploit the tactical error and reveal these connections.

Which of course the Republicans did not.

Instead of broadcasting the Clintons’ treasonous associations from the rooftop of the Capitol, the Republican National Committee had their press secretary make a statement demanding an apology from Ms. Clinton for her dumb old icky mean words.

Why hasn’t anyone among the GOP leadership brought this damning evidence to light considering Ms. Clinton’s rash comments? Well, that has to do with a certain aversion people have to self-incrimination. Many Republican power players are, shall we say, in a somewhat compromised position when it comes to Islamist front groups, so they’re a bit reluctant to break open that wholesale outlet-sized can of worms.

But that’s a story for another time …

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/hillarys-real-links-to-terrorists-and-nazis/#hLEA66s6OYISIus1.99

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

There have been some pretty potent reactions in the alternative press to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s WND column of July 1, “Hillary’s secret war.” In it, the judge analyzes a shocking interview with an international arms dealer that centers around the man’s dealings with the State Department under Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence in the same vein that has surfaced through other sources, Clinton’s destruction of emails covering that period and testimony she gave at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January of 2013.

Napolitano is one of the first of his stature and background in the law to pull no punches pertaining to the former secretary of state’s criminality. Yet despite his usual unambiguous legal opinions – or judgments, if you will – written and broadcast, here he doesn’t provide any, instead leaving the reader to digest the weighty revelations.

I could almost hear the Judge intone to his readers: You’re smart; you figure it out. What do we typically do with people who commit serial criminal offenses?

Writing for TruthRevolt.org last week, Mark Tapson made a case for arresting and charging Ms. Clinton, as well as expressing an almost passionate yearning that this would take place with all due speed.

Judge Napolitano’s column ends with the following:

“Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?”

Strong words, and Napolitano certainly echoes my sentiments. The urgency contained in that final paragraph reminded me of an editorial comment I made elsewhere just this past weekend. This one addressed the Obama State Department denying visas to Assyrian Christians who were in imminent danger of persecution from the ISIS terror group several weeks ago, while continuing to allow every potential jihadi who wishes it entry into the United States:

“When will Americans – American Christians in particular – stand up and demand that … Barack Hussein Obama II be dragged from the White House in chains?”

Strong words? I suppose – but certainly in keeping with the opinions I usually express here.

Back to Judge Napolitano’s pointed questions, specifically the last one. Does Hillary Clinton think American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and elect her president? For me, that gave rise to yet another question: Why are she and the president still walking around free, committing crimes and lying their faces off about them on a daily basis?

The answer to that one might very well answer the last question posed by the judge.

Here’s the reasoning: It would be very easy for American voters to overlook Clinton’s criminal behavior if they didn’t know about it in the first place.

Why wouldn’t voters put Hillary Clinton in the White House if her crimes are systematically overlooked by the press and the Republican leadership in the same manner Barack Obama’s identity fraud, lack of a valid birth certificate, forged Selective Service registration, invalid Social Security number, sealed academic records, ties to criminals, terrorists, radicals, and racists, and possible ties to several Chicago murders were systematically overlooked by the press and by Republicans during the 2008 election cycle?

Bereft of such information as discussed in the judge’s column, revealed in the Fox News investigation he references, other evidence gleaned by unbiased news sources and by Congress, American voters would have little more than the Clinton hype machine and shallow cult of personality upon which to base their estimations of her. Add to that an establishment press fawning over her in the same obsequious manner as they fawned over Obama in 2008, and she’s well on her way to the White House.

And wouldn’t it’d be so cool for America to finally have her first woman president?

Within days of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, I voiced my concern that as opposed to having botched or nixed a rescue of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who perished, the White House might actually have orchestrated the event to erase (or at least obscure) evidence of their criminal activities with regard to arming terrorists, which was indeed occurring at the time.

Should this have been the case, the order certainly would not have come from Hillary Clinton. Testimony has been given asserting that agents of the later deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were participants in the Benghazi attack. Obama himself bulldozed the way for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood thugs into Cairo. Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been extremely close with Morsi and the ‘Brotherhood for years – in the case of the Clintons, it’s been decades.

That’s likely one of the reasons Egyptian-born Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department and current campaign staffer, has been doing her share to stonewall the probe into the Benghazi massacre. Abedin comes from a good, solid Muslim Brotherhood family, and while her attorney insists that she’s been “searching her personal records,” she still hasn’t turned over documents that the House Select Committee on Benghazi claims could clarify questions about the origins of the bogus “anti-Islam YouTube video” memorandum the White House used to explain the motive for the attack.

Perhaps Abedin inadvertently saved her work files on Hillary’s email server …

Last Friday, Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said that his organization’s independent investigation produced evidence that Hillary Clinton herself was instrumental in crafting the counterfeit Benghazi talking points, as opposed to simply reciting the false narrative.

None of this information, however, is reaching the voters Judge Napolitano referenced. I am certainly not offering this to discredit the Judge’s estimation of this case in any way, but the titanic mound of damning evidence against the president, Ms. Clinton and scores of complicit White House appointees that is so familiar to WND readers and other astute citizens is wholly unknown to the vast majority of Americans who will cast votes in 2016. Think about that.

Like the facts which should have rendered Barack Obama unelectable in 2008, this evidence could very well remain unknown to them, giving Ms. Clinton an excellent shot at the presidency.

In the current radically corrupted political climate, why wouldn’t we expect such a thing to occur?

Originally published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Brazenness of Beltway Corruption

The Brazenness of Beltway Corruption

On Sept. 23, 2012, CBS News was giving President Barack Hussein Obama the premier opportunity to perform some damage control ahead of the upcoming election by allowing him time on their “60 Minutes” program. This was necessary because there had been a dramatic upswell in anti-U.S. violence in the Middle East. Most notably, an attack on the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, had left four Americans dead, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

In his appearance, Obama told CBS’ Steve Kroft that with regard to this concern, he had been “pretty certain” that there would be “bumps in the road” due to the political dynamic of the nations in the region.

At that time, very little was known about the Benghazi attack, but considering what had occurred, some observers went ballistic at Obama’s use of the term “bumps in the road” to reference Americans who had perished rather gruesomely at the hands of desert death-cult monkeys.

With the Islamic State’s capture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi in recent days, America was again treated to the White House’s mischaracterizing understatement. “No denying it is a setback,” said spokesman Eric Schultz. Obama throws away 10 years’ worth of U.S. military gains – and one of the rather predictable outcomes is a mere “setback.”

The back story that’s never told is the fact that such mischaracterizations were perpetrated deliberately, in order to advance the Islamist agenda in the region.

The outright criminality of those at the highest levels of government, whether materially or politically motivated, has become positively brazen; it is so ingrained and its practitioners so smugly self-assured that they scarcely bother to guard their actions against scrutiny anymore – at least not with regard to the American people.

The scandal in which Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is currently embroiled is a great example. Ms. Clinton set up a private email server for her email when she was secretary of state. This was most likely to shield her communications from the White House, rather than Republicans, the press, or the public.

Then, the existence of the server was revealed. Clinton obfuscated, evaded, eventually releasing some emails, while describing others as horribly mundane. Then she abruptly scrubbed the server of 50,000 some-odd remaining emails, irradiated the hard drive, boiled it in ammonia and sunk it in the Marianas Trench.

This week, we learned that Hillary is really mad, and really wants those emails released. Unfortunately, the State Department – which, if I am not mistaken, is still run by her old boss – has such an arduous task ahead in determining which of the innumerable emails are fit for public consumption that they decided they couldn’t get it done before, say – what’s good for you, Hill – January 2016?

You see, while Obama’s White House is only going to provide so much cover for Hillary, they’re not eager to have her emails, or the nuts and bolts of the Bill and Hill Selling America Out Foundation, to come to light, either.

Speaking of: I was reading a rather silly Howard Kurtz analysis of the furor attendant to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and his donations to the Clinton Foundation. George apparently “didn’t realize” that there was a monumental conflict of interest and ethics issues involved with his being ABC News’ chief anchor and donating to the foundation of his former employer while reporting on the pandemonium over its sketchy finances, and while the former employer’s wife is running for president.

Stephanopoulos didn’t realize this would be problematic?

Far more important here is that Stephanopoulos’ actions over the last 15 years are emblematic of what has occurred across the establishment press, with political operatives moving into press jobs. The issue is not so much that Stephanopoulos “neglected” to disclose his large donations to the Clinton Foundation, but that he has essentially been working as an operative for a criminal enterprise (possibly prosecutable under RICO statutes) while posing as a journalist.

It is no different than if a member of an organized crime family did likewise in order to disseminate disinformation pertaining to his superiors’ activities.

While Stephanopoulos’ detractors are demanding that he and his family be barred from television journalism for seven generations, chances are he’ll take a little vacation, and his indiscretion will get swept under the carpet with the IRS nonprofit targeting probe and Charlie Rangel’s ethics violations.

“Why do the Clintons think there’s a different set of rules for them than there is for the rest of us?”

– Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, May 19, 2015

These things transcend political party of course; there are Republican politicians over the last few decades who fall along every point of the scumminess continuum. Quite a few are running around Washington calling themselves “conservatives” right now. It’s just that the radical leftists are more inherently disreputable and repellent. The idea that there’s “a different set of rules for us” is quite prevalent throughout the Beltway; in fact, varying degrees of it permeate the federal government, from the shiftless, belligerent, union-protected clerk, to the heads of federal agencies – and there is no accountability.

Yes, the revelations surrounding Hillary Clinton’s email server and foundation donations are controversial. Yet it is unlikely that the ongoing and potentially catastrophic security risks posed by her having used a private email server or that some Clinton Foundation foreign donors are essentially enemies of this nation will ever be discussed, let alone investigated.

Only the institutional propriety of Hillary Clinton’s actions will be bandied about in the press and by Congress; perhaps another smoke-and-mirrors inquiry featuring duly indignant GOP committee members will take place. Then, when this all comes up again during the 2016 campaign, she will be fully within her rights to remind us all that “those issues were addressed back in 2015.”

Or better yet: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Divine Right of America’s Ruling Class

The Divine Right of America’s Ruling Class

In the Western monarchies of bygone days, the Divine Right of Kings stated, although less colloquially: “If God didn’t want me to be your king, I wouldn’t be your king, so it is evidently the Will of God that I rule. Thus, as your sovereign, I am not subject to your will; you are subject to mine, so suck it up and obey.” The rationale was that the ruler answered only to God – which I imagine was very convenient for those rulers with a tyrannical bent.

Of course, that was a major bit of medieval propaganda calculated to engender obedience amongst the peasants. I mean, the belief that by standing against royalty, they were standing against God must have been pretty compelling to a pious but woefully uneducated citizenry.

There’s a certain audacity that goes hand-in-hand with the ability of today’s politicians to say some things with a straight face – that is, without bursting out in laughter. Like the spin that has issued from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s camp regarding her private email server scandal, for instance. Last week, Clinton refused to turn over the server in question (which she might have put into use illegally), then insisted that she “fully complied” with the law and that Congress would just have to trust her.

The issue was settled: Hillary had spoken. At the time of this writing, Ms. Clinton was handily evading the question of whether or not she had signed an OF-109 form upon her departure from the State Department, certifying under penalty of perjury that she had turned over all official documents and records in her possession to the State Department.

President Obama apparently claimed he learned of the email scandal in The New York Times. All things considered, at first I thought he might be joking – but he wasn’t. Contradictions abound relative to Clinton’s claims, particularly for those who watched her press conference on the subject last week.

The President’s comments prompted Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Tweet:


I’m not going to get into a deep analysis of what Hillary did and whether it was unlawful or not at this time; what’s clear is that she wanted to maintain precisely the sort of control she currently holds over the emails she generated and received when she was Secretary of State. Whether she was trying to protect herself from potential treachery on Obama’s part (which is altogether understandable, if not a valid legal excuse), or trying to avoid general scrutiny (since her standard operating procedure has often meandered into the realm of the unlawful), or both is immaterial.

I also don’t want to focus too much on Obama’s rhetoric and deeds, because these are so over-the-top compared to anything we have seen from an American president that it would skew the data, as it were, with regard to reasonable standards of ethics we might expect from those in government.

What I’d like people to think about is the general attitude of those we have chosen to govern, this imperious bearing that we have increasingly seen in our elected officials, executive appointees, and even their subordinates. It reflects an outlook that is wholly inappropriate to their positions, one that has evolved over the last hundred years from statesman-servant to politician to that of royalty.

This attitude transcends even the self-aggrandizing politician who is primarily interested in enriching himself or herself materially. It goes far and beyond the ethical ambivalence of politicians that has engendered an almost traditional cynicism amongst voters.

The prevailing comportment that we see in our elected officials (at the federal level for certain, and even many at the state level) hearkens back to that of the royal castes in the days of the divine right monarchies. They behave as though they truly believe they are not subject to the will of the people, despite this being codified in our Constitution, that we are subject to their will, so we’d better suck it up and obey.

Some also seem to believe that their invulnerability extends to the commission of actual crimes. When Attorney General Eric Holder was equivocating before the House Judiciary Committee last April, and Rep. Louie Gohmert said that he realized having been held in contempt of Congress (for refusing to surrender documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious investigation) was “not a big deal to our attorney general,” Holder bristled and uttered the memorable “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” He later whined to an audience at one of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network events that he and the president were persistently treated with disrespect because of their ethnicity.

In his incomprehensible temerity, Holder completely disregarded the fact that you don’t get held in contempt of Congress for chewing gum in class. It’s analogous to being held in contempt of court – worse, really – yet, while most of us would be promptly handcuffed and escorted to a cell, Holder… well, I’m not sure what if any consequence he will ever face. This display indicated much more than Holder’s excessive and unwarranted racial sensitivities; it was a case of good old-fashioned ruling class narcissism.

And he thinks blacks haven’t come very far since the Civil Rights Movement…

This all holds true regardless of political party; in fact, we are seeing just as much of this in entrenched Republican politicians as we are in Democrats. When they publicly disparage the Tea Party and other conservative groups for example, it is a direct and effective disenfranchisement of millions of their own constituents.

In truth, it is they who are in the minority; based upon their actions, they are clearly aligned more closely with the progressive left – and even Obama’s fundamental transformation radicals – than they are with rank-and-file Republican voters.

These are things that all Americans will be forced to consider as they come to realize how high the stakes have become relative to our economy, sovereignty, national security, and the threats to their liberties; further, how their birthright has been stolen and sold off, and what this will really mean to them in the long term.

How they respond to this realization – not the actions of our government – will determine our nation’s future.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Hillary’s real ‘Hard Choices’ could be her undoing

Hillary Clinton Reads From Her New Memoir In New York CityOne wonders if Hillary Clinton and her minions are aware that their job in presenting her as a viable presidential candidate will be far more difficult than it was for Barack Obama’s handlers. Even though he had the disadvantage of being profoundly inexperienced, at least he was an unknown commodity. Hillary Clinton is not.

Over the last week, the former first lady and secretary of state has been hawking her latest book, “Hard Choices,” which the New York Times called “a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.”

Well, consider the source. I suppose the surgeon who’s performed 10,000 surgeries and lost every patient could be said to have “wide-ranging experience.”

Clinton’s book is very obviously meant to “soften up the ground” for her presidential run. Per her discussions with the press, it is evident that her intent is damage control pertaining to her role in the Benghazi scandal and to distance herself from the more damaging Obama policies that necessarily remain foremost in the minds of Americans.

Hillary’s detractors rightly point out her inexperience, but one thing at which she is well-practiced is political fluency. Some of her statements have been positively laughable, such as the claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, and that Benghazi was a good reason for her to run for president, as opposed to not. The answers do come quickly, however; there is none of the hemming and hawing we get from Obama on the rare occasions he’s been caught off-teleprompter.

Still, selling Hillary to an electorate that, if somewhat superficial in many aspects, is at least aware that she’s fairly close to Obama in policy and ideology won’t be easy. I mean, if you’re a liberal or independent who’s fed up with Obama, why would you want to elect someone formerly in his Cabinet?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

‘Top Secret’ Documents Implicate Obamas, Clintons

Via Shoebat Foundation – Shocking documents by Egyptian security forces monitoring the movements of Malik Obama’s Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) and the father (Essam el-Haddad) of a former Clinton employee (Gehad El-Haddad) sheds further light on the nefarious dealings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These documents could implicate the Obamas and the Clintons as being complicit in endangering national security.

Bill_Hillary_BarackAl-Masry Network also published the claims of intelligence sources showing that Malik Obama’s Organization is the main sponsor to Islamize the Nuba area, Aswan and Luxor. The Aswan region is a territory in southeastern Egypt that borders northern Sudan, which includes a long stretch of the Nile river. During the Mohammed Mursi regime, both Egypt and Sudan (under Omar al-Bashir) would have presented an opportunity to work toward the slow erasure of the border between the two nations. Such negotiations in Aswan would have predictably caused Egypt’s Security Forces great concern.

The younger Haddad, who worked as City Director for five years at the William J. Clinton Foundation, also worked with his father; both men were the closest of advisers to Mursi. Both Essam and Gehad were arrested late last year – after Mursi’s ouster – and had their assets frozen.
The Al-Masry report seems to indicate that Malik Obama’s role within the Sudanese branch of the IDO is much more significant than previously thought (translated):

“Authorities within Egypt’s security apparatus have warned over the past two and a half years of the movements of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), based in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, headed by businessman Kenyan owner Aboonju Obama (Malik), the elder brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, according to security authorities who are privy to the details of the investigation. One official said the organization and its president, a close friend of the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, support the Muslim Brotherhood with money, as well as the international organization of the group…”

The article further reports that Malik has headed the IDO not only in Kenya but leads the organization headquartered in Khartoum and “overseen by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir”. His role allegedly includes assisting and regulating the global Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in News

MERRY CHRISTMAS! Egypt Indicts Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Merry Christmas, America! Indeed, it looks like someone’s chickens are coming home to roost…

As reported by the Western Center for Journalism, in two separate criminal complaints, Egyptian lawmakers have charged Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the Egyptian government.

Over the last week, we’ve been covering the story of the Turkish press having reported the testimony of ousted Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Mahmood. She has testified to President Obama and Hillary Clinton having been complicit in the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and in efforts to overthrow the current leader of Egypt, General Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi.

What we want to know is: Who’s going to be the first journalist in the Washington Press Corps to ask Obama about these charges?

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in News

Clintons, Obama, and Muslims – Oh, My!

obama_hillary_muslim_brotherhoodOn the website for Walid Shoebat, former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist turned anti-terror crusader, a December 13 post covers new allegations on the part of multiple sources submitted to Egypt’s Attorney General, Hisham Barakat that charge Naglaa Mahmood, the wife of ousted President Mohammed Morsi with “seeking to excite domestic insurrections to overthrow the Egyptian government” and return Morsi to power.

The charges, which stem from an interview Mahmood gave to Turkish TV, also reveal that Mahmood and the Muslim Brotherhood (via the Muslim Sisterhood) have been collaborating for decades with former First Lady and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

At this juncture, we are well aware of President Obama’s collusion with and facilitating of Muslim Brotherhood operations in the U.S. and abroad; these have secured a position for him as a traitor to the U.S., and will hopefully earn him a trial for treason. We also know that in his pursuits, he has insinuated such scoundrels as Mohammed Elibary, a MB operative, into the Department of Homeland Security, as well as having appointed a Muslim convert and Islamist sympathizer as head of the CIA in Director John Brennan.

These charges involving the Clintons are quite new to most, however; Mahmood has declared that the Clintons befriended her family in the 1980′s while they were living in the U.S. As one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, Mahmoud is a colleague of Saleha Abedin, another one of those 63 leaders. Saleha is the mother of Huma Abedin, who is a close adviser to Hillary Clinton and wife of former Democratic Congressman, Anthony Weiner.

Oh, my…

On my show FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE! on December 12, former covert operative Dr. Jim Garrow said that Zhang Junsai, the Chinese ambassador to Canada admitted to him this week that among leaders in the international diplomatic community, it is common knowledge that Obama is a Muslim. In chronicling the untimely death of journalist Michael Hastings, WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi recently enumerated the many indicators that CIA Director Brennan is an Islamic sympathist; inasmuch as Hastings was working on an expose on Obama and Brennan, it gives rise to the question of whether the two conspired to have Hastings eliminated.

It also further validates the likelihood that, as Garrow has said, the Obama administration had media personality Andrew Breitbart and author Tom Clancy assassinated because they were sharing information with Hastings.

The Clinton administration – Bill and Hillary in particular – were also touched with allegations  of having eliminated political enemies, and according to commentator and talk show host Dave Hodges, a total of 93 individuals have died suspiciously or in circumstances that directly benefited the Obama administration.

How many Americans know that their President’s CIA Director is a Muslim who opposes profiling as a means toward ensuring national security? How many Americans are aware of the conflict that exists between allegiance to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and adherence to Islamic doctrine as the supreme arbiter of Muslims’ actions? How many Americans are aware of the incremental phases of Islamic conquest that are playing out right now in Europe and America in identical fashion to how they have played out in dozens of nations and societies?

Is it time to call for the deportation of all Muslim foreign nationals in America, the arrest of all members of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations, and the strict surveillance of Muslim citizens, as some are have suggested?

Some might say that given the history of Islam and the current circumstances, we’d be insane not to.

UPDATE (and Hillary was involved) – ANOTHER SHOCKER! Egyptian Intelligence reveals documents on the case against the Obama Regime and its secret collaboration with Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood

Posted by Erik Rush in News