Fake Conservatives in the Ranks

Fake Conservatives in the Ranks

By Erik Rush •

On this Tuesday’s installment of the Fox News program “Fox & Friends,” my fellow commentator and radio host Larry Elder addressed Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin’s recent call to “burn down” the GOP to cleanse it of those who support President Donald Trump. Elder called Rubin’s claim that Trump had somehow perpetrated a hostile takeover of the Republican Party “absurd,” which it most certainly is.

Elder went on to assert that Rubin and a host of prominent media personalities who claim to be conservatives really aren’t, that their employers are well aware of this, and that their true mission is to undermine conservatism and the Republican Party.

“They hire these columnists who purport to be conservatives,” Elder said, “and they dump on the Republican Party and they dump on Trump.”

We’ve certainly seen a lot of this sort of thing over the last few years, and not just from liberal media outlets that pretend to fairness in reporting by hiring token conservatives who aren’t really conservatives. The frequency of occurrences such as the above and the instance of faux conservatives being outed have increased due to the fear and desperation on the part of establishment progressives, more commonly known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

In truth, the last decade has revealed far more in the way of professed conservatives revealing themselves to be progressive establishment hacks than many of us are comfortable with, and these occupy the ranks of politics, media and activism. To be fair, I’m not using one’s status as a Trump detractor as the sole basis for leveling this charge. One can be honestly opposed to aspects of Trump’s policies without being a fake conservative, but it is helpful if one articulates why. If such a person is merely chiming in with unpleasant abstractions, they’re no better than the far left mouthpieces who call Trump a racist.

Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, founders of the now-defunct Weekly Standard, were once considered stalwarts of the conservative movement. As Reagan conservatives, they talked a great game, occasionally approaching the cerebral tones of William Buckley. If we were going to restore conservative values in politics, these were they guys who’d be at the forefront, many thought.

During America’s “fundamental transformation” that began to take place under Barack Obama however, many rank-and-file conservatives and commentators began to see far less of a response to his actions and his policies among these stalwarts than was deemed appropriate. Yes, we understood that a lot of Republican politicians were reluctant to offer too much criticism given how readily the race card was being played—but that shouldn’t have mattered to conservative media players and activists. When Kristol became one of the most prominent anti-Trumpers, his fate was sealed as far as many conservatives were concerned.

In 2011, the bona fides of the high-profile conservative icon and activist Grover Norquist came into question when it was revealed that he had ties to parties acting on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. His status as an advisory board member of GOProud (an organization ostensibly representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender conservatives) and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations didn’t help in supporting his conservative credentials.

We certainly can’t forget former GOP rockstars like Marco Rubio (R-FL), who were once considered the young salvation of the conservative movement (at least on the political side), but whose favor among conservatives quickly diminished when they signed onto causes that had clear establishment interests.

Finally, there’s Jeff Sessions, the former Alabama Republican who for years was practically venerated amongst conservatives. When he was tapped as President Trump’s attorney general, there were high hopes for a Beltway housecleaning, but Sessions torched his conservative credentials, not only by recusing himself from subsequent investigations into Trump’s campaign, but by being essentially invisible as the nation’s top law enforcement official.

There are a lot of rank-and-file conservatives who don’t approve of Donald Trump simply because he’s not a conservative. I acknowledge that he’s not a conservative, and I’ve said that he was on the bottom of my list for the GOP nomination at the outset of the 2016 campaign cycle. There are a lot of conservatives who find Trump’s economic foreign policy questionable, and I certainly understand why.

What I don’t understand in the current climate of intense enmity between leftist radicals and everyone who is not a leftist radical, is how some conservatives so easily overlook not only Trump’s accomplishments to date, but his dedication to thwarting the designs of the Beltway establishment, which remains the real enemy of all Americans.

Occasionally, I encounter a professed conservative whose disdain for Trump rivals that of far left radicals. The problem I have with these folks is they are no more able to articulate specifics with regard to their disapproval of Trump than the leftists who despise the president. The fact that Trump isn’t a traditional conservative appears to be enough cause to disparage him to anyone who will listen.

To these, I would ask: Who among the 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls could have galvanized the electorate in the manner in which Trump did, and continued to shine a light on the dark machinations of the Deep State as president? Rick Santorum—who told me to my face in 2011 that if there had been anything sketchy about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, the press would have uncovered it? John Kasich? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush?

Given the stakes we currently face, “because he’s not a conservative” just isn’t a sufficiently damning charge against a president who has consistently championed the rule of law and a preponderance of conservative values.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

Why the Press Doesn’t Care About Credibility

By Erik Rush •

Even when Donald Trump was running for president, it was pretty evident that the establishment press was biased against him. The reason for this is not hard to discern; Trump was appealing not only to a majority of Americans, but he was doing so with values and proposals that are antithetical to the radical leftist doctrine that has become orthodoxy in newsrooms.

There is simply no debating that the press remains vehemently opposed to President Trump, moreso than they were opposed to candidate Trump. Even Politico reported on a 2016 Quinnipiac University poll which revealed that during the campaign, fifty-five percent of likely voters surveyed said the media were biased against Trump.

Since Trump’s election, this bias has become even more palpable. During the Obama administration, we witnessed a press that was slavishly devoted to the president, dedicatedly shielding him from all criticism and furtively overlooking his many deficiencies. Now, we are being treated to the opposite side of the coin.

Because the press, as the single most powerful advocate for the radical left, is now expressing hatred (which the left does so well) rather than love, as they did with Barack Obama, their obsession is even more plain, their vitriol more potent and capacious. Professionalism, ethics, maturity, and of course civility, have all been cast to the wind. These days, the most prominent press operatives (network newscasters covering the White House, for example) have become little more than smug, belligerent thugs.

To some observers, it is disgusting. To others, humorous. To some, it engenders pathos at a once-great bastion of free speech and bulwark against tyranny having given itself over to whoredom.

To still others, it is baffling: Much of the criticism being leveled by observers and pundits has to do with the press having lost credibility, and being likely to lose even more if they continue to evidence such extreme bias. Those commenting are often perplexed as to how little value those in the press appear to place on their credibility, and how they could risk endangering it in this manner.

I’d like to put this argument to rest once and for all with the assertion that the question of credibility as it pertains to the press is wholly immaterial. Yes, the press has long since lost its credibility in the eyes of those who employ critical thinking, and who viewed the press in its traditional role. This doesn’t matter to the press as a whole any longer, since credibility went hand-in-hand with the established mission of the press—at least as it was understood for 200 years.

Today, those who comprise the establishment press are not at all concerned with that mission. Over the last few decades, we have seen far left ideologues insinuate themselves into every position and area therein, much in the same way they have insinuated themselves into other influential sectors of our society. It’s been a long-held stratagem of leftists since early in the last century.

Thus, such things as safeguarding liberty and holding institutions accountable are no longer even on the average journalist’s radar, let alone that of CNN’s Jim Acosta.

To be clear, this phenomenon did not come about during the Obama administration, nor because of Donald Trump’s election—it’s just that this generation of shameless leftist press operatives have come into their own during this period. Those who’ve recently criticized the press on the grounds of credibility also noticed that this expression of leftist bias has been incremental.

The single-minded devotion to political ideology on the part of the press is also the reason that advancing the leftist agenda trumps even financial solvency. For many years, we’ve seen major television news networks losing viewers and newspapers losing readers. Those in the press maintain that this is largely due to technology, but that’s a crock. The fact is that many news consumers saw the writing on the wall, and didn’t care to be propagandized.

Those in the press know the truth too, and they know who their audience is. It is no longer the average news-consuming American, as it was 50 years ago. Now, their audience is the impressionable, those who don’t know that the press has become nothing but a megalithic propaganda bureau. Their mission is to keep the impressionable, the misinformed, and true-believing rank-and-file leftists fired up.
This is why the intonations of the press have become so shrill. They simply don’t care about credibility anymore. Thus, criticizing them on this point is an exercise in futility.

As far as the press vendetta against President Trump goes, their beef is twofold. First, they know that Trump, his followers, and their case against the Deep State represent the greatest existential threat the left has ever faced in America, so naturally they’re going to go after the president with vigor.

Second: If you ask a leftist to succinctly quantify the nation’s pain, or even the world’s pain, you’re likely to get an answer along the lines of “rich, white people.” Well, this certainly makes the president an easy target, because there are few people richer and whiter than Donald Trump.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

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

Crediting Trump with Obama’s Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
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 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

Could Awakened Media Help Remove Obama?

media_suckersOver the last several days, we have seen unprecedented news coverage from the establishment press (“mainstream media”) of stories that evidence not only the detrimental effects of White House policy, but those addressing that which the MSM wouldn’t have touched mere weeks ago – and which could open the door to a discussion of the Obama administration’s criminality.

On Sept. 20, The New York Times published a piece entitled “Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That CIA and the Islamic State Are United,” which detailed the belief of government and intelligence sources in Iraq that the Obama administration created ISIS employing the CIA. While this has been reported elsewhere and confirmed via the Jordanian government, Middle Eastern and European press, until now, coverage of this (which amounts to treason on the part of the president and members of his Cabinet, past and present) is very new territory for a mainstream press outlet.

“We know about who made Daesh [ISIS],” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the CIA for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory.

The New York Times, Sept. 20, 2014

Last fall we were alerted to the growing annoyance of some press outlets regarding the lack of access to the president provided by the White House compared to previous administrations; one of these organizations was the Associated Press. Last week AP Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee had even more to say. At a joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers, Buzbee enumerated several profoundly sinister ways the Obama administration is stifling the release of news.

According to Buzbee, these include, but are not limited to:

  • Refusing to allow news organizations to shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off en route to supposed Middle East missions against ISIS, and discontinuing the embedding of reporters.
  • A blackout of information on Gitmo detainees, upcoming trials and court filings, even involving non-classified materials.
  • The intimidation of sources. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources have reported that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.
  • Lack of cooperation in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. [As an aside, the Obama administration corrupted this process as soon as Obama was inaugurated, and began to filter FOIA information, essentially rendering FOIA useless]. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.
  • The administration is reportedly trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cell phone data, for example.

Police State, anyone?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns