When Did World War III Start?

When Did World War III Start?

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” (Matthew 24:6, NIV)

If you asked a cross section of Americans when World War II began, out of those who could provide an intelligent answer at all, many would say that it began on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, or on the following day, when the United States declared war on the Axis powers.

Both answers would be wrong, however, as these only represent the direct catalyst for America’s entry into the war, and the day it formalized that action, respectively.

If you asked a Manchurian when World War II began, his answer might reflect what the history books say concerning Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in September of 1931, nearly ten years before America entered the war. The Chinese would likely tell you that the war began in July of 1937, when Japan invaded China. An Ethiopian might hold that the war began in October of 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Albanians and those in Scandinavian nations would provide still different answers, all substantially predating America’s entry into World War II.

Similarly, altogether too many Americans would be likely to cite the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 as the start of hostilities in the American Civil War; a gross misrepresentation of the historical record to be sure, since the war had been going on for two years at that point.

Even if one cites the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (he was inaugurated in March of 1861) or the secession of the Southern States beginning in January of 1861 as the beginning of that conflict, historians who do not hold that slavery was the primary basis for the Civil War maintain that causes and conditions going back decades prior set the stage for that war, and indeed made it practically inevitable.

In both cases, it is evident that war had broken out long before open hostilities became commonplace.

While the same might be said for countless other conflicts familiar to Americans, World War II and the Civil War are germane to this discussion because I believe it is likely that in the not-so-distant future, historians and Americans (assuming there are still any of the latter around) will engage in deep discussions concerning how the United States was able to fight a world war (World War III, presumably) while a civil war (the “Second Civil War,” perhaps) also raged within its borders.

There’s little doubt that for many WWII-era Americans, the war was not “real” until Pearl Harbor. Although the U.S. has been fighting on and off in the Middle East theater since the 1990s, Americans are unlikely to plant the “WWIII Started Here” landmark until the next large-scale, catastrophic attack on their homeland, perhaps one involving nuclear weapons or a conventional attack by a nation state.

The argument for World War III having already begun is certainly plausible, and I’m not the first to postulate this. America under Barack Hussein Obama has been singularly responsible for the collapse of governments and/or war breaking out in Ukraine, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Tunisia and a host of African nations whose Muslim populations took a cue from the White House-catalyzed Arab Spring. Europe is being invaded by millions of Muslims; the fact that most of their number arrive sans weaponry appears to be moot from a tactical standpoint.

In objective terms, it’s easy to see how nations around the globe might see the U.S. as an analogue to Germany in the 1930s, whether or not these nations have been directly affected by the actions of our current government.

The determination of how and when America “officially” enters World War III will be a function of the same elusive factors that determine when we realize that we’re already fighting a civil war. For example, the establishment press, acting as propagandists for the Orwellian doctrine of the radical left and national socialists, will continue to exacerbate the lack of clarity on a wide range of issues, whether it’s the qualification of full-term unborn babies as human beings, the deleterious effect of societies embracing sexual deviance and libertinism, or the question of whether or not Islamists who have sworn to destroy America are indeed acting in that modality when they carry out terrorist attacks on our soil, behead co-workers, or murder police officers.

This sort of obfuscation will only prolong our collective denial and forestall prudent action to our peril.

Christianity is under siege in America by the radical left, the government and homofascists. Individuals from among some of these groups routinely call for everything from the complete disenfranchisement to the systematic murder of Christians. Last week, a daytime television talk show host called for federal forces to summarily execute activists in Oregon who were protesting government overreach in land disputes and the federal persecution of ranchers in the Southwest. Young black Americans have been methodically conditioned to believe that due to institutional racism, their lot in life is little better than it might have been in the 1930s, and criminal illegal aliens from various Third World regions have effectively been granted protected status by our government.

While incidents of violence surrounding these domestic issues has been minimal thus far, the current administration has already proved through subterfuge and covert operations in other nations that the lines between domestic tension, civil unrest and civil war can be crossed very quickly.

If in the near future America should find herself embroiled in a full-scale civil war while simultaneously engaged in a global conflict of unprecedented scope, it will be quite clear in retrospect that both became inevitable a long time ago.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Americans ‘the Last to Know’ of Obama Treason

Americans ‘the Last to Know’ of Obama Treason

To someone born in New York City, the place where I now live is a small college town. It’s hard to view a place where the population just breaks 150, 000 when school is in session as anything else. As the crow flies, it’s about two hours north of Colorado Springs, where 57-year-old whack job Robert Lewis Dear decided to go on a shooting spree last week.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, the median income for a family here was $89,332. Along with Pueblo, Colorado, ours was one of the fastest cities to “snap back,” as it were, from the 2008 economic implosion.

Yet, there are homeless people everywhere. Their visibility occurred gradually but markedly within the last year. Many are middle-age people, and many are veterans.

Over the same period, the average time for processing a new application for public assistance benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) jumped from under a week to 40 business days. They’ve also cut back access to case workers drastically, which probably stretches out the overall process even more.

The length of time it takes for Medicaid recipients to schedule an appointment with a primary care physician has increased from a day or two to several weeks. To get in to see some specialists, the wait is now one of months. This is due to the millions who got dumped into Medicaid during the course of Obamacare’s implementation.

Yet, our small college town, and another one about 40 miles east of here, are slated to receive an undisclosed number of Syrian refugees – and according to Barack Hussein Obama, the counties concerned damn well better not balk at putting them on the food stamp rolls. The refugees are part of Obama’s nationwide Syrian refugee drop, which is now being hotly debated.

This week, our treasonous war-criminal president flitted off to France to discuss climate change – an issue that homeless, jobless and dispossessed Americans care so much about – with a bunch of other world leaders. As if it weren’t bad enough that climate change is a counterfeit issue that exists only so Western governments might more effectively enslave taxpayers and business economically.

Perhaps to defray any discussion of his failure to dispatch ISIS (which of course he has no intention of doing), Obama said that the meeting in Paris to discuss climate change was some sort of brave and audacious “act of defiance” in the face of ISIS, given its recent attack on that city.

It isn’t the first time the administration has proffered the notion that there’s some mysterious interplay between terrorism and completely unrelated factors. One may recall the inane blatherings of State Department spokesidiots Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, who have floated ideas such as poverty causing terrorism, and that if the climate wasn’t so screwy, the world’s Muslims might not go feral en masse and kill people.

All this is leaving aside the fact that the treasonous war-criminal president in question created, armed, trained and funded ISIS – or ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh, the Keystone Kamels, or whatever appellation they’re using this month to reference the barbarians. Now, strategically displaced Muslims and strategically placed terrorists are forming a chaotic, angry wave from east to west – a wave that is cresting in Europe and, if Obama gets his way, will break upon America.

The world knows all of this, by the way; here, I am referencing the incontrovertible body of evidence that Barack Obama is effectively the commander in chief of ISIS, and arguably a better one than he is of the U.S. Armed Forces.

At this point, it is only in the West that this is not widely understood.

So, given Obama’s designs and the world’s knowledge of them, all of the public debate over the White House’s anti-terrorism policies is nothing but theater. It’s for us. The boobs. The great unwashed, moronic masses.

We are the proverbial “last to know.”

Our treasonous war-criminal president’s policies have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack, perhaps of a much wider scope than the recent attacks in Paris. These include everything from a refusal to even rhetorically associate Islamic terrorism with Muslims, to the nationwide Syrian refugee drop, to the clandestine importation of Muslims from destabilized nations in the Middle East and Africa, to an absolute refusal to effectively monitor who comes and goes in this country.

Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama.

In October of 2013, the White House took down its online visitor logs, blaming a partial government shutdown that had temporarily idled 17 percent of the federal workforce. The fact is that astute individuals in the alternative press and other patriotic Americans had begun widely discussing the Rogue’s Gallery of America-hating scum that paid visits to the White House on a regular basis, some with dizzying frequency.

Obama simply wanted to stop that flow of information.

A nation like ours does not go from respecting personal liberties and the rule of law to “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” overnight. Are there really so many ethically compromised individuals in our government that there is no hope for any among them finally deciding to exercise the rule of law and remove this tyrant? Are they just cowards, willing to let Obama touch off World War III rather than risk the Black Lives Matter crowd setting America ablaze for “taking down” our precious first black president on account of his proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity?

Or are they, as some suspect, party to a much broader agenda, perhaps one rooted in the belief that our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths – even overnight – would be much better for everyone going forward?

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Setting the Stage for Martial Law

Setting the Stage for Martial Law

I’d heard that “an Ivy League professor” said on a social media venue that GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson should win “coon of the year” after he advocated allowing Confederate battle flags to be displayed at NASCAR events. Then, I heard that said Ivy League professor was none other than University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler.

Remember Anthea Butler? She’s the one who claims that “America’s God” is a white racist, and who called former Ferguson, Missouri, cop Darren Wilson an emissary of “America’s racist god” for shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown to death in August of 2014 – just because Brown beat the officer into near-insensibility and attempted to relieve him of his service pistol.

It’s sad that the designation “Ivy League professor” has been reduced in practical terms to something on a par with “crack whore,” but then there is at least some humor in a morbidly obese affirmative-action sideshow exhibit having the temerity to insult someone whose curriculum vitae, talent, accomplishments and intellect preclude her stooping to tie his sandals, so to speak, assuming Butler has the ability to stoop at all.

In context, the danger is that altogether too many black Americans share Butler’s sentiments.

I spent some time with my friend C.L. Bryant on his radio show discussing Butler’s remark about Carson. When C.L. asked me on-air what I thought, the first thing that came to mind was how uncouth an individual had to be to sink to the level of employing that sort of invective publicly. I mean … “coon?”

Butler might have at least attempted to muster enough class to come up with a more refined idiom – like “darky,” perhaps.

This led us to the inevitable discussion of the double standard that exists vis-à-vis liberals having unconstrained and exclusive license to employ racist invective with impunity. Obviously, no prominent white conservative could get away with the unapologetic use of racial epithets in reference to Al Sharpton (who sort of ran for president once), yet liberal politicians both black and white, entertainers, commentators and so-called educators do so with regularity in referencing black conservatives.

Last weekend, the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March was commemorated in Washington, D.C., in front of the Capitol, led by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who organized both the original 1995 march and this year’s offering, themed “Justice or Else.”

I’ll leave the implications of that phrase to the reader.

In a tedious, disjointed oratory liberally peppered with references to slavery and William Lynch (1742–1820; he is generally accepted as the source of the term “lynching”), Farrakhan went from reminding the audience of their own sins before God and that a person is not truly “liberated” until they can forgive, to analogizing the lives of black Americans in 2015 to that of plantation slaves and calling for decisive action to free them from that “bondage.”

In truth, white Marxists started this fire, and white liberals enrolled blacks into the belief that they are entitled to be perpetually embittered for past injustices. Whites and nonwhites of good conscience but little nerve allowed the fire to become a conflagration by failing to extinguish it.

It is profoundly disturbing that a foul creature like Louis Farrakhan is seen as a genuine advocate by many black Americans. It is sickening that caricatures such as Anthea Butler are advanced professionally and accepted as legitimate educators. It is perverse that entertainers like Kanye West and Azealia Banks are granted forums to disparage this nation after making fortunes here as purveyors of malignant art.

It is reprehensible that New England universities and private boarding schools run by gutless ideologues are hiring a bigoted, opportunistic moron like DeRay McKesson as a lecturer – a man who defends blacks looting in the course of public demonstration and who attempted to engender antipathy against police by libeling them relative to the case of a 12-year-old boy who was killed by cops in Cleveland last year.

And it is infuriating that 90 percent of black Americans continue to help sustain and pledge fealty to the very agencies that perpetuate all of the above.

I have long considered the possibility that orchestrated rioting among blacks nationwide may ultimately be the pretext for Barack Hussein Obama implementing martial law in the United States. Having accomplished this, he could effectively dispatch the most potentially threatening sources of resistance to his malevolent agenda in an atmosphere that would afford him the least possible scrutiny.

Everything referenced here is helping to set the stage for this eventuality.

The catalyst will be a violent clash between someone of color and a white individual, most likely a member of law enforcement. For the regime’s purposes, it will be best if the former party is killed in the confrontation. As with events in the recent past, the racial component will be overplayed if not fabricated outright; blame and charges of racism will fall on the white party or parties or, once again, on law enforcement as a whole.

Failing to identify a suitable incident to exploit within their elusive nominal time frame (which is unlikely but certainly conceivable), Obama may have some of his surrogate community organizers, crisis actors and sundry criminals simply stage a particularly nasty one. America will erupt, the left will wail piteously for salvation from on high (their cries amplified exponentially by the press), and forces across the nation will be mobilized by a seemingly stunned and distressed president.

Then, my fellow Americans, as the late Karl Malden used to intone forebodingly in that old commercial for traveler’s checks: “What will you do?”

“What … will … you … do?”

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Is Obama ‘Weaponizing’ Vulnerable Citizens?

Is Obama ‘Weaponizing’ Vulnerable Citizens?

On the morning of Sept. 16, 2013, 34 year-old former Navy Reservist and computer technician Aaron Alexis fatally shot 12 people and injured three others at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard before being killed by a police officer.

Seventeen days later, 34 year-old Miriam Carey, a dental hygienist from Stamford, Connecticut, drove to Washington, D.C., with her baby daughter for reasons that remain a mystery. After an altercation at a White House security checkpoint, Carey was chased by the Secret Service to the Capitol where she was shot and killed by law enforcement officers.

While Carey did not carry out a spree killing, her story and bizarre behavior bear the hallmarks of behaviors integral to the discussion that follows. Despite widespread media speculation and government assertions that Mr. Alexis and Ms. Carey suffered from mental illness, this is not consistent with thumbnail snapshots of their lives at the time of their deaths.

The same cannot be said of the following individuals, however:

  • Jared Lee Loughner – shot 19 people (including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), killing six, on Jan. 8, 2011, outside of Tucson, Arizona
  • James Holmes – killed 12 and injured 70 in a Colorado theater on July 20, 2012
  • Adam Lanza – fatally shot 20 children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut
  • Chris Harper Mercer, the self-styled jihadi who gunned down 18 people (including a woman in a wheelchair) at Umpqua Community College in Oregon before killing himself on Oct. 1. Nine of his victims died.

Loughner, Holmes and Lanza were clearly very disturbed. Mercer is the only one who appears to have had a discernible motive for his crimes, as he took care to single out Christians as victims.

“Over the last century, numerous illegal experiments have been performed on human test subjects without their consent and continue to this day in the European Union and beyond. Not only whistleblowers, activists, and political opponents are targeted, but thousands of innocent civilians are also subjected to non-consensual testing and mind control experimentation with remote technology weapons and covert community harassment. Faced with an ever increasing number of citizens voicing complaints of being remotely tortured and/or experimented on, governments around the world have failed to acknowledge these human rights violations by ignoring them and often treating them as mentally ill.”

– The Covert Harassment Conference

Conspiracy theories have abounded in modern society for a few decades now, but as the above background statement for the Covert Harassment Conference (which held its annual gathering in Germany this past weekend) indicates, many elements of archetypal conspiracy theories have actually been deployed by governments quite regularly.

Could it be that phrases such as “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hat” came into our lexicon expressly so that certain people would be easy to ridicule when they discovered or were subjected to these phenomena and attempted to reveal them?

The Covert Harassment Conference investigates psychological operations (psyops) and covert harassment, examining government use of mind control, state-of-the-art techniques involving microwaves, electromagnetic fields, hypnosis, drugs and community-based harassment (wherein multiple individuals in a community – or those planted within one – engage in the harassment and stalking of a single individual in order to psychologically undermine him or her).

Is Obama's SBST a front for covert domestic psyops?

A bunch of crazies? One may dismiss an organization comprised of well-accredited and highly educated experts from across the globe if they wish to do so, but they represent thousands of hours of work poring over hard evidence (such as that provided by Edward Snowden and others) and the testimony of individuals who have had their lives upended by psyops and covert harassment. Some nearly died from the effects of drugs or technology that was used on them.

Perhaps a few of the others, unable to discern what was happening to them, wound up making the news. Both Aaron Alexis and Miriam Carey allegedly made mention of outside agencies employing obscure forms of technology against them.

In lifestyle and temperament, spree killers share significant psychological commonalities. Loners, or people with few friends, socially awkward and often with a well-nurtured beef against some demographic, faction or the government. Their relative isolation would make them easy targets for any nefarious group; “at-risk” is the term that would be used if they were minor children.

Loughner, Holmes and Lanza in particular fit very handily into this classification; in fact, the cases of Holmes and Lanza positively reeked of what intelligence operatives I know would call the tell-tale signs of recruitment and conditioning.

Adam Lanza’s father, Peter Lanza, was the vice president and tax director at GE Financial; Robert Holmes, father to Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, was the head scientist of the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO). Both had been implicated in a banking scandal involving the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). As such, it is highly likely that everything about them would have been known to the government.

To a government in the habit of collecting inordinate amounts of information on its citizens, as well as recruiting vulnerable individuals for psyops, their sons would have been tempting acquisitions indeed.

Given our current state of societal dysfunction, it may not seem too odd that a quasi-cult of self-described “beta males” has developed online. Of a type that a dearly departed friend of mine would have called “spoiled, lazy suburban white boys,” these mediocre mom’s-basement dwellers are apparently irritated because they don’t have Kanye West’s money and supermodel girlfriends, and that men of their age group who do put effort into improving their lives (whom the “betas” call “alpha males,” of course) actually have lives. These losers fume on Internet forums ad nauseum, advocate violence, anarchy – and idolize spree killers.

In fact, there is evidence that specific acts of violence have been discussed on these forums in advance of their occurrence. On Oct. 4, I observed online discussions concerning a violent incident that was to take place at an unspecified college in Philadelphia on Oct. 5. Perhaps due to widespread concerns and citizens’ reports (I told everyone I could think of), federal authorities issued a warning about the threat.

On Oct. 6 (a day late, but who’s counting?) at Community College of Philadelphia, a man showed up with a firearm and threatened at least one individual, eliciting a swift SWAT team response. An arrest was made, and fortunately no one was injured.

My track record on these things has gotten pretty good, so I’m willing to go out on a limb here:

The Internet forum milieu would be the perfect opportunity for covert psychological operations (i.e., grooming disaffected individuals to commit violence) on a mass scale. It would be child’s play for a government (ours, for the sake of argument) to set up or infiltrate such venues and enlist online “handlers” to cultivate relationships with the losers present, manipulating them psychologically with an expertise similar to that of, say, President Obama’s celebrated Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST).

My guess is that it would be the handlers themselves who occasionally leak information concerning acts of violence about to be executed by their protégés, in order to energize the remaining contingent of “beta males” when the mayhem does in fact take place.

The political left and the current administration made a mockery of America’s intelligence efforts when they condemned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques against some of the most deserving scum the intelligence community has ever encountered – yet they appear willing to countenance even worse horrors perpetrated upon U.S. citizens in the name of their diabolical agenda.

For my part, I’d rather be waterboarded.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Obama: Doubling-Down and Poking the Bear

Obama: Doubling-Down and Poking the Bear

At this point I am convinced that Barack Hussein Obama could be face down on the canvas, his face resembling a parasitic creature from “Star Trek, ” with the referee’s count at nine, and he would still manage to blubber haughtily through split, swollen lips that he was going to give his opponent what for in just a moment.

“[W]e are going to be engaging Russia to let them know that you can’t continue to double-down on a strategy that is doomed to failure. …”

– Barack Obama, on Russia’s escalating level of military support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Sept. 11, 2015

Ironically, doubling-down is probably one of the top three plays in the White House’s playbook, so often has Obama used it. There have been several occasions where Obama has been politically cornered and he doubled-down on the same policy that got him cornered in the first place, even though it appeared to be the most imprudent move on the board.

This differs, by the way, from those occasions when Obama policy failures weren’t really failures at all, where Obama was content to be thought a buffoon by those who didn’t recognize his actions as sabotage.

Once again, Obama’s policy can be traced directly to the modern Marxists’ holy tome: “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Rule No. 8 reads: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up,” with Alinsky instructing followers to “Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.”

Only time will tell if Obama is out of his league with Vladimir Putin in this regard.

Last week, foreign press outlets began reporting on the shellacking ISIS forces are now taking in the wake of Syria’s receipt of heavy weapons and assistance from Russia. It also has not escaped the notice of the foreign press that the Obama administration and some of its NATO allies have made no effort to conceal that they have been supplying ISIS with weapons and fighters. My past references to Obama having created ISIS are now being echoed by foreign press organizations and dignitaries alike.

Within the last 48 hours, Russia claimed that its warplanes are now assailing ISIS positions in northern Syria, stipulating that U.S. strike forces should steer clear of the area. The Pentagon has countered this, saying that the Russian airstrikes are instead hitting Obama’s imaginary friends – the “well-vetted” Free Syrian Army and other nonexistent allies of whom we heard so much when Obama wanted Congress to authorize aid to “Syrian rebels.”

“We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and [Kurdish] militia are truly fighting Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

– Vladimir Putin, United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 29

Earlier this week, Fox News reported that dozens of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) provided by the U.S. to Kurdish allies in Iraq arrived without protective armor. In addition to effectively rendering them “Vehicles” instead of “Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles,” they are now essentially death boxes on wheels.

Why would our government supply our allies with such substandard equipment? Because they’re not our allies at all, as far as the White House is concerned.

Then, Obama had the temerity to brag on America’s successes in the Middle East during an address to the United Nations on Monday There, he claimed that the overthrow of Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi was one such example.

Doubling-down. As potentially dangerous a topic as Libya represents to Obama, you think he’d keep his mouth shut. His oratory also included an admonition to reject “the ignorance that equates Islam with terror” despite Islam’s daily confirmation that this equation balances perfectly.

On another front, while increasing numbers of Americans chafe at the belligerent deportment of the homosexual lobby, and amid the recent revelation that the Department of Defense has been facilitating the homosexual rape of boys at the hands of our proto-simian allies on U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, Obama said during a speech at an LGBT fundraiser in New York City Sunday that “our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

Doubling-down again. In addition to the incomprehensible audacity of asserting that the capricious demands of this miniscule faction trumps the free exercise of religion as proscribed in the First Amendment, this is an object lesson in how those on the left employ legalese and constitutional relativism to advance malignant agendas.

Pray tell, what constitutionally guaranteed rights have been denied homosexuals in recent memory? Their perceived “right to marry” is a wholly subjective interpretation of law, and ensuring homosexuals anything under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is a lube-slathered slope toward their legitimately demanding whatever their perverted little hearts desire in the future. Practical labs in fisting for kindergarteners, anyone?

Does this doubling-down pose risks to Obama, and will he ultimately run out of luck?

Taking into account House Speaker John Boehner announcing Friday that he would step down (as a result of pressure put on the Republican Party by conservatives), many are optimistic that a trend toward jettisoning more of the complicit elements in the GOP leadership might be in the offing. This would be mightily advantageous going into the 2016 election cycle, even considering some of the more diabolical contingencies some of us believe Obama has in mind toward safeguarding his “accomplishments.”

If such is the case, perhaps an overconfident Obama is just what the doctor ordered. The political climate that gives rise to a House speaker stepping down could bespeak the coalescing of forces that transcend the power of the Executive Branch – no matter how ruthless the present chief executive happens to be.



Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Subtle Convergence of Obama-Engineered Crises

Subtle Convergence of Obama-Engineered Crises

Millions of individuals fleeing Syria and other Arab Muslim nations that were systematically destabilized over the last several years by the regime of Barack Hussein Obama are attempting to enter Europe. This in turn has resulted in political pressure being put on the White House to allow an undisclosed number of these persons – who are being referred to as “refugees” by the international community and the press – into the United States.

Some Washington lawmakers have expressed concern that relaxing our immigration regulations yet further to accommodate these displaced persons would pose a grave security risk to the United States (as though the Obama administration is concerned with such trifles), and that anyone being considered for admittance must be properly vetted for potential ties to terrorist groups.

Though it is doubtful, one hopes that they would be more thoroughly scrutinized than the tens of thousands of Syrian and Somali “refugees” that Obama has furtively spirited into the U.S. over the last few years.

While the obsequious Western press showcases drowned children washing up on Turkish beaches and rioting over train passage into Europe, there’s little doubt that Barack Hussein is eagerly rubbing his palms together in anticipation of allowing untold numbers of malefactors into the country now that the approval of the international community and gullible Americans is at hand.

Let’s keep it simple and leave aside the folly and peril of America attempting to repeat Europe’s multicultural experiment after witnessing how this has destroyed Europe. Nor must we belabor the point that there is no assimilating a minority group that has no desire to be assimilated, thus any proposed increase in allowances for such émigrés is obviously contraindicated. Finally, our nation being too economically strapped these days for such a display of largesse is so agonizingly clear that it doesn’t even merit discussion.

“Not only are Syrians resorting to desperate measures to seek a better life for themselves and their families in Europe, but they are dying in the process …” – David Miliband, president, International Rescue Committee

Gotta love that “seeking a better life” bilge to rationalize America expediting her Obama-assisted suicide – which Miliband did on the same day when he chimed in with others’ calls for America to throw open its borders to the displaced Arab Muslims.

Of course, we’ve been hearing that propaganda for decades referencing illegal immigrants from Mexico, haven’t we? “Seeking a better life for themselves north of the border.” No doubt that phraseology was calculated to engender our sympathy, as though the entirely understandable motivations projected onto poor little oppressed Pablo by liberals accorded him the right to partake in that which he had no role in establishing (and to which he has since demonstrated he has no intention of contributing).

Well, we accommodated poor little oppressed Pablo in his quest to escape the grinding poverty of his south-of-the-border septic tank to the tune of tens of millions just like him, and were deceived into overlooking the abject insanity of doing so from cultural, economic and national security perspectives.

Now we have MS-13 gang members, Zetas, drug-cartel soldiers, assorted Africans, Arabs, Asians and who-knows-who “seeking a better life for themselves” as they stream unmolested across our border with the easy grace of cockroaches on a dimly lit tenement floor.

That being the case, in considering how to put up these alleged refugees, we might as well throw critical thinking and caution entirely to the wind, right?

For example, we certainly wouldn’t want to ask why some of the oil-rich Arab Muslim countries aren’t providing asylum for these refugees, because we would discover that they don’t want to risk being deluged by jihadis. We might learn that jihad is prioritized above humanitarianism in Arab Muslim culture, and that wealthy Muslim nations will pour billions into Islamist expansionism (mosques, madrassas, weapons), but they won’t prepare for the inevitable humanitarian crisis that lurks around the corner for every nation, even when they know it will threaten fellow Muslims.

And why would we remind ourselves of how for months, we have been railing against the Obama administration’s cruel summary dismissal of thousands of asylum-seeking Christians and other religious minorities who are being enslaved and murdered by al-Qaida and the ISIS terror group in the very same Arab Muslim nations from which the refugees in Europe hail? If we considered that bit of business, we might demand that our government categorically deny admittance to so much as one of these people.

It is also definitely worth a look at the similarities between this European refugee crisis and the “undocumented minor” onslaught that took place on our border with Mexico in 2014. One major resemblance would be the contrived flavor of the stories the European refugees related to the press and aid workers. These were very reminiscent of the scripted tall tales we heard in the background stories of “refugees” in the 2014 crisis.

I find it very curious indeed that nearly identical methods and circumstances are tending to materialize in high-profile crises around the world, wherein the uncanny character of a given calamity winds up revealing the Obama administration’s treacherous, greasy fingerprints.

So is this Arab Muslim invasion of Europe an unfortunate happenstance, or is it another crisis in the school of the Cloward and Piven strategy of orchestrated crisis (through which political change is forced via the deliberate engineering of widespread instability in social, economic or political realms)? The Marxist-derived treason of Cloward-Piven has indeed been deployed by this administration previously – in precipitating the 2014 border crisis, in what the Justice Department attempted to bring about through “Operation Fast and Furious,” and in the current state of escalating tensions between inner-city blacks and police.

These are, or were, entirely contrived by the White House and entirely calculated to bring about desired (though illicit and profoundly injurious) objectives. Any who would challenge this contention are either denying, or they’re lying.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

Once again, some folks got a little upset at glitzy billionaire businessman, TV star and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump. Capitalizing on The Donald’s “controversial” November 2014 tweet declaring that since Barack Obama has done such a lousy job as chief executive, we were not likely to see another black president “for generations,” Jonathan Karl took up that line of questioning when he had Trump on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Despite his initial enthusiasm at Obama’s election, Trump said that the president “has done nothing for African-Americans,” and cited blacks’ declining income and errant youth as examples. In answer to why Trump believes we won’t see another black president for generations, he told Karl that this is because Obama has set “a very poor standard,” and a “very low bar.”

To elucidate: I believe Trump was saying that since the average voter perceives candidates very superficially, some will come to believe – even if subconsciously – that they’re liable to get the same performance from the next black presidential candidate as they got from Obama. Thus, they’ll be inclined to pass.

As indicated earlier, I have my doubts as to whether Trump intends to stick out the campaign any longer than it will take to polish up his brand. However, he’s being well-received by Americans across many demographics at present because he is articulating what people are thinking and feeling, rather than saying what he thinks they want to hear.

When Obama was elected in 2008, a lot of people wanted to know what I thought he was going to “do” for black Americans. My response was a suggestion that those asking the question might look to what Obama “did” for blacks in Illinois, or more specifically Chicago, in order to make that determination for themselves.

Not only have economic conditions for blacks tanked under this president, Obama is responsible for the deterioration of blacks’ outlook and collective self-image as well. Employing divisive and subtly racist rhetoric as well as radical surrogates (such as Al Sharpton, The New Black Panther Party and Black Lawyers for Justice), Obama has cultivated an attitude amongst blacks that is more belligerent and cynical than any we saw during the Civil Rights Movement.

After a three-month orgy of murder and other violent crime following the death of Freddie Gray (a black man who was mortally injured while in police custody this spring), the city of Baltimore has agreed to partner with federal law enforcement in an attempt to curb the outbreak in violence. Simply allowing the police to do their jobs is racist, you see, because when that’s the status quo, black criminals occasionally die.

My confidence that this plot was hatched in the White House and is an overture toward the implementation of Obama’s federal police force aside, the policies enacted by Baltimore officials (many black and all ultra-liberal) prior to Gray’s death, as well as during and after riots that occurred in its wake, were typical of those policies that invariably leave blacks alienated and angry.

Last week, it was determined that four members of a Dallas family who beat a pregnant 14-year-old relative over a period of six hours in order to induce her to have a miscarriage, then roasted the stillborn baby on a charcoal grill two years ago will not be charged with murder. This despite the state’s Prenatal Protection Act, a 2003 law designed to guarantee the rights of the unborn. Instead, the four will face the almost laughable lesser charge of “Engaging in Organized Crime.”

Now, why do you suppose the authorities decided to go that route with these defendants?

I’ll tell you why: Because they’re black. Dallas officials envisioned the kind of race-baiting circus civil rights activists (and pro-choicers for whom the unborn aren’t alive) might have turned that city into if they proceeded to prosecute four black people for the murder of an unborn baby. They decided they didn’t want any part of it.

Black Lives Matter? Only when it’s politically expedient. I could provide literally thousands of anecdotes illustrating the hypocrisy of politicians, government and activists who have a stake in perpetuating alienation and anger in black communities. As detailed in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” the following tragic comedy has been playing out, over and over, for decades:

  1. Policies in liberal-controlled urban black communities foster poverty and crime;
  2. activists bemoan cops not caring enough to protect poor black people;
  3. law enforcement steps up its efforts to do so;
  4. the same activists bemoan cops inordinately “targeting blacks” for arrest and prosecution.

As if it were Donald Trump dealing drugs and shooting black people in Baltimore, Chicago and Milwaukee …

Whether he is sincere or not, Trump’s message is resonating with people because it is clear to them that he at least pays attention to what is occurring in the lives of average Americans. If you’re paying attention, it’s harder not to care – unless you’re a narcissistic sociopath who is fundamentally disconnected with respect to other people. Barack Obama couldn’t be bothered with what is occurring in the lives of average Americans, and race is nothing more than a means by which he can foment division.

If Obama’s narcissism did not transcend notions of race, his Marxist worldview certainly would. Ethnic solidarity did not prevent Stalin from exterminating millions of Russians, nor Mao from exterminating millions of Chinese, nor any other Marxist despot from persecuting countless individuals of the same ethnic background as themselves.

So, when people talk about what Obama could have done for blacks, I almost have to laugh.


Originally Published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Baltimore and Obama’s Masterful Manipulation

Baltimore and Obama’s Masterful Manipulation


“This has been going on for a long time …”

– Barack Obama, April 28, 2015

None of us knows what occurred between 25-year-old Freddie Gray and police officers in Baltimore on April 12; what’s significant is that the rioters who subsequently laid waste to areas of Baltimore following Gray’s funeral on April 27 don’t know what occurred between Gray and Baltimore police, either.

This doesn’t matter, as I have detailed previously in this space. Black citizens have increasingly come to believe that when a black individual expires following contact with police, it is a racially motivated instance of murder, regardless of the circumstances.

That they have increasingly come to believe this since Barack Hussein Obama took office is by no means an accident, as the following paragraphs will illustrate.

At the beginning of rioting on April 27, Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said he believed that agitators who showed up in numbers at an otherwise peaceful protest for Gray were not from Baltimore.

And of course they weren’t – no more than many of those in Ferguson, Missouri, following the Michael Brown shooting aftermath were from Ferguson, or Missouri for that matter.

Batts’ statement was quickly overshadowed by statements made by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who apparently is developmentally disabled. Rawlings-Blake spoke before a crowd on Saturday night after a lull in the first wave of rioting, thanking the Nation of Islam for “helping to quash violence” in downtown Baltimore that night.

Now, kids, it’s time to connect the dots …

Former Attorney General Eric Holder held sympathies that were demonstrably in the vein of black nationalism, in that he used his office to influence public opinion in the cases of the Michael Brown shooting and the trial of George Zimmerman, who stood accused of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012.

We are also aware that from the beginning of his tenure, Holder promoted institutional racial bias within the Department of Justice, as uncovered by whistleblower J. Christian Adams, a lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at DOJ. It is also painfully evident that militant black nationalists have correctly perceived a certain license toward expansion of their influence since Obama took office.

Perhaps part of the problem is that people do not understand the significance of Barack Hussein Obama having been a community organizer prior to becoming a state senator in Illinois.

Attorney Malik Shabazz (who until recently went by “Malik Zulu Shabazz”) is a committed Marxist and former member of the Nation of Islam. He is also the former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party, as well as founder and president of Black Lawyers For Justice. As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was politically allied with the New Black Panther Party, and it was Black Lawyers For Justice that sponsored the protest in memory of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.

A photo circulating online, taken in downtown Baltimore on April 25, features a group of around 20 young black knuckleheads posing for the camera. The faction consists of members of the Crips and Bloods gangs (who are supposed to be mortal enemies), as well as members of the Nation of Islam. Some of these are displaying the extended forefinger salute representing solidarity with – are you ready? – ISIS, the terror group, which wouldn’t exist in its current form if not for their chief benefactor, Barack Hussein Obama.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is community organizing.

Finally, on April 28, Fox news reported that an analysis of social media traffic had unearthed “striking connections” between the Baltimore protests and those in Ferguson, Missouri, last year, citing information provided by a leading data-mining firm.

As we view atrocity after atrocity committed against the Republic, courtesy of those who have either no understanding of justice or are deliberate in their “misunderstanding,” we have to come to grips with a sad reality: We are being played like suckers – we who follow the rules, raise our kids, respect the Rule of Law and love our country because of what it represents, not for what we can get from it. We have become losers in the day-to-day scuffle that is the fight over what the American Dream will be. We fund the very people who would see us dead, except for their need for us to keep paying for their lawlessness and attitudes of entitlement.

The common denominator, as we have seen illustrated above, in the streets of Ferguson and Baltimore, in the White House and across America: Marxists and militant Muslims working together in a coordinated effort to precipitate circumstances that will eventually “necessitate” the imposition of martial law.

Each instance of alleged police brutality against blacks becomes an opportunity for the Obama cabal, a more instructive test case as to how they will ultimately widen the civil unrest to proportions unseen in America’s history. This senseless destruction on the pretext of institutional racism will be used to sweep the Constitution into the dustbin of history, and our liberty with it.

These are Obama’s enablers and surrogates; he has sold the birthright of America to those who have been taught to work the system and squeeze every ounce of sustenance they can from the fruits of others’ labor. He has taken lie after lie and made it the foundation of his empire of evil while sticking it to those who serve God and Country first.

The operatives in Baltimore are but one contingent of Obama’s Revolutionary Army; illegal immigration and amnesty activists are another, as are various other entitled and protected class groups the political left has cultivated over many years. Effective manipulation of these demographics will be integral in determining whether or not he can successfully turn us all against one another at the appointed time.

Originally published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Obama Profaned ‘Bloody Sunday’ Protest Anniversary

Obama Profaned ‘Bloody Sunday’ Protest Anniversary

“Of course, our democracy is not the task of Congress alone, or the courts alone, or the president alone. …”

– Barack Obama, Selma, Alabama, March 7, 2015

Marxists these days just seem to love equating their brand of encroaching collectivist hell on Earth with “democracy,” or intimating that their brand of encroaching collectivist hell on Earth is somehow closer to being truly “democratic” than the model of government in which we operated for over 200 years.

In any case, as Obama well knows, America isn’t a democracy. Granted that we get things done via democratic processes – but America is a constitutional representative republic – at least, that’s what it once was. Yet I’ve noted that Obama has never missed an opportunity to reference “our democracy,” perpetuating the fallacy that America is a democracy.

The usurper-in-chief led the ceremony last Saturday marking the 50th anniversary of the Selma, Alabama, “Bloody Sunday” protest on March 7, 1965, ostensibly hailing the men and women who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. Speaking from the Edmund Pettus Bridge (upon which police used clubs and tear gas to attack civil rights demonstrators), Obama said that more work needs to be done concerning race relations in the United States, as he usually does when he speaks on that topic.

Indeed. I wonder if by that he means more work needs to be done by his administration to get us to the point where America’s cities are aflame with race rioting and charred bodies litter the streets.

“We’re the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. …”

– Barack Obama, Selma, Alabama, March 7, 2015

It is quite ironic that someone whose ancestors never endured slavery, segregation, or Jim Crow (if one accepts the highly dubious narrative of Obama’s origins) and who has done more to sabotage 50 years of work to improve race relations should serve as the keynote speaker for such a solemn event. To add insult to injury, Obama then took wide rhetorical latitude, engaging in blatant revisionist history and propaganda.

“If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we’d still have one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.”

– Barack Obama, Selma, Alabama, March 7, 2015

Obama’s outgoing top crooked cop, Attorney General Eric Holder, made it one of his chief missions to address said voter suppression efforts during his tenure. The fact that he was unable to find any legitimate offenders in this area didn’t seem to matter; as though it were still 1950, Holder continued to bleat about the exertions of racists who allegedly seek to stifle voter participation among ethnic minorities.

In short, there are no “voter suppression laws” of which Obama speaks. Efforts on the part of certain states to ensure legal voting by only those eligible to vote are that to which Obama and his nefarious buddies take exception, because the Democratic Party has come to rely heavily upon voter fraud. It’s just far more effective to engender paranoia and anger among thoroughly propagandized blacks and Latinos when one calls these efforts “voter suppression.”

“We’re the gay Americans whose blood ran in the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

– Barack Obama, Selma, Alabama, March 7, 2015

The blood of gay Americans running in the streets of San Francisco and New York? I don’t seem to be able to recall any events in the so-called struggle for “gay rights” in America even coming close to those endured by blacks and their supporters during the Civil Rights Movement, let alone any featuring blood running in the streets of major U.S. cities. Did the police set attack dogs against crowds of protesting homosexuals in San Francisco at some point? Turn fire hoses on them in Greenwich Village? Did I miss something?

It is craven and disgusting when those on the left make disingenuous and erroneous comparisons between homosexuals and ethnic minorities with regard to civil rights issues. The left can trot out all the gay agenda-driven, pony-tailed, aging liberal professors they like, but the fact is that the decision to engage in homosexual behavior is no more than a decision; it is not an innate, ingrained, or genetic characteristic.

In this time of increasingly distinct lines being drawn between Americans who recognize the abject wickedness of this administration and its enablers and those who do not, it is profoundly sad that Obama’s presence in Selma was further dignified by some who ought to know better. Obama, his foul wife and their spawn were joined in Selma by a delegation that included former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush, around 100 members of Congress and other dignitaries.

Yes, Obama profaned the anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma with his very presence, because he is a liar and a fraud who has actually harmed race relations in America and under whom the lot of black Americans has become substantially worse. In character, he is the antithesis of those who suffered and struggled during the Civil Rights Movement.

The irony that punctuates this Selma travesty is the fact that since Obama self-identifies as black and is recognized as such, his attendance supposedly lent more significance to the event than if he had not been a person “of color.”

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns