President Trump

Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

Trump Nails it at the UN: Socialism Sucks

By Erik Rush •

While it is clear that desperation is the prime motivator for those on the political left having dramatically amplified their subversive and incendiary rhetoric in recent months, it must be acknowledged by those who do not share their views that this deportment is manifestly dangerous, represents a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and merits amelioration by methods and measures that, at this time, may have yet to be revealed.

It is my belief that those on the political left have forfeited their right to participation in the political process and free speech (particularly pertaining to the overly-broad understanding of the latter as it relates to the Constitution) because one of their chief objectives is to strip all dissenters of those very rights. I will continue to articulate this as progressives, socialists and radical leftists continue to augment their efforts to corrupt and debase our society and our culture at every conceivable level.

At this point, we are familiar with the agonizingly incessant efforts on the part of the left to characterize President Donald Trump, his surrogates, his supporters, and those who favor his wife’s taste in footwear as white supremacists despite there being no evidence whatsoever in support of such claims. We’ve also witnessed the increasing audacity of the noxious individuals and groups who have spoken out against those who hold traditional values, law enforcement, America in general ̶ well, pretty much anything or anyone that represents a divergence from leftist orthodoxy. Further, leftists are becoming less and less inhibited with regard to advocating for violence as a means to their ends.

Recently, a media firestorm ensued when a tweet by Michael Isaacson, an adjunct professor at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and self-proclaimed anti-fascist activist, came to light. Isaacson, an Antifa leader who oozes self-satisfied arrogance and looks like a refugee from an 80s British techno-rock video, posted on Twitter that it was “a privilege [for him] to teach future dead cops.” Though subsequently disciplined by the college, this twerp was nevertheless granted even more face time on Fox News to spew his poisonous drivel than he’d been given the week before.

Meanwhile on CNN, last Friday, Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill spoke out on the controversy over ESPN anchor Jemele Hill’s comments referencing President Trump as a white supremacist. Dr. Hill (another utter boob who has been legitimized via far too much face time on Fox) claimed that the White House’s call for her to be fired was an abuse of power, and that President Trump is “absolutely” a white supremacist.

Popular culture’s “infinite monkey theorem” holds that given enough time, a chimpanzee typing at random would eventually produce a literary masterpiece. Apparently, the equivalent in Dr. Hill was somehow able to write a passable doctoral dissertation. While Hill may claim that Trump is a white supremacist, what weight does such a statement really have considering that this affirmative action professor, judging by his years of absurd insights and regurgitated socialist canon, obviously possesses only a rudimentary consciousness? It’s like taking to heart the words of a five year-old who calls his parent a “big fat poop head” during a tantrum. Such arguments simply have no teeth. Previously, Hill relegated his inane on-camera blather to boilerplate leftist doctrine however, accusing the president of being a white supremacist far surpasses claims that this accusation was “over the top.”

All of this bleating about white supremacists in our midst would be laughable if not for the potential for significant numbers of news viewers ultimately subscribing to the notion, if for no other reason than leftists are aggressively employing the maxim of their illustrious progenitor, National Socialist propagandist Joseph Goebbels (“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”).

While use of the white supremacist label may be born of desperation, there is still a very real danger that it could “become the truth.” We saw something similar occur during the presidency of George W. Bush, when his administration patently refused to defend itself against any of the calumnious slings and arrows of the left. As a result, public opinion swung much farther against Republican elected officials than was merited, and this was reflected in the 2008 general election.

“From the Soviet Union to Cuba, Venezuela — wherever socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation, and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.”

– President Donald Trump, Sept. 19

Although it’s no surprise that the establishment press and mouthy radicals are trashing the speech President Trump gave this week at the United Nations, I don’t know if the sympathies he expressed in the above quote could have been put better or more succinctly. The slanderous accusations of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, pauperophobia, and other misanthropic leanings are all devices the left is using to foment cultural Balkanization as one gateway toward implementing a socialist state in America.

Inasmuch as it has been established that socialism in all its forms is pernicious and evil, as well as being wholly antithetical to the rule of law and the deeply-rooted traditions and institutions of this nation, the prudent citizen should conclude that efforts to advance this political doctrine must be mitigated with all due alacrity.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
How Trump Can End Opioid Crisis (It’s Not How He Thinks)

How Trump Can End Opioid Crisis (It’s Not How He Thinks)

By Erik Rush •

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that the trend in prescription opioid use in America, dubbed the “opioid crisis” by the federal government, is a national emergency that will be addressed with federal money and the use of “all appropriate emergency and other authorities to respond to the crisis,” according to a White House statement.

On March 29, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, which was tasked with studying “ways to combat and treat the scourge of drug abuse, addiction, and the opioid crisis, which was responsible for more than 50,000 deaths in 2015 and has caused families and communities across America to endure significant pain and suffering.”

This, coupled with last Thursday’s announcement, leads me to believe that Trump just doesn’t get it.

Oh, I’m not bashing the President here; although the trend of opioid use in America is quite alarming, the fact of the matter is that most people don’t get it – that is, why people abuse drugs in the first place.

One truth which has gone unnoticed is that Trump has already enacted many policies in other areas that are more likely to alleviate the abuse of prescribed narcotics than any federal programs. Since he doesn’t get it however, the Commission, the national emergency, and profit (for the individuals and organizations that get enrolled in the effort) are likely to win the day on this issue.

What do I mean by this? Well, all government efforts to stem increasing trends in drug abuse, whether we’re talking the heroin crisis of the late 1960s, the eternal War on Drugs begun in the 1980s, or this new opioid crisis, have been based upon one supremely flawed premise. Consequently, the actions taken – often to the tune of millions of dollars and years of penitentiary time for many unfortunate citizens – are always wholly misdirected.
The flawed premise is that people abuse drugs because they are available. People do not abuse drugs because they are available; people abuse drugs because they are miserable.

There is ample evidence to support the contention that readily available narcotics and other mood-altering substances do not give rise to widespread abuse or addiction. There always has been, but between profit motives and the emergent progressive nanny state of the early Twentieth Century, efforts to ameliorate drug abuse and addiction have resulted in our elected representatives addressing these problems through some of the most ineffectual and pernicious methods imaginable.

For many years, American consumers could purchase opioids at their local pharmacy without a prescription. In some Western nations, one can still do so; the same goes for certain other compounds that also evoke terror in the hearts of drug-propagandized Americans. In none of these instances did availability ever give rise to widespread abuse or addiction.

With prescription opioids, the prevailing theory goes that some people inadvertently become addicted after having them prescribed for pain or injuries. This happened to legendary NFL quarterback Brett Favre in 1996; after ramping up to dangerous levels of prescription opioid use following injuries on the field, he entered a treatment center to combat his addiction.

Others however, feign pain or injuries of one type or another in order to enjoy the narcotic high of drugs like Vicodin, Oxycontin, and other prescribed opioids. They become addicted, and even if they wish to quit, withdrawal symptoms drive them back to their doctor (or in some cases, multiple doctors).

It is probably all but impossible to tell what percentage of the third of adult Americans cited by the President’s Commission as having been prescribed opioid painkillers in 2015 were of the Brett Favre variety versus those who sought to get high, but I’d like to cite some other statistics in support of the theory that it is the mental and emotional disposition of the users which drives the current trend, rather than availability of these drugs.

Also as of January 2015, a record 92,898,000 Americans 16 years and older were not participating in the labor force, a number representing around half of the labor force. As of February 2015, 45.7 million people were receiving Food Stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In 2005, an average of 25 million individuals were receiving Food Stamps.

One may recall that we saw these dismal indicators creep up over the preceding six years under the economic sabotage of the Obama administration.

One last statistic: As of May 2015, over 71.6 million individuals – around a quarter of the U.S. population – were enrolled in Medicaid. We know that the unemployed and underemployed Americans enrolled in Food Stamps and Medicaid during the aforementioned six-year period had previously been productive workers and business owners.

All of which adds up to a pretty substantial amount of human misery by any account. If one then considers that any of these individuals could have consulted a physician and received a prescription for an opioid painkiller within the hour and for as little as one dollar under Medicaid, we see how easily the numbers for prescription opioid abuse could explode almost overnight – which they most assuredly have.

It may not be an iron-clad case against the former administration and Medicaid, but the circumstantial evidence is certainly compelling.

Take it from an alcoholic and former drug abuser: people abuse mind-altering substances because they’re profoundly unhappy, not because the drugs themselves are readily available. Like most government-centered and socialistic programs addressing all manner of social malaise which we’ve seen fail abysmally in recent decades, this war on prescription narcotics is likely to have about the same measure of failure.

Indeed, the best hope in mitigating the abuse of prescription painkillers is the success of President Trump’s economic policies, which would necessarily diminish the economic, mental, and emotional misery of many beleaguered Americans.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns