“Lynching” Furor and the Forgotten Racial History Of America

“Lynching” Furor and the Forgotten Racial History Of America

by Bob Bennett •

In these days of deliberate racialism by Democrats, who call the president—and the entire GOP racists—It’s time for black Americans and Republicans to learn their joint history.

The Civil War was not only between North and South, but between Republican and Democrat.

After they lost the War, Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan to control and subjugate blacks and fight Republicans. Famed American historian, Dr. Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, wrote:

“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror’ against Republican leaders black and white….In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”

The Klan was founded in 1867, in Pulaski, Tennessee by former Confederate soldiers John C. Lester, John B. Kennedy, James R. Crowe, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed, and J. Calvin Jones.

We hear incessant reminders of “home-grown American terrorism” in Oklahoma, but the first organized terrorist group that possessed real power was the Invisible Empire—the Ku Klux Klan. Soon after its founding, Klan terrorism made a mockery of Lincoln’s martyrdom by robbing American blacks of the most precious gifts of America, the right to pursue happiness and the right to vote.

The Klan’s hallowed mission was to suppress the Black vote. Over 2,000 people were killed and wounded in Louisiana during the run-up to the Presidential election of November 1868. The Republican candidate was Ulysses S. Grant.

The events in Louisiana’s St. Landry Parish were emblematic of the impact of the Klan. The parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071. But after the murders, not a single Republican voted in the election.

The entire vote of the parish was cast by white Democrats, for Grant’s opponent. The KKK’s assault on St. Landry’s resulted in more than 200 casualties among black Republicans.  Twenty-five bodies were found in a shallow grave in the woods.

But Grant won anyway and made it his hallowed mission to destroy the Klan. In 1869, a federal grand jury affirmed that the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist organization. In 1871, The U.S. Senate investigated and reported on the lawless suppression of the rights of Negro citizens in the “former insurrectionary states.”

In the spring of 1871, President Grant asked Congress to give him the power to fight the Klan and enforce the right of freed slaves to vote. Within a month, Congress responded with the Ku Klux Klan Act, which Republicans introduced “to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The Act also gave Grant the power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, to combat the violence of the Klan. This he used only a single time, in October of that year, in ten North Carolina counties that were racked with widespread Klan terrorism.

The results were the virtual obliteration of the Ku Klux Klan until about 1915, when it rose again, reaching full flower in the 1960s. The Klan’s mission, then was opposing the Civil Rights Movement.

Republican President Eisenhower desegregated public facilities in the Nation’s capital, desegregated the armed forces; and like his fellow-Republican President Grant, he used Federal troops—this time, to desegregate the schools.

Today, Democrats back-slap one another over the great things their party has done for Blacks, but conceal from America their not-so-distant past.

President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on Oct 5, 1953, capping his sweeping reform of the Federal courts—particularly in the South—with appointments that would bring about and enforce the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which was to come on May 17, 1954.

That is the day the Warren Court declared unanimously that “separate but equal” schools were unconstitutional,  overturning Plessy v Ferguson, the 1896 decision that upheld the constitutionality of  segregation and the “separate but equal” principle. On August 29, 1957 Eisenhower succeed in getting passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1957—after a bitter struggle with 18 southern Democrats, including Senator Sam J. Ervin, who would later confront Nixon over the Watergate scandal, complained passage of the law would give the president the power to send troops into the South.

Lyndon Johnson, who was later given credit in revisionist history for helping pass the Act, had in fact worked with the southern segregationists to limit the bill’s scope to voting rights.

New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. issued a press release declaring that Eisenhower had “kept his word to me 100 Percent.” Powell related that on October 11, 1956 Ike had promised him, that in his next State of the Union speech, he would call for passage of civil rights law; spell out specifically what he wanted in it and get his allies in Congress to fight for its passage.

Powell added: “After 80 years of political slavery, this is the second emancipation.” This act, together with Brown v Board of Ed., are the forgotten history of black America and the Republican Party.

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
Leftists Traumatizing Kids for Political Gain

Leftists Traumatizing Kids for Political Gain

By Erik Rush •

There are a few key issues being debated surrounding the recent school climate strike movement and one of its principals, Greta Thunberg, the 16 year-old autistic environmental activist from Sweden who’s been plastered across press venues over the last couple of weeks. One is that the phenomenon is being driven by the most odious elements of the far left, and that adopting their climate policies would devastate Western economies and enslave populations.

Another is the argument that developed nations should most certainly not base their climate policy on the ranting of an ill-informed child with a developmental disability and horribly irresponsible parents who is being shamelessly exploited by the aforementioned far left elements among us.

This is of course leaving aside the fact that the chief scientific study addressing anthropogenic climate change (upon which climate change alarmists are basing their activism) has long since been debunked.

I remember the gas lines of the 1970s. I remember the photos and the footage of the smog enshrouding Pennsylvania’s steel mills and the anti-pollution PSAs that appeared on TV. I recall the alarmist entreaties of environmental activists back then, and their predictions that the planet was going to be a fossil fuel-less, airless, foodless, poisonous asphalt ball by 1990.
I also recall that none of those calamities ever came to pass.

The political left exploiting children to gain assent to their climate change agenda is only occurring because they know that tugging at heartstrings through the exploitation of children has worked in the past—but this column isn’t about Greta Thunberg or even the left’s climate change agenda.

The last, less frequently discussed aspect of the school climate strike is the highly-questionable morality attendant to enrolling children into political causes using fear and alarmism. Some have gone as far as to say that this rises to the level of child abuse, which I certainly believe it to be.

I’ve had several discussions with people in the field of mental health concerning the epidemic of depression and anxiety disorders amongst children, teens and young adults. Without exception, these have cited the portents of doom to which they are increasingly being exposed by parents, teachers, media and the press. Thus, I was not at all surprised when I began to see reports citing a growing number of children being treated specifically for anxiety disorders over their exposure to alarmist climate change doctrine.

Those on the political left are morally bankrupt; this has been demonstrated more clearly over the last few years than over the last few decades. Their habit of exploiting children to advance their agenda is nothing new however, nor is their habit of damaging them via emotional trauma in the process.

The early sexualization of children which began in the 1960s gave rise to cavalier sexual attitudes, an escalation in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases and contributed to a rising divorce rate. Subsequent generations, many now parents themselves, succumbed even more to the pernicious “new sensibilities” being advanced by leftists, and are now happily indoctrinating their own children into sexual dysfunction and gender confusion.

While dragging children to “Close The Camps” demonstrations to protest a president who allegedly has it in for all brown people must be frightening, dragging them into the grotesque world of transvestites at a “Drag Queen Story Hour” poses even more danger to their emerging sexual sensibilities. At present, there are even parents who refuse to acknowledge the biological gender of their children, which promises to breed even more sexual dysfunction down the road.

The far left Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) recently introduced something they call the “Teaching Tolerance” campaign, which is being promoted nationwide in K-12 public school classrooms. Since diversity worship has become an important part of the liberal canon, there are millions of parents who have no problem with their children being indoctrinated into leftist notions of sexuality and “gender non-conformity.”

As one might expect, entertainment industry icons have been more than willing to do their part. More and more Hollywood stars are (very publicly) “coming out” as trans, gender non-conforming or pansexual; others have determined that they will not “impose gender norms” upon their children, even allowing their little boys to attend school in dresses.

The fruits of these grossly dysfunctional lifestyles often include depression, anxiety disorders and suicide, which occur in the LGBTQ community at a far higher rate than in the general population. But leftists have a handy explanation for this: It’s the lack of acceptance and “persecution” by “cisgendered” people which is leading to the emotional malaise and mental disorders within the LGBTQ population, rather than the disempowering lifestyle choices they’ve made.

Where does it end?

As I’ve said so many times in this space, it ends when the rest of us muster the courage to say “no” despite the schoolyard invective and accusations of bigotry the left employs in order to gain our capitulation. It ends when we become as loud and as determined as they are. It ends when we become willing to stand up and assert that this is not about tolerance; it’s about destroying the moral fabric of our society in order to advance a manifestly evil political agenda, and we will not stand for it one day longer.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Writer’s CBS Resignation: Thank a Self-Righteous Leftist

Writer’s CBS Resignation: Thank a Self-Righteous Leftist

By Erik Rush •

Here’s a story that garnered some coverage in the establishment press, but which definitely needs to be addressed in the proper context because it is disgraceful and disgusting: A well-accomplished, well-respected black man was recently forced to resign from his job for using the dreaded n-word in his place of employment.

The word was reportedly used in context, which means that it was not directed at an individual. This is only part of what makes this disgraceful and disgusting. Suffice it to say that most conscientious folks find that word distasteful, but said in context, I personally don’t find it offensive in the least, regardless of the race of the person uttering it.

The point here being that when a distasteful word uttered in context becomes as troublesome in the workplace as a person exposing himself to a co-worker, we have a problem.

Earlier this year, novelist and screenwriter Walter Mosley quit the CBS drama “Star Trek: Discovery” after getting a formal complaint about him having used the dreaded n-word in the writer’s room. Following this, Mosley penned an account of the incident in an op-ed for The New York Times.
Long story short, Mosley is an old-school black guy with rough edges who speaks the way a lot of old-school black guys with rough edges

speak, especially when the creative juices are flowing—and it doesn’t matter who happens to be in attendance. Apparently this triggered some hypersensitive, putrid little snowflake at CBS who filed a complaint with the Human Relations department.
According to Mosley, the individual who complained was someone in the writer’s room, but he was never informed as to this person’s identity.

When most people who aren’t mincing, hypersensitive little snowflakes are offended by someone’s words or actions on the job, they typically take the issue to the offender. If they can’t straighten the issue out between the two of them, one or the other might take the problem to the Human Relations department. In most places of employment with HR departments (like CBS), when someone has a problem with another on the job, there’s a thing called moderation which they use to get the lay of the land and determine if anyone involved has violated the law or the company’s policies and procedures. Excepting very rare cases, they do not allow parties to remain anonymous.

Judging by his rhetoric, most of Mr. Mosley’s sensibilities lie in the liberal realm, but he has very strong beliefs regarding self-expression. He doesn’t believe that the Confederate flag should be outlawed, for example, nor that any person’s speech should be stultified simply because it makes someone else uncomfortable.

Make no mistake: In the end, this is not about race at all, it just happens to involve a black man and a racial epithet. What it’s really about is the atmosphere of hypersensitivity and censorship in which we are all increasingly operating, and this is being driven solely by far left radicals. Since Mr. Mosley happened to be working in an environment dominated by such people, unfortunately he ran afoul of their orthodoxy.

This is also about those on the left aggressively advancing their doctrine with all of the cavalier self-righteousness and sense of invulnerability of a Deep South bigot in the early 20th Century harassing a random black man for fun. As has become apparent over the last few years, there is no lie to big to tell, no calumny too damning to level, no tactic too amoral or illegal to employ in the name of socialist ascendancy.
“[T]he easiest way to silence a woman or a man,” Mosley wrote in ‘Times his op-ed, “is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation.”

These days, threatening or destroying someone’s livelihood has become an essential weapon in the left’s arsenal. We’re all aware of the high-profile individuals whose livelihoods and fortunes were destroyed defending themselves against the illegal machinations of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, but there are many whose livelihoods have been significantly damaged as a result of that cavalier self-righteousness and sense of invulnerability on the part of leftists.

Conservative media outlets have been a major target of tech giants’ censorship for some time, and even moreso since Donald Trump came to the presidency. As a result, the fortunes of many alternative media venues and those who work with and for them have turned very much for the worse. This is not widely discussed, perhaps as a point of pride, but also because we’re not a bunch of whining, putrid little snowflakes who can’t abide adversity, contrived and inequitable though it may be.

In the meantime, we have those on the far left who are attempting to dictate the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advancing the inclusion of sexual deviance in primary school curricula. We have the widespread doxxing of conservatives and Trump supporters being advocated even by Democrat lawmakers, and people of faith being accused of hate crimes for engaging in heretofore normal, inoffensive behavior. Draconian censorship on social media and online advertising platforms has become the norm. In similar fashion to that in which blacks were once viewed as inferior simply because they were black, whites, males and heterosexuals are increasingly being characterized as inherently evil simply for possessing those traits.

As always with the left, the consequence for disobedience is being labeled as a bigot, in which vandalism of one’s property or assault upon one’s person remains very much on the table.

Based on the progression observed in every other nation in which socialists have come to power, we know how this plays out. Our sense of inclusion, fair play, compassion and adherence to the rule of law have become liabilities, because these are the very things our enemies are using against us.

Rather than offering my opinion as to what I believe our course of action ought to be under these circumstances, I’ll leave the reader to carefully consider the previous paragraph and come to his or her own conclusions.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
What Will Future Americans Say After Our Next Civil War?

What Will Future Americans Say After Our Next Civil War?

By Erik Rush •

It is unlikely that I’m the first person to whom this has occurred, but if the heretofore unthinkable should take place and the United States winds up on a civil war footing within the next decade or so, historians will probably cite many of the controversial and bizarre phenomena to which we are routinely being exposed as having been clear harbingers of that conflict.

In such a case, if we’re fortunate enough to defeat socialism once and for all, it’s probable that said historians will point to the enemy having surreptitiously coalesced its power over the previous hundred years, advancing draconian, liberty-stultifying policies that had failed when implemented in other nations during that period, but which appeared palatable to a populace that had been dumbed-down and propagandized by strategically-placed operatives in government, education, the press and entertainment media.

Perhaps documentary producers and classroom instructors will relate how the leftist-fostered moral decay which began during the latter part of the 20th Century gave rise not only to a general moral ambivalence among Americans, but to increased numbers of people retreating into apathy, addiction, sexual promiscuity and increasingly-bizarre and harmful forms of sexual deviance. Maybe they’ll tell of how socialist agitators organized these people, the members of ethnic minorities and real or imagined gender groups and sowed dissent among them, and between these groups and white Americans, who were framed as ruthless oppressors despite significant gains made during the Civil Rights Movement.

Following such a debacle, one would hope that the imperative for instruction in history and civics would make a comeback. It will probably be very illuminating for Americans to learn how socialists, who sought only power, reasoned that since even the poorest 20th Century American was too prosperous to abide a socialist system, they would have to sabotage and compromise the economy at every available opportunity, which they set about doing through entitlement programs, crony capitalism and widespread graft.

Entire media presentations and college courses might be offered, addressing how the press had been completely taken over by radical leftists. Citizens who had been accustomed to trusting the Fourth Estate suddenly learned that this body had been wholly given over to shameless propagandists. Those who learned this too late became their political pawns and boarded the express train to societal suicide.

High school instructors and college history professors might showcase the former WWII Nazi collaborator who’d become a billionaire via predatory global financial schemes, then used his vast wealth in an attempt to destroy the West, and America, from within. Students in classrooms of the future might be regaled with stories of how radicals who’d insinuated themselves in government had weakened our border security and immigration policy, leading to an influx of millions of low-skilled, poorly-educated masses, many from nations hostile to the United States. These emigrés went on to elect candidates with viciously anti-American sentiments to government, dangerously compromising the rule of law.

These students might learn of the hooded, black-clad thugs who carried out violent demonstrations and attacks on political opponents at their rallies, and how these miscreants were protected by leftists in local government and in Congress. They’d hear about how socialists had attempted to disarm citizens before the outbreak of open hostilities by demonizing firearms and law-abiding firearms owners. They might even learn about a few related crises orchestrated by the left, and how even gun crimes committed by their operatives were attributed to their political opponents or to a lack of “common sense” gun legislation.

They’d learn about the wholesale campaigns which took place in the press and in the technology sector to destroy the livelihoods of Christians, conservatives and other threats to socialist preeminence by demonizing individuals, organizations and businesses through doxxing and censorship.

If there’s still a United States of America in existence, citizens will hear about how our celebrated first black president was not-so-secretly committed to Islamic ascendency in America and had close ties to subversive Muslim groups whose mission was that of displacing the Constitution with Islamic law despite a stark incompatibility between the two systems.

There’s little doubt that latter-day Americans subject to these accounts would find them incredulous and quite surreal. How could so many have fallen for a creed so odious, and whose stock-in-trade was nothing but lies? Had their progenitors really sanctioned things like infanticide and tolerated a brisk market in dissected baby parts? Did they really let 350-pound, bearded males in dresses terrorize women and little girls in ladies’ rooms just because they said they “felt like women?” Did parents actually stand by while such individuals were invited into their local schools to instruct their children?

It’s altogether probable that, following a domestic upheaval costly in blood and treasure, generations following ours will ask themselves how a nation that was poised for success and prosperity following two world wars, which had begun to erase many of the lines of division that had existed for so long, suddenly imploded. They’ll wonder why, in light of our past patriotism and having collectively overcome so much adversity, we suddenly turned on each other.

Finally, they’ll wonder why we allowed a small, malignant faction to amass so much power and bring all of this about. Why didn’t we demand action against corrupt government officials and crony capitalists who were selling our sovereignty to the highest bidder? Why didn’t we demand that our borders be policed, as other nations did? Why did we allow legions of disruptive, America-hating foreign garbage to pour into our heartland and establish political strongholds?

What I’ve described here is probably among the best case scenarios that might follow another widespread, violent internal conflict in America. I for one shudder to consider the worst, but I’m sure many have considered this as well.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
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
Life Imitates Art With Our Elite Class of Perverts

Life Imitates Art With Our Elite Class of Perverts

By Erik Rush •

There’s a recurring theme in most of the films and TV shows that have been produced over the last decade or so which include futuristic dystopian settings. In such offerings, you typically have a very small, elitist faction that controls everything, and a massive oppressed class that supports the elites through their labor.

In these productions, the elites are usually portrayed as incomprehensibly wealthy, capricious, perverted, ruthless and of course very cavalier concerning the manner in which they treat the oppressed classes, which run the gamut from the starved masses depicted in “The Hunger Games” to the scraping, drugged-up, violent urbanites in “Altered Carbon.” Invariably, these unfortunates have very little control over many aspects of their lives, and very few have a clue as to the dynamic of their governance, other than the imperative for staying in line—or else.
I for one find it quite ironic that such fare should come out of Hollywood, considering that this is precisely the path we’re on. I sometimes wonder if such films and TV shows are part of a grooming process that Americans and others in the West are undergoing, perhaps in the hopes that we will acclimatize to such an existence more readily if we’re exposed to it in this manner first.

One of the most poignant parallels to the elites in these films and TV shows has been the scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the late disgraced financier and friend of powerful (mostly) Democrats who allegedly hanged himself in jail on Aug. 10 as he awaited trial on federal charges relating to running a sex trafficking operation involving underage girls. As we know, the accounts and allegations coming out of this story (which actually reaches back a couple of decades) are appalling; the level of power and influence of the individuals with whom Epstein associated and who were allegedly involved in illegal activities should outrage anyone who is even remotely concerned with the quality of our governance.

Then we have the #MeToo movement, ostensibly a grass-roots effort to highlight the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment,
particularly in the workplace. Although liberal activists and feminists credit the dreaded “patriarchy” and a culture of misogyny as the impetus for the rise of this movement, it is important to note that nearly all of the high-profile offenders revealed since October 2017 were leftists, and that some of the entertainment industry victims were minor children at the time they were victimized. One may also recall the revelation of a congressional slush fund which exists to pay off sexual harassment claims against members of the House and Senate that came to light at around the same time.

Thus, it appears that many of those in power, and many of those poised to seize power are shaping up to fit the twisted roles described in the beginning of this column quite nicely. A notable difference arises in the fact that none of the dystopian entertainment offerings we’ve seen in recent years depicted an elite class that craves sex with children and will go to great lengths—such as traveling to a private island—to get it.
So, how do we get from where we were 50 years ago to the dark future of these films and TV shows? That’s simple: We merely examine the moves leftists have made over the last 50 years and the moves they’re making now.

A strategy in the left’s subversion of the electoral process has been one that proved extremely successful in Europe, particularly Britain: The importation of sufficient numbers of individuals from nations which hold antipathy for the United States, and/or those who believe they are entitled to a share of America’s wealth based on her status in their minds as an imperialist, oppressor nation. Such people then vote for like-minded subversives from among their countrymen to the detriment of our national interests.

Division is of course a major component to the left’s design for breaking America, and much of what we’re seeing in this regard is focused on ethnicity, or race. I’ve covered this extensively in recent months in this space, and the leftist-fostered heightening of racial tensions over the last few years should be apparent to all. Support for violent radicals on the part of prominent politicos adds fuel to the fire, and increases the danger of widespread civil unrest.

A premier example of the left’s intention lies in the recent New York Times Magazine offering, “The 1619 Project.” This began with a series of shamelessly revisionist articles which frame the entire history of America as an illegitimate enterprise and centers on the evils of capitalism and an overblown representation of the role of slavery in building our nation. According to the ‘Times, the publication plans for these topics to remain a chief focus through the 2020 election.

Finally, we have the platform items from the field of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, any one of which could be devastating to our economy and national security. Promises to erase our borders and import millions of unskilled, uninvested Third World denizens, socialize just about everything and redistribute wealth on an incomprehensible scale would have gotten a candidate clubbed to death at the next whistle stop fifty years ago, but from Joe Biden on down, Democratic hopefuls appear to be at perfect ease in offering these proposals in the current political climate.

At this juncture, there can be doubt that we are under siege from within by a lawless, pernicious cabal whose only protection lies in misrepresented interpretations of the First Amendment. Sedition is not a right; it is a crime which should be prosecuted accordingly.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Civil War Preferable to a Democratic President

Civil War Preferable to a Democratic President

By Erik Rush •

It would be difficult to argue that the political environment in America has not grown significantly more toxic and hostile over the last several years. I pointed out in my column of two weeks ago that the political left cites the culture of the Trump administration for the recent deterioration in race relations. Similarly, the left blames the culture of the Trump administration for this dramatic downturn in civility. Again (as I detailed in the earlier column), this decline actually began during the Obama administration, and represents the left’s reaction to the popular rejection of socialist policies by the electorate.

The fear and desperation of those on the left cannot be understated. With the ascendency to the White House of an individual who could relate to average Americans, had the nation’s best interests at heart and who sought the dismantling of the corrupt Beltway machine, the political establishment faced a threat it had never before seen. This fear and desperation accounts for the augmented hyperbole and venom coming from the left, and the incomprehensibly absurd charges being leveled against President Donald Trump and his supporters on an hourly basis.

We have never before seen as much incendiary rhetoric, calumnies and fearmongering coming from powerful Democrats and their co-conspirators in the press, the entertainment industry and the activist community. Hardly a day goes by without a prominent liberal mouthpiece citing “irrefutable evidence” that President Trump and all of his supporters are vehement racists and fascists, that the president rose to his position via dishonest and unlawful means, and that he and his supporters represent an unprecedented threat to the future of our nation.

The Orwellian propaganda (which Nineteen Eighty Four author Orwell derived from the Third Reich and Soviet Union as the model for the government in his novel) emanating from the left is at an all-time high. “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” the phrase frequently attributed to the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, has evidently become the left’s standard operating procedure.

On Aug. 11, Fox News’ Brit Hume took to Twitter, blasting Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for claiming last Friday that Michael Brown, the young black man who was shot and killed by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson in 2014 after assaulting the officer, was murdered in cold blood. Hume pointed out the abject fallacy of the claim, then chastised the two senators for the incendiary nature of their rhetoric, asserting that it did “nothing to calm racial tension in this country.”

Due to our nation’s history and our collective sensibilities, a racist is one of the worst things a person can be in America. It follows that baseless charges of racism are among the worst calumnies that one can level against another. Despite this, those on the left are dispensing such charges against President Trump and his supporters with a dizzying vigor, along with allegations of their proclivity toward homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, Nazism, fascism, and so forth. Leftist mouthpieces are instructing their followers to “destroy” Trump supporters, and the instance of left-on-right violence has far outpaced that of the reverse.

If this fire hose volume of lies and histrionics sets the engaged conservative or libertarian off balance (and it definitely does me), one can only imagine the overstimulation and cognitive dissonance it has the potential to produce in the rank-and-file unaffiliated voter. Many of those who succumb to the left’s rhetorical vitriol may be among weak-minded people, but the weak-minded do have the right and the capacity to vote. For the most part however, the battle lines have been drawn; it is unlikely that too many people who don’t believe President Trump is a racist will be convinced otherwise between now and November 2020, nor will any of those already convinced of this change their minds.

Suffice it to say that all of this is going to make for a very interesting fifteen months ahead.

Apart from acknowledging that the Democratic party was indeed the party of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow, whatever the party once was, it is clear that the party now represents America’s garbage. I will qualify these as the maladjusted, indolent, emotionally-stultified, covetous misfits who believe that others owe them an existence, immigrants who come here not to assimilate and contribute, but to drain our resources and contribute to crime, civil unrest and social decline, and deviants who wish to subvert our moral fabric to accommodate their proclivities.

The power brokers on the left already know that their divisive rhetoric has the potential to set Americans at each others’ throats; this is why they are dispensing it so freely, and why they have mobilized the above fringe groups like never before.

These facts, along with the incomprehensibly destructive, hard-line socialist policies being touted by the 2020 Democratic presidential field, the left’s “ends justifies the means” deportment and the history of socialist regimes from the early Twentieth Century on clearly illustrate the imperative for utterly neutralizing the political left in this country, and at this point I would say by any means necessary. A protracted civil war would be a superior outcome to this cabal gaining political preeminence, and as dangerous as the left claims Donald Trump is, the next Democrat president—whoever they are, and whenever they come to the office—will represent a level of danger to this nation exponentially greater than even Barack Obama represented in 2008.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

Despicable Race-Baiters Are All On The Left

By Erik Rush •

At present, there are a lot of people shaking their heads at the alacrity with which accusations of racism are currently being bandied about. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that baseless charges of racism undermine legitimate ones. Another is the potential for serious conflict given the sensitivities many Americans still possess on the subject. Finally, it dishonors those Americans who struggled against institutional racism throughout our history, some paying the ultimate price.

In the case of President Donald Trump alone, to date literally hundreds of politicos, activists and celebrities have accused him of racism. Many have done so repeatedly, despite the fact that in nearly four years as president and decades in the public eye, not one person has been able to present one scintilla of evidence that Trump is a racist. Some have gone so far as to claim that all of the president’s supporters are racists. This is eminently laughable, because if we count those who do support Trump, we’re easily talking about at least half our adult population.

While the political left would like the casual observer to believe that the uptick in racial tension we’re seeing is top-down and coming from the culture of the Trump administration, it actually began during the early days of the Obama administration.

How Obama and his surrogates deliberately stoked the fires of racial tension was chronicled in great detail in this space during his tenure as president. From Obama’s claims that police “acted stupidly” when they arrested his friend Henry Louis Gates, Jr., through former Attorney General Eric Holder’s interference in the dispositions of the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin shootings and much, much more, Obama set the stage for re-establishing the idea that we are an institutionally racist nation—something I even said he was likely to do in my book, Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal—America’s Racial Obsession.

Thus, the increase in racial tensions we’ve seen since Donald Trump became president is only a continuation of that campaign. It would have continued unabated even if Hillary Clinton had become president, only with a different face.

A major objective of the left is division, and we can see via the relevant timeline and the dynamics at hand that although Trump became a handy scapegoat for charges of racism, the hyperbole and accusations were born of the left’s fear and desperation in the face of the electorate’s rejection of Beltway politics and socialist policies.

Last week in this space, I detailed the story of a segment of white small business owners in New York City who are currently being driven out of business by far left racist activism. The requisite research for the article proved unequivocally that this campaign was well under weigh in 2015, which indicates that its inception came about long before Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the GOP nomination.

The article also referenced an even broader emergent and pernicious counter-culture of anti-white bias wherein whites no longer have to demonstrate racist proclivities in order to be considered racists. It is clear that, via the press, activism and the entertainment media, the left seeks to inculcate the belief into every American of color that racism is somehow “built into” every area and system within our society.

Phrases such as “decolonization,” “structural racism” and “implicit bias” are now worming their way into common use among fringe leftists—unfortunately, that appellation includes just about every politically-active individual in our larger cities these days.

Since many people of color have been corralled over the years into enclaves in which progressives hold political power, many have bought into the mantra of an institutionally racist America. As a result, racial hypersensitivity is at an all-time high. Earlier this month, a prominent young black Chicago broadcaster lost her ever-lovin’ mind on social media over a sticker a private individual had on their vehicle. In part, the sticker depicted a noose, but so eager was this incomprehensibly ignorant snowflake to attribute it to nascent white nationalism that she didn’t bother to research the item, which is actually a protest sticker against gasoline prices that’s sold in convenience stores. It is borne by untold thousands of vehicles owned by people of all shades across the country.

This race-baiting has already gotten well out-of-hand and, as I’ve said previously, being cowed into silence by the left is not a sustainable modality in which to operate. The race-baiters are not only despicable beyond description, they are a clear and present danger to our domestic tranquility, and they must be fought.

For Trump’s part, I am confident that he will continue to handle his racialist detractors brilliantly, as he did recently in revealing the political duplicity of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and the worsening squalor and corruption in his Maryland district.

For our part, we must continue to stand firmly by the truth that the only thing racism is “built into” these days is the playbook of the political left, and act accordingly.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

‘Doula Wars’ Driven by Far Left Racist Gangsters

By Erik Rush •

There is currently a war being waged in New York City in the area of reproductive health, and it involves that city’s community of doulas. For those unfamiliar with precisely what a doula does, I’m going to suggest that the reader look it up in the interest of brevity. In a recent Netflix special, Asian-American comedian Ali Wong described the doula as “a white hippie witch that blows quinoa into your p**** to Keyser Soze all the pain away” during childbirth—and the tone of Wong’s reference is actually quite germane to the topic at hand.
The war of which I speak reflects in microcosm the larger war of cultural subversion that is being conducted by the radical left across every geographic and demographic area in America. As we have seen, there is no tactic too depraved to be employed in this pursuit, and these unethical and occasionally criminal antics are being supported, rather than condemned, by government and a sympathetic establishment press.
A July 19 article in New York magazine celebrated the fact that last month, “a bill quietly passed through the New York State Legislature that puts birth workers, commonly known as doulas, on a path to becoming professionalized in the eyes of the state.” Considering the intrusiveness of New York’s emergent nanny state policies and its legislature’s proclivity for passing laws that legalize such things as infanticide, this is a prospect that should terrify any doula. Indeed, some doulas and doula certification organizations are alarmed for these reasons, and because the bill was passed with minimal input from the doula community. The bill’s language is also confusing and the description of its reach and requisite certification requirements are equally obscure.
Far more disturbing is the culture of activism that has sprung up within this profession. The New York magazine article discusses such topics as a shortage of “doulas of color” and the high instance of maternal mortality among women of color, but it addresses these in the context of institutional racism somehow being at the root of these problems.
Digging deeper, it is plain to see that this activism—all arrayed in the finery of deep concern for expectant mothers—is nevertheless being driven by far left racist and racialist activists, and is clearly intended to promote racial division.
Ancient Song Doula Services, an extremely active organization cited in the article, is advertised as one “focused on providing services to women of color and low-income women.” It also provides various forms of certification for doulas. Granted that doula services and doula education should be widely available for women of color and low-income women, but a close examination of Ancient Song’s website evidences the outfit as being the Trinity United Church of doula advocacy and education. Their “Our Focus” page states that their goal is “to shift the narrative and address implicit bias and racism within maternal and reproductive health.”
Such language is of course part and parcel of far left racial orthodoxy, and one finds that in the culture of New York City, the idea of a woman of color being attended by a white doula is increasingly being framed as inherently racist. Perusing the various articles and advocacy websites reveals that these activists are of the mind that institutional racism is rampant in America; the rhetoric being bandied about in these places could have easily come from the mouth of Rep. Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez (D-NY) or Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
It gets worse. The activism of those ostensibly advocating for women of color and low-income women has been vigorously targeting and demonizing white and “cisgendered” doulas for professional destruction—unless they have acknowledged the innate evil of their whiteness and demonstrably embraced the LGBTQ agenda in its entirety.
Katy McFadden, a Brooklyn doula, blogger and self-described “reproductive justice activist and maternal-infant health expert,” is one of the latter. Employing such phraseology as “White Saviorism,” “Toxic White Optimism” and “Negligent Racial Discrimination” on her blog, McFadden reveals herself to be one of those disgustingly “guilty” white liberals who has bought into the prevailing and potent New York brand of leftist doctrine, hook, line and sinker. Her blog boasts that she has partnered with Ancient Song Doula Services to “understand white supremacy” and “organize against it.”
It gets even worse. Not only are white and ideologically-errant doulas being singled out, but there is a spirited ongoing effort to include “trans” individuals within the doula community. This means that if you are a pregnant woman who requests an appointment with a doula, you are increasingly likely to have Bernie show up dressed as Brenda, rather than Brenda herself. Social media now features “queer birthworker” groups; chat rooms and message boards covering the local industry are now abuzz with the wisdom of “trans” doulas, “trans non-binary doulas of color,” and other LGBTQ-isms.
The New York magazine article even quotes a self-described breastfeeding advocate and doula whom, upon the author’s investigation, was discovered to be a male transvestite.
Some of these people appear to be at least as dedicated to demonizing white, biologically female doulas as they are to promoting their own inclusion in the industry. Their disdain for whites and “binary” individuals is quite fervent; their tone and character more resembles that of Antifa than a community of conscientious birth workers.
Where it get really weird is in the budding advocacy for expectant trans individuals. I shudder to think who these people might be, but in similar fashion to the New York magazine article, pregnant people are typically referenced in discussions among these folks, rather than pregnant women.
As a result, many established white doulas in New York City have lost their livelihood over the last couple of years. Some may not even know why. Those who provided the dizzying volume of material from which this article is derived are reticent to go on the record, given the vicious nature of the activism attendant to this phenomenon.
Like the gangsterism currently being employed by tech giants to marginalize everyone right of center on a global scale, the New York “reproductive rights” activists referenced here are engaging in behavior that is not only unethical, but probably qualifies as racketeering.
This is all sad and ironic, given that the women in New York who pioneered this work did so out of compassion and a desire to serve in their chosen vocation. If the character of people driving this activism at present is any indication, considering the legendary corruption and bureaucracy endemic to New York, many of the women about whom activists are allegedly so concerned are likely to wind up being served by insincere, incompetent and possibly dangerous individuals.
Unfortunately, since it’s New York, we probably shouldn’t expect anyone in government or law enforcement to address the issue until women of color in New York start suffering adverse health issues—and even then, it’s likely that these will be attributed to the racism of whites, rather than the racism of the left.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns