socialism

What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

What if We Behaved as Leftists Behave?

By Erik Rush •

They label their opponents as racists—one of the most odious things a person can be thought of in America—with absolutely no substantiation for the charge, and they do it unceasingly. When words fail, they violently attack those with whom they disagree. Indeed, they routinely countenance violence yet, in passive-aggressive stance, bleat like helpless, wretched victims when their opponents take the offensive, or even suggest taking the offensive.

In the workplace, they take improper liberties with their subordinates and engage in fraud in order to get their children into high-profile universities. Their captains of industry conspire to corner emerging markets and then scheme to marginalize vast segments of the populace and business interests in order to advance their malignant political agenda, then lie to Congress when questioned about it. They conspire to flood the country with illegal immigrants and emigrés from hostile nations in order to skew elections in their favor and to foment civil unrest.

It is quite clear at this point that the political left has determined that the ends justify the means in coalescing their political power. The rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play have been discarded.

Their leaders are aware that all of the foregoing behavior is merely a strategy: They know that their political opponents don’t merit the charges leveled against them, and that their own followers’ behavior is manifestly antisocial.

Their followers—far left voters and activists—are the true believers, however. They’ve been convinced that pretty much everyone right-of-center are so noxious and dangerous that they must be overcome by any means necessary.

The problem here is that such “true believers” can be marshaled to commit singularly heinous acts ahead of the rise of a regime that would enroll statutory stormtroopers to do its bidding. We’ve seen this occur before in countries that have been subjugated by socialists, and it never ends well. The dehumanization of political opponents inevitably sets the stage for atrocities.

So, let’s examine a purely hypothetical scenario for context: What if conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists began to operate in the same manner? Meaning that, suppose this segment determined that the ends do indeed justify the means, and that the rule of law, ethics and long-held concepts of fair play should be discarded as a point of prudence, considering that their opponents have done so.
Further, suppose that these people—who do outnumber radical leftists on the order of fifteen-to-one—reasoned that since leftists managed to murder, maim and enslave nearly a half-billion people during the last century, and that American leftists are precisely following the playbook of past and present socialist regimes, they probably ought not take any chances.

Suppose these patriots decided, given the above, that militant action ought to remain on the table; that, considering the wholesale infiltration of our government by socialists, Islamists, and assorted leftist radicals, we are at war even if our woefully-compromised federal government refuses to acknowledge it.

Perhaps such individuals would organize, as some fringe left wing groups have done. They might begin to engage in counterintelligence operations against openly seditious lawmakers and other operatives, bringing their subversive actions into focus for the general population, which the establishment press obviously will not do.

Perhaps some seasoned former military types of this mindset might organize clandestinely, and prominent leftists would begin to suffer very unfortunate mishaps. Let’s say that these individuals possessed such proficiency that there were seldom signs of foul play, and never anyone to perp walk before the eager cameras of the press.

It goes almost without saying that actions even remotely resembling these would be seized upon by the left as having been committed by right wing extremists. Concerning this question, I would offer up the fact that since those on the left have demonstrated little compunction as regards trying to frame those on the right for violence and hate crimes, right wing groups would have little trouble dismissing any accusations as potential frame jobs.

Now, leaving aside the ugly atmosphere that this kind of behavior would create and the inherent dangers involved (the potential for escalating civil unrest and blowback from law enforcement, for example), the likely result is that those on the left would become far less vocal, less confrontational, and less effective. The reason for this is because—as we have seen demonstrated time and again— extreme cowardice is in their nature. They would see the political right going on the offensive giving rise to a more level playing field, and they already know that they cannot compete on a level playing field. The knowledge that their political opponents were now willing to respond in kind to provocation would utterly neutralize the left’s ground game, which would be a decidedly good thing.

It’s probable than none of this will come to pass however, because conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists respect the rule of law, ethics and concepts of fair play. We don’t intimidate our opponents into silence, and we do not employ the last resort (violence) as a first measure, which has served us well.

My only hope is that in the long term, this deportment can survive the machinations of socialists, who clearly do not share these values with us.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

The Power of the Left’s Emotional Blackmail

By Erik Rush •

In dealing with the general public, emotional blackmail is one of the chief weapons in the arsenal of the political left. For decades now, hyperbolic appeals to Americans’ emotions have been employed not only to sway individuals in the interest of issues and causes, but to shape our opinions and our worldview as well.

An object lesson in this phenomenon came to the fore just this week, when press reports featured a scene in the new Netflix documentary “Our Planet,” which is presented by British naturalist David Attenborough (who produced the acclaimed “Blue Planet” documentaries for the BBC). Though Attenborough has produced some great stuff, he is nevertheless a very politically-active anthropogenic climate change guru who believes that human beings should feel “jolly guilty” over the damage we’re allegedly doing to our planet.

The attention that “Our Planet” recently garnered has to do with a scene in the documentary involving walruses. Yes, walruses. In the film, there is a disturbing scene which takes place in the Bering Strait, where filmmakers captured a large group of Pacific walruses climbing high, rocky cliffs en masse, well away from their normal seaside habitats. As one might imagine, these two-ton, cumbersome creatures that don’t even have proper feet do not fare very well in this alien environment, and many of the animals wind up falling from the cliffs and perishing.

Inevitably, the first question that strikes the viewer is why these animals would engage in this behavior—and Attenborough is more than happy to tell us. The actions of these free-climbing walruses are put down to their normal icy habitat dwindling due to climate change. As their peril is detailed, we can envision hordes of nervous walruses standing atop unsteady, ever-shrinking ice sheets, then panicking and charging up the cliffs to their doom.

Considering all of the speculation that goes along with the documentary producers’ assessment coupled with their obvious agenda, I’ve a feeling that they possess no more insight into why the walruses behaved in this manner than you do—but let’s not let the lack of facts obscure the political objective here.

While this goes hand-in-hand with the invective leftists routinely employ to shame their opponents into capitulation—accusations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like—emotional blackmail goes beyond the pressure of mere invective. The key component here is in impressing upon the target that they are harming someone or something if they do not summarily accept whatever proposal is being advanced by the left: If you don’t buy into anthropogenic climate change, you’re harming the planet. If you don’t buy into the proposal that America is an institutionally racist nation, you’re harming ethnic minorities. If you don’t buy into open borders, you’re harming poor little Pablo and his family who only want a better life.

Get it?

With regard to people as individuals, things become even more emotionally-charged and less rational. In the world of liberals, there’s nothing worse than hurting someone’s feelings, saying or doing something that has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves. Thus, if you don’t buy into the LBGTQ agenda, you’re damaging the self-esteem of LGBTQ people. If you don’t buy into Islamophilia, you’re hurting the feelings of those who follow Islam. If you don’t buy into the idea of reparations for blacks, you’re minimizing their collective suffering, which of course will make blacks feel bad.

And so on.

Emotional blackmail has served the left very well over the years. Since few want to be thought of as the type of person who would wantonly harm another person or destroy something of intrinsic value, if the invective doesn’t get them, the prospect of a guilty conscience often does.
I am convinced that millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not bigoted. Forever after, such people will be able to counter any accusation of racism with the fact that they voted for a black man as president.

Similarly, I am convinced that hundreds of thousands of voters in the state of Colorado voted for former congressman Jared Polis as their governor in 2018 for no other reason than in so doing, they were able to count it as definitive proof that they were not homophobic.
Between the marketing that goes on during political campaigns and the ideological bent of the establishment press, in both cases, voters remained blissfully unaware that these men were two of the most subversive ever to seek office in America.

In the case of Polis, there is an even more insidious and dangerous dynamic at work here: Countless Americans have accepted the notion that homosexuality does not represent one being morally compromised because they’ve been told that harboring such a belief would make them bigots (as well as hurting homosexuals’ feelings). Coloradoans’ summary denial that homosexuals are a morally compromised lot has effectively allowed a morally compromised individual to run their state.

As one may have noted, there’s no shortage of emotional engagement these days, particularly on the part of the left. Reckless accusations of “racist!” barked at pretty much anyone liberals don’t like these days, wholly unsubstantiated claims that white nationalism is on the rise and other racialist propaganda have the potential to shame voters into making some decidedly perilous decisions over the next few years.
Outside of enlightening as many Americans as possible regarding the nature of this phenomenon, there really isn’t much that can be done to combat it. I may come up with something more constructive in the future, but right now I have a walrus burger waiting.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Third Reich Redux: Don’t Say We Weren’t Warned

Third Reich Redux: Don’t Say We Weren’t Warned

By Erik Rush •

As widely reported in the press and widely discussed on social media venues, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey indicated that nearly two-thirds of registered voters believe that the Democratic Party supports socialism; further, that a whopping 56% of those aged 18-24 and 48% of those aged 25-34 favor a “mostly socialist” system.

Now, for those who may be exclaiming that it’s time to put a fork in America “because we’re done,” the latter two stats are admittedly pretty worrisome, even if one factors in the unreliability of some polls due to selective sampling and subjective interpretation. The numbers in question are even up from those of a 2016 Harvard University survey of adults between the ages 18 and 29 which reported that 51% of these did not support capitalism, with only 33% percent stating that they supported socialism instead.

This is not entirely surprising, of course; since 2016, those in younger demographics have been subjected to an unprecedented degree of leftist propaganda aimed squarely at them. Then there’s the fact that many of those in the 18-24 group are necessarily mired in academia, which is lousy with agenda-driven leftists of every stripe. As we’ve seen over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult for young adults to even function, let alone express dissenting political views, in the halls of higher education.

On the interpretation-as-a-factor side, there’s been a lot of discussion around the dynamic behind Millennials and those coming up behind them increasingly gravitating toward socialism. Discounting my unkind comments regarding Millennials last week in this space (I’ll admit it, they were unkind), it is indeed appropriate to consider such aspects as the perception of socialism on the part of these younger demographics, as well as their perception of capitalism (which in many cases is colored by the same propaganda that draws them toward socialism).

Case in point: An article on the 2016 Harvard study in The New American offered that “Millennials’ antipathy toward capitalism is misplaced frustration at the crony capitalism, corporatism, and socialistic systems that have hijacked a once free market. Furthermore, the study’s findings may simply underscore what has already been revealed in previous surveys — that Millennials do not actually know what capitalism or socialism mean.”

Quite likely, considering from whom many of them have been getting their information. Indeed, an assessment of capitalism from your average college professor is likely to be about as favorable as one of black people from your average white supremacist.

Still, the reality is that it doesn’t matter if these folks are misguided, deluded, propagandized of if they happen to be well-informed, true-believing socialists. The political power players in America have known for a long time what the numbers at the polls need to look like in order for them to gain ascendency and relegate notions of self-governance and Constitutional law to the dustbin of history. Despite the populist backlash against the over-reach of the Obama administration (which brought Donald Trump to the presidency), they’ve been rapidly approaching those numbers for some time.

As we know, it’s a “done deal” that socialists and other far left elements control the D.C. Beltway. Even most GOP lawmakers have resigned themselves to this, if they aren’t themselves complicit in the agenda of socialist encroachment. These agencies control the mechanism of government and can deftly manipulate the rule of law.

As one might imagine, this leaves “our side,” as it were, at a distinct disadvantage.

When the left decided to target former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) for ouster, they used some of the same methodology they’re currently using in their attempts to remove President Trump: leveling barrages of charges in the hope that one, even though minor, might stick.

No less than 84 ethics charges were filed by Democrats against Gingrich during his term as Speaker. Finally, in 1997, the House officially reprimanded Gingrich for claiming tax-exempt status for a college course he taught that the Democrats argued was run for political purposes. Gingrich’s reputation was sufficiently sullied that while his seat wasn’t threatened, he knew it had essentially destroyed his effectiveness as Speaker. He resigned from Congress in 1999.

While President Trump is a world class tactician, far and away surpassing anyone in the Beltway, it is still possible that this ploy could work and torpedo his presidency. Those who believe that referring to the actions of Beltway anti-Trumpers as a “coup” is hyperbole are whistling in the dark, because an attempted coup is exactly what this represents.

As a rule conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalist types eschew verbosity. We make our case and move on. Conversely, those on the left epitomize verbosity; they hammer their targets and audiences with their rhetoric, operating under the premise that the more something is repeated—preferably at high volume—the more likely it is that said target or audience will buy into it. “Repeat a lie often enough,” and all that.

Thus, prudence dictates that we will have to operate outside the confines of our character, or “comfort zone,” to employ a pop culture appellation. This means that repetition and aggressive reference to the worst aspects of socialism within our rhetorical model is imperative. The high-profile leftists operatives whom we alternately scorn and ridicule are indeed latter-day Hitlers and Goebbels; their dedicated followers, Brownshirts who will most assuredly graduate from beating opponents at rallies and on college campuses to executing pogroms when and if their leaders secure unfettered power.

We know how they operate, and in our hearts, we know that their orthodoxy is manifestly evil. If our children and grandchildren wind up spending their last days in concentration camps, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

Fake News, the Left and Islam on the March

By Erik Rush •

If one was to ask the average leftist (as opposed to the few who occasionally read something) who shot Trayvon Martin in 2012, their answer would probably be something along the lines of “a white cop.” In fact, many who are not dedicated lefties might return the same answer, so thorough was the press at proffering that narrative.

The truth is that George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, is a self-identified Latino who looks about as much like a white guy as I do. Neither was Zimmerman a police officer; he was a neighborhood watch coordinator with a concealed carry permit.

I was singularly horrified at the time that the fake news campaign (before the term “fake news” was even coined) depicting Zimmerman as some sort of blond Asgardian prowling the neighborhood with his warhammer and looking for black children to smash, was not only as brazen as it was, but that it got sufficient traction to effectively transform Zimmerman into a white cop in the eyes of so many.

Thus, it should be no surprise that I find the current media firestorm over the Covington Catholic High School students who have been targeted by the left over alleged racist behavior after a tense encounter with a Native American activist on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial last week almost passé. Sure, the students from the Kentucky high school behaved impeccably and did nothing any casual observer would find untoward—but none of that matters. They were white (well, most of them were), and some were wearing “Make America Great Again” swag, so they must have committed some subtle hate crime. If not, they surely intended to.

So the positively Orwellian coverage of this non-story is nothing at all new. Since Barack Obama publicly charged that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts “acted stupidly” when they arrested his pal Henry Louis Gates Jr. in 2009, the left and the establishment press have attempted to foment racial tension at every opportunity. Bereft of a viable opportunity, they’ve shown that they’re quite capable of making up stories out of whole cloth. Even with the benign intent of the Covington students having become apparent, the left continues to try new ways to affix the racist label onto the young men. President Donald Trump’s defense of the students, while appropriate, has of course only fanned the flames of the left’s ire.

As has become typical following one of these racially-charged incidents, prominent leftists came out of the woodwork, spouting their boilerplate foul invective against the students. One of those who weighed in was Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn). She is one of two freshman Muslim congresswomen who’ve been roundly disparaging America, the President, and his policies since the midterm election. Apparently, Omar overstepped and is now facing harsh criticism for going after the Covington students on a social media venue.

Back in the days when President Obama was regularly hosting Islamists at the White House and then scrubbing the visitor logs, many of us began to engage in discussions of why Islam and those on the far left seemed to be hitting it off so well, particularly since some of the identity groups under the umbrella of the left (women and gays in particular) don’t fare at all well in Islamic societies.

Some said it was simple: Both have the common goal of dismantling the representative republican model of government in America.

While this is certainly true, I think the affinity runs a bit deeper.

I’ve made no bones about the fact that my charity and tolerance with respect to Islam are extremely limited. Islam and the model of Western society are wholly incompatible, and anyone who argues otherwise is either deluding themselves, or they are attempting to delude others. I do not believe that Muslims should be allowed to hold office in America. I do not believe that there are “peaceful” Muslims, unless one counts those who would give their militant brethren sway but prefer not to take up the sword themselves. Nowhere in the 1400-year history of this creed do we see evidence of Muslims playing well with others in the long-term.

Nor do I believe that Islam ought to be venerated simply because it is old, or because it claims to be an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism or Christianity. Islam is not a religion; it is a social system with a religious component.

Similarly, leftism in the West is very much akin to a social system with a religious component. Like Islam, leftism has stringent social controls—on thought and speech, for example. We can see this quite clearly in the doctrine vociferously espoused by the left. To run afoul of these results in swift and terrible retribution from leftists at large. As in the Islamic world, this retribution can even encompass corporal punishment.

In the Islamic world, Islam is the State, and the State is Islamic. This is very much the case with the left—or at least, how those on the left would like to see things shake out in that religion is to be supplanted with socialism (the “religion” of the State). Leftism even has its own pantheon of deities, if you will, in the special interests its devotees venerate: the environment, and the various identity groups leftists ostensibly defend being among these.

Once could expound upon these similarities more deeply, and they would become more numerous and eerie with the telling. The most significant one is this: in the end, both Islam and leftism (socialism) are incompatible with our system of governance. Both find themselves at odds with the Bill of Rights on a regular basis and ironically, both have found a platform for their subversive poison due to dangerous but commonly accepted misinterpretations thereof.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Even Socialists Follow the Money

Even Socialists Follow the Money

By Erik Rush •

When an individual litigates against another individual or an organization for damages, one of the first things attorneys for the defendant(s) will do is determine the plaintiff’s need for capital. If the plaintiff is flush, it tends to negate the perception and the likelihood that they’re in it for the money, whereas many a frivolous civil complaint has been lodged by plaintiffs who were sorely in need of money.

In a brief filed two weeks ago in federal court by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, it was revealed that Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could face murder or manslaughter charges if the company is found negligent in the case of recent wildfires that have ravaged that state.

With the caveat that PG&E most certainly should face charges if they were somehow negligent in the case of the wildfires, bear in mind that there could be a vast difference between the company having been negligent, and being found negligent in the estimation of quirky California law.

California is broke. Several municipalities in the state have sought bankruptcy protection over the last decade or so, and California’s fiscal woes have been apparent to even the most casual observer for at least that long. As in other large, liberal-run states across the U.S., lavish salaries and pensions for municipal workers have contributed significantly to financial shortfalls. In California’s case, an almost slavish devotion to accommodating millions of illegal aliens from south of the border have added billions to that state’s expenditures and economic deficits.

For decades, we’ve seen California voters exhibit a profound naiveté in their assent to politicians’ pie-in-the-sky governance, particularly in the area of superficial, “feel good” legislation, entitlements, and deference to the environmental agenda. California’s resources are vast (particularly in the agricultural realm), but as I recently stated here, no resources of any type or measure can offset a sufficient degree of taxing financial obligations. It’s a simple matter of mathematics.

Unfortunately, given the knee-jerk, “stick it to the corporation” mentality so many under-informed citizens hold, the climate is often ripe for government agencies to fleece companies like PG&E. Should they escape the ignominy of murder charges, PG&E will probably be more than happy to face a civil suit and cough up a pile of cash to the state.

We all know how this plays out in the end, much in the same way it does when any business is hit with hefty, unexpected expenses: They pass it on to their customers, who already feel that they’re being gouged—and the cycle continues.

While “follow the money” may sound like a cynical refrain, money is obviously a central motivator in many areas of human endeavor where a viable economy exists. Ironically, it is doubly significant when dealing with socialist power players as they seek to usurp control of key economic sectors.

This was the sole motivation behind the passage of Obamacare and is behind the ongoing push for a “one-payer” government-controlled health care system in America. For those who doubt the validity of this assessment vis-à-vis California and PG&E, bear in mind that it was a prominent California Democrat who floated the idea of the state taking over oil companies in 2008.

As I said last week in this space,the usurpation of power and resources (money) from the private sector is also the motivation behind some extremely radical environmentally-focused legislation being advanced by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). While it isn’t likely to get passed given the character of the current administration, in the eyes of Beltway socialists, it’s still quite important to get people used to the idea of living with less for the sake of the planet—normalizing these radical concepts, if you will. For more on how this plays out, a web search on the “green riots” in France should be most enlightening.

In the end, socialism doesn’t so much represent a struggle between workers and capitalists, or the haves versus the have-nots, or even between two competing economic systems. It’s simply the device presently being employed by a group of like-minded megalomaniacs seeking to abolish modern concepts of self-governance and democracy.

We already know how rapacious our federal government and many state governments can be through something as simple as a breakdown of financial disbursements for each gallon of gasoline Americans purchase. Factor in socialist objectives, and we have a level of greed surpassing anything of which leftists accuse corporations.

What’s truly frightening is that we have come to a place where a U.S. lawmaker can proffer the notion of a marginal tax rate as high as 70% with a straight face, and without fear of being dragged into the street and strung up by an angry mob.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Venezuela, Socialism and the Definition of Insanity

Venezuela, Socialism and the Definition of Insanity

By Erik Rush •

As the orchestrated refugee crisis involving émigrés from Central America trekking across Mexico in the hopes of gaining entry into the U.S. plays out, there is a similar—but very real—refugee crisis playing out in South America. In recent weeks, thousands of Venezuelans have been pouring into Colombia at the border city of Cucuta, giving rise to scenes and circumstances right out of refugee scenarios which follow natural disasters.

The state of these people and the conditions they are facing are beyond appalling, and far surpass the ginned-up squalor that’s been reported concerning the Central American caravan. Among the Venezuelans, there are both women and men selling their bodies for food, women selling their breast milk and hair, malnourished mothers carrying equally malnourished infants, all hoping against hope for better conditions in Colombia, of all places.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen a Venezuela in steep economic decline; it is now clear that the glorious socialist revolution of Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro has essentially destroyed that nation. Their health care system has collapsed, and Third World diseases which had been eradicated have become rampant once again. Hospitals in neighboring nations—particularly Colombia—have been inundated with Venezuelans seeking medication and vaccines because there simply aren’t any left. The suicide, maternal and infant mortality rates have exploded, and over 50% of the educated professionals who have been able to leave the country have done so.

Puzzlement over the nearly-deafening silence concerning the reason for Venezuela’s woes is compounded by the fact that Venezuela is not the only nation in the region suffering in this manner. In Brazil, incoming president Jair Bolsonaro has said that he intends to establish an international coalition of anti-socialists to thwart the efforts of highly-organized leftists at home and abroad who have influenced policy in that nation, very much to its social and economic detriment.

Considering the scope of the problem in Latin America, one would think that it would be garnering more press coverage than it is, but as I recently pointed out regarding the nationwide “green riots” in France, it’s likely that this is because the dedicatedly leftist Western press is reluctant to feature crises in which leftism itself is the cause thereof. In fact, one of the most comprehensive articles on the Venezuelan crisis didn’t even use the word “socialism.”

The plight of Venezuela (and to a lesser degree Brazil, where things aren’t nearly as dire) is significant because Venezuela was once the wealthiest nation in Latin America, rather than an undeveloped nation with limited resources. The human and natural resource potential in Venezuela is vast, yet it has been stultified into dormancy by socialist policies.

What this means is that there is no reason to presume that this could not happen here, the delusion to which far too many Americans currently subscribe. Just enough socialism, and no resources of any type or measure are sufficient to keep the ship afloat.

Yet in America, despite the election of Donald Trump as president—a mandate against Obama-era socialist policies whether voters realize it or not—grinning young fools, activists and liberal politicians are celebrating “democratic socialism” as the salvation of our nation. This brings to mind the axiom which asserts that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is essentially the definition of insanity.

Taking Brazil’s example—or that of their president-elect: the key first step is in identifying the nature of the malady. Bolsonaro has done this, in charging domestic activists, as well as the governments of Cuba and Venezuela with having conspired to influence policy in Brazil for many years.

In America, while some on the right have had a pretty clear picture of the designs of the hard left for a long time, many conservatives, libertarians and unaffiliated voters have been duped by an illusory “left-right” paradigm which is no longer accurate. This goes beyond the presumption that any politician with an “R” after their name is trustworthy; it encompasses the sobering fact that many who once positioned themselves as conservatives are in fact Deep State apparatchiks, every bit as dedicated to the oligarchical collective as George Soros or the most rabid Democrat operatives.

Two weeks ago, the billionaire Koch brothers—long considered to be conservative activists—publicly came out against the Trump administration’s intent to implement a policy that would protect American taxpayers from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals, claiming that ending this type of immigration would do “serious harm” to the nation.

If this contention seems to fly in the face of common sense, it’s because it most definitely does. Leaving aside the question of why the U.S. would allow for the admittance of even one welfare-dependent foreign national, obviously this reveals that the “conservative” Koch brothers are, like so many wealthy socialists, simply looking to protect their stake in the supply of cheap labor.

Then last week, it was revealed that a fabricated dossier which has been central to the left’s witch hunt against President Trump was in fact passed on to the press by a surrogate of the late Sen. John McCain, another notorious “conservative” poser.
The politically-uninitiated individual might look at such examples and think “See? Even conservatives hate Trump!” That’s the spin the establishment press might put on it for obvious reasons, but this, like the faux conservatives cited above, serves the same function: to re-define conservatism as being the benign realm of the posers, and marginalize actual conservatives and Trump supporters as extremists.

These wolves in sheep’s clothing remained difficult to detect for many years, but many were revealed during Barack Obama’s presidency for their abject refusal to hold him accountable for his high crimes. The universal “tell” that’s given many more away lately has been their zeal to chime in with Beltway socialists in condemning all things Trump.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

‘Fundamental Transformation’ Was Fundamentally Evil

By Erik Rush

While substituting for radio talk-show host Glenn Beck last week, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David Clarke pointed to the manifestly unsuitable presidential candidate that was Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and compared the reaction of Obama detractors to his election with leftists’ response to the recent election of real estate mogul and media personality Donald Trump to the presidency.

Despite deep concerns many had over Obama’s political deficiencies in 2008, Clarke noted that when Obama won the presidency, his political opponents did not claim that Obama had somehow stolen the election. They did not whine about shadowy foreign groups having helped him win, even though a very compelling case could be made that this did in fact occur through the influence of certain Saudi agencies at particular stages of his career. They did not protest in the streets. They did not produce fearmongering public service announcements asking Democratic electors to flip their votes or refuse to certify Obama’s victory. They did not appear on television and radio news and talk shows presenting entirely baseless, utterly preposterous charges against the new president-elect, though the truth about his lack of fitness to hold any high office would have horrified a preponderance of the voting public had they been aware of it.

For my part, I don’t recall any of that occurring either, nor do I remember Obama supporters being beaten at rallies by supporters of John McCain in 2008, or college freshmen being driven out of school by bullying over their support for Obama, (as was Bryn Mawr College student Andi Moritz over her support for Donald Trump).

In the case of Trump’s recent election, Sheriff Clarke opined, leftists engaged in each and every one of these craven acts. As most readers know, Sheriff Clarke is a black man; while this ought not matter in terms of his articulating the truth, it is significant in light of the fact that most black Americans have been so brainwashed by progressives that their cognitive processes with regard to political, social and cultural issues often suggest a sort of mental retardation.

Also last week, a few conservative pundits commented on recent remarks made by another black American, our outgoing abysmal excuse for a first lady, Michelle Obama. Addressing Trump’s impending presidency and her perception of our nation without her husband at the helm, Mrs. Obama’s statements came off as boilerplate sour grapes on the part of a racialist who is incapable of admitting that conditions are appreciably better for blacks today than they were in 1955.

The woman who once said that she’d felt no pride in being an American until her husband was nominated for president is singing the same song again now that her gravy train ride is about over, whining about blacks’ ongoing struggle against alleged institutional racism. This despite her family having lived lives that few Americans of any color ever get to live.

The fact is that “enough” is never enough for those on the left. This mental modality has been imparted to nearly everyone in that region of the political continuum, even those who do not understand the stratagem behind their socialist overlords having employed it.

For example, nearly all of the black Americans who still vote for Democrats in the 90 percents, from celebrities to welfare queens, hold to Michelle Obama’s viewpoint to varying degrees. At this juncture, one could gift each and every black American with $1 billion, tax-free (due reparation, some would surely argue), and they would continue citing their alleged oppression. Partying in rarified venues with rap stars and other liberal billionaires, they would claim that their lot in life could be just a little bit better if not for the pernicious institutional racism that still exists in America.

So what’s the beef? It’s obviously not about money. Despite being ostensible haters of capitalism, leftists are among the most money-grubbing individuals on the planet – but if it were truly about money, their vociferousness would abate once they’d achieved material success. If it were about money, Bill and Hillary Clinton, former Vice-President Al Gore and even billionaire currency manipulator and former Nazi collaborator George Soros would have ceased whining once their own economic security was assured.

But they never do …

So it’s not money they really crave – it’s power. The profoundly narcissistic concept that their worldview is superior to all others and that they have the right to impose it upon everyone else has very little to do with any intellectual appraisal of socialism; in the absence of such a system, they would have gravitated to some other political philosophy, probably equally as odious, and attempted to impose that one upon the populace. Even many rank-and-file liberals subscribe to socialism’s unethical and intrusive doctrines because of the power they envision sharing, and we’ve seen them revel in components thereof that have been implemented to one degree or another: telling their fellow citizens that they may no longer speak or worship freely, own guns, smoke tobacco, or consume what their leaders have deemed is too much sugar for one’s own good.

The desire to ruthlessly wield such power not only runs counter to the long-established law of our land (namely, the Constitution), it is a pursuit that bespeaks a character that is fundamentally evil.

Moving forward in the spirit of America’s rage against the socialist political machine (which led to Donald Trump’s election), I will continue to point out that having set us on this path is not a First Amendment right to which liberals and socialists are entitled. It is amoral, and it is treason. This must first become recognition on a popular level, and finally, conventional wisdom.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

The Left’s Moronic, Infantile Response to the Election

by Erik Rush

One of the most important take-aways from the recent election which resulted in real estate mogul Donald Trump becoming President-Elect did not coalesce until after Trump was declared the winner. While the election cycle certainly gave rise to more than its share of subterfuge and illegal shenanigans (they don’t sound quite so threatening when you call them “shenanigans”), it has been the post-election reaction on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters and the political left in general that is most noteworthy.

I dearly hope that all of those who voted for Donald Trump for the reasons we’ve been discussing throughout the campaign have taken note of the truly toxic, juvenile response that the left has offered to his election. Demands for the electoral college to change its vote as though the result was a bad call at a Little League game, fake news stories about Trump’s potential cabinet picks, and the possibility of a radical Muslim being tapped for the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee are among the inane institutional responses, but some of the individual rejoinders have actually been rather frightening.

For example, it is nearly incomprehensible that certain prominent entertainers who are in the public eye continually and whose audiences often include young people and children, opted to the use of some of the most odious and disempowering verbiage to accentuate their displeasure with Trump’s election. There’s certainly a place for irreverence in entertainment, but the tsunami of profanity, threats of suicide, and portends of imminent doom issued publicly by dozens of Hollywood celebrities and music industry icons evidenced not only a childish worldview, but fundamentally infantile mental processes that ought not be envied nor emulated by any thinking individual.

The thousands of inarticulate babies who took to the streets in some American cities when Clinton’s loss became apparent may seem par for the course to those familiar with the character of the left, but to many of the millions who voted for Trump for practical rather than political reasons, those demonstrations and the moronic rhetoric of dejected, infantile left wing brats should be a wake-up call regarding the decidedly base, puerile level at which these people operate.

Then, there is the fact that mobs of dejected, infantile left wing brats seldom do much of their own accord. Their passion is usually ginned-up by some group of individuals or organization with an agenda, and this has been no different.

Among the pre-election Wikileaks high-level document dumps were emails which revealed strategies involving the left wing organization MoveOn.org. This outfit is a major vehicle for the Hungarian-born billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros, who has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image.

MoveOn.org has made no bones about its efforts to foment unrest in the wake of Trump’s election. Last Wednesday, the organization issued a press release announcing the multi-city demonstrations. “The gatherings—organized by MoveOn.org and allies—will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible,” the statement read in part.

Utterly baseless charges aside, at this point it should be clear that the America which these reprobates still believe is possible – a morally ambivalent, Balkanized, insolvent, neutered America – is only the desire of a miniscule faction of deviants, George Soros and his ilk, Beltway elites, and their corps of celebrity morons.

One aspect of the post-election controversy has been rather gratifying, and I hope that this also is not lost on those Trump voters who are anxious about the nation getting its bearings as a new administration takes power. I refer to the many conversations that concerned citizens are now having on social media, talk radio, blogs, and amongst themselves regarding issues that are symptomatic of the reasons they voted for Trump in the first place. These go beyond what were major talking points during the campaigning, but which are all-important as they relate to the corruption, greed, and power-brokering that’s been the hallmark of our government for too long.

Over the past few days, I’ve heard more questions such as these from average Americans than I’ve heard over the course of several years. Although I am paraphrasing, it doesn’t get any more germane than this when one considers the sort of promises Donald Trump made as a candidate:

Why, for example, do we have a Hungarian-born former Nazi collaborator who, naturalized citizen or not, has enjoyed a free hand in his subversive attempts to redesign America in his oligarchical collectivist image?

By extension, why do we allow the openly subversive to freely act to the detriment of constitutional authority on the basis of perverted interpretations of the First Amendment when we should be prosecuting, imprisoning, and in some cases, deporting such entities?

Why do we have expansionist federal agencies that have increasingly and unilaterally exercised powers not bestowed upon them by the Constitution, such as the seizure of property and assets, and the unlawful imprisonment of American citizens?

Why do we allow incestuous and detrimental relationships to exist between certain federal agencies and those in the private sector, such as key industries and banking, or allow members of Congress to engage in activities like insider trading, which would land the rest of us in prison?

Wouldn’t now be a very good time to consider an investigation of the current administration given the Cyclopean heap of evidence that its principals committed not only treason, but war crimes and crimes against humanity?

These questions and others are the ones we should be asking of the nascent Trump administration going forward, rather than engaging in echo chamber discussions around what the new President might do about jobs, trade, and national security.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Journalist’s Admission is One Step Closer to Legitimizing Pedophilia

Journalist’s Admission is One Step Closer to Legitimizing Pedophilia

In my youth, I tended to devour any popular fiction (books, films, etc.) that depicted themes so bizarre and personally challenging that they defied the protagonists’ ability to retain any semblance of humanity throughout the course of the story. Such fare was all the more plausible when the story’s hero was a young person who was still in the process of developing his or her value system.

When such circumstances materialize in the world in which we actually live, I cannot say they hold quite the same allure.

About a month ago, I wrote a column detailing a prediction that in its ongoing efforts to debase society, the political left would soon see fit to begin legitimizing pedophilia. To this end, pedophiles would form activist groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association did in the 1970s and 1980s – but this time, they would have prominent, deep-pocketed supporters.

Those who believe that child molesters should be fed into the handiest wood-chipper will be characterized as bigots by snarling liberals – just as occurred when citizens tried to prevent other sexual deviants from running roughshod over individual liberties. In my commentary, I maintained that just as the “rights” of transgendered people came to supersede the privacy rights and safety of our women and children, the “rights” of people who include sex acts with children among their lifestyle choices (which a panel of scrawny, pony-tailed university professors will declare are hardwired into their DNA and therefore “normal”) will supersede the rights of all American children to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Ever talk to someone who was repeatedly raped as a child? I have. A lot of them. “Happiness” tends to be a tad elusive in their experience.

In my previous column, I cited several examples of recent news stories indicative of trends that could aid in bringing about this abomination. Among them were the Obama administration’s Department of Defense facilitating the homosexual abuse of young boys at the hands of Muslim allies in Afghanistan, the American Psychiatric Association’s attempt to reclassify pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness in 2013 and instances of British children being kidnapped – in Britain – by Muslim men for exploitation as child prostitutes and sex slaves.

The response on the part of some on the left to my commentary was utter apoplexy. What kind of twisted person could fabricate such unfounded paranoiac drivel, let alone publish it? How dare I equate homosexuals and transgendered people – who are biologically normal, don’t ya know – with someone who would rape a kid?

And pedophile advocacy groups? What utter twaddle! Those simply don’t exist, one seething individual said, despite clear indications to the contrary. And besides – it’s been proven through a study done by a panel of scrawny, pony-tailed university professors that the prevailing sexual orientation of child molesters is straight, not homosexual. They’re probably registered Republicans, too.

Well, in an almost made-to-order elucidation, Breitbart reported last week that Todd Nickerson, a writer for Salon, recently released a video wherein he admitted his sexual attraction to a 5-year-old girl and attempted to justify those feelings to his audience. The video also promotes an online forum for pedophiles, which supposedly attempts to explain the “morality” of pedophilia.

It is eminently important to take note of the language being used here, because it is typical of many malignant liberal policies: Nickerson’s feelings are referenced as “love for” the girl, rather than “sexual attraction” to her.

In his video, Nickerson describes the deep compulsion that arose when as a teen, he babysat a 5-year-old girl. While most of us would have immediately run screaming to the nearest neuropsychiatrist after the experience, apparently Nickerson – although he claims to have never touched a child – opted to either ignore or nurture his sick fantasies to the point where he would have to dash off to the bathroom to masturbate during his subsequent babysitting stints, lest he transform into a hare-lipped, hunchbacked, raving pedophiliac lycanthrope and actualize these fantasies.

Replete with the innocuous language calculated to assuage our fears and concerns, Nickerson’s video sets the stage for pedophiles to be characterized a “just folks” who genuinely care for the welfare of the children they damage. Nickerson says that society must “find some sort of middle ground” when it comes to pedophiles – whatever the hell that means – or these poor unfortunates may be consigned to depression, self-loathing and suicidal tendencies.

So, what’s really the problem here? Well, I will say that it lies more with us than with people like Nickerson. Why? Because collectively, Americans have universally capitulated to the agenda of the left with regard to promoting sexual deviance, whether that means the promiscuity of the 1960s, or the “gender fluidity” of 2016.

The smoking gun is that we have a journalist who feels perfectly comfortable attempting to normalize his sexual attraction to a child in a very public forum. Years ago, when I was a molestable young lad, a guy like that would have kept his feelings to himself at all cost, rather than run the risk of his neighbors or perhaps his own family caving his head in with baseball bats.

The slippery slope down which the nation of Britain is still sliding has now come to America. There, the rape of children has been effectively legalized, since law enforcement isn’t allowed to identify Muslims as the perpetrators of crimes against children out of political correctness. Rest assured that the power structure of the left, as it has sponsored homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenderites, will similarly come to the aid of pedophiles, summarily decreeing that the rape of children is a normal and harmless sexual expression.

Today, my public declaration that a pedophile should have his head caved in with a baseball bat would give rise to far more outrage in the press than if I actually molested a child.

And that, ladies and gendermen, is the real problem.

 

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns