syria

Is Trump a ‘Transcendent’ President?

Is Trump a ‘Transcendent’ President?

By Erik Rush

Those conservatives, and particularly prominent conservative pundits, who have insisted upon second-guessing President Donald Trump’s recent decisions to unleash our military toward the objective of reestablishing America’s preeminence on the world stage utterly sicken me. It’s been well-established that Mr. Trump is not an ideological conservative, but it escapes me why even an ideological conservative would go to such lengths to criticize Trump for achieving more arguably conservative measures in 80 days than most presidents achieve in four years.

On April 6, the United States launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack that had killed dozens of civilians. Even Trump’s most vociferous liberal detractors found it difficult to criticize him for ordering the strike, given the atrocious nature and scope of Syria’s act.

On April 13, the United States launched a military strike on an ISIS target in Afghanistan employing the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat. The mission was a marked success in that dozens of ISIS operatives were dispatched, but even moreso in that no civilians were killed.

In both cases, the derisive chorus of conservative “never Trumpers” could be heard far and wide. This sort of criticism has by no means been limited to military action taken by this administration.

I can understand that the world is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that the United States is back in the game as a going concern in geopolitics. I can understand the desperate astroturf demonstrations of leftists demanding Trump release his tax returns so that they can verify his collusion with the Russians to steal the 2016 general election. What I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around is the discomfiture of conservatives, particularly influential ones, when so many of the items on their wish list are being checked off by this non-conservative president on a daily basis.

These armchair quarterbacks, who have probably never been in a schoolyard scrap (let alone a fistfight) in their lives, seem to have forgotten how low this nation was brought when Barack Hussein Obama postured us in a collective ankle grab for eight years, his serial treason, and how these still threaten our well-being as a nation.

If President Trump had ordered thermonuclear devices be detonated over Damascus, Pyongyang, and Teheran, I would have applauded. Obviously, this would have sent a sharp message to our enemies that we were back in the game with a vengeance, as well as decisively neutralizing three of our enemies. To those who would deem this response as horrible and beastly on my part, I would remind them of the rationale behind America having dropped two thermonuclear devices on Japan during World War II. America’s estimated cost in blood and treasure for not doing so is ostensibly what drove the decision to drop the bombs. How is this any different from the dynamic in currently in play with regard to America’s enemies, particularly after the gains they made under our previous president?

I probably would not have voted for Jack Kennedy for President in 1960, but I would have been doing handsprings when he cut taxes and made Khrushchev blink over the Cuban Missile Crisis. Those were the days when we could at least count on both Democrat and Republican presidents to prioritize the best interests of our nation over all else. These days, we can count on the Democrat to dramatically compromise those interests, as well as most Republicans – and that is why Trump was elected in the first place.

The concepts of transformational versus transactional leadership are often discussed in business schools and the business world. American presidents have been assessed in terms of their being either transformational or transactional leaders based upon their leadership dynamic.

Transactional presidents are typically understood as leaders who govern employing quid pro quos between themselves and their followers, or between themselves and other influential government entities, a President and Congress, for example. A transformational president would be one who identifies badly needed change, creates a vision for that change, inspires his constituency with that vision, and actualizes the requisite change with his constituency (followers and other influential government entities).

Ronald Reagan is generally considered to have been a transformational president. Barack Obama has been characterized as one, although this designation is probably based more upon the hope of his inordinately zealous adherents and the establishment press than what history is likely to support.

I would submit that Donald Trump has the potential to bring into being the concept of a transcendent president, one who employs a synthesis of the above leadership styles and whose ideology, if any, transcends the existing paradigm. While Trump is clearly not a political ideologue, he has obviously acted with the best interests of this nation in mind, and that is not something we are used to seeing in a president of any stripe in quite a long time.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Obama: Doubling-Down and Poking the Bear

Obama: Doubling-Down and Poking the Bear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments

Conservative lawmakers’ secret Mideast trip could foreshadow Obama downfall


bachmannkinggohmert1Apparently, there are at least three American lawmakers who have determined to do their jobs, this being to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Unlike the craven, egocentric, self-aggrandizing majority of our congressmen and senators, at great personal risk, Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Steve King (R-IA) conducted an off-the-record trip (“mission” might actually be a better description) to the Middle East this past week.

As reported by the Washington Times, the three utilized commercial flights “into high-profile danger zones like Beirut, Cairo and Tripoli,” meeting with top-level officials in the region.

According to The Washington Post, Bachmann, Gohmert, and King met with embassy officials in Tripoli “to receive updates on the Benghazi attack and on the general situation in Libya.” The attack on the compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 has led to a myriad of questions on the part of Congress and the American people, but none of these have been answered satisfactorily by the administration. The ostensible efforts of the State Department to determine what occurred have been perfunctory at best, yet information coming out of Libya, Egypt, and certain independent parties has all but condemned Obama and his State Department, suggesting everything from a cavalier abandonment of the personnel there, to premeditation and complicity in their deaths.

Read more… you know you want to.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Obama is a dangerous, psychopathic dictator – Period

hopeandchange2I agree with the last statement in the Nov. 26 editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, “Terrorist Ayers Confesses Sharing Obama’s ‘Dreams,’ in which the publication states that “It’s high time the national media started asking hard questions” with regard to whether America elected “a fiction to the White House,” and were we “victims of an elaborate con.”

The editorial describes how Obama cohort and unrepentant domestic terrorist bomber Bill Ayers has thrice admitted to having penned Obama’s “autobiographical” compendium of lies, Dreams From My Father. Leaving aside the fact that even Obama’s true parentage has yet to be determined, I find the inconsistencies cited in the editorial which speak to ethical questions pertaining to the book’s genesis and representation to the public troubling. Admittedly, misrepresenting a ghost written book is analogous to jaywalking when compared to orchestrating an EMP attack on one’s own country and murdering millions in order to coalesce political power and bring about the hundred year-long wet dream of American Marxists, but it is nevertheless a good place to start for those Americans who have yet to become aware of this creature’s duplicity and incomprehensibly malevolent designs.

In relating those designs to the American people (as opposed to continuing to act as collaborators in his crimes), the shady origins of Dreams might also be a good place for the press to start. They might then move on to the entirely synthetic story of his past, which contains so many inconsistencies and changes in the narrative itself that Obama ought not have been electable as dog catcher. Who says they have to lead with Obama’s birth certificate having been proven to be a fraudulent device?

As this counterfeit American president continues to attempt to defray suspicion and conceal his treason and lies, I intend to continue to expound upon that treason and those lies. I will also continue to assert that those in government and in the press who have failed to reveal Obama for what he is – considering his actions, the evidence of history, and the damning evidence against Obama which is readily available – richly deserve to share in whatever penalties are meted out to traitors and their enablers. I will continue to do this despite the risks and pathetic Alinskyite Marxist ridicule of those whom I pray one day occupy prison cells on the same block as the man representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by Erik Rush in News

Obama and Islam: A poisonous synergy

I don’t particularly enjoy being the bearer of bad news. In addition to reticence toward being a wet blanket or bringing people down, there is always the component in human nature that wants to kill the messenger, so to speak, in reaction to bad news.

People do not like to admit they’ve been taken. Many find this particularly shameful, and will do their level best to deny that they’ve been duped or betrayed by a trusted party, whomever that party may be or the level of existing trust. Consequently, no one wants to be the one to break the bad news about an associate’s prospective love interest being a gold-digger, or the friend who’s been talking behind another friend’s back.

toxic1If one doesn’t have a relationship with the recipient of said bad news, there is additional danger, since there’s no benefit of purporting to act in their best interest.

The American people have been betrayed in two areas that may be seemingly unrelated, but play to the same sentiments I’ve described. They concern our president, Barack Obama, and the creed known as Islam. The character of both have been distorted to compromise Americans’ better judgment, goodwill and compassion. This is not to say that I believe the president is a Muslim; in truth, I believe that Obama is either an atheist or an individual of agnostic leanings.

What I am saying – and why I have chosen to discuss these together – is that the confluence of threats posed by Barack Obama and Islam are the most serious existing threats to the survival of this nation. In very short order, either could exact an extremely grave toll on America, chiefly because Americans’ better judgment, goodwill and compassion have been compromised. Our human proclivity for denial in this area – in admitting to having been taken – presents at least as great a danger as those posed by Obama and Islam themselves.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Obama

Obama guilty of treason?

obama_treason1Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, whomever commits such an act, is a treasonable offense. When one gets past the nuances of what constitutes aid, wartime and who qualifies as the enemy, having established that such an act has been perpetrated, the individual or individuals so accused will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble. In most countries, including the United States of America, there remain provisions for the execution of those convicted of treason.

On Sept. 10, President Obama addressed the nation on the subject of executing a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The pretext for this is the administration’s contention that Assad employed the chemical gas sarin in an attack near Damascus on Aug. 21. The attack allegedly killed over 1,400 people.

The most ironic, audacious and disgusting aspect of Obama’s proposal is that it would directly benefit the terrorist organizations that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001, and that he made this televised appeal on the eve of the 12th anniversary of those attacks. It is also the first anniversary of the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans and which has Obama’s bloody fingerprints all over it.

Last week in this space, I analyzed Obama’s haste in this desire to go into Syria. Against the will and advice of our closest allies, the will of the American people and with the risk of unduly agitating Syria’s allies (most notably China and Russia), the president has displayed an almost obsessive eagerness in executing this attack.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Tyranny

Why the haste in hitting Syria?

syrian-chemical-weaponsAs I mentioned on my streaming news show (“FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE!”) earlier this week, the political landscape is looking more surreal every day. Like a cross between a low-budget science fiction film and the cartoonist’s conception of a bad acid trip, the incongruity between the information advanced by politicos and the press and the reality before us evokes a cognitive dissonance that truly boggles the mind. Even seasoned analysts are expressing almost universal confusion.

Lights flashing, bells ringing, rows of people running on elevated causeways, a glass jar of mayonnaise bursts across your face …

What?

Exactly. The imperative for military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad offered by the Obama administration is apparent to no one, yet the president’s sense of urgency is palpable. When Secretary of State John Kerry spoke before America on Aug. 30 and made the case for pursuing Obama’s “limited” yet risk-laden campaign, he resembled the evil Inner Party operative O’Brien in Orwell’s “1984,” relating with utmost authority information most of us know to be untrue; the underlying message being that we must all come to believe it nonetheless. As pointed out by the New York Times, Kerry used the phrase “we know” 24 times in his attempt to validate the administration’s intelligence on the Syrian government’s alleged massacre of more than 1,400 people with chemical weapons.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Tyranny

‘Great Satan’ Americans pay for pro-Islam elites

TALIBAN AMBASSADOR TO PAKISTAN ZAEEF LISTEN TO JOURNALISTS' QUESTIONS IN ISLAMABADI very seldom watch major network television, but last week I had the extreme displeasure of viewing an installment of ABC News’ “What Would You Do?” The show is hosted by news veteran John Quinones, and features what might be considered staged moral dilemmas played out in a public setting.

Segments consist of actors playing out morally ambivalent vignettes in public places (like restaurants, laundromats, etc.), challenging bystanders to intervene, or not to intervene, based on their level of mortification and I suppose, their courage. One past segment featured an actor making disparaging remarks about homosexual unions in a restaurant, directly challenging other individuals present who supported same. The confrontations end with John Quinones revealing himself à la “Candid Camera,” and interviewing the bystander participants. The show clearly if insidiously conveys an uber-liberal worldview, if you hadn’t guessed already. I also can’t help but wondering if the title is a subtle mockery of the popular “What Would Jesus Do” adage, but I digress.

The segment of which I speak depicted a young white male (actor) refusing service in an establishment wherein he was to be waited on by a young Muslim man. Using language and behavior befitting someone with a severely sloping forehead, he was blatantly rude and offensive, finally inciting others around him to suggest he take his business elsewhere. 

The objective of “What Would You Do” is twofold, of course: To engender widespread sympathy for those with whom the left wishes Americans to sympathize, and to portray people of a more traditional worldview as possessing severely sloping foreheads.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Islam