violence

It’s the Left That Excels in Violence

It’s the Left That Excels in Violence

I must say that I wasn’t altogether surprised at the reaction of some on the left to my last column in this space. In it, I stated that while the political left routinely portrays those on the right as being potentially violent and dangerous, ironically, their actions are forcing those who value liberty into a position so objectionable that one day violence may be the only option left open to them.

Anyway, a few of the more prominent left-wing propaganda mills characterized my piece as advocating for the murder of liberals, which of course it did not.

In context, all of this really goes back to the reason our nation’s founders opted to go to war to secure the liberties that had been usurped by the British Crown. For those not familiar with the concept of war, it typically involves killing a lot of people. My rationale for extrapolating the current scenario in America along those lines lay in having analyzed several sets of circumstances identical to ours in terms of leftist activism.

For example, Americans are admonished by leftists in the press, government and activist communities that we must show deference and conciliation to our Muslim population, because it is only a tiny minority of them who call for the violent subjugation of their host nations.

Yet, those in other Western nations who were told the same thing a few decades ago are being subjected to:

  • the infiltration of their governments by Islamist operatives;
  • widespread protests, riots and racist attacks against citizens whom Muslims don’t like;
  • well-organized pedophile rape and sexual slavery gangs;
  • skyrocketing instances of rape by Muslim men who believe it is their duty to “seed” the native women;
  • terrorist attacks involving bombings and mass murder; and
  • laws that severely penalize citizens for even mentioning that the situation is untenable – just to name a few.

Americans are similarly admonished by leftists that we must be accommodating – without exception – to the demands of our neighbors who practice homosexuality, because these are nebulous “rights” to which they are entitled, and that we’re just plain foolish in thinking that this might ever impinge upon our own more clearly delineated constitutional rights.

Yet, those in other Western nations who were told the same thing a few decades ago are being subjected to across-the-board curtailment of their religious freedoms and civil liberties, including:

  • the prosecution and jailing of clergy for preaching Scripture that condemns homosexual acts;
  • the prosecution and fining of individuals and businesses for publicly expressing religious beliefs that condemn homosexual acts;
  • the prosecution and fining of parents for objecting to educational curricula that promotes homosexuality;
  • being forced to accept the clandestine activities of activist operatives in the name of protecting the rights of homosexuals;
  • being denied jobs, promotions, housing and being systematically disenfranchised after having been labeled “anti-gay bigots”; and
  • laws that severely penalize citizens for even mentioning that the situation is untenable – just to name a few.

Should these occur here, they would represent the complete abrogation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

“At this stage we are about building the broad people’s movement … that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda.”

– John Bachtell, chairman, Communist Party USA, January 2015

It’s no secret; for decades, communists have spoken openly of having rebranded themselves as “liberals,” along with their ongoing process of working within the Democratic Party to bring about a communist America.

So let’s stop calling them “liberals,” “progressives,” or even “socialists,”

They’re “communists.”

Like many communist leaders to whom his work gave rise, Karl Marx was born into an upper middle-class family. A 19th-century predecessor of the contemporary spoiled, ungrateful, lazy, suburban middle-class leftist brat, he appears to have been – again, like subsequent communist leaders – one of those pathologically narcissistic individuals whose singular talent was that of kvetching about the status quo. The world would be so much better off if people would only do government and economic policy his way.

Now let us return to the “successful” communists of today and how they have always achieved their objectives.

First, through deception they foment antipathy between groups of people. They lie about their own nature and intention to bring about equitable change. Employing thuggery, they stultify free speech, religious freedom and other liberties. Ultimately, they usurp the reins of the economy and government, stingily dispensing everything from public utilities to food.

To date, we’ve seen them employ most of these in America – lying, cheating and stealing. So what’s left?

Ah, yes – killing. At some point during their rise to power, all communist movements have engaged in the wholesale extermination of wide segments of their populations. Committing large-scale, particularly grisly atrocities is a very old method of instilling fear; it’s how Genghis Khan and other tyrants of antiquity achieved secure standing in the history books.

Last week, I also mentioned that the left has far outpaced the right when it comes to violence and atrocities. After all, it was the left, not the right, that carried out mass murder to the tune of nearly half a billion people worldwide during the 20th century. I have no doubt whatsoever that left unchecked, their contemporaries will revert to those tried-and-true methods at such time as they deem appropriate.

Anyone who wishes to believe that those of us who embrace the spirit of Patrick Henry’s 1775 iconic quote, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” is advocating for murder, I suppose they’re free to do so. Inasmuch as those who bled and died to secure liberty in this land were willing to resort to extreme measures, I see no immorality in being willing to do likewise in order to keep it.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Black Americans rebel against Obama — finally

There’s an anecdote I’ve shared previously: Shortly after Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009, quite a few people asked me what I thought he would do for black Americans now that he’d attained the office of president of the United States.

To which I invariably answered: “Probably about as much as he did for blacks in Chicago – not a damned thing.”

In November of 2008, the black unemployment rate was 11.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics – but blacks, along with unwitting Americans at large, were still riding the high of having elected our first black president. Within a year and a half, however, black unemployment rose to 16.5 percent and hasn’t moved too far in either direction since.

In the inner cities, job participation among blacks since the ascendancy of Barack Obama has been even more dismal, with the unemployment rate for black men occasionally exceeding 50 percent over the past several years. High unemployment has exacerbated levels of crime and violence, and several cities with established black populations – now mostly unemployed – are suffering from unprecedented epidemics of violent crime.

Like Chicago, for example, where on July 11, residents from Chicago’s Southside held a protest in front of the Chicago Police Department decrying violence in their communities. The protest was reported by the Rebel Pundit website, which released a video that subsequently went viral. The Southside residents called for the resignation of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy for their failure to effectively address Chicago’s epidemic of violence.

As anyone who has viewed the video could see, however, the black Chicago residents largely identify President Obama as the name of their pain. “Barack will go down as the worst president ever elected,” one resident declared.

“Despite the strictest gun regulations in the country, Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the nation’s 4.2, the Midwest’s 4.5 or Illinois’ 5.6. Up to 80 percent of Chicago’s murders and shootings are gang related, according to police.”

– Investors Business Daily, July 16, 2014

The Chicago event was catalyzed by President Obama’s handling of the current border crisis. In light of the White House and congressional Democrats courting illegal immigrants from south of the border and advocating for the swarms of minor migrants descending upon the border, while ignoring Chicago (where 120 people have been shot and at least 26 killed so far this July), this group of Southside residents apparently had seen enough.

These protesters weren’t a pack of urban Epsilons with an entitlement beef, either. These were organized, purposeful residents who had lost children and other loved ones due to the incomprehensible level of violence in Chicago.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns