WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who last year called for all Muslims to be killed in response to the Boston Marathon bombing, writes today that every single Muslim on the planet is part of a grand plan to bring an end to Western civilization.
Insisting that there is no “distinction that exists between Islam and ‘radical Islam,’” Rush claims that “all Muslims are part of this diabolical design of supplanting Western civilization with an Islamic one” through the “violent subjugation of the host culture.” Terrorists who cite Islamic beliefs, according to Rush, “are not ‘radical’ jihadi commandos; they’re just Muslims,” while the majority of Muslims “advocate what the full-blown jihadis are doing.”
Naturally, Rush believes that President Obama is helping in this grand Muslim conspiracy to destroy the West through immigration, terrorist attacks and “Muslim-fomented civil unrest” by “furiously importing Muslims into the U.S.”
No sooner had reports of the horrific attack on the office of the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by Islamist commandos coalesced last week, than politicians and media talking heads began qualifying their accounts with liberal use of phraseology intended to obscure the fact that these mass murderers were Muslims. In some cases, these parties do not wish to be labeled “Islamophobic.” In other cases, they are deluding themselves in there being some operative distinction that exists between Islam and “radical Islam.”
Islam has a 1,400-year history of not playing well with others – of executing the same methodology in subjugating nations across the globe as they are currently executing in the West. I believe that there are many people of good conscience who deny the truth about Islam because if they acknowledged it, they would have to accept remedies to the threat that would be distasteful to them.
The truth? Considering the character of Islam at its core, all Muslims are part of this diabolical design of supplanting Western civilization with an Islamic one, indeed, whether they believe it or not. Few may become full-blown jihadis, but rest assured that most of them advocate what the full-blown jihadis are doing – and polling data of Muslims clearly reflects this.
History has proven unequivocally that anywhere you have emerging Muslim populations in non-Muslim nations, once they reach an elusive percentage point in terms of their population (some experts say between 3 to 5 percent), many will “become radicalized” and set the course for violent subjugation of the host culture.
So why would any non-Muslim nation of sound mind allow the importation of Muslims into their society?
The answer? They wouldn’t.
Here, it bears mentioning that the people engaging in the foregoing antisocial behavior are not “radical” jihadi commandos; they’re just Muslims, nonetheless wreaking havoc upon European society.
Like the irrefutable reality of Islam being the wellspring from which violent jihad and Islamist terror flows (a no-brainer to most of you), the Obama administration’s dismissive reaction to the Paris rally ought not be a surprise, because Obama and his posse find all of this jihadi mayhem positively delicious. Has no one considered the possibility that Obama wanted to send a message to the world that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got what they deserved?
I have previously addressed in this space the fact that while it is being done rather quietly, Obama has been furiously importing Muslims into the U.S. – no doubt in order to reach that elusive percentage point of no return I mentioned earlier, whereupon ongoing Muslim-fomented civil unrest becomes inevitable.
I would add to that the necessity for Americans to acknowledge that a clear and present danger to this nation exists in the radical leftists, Islamists and sundry agenda-driven saboteurs who have insinuated themselves into places of power in America.
Following up on his last column suggesting that Obama administration officials “want Ebola to spread in the United States” in order to declare martial law, WorldNetDaily’s Erik Rush writes today in his column, “Does White House Want An Ebola Epidemic In U.S.?,” that the quarantine fight surrounding nurse Kaci Hickox is part of President Obama’s plan to “facilitate an Ebola epidemic in the United States.”
Rush writes that Hickox, whom he calls a “diva” with “a history of left-wing activism,” defied a quarantine upon returning to the U.S. in order to do her part in an Obama administration conspiracy to undermine quarantine policies in hopes of spreading the virus: “It is no great intellectual leap in considering the timing of Hickox’s quarantine (and subsequent public meltdown), the ‘omission’ of her ties to the CDC and her penchant for left-wing causes to arrive at the conclusion that this stunt just might have been an elaborate White House PR contrivance to foment opposition to Ebola quarantine efforts.”
As a precautionary measure, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ordered health-care workers coming in from West Africa to undergo a 21-day quarantine upon their arrival in those states. Several other states followed suit.
In an almost uncanny twist, and right on the heels of the quarantine orders, along comes Kaci Hickox, a nurse who had just finished treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone. Last Friday, she flew into Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey and was promptly quarantined.
Just as promptly, Hickox lawyered up and began screaming to the press and anyone else who would listen that the government was putting her through “emotional and physical stress” and that her “basic human rights” were being violated. In the ensuing firestorm – and after direct pressure from the White House – governors Cuomo and Christie folded like a crappy hand of cards; Hickox was released, and both states agreed to re-evaluate their quarantine policy.
One would think that Kaci Hickox, a health-care professional who had seen the devastation wrought by Ebola, and who understood the risks, would have considered it her civic duty to take one for Team America and sit out the quarantine. I mean, it isn’t like they were sending her to Gitmo. Instead, she chooses to re-define the term “diva” and raise as much hell as possible.
Well, there was a method to Ms. Hickox’s madness – and it lay in the fact that she just happened to be in the employ of the CDC.
Yes, you can pick your jaw up off the floor now, and as humorist Dave Barry was known to say: I am absolutely not making this up. Though efforts were made to scrub the evidence of Kaci Hickox’s affiliation with the CDC from online sources, enough remained to definitively determine that she was not only an employee of the CDC, but a registered Democrat and Obama supporter with a history of left-wing activism.
Earlier this year, Hickox featured prominently in the 63rd Annual Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Conference, a CDC symposium on infectious diseases. Thus, it is no great intellectual leap in considering the timing of Hickox’s quarantine (and subsequent public meltdown), the “omission” of her ties to the CDC and her penchant for left-wing causes to arrive at the conclusion that this stunt just might have been an elaborate White House PR contrivance to foment opposition to Ebola quarantine efforts.
If the administration’s imperative for maintaining unfettered access on the part of potential Ebola carriers to this country isn’t perplexing enough: A State Department memo leaked to Fox News this week suggests that the Obama administration has been considering allowing non-American Ebola patients into the U.S. for treatment. This was confirmed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who told Fox News that his office had received “information from within the administration” that such plans were being developed.
Are they insane? the reader may ask.
Under other circumstances, I might answer in the affirmative – or at least entertain the possibility that administration officials had taken leave of their senses. Considering the character of this administration, I feel quite comfortable maintaining that this administration – the same one whose principals’ beliefs are rooted in the philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro, the same one whose actions have led to the deaths of tens of thousands in the Middle East and Africa, the same one that has targeted and persecuted political opponents, spied on private citizens, funded and trained terrorists and left America open to attack via their immigration, visa and border policies – might well intend to facilitate an Ebola epidemic in the United States.
How large they might wish it to get and how it plays into their sick endgame specifically is difficult to say, but with this bunch, history dictates that it’s better to err on the side of the diabolical.
As of today, there is only one person undergoing treatment for Ebola in the United States, and only two people have contracted the disease in the U.S., both of whom are healthcare workers who survived.
But the U.S.’s success in fighting the disease at home has not stopped Republican politicians and their allies in the conservative media from turning it into a political issue, warning of an impending massive Ebola outbreak in the U.S. and declaring that when that happens it will be all President Obama’s fault.
Here are five of the most common conspiracy theories that conservative commentators and their Republican allies are pushing about Ebola:
1. Obama Will Bring Ebola To The U.S. Through The Southern Border
Never mind the fact that the countries hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak are all in Africa. Or that there hasn’t been a single case of Ebola in Latin America, let alone among migrants crossing the southern border. Republican politicians aren’t going to waste a good opportunity to gin up vague, unfounded xenophobic fears by claiming that people infected with Ebola are about to cross the southern border. (That is, if they haven’t already!)
Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said in July that he had heard “reports” of undocumented immigrants infected with the Ebola virus coming into the U.S. through the southern border. When asked about these “reports” by journalists, Gingrey admitted that they did not actually exist. Indiana GOP Rep. Todd Rokita similarly warned that undocumented minors from Central America could represent a threat “from a public-health standpoint, with Ebola circulating and everything else.”
This month, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., warned conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck about the prospect of the Ebola virus jumping the southern border, and in another interview speculated that Obama’s policies may cause thousands of U.S. troops to contract Ebola.
Thom Tillis, the North Carolina House speaker challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, said his plan to deal with Ebola is “to seal the border and secure it,” while Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican locked in a tight re-election race, cited Ebola as a major reason why “we have to secure the border and we cannot have amnesty.”
Mike Huckabee warned his Fox News audience that people with Ebola will begin to fly from West Africa to Mexico in order to sneak into the U.S.: “If someone with Ebola really wants to come to the U.S., just get to Mexico and walk right in."
Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who is now running for Senate in New Hampshire, said that America’s “porous” southern border will let people with Ebola just “walk across it.” He later claimed that “if Mitt [Romney] was the president right now,” then he could “guarantee you we would not be worrying about Ebola right now.”
2. Obama Will Bring Ebola To The U.S . In Order To Impose Martial Law
Naturally, the White House “orchestrated” the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to justify its Big Government agenda, according to several conservative commentators and at least one actual member of Congress.
Rep. Steve Stockman, Republican of Texas, said this month that Obama has laid the groundwork to use “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything” and speculated that the president might intentionally slow the government response to Ebola in order to create a crisis situation that he could then exploit:
Their terminology is there’s always a crisis which they want to use to their benefit, I would not be surprised that the reason that you see a lack of response is so that it becomes a real crisis and things can be used to correct the crisis, you know. It’s just bizarre there’s not enough action up front and I’m wondering if that’s — I’m not saying this — but I’m wondering if that’s intentional in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth. I don’t know. It’s just a strange non-response, a strange way of handling it and I think that if it does go forward and we do not control it, there may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen. I hope that’s not that case but as you know this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda.
Laurie Roth, a conservative talk show host, predicted that Obama would “create a guise to declare martial law due to created outbreaks” and introduce a fake Ebola vaccine that would “act as a tracker.”
The conspiracy theorists of WorldNetDaily are sounding similar themes.
Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative media outlet, wondered if Obama administration officials actually “want Ebola to spread in the United States,” creating a crisis “orchestrated by the White House in order to ultimately ‘legitimize’ a declaration of martial law in America.”
Mychal Massie also took to WorldNetDaily to suggest that Obama will manufacture an Ebola crisis in order to achieve his goal of cancelling the 2016 elections and staying in office indefinitely.
WorldNetDaily’s Morgan Brittany claimed that the government is showing “no urgency to stop the disease from entering the U.S.,” which she said betrays the administration’s intention to make use of its non-existent FEMA coffins, declare martial law and seize guns.
“Questions were then brought up about the stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by Homeland Security over the past couple of years and the $1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins supposedly stored in Georgia. Why was there preparation being made for FEMA camps to house people in isolation?” Brittany wondered. “My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning. Who knows? Maybe the current administration needs this to happen so martial law can be declared, guns can be seized and the populace can be controlled. Once that happens … game over.”
3. Obama Will Bring Ebola Outbreak To The U.S. To Help His ‘African Brothers’
Conservatives frequently insist that none of their criticism of Obama has anything to do with race, and more than a handful have claimed that the president’s handling of the Ebola outbreak proves that he is the real racist.
Conservative columnist and Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman cited Obama’s response to the Ebola outbreak as proof that he favors “his African brothers, putting the interests of fellow blacks, with whom he feels a kinship, ahead of others.”
“Obama has favored his African brothers over the rest of us by allowing them free entry into this country,” Klayman wrote in another column. “As a result, Ebola has now been introduced into the United States, may be on the verge of spreading rapidly, with the end result being potential massive death to our citizenry.”
“Regrettably our Muslim commander in chief has favored his own creed over the rest of us,” he added.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly also claimed that Obama is “letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people” in order to make the U.S. more like Africa.
“Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” she wrote. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”
Rush Limbaugh argued that “leftist” elected officials believe that Ebola “is ultimately traced back to us; because of our slavery, we kind of deserve a little bit of this.”
Not to be outdone, Laura Ingraham maintained that Obama’s “familial connection to Africa” and “core ties to the African continent” are shaping the president’s response to Ebola to the detriment to the U.S.
4. Obama Will Bring Ebola Outbreak To The U.S. Because He Hates America
Public health experts have consistently said that knee-jerk reactions like stopping travel from West Africa and quarantining healthcare workers will do nothing to lessen the Ebola risk in America (and may in fact make it worse), and that the best way for the United States to protect itself from the disease is to help fight it at its source in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.
But we all know not to trust scientists!
Republican politicians and conservative commentators have expressed outrage that President Obama has put resources into fighting Ebola in West Africa and is ignoring their calls for counterproductive flight bans and quarantines. They remind us that the president is, after all, an anti-American radical so everything he does should be held in suspicion.
Fox News commentator Keith Ablow speculated this month that “the president may literally believe we should suffer along with less fortunate nations,” arguing that Obama wants Americans to experience an Ebola epidemic out of a sense of “fairness” since he thinks the American people have “been a scourge on the face of the Earth.”
“We don’t have a president who has the American people as his primary interest,” Ablow said. “We’re not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy, who has names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein.”
The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said recently that he was just asking the question whether Obama wants to “punish” America with Ebola: “It looks like he actually wants Ebola to come to the United States. Why would he want that? Well, remember President Obama thinks that this country is racist to its core, it’s been racist since the beginning, it’s an evil, colonial force that’s been the root of all kinds of evil all around the world, it needs to be punished, it needs to be brought down to size, it needs to be disciplined.”
Conservative talk show host Michael Savage suggested that Obama “wants to infect the nation with Ebola,” insisting that Obama’s handling of Ebola “rises to levels of treason, it actually exceeds any level of treason I’ve ever season.”
“Obama wants equality and he wants fairness and it’s only fair that America have a nice epidemic or two or three or four in order to really feel what it’s like to be in the Third World. You have to look at it from the point of view of a leftist,” he added.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also posited that Obama and other Democratic officials say “don’t quarantine, let’s don’t close our borders” because they “feel like we want everyone to feel included” and “don’t want anybody to feel like they’re being left out.”
Glenn Beck speculated that Obama may be allowing the disease to take hold in conservative parts of the country, telling Fox News host Bill O’Reilly earlier this month that the president was ignoring the cases of two nurses who contracted Ebola in Dallas, perhaps because the city “doesn’t particularly care for the president.”
If this were happening in Washington, D.C., right now, do you think the President and his administration would be acting like this? Do you think the Congress would be acting like this? This is happening in Dallas, Texas, this is a top-ten city in the United States of America. Happens to be one that doesn’t particularly care for the president all that much and his policies, one that the president has not been too favorable on. We are already being squeezed on our southern border, now we’re being squeezed by Ebola. Is there an agenda here? Is that possibly the reason, because I can’t figure out any other reason.
5. Ebola Is God’s Judgment On America (Especially Obama)
Of course, several Religious Right figures are responding to the Ebola epidemic by suggesting that it is divine punishment on America.
The televangelist John Hagee said this month that Ebola is a sign of God’s disapproval of Obama’s foreign policy in the Mideast.
“Our president is dead-set on dividing Jerusalem. God is watching and he will bring America into judgment,” he said, and as a result “we are now experiencing the crisis of Ebola.”
Ron Baity, a North Carolina pastor who worked with the Family Research Council and other anti-gay groups to pass a marriage equality ban, blamed Ebola on the gay community.
“We are bringing the judgment of God on this nation,” Baity said. “As sure as Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, don’t be surprised at the plagues, don’t be surprised at the judgment of God. You think Ebola is bad now? Just wait.”
“Trunews” host Rick Wiles also linked Ebola to homosexuality, but had a slightly different view. As Wiles explained, “Ebola could solve America’s problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion.”
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush thinks that President Obama is not only acting like “a seasoned domestic abuser or crack interrogator,” but also a member of the Gestapo working in concentration camps.
In his weekly column, Rush also writes about his concern that “Obama looks completely deranged” in a still photo taken from a recent address, conceding that it was probably just a frame of Obama blinking.
Nevertheless, Rush explains, Obama likely has “deep psychological problems” to the extent that now even the media is trying to make “the president look like a long-term psychiatric patient.”
The Jews who had emerged from cattle cars, alarmed because they’d just been ordered to remove their clothes, were also reassured by the Gestapo. They’d had a long, hard trip, they were told, and were only being stripped down for a “common shower.” Of course, the “shower” was a gas chamber, and the rest is history.
This is a hell of a psycho-dynamic Obama is using, in my humble opinion. Telling a population that has every reason to be alarmed not to be alarmed and to trust him and his minions when everything they’ve said to date has been a lie (or at least inaccurate, to those who aren’t fully awake yet) is not only audacious, but it smacks of the subtle manipulation one might encounter from a seasoned domestic abuser or crack interrogator.
Last weekend, Obama addressed the threat to America from the Ebola virus during his weekly television and radio address. Leaving aside the gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained therein, what caught my attention was a photograph from the video of the address released by a news agency in which Obama looks completely deranged.
Now, in all fairness, a single-frame representation of an individual blinking (which I believe Obama was doing at the time) can be deceptive. There are many who believe that Obama has deep psychological problems, but my question is this: Out of a video of tens of thousands of frames, why would a news agency choose one that made the president look like a long-term psychiatric patient?
Well, Obama has been slighting news agencies for a long time. Perhaps they’ve had enough.
In yet another column suggesting that President Obama wants to infect people with Ebola, Erik Rush writes today in WorldNetDaily that the Ebola virus may be part of “various escalating crises in America being orchestrated by the White House in order to ultimately ‘legitimize’ a declaration of martial law in America.”
Rush argues that “given how manifestly diabolical I know this president and his administration to be,” there is a strong chance that administration officials actually “want Ebola to spread in the United States.”
To date, over 8,300 suspected cases and over 4,050 deaths from Ebola have been reported worldwide from this outbreak alone, with the WHO saying that these numbers may be vastly underestimated. The WHO also stated this week that that there could be up to 10,000 new cases a week within two months.
My question then became: Why were only 1,528 people killed by Ebola during the 36 year period between 1976 and 2012, yet over 4,000 have died from Ebola in the last 11 months alone?
At this point, I can only speculate as far as the answer to this question, but I believe it is one every American should be asking, because it suggests that something besides the disease itself is driving this epidemic.
Common sense dictates that since scientists and regulators working for the federal government quite literally wrote the book on Level 4 biocontainment protocols, they know how dangerous Ebola truly is. Thus, their refusal to prudently address the threat leads to one of two conclusions:
1. They have determined that political expedience trumps public health concerns, or
2. They want Ebola to spread in the United States.
Given how manifestly diabolical I know this president and his administration to be, I don’t doubt that the latter is a possibility. It certainly would fall within the scope of concerns some analysts have expressed pertaining to various escalating crises in America being orchestrated by the White House in order to ultimately “legitimize” a declaration of martial law in America.
It would also be child’s play for a determined group of individuals, terrorists – or even a government – to “help along” an epidemic of such a virulent disease.
WorldNetDaily commentator Erik Rush insists in his column today that he is just asking the question: Does President Obama intend “to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?”
Rush writes that the president is not an “unluckly, incompetent or intellectually compromised” leader, as in fact “the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.”
According to Rush, Obama is an “incomprehensibly diabolical individual” who hopes to create an Islamic caliphate and allow members of terrorist groups to enter the United States. Following this train of thought, Rush insists that it is only reasonable to wonder if Obama is hoping to spread Ebola in the U.S.
I’ve said before (and I am by no means the only one) that it would be statistically impossible for an individual to be sufficiently unlucky, incompetent, or intellectually compromised that their policies would overwhelmingly result in disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, we’ve cultivated a population wherein there are individuals among us so mind-blowingly stupid that they believe travel restrictions imposed on Ebola-stricken nations would be racist. Thus, there are plenty of folks who still buy into the “Obama as the good-natured bungler” narrative – sort of a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone.
While I have breath, however, I will continue to affirm that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.
Obama used political correctness as a pretext for failing to control our southern border. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to overwhelm the system, thus allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists access to the United States.
Obama used humanitarianism and regional security as a pretext for arming “moderate” rebels in Syria. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to facilitate the rise of an Islamic caliphate that would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the United States.
Obama used economics and social justice as a pretext for comprehensive changes to America’s health-care system. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to massively increase Americans’ dependency on the government.
Obama used loyalty as a pretext for trading five jihadi generals for one deserter – illegally, I might add. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to provide terrorist groups with the invaluable experience these murderers could offer.
Obama uses citizenship as a pretext for failing to take decisive action against Americans fighting with ISIS in the Middle East upon their return. It is viewed as imprudent, but his intention is to enable terrorist groups within our borders.
Obama is even using the constitutional separation (of church and state) clause as a pretext for refusing to address Islamist ideology, despite his administration’s unconstitutional deportment toward Christians (in the form of the abortifacient and contraceptive mandates under Obamacare and the widespread disenfranchisement of Christians in the military).
Barack Obama used the denial of risk as a pretext for failing to restrict travel from Ebola-stricken African nations. This, too, was viewed as imprudent. Is his intention to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?
If the above questions paint the picture of an incomprehensibly diabolical individual, bear in mind that this individual and his contemporaries have despised everything America stands for their entire lives, and that their idols are among worst mass murderers the world has known. Then, consider their track record as indicated above.
Then, ask yourself why they wouldn’t use any and every means at their disposal to bring about the desired result.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who believes most journalists should be thrown in jail, today demands that the U.S. government crack down on Muslim foreign nationals living in the country following the beheading of a woman in Oklahoma.
In a column titled “Is It Time To Deport, Intern Foreign Muslims?,” Rush claims that all Muslims are either terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers who must be hounded like Japanese-Americans during World War II.
“We deported, expelled and interned foreign nationals and naturalized citizens for a whole lot less during World War II, and I would certainly call for the deportation or expulsion of all Muslim foreign nationals at this juncture,” he writes.
In an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” last weekend, President Barack Obama reiterated his assertion that America is not at war with Islam, that “Islam preaches peace” and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful.
I would submit that the absence of demonstrable violence does not necessarily constitute being “peaceful.” In the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America by militant Muslims, the question of just who and where these “peaceful” Muslims are has been discussed endlessly. Americans have asked the question – time and again – why the so-called “peaceful Muslims” we hear so much about are reticent to disavow the actions of militant Muslims.
I believe the answer to that question has become clear. Contrary to the contentions of the political left, it would appear that the majority of Muslims worldwide are more than willing to rationalize the actions of those the Western press dubs “militant Muslims” as that of defending Islam or the so-called rights of Muslims. The history of Islam certainly bears this out, as does the Quran, which expressly calls for violence – and beheadings in particular – in the advance of Islam.
In the face of its surreal and manifestly treasonous deportment, the Obama administration is also set to announce sweeping new restrictions on racial and religious profiling in federal investigations, including those involving matters of national security. This of course comes in the midst of heightened concerns of Islamic militant groups executing a terror attack on U.S. soil. In fact, Islamist militant leaders abroad have called for such attacks, just as they called weeks ago for lone-wolf attacks and beheadings of Americans on American soil.
We deported, expelled and interned foreign nationals and naturalized citizens for a whole lot less during World War II, and I would certainly call for the deportation or expulsion of all Muslim foreign nationals at this juncture.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush knows the real reason President Obama designated the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region in southern New Mexico as protected land: to create a base for ISIS extremists to enter the country and plot attacks against the U.S.
In a column titled “Obama: The Head of the ISIS Snake,” Rush adds that Obama may even “use his jihadi army” to strike against America to help him become a dictator: “Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why.”
It is high time that those in government who have any desire whatsoever to preserve this nation as an ongoing concern take stock of the abundance of evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for the resurgence of Islamic militancy in the Middle East, and ISIS in particular.
As uncomfortable for them as it may be, they must come to grips with the fact that Obama is a well-placed saboteur representing malignant interests, enemies both foreign and domestic, that have been strategizing the downfall of the United States for decades.
In May of this year, Obama named the Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico a federally designated monument. Setting aside this land with an executive order under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the nearly half million acres bordering the Mexican state of Chihuahua is now off-limits to all but foot traffic. Potential for the incursion of malefactors in that area is enormous; not just an efficient and effective route for small bands of drug smugglers or gangs, it now amounts to a protected access for potentially large sorties onto the U.S. soil.
In the context of what I have postulated here, why might Obama do this?
Let’s forget for a moment the possibility of a terror cell executing a Nairobi mall-style attack or detonating a dirty bomb somewhere in Middle America. Picture 100 malls or elementary schools across the U.S. laid siege simultaneously, two or more full-fledged thermonuclear devices detonated in American cities, or a few high-sensitivity military bases taken over by terrorists. Consider that these forces would have the training and weaponry to suit the job, as well as the intelligence necessary to give them a far better than even chance of success – all provided by our own government.
Bear in mind that the Desert Peaks phenomenon is but one instance in which Obama has left America vulnerable; there are others we’ve been made aware of, and probably still others we don’t yet know about.
If this sounds preposterous, just remember that those of us who warned against the rise of an Islamist caliphate were mocked only a year ago, and now one exists, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.
Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why. This nation now faces extreme and unprecedented crises, and apart from an Act of God, they will only be resolved through extreme and unprecedented measures.
The removal of the Obama regime, extrication of Islamists from our government, the closure of our southern border, drastically heightened security procedures and the summary expulsion or prosecution of anyone who even remotely resembles an Islamist or who supports that worldview are now absolute imperatives.
WorldNetDaily pundit Erik Rush writes today that gay rights activists and ISIS are both persecuting Christians, just with “a different methodology.” While ISIS is attempting to carry out an anti-Christian genocide, Rush claims that gay people in America are using the “gratuitous proliferation of homoerotica” to push “the disenfranchisement of Christians.”
“Progressive power players hate Christians because we threaten their power, and the true-believing useful idiots hate Christians because they’ve been taught that we wish to place impediments upon their freedom to be self-destructive, unregenerate hedonists,” he writes.
“It says a lot that so many liberal Americans have decided to stand with abject animals, men who are capable of the most heinous, disgusting, depraved war crimes imaginable, and against their own countrymen and women who happen to be Christians.”
“Obama has more than a nodding acquaintance with all things gay,” Rush says while linking to a WND article about Obama’s secret “gay life” and also claiming Obama is a Muslim: “Finally, addressing the Islamist horde that has promised to raise its flag over the White House: In a sense, it has already been done.”
But Rush has a solution: “Now more than ever, I believe it is apparent that progressivism cloaks with its innocuousness and faux egalitarianism a doctrine that should be stigmatized and disenfranchised, employing the same commitment with which we addressed segregationism.”
What I’d like to concentrate on at the moment is that the majority of the unfortunates in Iraq who are facing this genocide are Christians. Indeed, the majority of those being horribly persecuted by Muslims in nations across the Middle East and parts of Africa are Christians.
In America, we are seeing a different methodology being used to disenfranchise Christians, but rest assured, many of the principals and operatives are the same people. Last week, President Obama took a break from his strenuous schedule of fundraising, golf and vacationing to make a surprise video appearance at the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Gay Games in Cleveland. Obama went out of his way to recognize the persecution of homosexuals in other countries, America’s openness and the acceptance of gays being part of the “very idea” of America.
It isn’t necessary at this time to belabor the fact Obama has more than a nodding acquaintance with all things gay, but I found this conspicuous display somewhat curious in light of the recent Centers of Disease Control, or CDC, survey that revealed less than three percent of Americans identify as homosexual. Given the messages we get from activists, the press, government and entertainment media, one would think the number was 10 times as high. Given their miniscule numbers, homosexuals certainly don’t warrant Obama’s attention as an election-making segment of the Democrats’ base.
So why has there been such an imperative around the inculcation of homosexuality into our culture? Activists would tell you they’re just stumping for the rights of homosexuals, but that’s twaddle. Were that the case, it wouldn’t take the wholesale indoctrination and attempts at the normalization of homosexuality we see daily. There’s little doubt that you’ve encountered the gratuitous proliferation of homoerotica in dramatic and even comedic films and television. The news media are replete with accounts of the parents of grade-school children objecting to the inclusion of homosexual materials in educational curricula, and one would be hard-pressed to find any news or entertainment media offering that frames any homosexual in a bad light. Were Jeffrey Dahmer to come on the scene in 2014, I would wager his sexuality would be avoided by the press with the utmost adroitness.
As always, any objection to these trends risks one being branded a “homophobe.”
Well, the imperative I mentioned earlier has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals; it isn’t even the promotion of societal dysfunction, although that is an ancillary benefit. The objective – as we have seen in Europe – is the disenfranchisement of Christians. And it isn’t just that a Christian society is more morally grounded than a secular one and thus more difficult to control – although this is true – but there’s another factor involved.
And that is hate.
Those on the political left hate Christians; their proclivity for perennially calling Christians haters is of course pure projection. Progressive power players hate Christians because we threaten their power, and the true-believing useful idiots hate Christians because they’ve been taught that we wish to place impediments upon their freedom to be self-destructive, unregenerate hedonists.
Coming full circle, we note with some irony that those true-believing useful idiots on the left – some of them homosexual themselves – share the same big tent with another political special interest and beneficiary of progressives’ largesse: Muslims, those who would just as readily and just as severely persecute homosexuals, women, children and, of course, non-Muslims in America as they are doing in Iraq.
It says a lot that so many liberal Americans have decided to stand with abject animals, men who are capable of the most heinous, disgusting, depraved war crimes imaginable, and against their own countrymen and women who happen to be Christians, and against our ally Israel. Now more than ever, I believe it is apparent that progressivism cloaks with its innocuousness and faux egalitarianism a doctrine that should be stigmatized and disenfranchised, employing the same commitment with which we addressed segregationism. Damn the craven, the ignoramuses and the deluded with their assorted “phobe” indictments. We’re playing for keeps.
Finally, addressing the Islamist horde that has promised to raise its flag over the White House: In a sense, it has already been done. Considering the degree to which Barack Obama has enabled Islamists worldwide both overtly and covertly, his insinuation of Islamist operatives into our government, the chaotic situation on our southern border and our immigration policy in general, American progressives may get to test that “big tent” allegiance to their Islamist friends sooner than they think.
WorldNetDaily pundit Erik Rush is calling on House Republicans to vote to impeach President Obama, writing that impeachment hearings will expose the president’s purported ties to al-Qaeda and ISIS and “create a situation in which even a Democrat-controlled Senate would be compelled to remove him.”
Rush, who previously supported an anti-Obama military coup and called for the president’s execution, writes today that Obama must be removed from office to ensure “that such an obscenity never again manifests in this nation.”
Think about it. Obama has to know that revelations made during impeachment proceedings (should they include such things as his identity fraud, releasing five of the most deadly terrorists alive in exchange for an Army deserter and likely traitor, catalyzing the Arab Spring, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, orchestrating the fall of the Gadhafi government in Libya, as well as the funding and training of al-Qaida and ISIS, to name just a few) could create a situation in which even a Democrat-controlled Senate would be compelled to remove him.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s meltdown (as well as a marked breach of decorum) on the House floor last week also may have been quite telling. Given Pelosi’s usual behavior, her explosion and insulting tirade against Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., was more in keeping with someone under great stress than a mere loss of temper or momentary lapse in judgment. In case the reader is unaware, it was Pelosi who put her name to the documents certifying one Barack Hussein Obama as eligible for the Democratic Party nomination to run for president in 2008. Perhaps she perceives that if Obama is ever held to account for some of his more egregious acts, she could go down with him.
Just this week, 79 percent of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll claimed that they were dissatisfied with President Obama. The same poll showed Americans expressing a distinct disgust with the way the country is being run in general. I believe that we still have a long way to go before Americans truly understand how things came to this point, but it’s a beginning.
The American people don’t necessarily have to understand the motivations of the Obama cabal at this juncture. Perceiving the danger we are in and the nature of the threat they present could very well be enough to facilitate its neutralization. Once this occurs, we can set about ensuring that such an obscenity never again manifests in this nation.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush writes today that President Obama is to blame for rising persecution of Christians in Iraq — which started following the 2003 U.S. invasion of the country — and traces it all back to Obama’s real father: Malcolm X.
While many conservatives have speculated that President Obama’s father was actually labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, others such as Pamela Geller believe that the president’s father was Malcolm X.
Rush floats both conspiracy theories in his column, but concludes that Malcolm X makes the most sense: “All things considered, a Malcolm X paternity certainly would explain the president having also embraced Sunni Islam, which he is dedicatedly working to advance. It might also explain his poorly concealed anti-Christian bias, as well as his administration’s appalling treatment of Israel.”
He warns that Obama is not only assisting in the persecution of Christians overseas, but is also working to “disenfranchise Christians here.”
Considering the president’s Islamist and Marxist proclivities and the philosophical bent of his closest collaborators, it ought not be too much of a surprise that Obama’s sympathy index for these persecuted Christians is in the negative digits. Still, his lack of inclination to even pretend that these atrocities are unacceptable not only adds insult to injury, but indicates something more than a mere lack of sympathy.
It indicates derision and perhaps even hatred of Christians.
In his pre-teens – once again, according to the narrative – Obama headed to Hawaii and fell under the care of his communist grandparents. He was also mentored by iconic communist Frank Marshall Davis (whom some contend is his real father, but we won’t go there just yet). Even still, during this period, Obama become more intimately acquainted with Marxism rather than Islam.
From there it was on to a posh high school in Hawaii, then supposedly to college back on the mainland, where the narrative becomes infinitely more sketchy.
Some have speculated that Obama’s real father may have been the slain black civil rights leader Malcolm X, who embraced Sunni Islam after his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964 and being expelled from the Nation of Islam. Apart from the uncanny likeness of the two men, there are those who claim that ample evidence exists to support this theory. One former intelligence operative has come forward, asserting that DNA evidence exists excluding Barack Obama Sr. as the president’s father. None of these parties has been able to produce incontrovertible evidence, however.
All things considered, a Malcolm X paternity certainly would explain the president having also embraced Sunni Islam, which he is dedicatedly working to advance. It might also explain his poorly concealed anti-Christian bias, as well as his administration’s appalling treatment of Israel.
Tragically, the wholesale persecution of Christians in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Muslim world is likely to continue for some time, as are the ongoing efforts of radicals and Islamists in America – also aided by the Obama administration – to disenfranchise Christians here. There are many fronts upon which the latter is occurring, although the chief principals of these efforts are a distinct minority among us.
While the majority of Americans would find themselves unequivocally at odds with Obama’s ultimate goals, arresting the advancement of his agenda will probably fall to another distinct minority among us – those who, like our nation’s founders, understand and love liberty, and who are willing to stand alone if necessary and articulate hard truths.
In a classic just asking the question column, WorldNetDaily pundit Erik Rush argues today that the Obama administration may have been behind the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, suggesting that the White House worked with the Ukrainian government in order to blame Russian-backed militia groups for the crash.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise, as Rush also claimed that President Obama was behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
Given the geopolitical climate and the duplicity of the Obama administration, we may never know the whole truth, but the fact is that Washington and Kiev would have had quite a bit to gain politically in the intentional downing of this jet and the implication of pro-Russian militias. With the world chafing at the cruel and criminal acts of Russia’s proxies in Ukraine, it would be far easier for the West to justify an escalation of the diplomatic and economic offensive against Russia. It would also not be the first time Ukrainian forces had employed “false flag” attacks to secure their political objectives, as they did during the street-fighting phase of their civil war and in the intimidation of Ukrainian Jews.
Oh, yes – I realize that this will be viewed by many as another anti-Obama far-right conspiracy theory, but I believe that it is at least as viable a proposition as the administration’s narrative.
In support of this, there has been far more empirical evidence potentially exonerating the Russian separatists – or at least supporting the “inadvertent downing” theory – than there is for a case of malicious disregard on their part, or of Russian aggression. The New York Post reported on Tuesday that “[T]he United States hasn’t found proof of direct Russian government involvement in shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17,” while Washington intelligence officials and “sources” continue to blame Moscow for supplying weapons to the pro-Moscow forces, thereby creating the conditions that led to the deadly attack.
I’m sure that the irony of the innumerable instances in which the Obama administration created conditions that led to far more chaos and death is not wasted on the reader; but I digress.
In addition to the lack of evidence implicating Russia, there is even evidence emerging that calls into question the likelihood that the 777 was inadvertently downed by the pro-Moscow forces. Russia has claimed that U.S. and Russian satellite images not only show it to be unlikely that the separatist forces down the plane, but tend to implicate the Ukrainian army. Other reports out of the European press have suggested that MH17′s flight path was altered by Ukrainian air traffic control, placing it closer to the war zone than prudence would dictate, and that the flight had been shadowed by Ukrainian fighter planes shortly prior to its being shot down.
Much or all of this could be disinformation, but given the character and actions of this White House, the Svoboda Party in Ukraine and their collaborative acts in particular, failing to seriously consider it would be imprudent indeed. Even if this tragedy was an intentional act and the brainchild of parties within the Ukrainian government, apart from the direct involvement of Washington, the fact that the Obama administration might enthusiastically advance a false narrative in a case like this would speak for itself.
Arizona Republican congressional candidate Chuck Wooten spoke last week with Erik Rush, an insane conspiracy theorist who wants President Obama tried and killed for treason, about the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors crossing the border.
Wooten, who is running for the GOP nomination to challenge Democratic congressman Ron Barber, told Rush that the Obama administration is behind a “conspiracy” to increase the immigration rate.
He cited a debunked right-wing myth about a Homeland Security procurement contract as proof that the “federal government knew or is maybe even behind” the border crossings as part of a plot to “intentionally overwhelm our system.”
Later, Wooten said he was just asking the question about whether the Obama administration is helping immigrants “flood into the country” in order to “keep the Senate” just ahead of the midterm elections: “They’re going to be integrated into society with the goal of bringing their families here because they are poor little children who need their parents so bring their family of twenty over here.”
“There is a school of thought that will say, maybe some of this is intentional. There could be something to it, I don’t know, but he knows that keeping the Senate — that is slipping away,” he said. “Why in the world would all of these things go on at the same time? I don’t know, it just kind of points that way to me.”
“I don’t believe in coincidence.”
However, this article links to reports in The Guardian and Der Spiegel which actually found the exact opposite, reporting that the U.S. was training Syrian rebels who were fighting ISIS “as a bulwark against Islamic extremism.”
Many Western and Syrian opposition officials also believe that ISIS and the Syrian government may have an indirect alliance to split anti-Assad forces. Rush also blames Obama for the release of a top ISIS leader, even though he was released under a deal brokered in 2008 under the Bush administration.
By now, we are quite familiar with the exploits of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the fact that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was released from detention by the Obama administration in 2009. These savages have cut a swath from northern Syria through northern Iraq, engaging in the most grotesque mass murder along the way, and by all accounts – including photographs and video footage of their own making – reveling in doing so.
While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.
As I have said before in this space, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.
Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
As reported in WND this week, ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan; this has been confirmed not only by officials in Jordan, but in both the German and British press.
All of the above has conspired to give the lie to Obama’s foreign policy rhetoric and render increasingly suspect the actions he’s taken in pursuing that policy. In a recent interview, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said, “Never in my political career in my memory did it ever occur to me that we would have a president of the United States who would be doing things supporting the enemy. Our system isn’t set up for Congress to deal with this kind of a situation.”
Inhofe stopped just short of using the appropriate designation for this president’s actions, one which I pray will be applied soon enough: Treason.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
While you may have been busy reading about the rally to overthrow the Obama administration, the right-wing conspiracy machine was in fine fashion this week:
5. Nigerian Kidnappings Are Just A Distraction From Benghazi
Allen West, who once was actually an elected member of Congress, thinks all the attention to Boko Haram’s kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls is a bit “fishy.” Why? Benghazi, obviously: “Are we witnessing an Obama ‘Wag the Dog’ moment with Boko Haram in Nigeria? I say yes. Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee.”
The Republican politician and Fox News contributor previously thought the controversy surrounding Don Sterling’s racist remarks was also ginned up to distract from the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Erik Rush, a columnist for WorldNetDaily, went one step farther and alleged that Obama is “ideologically (and perhaps covertly) supporting” Boko Haram’s actions in order to distract the public and the media from Benghazi.
4. Alex Jones Is On The Case
After Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced a bill that sought to reform the way the federal government addresses mental health services, Alex Jones’ website InfoWars dubbed it a “diabolical legislative package.” InfoWars pundit Jon Rappoport said that the legislation would require almost all children to take “psychiatric meds.”
If it’s fully implemented, you’ll witness a sea-change in society, in the coming decade. Diagnoses of mental disorders and consequent drugging, already widely in effect, will become as common and ordinary as people eating at fast food restaurants.
And the population will eventually forget things were ever different.
“Hey, can I borrow your Valproate? My son took my bottle because he ran out.”
Ultimately, Rappoport believes the bill will give the federal government “a monopoly of the mind.”
3. Karl Rove Is Just Asking The Question: Does Hillary Clinton Have Brain Damage?
While many conservative activists claimed Hillary Clinton faked a concussion to get out of congressional testimony over Benghazi attack, now Karl Rove has reportedly suggested that the former Secretary of State has brain damage.
While Rove denied making the reported comments… he demanded that the media ask questions about Clinton’s health anyway – and if they don’t get the answers they like, then it’s probably a conspiracy.
Of course, “Bush’s Brain” has quite a history of spreading rumors that his political opponents have mental health issues. Who knew that Rove had the medical qualifications to talk about such issues? And if you don’t take his baseless accusations seriously, then you are just a biased liberal journalist!
2. Is Beyoncé Possessed By Demons?
Not willing to wait for “Dr. Rove’s” diagnosis, Religious Right radio host Kevin Swanson forged ahead and asked if Beyoncé Knowles is possessed by demons.
Swanson wouldn’t be the first person to allege that the musician is possessed, as American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer made a similar charge back in January.
1. Glenn Beck vs. The World
Yesterday Glenn Beck explained the reason the Obama administration has all but ignored him since he left Fox News: Because he is a modern-day Martin Luther King Jr. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And Nelson Mandela. And Obi Wan.
Channeling former congressman Allen West, WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush wrote yesterday that the Obama administration is using Boko Haram’s kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls as a distraction from the latest congressional investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.
In a column yesterday, Rush – who thinks President Obama “orchestrated” the Benghazi attack – claimed that “Obama and Co. will publicly oppose Boko Haram’s terrorism and carnage while ideologically (and perhaps covertly) supporting them” as part of their purported Islamist agenda.
Let it not be said that I don’t feel for the plight of the nearly 300 Nigerian high-school girls kidnapped by the Islamist group Boko Haram; indeed, anyone with a conscience ought to empathize with them and their duly distraught families. That said, the abduction of these girls and, sadly, their fates (should rescue efforts fail) pale in comparison to the atrocities committed across the world daily against women by Muslim men “in the name of Allah.”
At least two components of this tragic comedy are worthy of examination. One is the blatant and shameless distraction coming directly out of the White House and Hillary Clinton camp. Michelle Obama hit social media with her Twitter hashtag campaign; Clinton followed suit shortly thereafter.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the investigation into the Benghazi attack could topple the Obama administration, and then some. Clinton’s presidential ambitions could be irreparably damaged, depending on the outcome. So, both have ample motivation for diverting public attention from Benghazi. They, the press and powerful Democrats are attempting to set the stage for this investigation to be downplayed as much as possible; this is to say nothing of more subtle manipulation of the process in which the administration will no doubt engage.
The reason is that it has become politically expedient for the Obama administration to condemn Boko Haram, if only rhetorically. Their actual foreign policy objectives in Nigeria are similar to what they were – or are – in Egypt, Libya and Syria: Destabilize the non-Islamist regime in order to pave the way for an Islamist one. In Nigeria, Obama and Co. will publicly oppose Boko Haram’s terrorism and carnage while ideologically (and perhaps covertly) supporting them, and realize the added bonus of being on the right side of women’s issues back home.