Erik Rush

WorldNetDaily Blames The Media, Civil Rights Activists And Obama For Navy Yard Shooting

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who believes that the Navy Yard shooting was a false flag “gun-grab theater,” is out with a column today wondering if shooter Aaron Alexis was a “race warrior.”

He claims that Alexis probably went on the rampage because he “felt disaffected due to his race,” which he blames on “the self-serving machinations of the political left, career civil rights activists and the Obama administration in particular.”

According to Rush, the “political left” wins black voters over by “re-igniting the bitterness and militancy radical black activists displayed during the Civil Rights Movement,” contributing to Alexis’ supposed “racial hatred.”

Given all of the data, one cannot help but factor in the alleged racism Alexis claimed to have suffered as a possible contributing factor in the shootings. The racial climate in America has been deliberately poisoned in recent years by the self-serving machinations of the political left, career civil rights activists and the Obama administration in particular. This has led to a near-epidemic in black-on-white crime, one which goes wholly unreported by the establishment press. Might this contrived, institutional advancement of racial tension have contributed to the rage and instability of a man who already felt disaffected due to his race?

That sense of entitlement and tendency toward feeling disrespected among black Americans is part and parcel of the worldview spoon-fed to blacks by the political left. It is a common theme and corrosive thread that has run through the left’s racial narrative for decades. Indeed, this has been employed in order to entice blacks into political allegiance with the left, in keeping them in socioeconomic thralldom and – more recently – in re-igniting the bitterness and militancy radical black activists displayed during the Civil Rights Movement.

Was racial hatred the prime motivator for Aaron Alexis’ heinous attack this week, a factor, or a non-issue? While it is altogether possible that his were the actions of an individual with a psyche disintegrating so rapidly that even he may not have fully understood why he acted as he did, failing to consider race in light of the current political and social landscape would be imprudent indeed.

Rush’s WND colleague Jack Cashill agrees, and asserts that Alexis’ psychological problems “were aggravated by the message that the Democratic-media complex has been steadily pumping out, namely that a black American can never expect justice.”

“As the saner among the media elite know, the blame circles back upon themselves,” Cashill writes. “They helped create the atmosphere in which an emotionally unstable black person finds it easier to blame whites than he does himself.” The right-wing commentator goes on to blame the liberal media for having “continued to drum into the head of African-Americans the pervasiveness of racism in America.”

Aaron Alexis, the former Navy reservist who killed a dozen people in Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, no doubt had psychological problems aplenty.

But evidence suggests that those problems were aggravated by the message that the Democratic-media complex has been steadily pumping out, namely that a black American can never expect justice.

In the past, the media have desperately sought to blame mass violence directly on the right, as they did after the shootings in Tucson and Aurora, Colo., or to blame the right indirectly by focusing on guns, as they did after the Sandy Hook school shooting.

That doesn’t work here. As the saner among the media elite know, the blame circles back upon themselves. They helped create the atmosphere in which an emotionally unstable black person finds it easier to blame whites than he does himself.



In the month of his inauguration, 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of race relations in America.

By July 2013, those figures had fallen to 52 percent among whites and 38 percent among blacks, a calamitous decline, rarely addressed, never explained.

Although there are as many reasons for the decline in those numbers as there are for the decline in Alexis’ mental health, one fact seems undeniable: The media have continued to drum into the head of African-Americans the pervasiveness of racism in America, Obama’s election notwithstanding.

Indeed, by repeatedly interpreting criticism of Obama as racially based, the media have aggravated the tension between blacks and non-blacks.

In his paranoia and rage, Alexis seemed not at all unlike former L.A. cop and fellow Navy reservist Christopher Dorner. In February 2012, Dorner found it much easier to hold a white establishment accountable for his homicidal spree than the personal demons that beset him.

Fox News Regular Erik Rush Calls Navy Yard Attack A False Flag

Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee seem to have no problem with hosting conservative columnist and author Erik Rush, who has urged the US to kill all Muslims and accused President Obama of being a serial killer. Rush reacted to the Navy Yard shooting yesterday by tweeting that the rampage was “part political diversion, part gun-grabbing theater. NOT random. NOT a lone psycho.”

“If you think the #dcnavyyardshooting is random or just an irate doofus, you’re kidding yourself,” Rush also tweeted.

Right Wing Leftovers - 9/12/13

  • Glenn Beck will soon be offering an email service.  Seriously.
  • It is not much of a surprise to learn that Floyd Corkins was not taking his prescribed anti-psychotic medication at the time he attacked the Family Research Council.
  • Erik Rush calls President Obama "an enormous pussy."
  • Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing has issued a statement responding to charges made in a new documentary about Robertson's misuse of charity resources for personal gain.
  • Finally, Andrée Seu Peterson thinks that gays should give up their push for equality for the good of society: "Even if you, homosexual, believe you have a legal right to practice homosexuality and to even marry, would you consider—for the sake of the children who would have to be raised with two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and the forfeit of a father—choosing to 'suffer wrong' and to 'be defrauded'? Would you put away your desires for a greater good, and avoidance of harm?"

Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

Erik Rush Links Obama to Oklahoma Murder

In his WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Fox News regular Erik Rush linked President Obama to the murder of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma. Rush began his column by making the false claim that “three black youths” were behind the shooting. Rush isn’t alone in fudging the facts about the race of the alleged shooters: the fact that one of the three suspects is white hasn’t stopped right-wing outlets including Fox News, The Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily from using a phony photo to claim all three suspects are black. But for Rush, the Oklahoma murder—and a stabbing in Queens— is all part of an Obama-led race war.

It’s reaching near-epidemic proportions, but the press is still failing to report on the uptick in black-on-white crime in America. Some will be familiar with the accounts of violent black-on-white crime reported by WND of late, several of which have been incredibly brutal and gruesome.

Last Friday, 22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane was gunned down by three black youths in Duncan, Okla. The crime is not being reported as racially motivated, despite the fact that the assailants deliberately chose an upscale, predominantly white neighborhood. Neither is the stabbing attack on 17-year-old Natasha Martinez in Queens, N.Y., being classified as racially motivated, even though this one might be the work of a serial assailant. I imagine the lack of coverage could be due to the fact that Martinez has a Latino surname and appears white, whereas George Zimmerman (who was acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin) has an Anglo surname but identifies as Latino. If that appears convoluted and nonsensical, that’s only because it is.



Like many of the audacious and bizarre practices of the Obama administration, the idea that it would be deliberately engaging in fomenting racial tension is incomprehensible to the average American specifically because the concept is so audacious and bizarre. Yet, we know that the Obama Justice Department was involved in materially supporting anti-Zimmerman protests within days after Martin’s killing, and that Obama has long-standing ties to black radical organizations such as the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

There’s little doubt that such parties knew they had an advocate in their corner from the moment Obama was inaugurated; thus, they became far more vocal. While the president’s tone has been conciliatory (except for the occasional slip), his rhetoric remains in the same vein as that of a black activist, albeit more refined. In the meantime, the economic woes of blacks have increased along with the rest of America, and black-on-black crime is at an alarming high; now, they’re being told that racist whites with guns are stalking them in the night.



Whether naïveté, ideology, stupidity, or a combination thereof on the part of the press is to blame for its complicity, the fact is that this plays into the hands of the Obama administration and the radical left at large. Also incomprehensible in the minds of average Americans is the notion that these campaigns of division (race being only one) are ultimately intended to bring about a degree of civil unrest that will superficially justify the use of force on the part of the administration.

Remember, this is the president who, in 2008 advocated for a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”

And all the people cheered …

Erik Rush: Obama and Oprah Will Use 'The Butler' To Stoke Anti-White Violence

After appearing on Fox News’ Hannity last night, Erik Rush published a column on WorldNetDaily today predicting that President Obama will use the new movie about an African American White House butler, along with other efforts “to rile black Americans,” to provoke a race war against whites.

Rush claims that “The Butler,” which stars Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey, is part of a plan “to initiate widespread civil unrest at the president’s push of a button” and add to the “instances of black-on-white violent crime since Obama came into office.”

Winfrey is promoting a new film, “The Butler,” which chronicles a black butler’s years of service in the White House during the Civil Rights Movement. While the subject matter should make for interesting fare, given Winfrey’s sensibilities and associates (like the Obamas, for example) there is little doubt that the film will be used in the ongoing effort to rile black Americans. As I’ve said in the past, racial tension is one of the many circuits the administration has constructed that, when completed, may be used to initiate widespread civil unrest at the president’s push of a button.



There have been quite a few instances of black-on-white violent crime since Obama came into office; these have gone largely unreported by the establishment press for reasons that should be obvious. The point is that some blacks have become sufficiently motivated to perpetrate these crimes, and it is all – all – due to the lies into which they have subscribed.



All of this culminates in successful blacks like Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Jay-Z and the perennially brainless Kanye West being able to carp about rampant institutional racism in America and not get laughed into the adjoining star system. Rather, their rhetorical idiocy is eagerly digested by millions (here, it actually is millions) of black Americans, and those who attempt to enlighten or defend blacks’ humanity are branded as racists.

There is, of course, a certain irony in the fact that President Obama’s ethnicity is the only thing that has allowed him to get away with a myriad of high crimes and misdemeanors. Even with the countenance of the press, any of our previous chief executives, having committed the same offenses and executed similar policies, would have run so far afoul of the people and other elected officials to warrant removal with all due speed.

Right Wing Leftovers - 8/14/13

  • Rafael Cruz will speak at Liberty University in November.
  • Notorious crackpot Erik Rush will appear on Sean Hannity's Fox News program tonight.
  • You know, if WND really thought that the SPLC's anti-gay hate map incited violence, they would stop printing it in their articles!
  • Molotov Mitchell is still mad at Glenn Beck for stealing the name "For The Record."
  • Finally, James Dobson fumes: "Shame on the schools and churches that are teaching the young that sexual immorality is not an offense against the Almighty, whether it is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Sin is sin, and our leaders used to call it by that name. Now children hear regularly that perversity is a civil right protected by the Constitution. But biblical truth has not changed. The wages of sin is still death, as it has always been."

Erik Rush: Africa and India Colonized Because Their People Seemed 'Only A Few Steps out of the Trees'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is upset that Americans may appreciate other (read: inferior) cultures, lamenting that it all started when “the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West.”

Rush asks: “Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa.”

He goes on to explain that it is all part of a communist conspiracy, of course, that seeks to “insidiously break down our sense of national pride” and establish “slavery to elites.”

Still, for many years, I have puzzled over Americans who become inordinately and superficially enamored of foreign things. We’ve all seen the plight of starry-eyed young American girls who fall in love with a mass media-proffered stereotype of some romantic foreign male, then run off and marry one, only to discover that the man’s culture is frighteningly cloying and patriarchal, sometimes dangerously so. They wind up losing their children to a parental kidnap, or having to escape a sadistic family situation in a misogynistic regime somewhere, coming to the heartbreaking realization that their studly beau was only looking for a quality breeding cow.

We’ve also witnessed the fads that have come and gone from overseas – sometimes not going fast enough – having been brought to light by the media or some celebrity du jour. In the 1960s, the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West, and the ripples of that introduction are still passing through the lives of Americans in the form of yoga and other such pursuits.



Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa. Contrary to the claim of liberals, these things have far less to do with race than they do with culture. Here, it bears mentioning that the British did not have nearly as easy a time with China. One will also note that in recent years, both India and China have prospered by becoming more like America, rather than the reverse.

To be entirely truthful, I would have no qualms with a one-world government, had the world’s leaders determined that the American paradigm represented the most prudent course to take. But global power players have opted for a collectivist thugocracy in which cheap hustlers, decadent old-money deviants and narcissistic elites will rule like princes over us all.

Americans have the right to take a measure of pride and satisfaction in their accomplishments. It’s taken 50 years for America’s enemies to insidiously break down our sense of national pride and pervert those accomplishments into atrocities with their lies, and the collectivist (some would say communist) movement behind it has been under way for nearly a century. Thus, it will take time and monumental effort to reverse this.

But more than that, it will take the will to do so. The enemy is determined, well-entrenched and possesses the will to do things many Americans cannot yet conceptualize. They have shown that they will go to any lengths to fulfill the leftist agenda, so we must be unapologetic in our resolve and practically militant in the delivery of our message.

America’s founders were willing to risk death to break free from slavery to elites. How many are willing to take the same risk now to prevent us from slipping back into it?

Rush & Wiles: Obama's Civil War Starting Any Day Now

Nothing delights us more here at Right Wing Watch than having some of our “favorites” get together, and we were lucky enough to see that yesterday when Erik Rush, the insane WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular, was the special guest on TruNews with Rick Wiles.

Rush told Wiles that no one, even people who actually know the definition of communism, will stop him from charging that his opponents are communists. After warning of a looming police state, Rush reiterated his call to put journalists in prison for treason: “I honestly believe that there are some news bureau chiefs who deserve to be sitting and cooling their heels in penitentiaries because some of what is going on in the press I really see as being treasonous, in addition to the high crimes that are being committed by the administration.”

The pair tried to outdo each other to see who was first to warn that Obama was a communist bent on inciting a civil war. Wiles said that he predicted in 2008 that Obama’s would incite a Marxist revolution and try to “start a civil war” just as Abraham Lincoln did.

Rush, however, saw Obama’s plan to “foment a Marxist revolution” develop “before 2007 was out.” He told Wiles that he now fears “there’s any number of things he can do to push the button and have that take place and he’s just getting his ducks in a row.”

Later, Rush charged that people who refuse to believe their claims about the looming civil war are simply in denial, lamenting that “it’s not going to be apparent to them until the bullets are flying.”

Wiles: I said in 2008 that if Mr. Obama gets in the White House he will start a revolution in this country; I warned that this was a Marxist takeover of the country. In January of 2009, I said this man is going to pattern himself—his supporters are going to tell us that he’s not FDR, he’s Abraham Lincoln. Because everybody was thinking they’re going to paint him as the new FDR, and I said in January of 2009, no, they’re going to paint him as Abraham Lincoln and the reason is his agenda is to start a civil war. I know that sounds wild and crazy.

Rush: No.

Wiles: But I really believe this man wants a civil war.

Rush: I don’t want to try to sound like I’m one-upping you but I believe that before 2007 was out, only by virtue of being one of the first people on it, I looked at this guy and I was like, if this guy gets in, he’s going to try to foment a Marxist revolution, straight up. If you look at the way things stand now, he’s got any number of ways he can do it: the economy, you know, economic collapse; race; he’s got the Occupy Wall Street people with Van Jones running them, which few people know, who is still working for Obama, which knew people know. There’s any number of things he can do to push the button and have that take place and he’s just getting his ducks in a row and of course people think that you and I are nuts when we say these things but there is ample evidence there, more than ample evidence.



Rush: I know that there are people who are either socialist or socialist-leaning who don’t advocate for a wholesale communist overthrow of the government, there are some of them who just don’t believe it and then there are a small percentage who are completely, as some would say, down with that. But what bothers me of course that it is so incomprehensible to so many people, even a lot of conservatives, that I’m afraid it’s not going to be apparent to them until the bullets are flying.

Erik Rush: Obama Is Murdering Everyone And I Don't Need Evidence To Prove It

Erik Rush says he is positive that President Obama and his minions are murdering people, and he doesn’t need any proof to back up his charges because requiring evidence is just a “ruse” of the “political left.” He previously wrote a column alleging that the Obama administration had a hand in the murder of a gun enthusiast, while admitting he had “no proof” besides an “inclination.”

Now, much like the debunked Clinton Body Count claims of old, the WorldNetDaily columnist asserts that Obama killed his gay lovers and drowned a woman who may have “come by information on the night of the [Aurora] shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.” According to Rush, Obama also killed journalist Michael Hastings, an identity theft criminal, his dog trainer, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Andrew Breitbart (of course).

Rush insists that he is simply asking questions! This is the age of FEMA camps, Rush writes, after all.

I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.



For example: On June 11, Lord Monckton reported in WND that a U.S. congressman told him the birth certificate for the president released by the White House was “unquestionably a forgery,” and “We all know that.” The congressman went on to cite fear of political retribution as the rationale for most cases of Obama’s political opponents eschewing the subject.

Rather risk-averse when compared to those who founded this nation, and cowardly considering the stakes, but we’ll move on.

There are things that go beyond the pale even of political intrigue and scandal, and there is ample evidence the president has been involved in some of these also. Once again, you’re not going to get peer-reviewed studies, videotape, or signed affidavits here. But the coincidences or confluence of events tend to dispel the idea that these are wild accusations.

In fact, they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories.

There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.

Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).

On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.

Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.

So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.

Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.

Erik Rush Blames Liberals for Trayvon Martin's Murder

Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt today tweeted a column from Erik Rush about the Trayvon Martin murder, which is about as insane as you’d expect any Erik Rush column to be. He claims that Martin was murdered because liberals turned him into a “thug-in-training” who “accosted” George Zimmerman.

Martin is “more a victim of his lifestyle than a victim of George Zimmerman,” Rush writes, calling him “someone increasingly invested in the unregenerate hedonism, conceit, belligerence, and rebellion of the thug culture.”

“Trayvon also came from a broken home, as does the overwhelming majority of black youth, thanks to liberal policies,” he continues, “This self-destructive lifestyle, which is vociferously defended by liberals, is proffered as a valid and almost sacrosanct reflection of ‘black culture.’”

He further linked affirmative action, welfare programs, the “propaganda of the left” and shows like “MTV’s Jersey Shore television program” to Martin’s murder: “This is the world of chaos and mediocrity to which Trayvon Martin aspired, and I maintain that it went just as far toward killing him as George Zimmerman’s pistol.”

Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, appears to have been far less genial, and more a victim of his lifestyle than a victim of George Zimmerman. The press narrative spun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles, only to be ambushed and blown away by a nightstalking, cackling bigot. Though time will tell how it pans out in court, reality tells a different story, one of a thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure might have presented a welcome and self-affirming confrontation.

I didn’t grow up poor, but I’m at a loss in determining how a middle-class high school student affords gold teeth and multiple tattoos; neither are cheap these days. Then, the record of Martin’s development (evidenced via social media, in his posts and those with whom he associated) reveals someone increasingly invested in the unregenerate hedonism, conceit, belligerence, and rebellion of the thug culture. Disciplinary problems – one of which necessitated his being in that unfamiliar part of town – had begun to negatively impact his life; these in particular have been downplayed by the press. Trayvon also came from a broken home, as does the overwhelming majority of black youth, thanks to liberal policies. Finally, it is fairly evident that he was a regular pot smoker, and might have been a low level dealer.

This self-destructive lifestyle, which is vociferously defended by liberals, is proffered as a valid and almost sacrosanct reflection of “black culture.” Indeed, those pointing out its myriad damaging aspects are invariably branded as racists. Thug culture is a contrivance however, a fad lifestyle crafted from the basest, fringe characteristics of black Americans and marketed to young blacks. It is similar to creating an entire lifestyle around MTV’s Jersey Shore television program, and aggressively marketing the shallow, dim-witted worldview and lifestyle of its participants to American youth of Italian descent, thereby lowering the common denominator for American youth of Italian descent (Some might argue that Viacom, which owns MTV, is in fact doing this, albeit on a smaller scale).

It wound up being quite the deal for liberal power players: Media conglomerates – most of which lean heavily to the left and have engaged in social engineering for decades – get to socioeconomically ruin blacks and get fabulously wealthy in the process. The few blacks who profit from it, whether entrepreneurs or entertainers, aren’t about to complain, let alone admit that they are poisoning the minds of an entire generation.

This is the world of chaos and mediocrity to which Trayvon Martin aspired, and I maintain that it went just as far toward killing him as George Zimmerman’s pistol.



Advancing self-destructive lifestyles in the black community and flooding our streets with illegal aliens who take far more than they contribute to our society and our economy are but two of the myriad liberal policies which have served to insidiously and incrementally debase American society as a whole.

Trayvon Martin, and Jamiel Shaw: Two very different young black men of the same age, both killed more or less directly as a result of liberalism. Given their demographic history and core values, blacks ought to be at the vanguard of opposing such collectively suicidal policies. Instead, they obey black activists who have sold them out, and liberal leaders who admonish them to go lay by their dish and be grateful for the bountiful largesse of the left – entitlements, affirmative action, and other stealth tools of enslavement. Those blacks who are not sufficiently conditioned to buy into the propaganda of the left are targeted for marginalization, if not outright personal destruction, depending on how prominent they happen to be.

Erik Rush: Muslim Immigrants Will Be 'Obama's Cutthroat Foot Soldiers' & 'Incite the Chaos That Will Necessitate Martial Law'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is reiterating his case for armed resistance against the Obama administration today, calling for a revolution to topple President Obama just as colonists rebelled against King George III.

According to Rush, Obama is creating a government of “absolute despotism” and along with Attorney General Eric Holder is trying to “enslave the people.” Rush asks: “Is this not an identical situation to that in which America’s founders found themselves – and which they became willing to fight to overcome?”

He argues that Obama is trying to “import” Muslims, whom he claim are part of a “retrograde cult of oppression and death,” into the U.S. and turn them into “Obama’s cutthroat foot soldiers” who might be “mobilized to rise up, paralyze America with widespread terror attacks, and incite the chaos that will necessitate martial law and an end to our free society.”

It has been pointed out that the Boston Tea Party was carried out over confiscatory taxation on a scale far lower than that to which the average American is now obligated. Similarly, recent revelations concerning the egregious and illegal deeds of the Obama administration have given rise to the question of just how much our current situation parallels that of the men who founded this nation.



While it is certainly true that the level of bureaucracy, corruption and overreach in our federal government has grown to intolerable proportions, and that both pre-eminent political parties share blame for this, it is the administration of one Barack Hussein Obama who has evinced a design to reduce the American people under absolute despotism.

We have two men, Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who have demonstrated absolutely no regard for the law nor the Constitution that enshrines that law. The irony of the fact that they both allegedly hold law degrees is only significant in this having provided them with the ability to more adroitly circumvent the law. Numerous individuals are complicit in their crimes, but Obama and Holder are the principals, along with Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, possibly the most dangerous woman who has ever lived.

To America’s founders, the ultimate determination of when a people are no longer obliged to support their government rested here: When the law is being used to enslave the people rather than serve them.

While Obama’s political doctrine is Marxism, this label is almost moot. What is germane to the discussion and important to Americans in the practical sense is that the ideal – or the goal of their fundamental transformation of America – is a political system wherein the people exist for and serve the state, rather than the state existing for and serving the people.

Is this not an identical situation to that in which America’s founders found themselves – and which they became willing to fight to overcome?

As some of us predicted in 2010, it has now become evident that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is nothing more than the framework for a totalitarian state. Implemented in its entirety, it will completely obscure the last vestiges of our constitutional republic. The Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency have been used as tools to tyrannize Obama’s political opponents. The administration has engaged in almost innumerable clandestine and illegal activities at home and abroad, many of which have yet to come fully to light.



Since Obama took office, the establishment press and the Obama administration have treated Muslims with the deference of a benevolent interplanetary species that just landed with the sole intent of enriching the lot of humankind, rather than viewing Islam as the retrograde cult of oppression and death that it is. As reported in WND, as part of Obama’s effort to accommodate Muslims and import as many Third World Islamic malefactors as he possibly can as soon as he can into the U.S., he is increasing “outreach” to Muslims internationally via a series of symposia.

It has already been established that there are jihadi training camps within our borders and that the Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were members of a radical mosque in Boston. Yet not only does this administration fail to put an end to such things, it empowers them through their insinuation into government and with deferential policies.

Are Muslims intended to be Obama’s cutthroat foot soldiers, those who will be mobilized to rise up, paralyze America with widespread terror attacks, and incite the chaos that will necessitate martial law and an end to our free society?

Erik Rush: Journalists, Who Should be in Jail, Must Stop Obama's 'Tyranny'

Confident Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama last year, Erik Rush wrote a pre-election screed urging a future Romney administration to arrest and prosecute journalists (and liberals at large) for treason over their “anti-American” beliefs.

But Obama won, and in a WorldNetDaily column today Rush is urging journalists to expose Obama’s plans to build a Marxist “totalitarian state” and institute “tyranny.”

He writes that Obama has “deliberately and willfully sabotaged our economy” and begs members of the press to “wake up to the fact that the leaders and regimes Obama and his closest advisers grew up admiring are the ones that committed some of the worst atrocities in modern history.”

Under President Obama, Americans’ liberties are being neutralized at a mind-blowing pace, and thanks largely to the establishment press, most Americans are still too addled to see that tyranny is coming to America. The methods the Obama administration has been using to bring this about appear pretty transparent to some of us, but practically imperceptible to others.

Since 2009, some have maintained that Obama has dangerously compromised, sabotaged and subverted this nation on more levels than I have room to list here. Those of us who were aware that Obama and his cronies are in fact actualizing the century-long dream of Marxist radicals’ for a totalitarian America said so – and we were ridiculed. We described it as it began to take shape under our noses – and we were ridiculed. We pointed out the Marxist character of countless Obama policy maneuvers, Democrat-sponsored bills, regulations, recess appointments and executive orders – and we were ridiculed even more. Each and every example we brought to light also brought the ridicule of the press and mincing liberal twerps at large.



It is madness to ignore the aggregate of evidence against Obama just because a lot of people want to believe that he’s a good guy. It is madness to ignore all of the evidence that shows us very clearly going down the road of every other civilized nation that has descended into tyranny. It is madness to ignore the evidence that speaks to Obama having deliberately and willfully sabotaged our economy, even as he continues to do so. It is madness to ignore his cozy and very open relationships with America’s sworn enemies. It is madness to ignore that we pretty much have the framework for an entire totalitarian state build right into Obamacare, the president’s crowning achievement.

And it’s madness to ignore that these things did not come about until one Barack Hussein Obama became president.

Although the media are starting to pay attention to certain “irregularities” of government, I pray that those who are not too ideologically kindred with Obama learn how criminal this administration truly is and act accordingly, as opposed to letting the president simply sacrifice a few key operatives and continue to play out his diabolical game.

Let Americans of conscience continue to exercise our influence, so that any honest elements of the press (as well as our neighbors) wake up enough to these truths. Let them also wake up to the fact that the leaders and regimes Obama and his closest advisers grew up admiring are the ones that committed some of the worst atrocities in modern history, and that in any administration, the tone is set from the top.

Erik Rush: Obama Likely 'Orchestrated the Attack' in Benghazi and 'Deserves to Be Occupying a Cell in Some Federal Penitentiary'

In his WorldNetDaily column today, Erik Rush claims that President Obama likely “orchestrated the attack” on the compound in Benghazi “given his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and legendary understanding of all things Islamic.” He offers no evidence as to why or how Obama “arranged for the assault on the compound,” but that’s par for the course at WorldNetDaily.

Rush cites the “Trinity United murders,” which according to far-right lore was Obama’s move to murder his former gay lovers he attended church with, as proof of Obama’s record of “grave criminal action.”

“Depending on the outcome, measures might be as severe as charges filed against Cabinet officials or the impeachment of Obama himself,” Rush writes. “While this president reasonably deserves to be occupying a cell in some federal penitentiary anyway, impeachment presents many troublesome aspects.”

But he warns that impeachment proceedings against Obama will “ignite civil unrest,” which Rush claims is actually Obama’s plan all along!

Earlier this week, Fox News Channel analyst Brit Hume asserted that for the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, “to become the scandal it surely deserves to be,” it will require relentless news coverage.

Hume is quite right, of course; however, there is another requisite for definitive results to develop with regard to Benghazi, and that is the willingness of Congress to see the process through to a just conclusion.

And what would be a just conclusion?

I suppose that depends on two things: One, what is revealed in the hearings, and two, whom one asks. I have always leaned in the direction of the administration having orchestrated the attack for reasons of its own – given his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and legendary understanding of all things Islamic, it is possible that President Obama could even have arranged for the assault on the compound without the foreknowledge of his Cabinet.

A bold charge, to be sure, but I am operating with such questions as the unresolved Trinity United murders before me. Then there are the possibilities that the tragedy came about as the result of less grave criminal action or a series of irresponsible and craven decisions.

The burning question at present (and which may remain so for some time) is why efforts were not made to rescue the beleaguered staff at the facility and whether or not a stand-down order was given to military personnel in the area. If the latter becomes the case, then obviously we want to know who issued the order. Depending on the outcome, measures might be as severe as charges filed against Cabinet officials or the impeachment of Obama himself. While this president reasonably deserves to be occupying a cell in some federal penitentiary anyway, impeachment presents many troublesome aspects.

A major reason Obama has skated for so long – and particularly with Republican leaders – is that no one wishes his or her legacy to include having brought down America’s first black president. There is the very real concern that such action might ignite civil unrest. The latter is a realistic concern, since both activists and the administration might catalyze said unrest as a “push back” to impeachment.

Erik Rush: Obama Will Allow Terrorist Attacks to Declare Martial Law

In Erik Rush’s latest column, the conservative commentator argues that the Obama administration may be deliberately ignoring potential terrorists targeting the US in order to use their attacks as a “pretext under which martial law might be declared.”

“In order to complete the power transfer to the degree that socialist power players desire, it will become an imperative for Obama to declare martial law at some point,” Rush writes. “This is in part why efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment have been so aggressive since Obama’s re-election.”

Why, so many who have seen these red flags wonder, would the administration, corrupt as it is, precipitate as situation wherein we are at risk for widespread attack by Islamists within our own borders?

I believe the answer is simple, and lies in a design I feared from the day Obama won the 2008 election. Barack Obama was positioned where he is in order to exponentially further the socialist agenda in America. His ability to do this where perhaps another individual might not have been able to has a great deal to do with his ethnicity; Obama’s benefactors and colleagues believed that the race card would be invaluable to them relative to shielding him from both criticism and scrutiny – and they were right. The cult of personality that was crafted around him and timing also played parts in this dynamic.

In order to complete the power transfer to the degree that socialist power players desire, it will become an imperative for Obama to declare martial law at some point. This is in part why efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment have been so aggressive since Obama’s re-election. The disadvantages to a well-armed populace in the event of martial law being declared under questionable or illegal circumstances should be obvious.

In any case, there are a number of contingencies in play that may serve the administration in this regard. A coordinated upswell in jihadi activity within the US – just enough to terrify, but not too much to suppress – would be the perfect pretext under which martial law might be declared. Whether this would coincide with, or might catalyze some other social or economic catastrophe remains to be seen.



Should order break down due to economic considerations or some other circumstance, it is they – not NRA members – who will be looting and prowling the streets looking for those whom they consider blameworthy. While there may be some Muslims among us who do not support jihad, they’ve done nothing to indicate that they won’t look the other way as it occurs. Like the radical Muslims and their liberal dhimmis, we know where they will stand when it hits the fan.

Erik Rush: 'We Have Far More Human Garbage in This Country Than We Ever Ought to Have Tolerated'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who has called for the mass incarceration of liberals and the murder of all Muslims, writes today that, thanks to liberals, “émigrés from Third World toilets” have come to America and now “we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated.” According to Rush, the left has planned “to destabilize America” by promoting “radical Marxism” and “radical Islam” until we are all pushed “into dhimmitude.”

If it hasn’t become evident by now: This race and religion-baiting is a pretext, a component of the left’s design to destabilize America. Americans are being – and in many instances have been – conditioned either to ignore radical Islam, or to sympathize with Islamists. The result can be observed (as I indicated last week in this space) in several European nations, where the citizenry, beleaguered by hordes of radical, disruptive and economically parasitic Muslims, nevertheless vociferously defend them. The unwitting natives remain unaware that it has always been the Islamists’ goal to displace them into dhimmitude.

A person cannot know that President Obama is thick as thieves with radical Islamist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist-affiliated Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and claim surprise that we are now beginning to live out the European nightmare vis-à-vis Islam. Young American fools who rush to the defense of Muslim radicals and their silent “peaceful” brethren obviously don’t recall the innumerable news reports of café bombings that came out of European nations during the 1970s, and the radical Muslim groups that claimed responsibility for each and every one.

The fact is that we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated, and this has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion; it has to do with what is in people’s hearts and minds. What we haven’t imported, the left has created. Liberals and radical Marxism in particular have inculcated a sense that we somehow deserve the antipathy of those around the world (and by extension, émigrés from Third World toilets) and so should endure it. The ongoing complaint of Muslims (radical and otherwise) is very much in this vein.

It is proper that Americans scrutinize the ethics of our leaders’ foreign policy; it is part of our civic duty. Would that we had done so more scrupulously in past years, or we might have more readily recognized the scope of our government’s corruption. This boilerplate Vietnam-era Marxist-inspired cynicism, however, has taken us from “my country, right or wrong” to “my country, always wrong,” which is just as immoral a stance as the former.

The enormity of the crimes being perpetrated by our government relative to this subject and countless others is of dizzying proportion, and the degree of brazen deception on the part of the Obama administrations is positively surreal. Thus, the magnitude of the lies that liberal and insufficiently engaged Americans are buying into is greater than any ever foisted upon a nation. That the government and the press are succeeding at this in an age of such ready information is as impressive as it is horrifying.

Erik Rush Wasn't Joking When He Said Kill Muslims

Fox News contributor Erik Rush complains in his latest column at World Net Daily that he was only joking when he said that Muslims are evil and should be killed. But he manages to prove otherwise by closing the column with a justification for killing Muslims:

For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.

And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.

You’ll recall that Rush had the following Twitter exchange with Bill Schmalfeldt on Monday in the immediate aftermath of the bombing:

We reported on the exchange, and it was quickly picked up by other media outlets. Rush accuses us and others of “leaving out the fact that it was sarcasm.” Rush claims that Bill’s “irate” tweet prompted his “sarcastic response,” and that “kill them all” was merely echoing Muslims’ “favored disposition toward Americans.”

Rush deleted the tweet later that day and rolled out his sarcasm defense, which numerous outlets uncritically parroted. We didn’t buy it then, and we certainly don’t buy it after reading Rush’s latest column.

Rush has a long track record of paranoid and hate-filled rhetoric. The “just kidding” defense doesn’t work when you’ve previously called for armed revolution against President Obama, said that liberals and journalists should be jailed for treason and claimed that the Chinese government is building a military base inside the US with help from Obama.

It’s clear that Rush supports the sentiment behind his “sarcastic” tweet. The onus was on him to prove otherwise. Not only has he failed to do so, he’s doubled down with a justification for killing Muslims.

Until now, Rush has enjoyed a close relationship with Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular. A transcript search reveals that he’s appeared on Fox nearly 20 times and has made additional appearances on Fox News Radio, as recently as last Friday. Hannity’s website even features a review for Rush’s book, with the catchy name of Negrophilia.

Despite this close relationship, representatives of Fox News scrambled behind the scenes this week to distance the channel from Rush. If they don’t want their precious brand to be tainted by him, they need to cut ties with him entirely. We have a petition calling on Fox to do so, which has already been signed by more than 50,000 people.

Right Wing Leftovers - 4/17/13

  • The Family Research Council is organizing a "Stand With Scouts Sunday" event to be held on May 5.
  • Erik Rush's insistence that he was being sarcastic when he called for all Muslims to be killed in response to the Boston Marathon bombing is laughable to anyone familiar with his history of radical rhetoric.
  • On his radio program today, Glenn Beck hinted at possible plans to open a Washington, DC bureau of The Blaze in order to apply for White House credentials.
  • Sen. Marco Rubio gets a first hand look of what it is like dealing with the Right's misinformation machine.
  • Things are not going well for Mark Sanford.
  • Finally, Rick Joyner explains that Christians should not fear being the victims of a terrorist attack because if they die, they get to go straight to Heaven.

Right Wing Leftovers - 4/16/13

  • Erik Rush is not backing down from the controversy he set off yesterday, declaring that "this army of dhimmi idiots reeeeally isn't doing much to convince me I was wrong about anything here..."
  • Pat Buchanan says that civil disobedience may be the only option if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality.
  • If someone was booted from their band like this for opposing gay marriage, the Religious Right would be railing about it for weeks.
  • Rick Joyner warns that "without another Great Awakening, we will not survive as a Republic much longer."
  • Finally, Matt Barber continues to demonstrate that he is one of the most offensive and bigoted anti-gay activists operating today: "Most homosexuals know intuitively, I think, that their lifestyle is unnatural and immoral and that the oxymoronic notion of 'same-sex marriage' is a silly farce. Thus, they must force others to affirm both their self-destructive lifestyle and their mock 'marriages' under penalty of law. They must physically compel everyone to engage their “emperor’s new clothes” delusion, so they can feel better about bad behavior. Well, my friend, making everyone else 'call evil good and good evil' won’t fill that dark void in your soul."

Tell Fox News: Dump Hatemonger Erik Rush

A Fox News contributor went too far in the wake of the tragic violence at the Boston Marathon. Read more & tell Fox to dump Erik Rush.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious