Erik Rush

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.

Erik Rush: Kill All Muslims in Response to Boston Marathon Attack

Fox News contributor goes too far in the wake of the tragic violence at the Boston Marathon.

Erik Rush: Gay Rights and Common Core Lead to 'Tyranny'

Conservative commentator Erik Rush in a column today writes that the “perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle” will “destabilize society” and put the U.S. on “the road to tyranny.” Such rhetoric almost seems tame for the vehemently anti-gay writer, but he goes on to make up for it by citing Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze TV’s conspiratorial “reporting” on Common Core standards to claim that “tyranny” is on its way to America.

Out of frustration, apathy, and fear of conflict, I imagine a great many Americans of otherwise sound mind have fallen into the delusion that two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t hurt them, so why not let them do so. Thus, overall opposition to the advancing phenomenon even among conservatives in America has been fairly lax.

I say “delusion” because manifesting this societal paradigm will in fact hurt them – meaning society at large – because perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle as represented in our culture does destabilize society. Despite the propaganda and the rhetoric, we know that embracing homosexuality has a dramatically deleterious effect on society. In the main, progressives have courted pusillanimous fools who would “allow” same-sex unions, but ban guns and dodge ball; they are too ignorant and self-righteous to realize that this is the road to tyranny.

It has also been established that this issue has implications far more widespread than “loving people committing to each other.” We already have ample proof in the realm of education of how far radical minds will go to indoctrinate American children into moral relativism and deviance. Imagine what they will do if they perceive they have the countenance and approval of most Americans.



This is why I have argued against the “same-sex marriage” concept. I am well aware that liberals and homophiles will call me a big fat hater with cooties for speaking thus, but I could care less what kind of sex consenting adults have. It’s none of my business – but arresting the progress of an agenda that’s ultimately harmful to all of us is.



Forget Minority Report; such programs as the Common Core curriculum and technology project (recently reported on by columnist Michelle Malkin and TheBlaze TV, and which lays bare the incestuous conspiracies of certain captains of industry and government socialists) are right out of the film THX 1138 in their intrusiveness and tyranny.

Then we have the surreal comportment of our government in the face of staggeringdebt and deficits. While only a handful of Americans really understand the dynamic (despite its simplicity), the stage currently being set by the Federal Reserve will bring about an economic catastrophe unparalleled in modern times. Having witnessed the intentional economic collapse catalyzed by these statists via the Community Reinvestment Act, I see no reason to presume that this is not occurring by design. With its brazen, ever-increasing spending, the Obama administration has telegraphed an intention to add fuel to this fire no matter the circumstances or consequence.

Americans have no doubt found the economic turmoil in Cyprus in recent weeks entertaining, but they remain completely unaware that not only could it happen here, but provisions have been made for precisely this eventuality. Have you wondered how Americans might react when the government begins confiscating our bank accounts to pay its debt?

Erik Rush: Same-Sex Marriage Is an 'Anti-Theistic, Christophobic Design of the Radical Left'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush today writes that same-sex couples can never truly be married, even if it becomes law. Rush argues that voters “no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry” as “same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute,” in the same way a man could never join a sorority.

He goes on to argue that gay rights advocates have a “venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity” and that same-sex marriage is part of “the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left,” which Rush claims will bring about “societal dissolution.”

I find it quite surreal that as I write this, the most learned legal minds in the country are being compelled to debate an issue that is wholly specious on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments against the State of California voters’ right to have banned “same-sex marriage,” but all that ban amounts to in a practical sense is an agreement that the semantic argument not be broached. Do California voters have a right to do so? Certainly – but they no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry.

Thus, my ongoing contention that we as a society have neither the power nor the ability to change the definition of “marriage,” nor can we confer the “right” to marry upon those who do not possess an a priori qualification to be married. I can petition a college sorority to accept me as a sister, and they might even do so after a fashion; but I will never be a “sorority sister,” because I am a man. Similarly, same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute.



The quest for “same-sex marriage” (which, as has been established, doesn’t exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase “marriage equality.” Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America’s cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.

In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.

Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for “marriage equality” are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.



If all this were a matter of equitable health insurance coverage, taxation or inheritance, civil unions would be the way to go. It is quite true, as many of our libertarian friends contend, that the state should never have gotten involved in the business of marriage to start with. For civil purposes, certificates of some sort of recognition might have been instituted for married couples, such as when someone changes their name. This way, if two homosexuals wanted to play house, they could have whatever familial parameters they desired formally registered and recognized in the same manner.

But civil unions are not good enough. In order for the left to achieve their objective, the political left must compel all of America to capitulate, to embrace and honor homosexual unions as “marriage.” It is only in this way that the requisite societal dissolution may progress.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/11/13

  • Is anyone surprised that Bryan Fischer was once confronted by his colleagues in the ministry and sent off to "some high-priced shrink-tank to get two weeks of intensive psychotherapy"? It obviously did not do much good.
  • Liberty Counsel has merged with Florida Faith & Works Coalition and will launch a new outreach program aimed at politically mobilizing pastors and churches.
  • Richard Land says that Christians may soon be forced to engage in civil disobedience.
  • This short commentary by Gordon Klingenschmitt on the use of drones might literally be one of the dumbest things we have ever seen.
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham might be getting a re-election challenge from a gay conservative blogger and activist.
  • Finally, more evidence that Erik Rush is quite a piece of work.

Erik Rush: There Is a 50% Chance Obama Will Cancel the 2016 Elections and Become a Dictator

Over the last several months, conservative commentator Erik Rush has been warning that President Obama is intent on becoming a dictator who will unleash a Gestapo-like force on the nation while sparking civil unrest so he can cancel future elections.

Last night, Alan Colmes invited Rush onto his radio program to defend his paranoid conspiracy theories, which Rush did with gusto, telling Colmes that he truly believes that America is on the verge of becoming a Nazi-like state where citizens are rounded-up and forced into cattle cars and that there is a fifty percent chance that Obama will seek to foment some sort of cataclysm so he can implement martial law, cancel the 2016 election, and stay in power indefinitely:

You can watch Colmes' entire conversation with Rush below:

Erik Rush: Obama and Allies 'Merit Being Removed by Force of Arms'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is out with another unhinged rant, this time arguing that new gun control legislation in Colorado is a “precursor” to the rise of civil unrest and an American version of the Gestapo. Rush maintains that the government seeks to pass new gun laws in order to deliberately spark a violent response, which will justify the use of Gestapo-like tactics and the criminalization of gun ownership.

He contends that Obama administration officials want to confiscate guns because “they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more” and “already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.”

The Democrat members of the Colorado legislature have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of the state of Colorado. What occurred in Colorado on that day was nothing short of a disgusting outrage and a chilling precursor of things to come.



It is no secret among conservatives that for the last several years, Colorado has been a chief target of one high-profile progressive billionaire and former Nazi collaborator (George Soros) through his various radical astroturf political organizations. With this aid, and through the aforementioned methods, the White House effectively subverted Colorado’s legislative processes and is ruling by proxy, while maintaining the illusion of legitimate due process.

What concerns me most about the developments in Colorado and other states vis-à-vis firearms laws is that this progression has brought us that much closer to law-enforcement officials showing up at citizens’ homes and demanding their guns. Raised in the same environment as the rest of us, many peace officers won’t realize that they are operating well outside of the law.

And that’s when things will have the potential to get really ugly.

On Jan. 6, 2013, Nathan Haddad, a former Army staff sergeant and decorated combat veteran, was selling some gun magazines when he was arrested for violating a new New York state law prohibiting possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Haddad was charged with five felonies.

The officers who arrested Haddad, and those prosecuting him have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Officials who enforce immoral laws are no better than Hitler’s Gestapo. Where, pray tell, do they plan to draw the line at what unlawful decrees they will and will not uphold?

Very soon, we are likely to hear of an individual who, upon being contacted by law enforcement, winds up in a firefight with them over their enforcement of newly implemented gun-control measures. Law-enforcement officers may be wounded or killed, as might our citizen. If arrested, he or she will be a political prisoner. This will be the final nail in the coffin for legal firearms ownership in America, as the government and the press will capitalize upon this event (and perhaps similar others) to prove once and for all that all gun owners are potential psycho cop killers.

Why does the government (and the Obama administration in particular) want Americans’ firearms? Because they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more. They know that they represent precisely why America’s founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution in the first place, and that they already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/28/13

  • The House of Representatives today finally passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 
  • Naturally, Concerned Women for America is upset and calls VAWA “a slap in the face to sex trafficking victims.” 
  • Erik Rush laments that “Western liberal elites” pressured South Africa to abandon the Apartheid system. 
  • Confederate sympathizer Ted Nugent claims the Democratic Party “is the root cause of the violence in our inner cities” and pushing black “cultural suicide.”

Erik Rush Warns Conservative Leaders Secretly Support the Imminent Obama Dictatorship

Conservative columnist Erik Rush has been warning over and over again that President Obama and his Democratic (and Chinese) allies are bent on creating a one-party, anti-Christian, communist state. But as we learn in Rush’s latest column, the leaders of the Republican Party support the looming Obama dictatorship as well!

Leaving aside for the moment the likelihood that parties and party politics in America will become moot within the next few years (owing to the emergence of a single party or the country’s dissolution into civil war), conservatives and libertarians are finding themselves at an unpleasant crossroads. While some observers gave up on the leadership of the Republican Party long ago, it is now becoming apparent to rank-and-file Republicans that the GOP leadership and its prominent operatives are wholly complicit in the fundamental transformation of America.

While these might not be on board with the “fundamental transformation” as referenced by candidate Obama in 2008 (his being a dedicated Marxist and all), they are indeed working in concert with Democrats to bring about a monolithic socialist state. Worse, many said Republicans have been masquerading as staunch conservatives and are acknowledged as such, so they are accepted by committed conservative voters.



Conservatives know that the stakes are too high for these boilerplate political games, so why don’t so-called conservatives like Rove, Kasich, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and a host of others?

The answer is clear, and the operative term is “games.” The machinations of the GOP power brokers in recent years haven’t been those of ineptitude or spinelessness, they have been those of collusion. These high-profile Republican operatives are oligarchs of the same mold as their Democrat counterparts. Personally, they may hold slightly different political views, but these are analogous to two people who prefer different varieties of cheesecake.

For decades, people have scoffed at the idea that powerful Republicans were indeed compromising American interests in favor of various global socialist agendas, even as evidence continued to mount. Charges that were leveled 30 years ago have been validated, yet the scoffing continues. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed the U.S. onto the United Nations’ Agenda 21. This is now widely recognized as an insidious means by which the economies of Western nations – America in particular – might be crippled under the pretext of “sustainability.” At this point it is quite clear that Agenda 21 is sinister, yet prominent faux conservatives titter right along with liberals at this notion.

This is but one example of where that which once appeared to be fringe conspiracy theory is now reality. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were those who spoke of the dangers of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other agencies, even as Republicans of the day claimed membership therein. Now the agendas are out in the open rather than the ramblings of “fringe elements,” but the proponents of globalism have gained so much ground that there may be no stopping their progress in America short of civil war.

So what’s a conservative to do? If there is a chance of reversing this process at the ballot box, with whom should constitutionally-minded conservatives and libertarians align themselves, particularly considering the fact that there are still so many of their number who trust the GOP?

I tend to agree with colleagues who have concluded that the federal government is lost, and that we must concentrate our efforts – at least in the short term – on our stategovernments. Vis-à-vis Obamacare, for example, it has been rightly asserted that refusal to cooperate on the part of the states will be an effective counter to its implementation. Ruthless scrutiny with regard to who we send to the state house as well as to Congress, eschewing even thwarting the campaigns of party establishment hacks, is another way we might retain a measure of liberty within the states in which we reside. Unless and until the Federal government initiates a full-blown police state, the statists may still be neutralized via the current political infrastructure.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/14/13

  • In addition to urging his audience to buy gold, Glenn Beck is now encouraging them to invest in farmland.
  • Apparently, the SPLC is engaged in a "hate campaign" against "ex-gays."
  • FRC issues it weekly prayer targets.
  • The chairman of U.S. English says there was no reason for Marco Rubio to deliver his State of the Union response in Spanish because "the Hispanics who really do not speak good English are the illegals who don't vote anyway."
  • Quote of the day from Erik Rush: "We may have already reached the point of no return with regard to that sociopolitical singularity which will carry the impact of the Civil War, the two World Wars and the Great Depression rolled into one."
  • Finally, Mary Kissel of the Wall Street Journal asks Ralph Reed why it took President Obama four years to start talking about the importance of families and fatherhood; we ask Mary Kissel where she has been for the last four years.

Erik Rush Suspects Obama Will Classify Christians as 'Mentally Ill and Ship Them Off to an Asylum'

Adding to his ever-growing list of fears, conservative commentator Erik Rush suspects that President Obama will work with the American Psychiatric Association to classify Christianity as a mental illness in order to take away their rights and detain them indefinitely. Rush, who ironically encouraged a possible Romney administration to begin prosecuting and disenfranchising liberals, writes that the health care reform law will be the mechanism that will enable Obama to begin targeting Christians for persecution.

In May of this year the APA (American Psychiatric Association) will release its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which will supersede the DSM-IV, last revised in 2000. These manuals are essentially the yardstick for what is and what is not “mental illness” in America.

Now, while the APA is the premier psychiatric association in America, driving what passes for all conventional wisdom with regard to mental illness, in recent years it has been accused of being more agenda-driven than representing hard, scientific and medical assessments of mental disorders. Decidedly liberal-leaning, in recent decades it has essentially redefined such things as homosexuality, gender identification disorder, and pedophilia to reflect what pressure groups and the liberal intelligentsia wish, rather than continuing to describe them as psychologically aberrant.

One begins to see how having such a biased organization whimsically defining and re-defining mental illness in light of recent political developments might be, shall we say, troublesome to say the very least.

For example: It has been established that the oxymoronical Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) signed into law in 2010 is anything but affordable. Worse, its detractors rightly indicated that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s admonition that it must be passed so that we could see what was in it was dangerous as well as idiotic. Well, the poison pills therein are already being revealed in the form of hidden regulations that either incur cost, or impinge upon constitutional protections.



Along with his disdain for European society and what Obama perceives as the vestiges of imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy (which includes America), he also despises that which gave rise to it, which serves as its cultural adhesive, and which stands as the chief impediment to a Marxist America: Christianity.

So, what new diagnoses, designations, and revisions might be included in the DSM-5? We won’t know for certain until May, but given the history of the APA, I believe Americans have reason to be afraid. I believe that we shall see an increasing incidence of sinister provisions in Obamacare coming to light, and conflict within the medical and legal communities as to the government’s latitude in these areas.

In the area of mental illness, given the administration’s totalitarian bent, this could mean an era of atrocities galore. Have you ever suffered from anxiety? Depression? Had “anger issues?” Have you ever been treated for drug addiction or alcoholism? Had trouble sleeping? Any of these and a host of others might be used as a pretext for one’s designation as a mental defective. One might suddenly discover that due to some benign neurosis or psychological episode, perhaps in their distant past, their constitutional rights have been nullified overnight.



As the reader may be aware, in the former Soviet Union and other totalitarian states, one of the pretexts often used to do away with political dissidents and those otherwise deemed to be threats to national security was to label them as mentally ill and ship them off to an asylum. Sometimes they returned; often they did not, but they were out of the way for as long as was necessary in the capricious mind of the regime, and the citizenry was duly warned that the same could happen to them should they likewise pose such a “threat.”

In the case of those who pose the most dire threat to Obama’s designs – Christians – these will certainly be targeted. After all, who more demonstrably epitomizes mental instability in the eyes of the Marxist atheist than those who commune with and rely upon that which is unseen? To the Marxist, God is no more real than Elwood’s “Harvey,” and even more antiquated than the Constitution.

Hey - did you hear they carted Mr. Rush off in a straitjacket last night? I had no idea he was mentally ill! Well, better that than he shoots up a school or something…
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious