Erik Rush

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.

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.

• 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."

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?

• 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.

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.

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.

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…

Conservative commentator Erik Rush says that President Obama’s communist plot is so evil and destructive that “most of the ‘New World Order’ scenarios do not hold water in light of this,” but only he knows the truth!

Rush claims that Obama (if that’s even his real name) is a “spoiled, narcissistic man-child with the heart of a street hustler” who is “taking America from decades of soft socialism to an all-out, 21st-Century communist state” that will surpass even the Soviet Union. “There will be a bloodbath as this occurs,” Rush concludes, “I would not hazard a guess as to whether this process can be arrested without what will amount to civil war.”

Enter Barack Obama – or Barry Soetoro, Barry Soebarko, Bari Shabazz, or whatever his name truly is. A spoiled, narcissistic man-child with the heart of a street hustler, he is anointed by the radical intelligentsia as the one who can make that exponential leap, taking America from decades of soft socialism to an all-out, 21st-Century communist state. Indeed, it is a plan more ambitious than anything that was accomplished in Europe, whereby prosperous market economies and democracies were transformed into democratic socialist states. No, this will be more along the lines of what occurred in Russia or China, except that in the US, the radicals will have gained control of the infrastructure prior to seizing total power. I have already stated that there will be a bloodbath as this occurs.

Part of this has to do with the grandiosity of thinking and innate narcissism on the part of radicals like Obama, lusting for the “glory days” of communism and of those they have long-idolized. Part of it has to do with the hatred they hold for America and its people. They want to punish; in their arrogant and narrow perception of America as an oppressor nation, they want to see America’s children starving (at least for a while), her people diseased, terrorized, and pauperized on a scale dwarfing that of the Great Depression. Only then will citizens be sufficiently pliant; only then can the radicals remove their masks with impunity.

Now, I am not foolish enough to believe that something as comprehensive as the communist takeover of America happened in a vacuum. While there have been many lawmakers and other elected officials in the Republican Party who remained loyal to the Constitution over the years, it is clear that the party leadership was either irrevocably corrupted at some point, or reached a point of impotence through their weak stewardship that they are now too afraid to mount any meaningful political challenge. There’s little doubt that many prominent Republicans have been essentially complicit in this, although determining who at this juncture is pretty much a meaningless exercise.

As an aside: Most of the “New World Order” scenarios do not hold water in light of this; it makes no sense for those who have power (and aren’t communists) to sabotage the engine of their own prosperity.

Personally, I would not hazard a guess as to whether this process can be arrested without what will amount to civil war. In such a scenario, it is of course always possible that the radicals will lose. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that all I’ve postulated will come to pass in one form or another. My hope is that, in the interim, American patriots will be able to enlighten as many as possible to the true character of the Obama administration, and to what the American government has become. Such knowledge may not make the fight any easier, but at least those who possess it will not be taken wholly unaware – something that is most assuredly part of the design.