New Media Alliance - Erik Rush

By Erik Rush

Whether one attributes the success of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama to savvy maneuvering on the part of the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign, Republican ineptitude, a biased press or the influence of shadow governments, in the end the November election’s outcome is going to come down to Americans’ capacity – or lack of capacity – for critical thinking.

Despite the last several years of Americans’ synaptic pathways being deluged by how much the Bush administration and Republicans employ vacuum-related techniques, in the aggregate they have more than enough evidence that conservative principles have proven themselves more fruitful than so-called progressive ones.

The rub, as it were, lies in the fact that conservative principles have not been a benchmark of the Bush administration nor have they guided the Republican Party for some time. It is fortunate for the American people that Bill Clinton was more of a narcissist than an idealist, responding to the will of the people in such areas as taxes and entitlement programs in order to secure a viable legacy. Had this not been the case, Democrats would now have even more woes to heap at the feet of George W. Bush.

The election of a Democrat president – Obama in particular – would mark a perilous quantum leap toward socialism and an ever-weakening presence on the global stage, particularly if Democrats retain control of Congress and gain more seats in the House and Senate.

“Obama praised Thursday’s Supreme Court decision to allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts. Enforcing habeas corpus rights, he said, is ‘the essence of who we are.’”

-Associated Press, June 14, 2008

The limp-wristed ruling with roots in a perverted interpretation of law was lauded by the Democrat candidate; the insanity of granting citizen’s rights to unconventional, lawless combatants in a global conflict be damned. Denial of the fact that the War on Terror is an unprecedented effort in response to an enemy of unprecedented ruthlessness and barbarity which must be met decisively and unconventionally is patent madness. Unfortunate that so many have accepted the notion that the entire phenomenon was a Bush concoction, and that millions may suffer terribly as a result.

“[Obama’s proposals]include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a ‘windfall profits’ tax on oil companies*; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.”

-Associated Press, June 14, 2008

The transparency of these proposals would be humorous were they not so manifestly flawed – and historically proven to be imprudent. Still the masses cheer and gape over the façade, not considering the following for a nanosecond:

-A $1,000 tax cut for most working families is a joke.

-Americans with incomes of $251,000 are not wealthy, particularly if one has a family and lives in a large city.

-New taxes on oil companies will simply be passed on to the consumer as they always are, and Obama knows it.

-From whence is this unfunded mandate of a $4,000 annual college tuition credit to come?

-Here, Obama likely has gained the votes of elderly Americans who make less than $50,000 a year and pay taxes – all five of them.

But forget common sense, logic, the historical record, and the truth. As this columnist has asserted, Obama’s success (to date; he isn’t President yet) has been but a part of the global-socialist agenda. Turn the American Dream into enough of a nightmare and Americans will give up on it because survival – let alone prosperity – under the capitalist system will appear unattainable.

The former world heavyweight champion boxer George Foreman comes to mind, and the success he has enjoyed not only monetarily, but as a successful community servant. He grew up “po,’” claiming his family was too broke to afford the “or” (at the end of the word “poor”) in conditions that are more readily associated with impoverished people in the Third World these days. Yet, to hear the unshakable faith in the man, which he has also instilled in his children, that anyone can achieve anything in America to which they set their minds stands in sharp contrast to the message of those who stand out as “representatives” of “black America.”

Despite the ongoing production of multimillionaires in the U.S., even among those who ought to reside in penitentiaries, the Left continues to propagandize our citizenry as regards the downside of everything whilst busily working to manifest that nightmare of universal hopelessness.

“Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.”

-Associated Press, June 15, 2008

If that’s his belief, then perhaps Obama ought to reconsider his core political philosophy, embrace conservative values and refrain from validating and keeping company with those who promote victimology, class envy and race hatred. It speaks volumes to the media’s bias toward this candidate that even when he catapults boulders from his glass mansion, there isn’t a peep from the establishment press.

Since most members of the press have proven themselves to be card-carrying Obamaphiles, save for independent pollsters – who can be incorrect – there is really no manner by which one can discern how popular the Democrat candidate is in actuality.

The press portrays Barack Obama with the confidence that his occupancy of the White House is an inevitability. Will conservative Republicans and independent conservatives, perceiving the gravity of this election in the long term, vote for John McCain, a man whom they don’t consider conservative enough?

Only November will tell whether or not Dewey has defeated Truman again.

*Obama’s “windfall profits tax” does not conform to the definition thereof; it would simply be a new tax; in this context, an appeal to Americans’ resentment of “big oil.”

By Erik Rush

There’s an axiom in Recovery (as in from addiction) circles which asserts that addictions are but symptoms of deeper emotional or psychological problems. Leaving aside the debate as to whether this holds water, I submit that the tremendous success of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is but a symptom of the broader disease: The establishment media (which includes broadcast news and print sources as well as the entertainment media) has finally subverted enough of the collective mind of America to usher in the era of socialism toward which the far Left has been maneuvering us for the last 40 years.

Like the seizure that alerted Sen. Ted Kennedy’s doctors that he was suffering from a grave condition, it is just a symptom – albeit a very nasty one.

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…”

“Agent K,” from the film Men in Black

Being convinced that the Republican Party is to blame for taking us to places we would rather not and shouldn’t have gone, and that the George W. Bush presidency was a mistake that never should have happened, Americans are now shambling, glassy-eyed and drooling toward “Change,” too transfixed by the captivating ultraviolet glow to hear the crackle of those who burst into nothingness in line ahead of them.

They have no idea what they’ve bought into, of course, the magnitude of the lies and the peril which awaits. They do not fathom that they are accepting a fundamental change in the paradigm of our social system from one in which the industrious and principled prosper versus one in which the indolent and capricious prosper.

As regards the political continuum in modern America, over the past 40 years the Democrat Party leadership transmogrified from elitist liberals into socialists. In the last 20, the Republican Party leadership became liberals, and the media has been a prime mover in this transformation. Having themselves been manipulated by those in the press to heed them rather than their constituents and conservative elements within the party leadership (which had brought past success), eunuchs in the GOP, driven by fear for their image and personal self-interest, sold America out to deviant parasites.

The walking mediocrities among the far Left (politically-active ideologues) and duped middle class voters believe the playing field will be “leveled” for them and “the downtrodden” once the faceless “rich” are brought under their leaders’ sway. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates that they will have anything to look forward to but misery, abuse and pain, but logic is immaterial. By design, the power brokers of the far Left appealed to their emotions, not their intellect.

The power brokers and their operatives (such as those in the press, for example) believe that they will be among the unassailable elite. Once again, despite the historical record, they don’t believe they will ever be counted among those who, in a fit of melancholy, climb into the trunk of an automobile and shoot themselves repeatedly in the head, as so many prominent figures in far Left regimes wind up doing.

Just a few of the dangerously dishonest representations in which the press has engaged over the last eight years:

Television news bureaus withheld the more gruesome 9/11 footage – too graphic for their audiences, of course. The same criteria somehow doesn’t apply to video of terrorists killed by American troops in Iraq. This was the beginning of their systematically propagandizing Americans into forgetting 9/11.

Engendering sympathy for retrograde culture (at which they have excelled for some time) and radical Islamist killers are among other wild subjectivities put forth by the press concerning the War on Terror in general.

The Iraq campaign was supposed to be over in half an hour. The scope and the frequency of the falsehoods, minimizations, manipulations and exacerbations conveyed by the press to Americans in this area are too numerous to address.

Slandered, maligned and generally demonized President Bush and the Republican Party – unfortunately, with their help – on a scale never seen previously.

Exhibited barefaced partiality for Sen. Barack Obama during the Democrat Party’s primary process, evidenced by their downplaying glaring and perilous deficiencies in the candidate.

The press knows that Mexican drug lords essentially own the U.S. – Mexico border. American women are being abducted from our southern border towns and spirited away south of the border to face unimaginable fates. Atrocities reminiscent of the Mongol invasion of China are taking place along the border every day. How many Americans (who don’t live in border towns) are aware of these occurrences?

While the far Left escalates its quest to stamp out Christianity in America, the religion is literally exploding in Asia and Africa, where believers hold to their faith despite persecution Christians have not experienced since the time of ancient Rome. One example is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan; the press conveniently neglects to include this component in its coverage of the crisis.

For better or worse, we have this thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government infringement upon the activities of the press. Little did the founders of our nation know that it would one day face a universally treasonous press that would, hell-bent on societal suicide, focus its energies toward bringing America to ruin.

Were the extent of the media’s manipulation of information to the political gain of the far Left in America known, it might well lead to the storming of news bureaus across the country. A conservative individual with, say, George Soros’s resources could take care of America’s “press problems” fairly handily. This columnist has intellectually considered certain initiatives; unfortunately, addressing them here would be imprudent.

Although it does bear mentioning that the First Amendment only applies to the government abridging the freedom of the press – not the people…

By Erik Rush

It’s official: The “pastor issue” as regards the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is old hat. Why? Because it’s not about radical pastors anyway, and never was; it’s an issue of whether or not it is plausible that Obama sat in a church which teaches the racist, Marxist, anti-American doctrine of Black Liberation Theology for 20 years and somehow missed the core values thereof. It is also an issue of the candidate’s numerous shady associates within the far Left Chicago cabal, the lack of scrutiny the establishment press has employed on the subject, and the feeble explanations Obama has offered on those rare occasions when he is queried in these areas.

But before we move on: The example of Catholic Father Michael Pfleger’s May 25 outing as guest speaker at Chicago’s Trinity United Church (which precipitated the candidate’s leaving the church this weekend) warrants analysis, the reason being that it illustrates key aspects of the behavior of racist far Left whites, whose actions are really those which militate to keep black Americans down (as opposed to the faceless and largely nonexistent white oppressors against whom adherents to Black Liberation Theology and other activists rail).

To recap: Father Pfleger is a Catholic priest and head of the Faith Community of Saint Sabina church in Chicago, a predominantly black congregation. He is also an Obama supporter and contributor whose church has benefitted financially due to the senator’s influence.

Despite being white, Pfleger is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology and has a long history of gratuitous civil rights activism in the tradition of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and others. The ultimate useful white idiot, he has called Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan “my brother” and has had him speak at St. Sabina’s. Yes, Farrakhan – one of the most odious racists and anti-Semites in America.

It’s a sad state of affairs when in 2008, a white man feels he has to adopt the diction of “The Kingfish” from Amos’n’Andy to relate to black people. It’s even sadder when such techniques are successful. All Pfleger needed was some black greasepaint for his face and white for his lips and he’d really have been set.

Although it is no secret that this columnist holds a deep disdain for afrocentrism, and even the inaccurate and pretentious term “African-American” as it is commonly employed, I’ve always found whites who sink to Zeligesque affectations of black people nauseating. As he spoke, Pfleger took on a “hip” black persona and speech patterns, intermittently wiping his brow á la the late soul legend James Brown or a Louisiana bayou preacher.

The minstrel show aspect of his oratory was the least offensive of his diatribe at Trinity United. In addition to his ludicrous accusation that Hillary Clinton felt entitled to the Democratic nomination because she’s white (as opposed to being pathologically narcissistic), Black Liberation Theology’s answer to Eminem spouted more of the incendiary, erroneous, racist, anti-American bilge we’ve heard over the past few months from Revs. Wright, Moss and Meeks, riling this ostensibly loving Christian bunch of folks into a howling mob.

“Well, America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price!”

- Father Michael Pfleger at Trinity United Church of Christ, May 25, 2008

Who, one wonders, is “America” in this context, what is “the price,” and in what manner is it to be “paid?” Pfleger’s rhetoric smacked even more of anarchism than Marxism at times; overall, he came off like a semi-literate activist on a streetcorner in downtown Managua, save that he was speaking what passes for English.

It is probable that a more indulgent, patronizing, grotesque display has never been aired on national television.

When a black activist spews this sort of hate, it is easier for whites (and blacks who don’t necessarily agree) to put the phenomenon down to ignorance, bitterness, or even a profit motive. When a white far Left activist behaves in this way, it lends credence to the argument conservatives both black and white proffer that blacks are being fed this culture of victimization and hatred because it is an imperative of the far Left’s agenda. Miserable, disempowered factions are far easier to control if one can ingratiate oneself to them, scapegoat another group as the name of their pain and claim they have solutions.

As with so many of the ills America currently faces, it has been the modus operandi of the far Left for decades to either create or exacerbate same, and then propagandize those who suffer into believing that the real blame falls to their political opponents.

The danger here – and an extremely grave one, to be sure – is that all of the passion of religious zealotry is now being used to pit one ethnic group against another to advance a political agenda and for the personal aggrandizement of unprincipled individuals. We have seen in other regions and nations – most recently in the case of radical Islam – where this can lead.

By Erik Rush

“Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.”

Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. James Cone, 1969

Barack Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology. Can an American be compelled to renounce their religion, a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and one which has been so dearly held by Americans for over 200 years? No, but there is a major distinction between asking someone to renounce their religion versus a highly controversial school of so-called theology.

Obama claims to be a Christian, and no one can or should demand that he renounce Christianity. He must, however, publicly clarify his beliefs with respect to what is considered Christianity in America compared to the destructive, racist creed taught at Trinity United Church in Chicago, where he has been a member for the past 20 years.

If Barack Obama indeed subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, whether he admits to it or not, this will make him the most dangerous individual to ever aspire to the Presidency. There is no debate on this point.

Obama must be asked directly whether or not he accepts Black Liberation Theology as preached by pastors who subscribe to this doctrine and as described in James Cone’s book, Black Theology and Black Power, the chief text of BLT (as admitted to by Rev. Jeremiah Wright on March 1, 2007). No less will do, and unless he is asked this question, Americans will have been grossly irresponsible with regard to their civic duties. In truth, were the establishment press not corrupt and Americans more scrupulous in their discernment, Obama’s campaign hopes would have been dashed in March 2007.

One of the most prominent of our broadcast journalists has all but pledged to interview Obama on his television program, perhaps the most widely-viewed of its kind in America. This gentleman was duly critical of the candidate and Reverend Wright when the issue of the pastor’s racist and anti-American sentiments came to light. Will he ask Obama the all-important question?

At this juncture it appears extremely unlikely that he or anyone else will. Should this occur, it is even less likely that Obama will comply, so grave would be the implications of such action.

Were Obama to renounce Black Liberation Theology, the backlash from militant BLT pastors, their cohorts (such as the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan) and black Americans who have been brainwashed into maintaining solidarity with influential blacks even if they are far wide of the mark would be so severe, not only would the candidate lose the black vote, but his campaign might all but disintegrate. His renouncement would be framed as a rejection of the aggregate of black Americans.

This columnist has stated on national television venues that Barack Obama lied about his knowledge of Rev. Wright’s militancy. Given the nature of Black Liberation Theology and those who preach it, it is an impossibility that he was never present when statements were made similar to those which aired. Such verbiage is the meat of this doctrine. That an adherent to this vile cult would lie in order to attain the presidency is no stretch, of course, but the glaring evidence of this lie must come to light.

Barack Obama was (as he says) “drawn to” Trinity United; it is the belief of an increasing number of America’s more astute observers that this was because he recognized it as a strategy whereby he might put an acceptable face on his religious and sociopolitical leanings, which are actually more akin to that of the Nation of Islam and more generic black nationalists than any Christian denomination. Join a radical Christian church; at least it has the word “Christian” tied to it. Perhaps the “Jesus” BLT promotes was one in whom Obama could believe (difficult though he may be to find in the New Testament). Inasmuch as there are almost innumerable varieties of Christianity in the U.S. and criticism of black culture is not considered politically correct, I am certain much calculation arrived at the likelihood that he would get away with it.

He was right, of course. The genesis of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, which helped pave the way for his candidacy, was a sermon delivered by Jeremiah Wright. This insight with respect to who the candidate is or might be remains a surreal paradox: Audacity is an acclaimed literary work (which some pundits claim Obama didn’t actually write), but one which has failed to serve as the red flag it really is.

The reason Obama must be called to renounce Black Liberation Theology is twofold: One, to determine his sincerity or depth of his duplicity. Two, is in order to hold him accountable at a later date, sort of like: “I did not have sex with that woman.”

If cornered as candidate or President, Obama might conceivably spin BLT into a far more innocuous phenomenon that it truly is, but having been cornered, Americans will be “looking at his feet,” if you will: Scrutinizing his actions rather than his words.

For my part, I submit that if Obama was sitting in the pews of Trinity United Church as a member for 20 years, he has no place anywhere in American government, let alone holding the highest office in the land.

Americans have every right to elect an odious and treacherous individual to the White House if they so desire – assuming they know what they are getting. Right now, they have no idea.

By Erik Rush

As if the Reverend Wright issue and double standard of Democrat presidential just-about nominee Senator Barack Obama’s seeming imperviousness as far as the press and likely voters go weren’t odious enough, the candidate is now employing campaign materials focusing on his alleged Christian faith.

Fliers on the topic of Obama’s alleged conversion experience began appearing in Kentucky shortly prior to the May 20 primary.

“I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”

Obama campaign flier

It is likely that the question for many Americans here is to what deity the candidate is referring. Is it the God of Abraham, as worshipped by Jews and Christians? Is it Jesus Christ? Is it the god that – as Rev. Wright suggested – ought damn America for its imperialism, amoral foreign and domestic covert operations, drugging and infection of American blacks, and black (or would it be white) helicopters? Is it Allah, perhaps?

Evidently, his own faith having come into serious question is of no moment to the “Audacity” man himself.

This columnist has stated that if Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the greatest propaganda coup in the history of American politics. Not only is the candidate an empty suit, he may very well be the antithesis of everything American, albeit a very articulate and refined representation thereof. An Obama victory would be analogous to Rob Reiner being elected president of the National Rifle Association.

Obama’s ability and inclination to release this paternalistic swill of course demonstrates another profound double standard. Would there ever have been a George W. Bush presidency had he spoken of “fulfilling God’s will” or going out and doing “the Lord’s work?” Of course not. Is Obama’s ability to do so with impunity because he’s black, because he a far Left guy or because his faith did come into question? There are, after all still Americans who wonder if his sympathies lie with Islam. His being a member of a twisted and radical church that is chummy with the Nation of Islam hasn’t done much to ameliorate that question in their minds.

Well, let’s examine this. Say John Edwards was the front-runner right now. Assuming he perceived a need to do so, would he circulate similar materials? Probably not. Would it be because he’s white, or because his faith hasn’t raised the controversy Obama’s has raised? As there are sufficient theoretical aspects involved, it’s a bit difficult to determine.

Perhaps an analysis of far Left whites’ perception of religious blacks might help…

The power brokers on the far Left are white. Presidents are not despots (contrary to what is said of our current president); those who are giving us Barack Obama at least perceive that they hold invisible strings of some sort. Politicians on the left who claim faith (statistically a lower percentage than those on the right) generally keep their religion close to their vest; they must appease those of faith in the electorate, but the issue must be “personal.” Those on the right who claim faith are, as we have seen, highly suspect.

Blacks who claim faith however, are portrayed with such a subtle condescension that it’s barely perceptible. They – like the gun-toting white genetic misfits in Appalachia – are expected to rely on those comforting, quaint, even primitive traditions that the simple-minded so need to cultivate the barest understanding of their environment. I just love it when they do those handsprings down the aisle, don’t you? Black churches are so exciting!

So the media isn’t going to jump on Obama for making gratuitous overtures of religious solidarity with rural bumpkins, even when his own church has come under scrutiny. He is automatically regarded as sincere, which is the modality in which the establishment press is currently operating anyway.

While victims of the mass hypnosis that seems to have already all but propelled Obama into the White House are oblivious to the implications of this “holy” mission, other Christian Americans may be puzzled at the contrast between this being a non-issue compared to the direct questioning to which George W. Bush was subjected apropos his faith. How much did Bush’s faith impact his life in a practical sense? Was he claiming to be Divinely guided when it came to executive decisions? Might he call a press conference one night and appear before America dressed in a robe, a snake in each hand, and declare that God had ordained the destruction of, say, Damascus and Pyongyang by holy (nuclear) fire?

Bush was asked these questions, and he answered them intelligently and without indignation, which is far more than I could have done. Those who have bastardized the First Amendment have convinced a significant number of Americans that an office holder’s faith ought not impact their life in any practical sense. Of course, anyone of real faith – no matter what it happens to be – will have such integrated into their life to an extent that there is no separation between the person and the professional.

Think about that the next time you consider why certain faiths are under relentless attack by the far Left and the press, and what the implications of Senator Obama’s beliefs might really be.