Quantcast

«

»

May 10 2013

Rush: Obama Allowing Terrorism to Declare Martial Law

Erik Rush, the lunatic who thinks America suffers from “negrophilia,” goes full Alex Jones in his latest column, claiming that Obama is deliberately allowing Muslim terrorism in order to give him the excuse for declaring martial law and turning America socialist.

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.

Mr. Rush, I suggest a bet. If Obama declares martial law before leaving office, I will stop writing and speaking on political matters forever. But in January, 1917, when Obama peacefully hands over power upon the inauguration of a new president without ever having declared martial law in the US, you agree to publicly declare that you’re full of shit and then shut the fuck up for the rest of your life. Deal?

19 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    voidhawk

    Obama is a time-traveller?

  2. 2
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    Aw, voidhawk beat me to it :(

  3. 3
    Larry

    Obama is a time-traveller?

    Those birth certificates didn’t change themselves.

  4. 4
    zippythepinhead

    Obama’s dictatorship paved the way to that fascist Woodrow Wilson.

  5. 5
    heddle

    zippythepinhead,

    Apropos nothing, Zippy the Pinhead is the greatest. comic. strip. ever.

  6. 6
    Abdul Alhazred

    Not such a stretch, considering that it already happened in Boston.

    In fact, we have been in permanent wartime status since the Department of Homeland Security was created.

    Bi-partisan consensus == eternal warfare is the new peace.

  7. 7
    composer99

    Erik Rush has some pretty serious [citation needed] problems going on there.

  8. 8
    Synfandel

    January 1917?

  9. 9
    Donovan

    Well of course he’s not going to declare martial law now, Ed. Rush has broken the story and ruined everything. He saved us, and you mock him. Sheesh. I’m beginning to think you’re a Reptoid.

  10. 10
    Trebuchet

    At least we didn’t need to worry about a “cult of personality” with the previous president. Since it would have required actually having a personality.

  11. 11
    Modusoperandi

    Barack Obama was positioned where he is in order to exponentially further the socialist agenda in America.

    And, man, did he ever screw that up.
     

    This is in part why efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment have been so aggressive since Obama’s re-election.

    I thought it was because white suburban kids were killing white suburban kids. I also though the reaction was a typically Democrat attempt at nibbling around the edges, which got (in a typically Democrat way) whittled down to just plugging a big loophole around background checks, which (in a typically Democrat way) failed.

  12. 12
    lynxreign

    @6 Abdul Alhazred

    considering that [martial law] already happened in Boston

    Hahahahaha! Pull the other one! Martial Law has not happened in Boston. I live here, I think I’d know.

  13. 13
    alwayscurious

    Ironic, it was the Republican party that was so instrumental in passing all the “Homeland Security” nonsense. Almost like they never expected a Democrat to ever be in a position to use said laws. I wish Obama would devote his final years in office to dismantling that mess to the ground.

  14. 14
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Abdul Alhazred

    WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

  15. 15
    vmanis1

    Well, look, when Obama does leave office in January, 1917, it will be only a month before the February Revolution that will bring Alexander Kerensky to power, and only a few months more before the October Revolution (which happened in November), that brought down Kerensky’s government and made Lenin the supreme leader.

    How’s that for stealth socialism, Tovarisch Obama? :)

  16. 16
    vmanis1

    I got my tenses mangled up there, I meant to say ` that will bring down Kerensky’s government and make Lenin the supreme leader’.

  17. 17
    Modusoperandi

    vmanis1, mangled tenses? Those are the worst kind of tenses!

  18. 18
    lpetrich

    I’m reminded of the late 1990′s, when the right wing had a similar fondness for conspiracy theories about President Clinton’s military adventures. They often claimed that those adventures were “wag the dog” distractions from his misdeeds.

  19. 19
    dan4

    “But in January, 1917…”

    I like your blog, Mr. Brayton, but more proofreading, please.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site