Hillary ved vejs ende?

Der er sikkert et ord for det i spinddoktor vokabularet, når en kandidat er nået derhen i sin kampagne, at der ikke er mere at sige. Om det er desperation eller måske endda fallit ved jeg ikke, men Hillary Clinton har brugt et af hendes få valgmøder på “not talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter.” Istedet talte hun om the Alt Right, den bevægelse blandt republikanere, som Trump står i spidsen for og som er et rodsammen af alle venstredrejede demokraters sorger. Breitbart, Ku Klux Klan, konspirationsteoretikere, bøssehadere, misogyne antisemitter og racister og så videre.

Infowars Paul Joseph Watson var med røde øjne begejstret for opmærksomheden da dårlig omtale er bedre end ingen omtale og gjorde sig lystig over at Clinton beskyldte andre for konspirationsteoretiseren, mens hun selv plejede en forestilling om at hendes politisk opposition var betalt og styret af Vladimir Putin.

Charles Krauthammer var ikke sikker på det var en god ide for Hillarys kampagne at forlade sig helt på ad hominem, og mente specifikt at dette “slightly over the top”, især, da hun tilskrev Trump den tvivlsomme ære at mobning i skolerne angiveligt var i stigning. Og så er det jo altid svært at holde sig ren når man kaster med mudder

Politicians are always appearing on stages and welcoming people who have unsavory histories, and I would say that for Hillary, she should be a little bit careful since her support for Black Lives Matter — does she really want to be associated with a group that chants about killing cops? And nobody would accuse her of supporting that, but that is always a risk. So it is a cheap kind of political warfare. There are of course incidents — the Mexican judge story and all that, that even Paul Ryan had to admit was a form of classical racist speech. But I think this is the old story, I’m not sure if it is going to have an effect, and surely his calling her a bigot is not going to have a lot of effect either. I think we are at the bottom of the barrel of a race we knew would be down and dirty, and that is exactly where we are now.

Ah, ja, mudderkastning. Breitbart ihukom en venstredrejet artikel af ældre dato, der vånede sig over den racistiske tone, der bar Hillarys kampagne om at blive Demokraternes præsident kandidat  for 8 år siden, dengang modstanderen hed Barak Hussein Obama

In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary [won narrowly by Hillary Clinton] — a race in which Clinton had a 20-point lead only a few months ago — the racism and hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign were laid bare for all a nation to scorn.

Desperate and willing to do anything to win, the Clintons resorted to a naked form of racism aimed directly at white working-class voters in the rural portions of the state. Their message: Barack Obama cannot win because he’s black.

In the early stages of the campaign, it was Clinton’s cadre who kept playing the race card. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s co-chair, Billy Shaheen, accused Obama of being a drug dealer; then there was the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somali garb leaked to the press by Clinton’s staff.

In the aftermath of the South Carolina primary, former President Bill Clinton compared Obama’s victory to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. His message was clear: Obama was a marginal, black candidate.

[…]

To anyone who has followed the Clinton campaign closely, it is all too apparent that her top political strategists — reeling from losses from coast to coast and badly miscalculating the grassroots power of the Obama movement — made a tactical decision to go negative, as that would be the only way for Clinton to stop Obama and somehow allow her to steal the nomination.

And go negative they did — with a subtle yet consistent racism underscoring every turn.

Breitbart, supplerer med flere eksempler og et fact-check. Og for at det ikke skal være Breitbart det hele (tidligere Breitbart chef ) har den gode Jamie Glazov også en debat med Michael Cutler om hvorledes Hillary ikke gavner sortes interesser.

Og ifølge Breitbart, er der også en anti-Clinton bevægelse blandt Demokraterne, der mener at Hillary ikke gavner sin sag, ved at fremstå “unhinged”. Måske er hun blot uforståelig for hendes vælgere, der gerne vil høre hende “talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter”

(2:16 I’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump”) Og selvfølgelig har Trump ikke noget imod niggere.

Kønsidentitet

Diverse — Drokles on August 24, 2016 at 10:03 am

Der findes indtil videre 30 forskellige kønsidentiteter ifølge LGBT Danmark, fortæller Kristeligt Dagblad.

Demiguy betegner en person, der er tildelt et mandligt køn ved fødslen, men ikke i særlig høj grad identificerer sig med identiteten ”mand”.

Dobbeltkønnede føler, at deres køn både er fuldstændig mandligt og fuldstændig kvindeligt.

Flydende kønsidentitet er en oplevelse af, at ens kønsidentitet kan variere og skifte gennem hele livet.

Genderfuck er et udtryk for en person, der leger eller eksperimenterer med de traditionelle opfattelser af køn for at udfordre stereotyperne for køn.

Og så er der en specifik etnisk kønsidentitet, nemlig “two-spirit”, der “bruges om nordamerikanske indianere, som udfylder både traditionelle kvindelige og mandlige kønsroller.” Det er så forvirrende at selv Politiken skribenter kan blive forvirrede og se sig selv i rollen som “den onde”. Det i sig selv kunne man spinde en hel pointe over - At Ditte Giese gerne vil se en samlet feministisk bevægelse som et hold og ikke indser at der er en reel uenighed, selv efter at være castet som den onde. Virkelighedens brudlinier er hun blind for, som hun traver kustodens rute i et museum af forne tiders fjendebilleder.

Men Giese skal prise sig lykkelig over at ‘bevægelsen’ ikke har samme momentum, som i USA, hvor West Virginia University har sine elever om, at det er et brud på loven, ikke at titulerer folk efter deres foretrukne kønsopfattelse, skriver Breitbart

That policy means if a biological man — for example, famous transgender athlete Bruce Jenner — says he “identifies” his gender as female, then all other students must refer to the man as a “she,” or else be treated as a law-breaker.

WVU says using the wrong pronouns is a crime because the United States departments of justice and of education insist that transgender people are protected by decades-old sexual discrimination law.

The new claim is imposed in a university statement that defines the rights of the relatively few students who are confused about their gender. Because it is a list of “rights,” it doubles as as a list of diversity commandments for all normal students;

  • You have the right to be treated according to the gender you identify with. Your school cannot require you to provide legal or medical evidence in order to have your gender respected.
  • You have the right to be called by the name and pronouns consistent with your gender identity.
  • You have the right not to be bullie d [sic]or harassed because you are transgender or gender non-conforming. If you are bullied or harassed contact your Title IX Coordinator, James Goins, Jr. at 304.293.5600 or James.Goins@mail.wvu.edu. You may also file a complaint online at titleix.wvu.edu

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-21-kl-115203

South Africa’s Caster Semenya, right, competes in the Women’s 800m semifinal at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro. Photo: fabrice coffrini/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Metroexpress er også interesseret i mennesker, der ikke vil være sig selv og lader Silas, der “blev født med et kvindeligt kønsorgan og fik derfor oprindeligt navnet Kia”, stille spørgsmålet: Hvis ikke jeg er en pige, hvad er jeg så? Og så fortælles der om, hvorledes Silas selv måtte bekoste at få sine struttende ungpigebryster fjernet i udlandet, fordi sundhedsmyndighederne i Danmark ikke anerkender dette vanvid som en sygdom (eller noget, jeg læste det kun løseligt) - og hvad hvis de gjorde - mens han er på hormoner og overvejer “hvorvidt han skal beholde sit kvindelige kønsorgan eller få det fjernet” og “er bange for, at det vil føles for kvindeligt at være gravid”.

Men jeg kan glæde Silas og alle andre forvirrede og forvirrende størrelser med et simpelt svar. Silas og alle jer andre; hvis du er født som en pige så er det det du er. Dine tanker om, at du er alt muligt andet, er blot det, tanker. Læg nogle skemaer, lær noget mestring, hvad ved jeg, men du er, hvad du er. “The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) has released a position paper denouncing popular approaches to transgender, declaring that the current protocol is founded upon “unscientific gender ideology,” which lacks any basis in real evidence” skriver Breitbart nemlig

The physicians argue that the assumption that gender dysphoria (GD)—a psychological condition in which people experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and their biological sex—is innate contradicts all relevant data and is based on ideology rather than science.

Studies have shown, the authors contend, that the “perspective of an ‘innate gender identity’ arising from prenatally ‘feminized’ or ‘masculinized’ brains trapped in the wrong body is in fact an ideological belief that has no basis in rigorous science.”

“GD is a problem that resides in the mind not in the body. Children with GD do not have a disordered body—even though they feel as if they do,” the doctors note. “Likewise, although many men with GD express the belief that they are a ‘feminine essence’ trapped in a male body, this belief has no scientific basis.”

“Conditioning children to believe the absurdity that they or anyone could be ‘born into the wrong body,’ and that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse,” the paper argues.

The largest study ever of twin transsexual adults found that only 20 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender. Since identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception, and develop in exactly the same prenatal environment, if gender identity were innate, the concordance rates would be close to 100 percent—rather than 20 percent.

Det er altså en ideologisk dyrkelse af identitet. Men ikke alle dyrkelser af identitet og krop og selvdefinering er lige fine. Blot som en illustration, The Village Voice havde dette portræt at TV trans-fænomenet Jazz Jennings

In 2007, the American public was introduced to a transgender child for the first time when Barbara Walters interviewed Jazz Jennings, who was then six years old. That was nearly a decade ago, when the cultural awareness of trans people was dim at best. But the interview was a breakout success: By innocently and eloquently explaining who and what she was, Jazz forced us to realize that children can define themselves. Simply by being herself, she proved that breaking the supposedly serious, impassable blockade between male and female is kid’s play.

Today Jazz has become a celebrity and activist. Last year saw the premiere of her own reality program on TLC, I Am Jazz, which followed her through kitchen table conversations, friendships, parties, and all manner of drama at school. America has watched kids grow up on TV before, but Jazz is the first to do it while trans, making her an increasingly important figure. This year she will be one of three grand marshals in New York City’s gay pride march — and the youngest in its history.

Jeg er det ene og det andet, men det er transkønnetheden jeg er stolt af og det er transkønnetheden der hele grunden til at jeg har mit eget show. Så hvad er jeg, når jeg siger at jeg er Jazz? Men hvad med Caitlin?

Caitlins identitet er sørger hun selv for, ingen operationer, ingen hormoner eller kemikalier, blot føde - og meget af det. Hun angriber sine ambitioner, som en sportsmand, helt uden doping. Ja, en modellernes Rolf Sørensen kunne man sige, ren som nyfalden sne på en nypudret babynumse. Caitlin kræver ikke specielle definitioner og tiltaleformer, så hendes identitet er ikke paradeværdig.

Pas på, vejarbejde forude, Pind

Diverse — Drokles on August 24, 2016 at 3:29 am

Jeg kan ikke selv sætte ord på min foragt for landets nuværende og væreste justitsminister nogensinde, Søren Pind. En klog Facebook bruger citerede Pind (22. september 2015):

“På trods af de udfordringer, som vi har brug for fælles løsninger på, så står Danmark godt. Der er orden og sikkerhed i hele landet, også i grænselandet. Se selv ud af vinduet, og se ikke så meget på TV2 News.”

Det er nemlig rigtig godt set af den enøjede! Hvis folk bare renoncerer på at holde sig àjour med samfundsudviklingen og verdens skæve gang, vil de blive mindre kritiske over for løftebryder- og lystløgnerregeringen.

Og hvad ser de i nyhederne? “Over ti biler stukket i brand i København“, “En person er omkommet, efter betonklods blev kastet ud fra en bro på motorvej” og “Pro-ISIS Media Group Releases Video Calling For Attacks In U.S., France, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Spain, Russia And Iran“. Ja, det sidste ser de ikke så meget, med mindre de kender nogle røvhuller, der spreder had på de sociale medier. Men vi er også svære at undgå efterhånden, det er en stadigt mere bramfri tid vil lever i. Men terror ser de, terror i det små og terror i det store og hver gang med krav om knægtelse af et eller andet dansk eller frit.

Terror, det er den slags der kalder på forberedelse. I det kvindagtige og skizofrene Tyskland lukker man dørene op, benægter problemet og planlægger samtidig at bede befolkningen opbygge lagre af nødrationer, ‘hvis’ Tyskland skulle blive ramt af en katastrofe eller terrorangreb. Der skal være nok til 10 dage, så man kan jo selv regne ud, hvor stor en katastrofe, der bliver tale om. Det ser man heller ikke meget til i medierne.

Politikerne må vide, hvad der foregår, de må være bedre informerede end vrøvlehoveder som undertegnede. Alligevel fortsætter de, som alt blot var en velfungerende socialdemokratisk maskine, hvor man kun skulle dreje på de eksisterende knapper for at få den til at løbe lydefrit rundt, til gavn og glæde for almenvellet. Søren Pind har fattet så meget at han lancerede sig selv som sherif, frem for blot justitsminister. En mand, der kunne handle, en mand til tiden og sådan noget. Det kunne han ikke og bebrejder istedet, de der kerer sig højlydt om Danmark og det kommende blodbad

Hvad gør en mand, hvis mytologiske selvfremstilling krakelerer? Han bliver et almindeligt menneske som alle andre. Søren Pind udviser de klassiske tegn på forsvarsmekanismer, der tjener til at beskytte det sårede selv og sikre Søren Pind en identitet som en værdig justitsminister. Men reaktionsmønstrene bliver forvrængede. Søren Pind føler sikkert også frygt for det tiltagende kaos i vores samfund; han føler skam over ikke at have trådt i karakter; måske er han deprimeret over hele situationen og lider af skyldfølelse.
Vi ved det ikke. Men vi kan af hans forskellige forsvarsmekanismer se, at noget plager ham. At eksponere sig selv som en sherif er i sig selv et tegn på regression: Søren Pind vil lege noget, han ikke er, og han bliver fornærmet, når man bryder illusionen.

Fornægtelsen indtræder, når Pind imod faktiske kendsgerninger bliver ved med at påstå ting, f.eks. at kriminaliteten er faldende (ja, men hvilken?), og når han forklarer, at Gay Pride ikke går gennem Indre Nørrebro, fordi der er ”vejarbejde”. Her bliver fornægtelsen decideret komisk. Vi skal ikke mange år tilbage, før Pind talte om ”three strikes and you’re out”, om assimilation, hvor han rosteDansk Folkeparti, hvor han mente, at indvandringen ødelægger svensk kultur, hvor han og regeringen var fortaler for suspension af konventioner m.m. Men det er alt sammen fortrængt.

Ser vi nu på gårsdagens interview, møder vi to basale mekanismer. Den ene er projektion. Antager vi, at Søren Pind har det skidt med sin handlingslammelse, at han måske endda føler vrede eller en art selvhad, kan vi også bedre forklare, at han lægger dette kompleks af følelser over på ”højrefløjen”, der nu bliver de hadende – de islamhadende mennesker, som Pinds besynderlige sengekammerat David Trads skrev i et opslag på Facebook i går – og som Pind nu kan blive vred på. ”Højrefløjen” medvirker jo til at skabe en ny Breivik, som han siger.
Men også en beslægtet mekanisme, nemlig forskydningen, træder her i kraft: Når man ikke kan redde byen fra de onde, kan man opdigte en anden årsag til problemerne, som man tror er lettere at overvinde, og altså rette sin vrede mod dem. Nu er ”højrefløjen” pludselig den skyldige. Det mærkelige fantom ”højrefløjen” bliver en beholder for alt det onde, som sheriffen ikke kan, eller ikke vil, gøre noget effektivt ved. ”Højrefløjen” bliver, for nu at sige det med en anden velkendt mytisk figur, en syndebuk for al den opsparede, uforløste vrede. Sådan forsøger Søren Pind at leve med sig selv og at undgå konfrontation med den ubehagelige virkelighed.

sc3b8ren-pride1

Den egentlige grund er, at Pride skal spredes over hele byen og på Nørrebro er man ekstremt stolte af sin muslimske tro, så der har imamerne allerede holdt sin Pride.

We need som big fucking guns!

Diverse — Drokles on August 23, 2016 at 10:50 am

Breitbart fortæller at ifølge den tyske avis Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, planlægger de tyske myndigheder at opfordre tyskerne til at opbygge et lager af fødevarer og rent drikkevand, nok til 10 dage

“The population will be obliged to hold an individual supply of food for ten days,” the newspaper quoted the government’s “Concept for Civil Defence” – which has been prepared by the Interior Ministry – as saying.

The paper said a parliamentary committee had originally commissioned the civil defence strategy in 2012.

A spokesman for the Interior Ministry said the plan would be discussed by the cabinet on Wednesday and presented by the minister that afternoon. He declined to give any details on the content.

People will be required to stockpile enough drinking water to last for five days, according to the plan, the paper said.

The 69-page report does not see an attack on Germany’s territory, which would require a conventional style of national defence, as likely.

However, the precautionary measures demand that people “prepare appropriately for a development that could threaten our existence and cannot be categorically ruled out in the future,” the paper cited the report as saying.

Der skal være nok til 10 dage, fortæller Breitbart. 10 dage! Man venter simpelthen angreb så store at det kan tage myndighederne over en uge at nå frem til de overlevende. Det er et nationalt chok, man forbereder sig på, måske endda forventer. Ikke småting som bombningerne i London og Madrid. Heller ikke 11. september. Nej, noget virkeligt, virkeligt stort, der sætter hele regioners infrastruktur helt ud af kraft.

Preppere har længe været klar på samfundets kollaps. Nogen tror det kollapser på grund af bankerne krakker, en asteoride, USAs vestkyst, der synker i havet, global opvarmning, overbefolkning, indvandring, osv. Meningerne er mange, men et er sikkert, der skal nok komme et eller andet. Det gør der altid. Imens har der været forskellige programmer, hvor man kunne more sig lidt over, hvor entusiastisk hele familier kunne forberede sig på den totale undergang.

Men ud over at sidde og se på med et smørret grin kunne man også prøve at lære noget. Og den basale lære er, at hvis samfundet kollapser, så skal du ikke blot have ressourcer til at klare dig, som mad, medicin og drikkevand - du skal også kunne forsvare det. Man er simpelthen mere udsat for at blive plyndret fordi man har noget at plyndre. Og fordi andre ved det, ved de også at dine ressourcer vil blive forsvaret, og vil derofr også angribe først og for at dræbe. Det er en helt enestående desperat situation, når nødlagre bliver nødvendige. Våben er mindst lige så stor en nødvendighed, som fødevarer, when the shit hits the fan.

Det ved nogle godt. Nicolai Sennels skrev forleden i Ekstrabladet

Svejts’ øverste militære chef advarer om, at “Vesteuropa er på grænsen til at bryde sammen i kaos på grund af masseindvandring og terrorisme.” og opfordrer civile til at bevæbne sig selv.

Fornyligt udtalte Tjekkiets præsident, Miloš Zeman, at “den eneste løsning på terrorisme er at deportere uintegrerede indvandrere. I mellemtiden bør folk bevæbne sig og være parate til at forsvare sig selv og andre.”

Lær af Israel

Hvis politikerne fulgte Interpols anbefalinger, kunne mange menneskeliv være reddet i Nice, på Charlie Hebdos redaktion, Bataclan i Paris, i Tysklands toge og indkøbscentre, osv.

Vi bør lære af Israel, hvor folk må bevæbne sig og skyde terrorister. Her når terrorister højest at dræbe en eller to, før en bevæbnet civil borger stopper dem.

Juncker arbejder for åbne grænser, mens hans EU vil fratage borgerne, de få våben de har.

Eliten mod Donald Trump

J Robert Smith skriver i Townhall om, hvorledes eliten frygter Donald Trump

Elections aren’t about finalities, they’re about processes. They may be about departures. Case in point, the 2016 presidential contests, which feature Hillary and The Donald. If Trump wins, the process of the November election might start a departure in more than politics. It could be historic. It won’t be good, however, for the global elites inhabiting New York, DC, Boston, and San Francisco — or wherever else ivory towers, mahogany-paneled offices, pricey secured buildings, and gated communities are found. Trump’s election would have reverberations overseas, too, in London, Paris, Berlin — yes, wherever else ivory towers, et al, are found.

A Hillary victory means there won’t be a departure; merely a doubling-down by the elite, as they act with renewed zest to secure their interests — versus the national welfare. The Great Imposition — a war waged on average Americans — will continue with awful consequences.

Impose and divide – divide to conquer. Blacks against whites. (That’s moreMilwaukees.) Hispanics against Anglos. (That’s more illegals and all legalized). Poor against rich. (Lots more free sh*t.) Takers versus producers. (Lots more free sh*t.) Marginalize the working class. (Further cede manufacturing to the Chinese; shut down coal and domestic energy production, generally.) Demean the middle classes. (Who knuckle-drag their bibles, guns, and backwater values through life.)

The worldview among many of our elite is anti-nation — dare we say — anti-American, anti-law and order, anti-tradition, anti-faith (with exceptions carved out for Islam), anti-durable values and enduring truths, like marriage between a man and woman, and family, as defined by a man, woman, and children. The elite, so very cosmopolitan, have evolved past antique beliefs and ways.

The dangers are domestic and foreign. President Hillary and anti-nation elites would continue failed policies toward Islamic militants and insurgencies. They’d serve up more perverse rationalizations for why Islam doesn’t animate jihadists. More dangers in the offing with rogue nations Iran and North Korea. Mounting danger in Asia, with China, where the PRC is boldly militarizing the South China Sea.

All pose existential threats, to one degree or another. To the elite? Obstacles to the world they’ve created for themselves. Perhaps to be solved with appeasements, like tribute (it worked for the Romans — for a while.). Ransoms(monetary and otherwise). Accommodations. Retreats. Misdirection and outright lies.

Velhaveren George Soros er en aggressiv variation af den elite og det er især blevet tydeligt efter at hackere har lækket dokumenter fra Soros hedgefond Open Society Foundations. Her kan man (selvfølgelig) læse at Soros gennem sit Open Society gav $650,000 til “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”, og til anti-israelsk propaganda, og til at sværte islamkritikere, som David Horowitz som værende islamifober, og til at arbejde for yderligere indvandring til Europa. Men man læser ikke meget om det, skriver Investor’s Business Daily

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

(…)

Anyone with this much power and influence demands close media scrutiny. Particularly when he has extremely close ties to the would-be next president of the United States.

This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC, and a total of $25 million to support Democrats and their causes, according to Politico.

And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

How, indeed.

Ifølge USA Newsinsider advarer hacker-gruppen Anonymous om at venstrefløjen planlægger valgsvindel, for at sikre sig imod en eventuel sejr til Trump. Og det er ikke noget nyt, skriver Townhall.

Information om Donald Trump

“Donald Trump er et røvhul” fortæller Jay Carson, en politisk konsulent på den populære TV serie House of Cards (den underlegne amerikanske version) til Information. Information er en verbos avis, så den har indlæg på indlæg om hvor stort et røvhul Donald Trump egentlig er, hvor kritikere kan lufte deres vrede uden at vi bliver klogere.

Det er Carsons opfattelse at medierne er medskyldige i at ingen forstår “at den republikanske præsidentkandidat, Donald Trump, er et forfærdeligt menneske og ude af stand til at lede et land” fordi samme medier overspillede deres kort, da de forsøgte at fortælle at Bill Clinton også var forfærdelig fordi han havde “haft en affære”.

»Der var ikke den fjerneste mulighed for, at en reality-tv-stjerne (Donald Trump var hovedpersonen i reality-programmet The Apprentice, red.) kunne blive præsidentkandidat i 2000 eller 2004 eller 2008. Det er gået den forkerte vej lige siden, og det er foruroligende og skræmmende.«

(…)

Hvor berømmelse og offentlig optræden betyder mere end ens hjerte og substans og ideer og overbevisninger. Det er derfor, at en fyr som Trump ender med at blive præsidentkandidat. Manden er et røvhul. Han er modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, han aner ikke, hvad han foretager sig, og han forstår ikke, hvordan den amerikanske regering fungerer – eller nogen som helst andre regeringer rundt om i verden. Han er den mest ukvalificerede kandidat til jobbet nogensinde, og han er et stort politisk partis kandidat. Det er bekymrende.«

Det handler om sex

Men hvordan er det dog gået så grueligt galt? Det har Jay Carson en teori om – det handler om sex – og den har han lånt fra bogen All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, der er skrevet af hans gode ven og skrivemakker på flere filmprojekter, Matt Bai.

»Indtil valgkampen i 1988 havde man aldrig set en sexskandale i amerikansk politik,« siger Carson.

(…)

»Gennem historien er der mange eksempler på mennesker, der i krisetider har udnyttet folkets frygt. Nogle af verdenshistoriens værste mennesker brugte dårlige tider til at skabe frygt hos folk og udøve magt. Donald Trump befinder sig ikke langt fra det. Det er præcis, hvad han er i gang med.«

Dermed ikke være sagt, at man ikke skal forholde sig til de mange vrede og ulykkelige mennesker i USA. Mennesker, der har måttet gå fra hus og hjem og har mistet deres arbejde.

»Det er noget lort, og det er barsk, og det gør én vred,« siger Carson. Men der er to væsensforskellige måder at tage fat i den problemstilling på.

»Der er Donald Trump-måden, hvor man puster til ilden og prøver at skyde skylden på nogle andre, indvandrere eller sorte og brune mennesker eller ens nabo eller regeringen eller hvem som helst. Man taler til folks værste og mest basale instinkter.

Og så er der måden, som Bernie Sanders gjorde det på. Han sagde: ’Jeg hører jer. Jeg ved, at I er pissevrede. Jeg er også pissevred. Lad os ikke ødelægge ting eller tæve mennesker til politiske møder. Lad os tale om løsninger på det i stedet.’ Det er Hillary Clinton også god til. Hun har bare været i politik i så lang tid, at hendes kampagne ikke havde den samme vrede eller det samme momentum. Bernie var et frisk pust, og han virkede lige så pissesur som de mennesker, der er pissesure. Folk kunne se og høre det på ham. Han fortjener ros for ikke at omgøre det til frygt, had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi og alle de andre fucked up-ting, som Donald Trump gør.«

Fucked-up, det er hvad Trump er.  Et røvhul, modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, der ikke aner hvad han foretager sig andet end had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi. Og nu nærmer vi os en perfekt storm, hvor Hi(tler)storien lurer, med krise og et folk, der må gå fra hus og hjem har en reel frygt kan udnyttes. Der er grund til vrede, men ikke til at tæve mennekser til politiske møder… åh, vent lige lidt, jeg syntes jeg læste noget lidt andet hos Bretibart

Pierson told The Kelly File (via rushlimbaugh.com):

If you go back to the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails, this is on the PowerPoint playbook on the messaging — slide number 6 — with the messaging theme number 1: Violence.  They were looking for an opportunity to pick up somewhere to continue this narrative that somehow Donald Trump is violent.

Here is the relevant slide, in full. Note the suggestion to tie Trump to “incidents of violence.”

demokrater-opfordrer-til-vold-mod-trump

The worst case of violence was outside a San Jose rally in early June, where Trump supporters were viciously beaten and chased through the streets by a left-wing mob. Despite the fact that the rioters carried out their brutality shamelessly, in full view of the mainstream media, some media outlets blamed Trump for the violence. One headline blared: “San Jose rally turns violent as Trump supporters clash with protesters.”

And for the left, that was precisely the point: creating violence is a no-lose strategy. If protesters can provoke Trump supporters to be violent, they embarrass Trump and cast him as a fascist. And if the protesters themselves are violent, voters will understand that a Trump victory will be met with violent mob resistance.

The left has recruited some Beltway Republicans — the NeverTrump faction — as a willing echo chamber for this meme. Mere hours before the San Jose riot, David French — then considering a third-party run for president to undermine Trump and give the election to Hillary Clinton — accused Trump of inciting violence.

Trump’s primary opponents, too, blamed Trump for the riot that closed down his Chicago rally in April — rather than blaming the organized left-wing groups that created the chaos.

All of that has helped the left establish the predicate for future spin, so that when Donald Trump cites the familiar refrain that gun owners will defend their rights, he is accused of wanting to assassinate Hillary Clinton, and large portions of the media — including conservative media — believe it.

Så, det er demokraterne der tæver politiske modstandere, ligesom brunskjorterne? Og den frygt og vrede, som amerikanerne er i deres gode ret til at have, er den ikke fremkommet efter 8 år med håb og forandring? Kunne journalisten ikke have undret sig blot en lille smule? Og hvad er det med sex der forhindrer gode politikere i at stille op? Ligger talentmassen blandt de promikuøse? Og is så fald, hvad siger det så om Trump, der har haft så mange at han praler med dem?

Amerikanerne elsker countrymisk og tilgiver altid en angrende synder. Sagen om Bill Clinton handlede ikke om at han havde haft en affære, men om at han som præsident bollede med praktikanter, mens han var præsident og derefter løj om det under ed, som han også forsøgte at hindre rettens gang. Skyldsspørgsmål blev afgjort ved afstemning i kongressen, og her havde demokraterne flertal.

Men det handler om sex for venstrefløjen, så Information har også talt med “forfatteren Frank Browning, hvis seneste bog om ’kønnenes skæbne’, The Fate of Gender, netop er udkommet”, der mener at Trumps succes er et udtryk for “en vrede og en nagfølelse”, der gennemsyrer de vestlige samfund på grund af “ændringer og forskydninger inden for autoritets- og magtforhold” og “kønsfluiditet”

Browning siger, at denne ’kønsrevolution’ leverer et afgørende bidrag til forklaringen på den genopblussede ??højreorienterede ekstremisme i Europa.

Og til forklaringen på, hvordan det kunne gå til, at en tidligere reality-tv-showmand og ejendomsmatador kunne mobilisere støtte til at blive republikansk præsidentkandidat i USA ved at fremsætte utallige racistiske, sexistiske og fremmedfjendske kommentarer.

»Vi kommer i de kommende år til at se flere af den slags bevægelser, som Trump har været eksponent for,« forudsiger Browning. »Og en stor del af forklaringen på dette skal søges i kønsspørgsmål.«

Browning pointerer, at der er sket en grundlæggende forskydning i retning af, at mænd i dag beklæder stadig færre magtpositioner i samfundet, hvilket slår om i både en vigende respekt over for mænd og i en såret selvfølelse hos mænd.

Samtidig har mennesker, der vil udforske og eksperimentere med deres kønsidentiteter, fået mulighed for at udfolde sig mere åbent – ikke mindst via de muligheder, som internettet giver for at skabe netværk og møde ligesindede.

Også Jonathan Hedegaard, ja, han er måske ikke amerikaner, men han er bosat i USA, og er digter, kunstner og debattør, giver sit besyv med i Information, i hvad han også kalder et cirkus og “et dårligt realityshow”. Også han taler om “indebrændte vrede amerikanere, som globaliseringen kun efterlod krummerne”, der derfor er til falds for “brød og cirkus”. Der er ingen egentlige argumenter, så her er kunstneriske højdepunkter om Trump og amerikanerne

Cirkusset bliver stadig mere absurd, som Trump gang på gang lufter sin utæmmede stupiditet og samtidig fremstår underligt urørlig.

(…) hans modbydelige udfald mod muslimer, mexicanere, handicappede, krigsveteraner, en død soldats efterladte, politiske modstandere og kvinder, til det forhold, at han har ført en politisk valgkamp, hvor reelle løsningsforslag har virket irrelevante – og det på et sprogligt niveau, der kunne ligne en 5.-klasse-elevs til forveksling.

(…)Efter opfordringen til vold mod sine politiske modstandere er Trump ganske vist kommet under pres.

(…)Trump spejler sin befolkning. (…) Hvis USA fortjener Trump, må der være tale om et samfund præget af historieløshed, overflade over substans, og et samfund, der er ved at miste evnen til at lytte og fordybe sig – værdier, der bliver væk i den endeløse strøm af information og underholdning og videoer af katte, der ter sig på morsomme måder.

Et samfund, hvor folk har for travlt med at fange Pokémons til for alvor at interessere sig for politik. Disse tendenser ser man i hele Vesten. Vores kulturer er plaget af historieløshed, præcis som Trump. Vi glemmer og tilgiver selv de værste udfald. (…) Kun et folk, der selv er historieløst, kan stemme for en mand, der flirter med ophævelsen af NATO’s musketered og åbent vil bryde internationale konventioner.

(…) Det er et sjovt eksperiment at vælge en gammel, forstyrret realitystjerne til præsident.

(…)Trump overhovedet kan slippe afsted med sin grænseoverskridende brutale retorik. En retorik, der bærer præg af det støjende, vulgære, brutale og hangen til konspiration.

Den slags retorik kan kun overleve i det politiske rum, fordi den er så langt ude, og i sin enfoldige forenklethed så mærkeligt let at relatere til. Den minder meget om værtshusretorik. Og selv om det er sjovt nok at høre på kværulanten på værtshuset i et par minutter, er der en grænse for, hvor længe man gider lægge øre til stædigt uvidende sludder af typen: Obama er ikke født i USA. Eller barnlige fingerknipsløsninger på seriøse udfordringer: Vi bygger en kæmpe mur. Eller militant sprog såsom: Spær den politiske modstander inde, eller skyd hende for forræderi (som en af Trumps støtter foreslog).

Analysen er altid simpel for venstrefløjen, blottet for indhold, fremstiller man sin fjende, som lidende af allehånde smålige følelser og mindreværdskomplekser og den skinbarlige virkelighed forsvinder. Den virkelighed at der bare er andre mennesker, som mener truslerne mod civilisationen, det fælles, friheden, er reelle. At der rent faktisk vælter allehånde mennesker, fra fejlslagne stater og kulturer over grænserne, som en mur med et effektiktivt grænsevæsen kunne holde ude. At Hillary rent faktisk har begået lovbrud der retfærdiggør en fængsling. At det var Hillarys kampagne, der fandt på at Obama ikke er amerikaner. Og Trump sætter ord på den reelle frygt de har, deres reelle vrede over et misregimente, ikke fra deres neuroser, men det de kan se.

Afsporing af alt reelt er selvfølgelig ikke noget Information har monopol på, det er blot venstrefløjen.

Se, han har en lille tissemand, og vi ved jo, hvorledes sådanne mennesker er, moral knytter sig til fysisk pragt.

The Donald starter sin kampange

På National Review er de bekymrede over, hvilken skade Donald Trump gør mod den konservative tradition og hvor meget han potentielt kan skade dens anseelse i generationer fremover. De fleste amerikanere er mere bekymrede over, hvilken skade Hillary Clinton gør på USA og hvor mange generationer, det vil tage den stolte nation at komme sig. Donald Trump har været igennem den største løgnekampagne i et civiliseret land og alligevel, skriver Wayne Allen Root i Townhall, alligevel…

After all of THAT…after Hillary and the media and liberals…and the GOP establishment threw everything they had at Donald…

He is tied with Hillary (within statistical margin of error) in every major credible national poll out in the past few days. Pick your poll: Zogby, Rasmussen, LA Times/USC, Bloomberg, they all say he’s down 1 or 2 points with likely voters- which is tied. In the latest LA times/USC poll he’s down less than one point.

And we all know 5% to 10% of voters won’t admit they support Trump. Why would they after the three weeks of disaster I just described?

So that means he’s actually AHEAD by 3 to 5 points.

Hillary is like a NFL team ahead by 14 in the 3rd quarter…and the coach, players and fans all know it’s not enough. They can feel it. Disaster is coming. They are ahead by 14…and they just know they are dead.

If Hillary isn’t ahead by 15 to 20 points right now…at this absolute low point of Trump’s campaign…the deep, deep valley…Hillary is the one in deep trouble.

Her peak is actually the valley. Her fans and the mainstream media just don’t understand that yet. This is the high water mark of her campaign. It will never get better than this. And she’s tied, hanging on by her fingernails.

She won’t make it to the November 8th finish line. She is DOA (I mean politically, of course).

Even worse…

She knows any day between now and November 8th…Julian Assange and Wikileaks will drop a bombshell that will destroy her presidential run, political career and legacy all in one. She knows what’s coming, because she knows what’s in those emails. If Wikileaks has what Hillary thinks they have, her future involves the “Big House,” not the White House.

Because Wikileaks clearly has her 32,000 deleted emails. Secret emails that detail her crimes against the American people.

No wonder Hillary’s sick…no wonder she has “health issues”…no wonder she has trouble standing up behind a podium…or sitting on a couch without being propped up by large pillows…or walking up stairs…stress will kill you!

Hillary knows what’s coming…and it’s destroying her mental and physical health.

One more reminder- Donald Trump has not spent one dollar yet. His first TV ads start this weekend.

Og weekenden er her, The Donald giver amerikanerne et sobert valg

Der er essensen. Lige der! Vil man have kontrol med sit land, eller vil man ikke? Det er hvad folkedybet kerer sig om, det er hvad Trump taler om. Og venstrefløjen, medierne, snart sagt alt det etablerede, hader ham inderligt for det. De vil fortsætte deres drømme, hvor hensigten retfærdiggør fortrængning, hvor drømme om alt muligt umuligt er smukt, hvor op er ned og sort er hvid. Drømme om at man blot kan blive med med at sælge ud, ud af sine traditioner, statsborgerskaber, velfærd, hvor man blot kan blive ved med at bakke, at undskylde for fortiden og sin egen eksistens, indtil freden sænker sig og velstanden præsenterer sig selv jævnt for alle. Obama ville stoppe havspejlstigningen, men den bølge Trump har skabt, stopper ikke.

Måske ser det lidt mere sort ud for Trump?

Mens medierne sviner Donald Trump, fortsætter han med at tale direkte til det amerikanske folkNational Review skriver

“I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen struggling in our country today who wants a different future,” Trump said Tuesday night in a sobering policy address near Milwaukee. “The Democratic party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.”

Trump then hammered his opponent.

“Hillary Clinton–backed policies are responsible for the problems in the inner cities today, and a vote for her is a vote for another generation of poverty, high crime, and lost opportunities,” Trump declared. “We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them.”

Trump noted who lords over most poor black neighborhoods.

“The Democratic party has run nearly every inner city in this country for 50 years, and run them into financial ruin,” Trump explained. “They’ve ruined the schools. They’ve driven out the jobs. They’ve tolerated a level of crime no American should consider acceptable.”

Obama Trump cited grim statistics on urban lawlessness: Violent crime up 17 percent in America’s 50 biggest cities in 2015. Homicides have climbed 50 percent in Washington, D.C., this year. In Baltimore, murders are up 60 percent.

Og han bliver hørt, Trumps upopularitet blandt sorte faldt så at hele 14,6% nu foretrækker ham, frem for Hillary. Det lyder ikke af meget, men det er en stigning fra en flukturation mellem 2,5% og 5,5%. Podcasteren Sonnie Johnson udtrykte det således ifølge Breitbart

Johnson said Trump’s speech targeted what “Democrats have done to the black community over the last sixty years,” and laid things out more plainly, and boldly, than previous Republicans have dared to attempt.

“To have it laid out, to have it addressed, to not have it skirted over, to not have it bathed in welfare talk, and poverty talk, but actually to have it, to inspire black people that America is your country, and you deserve to have the greatness and richness thereof in it – I was over the moon last night! Congratulations, Donald Trump! Thank you!” she declared.

SiriusXM host Matt Boyle pointed out that polls show Trump faring very poorly with black voters, but Johnson was confident his speech in Wisconsin would help him turn those numbers around, and even meet his goal of drawing a larger percentage of the black vote than previous GOP candidates.

“The emphasis is on the American people, and for once, you have a Republican candidate that went above and beyond to make sure that black people feel like they are included in that America,” she said. “You don’t have to convince black people that having money is better than being poor. You don’t have to convince them of that. All you have to do is inspire them, and they will do the rest.”

“And that is what Hillary needs to be scared to death of,” she continued. “You have a generation of young blacks that are inspired to take over the world, and now we have a Republican candidate that’s saying, not only will I be your voice, not only will I stand with you, but I will win. And that is something that the black community has not had, since they have let these progressives be in control of our cities. Just the thought of having a real fight in the inner cities of America, with a Republican candidate that gives a damn — Hillary Clinton better be shakin’ in her boots!”

“From the time of Abraham Lincoln to that of President Herbert Hoover the black vote was Republican” skriver Thomas Sowell i National Review. Selvom republikanerne ifølge Sowell næppe genvinder flertallet af sorte stemmer i løbet af det næste årti, så er det vigtigt at erodere demokraternes monopol over den vælgergruppe. Ikke blot på grund af de ekstra sorte stemmer, men fordi flere hvide måske vil stoppe med at anse Repubkanerne som racistisk. Lov og orden er et generelt ønske i befolkningen på tværs af demografien og uddannelse er et “slam-dunk issue for Republicans trying to appeal to black parents with school-age children, as distinguished from trying to appeal to all black voters, as if all blacks are the same”.

Someone on CNN said that if Trump were serious about wanting the black vote, he would address groups like the NAACP. That was in fact a big mistake that even President Reagan made.

Blacks voters are not the property of the NAACP, and they need to be addressed directly as individuals, over the heads of special-interest organizations that have led blacks into the blind alley of being a voting bloc that has been taken for granted far too long.

Et illustrativt eksempel hvor indgroet venstrefløjens tænkning med at adressere minoriter igennem udemokratiske interesse og pressionsgrupper. Skriv det bag øret Dyhr, når du vil give definitionsretten over muslimerne som gruppe til imamerne (Vi på Monokultur, vil have muslimerne til at rejse hjem, men hvis man endelig skal tage minoriteter alvorlig, kan det kun ske som individder). Sheriff David Clarke beskrev rammeforholdene for urolighederne i Milwaukee og hvor vigtigt lov og orden er, ikke mindst for de mest udsatte grupper i befolkningen

Clarke said, “Well, first of all, the social order in Milwaukee totally collapsed on Saturday night. When the social order collapses, tribal behavior takes over. When tribal behavior takes over, the law of the jungle replaces the rule of law and that’s why you end up with what you saw. Last night was a little better. Not good enough for me. I won’t be satisfied until these creeps crawl back into their holes so the good law abiding people who live in the Milwaukee ghettos can return to at least a calm quality of life.”

National Reviews Deroy Murdock er enig med Sowell, at vinde sorte stemmer er muligt og det afmonterer myten om at Republikanerne er racistisk

Trump should take this message to black churches, civic groups, and business associations and respectfully ask black Americans for their votes. All else being equal, if he convinces 15 percent of them, this election becomes a squeaker. If he scores 20 percent of black ballots, Trump trumps Clinton.

Nervous whites who see Trump meet black voters would find such images a comforting contrast to charges that Trump is a racist. Some will be sufficiently reassured and support him.

And Trump’s unyielding conservative critics — including Hillary Clinton’s enablers in the Never Trump crowd — might reevaluate a GOP nominee who finally expressed some “very difficult truths,” in Trump’s words, that other Republican standard bearers understood but were not brave enough to utter.

Trump er folkelig og med det hører også det vulgære. Om han er den rette mand på posten som præsident er svært at sige, men alternativet er bare garanteret værre. Demokraterne har, som venstrefløjen herhjemme, svigtet underklassen til fordel for fashionabel identitetspolitik. Man må håbe at tilstrækkeligt mange sorte smider de mentale lænker og stopper med at identificere sig som demokrater - og på sigt også med deres hudfarve.

Poul Høi er “post-faktualiteten i sin yderste potens”

Diverse — Drokles on August 19, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Venstrefløjen har vænnet sig så meget til deres meningsmonopol, at dele af den, reagerer med åben usaglighed, når den en sjælden gang bliver konfronteret med dissens. Derfor bestyrtelsen over Je Juis Jalving programserien på Radio 24/7. Klummeskriveren Jim Rutenberg, skrev lige ud i New York Times at man gerne måtte digte når man virkeligt stod overfor noget man ikke kunne lide

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Reglerne gælder med mindre de hæmmer sin overbevisning. David Trads gentog 12 august den indstilling (ærlighed) for selvom “et vigtigt journalistisk princip at være neutral og objektiv - dele sol og vand lige og al den slags”, så var der også “situationer, hvor vi er nødt til at vælge side og sige ‘nok er nok’”. Nogen er altså i det mindste ærlige i deres uprofessionelle uhæderlighed, andre ikke.

Berlingske Tidendes Poul Høi skrev i forrige uge at Donald Trump er “post-faktualiteten i sin yderste potens” og roste de amerikanske medier for at “holde Trump fast på løgn og latin“. Trump, ikke politikere og meningsdannere, Trump. Han lagde ud med et historisk tilbageblik

I en TV-duel dengang hævdede den republikanske præsidentkandidat, Mitt Romney, at Obama ikke havde kaldt et angreb på det amerikanske konsulat i Benghazi for terror. »I 14 dage nægtede han at kalde det et terrorangreb,« sagde Romney. »Jeg kaldte det et terrorangreb,« protesterede Obama, Romney benægtede og til sidst greb ordstyreren, CNNs Candy Crowley, ind. Henvendt til Mitt Romney sagde hun: »Det gjorde han faktisk, sir.«

Det førte til en massiv opstandelse. Selv sagde Crowley, at hun ikke gjorde andet end hvad journalister skal gøre, men kritikerne stod i kø. Blandt republikanerne blev hun en hadeskikkelse, og den dag i dag taler aktivister stadig om, at Crowley kostede dem valget i 2012. Romney sagde selv senere bittert, at hun skulle have holdt sin mund: »Det er ikke en ordstyrers opgave at kaste sig ind i en debat og erklære en taber eller vinder på et bestemt område,« sagde han.

Dengang var diskussionen om »det post-faktuelle samfund« stadig i sin vorden…

Postfaktualitet? Candy Crowley undskyldte efterfølgende til Romney og indrømmede at han havde ret i at Obama administration “spent two weeks telling us [angrebet på USAs konsulkat i Benghazi] was about a tape“, men at hun blot mente at Romney “picked the wrong word“.  Sagen handlede ikke om ord, men om handlinger; at Obama og amerikanske myndigheder ikke blot benægtede at USA var under angreb af en helt konkret fjende. Istedet anklagede de en Youtube-video for at have opflammet sarte muslimske sind til en spontan opstand. Og for at hamre den løgn hjem fik de manden, der havde produceret den Youtube video arresteret for rullende kameraer, så nationen kunne, hvem der var den virkeligt skyldige i at fire amerikanere var blevet dræbt, heriblandt den amerikanske ambassadør.

Og Høi så giver et par eksempler

I forrige uge gik Trumps søn, Eric, f.eks. på skærmen hos CNN og hævdede, at hans far havde sagt undskyld til forældrene til en død krigshelt, ægteparret Khan. CNN kørte underteksten: »Trumps søn: Far har sagt undskyld til Khan (det har han ikke).« Et par dage senere fortalte Trump ved et vælgermøde, at han havde set en tophemmelig video, som afslørede, at Obama betalte 400 mio. dollar til Iran. MSNBC kørte følgende undertekst: »Trump: Jeg har set (ikke-eksisterende) video af Iran, som modtager penge.«

Tillad mig et øjebliks sentimentalitet. Da det nye Parken i København blev indviet 1992 med en revanchekamp mellem de regerende Europamestre og Verdensmestre, blev den tyske stjerne Stefan Effenberg mødt med højlydt buhen og piften fra de danske fans. Effenberg havde nemlig tilsyneladende brudt sig imod et kammeratligt kodeks da han havde kørt i Brian Laudrups nye Mercedes uden at have spurgt om lov. Nationen var i oprør over noget den ikke vidste det fjerneste om og hverken havde lod eller del i.

Historien om Trumps undskyldning til Kahn falder lavere end en fodboldpøblen anno 1992. Helt uden baggrund fortæller Høi blot at Trump er en værre een, fordi hans søn har sagt at far har sagt undskyld til nogen, der alene i kraft af at være forældre til en krigshelt bare har krav på en undskyldning. Høi fortæller ikke at den gode Khan, fra talerstolen til Demokraternes konvent, leverede et angreb på Trump, hvori han beskyldte ham for ikke at kende Forfatningen, når han ville afholde muslimer fra at myldre ind i USA (det er det ikke). I politik, hvornår er noget et angreb, et selvforsvar, en disput, en undskyldning?

Høi forklarer heller ikke at Khan ikke er ekspert i forfatningen. Høi forklarer heller ikke at Khan er shariatilhænger. Høi forklarer heller ikke at Khan er et blødende symbol på Hillary Clintons korrupte væsen, ved med sit advokatur at sørge for at arabere kan købe sig ind  i USA gennem Khans tætte samarbejde med Saudiarabien, islamistiske organisationer og Clintons Clinton Foundation.

Trump så ganske vist ikke nogen ikke-eksisterende video, men han så alligevel noget. Han så et brud på et gammelt amerikansk princip om ikke at betale løsepenge for gidsler. Associated Press skriver: The Obama administration said Thursday that a $400 million cash payment to Iran seven months ago was contingent on the release of a group of American prisoners.” Det konservative National Review, der er stærkt anti-Trump helt ud i det bitre, funderer

Two thoughts. First, will President Obama continue to claim that his administration does not negotiate with or pay ransom to terrorists? Or is that now modified: “We will use cash as ‘leverage’ while negotiating with terrorists”?

Second, Obama obviously used the $400 million for ransom leverage because he did not trust the Iranians to honor their agreement merely to release four hostages. Why, then, would he have us trust Iran to honor its agreement not to seek nuclear weapons when he has given away our leverage (the sanctions); when Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons for years; when, despite his deal with them, the Iranians continue ballistic missile development; and when Obama’s deal will leave them with an industrial-strength nuclear program that they can easily weaponize at any time?

‘Leverage’, ‘ransom’, wrong words, måske, men Trump havde ret - de andre løj.

the-donald-folkelig-og-forfinet

Trump, festlig, folkelig og fornøjelig.

En nedladenhed for langt

I ferien linkede jeg til Midnight’s Edges video, der glimrende gennemgik en strid mellem folkene bag den nye version af filmen Ghostbusters og dens produktionsselskab SONY Pictures, på den ene side og et nørdet miljø af film-, fantasyfans og v/bloggere på den anden. Denne nye Ghostbusters film var instrueret af instruktøren Paul Fieg, der i forskellige interviews havde udtrykt negative holdninger til det mandlige køn, fordi han angiveligt var blevet mobbet i sine drengeår for sine ‘fine træk’. Og den nye Ghostbustersfilms hovedroller var, i modsætning til den originale fra 80erne, måske derfor besat af 4 kvinder. Udtrykket i den fladpandede humor, som traileren viste, havde i hvert fald mere end en snert af girl power. Og man kan godt argumentere for, at det er op ad bakke, at hævde en feministisk pointe, når man ikke kan finde på bedre, end en bleg efterligning af drengenes 30 år gamle film.

Kort fortalt, kunne fansne ikke lide traileren til nyindspilningen af Ghostbusters og rakkede på forhånd filmen ned. Sony og folkene bag Ghostbusters forsøgte at redde deres meget bekostelige bud på en blockbuster fra dårlig foromtale og mobiliserede bl.a social justice warriors, personer og grupper optaget ud i det hysteriske af at indrette verden efter deres metastaserende identitetspolitik, til at udskamme de forhåndskritiske fans, som fysisk uattraktive, hjemmeboende sociale tabere med misogyne og racistiske tendenser. Den slags, der stemte på Trump, som skuespilleren Dan Akroyd mente.

Men showbusiness er hårdt og folk der spiser pop-corn er ikke interesseret i at skifte underholdning ud med moraliserende identitetspolitik pakket ind i generisk humor og CGI. . Politisk aktivisme, kunsterisk forfængelighed, forsmåede følelser og drømme om et indbringende franchise gik i selvsving og endte i krig med de selv samme mennesker, hvis holdninger man forsøgte at massere, mens man tog deres penge. Variety fortæller at Ghostbusters vil ende med at tabe 50 mill dollars og at der således ikke er udsigt til “sequels”.

Midnigt’s Edge, har fulgt op på, hvorledes det er gået Ghostbusters efter premieren og hvordan stridighederne (hvor Milo Yiannopoulos i øvrigt blev permant udelukket fra Twitter)

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters has been released, and moviegoers around the world now have the opportunity to judge what has arguably been the most controversial movie of the year for themselves. This however, did not cause the controversies that had been plaguing the production to stop.

In this video we will dig into the movies opening, the critical reception, the various controversies in the aftermath of the release, as well as its boxoffice and subsequent sequel prospects, now that the movie is increasingly being referred to as a flop.

Børnekultur i Tyrkiet

Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Muslimer, Pressen, Tyrkiet, Uddannelse, islam, muhammed — Drokles on August 17, 2016 at 4:09 am

Det kan sikkert have skuffet Christian Braad Thomsen at historien om at Tyrkiet ville afskaffe den sexuelle lavalder viste sig at være en and. Historien gik lynhurtigt fra Kronen Zeitungs nyhedsbånd i Wiens Lufthavn til alverdens medier og politiske kapaciteter fra Margot Wallström til Özlem Cekic reagerede kraftigt (de var imod afskaffelse af den sexuelle lavalder). Og overalt på Facebook kunne man læse kommentarer som at afskaffelsen af den sexuelle lavalder skete for at efterkomme “Erdogans uuddannede og kulturelt primitive bagland”.

Men hvorfor antager folk, også fra det pæne segment, så let, at pædofili er normalt og endda ønskværdigt i Erdogans bagland? Javist, Erdogan er ligesom Putin, en mand der er i ekstremt bad standing i offentligheden. Mere end den gængse diktator, en mand det er (blevet) ukontroversielt at kritisere uden ellers at forholde til tyrkisk politik eller til Tyrkiet overhovedet. Og vi kender også hans bagland, de uuddannede fra landdistrikterne, uden dem vil Tyrkiet være så meget bedre og mere progressivt (så progressivt som Gaza, der grundlæggende heller ikke har landdistikter). Men hvorfor er tanken om udbredt pædofili så nærliggende, at alle over en bred karm ser deres fordomme bekræftet?

NSNBC motiverede deres hurtige kolportering af ‘nyheden’ om Tyrkiets afskaffelse af den sexuelle lavalder, med lidt baggrund, som jeg de fleste nok vil skrive under på

Statistics from 2013 showed that 853 women were murdered in the last four years;  15% of them were killed because they wanted to divorce, 66% were killed by their ex-husbands or boyfriends. 12.5% were killed by their husbands, even though they filed a complaint and were provided with protection by the state. Violence against women in Turkey is more prevalent in the countryside where girls more often are taken out of school at an earlier age and where child marriages are more common.

In October 2013 a study conducted by researchers a Gaziantep University revealed that one in every three marriages in Turkey is a child marriage. The marriage of Turkish child brides to older men has repeatedly led to fatal tragedies. Among the most known cases in 2014 alone, is the death of two so-called child brides.

In January 2014 one 14-year-old teenage girl died from “several” allegedly self-inflicted gunshot wounds in what was declared a suicide. Police investigations suggested that the girl may have been as young as ten or eleven years when she was married away to a significantly older man. In July 2014 the 15-year-old Seter Aslan succumbed to a gunshot wound in what was declared a suicide.

Det er en primitiv kultur, man stadig hænger fast i ude på landet, det er sikkert og vist og ganske ukontroversielt for selv pæne mennesker at påpege, når vi anskuer det gennem Erdogan, som prisme. Kultur kan man nemlig godt kritisere, hvis og kun hvis, det sker for at undgå at kritisere noget endnu mere sårbart. Noget, hvor vi instinktivt ved, selv helt oppe i nationens øverste lag af uddannede mennesker, ved har en skræmmende omgang med børn. Og vi ved jo godt, os alle sammen, hvilket mørke DE hæger om, ikke blot de uuddannde primitivoer oppe på højsletten. Træd varsomt broder Shamoun

First, we need to establish that Islam allows female children to be married and engaged in sex prior to their first menses (prepubescent). For that we turn to the Islamic source materials. Starting with the Quran:

If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement. God will ease the hardship of the man who fears him. 65:4, Dawood

Brother Sam Shamoun comments on this verse:

The surrounding context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran is telling Muslims to wait for a certain period of time before making the divorce final or deciding to forego it. The Quran exhorts men to wait a period of three months in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or haven’t even started their menstrual cycles! (Source)

Since Muslim men are to wait 3 months before divorcing a prepubescent child it means that they have been engaging in sex with those children.

Borrowing from Sam’s work (*) I quote three Islamic scholars commentary related to 65:4 and the subject of sex with prepubescent children:

Ibn Kathir writes regarding 65:4

<divorce them at their `Iddah>, “The `Iddah is made up of cleanliness and the menstrual period.” So he divorces her while it is clear that she is pregnant, or he does not due to having sex, or since he does not know if she is pregnant or not. This is why the scholars said that there are two types of divorce, one that conforms to the Sunnah and another innovated. The divorce that conforms to the Sunnah is one where the husband pronounces one divorce to his wife when she is not having her menses and without having had sexual intercourse with her after the menses ended. One could divorce his wife when it is clear that she is pregnant. As for the innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does not know if she became pregnant or not. There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces A YOUNG WIFE WHO HAS NOT BEGUN TO HAVE MENSES, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one’s wife before the marriage was consummated. (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari said regarding 65:4

The interpretation of the verse “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”. He said: The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.

Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142 (Source: Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
(Question #12708: Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?)

Regarding sex with prepubescent children, Abu-Ala’ Maududi states:

“Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

It is clear: Muslim men can engage in sex with prepubescent children!

Her er en trailer for Reis Çeliks prisvindende film Night of Silence, der lyder til at være en variation over Tusind og Een Nat (eller mareridt, om man vil)

Award Winner at Berlin Film Festival

In a remote Turkish village, an ancient blood feud between two families has finally been put to rest, and a marriage arranged to seal the union; a man just released from a life in prison has been pledged to a teenage girl he has never met.

It is their wedding night and there are customs and rituals to be observed. But fearful of their consummation, the bride distracts her broken husband with tales, rounding out the hours as dawn draws ever nearer. Events become ever stranger as the claustrophobic night finally reaches a shattering conclusion.

Lyrical and intense, Night of Silence (Lal Gece) is an unforgettable piece of cinema with two brilliant performances at its heart.

Eliten mod folket

For en måned siden skrev Jim Edwards i Business Insider at det var på tide at erkende at Brexit ikke vil ske, for i praksis kan ingen melde sig ud af EU fordi omstillingen vil være uoverskuelig og økonomisk ødelæggende. Trods den indsigt skrev Henry Porter for nogle dage siden i Vanity Fair at de økonomiske tømmermænd efter det Brexit, der altså endnu ikke er en realitet og ifølge Edwards aldrig vil blive det, allerede er blevet endnu værre. Andrew Greice skrev dog i Independent at mantraet t Downing Street var “We’re all Brexiteers now.” og andet også ville være politisk selvmord.

Der sker noget i det vestlige sind i disse år og store valg skal træffes og hvor udsigten til de enorme konsekvenser allerede trækker splittelsen frem i befolkningerne. Og det er først og fremmest eliten mod resten. Brendan O’Neill skriver om reaktionen på Brexit i The Spectator

Why is everyone so chilled out about the threats to Brexit? Why isn’t there more public fury over the plotting of lords and academics and experts to stymie Brexit and thwart the will of 17.4m people? In all the years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when democracy has been treated with as much disgust, with as much naked, Victorian-era elitism, as it is being today. And yet we’re all bizarrely mellow. We’re going about our business as if everything is normal, as if the elites aren’t right now, this very minute, in revolt against the people. We need to wake up.

Every day brings fresh news of the revolt of the elite, of the march of the neo-reactionaries against the mandate of the masses. At the weekend it was revealed that Brexit might not happen until 2019, because David Davis and Liam Fox can’t get their departments in order, the amateurs. The lovers of the EU and loathers of the blob could barely contain their glee. March for Europe, a celeb-backed, media-cheered chattering-class outfit agitated by the throng and the dumb decision it made on 23 June, spied an opportunity to do over Brexit entirely. ‘[W]e can help delay Brexit further and ultimately defeat it altogether,’ it said yesterday. ‘We can win this.’

‘We can win this.’ The ‘we’ they’re talking about is a minority view,backed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Owen Jones and Jarvis Cocker, yes, but by only 10,000 people on Facebook. And the thing they think they can win is the overthrow of the largest democratic mandate in British history.

(…)

It has to stop. We’re witnessing an explicit use of power and influence to overthrow, or at least water down, the say of the people. It is an outrage. And it’s being made worse by the uselessness of Theresa May’s cabinet, whose constant pushing back of triggering Article 50 gives the impression that it’s a scary, difficult thing to do (which it isn’t) and in the process inflames the anti-democratic ambitions of the new elites. We need to get real, and fast. Not only is Brexit at stake — so is democracy itself. Earlier generations took to the streets to roar against less ugly elitist campaigns than the one we’re currently living through. So why aren’t we on the streets protesting? I’m serious. They might have money and titles and newspaper columns, but we have the masses on our side. Let’s remind them of that.

Og det gælder også i det amerikanske præsidentvalg, hvor Donald Trump udfordrer den sidende elite, personificeret i al sin korrupte glans af Hillary Clinton. Den politiske analytiker Pat Caddell fortæller her i en samtale med Breitbarts Stephen Bannon om, hvorledes medierne angriber Trump, som ingen anden kandidat er blevet angrebet før, for at beskytte den elite, som de selv er en del af.

“The issue here for [Trump], which is clear, is that this is a country in trouble. This is a country where the economy and foreign policy are in trouble. And she represents — for a country that sees, by vast majorities, that the political class in Washington is corrupt, and rigging the system for themselves, that has not yet come center place,” he said.

“What they’re trying to do is disqualify him from the Presidency. He needs to now go back to saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute, what kind of country do you want to continue to have? The one that is, inevitably, slowly before our eyes, declining and not succeeding? Or do you want to take a chance on making things better? I can help you make things better.’ He has not engaged that. The minute he engages, this election will change amazingly,” Caddell predicted.

“She is locked in to what she is,” he said of Clinton. “All she can do is put up barriers, or throw up arguments, against Trump. Trump is the independent variable in this equation. He is the one that can force those things that matter to people to the front. That is what a change election is about.”

Bannon suggested that “the general population doesn’t know this is a change election,” with so much attention focused on the clash of personalities, and Trump’s negative qualities. Caddell faulted Trump and his campaign for lacking the preparation and discipline to impose their own narrative.

(…)

Bannon advised Trump to prepare himself for even worse treatment from the press, if he should find a way to close his polling deficit against Clinton — an eventuality Bannon described as a “miracle,” while Caddell thought it was highly likely.

“He will close this gap. He will,” Caddell predicted. “And I’ll tell you, you’re right about the media. So, therefore, what do you do about that? You must take it to the level of notwhining about the media. It’s not about whining. It is about that they are playing a detailed role, and a conscious role, in terms of protecting the political class, because theyare the political class.”

He cited polling data that showed the American people have lost faith in the media, arguing that “two-thirds of them believe their level of objectivity and bias is as high as ever — they’re the lowest they’ve ever been, in Gallup.”

“They need to be challenged institutionally,” he said of the press. “Remember what they’re trying to do. They’re not trying just to knock Trump off. They need to suppress that which they have not been able to do all year, this rebellion out in the hinterlands, in both parties — whether it’s the Democrats’ revolt with Sanders, the Republican revolt with Trump — to suppress this instinct of the American people, to take control back of their country.”

That’s the issue: who runs America?”

Kun 11% af amerikanerne mener Hillary Clinton er til at stole på.

Olympisk propaganda i Hijab

Det er spøjst, som muslimerne bruger de Olympiske Lege dette år til at promovere en ide om kvindefrigørelse overfor godtroende vesterlændinge. Amerikanerne stillede med den hijabkædte Ibtihaj Muhammad i sabelfægtning (ikke krumsabel dog og hun vandt bronze), der fortalte at hun følte sig utryg “all the time” ved at være muslim ‘hjemme’ i USA [En imam og hans assistent er til aften blevet likvideret i Queens, hvorfra Ibtihaj Muhammad bor]

“I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”

Vores øjeblik er muslimernes øjeblik, øjeblikket, hvor de præsenterer deres sag, som er islam, mens påstår at repræsentere hvad de kalder deres land, USA. Den bronzevindende atlet var rent faktisk tæt på at have den ære at bære Stars and Stripes ved åbningsceremonien, trods sin marginale sport. Og alligevel er USA hende imod, for alt er imod muslimerne. Og det er dette budskab, der skal masseres ind i den vestlige psyke.

Men det skal blive endnu mere plat. Den Olympiske Komite krævede ved forrige OL at Saudiarabien også stillede med kvindelige atleter, hvis ikke hele landet skulle udelukkes. Saudernes forfængelighed overvandt deres kvindehad, men de stillede også modbetingelser. Således skulle deres kvindelige judokæmper, der kun havde øvet denne disciplin i selvforsvar med sin far(host, host), have lov til at stille i hijab selv om det stred imod reglerne for sportens dresscode. Og hun skulle have lov til at optræde i det Sorte Bælte selv om hun højst kunne gøre sig fortjent til det Blå. Judoforbundet sagde først nej, men et kompromis blev fundet som der altid bliver fundet når det drejer sig om islamiske krav: Saudieren fik lov til at have hijab mod til gengæld også at få lov til at stille op i det Sorte Bælte.

Også en kvindelig saudisk 400 meter løber stillede op og selv om hun knap kunne løbe distancen blev hun behandlet som en stor helt for hendes brud på saudiske kønsroller. Og ikke et ord blev der nævnt om islam i de danske medier, næh, fænomenet var patriarkalsk kultur, der stadig var fremherskende i Saudiarabien. I år er der endnu flere hijabber med, der ikke kan vinde, knap nok konkurrere. Det er heller ikke meningen, de er med til ære for den vestlige verden, der åbenbart hungrer efter billeder af hvor frigjort man kan være når man aldrig kan optræde udenfor sin religiøse dresscode.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061039

Og det ser så tåbeligt ud, som det lyder

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061249

Fremvisningen af den muslimske klædedragt på verdenscenen handler på ingen måde om at emancipere, eller anden form for empowermentshalløj, kvinden hjemme i muslimland. Det er alene rettet mod vesten, at bilde os ind at kvinden i den muslimske verden er lige så fri til at løbe som den vestlige kvinde. Ironien i at saudiske hijabber ikke må køre bil, er indtil videre helt tabt for medierne, der stiller indlysende tåbelige spørgsmål

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-062117

Svaret er lige for. Den undertrykte er den der ikke kan skifte klædedragt efter forgodtbefindende. Men ikke for de sludrende klasser

Signe Vahlun, næstforkvinde i Dansk Kvindesamfund, er en af dem, der faktisk ser noget positivt i billedet af de to kvinder i nærkamp ved nettet. »Et fantastisk billede, som viser to engagerede sportsudøvere,« siger hun og fortsætter:

»For mig viser det diversitet og mangfoldighed blandt de kvinder, som deltager i OL. Jeg er faktisk ret begejstret for det og finder påstandene om undertrykkelse i overkanten.«

(…)

Hun hæfter sig ved, at reglen om, at spilledragten i beachvolley indtil OL i London skulle være en bikini, også kan ses som undertrykkelse.

»Det bryder dette billede med. Det viser, at begge dele er muligt,« siger Signe Vahlun.

(…)

Lidt på samme hold er Khaterah Parwani, der ud over at blande sig i debatten også arbejder for at hjælpe kvinder fri af vold, undertrykkelse og religiøs social kontrol i Exitcirklen.

(…)

»Det er svært at forestille sig kvinder kaste sig frådende ud i en debat, hvor de kræver sportsmænd iført noget bestemt tøj. Enten tangatrusser, lange bukser eller noget helt tredje. Jeg kan blive stiktosset over, at mænd i den grad blander sig. Det gjorde de jo også, da kravet om bikini til beachvolleykampe blev ophævet,« siger hun, der ikke vil tage konkret stilling til, hvem af de to kvinder der er mest undertrykt. Eller fri.

»Det giver jo ingen mening, for jeg kender dem ikke. Det kan jo være, at kvinden med meget tøj på føler sig bedst tilpas sådan, og at kvinden i badedragt hader det. Det kan også være omvendt, men vi aner det ikke, og undertrykkelse handler om at gøre noget mod sin vilje,« siger Khaterah Parwani.

Hjemme i muslimland kunne billedet se således ud

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-13-kl-0613401

Men maskerne falder alligevel hos muslimerne, når det mindste pres melder sig. Den ægyptiske judokæmper Islam El Shahaby nægtede ikke blot at give hånd, men forlod helt sporten, efter at have tabt til en israeler, skrev Times of Israel

Some elements of the Egyptian media were furious Friday at the judoka for losing to an Israeli, Army Radio said. The outlets blamed Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi for El Shahaby’s appearance at the fight itself.

The 32-year-old Egyptian, a world championship medalist in 2010, had faced pressure on social media and from hardline Islamist groups in his homeland to withdraw from the match.

(…)

Messner said that the fact that the Egyptian actually turned up for the match signaled “a big improvement” in the Arab states’ attitude to Israeli athletes at the Olympics.

“In the past, it is not sure that a fight between those two athletes would have taken place. This is already a big improvement that Arabic countries accept to be opposed to Israel,” he said.

Islam lover muslimen herredømmet over den ydmygede jøde. At tabe til en jøde, der endda er herre i sit eget hus, Israel, er en smertelig kognitiv dissonans.

Der ventes nye kampe i Paris

Arabere, Diverse, Frankrig, Kunst og kultur, Muslimer, Terror, Ytringsfrihed, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 13, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Express skriver at det venstreorienterede franske satiremagasin Charlie Hebdo igen har fået mange trusler fra trusselskulturen, grundet en forsidetegning

Le Parisien newspaper reported the magazine – which continues to make fun of religion – remains a top target for Islamic extremists and on Thursday formally filed a complaint against an unknown person after receiving a string of serious threats.

More than 60 disturbing messages, insults, and anti-Semitic remarks were posted on the magazine’s Facebook page, including one saying ‘You’re going to die!”. Another message warned of an imminent terrorist attack.

An inquiry has been launched and French police are currently investigating the “very threatening death threats” made against Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journalists.

Express beskriver Charlie Hebdos billede således

The man’s penis can be seen through his long beard, and the woman is totally naked except for her veil over her head and shoulders and a caption below reads: “The reform of Islam: Muslims, loosen up” or “Musulmans decoincez vous”

Men Express viser ikke billedet. I stedet viser de en del “Je suis Charlie” billeder - og det er jo også en ganske gratis solidaritetserklæring. Så her er en ægte

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-13-kl-063134

Som man kan se ved OL er sportstøj for stærk kost for de sarte muslimske sind. Nøgenhed, som ovenfor, er en direkte hån.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-13-kl-061340

Der er ingen fred mulig med muslimerne, hvis man vil bevare friheden.

Hillarys helbred halter

Diverse, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 11, 2016 at 1:39 pm

Der spekuleres meget i Hillary Clintons helbred, efter flere mærkelige optrædender med tilsyneladende spastiske bevægelser, fortløbende hosteanfald og pludseligt besvær med at forcere trapper. Tegneserifiguren Dilberts skaber Scott Adams har kaldt Hillary Clinton “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma”, “part pharmacological grab-bag”, i modsætning til donald Trump, der måske nok er Trump, “but he does seem to be the same person every day”.

Paul Joseph Watson har samlet nogle videoklip og spekulerer i at de er tegn på mindre anfald, udløst af stress og overstimulering af sanserne (og Watsons stemmeføring er her mindre anstrengende end normalt). Hvis halvdelen af det er sandt vil Trumps energi og spontanitet risikere at give Hillary mange anfald når de skal debattere. Breitbart har spurgt ekspertisen

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that “strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness” for presidential office of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS’ website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton’s health that she says are growing:

There’s the photograph of Secretary Clinton’s difficulty walking up some steps. Now inability to climb stairs does not necessarily disqualify a person for public office. However, neither she nor people with her apparently anticipated a problem. The people helping her seem to be preventing a fall. Did she simply trip? Or was it a seizure or a stroke?

Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.  Reportedly, she has a volcanic temper. (This is probably not new.)

A man who stays close to her, who is reportedly not a Secret Service officer, was photographed carrying something in his hand that purportedly might have been an autoinjector of Valium.

While we don’t have Mrs. Clinton’s medical records, it is widely stated that she experienced a fall that caused a concussion. Since then, she is sometimes seen wearing eyeglasses with prisms, as are used to correct double vision.

Orient explains that serious concussions can often cause traumatic brain injury that is not always detected on standard medical tests such as a CT or MRI.

“Many of our veterans who experienced blast injury from improvised explosive devices suffer from it,” she continues, adding:

These are some symptoms: difficulty thinking, attention deficits, confusion, memory problems, frustration, mood swings, emotional outbursts, agitation, headaches, difficulties with balance and coordination, and seizures. Many veterans with such an injury cannot hold a job or interact normally with their families.

“Obviously, it would be very dangerous for a person subject to symptoms like this to be dealing with foreign leaders or making critical decisions,” she states.

(….)

“Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton?” she asks. “The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton.”

Breitbart havde tidligere spurgt Dr. Drew om Clintons forbrug af blofortyndende medicin (anti-coagulant)

But, when you read she had a history of previous deep venous thrombosis in 1998 and 2009 – she’s had twice a clot in her leg – these are serious clots that lead to something called pulmonary embolism, which can also cause sudden death. So, she has an underlying recurrent blood clot in her leg, a clot in her transverse sinus…why is she clotting?

And then why would you leave her on the oldest and sort of most treacherous anticoagulant? If you’re going to leave somebody on an anticoagulant, why the oldest, old fashion anticoagulant – which by the way I’m a fan of Coumadin, I’m a fan of it – but for kind of spurious reasons, wouldn’t you think somebody who’s a candidate for president [would] have one of the newer anticoagulants that are safer, and the indications for her staying on anticoagulants are kind of spurious…it makes me worry about the sophistication of the healthcare she is getting.

Måske er spørgsmålet om Hillarys valg af garderobe er baseret på at skjule en voksenble ud ad en tangent, men når man ikke kan få sandheden på bordet må man jo prøve at spekulere over mulighederne, som Ray Heard gør hos Rebel Media

Bestil en doppler til DVT-damen, inden hun kommer ind på oval stue.

Pressens kamp mod Trump

Det går ikke godt for Donald Trumps kampagne, der synker i meningsmålingerne, mens Hillary Clinton får stadigt mere vind i sejlene. Trumps aggressive stil, som vandt ham republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandidat fungerer ikke med samme succes, når de mange midtervælgeres hjerter skal vælges. Trumps har skudt sig meget i sine egne fødder med upræcise eller fejlagtige udsagn, et udbrud mod nogle forældre til en højt dekoreret soldat, faldet i kamp og rygter om en foruroligende villighed til at bruge atomvåben som en ufrivillighed ved at være omgivet af spædbørn. Er Trump alligevel den charlatan, som flere, inklusiv jeg selv, mistænker ham som?

Måske, men en del af forklaringen er også en amerikansk presse, der i en helt forrygende grad fører kampagne på vegne af Hillary. For ikke alt er som medierne Situationen med spædbarnet, der forstyrrede en tale og fik irriteret Trump ligner en grov fejlfortolkning af situationen og faderen til den dræbte soldat, der kæk viftede med en udgave af den amerikanske forfatning, mens han beskyldte Trump for ikke at kende endsige indholdet, viste sig at være en ivrig sharia tilhænger og samarbejdspartner med både Clinton Foundation og Saudiarabien. Justin Raimondo giver i Los Angeles Times et par eksempler fra sine lokale medier

My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.

To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?

The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?

The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.

Since last summer, Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate.

Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War.

Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.

Jeg faldt tilfældigvis over dette klip fra CNN, det støtter Hillary Clinton, som nogle venstreorienterede havde fremhævet fordi det efter deres mening, viste en Trump støtte blive sat eftertrykkeligt på plads. Det tror jeg de færreste neutrale seere vil mene, men det er en fin demonstration af uhæderligheden i de venstreorienterede medier. Corey Lewandowski, der blev fyret som leder af Trumps kampagne kommer underangreb i fra først CNNs faste politiske kommentator Angela Rye, tidligere leder af det sorte kadaver (ok, det var en undersættelse af the Congressional Black Caucus) og siden værten

Uhæderligheden består i at værten ikke vil vedkende sig det emne han selv bringer på banen. Og for at dække over pinligheden, da Lewandowski holder fast sit logiske spørgsmål, som værten kender og nægter at svare på, skal Lewandowski selvfølgelig afbrydes og råbes ad med fornærmende barnagtigheder. Det giver værten tid til at samle sig sammen til at beskylde Lewandowski for at være racist. Og det sker instinktivt og umiddelbart. “Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn’t work so instead it’s death by a thousand cuts” skriver Matthew Vadum i Breitbart og giver nogle eksempler på den forskel, hvormed pressen behandler Trump og Hillary

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton’s emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump’s statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation’s government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate’s path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. “Trump should be killing her on that point,” he said on the most recent installment of the “John Batchelor Show.”

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she’s destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum’s rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton’s lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman’s messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren’t asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate’s fall in December 2012 in which she suffered brain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don’t inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn’t held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

Hillary nu har faktisk holdt et pressemøde og det for journalister fra de sorte og latinske minoriteter. Dem takkede hun for deres gode arbejde for at hindre Trump i at føre en god kampagne

Clinton said, “Now I think journalists have a special responsibility to our democracy in a time like this. As Ida B. Wells once said, ‘People must know before they can act and there is no educator to compare to the press.’ Now many of you are showing the way.” (RELATED: No Whites Allowed, Clinton Speaks To Press For First Time In 260 Days)

“It’s a badge of honor when Jorge Ramos gets thrown out of press conference for challenging Donald Trump,” Clinton said, pausing for the applause from the journalists. (RELATED: Trump Kicks Out Univision’s Jorge Ramos At Press Conference But Later Lets Him Back In [VIDEO])

“Or when another news organization gets banned for reporting what he says. As Jorge said, ‘The best journalism happens when you take a stand. When you denounce injustice.’ So I hope you’ll keep calling it like you see it, keep holding all of us accountable.” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Emails Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])

“You know I have laid out all of these plans and I’m well aware that I have been sometimes made fun of for putting out these plans, about the economy and education and criminal justice reform and health care and gun safety measures and all the rest of it, but I do have this old fashioned idea, when you run for president, you ought to tell the voters of America what you would do as president.” (RELATED: Comey Confirms Hillary Clinton Lied To The Public About Her Emails [VIDEO])

“So, I am going to keep telling you what I would do because I want you to hold me accountable, press and citizens alike,” Clinton said. “Because the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been in our lifetimes. And we all have to do our part. So thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for inviting me to address you today.”

Godt man bor i Danmark

berlingske-om-trump

Nåh, ja. Det gør man jo.

Folkelige Trump mod big business Clinton

Diverse — Drokles on August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

James P Pinkerton skriver at “the Republicans as the populist party and the Democrats as the establishment party” i Breitbart

Trump has, to be sure, changed the GOP: It is now the populist party.  Meanwhile, under Hillary Clinton, the Democrats are now the elitist establishment party.  The Post, now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, the third richest man in America, boasting a fortune estimated at $66.5 billion, might be forgiven for missing the nuances of any argument involving criticism of the elite establishment.

Yet across the country, the choice is clear: If you’re not happy with the status quo, if you want change, you’re likely to lean Republican.  By contrast, if you think things are going fine, if you like the way we’re being led, you’re likely to be a Democrat—except, of course, for Bernie Sanders voters; we’ll come back to them later.

And so that’s the real role reversal this year: It’s a matter of speaking truth to power—or not.  And seeking real change—or not.

(…)

In 2008, Barack Obama captured the Democratic party, and it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton is now pledged to carry on his legacy; from a perceptual point of view, Hillary sealed that deal when she hugged Obama on stage on Wednesday night.  So yes, Clinton is Obama’s third term.

Of course, we must also remember that Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been tight with the power structure—and power has been good to them.  We can recall that they first made real money with the connected Rose Law Firm, back in Little Rock, and then they amassed a substantial fortune through their work with the Clinton Foundation in Manhattan.

So today, Republicans are the outsiders, and Democrats are the insiders.  In many ways, this might seem to be a risky stance for the “ins”; after all, the “right direction/wrong track” polling question stands at roughly 23:70.  That is, more than three times as many Americans are unhappy with the way things are going as happy.

Trump har banket hele den gamle elite af republikanere ud af spillet. Og hvis Trump skulle tabe, citerer Pinkerton den politiske rådgiver John Weaver for at give folkeligheden et håb; “I think we’ll have a lot of mini-Trumps in the 2018 midterm elections imitating what we’ve seen.  People always copy what they believe might be successful.”

For their part, the Democrats haven’t changed much.  The big change is that they are trying to hide their true selves, and they are using big money to help them do the hiding.

However, if we take a close look, we can see that the Democratic Party is as devoted to its pet causes as ever, including quotas of all kinds and fawning treatment for street radicalism.

As to quotas, we can examine, as an almost random example, the website of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and see the head-counting regime in full force.  Last year, in extraordinary detail, Badger State Democrats enumerated what they wanted in their 2016 convention delegation: African Americans, 12 percent; Hispanics, six percent; Native Americans, three percent; Asian/ Pacific Americans, two percent; LGBT Americans, 12 percent; and so on.

Indeed, the Democrats’ national party platform this year features a pledge to end “systemic racism”—which might leave some to wonder whether they noticed that Obama won the last two presidential elections.  But of course, activists are never satisfied with progress made and always want more.  And the ’16 platform gave it to them, and thus it includes this shout-out to #BlackLivesMatter, embedded in a call for ever more social engineering: “We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.”

Yet the main takeaway from Philadelphia isn’t that the Democrats are still McGovernized.

Instead, the big news from Philly is that big money is back.  And the even bigger news is that the Democrats don’t care who knows it.  In fact, Democrats have turned money into a point of pride; they have more cash than the Republicans.

Without a doubt, the differences are stark: Hedge funds and their employees gave $122.7 million to Hillary, but just $19,000 to Trump.  Some might be tempted to ask: Now what does that tell you? But for Hillary Democrats, it’s nothing but good news.

And how ’bout this New York Times headline: “After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore”? The Times quoted Charlie Crist, former Republican governor of Florida, now running as a Democrat for a House seat: “This is a good place to be—for a lot of reasons. We must have set up five fundraisers today.  This is the bank.”

Yes, sirree, the DNC is “the bank.” So Democrats, bow down to the one you serve, or at least, walk this way.  The Times continued, quoting more Democrats rolling in their dough—and not caring who knows it:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Clinton’s fundraisers.  “I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

To be sure, Hillary herself doesn’t talk about big money, at least not in public; maybe one day, we’ll find out what she said to Goldman Sachs—but not yet.  And so, okay, perhaps there’s a little hypocrisy at work.  As Politico explained, “While Clinton continues to promise to rein in the influence of big money, her donors this week have seemed emboldened, celebrating at private parties around town and mingling in the lobby of the Center City Ritz-Carlton over cocktails and seafood.”

So there we have it.  Of course, it’s not just the Clinton campaign that’s raking in the bucks; it’s also pro-Clinton SuperPACs, such as Priorities USA, which has $142 million, dwarfing any pro-Trump effort.

And that much money can, indeed, buy things.  As was reported in 2015, Hillary’s social-media following has some, uh, interesting characteristics:

Her official Facebook account had almost 685,000 fans. … At least 46,000 of them list Baghdad, Iraq, as their hometown.  While most of her US Facebook fans are older than 55 . . . Clinton enjoys the support of younger Facebook fans with 66 percent of her Iraqi female fans and 67 percent of males aged between 18 and 34.

Evidently, such dubious digital payola is still continuing: For some people, it’s a living to go online and support Hillary.  Yes, if your campaign has the money to spare, you can buy votes, or at least online pseudo-votes.

To be sure, some holes have been punched in the Clinton financial armor.  As many observers noted, nobody in Philadelphia mentioned the Clinton Foundation—evidently, it now polls as a negative for the Clintons, hence the silence.  So kudos to Peter Schweizer, author of the muckraking book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich.  By dint of his investigative prowess, Schweizer has knocked a major girder out from under Bill and Hill.

In addition, some caustic observers on the left have actually taken note of the persistent stench of plutocracy.  Under the headline, “The DNC Is One Big Corporate Bribe,” New Republic reporter David Dayen singled out marquee-name Democrats now working plush jobs in just one industry, tech, including:

Obama campaign guru David Plouffe (now with Uber) and Gore consultant Chris Lehane (now with Airbnb) . . . former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, now at Amazon.  . . . Former Attorney General and corporate lawyer Eric Holder took time off from his work with Uber and Airbnb to address the convention.

However, we can observe that all this money comes at a cost: With each new dollar, the Democrats are ever more bought into the establishment system.  And this is at a time when, as we have seen, more than two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.  So the Democrats, being bought and paid for, can’t help but appear smug and oblivious.

As The Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote, Hillary “embodies the establishment and political status quo.” From an electoral point of view, that’s sad!  Or as Trump himself tweeted, “Hillary will never reform Wall Street.  She is owned by Wall Street!”

(…)

In other words, maybe the Democrats’ whole huge effort to build a Potemkin village of faux ideology has come to naught.  As Mike Murphy, chief adviser to Jeb Bush and definitely not a Trump fan, tweeted on Thursday night: “The highly effective dog whistle this convention has been sending to disaffected Republicans ended abruptly in HRC’s speech…  #TooLiberal.”

Yes, the Democrats have a lot of money, and they used it to put a lot of lipstick on the pig, but maybe it wasn’t enough; it’s still a pig.

Michael Moore har, som mange andre, bemærket at Hillary Clinton ikke er inspirerende og på de socieale medier florerer et meme, som selvfølgelig ikke ligefrem er et bevis, der illustrerer den pointe

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-05-kl-124417

Mens Hillary nok fører i meningsmålinger, så er opbakningen til hende lunken. Trump deler vandene, men han formår at begejstre sine tilhængere og hans kampagne er, omend mindre, så mere folkeligt sponseret

Ved utgangen av juni var det totalt 85,9 millioner dollar (724 millioner kroner) i Hillary Clintons valgkampkasse og hos de såkalte super PACene som støtter henne. Til sammenligning hadde Donald Trump 22,5 millioner dollar (185 millioner kroner).

Men ifølge opplysninger fra Trumps egen kampanje har pengene fosset inn i juli. I en felles digital og såkalt direct mail-kampanje, har Det republikanske partiet og Trump-kampanjen samlet inn 64 millioner dollar.

The New York Times skriver at alt i alt fikk Trump og Det republikanske parti inn 82 millioner i juli, det betyr at de ligger helt i ryggen på Clinton som fikk inn 90 millioner dollar.

Dette er tall fra Trumps egen kampanje. Først når de offisielle juli-tallene fraFederal Election Commission foreligger senere denne måneden vil en få vite detaljer i Trump-kampanjens økonomi.

(…)

To tredjedeler av de pengene som kom inn i juli, kom over nettet. Ifølge The New York Times kan Trumps kampanje bli den første republikanske presidentkampanje som henter storparten av inntektene fra små givere. Mange har gitt mellom 10 og 25 dollar.

Dette er et fenomen man også så med demokraten Bernie Sanders kampanje.

Hillary Clinton får mer penger fra storkapitalen enn Trump. Hele 37 direkte eller indirekte bidrag til hennes kampanje har vært på én million dollar eller mer.

Hvis det kun er den hårde ideologiske kerne af demokrater og social justice warriors der orker eller føler sig forpligtet til at møde op kunne det måske forklare, hvorfor de, der møder op til konventer, ser ud til at opføre sig utåleligt

Kan Trump overvinde the pussy generation?

Donald Trump står som det bedste håb, for at stoppe den nedbrydning af Vestens frihedsforståelse, som Hillary Clinton ser ud til at ville forsætte i sporet efter Barak Hussein Obama. Men selv om han skulle vinde over Hillary, kan Donald Trump også sætte det hele over styr, som en anden Glistrup, hvis hans retorik viser sig kun at være fantasterier, som det konservative tidsskrift National Review slår til lyd for igen og igen. Her er lidt Trump kritik og perspektiv fra den mere afdæmpede og altid skarpe Thomas Sowel, som man kan læse i Townhall

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

Og efter en hurtig gennemgang af Obamas og Hillary Clintons forhold til magtudøvelse og ytringsfrihed (hvor muligheden for at kriminalisere skepsis til klimafortællingen afsøges konstant)(Dennis Prager kommer til lignende konklusioner) konkluderer Sowell

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

Russisk roulette indeholder muligheden for et positivt udkomme, så jeg krydser alligevel fingre for Donald Trump. Trump kan næppe frelse den Vestlig Verden, men han kan sætte en afgørende anden dagsorden ved at punktere den vestlige fortrængning af det ondes eksistens og blinde tro på at behandle sig ud af konfrontationer om nødvendigt ved selvopofrelse. Måske kan Trump fravriste venstrefløjen deres definitionsmagt over debatten, som Clint Eastwood fortæller Breitbart

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Clint Eastwood said in an interview with Esquire. “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

Eastwood specifically cited Trump’s comments criticizing a judge who was born to Mexican parents, but indicated he was tired of the media fueled controversy

“He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides,” he said “But everybody —the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

(…)

“I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps,” he said, calling Clinton “a tough voice to listen to for four years.”

Eastwood criticized political figures who were using their position to make money, citing “too much funny business on both sides of the aisle.”

“She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,” he said, referring to Clinton.

Som et eksempel kan vi se på Trumps svar til en journalist fra CNN om det fortstående besøg fra selveste Pave Francis. Transcribtionen er fra Washington Times fordi jeg ikke kan stave til særligt meget på engelsk

Mr. Cuomo asked what Mr. Trump would say if a translator said to him: “‘The pope believes that capitalism can be a real avenue to greed. It can be really toxic and corrupt.’ And he’s shaking his finger at you when he says it. What do you say in response to the pope?”

“I’d say ISIS wants to get you,” Mr. Trump said. “You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that — you know, that’s a dream of theirs to go into Italy, you do know that.”

Medierne ææælsker at sætte modsætninger op, men de hader at stille de relevante modsætninger op. Paven er moralsk uangribelig, Paven ser anderledes på lengesager fordi han aldrig har skulle tjene dem selv, så hvad har Trump at sige til sit forsvar? Intet, Trump hamrer istedet den relevante dagsorden igennem, islamisk terrorisme breder sig fra alle steder, og det er Paven og hans ligesindede der er i en tilstand af fortrængning. Så spørgsmålet er nu ikke længere hvad Trump har at sige til Paven, men om Paven har noget at sige til realiteterne. Dette, sammen med Brexit og et fornuftigt valg i Frankrig og andre steder kan sætte en helt anden dagsorden og give mod til retskafne politikere på at det nytter at tale de fine fornemmelser midt imod fordi folkedybet er større end den den definerende klasse som er et med mediernes verdensbillede.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

omvendt

Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!

Med jøden er det anderledes

Muslimer i Europa råber Allahu Akbar mens de stikker folk ned på gaden, kører dem ihjel eller hugger deres hoveder af. De har muslimer gjort længe i Israel

Men inden muslimernes opførsel blev så spektakulær at den ikke længere kunne skjules, skosede europærere Israel for ikke at være eftergivende nok. Når muslimer myrdede jøder var der jo nok en god grund til det - det er der jo altid. Mosaic Magazine mindede forleden om et af de mange europæiske hyklerier når det drejer sig om Israel

Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.

When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.

Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.

Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.

Der er nu ikke noget der ikke er for ‘galling’ for EU, som Evelyn Gordon skriver

Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.

The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.

(…)

Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.

And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation…  and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.

The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.

In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.

No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”

If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.

Det er bare anderledes med jøden. Tag denne formulering fra BBC, som fremhævet af Campaign Against Antisemitism

Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.

Før ramte terror mest jøder og blasfemikere, men nu rammer det uden at diskriminere. Hmm, måske der efterhånden er nogle europæere, der skylder Israel mere end en undskyldning.

Her er en tanke. Som muslimer fortsætter med at myrde europæere og som det politiske landskab nok (og forhåbentligvis) kommer til at ændre sig vil forståelsen for Israels problemer sandsynligvis udvikle sig i en mere solidarisk retning for den europæiske offentlighed. På Jerusalem Post kan man læse at Israels næste krig “will be far more brutal” end den seneste for 10 år siden. Hvis Israel til den tid ikke skal bekymre sig om europæernes fine fornemmelser til den tid, står Hezbollah til en giga røvfuld - just saying.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress