Evnen til at forhandle er måske det eneste træk, hvor mænd og kvinder er forskellige, når man lytter til feminister og ligestillingsdebattører i almindelighed. Det er en gammel traver at individuelle lønforhandlinger forfordeler kvinder. Tesen er at kvinder sætter deres lys under en skæppe, mens mænd, som følge af deres indbildske natur, forhandler deres vilkår aggressivt målrettet. Mænd tillader sig, hvad kvinder er for anstændige til og i mødet mellem de to køn efterlader mænds grådige begær altid kvinden som et offer.

Forleden kunne man fra Socialdemokratiets formand Mette Frederiksen læse et typisk opstød over prostitution, hvor kunden, manden, var så moralsk vakuøs at det var tvivlsomt om han overhovedet hørte til på arbejdsmarkedet.

»Jeg tror ikke, at en kunde hos en prostitueret bagefter kan gå ind og undervise en skoleklasse eller dømme i en retssal eller være politiker, politimand, eller hvad han er, på en måde, som er foreneligt med det, vi opfatter som ligestilling og respekt mellem kønnene,« siger Mette Frederiksen i bogen.

(…)

»Det sætter sig, når vi har relationer, der er helt skæve,« siger hun videre i bogen.

Manden er kunden, kunden er skurken, skurken er manden er kunden er skurken…. Det er etableret, sådan er det, tænk ikke mere. Relationerne bliver helt skæve, forhandlingerne er besudlet.

Nuvel, men det er altid godt at nuancere, når man ikke ved hvad man skal sige. For et par år siden kunne man i Berlingske Tidende læse om Rasmus Jensen, der bedrev en sideforretning som gigolo, at kvinder også købte sex og mænd som mænd solgte. Forskellige typer af forskere var overraskede over at se en stigning af det fænomen, så langt som de overhovedet har haft en metode til at måle på befolkningens lumre privatliv. Men nogle tilsyneladende mere åbenlyse tal blev der refereret til for perspektivets skyld

Britisk forskning viser blandt andet, at næsten en tredjedel af de kvindelige vesterlændinge, der tager på ferie i Den Dominikanske Republik, siger, at de har haft sex med lokale mænd. Men selv om 60 procent af dem indrømmer, at deres forhold har »økonomiske aspekter«, anser de det ikke for at være prostitution. Men det er slet ikke så mærkeligt, mener Claus Lautrup. For kvinder romantiserer ofte »ferieaffæren« med den lokale gigolo:

»Kvinderne tror, at de får reel omsorg og kærlighed, men for mændene er det hardcore business og ikke andet. Det er helt tydeligt, at der ikke ville være noget forhold, hvis ikke der var penge involveret.«

Kvinden er kunden, kunden er offeret, offeret er kvinden er kunden er skurken… The Art of the Deal? Grab them by the pussy!

Denne video viser noget om, hvad vestlig kultur er i disse tider

Men den illustrerer også en forskel på sort og hvid kultur i USA. I 50′ernes USA var den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde lige så tilknyttede til arbejdsmarkedet, som deres hvide ditto. Den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde var også lige så tilknyttede til hinanden igennem ægteskab, som deres hvide ditto. Følgeligt havde de også det samme forhold til loven og var lige så distancerede fra fængsel, som deres hvide ditto.

I dag sidder den sorte mand meget i fængsel, primært for vold og mord mod andre sorte, selvom der også er en vis spil-over effekt på andre etniske grupper. Både den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde har ringe tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet. Og den sorte mand er fraværende som far. så det sorte barn vokser i høj grad op hos dets sorte promiskuøse enemor.

The broken black family, kalder man det i USA. Eller det vil sige, Demokraterne gør ikke, de taler om institutionaliseret racisme som skyld i det hele, et år fra slaveriet for 160 år siden, de hvides privilegium. Hvilket er ironisk, da alle de racistiske love blev opfundet og opretholdt urimeligt længe af selv samme parti Demokraterne.

Men videoen, skønt en urimelig sammenstilling i den kontekst, viser lidt om, hvad sort kultur og hvid kultur er. Den hvide er ganske vist idyliseret, men den hylder en produktivitet som er uadskillelig fra kreativitet. Livsglæde befriet fra drifter.

Negeren derimod… tjah, den nedbrudte sorte familie raser videre i hvad den opfatter som idyl - bitch. Og det bliver hørt af Treyvon Martin og The Gentle Giant og Obamas imaginære søn og Tyrone et-eller-andet og med det i ørerne gør de sorte teenagepige gravide og forlader dem, begår vold og hærværk, høje på det ene eller andet, kommer på kant med loven og kommer i fængsel eller bliver skudt og dræbt af politiet. Og pressen græder og Demokraterne taler om institutionaliseret racisme som skyld i det hele, et år fra slaveriet for 160 år siden, de hvides privilegium…

For et par uger siden kunne man på siden Reel Ligestilling læse at “Objektiv viden er sexistisk”.

Når universiteter underviser de studerende med udgangspunkt i, at viden er noget en-gang-for-alle-fastslået, som det er de studerendes opgave at tilegne sig, diskrimineres kvinder og minoritetsgrupper.

Det fastslår Laura Parson i sin ph.d.-afhandling ‘Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis’. STEM er en forkortelse for Science, Technology, Engineering og Mathematics.

»STEM-pensaene i dette studie demonstrerede et syn på viden som noget, den studerende skulle tilegne sig, hvilket fremmer et syn på viden som noget uforanderligt. Dette forstærkes yderligere af brugen af biord, som underforstår vished, såsom »faktisk« og »det viser sig«, hvilke bruges i pensaene til at identificere information som faktuel og uden for diskussion«, skriver Parson i afhandlingen, som man kan læse et fyldigt uddrag af her.

Og således runger det akademiske Cthulhu i venstrefløjens hoveder. Her fra USA, hvor nogle negre med ‘afrikansk’ accent beskriver, hvorfor videnskab er hvidt og racistisk

Videnskaben er slem, bortset fra når den hævder at fortælle alt det venstrefløjen godt vil høre, såsom den øredøvende klimavidenskab, der helt unikt kan afgøres en gang for alle i et konsensus - videre debat er ødelæggende. Klimavidenskaben, som åbenbaret af FN og dens servile støtter, er hverken racistisk, sexistisk eller socialt uretfærdig. Tværtimod viser den at klimaet ødelægges af hvide gamle mænd og at det rammer fattige enlige farverige kvinder og deres handikappede børn i alle de dele af verden, hvor det ikke har været muligt at samle egentlige data til at bakke den besluttede viden op. Videnskab i klimagevanter er skruebrækker for allehånde interesseorganisationer og antivestlige ideologier til at tilrane sig magt og for stater og bureaukrater at inddrive flere skatter, så thumbs up for den!

Venstrefløjen baserer sit vræng på, hvad den kalder posfaktualitet, der er et ord for den snigende frygt den mærker af at tabe grebet om den dominerende fortælling. Venstrefløjen er postfaktualiteten; den tror på store menneskeskabte klimaforandringer når der ingen er at måle; hylder den multikulturelle model og kræver grænserne åbnet for alle de flygtninge den producerer; ser islam som progressiv; beundrede Berlinmuren, der holdt østtyskerne indespærret mens den nu fordømmer Israles sikkerhedsmur for at holde terroristerne ude…

Truth will out, som englænderne siger, men Obama appelerer efter lidt respit, som man kan læse på Breitbart

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

“Russia orders all officials to fly home any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war” skriver Daily Mail. Speisa skriver “Russian state TV warns viewers of war”. “Future war with Russia or China would be ‘extremely lethal and fast’, US generals warn” skrev Independent og tilføjede “Russia launches massive nuclear war training exercise that ‘involves 40 million people’” skrev IndependentOg på TV2 kunne man læse “Russiske atom-missiler kan nu nå Bornholm”.

“Wars are gathering”, skriver Victor Davis Hanson, “A hard rain is going to fall”

This summer, President Obama was often golfing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were promising to let the world be. The end of summer seemed sleepy, the world relatively calm.

The summer of 1914 in Europe also seemed quiet. But on July 28, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip with help from his accomplices, fellow Serbian separatists. That isolated act sparked World War I.

In the summer of 1939, most observers thought Adolf Hitler was finally through with his serial bullying. Appeasement supposedly had satiated his once enormous territorial appetites. But on September 1, Nazi Germany unexpectedly invaded Poland and touched off World War II, which consumed some 60 million lives.

(…)

Russia has been massing troops on its border with Ukraine. Russian president Vladimir Putin apparently believes that Europe is in utter disarray and assumes that President Obama remains most interested in apologizing to foreigners for the past evils of the United States. Putin is wagering that no tired Western power could or would stop his reabsorption of Ukraine — or the Baltic states next. Who in hip Amsterdam cares what happens to faraway Kiev?

Iran swapped American hostages for cash. An Iranian missile narrowly missed a U.S. aircraft carrier not long ago. Iranians hijacked an American boat and buzzed our warships in the Persian Gulf. There are frequent promises from Tehran to destroy either Israel, America, or both. So much for the peace dividend of the “Iran deal.”

North Korea is more than just delusional. Recent nuclear tests and missile launches toward Japan suggest that North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un actually believes that he could win a war — and thereby gain even larger concessions from the West and from his Asian neighbors.

Radical Islamists likewise seem emboldened to try more attacks on the premise that Western nations will hardly respond with overwhelming power. The past weekend brought pipe bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey as well as a mass stabbing in a Minnesota mall — and American frustration.

Europe and the United States have been bewildered by huge numbers of largely young male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. Political correctness has paralyzed Western leaders from even articulating the threat, much less replying to it.

Instead, the American government appears more concerned with shutting down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ensuring that no administration official utters the words “Islamic terror,” and issuing warnings to Americans not to lash out due to their supposedly innate prejudices.

Aggressors are also encouraged by vast cutbacks in the U.S. defense budget. The lame-duck Obama presidency, lead-from-behind policies, and a culturally and racially divided America reflect voter weariness with overseas commitments.

(…)

Obama apparently assumes he can leave office as a peacemaker before his appeased chickens come home to roost in violent fashion. He has assured us that the world has never been calmer and quieter.

Et russisk billede midt i freden

Og resten af verden med, lader det til. FNs højkommisør for menneskerettigheder Zeid Raad al-Hussein siger ifølge BBC at “If Donald Trump is elected on the basis of what he has said already - and unless that changes - I think it is without any doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view.”

Mr Hussein has spoken out before on Mr Trump’s policies, saying in June that “bigotry is not proof of strong leadership”, while in September he launched a scathing attack on Western populist politicians, branding them “demagogues and political fantasists”.

På universiteterne er der for hver en tænkende, 5 venstrefløjsere blandt underviserne og flertallet ser ud til at se favorabelt på de studerende der støtter Hillary Clinton, skriver Gateway Pundit. Ved Wikileaks seneste lækage fra Clintons snudskede verden, beskæftigede de amerikanske medier med alt fra ovennævnte Hussein, henover vice modkandidatens meninger om høvisk sprog til Janet Jacksons graviditet, skriver The Political Insider.

Man kan godt forstå Trumps tilhængere, hvis de mener at alt er imod dem og deres kandidat. Men derfor skal der alligevel snydes, lader det til

Måske er det derfor Hillary næsten er holdt op med at føre valgkamp?

Den kunne de ikke lide, de gode jurister, som Fortune forhørte sig hos

Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tried to downplay Trump’s threat, later saying it was just “a quip.” However, some prominent lawyers and legal scholars took umbrage at the threat and expressed alarm. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe told Fortune that even threatening such a thing was “incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic,” while carrying out such a threat would constitute an “impeachable offense.”
Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General in the Obama Administration, immediately tweeted that Trump’s comment rendered him “unfit” for office.

Fortune reached out to all the former U.S. attorneys general that we could locate (including Holder), as well as several other prominent legal authorities and presidential historians, to get their views. Was what candidate Trump proposed legal? Was there precedent for it? Was it good policy? Here are the answers we’ve received so far.
Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School
(Via email:) “Under the laws and Justice Department regulations governing federal prosecution, a President Trump would not have legal authority to direct the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to ‘look into’ Hillary Clinton’s email situation or the Clinton Foundation or anything else. That’s not within a President’s power.

The only precedents for the kind of vow Trump made in last night’s debate are to be found in dictatorships and banana republics, not the United States. The closest parallel may be what [Viktor] Yanukovych (a former Paul Manafort client) did to [Yulia] Tymoshenko in Ukraine.

Making threats or vows to use a nation’s criminal justice system against one’s vanquished political opponent is worse than terrible policy: it’s incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic and, under our Constitution, would represent an abuse of power so grave that it would be an impeachable offense—one reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s deliberate use of the IRS to go after his political enemies.”

[In a second email, Tribe added that] “some of the political leaders who’ve jailed their political opponents [in the past] have been Hugo Chávez, Recep Erdo?an, Robert Mugabe, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet and, of course, Vladimir Putin.”

Nej, man truer ikke sine politiske modstandere med fængsel. Men, men, men, skriver Andrew C McCarthy på National Review, Trump truede ikke Clinton fordi hun er hans politiske modstander. Han truede hende fordi hun bevidst og tydeligt har overtrådt loven. Law and order!

This is manifestly not a case of banana-republic criminalization of politics. Trump was not threatening to go after Clinton because she has the temerity to oppose him politically. He was committing to have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton for mishandling classified information, destroying government files, and obstruction of justice — criminal misconduct that has nothing to do with being a political adversary of Trump’s, and for which others who commit similar felonies go to jail.
The Obama administration investigated Mrs. Clinton, at least ostensibly, for over a year. Is Professor Burns saying a politician should only be investigated by her political allies and may otherwise violate the law with impunity?

To get a sense of what a banana-republic Justice Department looks like, Burns might want to have a look at the Obama administration’s prosecutions of Dinesh D’Souza and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. D’Souza is a political critic of the president’s who was subjected to a criminal prosecution (in which the Justice Department pushed for a severe jail sentence, which the judge declined to impose) for a campaign-finance violation of the petty sort that the Justice Department routinely allows to be settled by a civil fine. (For example, it declined to prosecute the Obama 2008 campaign for offenses that dwarfed D’Souza’s.) Nakoula, the producer of the anti-Muslim video the Obama administration falsely portrayed as the catalyst of the Benghazi massacre, was subjected to a scapegoat prosecution (under the guise of a supervised-release violation) intended to bolster the administration’s “blame the video” narrative.

Prosecuting a person who happens to be a politician for serious crimes is an affirmation of the American principle that no one is above the law.

Det er jo ikke terror - der løb altså en gal jordaner rundt. Undskyld, jeg siger det. Nahed Hattar har jo tigget og bedt om at blive angrebet. Jeg har ikke ondt af den jordaner, der har gjort alt, hvad han kunne, for at provokere. Ham har jeg ikke for fem flade ører sympati for

Det burde Tidligere udenrigsminister Uffe Elleman Jensen vel sige, hvis han ville stive sig af med lidt konsistens. Tegningen herunder, blev begået af den jordanske satiretegner Nahed Hatter

Der er allerede sagt meget om Hattar, men det bedste blev sagt af David Wood, der fortæller om islams forhold til køn, sex og paradis

Nahed Hattar (???? ?????) was raised as a Christian in Jordan—though he considered himself an atheist. He was recently shot and killed by a Muslim imam for sharing a cartoon mocking the Islamic view of paradise. The cartoon features a jihadi in bed with two of his houris (the virgins Muslim men get to spend eternity deflowering in Jannah).

In the cartoon, Allah says: “Good evening, Abu Saleh. Do you need anything?” The jihadi replies: “Yes Lord, get me a glass of wine and tell Gabriel to bring me some cashews. After that, send me an immortal servant to clean the floor, and take the empty plates with you. Don’t forget to put a door on the tent so that you knock before you enter next time, Your Glory.”

Hattar was arrested for insulting Islam, even though he apologized and said that he was only making fun of ISIS. Following his arrest, he requested security to protect him, but his request was denied. He was subsequently shot to death outside the courthouse.

Westernized Muslims are now insisting that the cartoon Hattar shared has nothing to do with Islam, and that the view of paradise the cartoon mocks is the view of ISIS, not of Muhammad.

In this video, David Wood goes through Islam’s most trusted sources, to see if Muhammad’s view of paradise is different from that of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Hattar blev myrdet midt på dagen i demonstrativ offentlighed. Et signal til islamkritikere generelt mere end end en konkret straf af den ulykkelige tegner. Der er ingen sympati når i bliver slagtet, ikke for fem flade ører.

Det er mærkeligt at man kan følge så meget med i amerikansk politik, som Anne Grethe Rasmussen gør, og så ikke ane hvad det man skriver drejer sig om. Op til den første debat mellem Hillary Clinton og Donald Trump, skrev Rasmussen i Point Of View International

I over to år har [Hillary Clintons] håndtering af et terrorangreb på det amerikanske konsulat i Benghazi og hendes brug af en personlig e-mail server som udenrigsminister redet hende som en mare, og tilbageholdelsen af lungebetændelsen blev set som en klassisk undvigelsesmanøvre, uanset at den bakterielle sygdom ikke tog hende mere end en fire-fem dage at komme sig over. I august førte hun med otte procentpoint og i september med fem – i samme måling fra de to medier.”

Sådan kan man jo godt genfortælle polemikken om Hillarys kollaps, hvis ikke man er interesseret i sagens substans. Sagens substans var nemlig dels at hun kollapsede og mistede bevidstheden, hvilket faldt i glimrende tråd med de mange spekulationer om et skrantende helbred; dels at hendes stab opførte sig, som om de havde prøvet noget lignende med Clinton så mange gange at deres roller og ansvar var indøvet til søvngængeragtig sikkerhed.

Og spekulationerne i Hillarys helbred, skønt de kan være ganske fantasifulde, er ikke uden grund. Hun har haft to dybe venetromboser som følge af arteriosklerose, som hun tager blodfortyndende medicin for, og hun har haft en hjernerystelse, som følge af et fald, så voldsom, at hun en overgang gik med specielle briller, der ellers kun bruges hvis der er hjerneskade. Hjernerystelsen var hun det meste af et år om at komme sig over og hun brugte det som undskyldning for, hvorfor hun ikke kunne huske store dele af den periode, hvor hun rundsendte private emails blandet med statshemmeligheder til sin stab, Obama og Gud ved hvem ellers.

Eller måske havde hun alligevel ikke så svære problemer med hukommelsen, og det var blot noget hun løj om til FBI. Se, der er nu en god grund til at ‘man’ anså Hillary Clinton for at foretage en klassisk undvigelsesmanøvre, det er fordi hun løj, løj og løj igen også i forbindelse med sit kollaps. Og hvorfor lyver Hillary? Fordi sandheden er værre. Og når løgnene bliver afsindige? Så ved vi at sandheden stadig er værre. Bill Whittle forklarer mere ædrueligt, hvorledes det er klassisk Clinton at lyve

Ifølge Daily Mail har Obama, Barak Hussein, været “…so concerned about Hillary Clinton’s health that he recently offered to arrange a secret medical checkup for her at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center”

Hillary declined the offer because she feared the media would find out about her Walter Reed visit and learn the truth about her medical condition—that she is suffering from arrhythmia (an abnormal heart beat), a leaking heart valve, chronic low blood pressure, insufficient blood flow, a tendency to form life-threatening blood clots, and troubling side effects from her medications.

Clinton har et mål, og det er opad, så hun vil “power through”, som de siger. Men nogle gange skal hun have en hånd, førend hun tør vakle ned ad trapperne, som her i Fort Pierce

Og en hånd, når hun skal op ad trapper

Det er mærkeligt at man kan følge så meget med i amerikansk politik, som Anne Grethe Rasmussen gør, og så ikke ane hvad det man skriver drejer sig om. Op til den første debat mellem Hillary Clinton og Donald Trump, skrev Rasmussen i Point Of View International

I over to år har [Hillary Clintons] håndtering af et terrorangreb på det amerikanske konsulat i Benghazi og hendes brug af en personlig e-mail server som udenrigsminister redet hende som en mare, og tilbageholdelsen af lungebetændelsen blev set som en klassisk undvigelsesmanøvre, uanset at den bakterielle sygdom ikke tog hende mere end en fire-fem dage at komme sig over.  I august førte hun med otte procentpoint og i september med fem – i samme måling fra de to medier.”

Der er nu en god grund til at Hillary Clintons sammenblanding af private emails og fortroligt materiale på ikke godkendte servere i sin tid som udenrigsminister rider hende som en mare, selv om man ikke får den opfattelse af Rasmussens sorgløse formuleringer. For fortroligt materiale er fortroligt og skal ikke rode på usikre servere, pluralis ja, hvor medarbejdere uden sikkerhedsgodkendelse har adgang til dem når de skal huske udenrigsministeren på at passe sine yogatimer og middagslure. Den håndtering blev erklæret kriminel, som i skal i fængsel kriminel af FBIs direktør Richard Comey.

Under den skandale lurer andre skandaler. Hillary og Bill Clintons fond, The Clinton Foundation, modtager pengegave fra selv ganske lyssky fjender af USA og der viser sig et mønster af pengegaver til Clinton Foundation og efterfølgende møder med udenrigsminister Clinton. Udenrigspolitik i udbud.

Men Comey undlod at anbefale justitsministeriet at rejse tiltale imod Hillary og justitsministeriet fulgte, som det havde annonceret på forhånd, at følge Comeys råd. Nogle spekulerede i, at Comey var i seng med det politiske etablissement. Andre, at han som republikaner ville sikre sig at Hillarys fald ville blive endnu mere smertefuldt og fratage hende enhver mulighed for at skabe en fortælling, som et offer for politisk forfølgelse. Men, som Andrew McCarthy har sagt længe, Comeys beslutning er ikke blot truffet af et system, der beskytter sine egne i al almindelighed - det er den konkrete magt, der beskytter sig selv

‘How is this not classified?”

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

(…)

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

(…)

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.

Rasmussen er fascineret af Hillary Clintons “brains” og skriver at hendes “….enorme viden og erfaring med global politik fra hendes tid som Obamas udenrigsminister samt hendes solide skudsmål fra tiden som senator for staten New York kan ingen tage fra hende.” Og, kan vi så tilføje, med Obamas mellemkomst kan man altså heller ikke tage hendes frihed fra hende.

Hillary Clinton talte om at genrejse middelklassen i hendes første debat med Donald Trump. Og det fik mig til at tænke på nogle gode artikler, som jeg er faldet over de seneste uger. Julia Hahn gennemgik på Breitbart forleden Hillary Clintons forbindelser til indiske konklomerater og hendes insisterende arbejde for at flytte amerikanske arbejdspladser til Indien. Hahns artikel er ret lang, men pointerne er her i punktform

• Hillary Clinton co-founded the Senate India Caucus, which anti-offshoring advocates say champions “issues important to India, including outsourcing and H-1B and L-1 visas.”
  
• Clinton in 2005: “I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York.”
• Clinton has called for nearly doubling the controversial H-1B guest worker program—suggesting that American workers lack the skills to fill American jobs. She has also defended the cheap labor practices of an Indian outsourcing firm, to which the Clinton Foundation has financial ties: “We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences,” she said.
• Shortly after the CEO of HCL—the Indian firm that helped lay off 250 American Disney workers in Orlando— called American tech graduates “unemployable”, Bill Clinton delivered a speech to HCL to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million dollars at Disney World in Orlando.
• Reports note that Clinton has repeatedly “telegraphed” her support for a globalized world to the Indian community. At a conference of 14,000 Indian Americans, Bill Clinton extolled the virtues of “open borders, easy travel, easy immigration”.
• In 2007, Barack Obama slammed “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)’s personal, financial and political ties to India… It’s all about the money,” his campaign wrote.

Den hvide vestlige mand af middelklassen er vred. Ifølge sociolog og kønsforsker Michael Kimmel - og med Politikens ord - er den slags fordi “hvide heteroseksuelle mænd i Vesten forventer privilegier som magt, penge og hengivne kvinder som følge af en slags ’ureflekteret fødselsret’”. Elitens foragtelige opførsel står ikke i vejen for en sexualiseret analyse. Hillary er et symptom på en systemisk råddenskab og den vrede hvide mand har enhver ret til at være vred, skriver Wayne Allen Root i American Thinker

The destruction, the annihilation, the conspiracy to destroy the middle class is real. The murder of the middle class is not a theory. It’s not an opinion. It’s not a figgment of my imagination. It’s a proven fact. Three studies were published backing up what I’m saying. Sometimes, timing isn’t important—it’s everything.

(…)

Pew’s figures reveal a steady erosion of America’s middle class.

The steepest declines were seen in industrial towns. It is no coincidence that these job and income losses came from the predominantly white working and middle class. But the trend isn’t just seen in the Midwest or among working class, blue-collar whites. The same trend and the same declines can be found among college-educated white-collar Americans. Pew Research found that even in areas of high-tech reinvention such as Austin, Texas, and Raleigh, North Carolina, incomes are falling and the middle class is shrinking.

Pew found that even in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado, where over six hundred thousand new residents have arrived since 2000, heavily weighted toward college degrees, median household income (adjusted for inflation) fell from $83,000 in 1999 to under $76,000 in 2014.

This clearly shows the murder of the middle class. The rich are getting richer, while the poor are taken care of by the government and paid for by middle-class taxpayers. The savaged middle class is being taxed and regulated so heavily to pay for the poor that eventually there will be no more middle-class jobs, no more middle-class families. Our incomes are down, our jobs are disappearing, our bills are escalating, our health care costs are exploding (thanks to Obamacare), and our taxes are dramatically higher. For America’s middle class, this is a disaster of epic proportions.

So now you know why we’re angry. We have every reason to be angry. We’ve been targeted for extinction.

De 2 andre studier Root nævner, beskriver hvorledes indvandringen udhuler den amerikanske middel- og arbejderklasse, ved dels at underbyde dem på arbejdsmarkedet, dels at øge skattebyrden ved at belaste den offentlige service og hvorledes de store firmaer klarer sig glimrende, mens der er hårdere tider for små og mellemstore virksomheder, at etablere sig, hvilket betyder færre job-muligheder. Dem vil jeg lade andre og mindre oprevne skribenter forklare. George J Borjas skriver i Politico Magazine, hvorledes indvandringen presser den amerikanske arbejder

When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.

We don’t need to rely on complex statistical calculations to see the harm being done to some workers. Simply look at how employers have reacted. A decade ago, Crider Inc., a chicken processing plant in Georgia, was raided by immigration agents, and 75 percent of its workforce vanished over a single weekend. Shortly after, Crider placed an ad in the local newspaper announcing job openings at higher wages. Similarly, the flood of recent news reports on abuse of the H-1B visa program shows that firms will quickly dismiss their current tech workforce when they find cheaper immigrant workers.

Immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer.

But that’s only one side of the story. Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.

When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.

What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

David P Goldman beskriver i Asia Times hvor presset de mindre virksomheder, som er den egentlige skaber af velstand,

Americans are tired of an economic elite that ignores them. Americans know the game is rigged against them. For generations Americans could make their way from the bottom to the top of the heap by starting businesses. In some periods more of them succeeded than others, but everyone knew someone who got rich more or less honestly. That came to a crashing end during the Obama Administration. There were fewer small firms with fewer workers in 2013 than there were in 2007.

ENTERPRISE EMPLOYMENT SIZE	NUMBER OF FIRMS	NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS	EMPLOYMENT
02:  0-4	-129,985	-130,063	-212,803
03:  5-9	-67,969	-69,904	-451,075
04:  10-19	-44,291	-48,177	-598,105
05:  <20	-242,245	-248,144	-1,261,983
06:  20-99	-29,358	-38,422	-1,225,253
07:  100-499	-3,322	4,737	-556,311
08:  <500	-274,925	-281,829	-3,043,547
09:  500+	325	65,164	705,535

The deplorables look at the American economy as a lottery. They aren’t sophisticated, but they’re sly: They know the game is rigged, because there aren’t any winners. The American economy is more corrupt and more cartelized then at any time in its history. Productivity growth was negative for the past two quarters, and five-year productivity growth is the lowest since the stagflation of the 1970s.

Corporations are making money by gaming the regulatory system rather than deploying new technologies. Close to half of the increase in corporate profits during the past decade can be attributed to regulatory rent-seeking by large corporations, according to a June 2016 study by Boston University economist Jim Bessen. Bessen concluded that “investments in conventional capital assets and R&D account for a substantial part of the rise in valuations and profits especially during the 1990s. However, since 2000, political activity and regulation account for a surprisingly large share of the increase.”

Folk er ligeglade med at Trump er en “obnoxious, vulgar, salesman”, de vil have en “outsider with a big broom to come in and sweep away the Establishment”. Og den kost kan ikke være for stor.

Ifølge analyseinstituttet Rasmussen fører Trump med 5 procentpoint over Hillary. Andre analyseinstitutter har mere dødt løb eller Hillary i et snævert førersæde. Måske vil mange amerikanere ikke indrømme at de har tænkt sig at stemme på Trump på grund af en social stigmatisering, manden er jo Hitler. Trump fører en god kampagne, men meget har at gøre med Hillary Clinton selv, skriver Marc A Thiesen i Washington Post

She lied repeatedly about her emails. She lied when she said she had “turned over everything I was obligated to turn over” (FBI Director James Comey said the FBI “discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014”). She lied when she said there was “no classified material” in her private emails .?.?. that there was nothing “classified at the time” .?.?. and that there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails — all of which the FBI director said were untrue. And, to top it all off, she lied about her lies — declaring on national television that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people” — a claim The Post’s Fact Checker gave “Four Pinocchios.”

Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi. At 10:08 p.m. the night of the attack, she issued a statement that blamed the attack on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” with no mention of terrorism or al-Qaeda. But an hour later, at 11:12 p.m. she emailed her daughter, Chelsea: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.” The next day in a phone call with the Egyptian prime minister, Clinton said: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.” Yet two days later, as she welcomed the caskets of the fallen in Dover, Del., she blamed that attack on “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

She lied about a trip she made to Bosnia, claiming that she and her team arrived “under sniper fire,” skipped the arrival ceremony and “just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In fact, a video shows her being greeted on the tarmac by Bosnian officials and an 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, who read a poem in English and told Clinton, “There is peace now.”

She lied about her family history. In 2015, she said she could relate to illegal immigrants because “all my grandparents” immigrated to the United States. When BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski pointed out that three of Clinton’s four grandparents were born in the United States, a Clinton spokesman said “her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”

Ja, måske foretrækker vælgerne at Hillary råber, man kan altid prøve det, når alt andet ser ud til at kollapse om ørerne på en. Clinton Foundation ser også ud til at pakke sammen ifølge Politico, og fyrer mere end en snes medarbejdere. Imens er medierne på overarbejde for at forvrænge virkeligheden til Hillarys fordel. The Hill rapporterer at CNN opfinder Donald Trump udtalelser, til at forarges over. Når Trump taler om ‘profiling’ efter israelsk forbillede, tilsætter CNN ordet ‘race’, som i ‘racial profiling’

CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration and is running headlines reporting that the GOP presidential nominee spoke of using “racial profiling” to stop terrorism.

But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted shows that Trump never used the word “racial” in his comments to the network and only spoke of “profiling.”

“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”

Alligevel er der en ide om at valget ikke er uretfærdigt nok. En gæst hos den venstredrejede og islam-realistiske tv-værk Bill Maher, mente at medierne havde virket imod Hillary Clinton i strid med Konstitutionens ånd, skriver Breitbart

After Clinton’s struggles in the polls in Florida came up, Brooks said, “Yeah, but that’s not her fault. That’s because the media has forgotten what their constitutional duty is.”

He continued, “Well, the reason we have a free press, the whole reason it’s in the Constitution is to inform us, the electorate about what we’re voting on, and they’ve forgotten that. They think this is a circus. They think this is ‘dancing with the stars.’ And so, they have given Trump probably a trillion dollars’ worth of free press over the course of this campaign.”

Trump er ligeglad og har inviteret Gennifer Flowers, en af Bill Clintons tidligere udenomsægteskabelige affærer, til at overvære debatten fra ‘ringside’. Debatten skal afholdes stående, så vi krydser fingre for at Hillary er udhvilet og velmedicineret. For uanset, hvad der er gjort for at smæde Trump, virker amerikanerne mere og mere modstandsdygtige overfor mediernes bombardement.

Barak Hussein Obama har ikke nået at hele nationen på de otte år han har rumsteret i Det Hvide Hus og der er igen gang i den i USA fordi en mørklødet amerikaner er blevet skudt og dræbt af politiet. Men dyrkelsen af bitterhed i den sorte del af den amerikanske befolkning, er gødet af årtiers misregimente af ymyndiggørelse ved omfordeling. Når man belønner offergørelse og dårlig opførsel opstår der er marked for ofre med dårlig opførsel. John Perazzo skrev for et par måneder siden i Frontpage Magazine

When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’” said Johnson.

Thus began modern liberalism’s vicious and unrelenting assault on black Americans.

(…)

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe.

The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder. Regardless of race or ethnicity, the poverty rate for single parents with children is several times higher than the corresponding rate for married couples with children. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. For example, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to display emotional disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households. Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband- or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure. As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that were built into the welfare system. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Eddie Murphys oversete animationskomedie The PJ, om netop det omtalte ‘project’ i Detroit, gør det muligt at grine ad ulykken. Grinagrigt er det også at den ekstreme og racistiske sorte prædikant Louis Farrakhan har fået nok af Demokraternes misregimente af de sortes interesser, men mere forstandige mennesker blandt de sorte er også begyndt at tænke i et kursskifte. Denne video med sorte Trump støtter er fra marts måned og siden er der kommet flere sorte kritikere af Demokraterne til og flere sorte Trumpstøtter

Thomas Sowel mindes i Town Hall en ‘phony’ student, en der kunne overbevise “almost anybody of almost anything — provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject, fra gamle dage og gør sig overvejelser over præsident Barak Hussein Obama

Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.

A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

Flere sorte amerikanere begynder at få sympati for Donald Trumps kandidatur som præsident. De er ikke tilfredse med at blive betragtet som stemmekvæg for demokraterne. Det har Hillary Clinton og Præsident Barak Hussein Obama sikkert bemærket, hvorfor præsidenten har taget fri fra sit arbejde med at lede landet for at føre valgkamp til fordel for Hillary. I en tale til det sorte kadaver i Washington sagde Obama bl.a

Now, we know, however, that what matters most for our community is not just the symbol, not just having an African American President. It’s having a President who’s going to do his or her darndest to make the right decisions, and fight the right fights. And think about the fights that we’ve waged together these past eight years.

(…)

You may have heard Hillary’s opponent in this election say that there’s never been a worse time to be a black person. I mean, he missed that whole civics lesson about slavery and Jim Crow and (applause) — but we’ve got a museum for him to visit. (Applause.) So he can tune in. We will educate him. (Applause.)

(…)

And when people — when across this country, in 2016, there are those who are still trying to deny people the right to vote, we’ve got to push back twice as hard. Right now, in multiple states, Republicans are actively and openly trying to prevent people from voting. Adding new barriers to registration. Cutting early voting. Closing polling places in predominantly minority communities. Refusing to send out absentee ballots. Kicking people off the rolls, often incorrectly.

This should be a national scandal. We were supposed to have already won that fight. (Applause.) We’re the only advanced democracy in the world that is actively discouraging people from voting. It’s a shame.

(…)

Meanwhile, some of the same folks who are trying to keep you from voting turn a blind eye when hundreds of thousands of people are killed by guns. (Applause.) Imposing voter ID restrictions so that a gun license can get you on the ballot, but a student ID can’t — apparently more afraid of a ballot than a bullet — no, our work is not done. (Applause.)

(…)

In fact, if you want to give Michelle and me a good sendoff — and that was a beautiful video — but don’t just watch us walk off into the sunset, now. Get people registered to vote. (Applause.) If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake. All the progress we’ve made is at stake in this election. (Applause.) My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. (Applause.) Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. (Applause.) Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. (Applause.) Ending mass incarceration — that’s on the ballot right now! (Applause.)

And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there’s another candidate whose defining principle, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we’ve done.

There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter. It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. (Applause.) You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote. (Applause.) And I’m going to be working as hard as I can these next seven weeks to make sure folks do. (Applause.)

“Now, we know, however, that what matters most for our community is not just the symbol, not just having an African American President” indleder Obama altså sin tale til andre sorte amerikanere, hvoraf de færreste er som Obama, nemlig delvis afrikaner. Man kunne sikkert få en masse spas ud af at hudflette hele ideen om at stemme efter hudfarven, men der er noget dobbelttydigt i Obamas brug af ordet legacy, arv. Arven er ‘deres’, de sorte amerikaneres, og hans egen henholdsvis og den sigter dels til, hvad sorte i USA har gennemgået i forne tider, med slaveri og Jim Crowe love og tvungen segregering og dels til hvad borgerretsbevægelsen har opnået af fremskridt og dels til, hvad han selv har opnået - HE built that!

Men Obama kan ikke snige sig ind, som om han har arvet andet fra det amerikanske slaveri, end hvad hans hvide mor har givet ham. Hans er som sagt fra Afrika, Kenya for at være mere præcis, så han har ikke været amerikansk slave. Derfor adskiller han sig som ægte african-american, fra det sorte kadaver, der blot er americans, negerfarvede eller ej. Men, som hans mor kunne være efterkommer af en hvid slaveejer er det lige så sandsynligt at hans far kunne være efterkommer af en arabisk slavehandler. Det kunne man jo mistænke, hvis man funderer over det meget lidt kenyanske i navnet Hussein - hvis ikke man blev rettet af en mere vidende ven, der kan fortælle at bedstefaderen tog navnet Hussein efter at have konverteret til kristendommen.

Det fik mig til at tænke på en lidt ældre artikel på Frontpage Magazine af David Horowitz

According to Obama “racism is still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: “Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul.” The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement – which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is “strongly supported” by 46% of Democrats according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Obama’s malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America - unique among the nations of the world - is not racism but the exact the opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by “progressives” because it didn’t take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the northern states within twenty years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the south as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America’s true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

“Progressive Racism,” which is volume 6 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of David Horowitz’s conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-6 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author

Åh, med hensyn til arv. Det var Demokraterne, der ikke blot forsvarede slaveriet, men endda krævede det genindført i de nordlige stater (for at sikre sig at slaver ikke blot kunne rende nordpå til friheden). Og Jim Crowe* var Demokrat og hans love blev båret igennem med Demokraternes stemmer.

Åh, med hensyn til Obamas medierede virkelighed, hvor virkeligheden skal ændres gennem italesættelse - ISIS kaldes ISIL og islam er ikke i krig med os og vi nævner ikke islamisk terror endsige muslimske terrorister - hørte De hvad “Hillary’s opponent in this election” sagde? Det er også ligemeget, for Hermoine Granger svarede “Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself!”

——————————-

* Og åh, med hensyn til nedladende at starte sine ‘åh’ indvendinger, til præsident Obama, for han moralske slinger i amerikansk historie, så var Jim Crow ikke demokrat, som jeg skrev. “Han” var slet ikke**.

** Jim Crow var et andet ord for n-ordet***, og Jim Crow lovene repræsenterede nogle love specielt rettet mod den del af den amerikanske demografi.

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Man behøver ikke at være et geni for at tænke at de mange angreb fra ‘ensomme ulve’ er inspireret af den seneste palæstinensiske terrorbølge mod Israel. Men det er ikke, hvad man ser i medierne, der er kriminelt forsigtige med at præsentere udviklingen som den tager sig ud. Paul Joseph Watson giver en glimrende gennemgang

Barak Hussein Obama repræsenterer en ide om at man ikke blot kan påvirke virkeligheden, men ændre den til sit eget billede, ved at italesætte den anderledes. På Breitbart kan man se ‘White House press secretary’ Josh Earnest forsvare ideen om at forfølge en politik ud fra en forvrænget virkelighed overfor Fox News Martha MacCallum

MACCALLUM: You mentioned earlier today you believe it’s a narrative battle we’re fighting. I think that for people who have shrapnel in their shoulders this morning—they might have a hard time accepting that—that it is a narrative battle we’re fighting against ISIS. Explain what you meant by that?

EARNEST:  I meant very specifically, Martha, we’re taking fight to them on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The president has organized an international coalition—5,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last couple years. What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam. And to suggest that somehow we should treat Muslims differently or suspect them as terrorists just because of their religion…

MACCALLUM: Nobody is talking about that.

EARNEST: We certainly have heard that inflammatory rhetoric from Republicans.

MACCALLUM: We’re not talking about that here.

EARNEST: This is the context that I was asked the question about the ISIL narrative earlier today. it is important we don’t play into the narrative. Too many Republicans are willing to do…

MACCALLUM: This is the ISIS narrative. This is what they said in their recent publication. ISIS states that disbelievers should be slain wherever they may be. This includes the businessman riding to work in the taxi cab, young adults in engaged in sports activities in park, the old men waiting in line and buying a sandwich, striking terror into the hearts of all non-believers, Muslims and non-Muslims is the Muslim duty. So what people have a hard time with you know—you have to take them at their word they mean to do what they say because we see it happening here in the United States. So, it feels sometimes like the White House doesn’t like to make the connection between those two things. Is that wrong?

EARNEST:  Well I think we’ve been quite clear. The president has demonstrated, you don’t have to take my word for it. The president demonstrated seriousness, which he has taken this fight to ISIL.

Den forestilling har forplantet sig i efterretningstjenesterne. FBI havde en mistanke om at muslimen Omar Mateen skulle realisere sin muslimske tro, men stoppede efterforskningen efter 10 måneder fordi hans radikalisering så ud til at være et resultat af “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith”. Omar Mateen gik senere ind på en bøssebar i Orlando og myrdede 49 mennesker.

Den mistænkte for bomberne i New York og Jersey, Ahmad Rahami, har tidligere sagsøgt det lokale politi, som han hævdede diskriminerede og forfulgte ham ifølge Daily Mail.

Information har talt med  leder af University of Michigans Refugee and Asylum Law Program James C. Hathaway om hans bud på en model for en global omfordelingsmekanisme

Vi bør have et system for ’styret flygtningebeskyttelse’, hvor flygtninge bliver retfærdigt fordelt mellem lande, hvor der derfor ikke er incitament til at lukke grænser og behandle flygtninge dårligt for at skræmme dem væk,« forklarer han til Information.

Måden, professoren vil sikre sig det, er ved, at en flygtning – som for eksempel syriske ’Ahmed’ på illustrationen ovenfor – modsat i dag ikke nødvendigvis skal have permanent ophold i det land, hvor han ankommer og får asyl. Her søger han nemlig ikke asyl hos de statslige myndigheder, men hos en udvidet version af FN’s Flygtningeagentur, UNHCR.

Og opnår han flygtningestatus, vil han på sigt muligvis blive omfordelt og genhuset i et andet land. Det vil blandt andet forhindre, at modtagerlandene lukker grænser og presser flygtninge ud på farefulde ruter.

Så lad os hilse på syriske Ahmed, hvis situation altså illustreres i en tegneserie, som man virkeligt skal se for at tro den

Som man kan se bliver Ahmeds hus bombet og uden et hjem, må han flygte til grønnere egne. Hans forstående kernefamilie, en kvinde, en lille dreng og et spædbarn, vinker farvel til Ahmed. Ahmed ser tilbage på det hjem, hvor det nu synes umuligt for ham at leve - og vinker til sin familie, hans kone, hans lille søn og den lille ny. Der er ingen grund til at sidde lårene af hinanden, når hjemmet er udbombet, så afsted bliver der travet, en lysere fremtid lokker

»Hvis der ikke var nogen indvandringskonsekvenser for den stat, som flygtningen rejser mod – hvis det bare var et sted, hvor flygtningen kunne få adgang til et internationalt system – så ville staten ikke have nogen interesse i at forhindre hendes ankomst,« som James C. Hathaway formulerede det i et oplæg til et forum for EU’s agentur for fundamentale rettigheder i juni.

(…)

Ligesom Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen støtter også adjunkt ved Global Refugee Studies på Aalborg Universitet Martin Lemberg-Pedersen en omfordelingsmodel a la Hathaways.

»Kvoteordninger og internationale organer, der kan sætte sig ud over det nationale ræs mod bunden, er vejen frem. Jeg mener ikke selve modellen er urealistisk, der mangler bare politisk vilje,« siger han.

Hvis den enkelte stat ikke mærker konsekvenserne… De idealistiske herrer er altså helt med på at der er tale om konsekvenser for modtagerstaterne ved migration. Så det gælder om at lave et system, hvor alle opfører sig uansvarligt, fordi skønt man kommer til at mærke konsekvenser, så vil man ikke mærke konsekvenserne af sine EGNE handlinger. Et system af gensidig uansvarlighed uden ende.

Ahmed mærker heller ikke konsekvenserne af at flygte fra sin familie. Han flygter videre til Jordan, og “Det skal understreges, at flygtninges illegale grænsekrydsninger og ophold ikke må straffes. Det vil bl.a. ødelægge markedet for menneskesmuglere”. Modtagerlandende vil bl.a. blive ødelagt. I Jordan møder Ahmed så en repræsentant fra en udviddet version af FNs flygtningeagentur, hvorfra han modtager penge og vejledning i uddannelse og integration.

Ahmed skal blive i Jordan i 6 år. Hvis ikke Ahmed er vendt tilbage til sin familie, der nok efterhånden skulle være færdige med at bygge huset op igen, vil FNs flygtningeagentur genhuseham i et nyt modtagerland, afgjort af det internationale kvotesystem ud fra en fordelingsnøgle med parametre, som BNP/indb., befolkningens størrelse og Ahmeds oprindelsesregion.

Det ender lykkeligt for Ahmed, der med kufferten fuld af, hvad ved jeg, modtages med jubel fra venligboerne - eller er det den første bølge, der fejrer forstærkninger? Og familien? Hans kone, hans søn, som nok er i puberteten og det lille spædbarn, der nu venter på sin syvårs fødselsdag? Det skal man nok ikke bekymre sig om, Ahmed er stadig i den våbenføre alder og kan stifte en ny.

Den altid fremragende David Wood fortæller om islams gæld til hvad som helst, ikke mindst hedenskab, der faldt for Muhammeds Øre.

Professor ved Institut for Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk ved Københavns Universitet Peter Harder mener  at “Information fortjener ros for at gøre diskussionen om det postfaktuelle samfund til genstand for en hel serie“. Jeg gruer for at læse den serie, men ifølge Harder er åbningsartiklen “en god begyndelse” fordi den slår fast at “faktualiteten aldrig har hersket i politik, og at elitens hegemoni i meningsdannelsen er svække“. Men, alt er ikke ved det gamle, mener Harder

Der er en dæmon, som skal proppes tilbage i flasken igen. Det drejer sig ikke om, at mængden af vrøvl er øget – men om de normer, som styrer den politiske kultur. Det farlige og nye er, at en del af offentligheden – herunder indflydelsesrige offentlige personer – synes, det er o.k. at argumentere på en måde, som blæser på spørgsmålet om faktualitet.

(…)

Det er underordningen af faktualitetsnormen under det politisk ønskværdige, der er farlig for demokratiet. Og her er der faktisk urovækkende tendenser.

Og når en ængstelig humanist i Information, der taler postfaktualitet, også nævner “Durkheim, sociologiens fader” kan der ikke herske tvivl om hvad der kommer

Trenden viste sig først på dramatisk vis i USA under George W. Bushs regering. Det første sted det blev offentligt udtalt, at normerne var ændret, var i et interview med Karl Rove (oprindelig anonymt) i New York Times.

Karl Rove fortalte intervieweren, at han som politisk journalist repræsenterede ’the reality-based community’, der tog udgangspunkt i den foreliggende virkelighed. Men sådan fungerede verden ikke mere, sagde Karl Rove. Nu skabte regeringen sin egen virkelighed.

Tendensen optræder i forstærket form hos Donald Trump. Bl.a. har han flere gange påstået, at amerikanske muslimer jublede offentligt i Jersey City i New Jersey, da tårnene faldt den 11. september.

Da en journalist konfronterede ham med, at det lokale politi benægtede, at det var sket, holdt Trump bare fast ved, at sådan var det, uden forsøg på dokumentation.

Dette er – i modsætning til vrøvl og løgnagtighed i al almindelighed – noget nyt. En kommentator på Washington Post formulerede dette ved at formulere næste sætning: »I mean.What.The.Actual.Hell«. Kommentatoren understregede, at han ellers ikke plejer at blive chokeret over noget i politik.

Dæmonen ligger i detaljen. Harders artikel er fra 14/9 2016. Hvis han havde været vågen 2/12 2016 kunne han på Breitbart læse at hans påstand om Trumps postfaktualitet i forbindelse med jublende muslimer er “Outright lies,” som medierne gentager

Not only have eyewitnesses and contemporaneous reports proven Donald Trump 100% correct about Muslims celebrating 9/11,  a just-uncovered  local CBS News (WCBS-TV in New York) report completely vindicates Trump’s claim of “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center.

Just a couple of blocks away from that Jersey City apartment the F.B.I. raided yesterday and had evidence removed, there is another apartment building, one that investigators told me, quote, was swarming with suspects — suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center. Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building.

The F.B.I. and other terrorist task force agencies arrived, and the older investigators on the task force recalled that they had been to this building before, eight years ago, when the first World Trade Center attack led them to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whose Jersey City mosque lies between the two buildings getting attention today. And the older investigators remember that the suspects that eventually got convicted for the first Trade Center case … lived in the building where these same eight men were celebrating the destruction that they saw from the roof. Calling this a hot address, the task force investigators ordered everyone detained.

(…)

Just two days earlier you have read this in the New York Post:

Here in New York, it was easy to get angry listening to Egyptians, Palestinians and the Arabs of nearby Paterson, N.J., celebrate as they received word of the murderous attack in New York and Washington. But Mayor Giuliani (who has been tireless and magnificent in this crisis) rightly warned New Yorker-ers that is would be wrong to take their anger our on the city’s Arab and Muslim residents. Attacks on Arab-Americans in Paterson or elsewhere are utterly indefensible.

You hear radio news reports about Muslims celebrations.

MTV runs a news report about Muslim celebrations.

En ængstelig Durkhein-nævnende humanist der taler om postfaktualitet i Information. Jeg mener. Hvad.Kronkret.I.Helvede.

Hillary Clintons kollaps 11/9 til en mindehøjtidelighed for terrorangrebet på Twin Towers i 2001 ligner et søm i den nærmest bogstavelige ligkiste for hendes præsidentambitioner. Man kan argumentere for at det er en kedelig facon, hvorpå Trump ser ud til at vinde til november og det kan i så fald blive et problem at han ikke ville kunne legitimere sig med et positivt flertal af befolkningen i ryggen, når modkandidaten blot dejsede om, lige som det hele skulle til at starte for alvor.

Og det er faktisk ærgerligt for Trump havde allerede god vind i sejlende. Det var en bet, at det blev afsløret, at ledelsen hos Demokraterne havde undermineret hendes udfordrer til kandidaturet til præsident Bernie Sanders valgkamp. Hillarys karakter ville ikke kunne genrejses uanset hvor meget medier og kendisser taler hende op. Man stikker ikke sine egne i ryggen! Det hjalp hende ikke at argumentere for sin politik, da hun er fanget mellem en videreførelse eller et opgør med de seneste 8 år. Og det forspring hun havde fået foræret af Trumps små selvmål og den ekstremt ulige dækning i medierne forsvandt straks Trump tog sig lidt sammen. Når alle kortene er spillet af hænde, hvad så? Så sætter panikken ind i Clintons kampagne.

Offerkortet må trækkes af ærmet og modstanderen må dæmoniseres. Skytset blev først rettet imod “the Alt Right“, en udefinerbar konspiration af højrefløjsere og rigmænd (som hun har nurset før, og som Stephen Glass broderede videre på i Plotters), der kun kunne vække jubel hos de omvendte. Det var mere end lidt kedeligt, det afslørede også at hun ikke havde noget at sige. En tilhører sagde “I’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump“. Hillary kunne nu ikke længere beskylde Trump for at føre en negativ kampagne eller danse med konspirationsteorier.

Forleden afskar hun så sig selv muligheden for at kalde Trump uanstændig. I en tale til en samling kønsforvirrede angreb Hillary nemlig en stor del af vælgerbefolkningen med følgende ordvalg

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Det er aldrig godt at angribe en stor del af vælgernes etos. Begrædelige har alle venner og familie blandt de mange tvivlere, man søger at nå, som David P Goldman skriver i Asia Times

She apologized, to be sure, but no-one will believe her: she was chilling with her home audience and feeling the warmth, and she said exactly what she thinks. The “Clinton Cash” corruption scandals, the layers of lies about the email server, health problems, and all the other negatives that pile up against the former First Lady are small change compared to this apocalyptic moment of self-revelation.

You can’t win an American presidential election without the deplorables’ vote. Deplorables are America’s biggest minority. They might even be the American majority. They may or not be racist, homophobic and so forth, but they know they’re deplorable. Deplorable, and proud. They’re the median family whose real income has fallen deplorably by 5% in the past ten years,  the 35% of adult males who deplorably have dropped out of the labor force, the 40% of student debtors who deplorably aren’t making payments on their loans, the aging state and local government workers whose pension funds are $4 trillion short. They lead deplorable lives and expect that their kids’ lives will be even more deplorable than theirs.

Americans are by and large forgiving people. They’ll forgive Bill for cavorting with Monica “I did not have sex with that woman” Lewinsky in the Oval Office and imposing himself on any number of unwilling females. They might even forgive Hillary for losing tens of thousands of compromising emails on an illegal private server and then repeatedly lying about it in a way that insults the deplorable intelligence of the average voter. But the one thing you can’t do is spit on them and tell them it’s raining. They’ll never forgive you for that. They’re hurting, and they rankle at candidates who rub their faces in it.

Vloggen Sargon of Akkad har lavet denne glimrende gennemgang

Clintons støtter er faldet i forskellige lejre, skriver Vox, hvor nogle gav hende ret eller mente hun sagtens kunne gå hårdere til den for der er virkeligt mange flere begrædelige blandt Trumps tilhængere end blot halvdelen (og det er måske rigtigt, hvis man skal tro denne video, som jeg fandt hos Hodja), andre taget afstand eller forsøgt at nuancere

Writing at Slate, Ben Zimmer suggests that the “basket of deplorables” construction entered Clinton’s mind by way of analogy with the term “parade of horribles,” which, starting in the 1920s, “entered legal usage as a dismissive term for imagined concerns about a ruling’s negative effects.”

Eller, kunne man sige, hvis Clinton tænker som jurist, så kunne analogien også være til “basket case”. Den fortolkning lægger sig fint op af de mange formodninger blandt demokrater og Wall Street republikanere om, at Trump og hans tilhængere er et godt stykke fra de mentale koncepter. Men, skønt et grimt udtryk som “basket of deplorables” ser ud til at dominere debatten om hendes gode tone, så er det ikke, hvad der er mest interessant eller voldsomt ved hendes udtalelse, skriver Breitbart

ABC wrote up an article about her peculiar word-choice — “basket of deplorables” — but ignored the far more aggressive “irredeemable” description.

Clinton is a Methodist, and she knows that “everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and so she’s making, intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement,” said Kengor.

“Who is Hillary Clinton to say someone irredeemable? Jesus Christ didn’t even say it,” Kengor added.

When the Catholic Church criticized communists during the Cold War, it described them as “Satanic and  poisonous” but not irredeemable, Kengor said. “In Christianity, everybody who is alive and walking  on the planet can be redeemed,” he said.

Symbolically, getting exiled as a “irredeemable” is “worse than being exiled to Siberia [by the Soviet government] because you have the hope some day of being let out of Siberia … even in Siberia, hope didn’t die,” he said.

In September 2001, just after the 9/11 atrocity, Kengor said, George W. Bush was excoriated by Democrats for his hard-edged statement, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Liberals complained “‘How dare he use that kind of biblical language’ — but this is what Hillary is doing here,” he said.

But while Bush’s “with us” phrase assumed that enemies are human enough to choose to sides, Clinton’s “irredeemable” word denies that her political enemies have the human power of choice, he added. Bush “would never use ‘irredeemable’ … [because, for Christians] you can be a evildoer – and still repent and be redeemed,” Kengor said.

(…)

Clinton’s unprecedented use of the “irredeemable” term, said Kengor, “is not getting the attention that it should, maybe because in part, secular liberalism doesn’t really understand religious language … [irredeemable] is really worse than the word ‘deplorable.’”

“Everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and and she’s making — intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement… it really should get more attention than the ‘deplorable’ statements,” Kengor said.

Blottet for en selvstændig politik, moralsk overhøjhed, troværdighed og enhver aura af kompetence, skal Hillarys stærkt skrantende helbred gennemføre de sidste knap to måneders valgkamp tynget af skandaler, som løgnene om hendes helbred, hendes håndtering af angrebet på Benghazi, emailskandalen og Clinton Foundation skandalen. Men Goldmans ord; “Hillary is road kill”!

Ask Foldspang Neve og Carsten Bagge Laustsen, henholdsvis studerende og lektor i sociologi, gør i Point Of View International et sociologisk forsøg på at forstå Donald Trumps tilhængere i lyset af “Trumps uforlignelige evne og vilje til at se sandheden direkte i øjnene og så alligevel at skyde først med det ene mere rablende udsagn end det andet“. At nogen er tilhængere af Hillary Clinton er altid selvindlysende for de skrivende klasser.

Neve og Laustsens gør sig umage med ikke at trivialisere fænomenet Trump, med at folk er for dumme til at kunne forstå bedraget eller fordummede af en stadigt mere overfladisk kultur. I stedet trækker de på filosofferne Peter Sloterdijk og Slavoj Žižek, “der beskriver moderne ideologi form som givet ved en kynisk attitude.”, hvor folk gennemskuer et bedrag eller en illusion, som de så accepterer fordi de finder den nyttig: “Kynikeren ved, at kejseren ikke har noget på, at han har røven bar, men insisterer ikke desto mindre på at behandle ham som kejser, fordi denne praksis konstituerer et fællesskab af følgere og muliggør en nydelse.” Som med Kejserens nye klæder er det også med Trump; “Alle ved, at det er et skuespil, men alligevel deltager de” og “Trump er den ultimative fiktion“, der muliggør “forestillingen om, at resten var virkeligt“. Det er altså en abstrakt virkelighed, der tales om, for kritikken er af USA, som noget uvirkeligt, sådan tager verden sig ud fra universitetet, det hele er et show

Det måske mest oplagte show at sammenligne Trumps kampagne med er pro wrestling, som flere amerikanske observatører allerede gjorde i foråret. For de uindviede er pro wrestling en show-kampsport, der blander sport og persondrama. Det er machosoap. Tilskueren følger ikke bare den enkelte kamp – som altså er aftalt på forhånd – men også historien før og efter. Det er næsten altid de gode mod de onde i et episk, men fuldstændigt todimensionelt univers.

Fribryderen Trump: løgn er bedre end sandhed

Trump har selv en lang baggrund i wrestling, og han har endda været i ringen i et stort opsat show, hvor først hans forkæmper og derefter han selv ’vandt’ over wrestlingforbundets ejer, Vince McMahon i en milliardærernes dyst. Wrestling bygger lige præcis på den bravado, den uforbeholdne skryden, som Trump er blevet kendt for. ”Jeg er den største bryder i verden!” proklamerede Gorgeous George, en af den tidlige wrestlings store stjerner. Dét lærte han fra sig til nogle af 60’ernes og 70’ernes allerstørste stjerner inden for showbiz overhovedet, som Muhammad Ali og Bob Dylan. ”Boksning, wrestling – det hele er et show,” sagde han til Ali, der endnu var Cassius Clay.  ”En hel masse mennesker er villige til at  betale for at se nogen lukke munden på dig. Så bliv ved med at prale, bliv ved med det kække og søg altid skandalen.”

Giv dine fans noget at begejstres over, giv fjenderne noget at oprives over, giv journalisterne noget at skrive om. Løgn er bedre end sandhed.

Trumps tilgang vækker mindelser om Berlusconis baggrund som krydstogtscrooner eller selvfølgelig Reagan og Schwarzeneggers som skuespillere. Men wrestling er mere basalt, og mere banalt, og derfor også endnu mere potent som fortællerform, for dem som altså ikke er stået af allerede ved indgangen. Det vækker afsky hos dem, der dyrker mindfulness, men har en enorm og overraskende bredspektret fanskare.

Publikum til en wrestling-match er selvfølgelig kynikere. De ved udmærket, at det er et show, men lader sig rive med alligevel. Ellers ville det jo være omsonst at se det. Så du får ikke noget ud af at råbe mængden op og gøre dem opmærksomme på, at det ikke er ægte. Du bliver formentligt bare buhet til tavshed eller bliver smidt ud. Folk vil have det show i fred, de er kommet for.

Ikke at de to herrer ikke har fat i noget langhåret, men de antager, som det er så populært i de kredse, at der ikke er noget, hverken bagved eller foran, den facade, som de glimrende beskriver. Fordi Trump er en showmand, ser de hans tilhængere som et publikum og hele det politiske spil som et show, frigjort fra realiteterne. Men hvis man vil forstå et show, skal man også tage det mere alvorligt end blot at ‘containe‘ wrestlingfans.

Pro Wrestling fortæller nemlig lidt mere end en kamp mellem de gode og de onde. Den tredje aktør i Pro Wrestling er nemlig kampdommerne, der skal sikre sig at reglerne overholdes. Dommerne er uden sans for proportioner og blottet for dømmekraft og de lader sig let distrahere af urimelige og trivielle indvendinger fra wrestlernes managers eller de bliver optaget af diskussioner med sidedommerne om nuancer i reglementet eller episoder forlængst passeret. De onde udnytter skamløst enhver lejlighed hvor dommerne opmærksomhed er fraværende, til at bruge feje kneb og slå deres modstandere i hovedet med de stole, der altid står ved ringside.

Dommerne er selvfølgelig de pludrende klasser, politikerne og magthaverne. De mener det sikkert godt, men de forstår ikke realiteterne og de forstår ikke at ethvert svigt i at opretholde reglerne er et svigt af de gode, der overholder reglerne selvom de bliver udsat for brud på reglerne. På den måde kommer regler til at beskytte de onde og hæmme de gode i at forsvare sig selv. Forbrydere er ligeglade med en stram våbenlovgivning og retorisk etikette på arbejdspladsen, udlændinge har ikke skrevet under på den sociale kontrakt, hvis fordele de konsumerer og vi vil alle blæse økologi en hatfuld.

Trumps tilhængere ved at den der ikke laver noget heller ikke laver fejl. Trump taler frit og fyndigt og er ikke bange for at kalde muslimsk terrorisme for muslimsk terrorisme.  Folket ved at det er islamisk terrorisme, begået af muslimer, der hader Vesten og USA for det, som Vesten og USA er. Fri, succesfuld og uislamisk. Folket ved at man ikke kan have fri indvandring og samtidig bevare amerikansk velstand og amerikanske værdier. De ved at man ikke kan have grænsekontrol, hvis også man giver illegale amnesti. De ved at politiet ikke udfører massakrer på sorte medborgere. De er trætte af race-baiting. De ved at Hillary er korrupt, at hele det politiske system er kompromiteret.

Hvad Trump demonstrerer med sit vulgære sprog og hans disrespekt for detaljer er at intet er helligt. Alle tanker kan gøres og ingen skal være hæmmet af de tabuer, som politisk korrekthed, hensynsbetændelse og politisk etikette har låst den politiske debat fast i en venstreorienteret skruestik, hvor der til stadighed opdyrkes nye ofre for den hvide, arbejdsomme skatteyders eksistens og historie, som skal betænkes med den hvide, arbejdsomme skatteyders penge. Trump forløser en opsparet frustration, førend den bliver til vrede, når han forholder sig til virkeligheden - og det virker selvfølgelig rablende på sociologer og andre dommere, som de hæger over juristeriet.

Jeg tror vi bevæger os mod et opgør med mediebilledet. MSMs interesser ser ud til at danse tætte med den magt vi ellers håber til vil udfordre. Migration, islam, klima, aldrig tør de tage virkeligheden alvorligt og stille de egentlige spørgsmål. I valgkampen mellem Hillary og Clinton og Donald Trump har de fleste medier valgt klart ud til fordel for Hillary og stiller ingen kritiske spørgsmål, men forsvarer hende nidkært. Men, hvor klima og indvadring og islam er abstrakte størrelser, så er det at alliere sig med en skurk konkret og fotogen. Mediernes dans med Hillary er en episk fejltagelse. Hvilken bortforklaring er sand spørger Ezra Levant (set hos Snaphanen)

Spekulationer er naturlige, når man bliver stukket så mange løgne. De kan også være sunde fordi de lægger pres på at få sandheden frem. De, der spekulerer i at hendes helbred er dårligt, ser jo ud til at have ret. For det ser jo besynderligt ud, som hun trækker sig fra 11. September mindehøjtideligheden.

Der var 26 grader og hendes stab oplyste at Hillary følte sig for varm? Eller måske var hun dehydreret? Men så kunne offentligheden se videoen af hendes totale kollaps, og nu havde hun pludselig haft lungebetændelse hele weekenden? Og det har flere fra hendes stab også, siges der. Fint, så det smitter tilsyneladende. Men, men, men, hvorfor lader man så en lille pige komme gennem sikkerhedsafspærringen så Hillary kunne smitte hende også? Og hvorfor kommer Hillary overhovedet til et arrangement, hvor hun kan hoste sine dårligdomme på de tæt pakkede sørgende?

Altså, en 69 årig kvinde kollapser fuldkommen og bæres nærmest (og måske helt) bevidstløs ind i en bil og ingen omkring hende tænker på at hun måske burde en tur forbi hospitalet for lige at sikre sig at det ikke blot var en enlig svale, der kunne kureres med lidt vand? Eller er Hillary i forvejen omgivet af så meget sundhedsekspertise at hospitalsbesøg er unødvendige? Og hvorfor tog Hillary hen til for at hoste ud i sin datters lejlighed? Chelsea Clinton har selv to små børn, det ene endda et spædbarn, som betændte Hillary gav sig til at lege med!

Hillary presses samtidig af sagen om hendes omgang med emails, hvor hun blandede officielle og fortrolige emails sammen med hendes private på sin egne ikke sikkerhedsgodkendte servere. Det var kriminelt sjusket, har FBI slået fast. Mange tusinde emails er tilsyneladende forsvundet og noget af det udstyr, som tablets og Blackberries er blevet destrueret med hamre(!) af Clintons stab. Men de findes stadig, nogle i hænderne på fjendtlige magter.

Sammenblandingen af emails og servere tegner dog et mere sinistert billede end blot skødesløshed. Hillary ejer sammen med sin mand The Clinton Foundation. Her har rigmænd af allehånde slags kunnet donere store summer, for så efterfølgende få et privat møde med udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton. Med andre ord har Hillary lagt amerikansk udenrigspolitik i udbud til højestbydende. Det er nu begyndt at indhente hende. Hvis ikke døden udfrier hende, så er hendes eneste chance for at holde spillet kørende og loven fra livet at blive Præsident for det hele. Clinton er vanvittigt determineret.

Men hun bliver indhentet af sin fortid og den vil også begynde at indhente medierne. Når skeletterne først begynder at vælte ud af skabet, så kan medierne ikke holde igen længere. Venstreorienterede eller ej, medierne er i sidste ende drevet af den gode historie. De danske mediers indgroede sympati for Socialdemokratiet blev blæst helt væk af lysten til at slagte Mogens Lykketoft alene fordi han stod så godt for hug. Sådan vil det også gå i USA, medierne vil vende kanonerne fra den ukuelige og tilsyneladende upåvirkelige Donald Trump, mod den døende Hillary Clinton og det bjerg af sensationelt gode historier, der venter i de kommende Wikileaks. Nogle medier har kun været medløbere og kan få en konkurrencefordel var at stikke deres mere ublu konkurenter i ryggen. Og selvrangsagelse vil blive afgørende, hvis man vil overleve.