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
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
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.
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 flereamerikanskeobservatørerallerede 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.
Det bliver spændende at se, hvem amerikanerne til november vælger til deres næste præsident: hypervigalente Donald Trump overfor soporøse Hillary Clinton. Eller bliver det spændende? Det står nemlig så ilde til med Hillary skrantende helbred, at man kan læse om de på Danmarks Radio
Hillary Clinton fik et ildebefindende under en mindehøjtidelighed for ofrene efter angrebet i New York 11. september for 15 år siden.
Den demokratiske præsidentkandidat fik en form for hedeslag, oplyser en talsmand for hendes lejr.
Et hedeslag er en alvorlig tilstand, som normalt vil kræve lægehjælp.
Det er også svært at skjule efterhånden
Hillary Clintons læge har ifølge engelske Express forklaret at Hillary “was diagnosed with pneumonia last week”, hvilket passer ind i en af mange spekulationer om, at hun lider af sygdommen Parkinsons. Dr. Ted Noel knytter i denne video, Hillarys hostanfald til Parkinsons, der ofte giver patienten synkebesvær og derfor hosteanfald. Hvis slim når ned i lungerne kan man få lungebetændelse. Men Express har fundet en anden læge, eller i det mindste en anonym person, der påstår at være læge, der mener at Hillary har en vaskulær demens
I am a professor at a medical school. I have taught at three institutions (currently in my third). I will not provide my exact credentials because several people who have tried to speak out against Hillary Clinton have been killed (look up “Clinton Body Count”). The Clintons have also ruined the lives of others who have spoken out, including Drew Pinsky. Drew Pinsky had his show canceled and received death threats, and Huffington Post writer David Seaman was terminated and is living in hiding for his columns about Hillary’s health. Thanks for understanding the reason why I do not disclose my exact credentials.
Hillary Clinton might actually have 1 year to live based on medical records that were leaked indicating she has a disease called Subcortical Vascular Dementia. While many videos have been made about her health, all of them have missed the severity of her illness. She could die very soon, since Vascular Dementia is progressive and has a 3-5 year life expectancy. Clinton actually has a severe form of the disease that impacts the subcortex region of the brain, which includes the brainstem. This might explain why Clinton is dry-coughing so much. The brainstem controls primitive functions of the body like breathing, heart rate, and blood pressure. When there is ischemia to this region, B/P, HR, and breathing won’t function correctly. Hillary’s cough is so noticeable because she can’t seem to get over it. Most people only need a couple of coughs and they are able to overcome what is in their throat. But not Hillary. Hillary has tried to explain that she has an “allergic cough.” This is completely false and a lie. Based on her medical records, it is related to her Vascular Dementia, which she is dying of. She could rapidly decline if circulation is weak to the brainstem. I am very concerned about Hillary, and if her VaD diagnosis is true, she would likely face increasing difficulties over the next few months.
Hillary’s health record also states that she has “complex partial seizures.” I have witnessed many people who have had seizures, and I believe Hillary is definitely showing signs of seizing activity. With complex partial seizures, one can show signs such as head nodding or lip smacking. Hillary, has had several instances where she appears to have had a seizure, the most well-known is when she was in front of a group of reporters. External, noxious stimuli can trigger seizing in certain individuals. Hillary had a seizure in front of the reporters. Not unsurprisingly, they are trying to control her seizures using a Diazepam autoinjector. Autoinjectors are used with urgent drugs such as Diazepam and Epinephrine in order to stop an life-threatening event from happening. If Hillary has seizures, they could cause an oxygen deficiency in the brain, resulting in damage and further progression of her VaD. An autoinjector is needed to control the seizure.
Det er som at se Kelsey Grammers Boss, hvor en fiktiv Chicago borgmester bliver diagnosticeret med Lewis Body demens og derefter lægger en desperat strategi for hvordan han kan vinde den sin sidste valgkamp inden hans fakulteter opløses.
Det er let at samle til bunke på nettet, som passer ind i en fortælling og et overvældende bevis. Men ikke alt er som fantasien frister at se. Historien med en personlig læge med en sprøjte mod anfald, bliver gjort grundigt til skamme på denne side.
Og selvom ideen om en fake greenscreen publikum er besnærende, som den fremstilles i denne video, hvor der spekuleres på livet løs over, hvorfor mobiltelefoner der filmer Hillary, ikke viser Hillary på skærmen, skal man have med at Breitbart talte med almindelige demokratiske tilhængere, til det samme valgmøde. Der er altså grænser for hvor omfattende en konspiration kan være uden at synke ned i Capricorn One.
Jeg skal ikke afgøre, hvad der er op og ned, jeg spreder blot had på internettet. Men Hillary Clinton og hendes kampagnes opførsel underbygger mistanken om at noget er rivende galt med Hillarys helbred. Og hendes tætte forhold til medier og internetmastodonter, betyder at folk er overladt til, hvad de selv finder mistænkeligt af de små brudstykker de ser af virkeligheden på deres skærm. Det er løgne og hemmeligheder, der skaber paranoia og konspirationer.
For der er grund til bekymring. Hendes begrænsede ‘konfrontationstid’ med både vælgere og presse lægger til rygterne om hendes besynderlige adfærd under stress. Og når hun taber tråden og ser desorienteret ud på publikum og en assistent springer til og giver hende instrukser om at fortsætte med at tale, “just keep talking”, er det mere end et enkelt udfald. Det ser ud som om at det er sket før, at der en en plan B, når Hillary ikke magter det. Og Hillary? Hun gentager, hvad manden siger “Were going to just keep talking!”
Imens venter Julian Assange i kulissen, med nye afsløringer af Hillarys udenoms-ærlige aktiviteter
Måske bliver det kun spændende om Hillary dør, førend hun kommer i fængsel?
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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 Politicoreporter 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. TheAtlantic 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
“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.”
Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?
Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism
First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.
Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.
Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.
Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…
Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?
Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.
The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”
Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.
Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag
Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.
Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.
Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”
He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.
The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.
Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.
Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.
En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus
On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.
Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.
SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.
In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.
Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør
Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?
During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.
A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.
The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.
After the war
The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.
The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.
Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.
Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.
The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.
More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.
On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.
The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.
The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.
Man kunne tro at Donald Trump var arketypen, eller en lidt vulgær variant, af den amerikanske drøm, men i New Yorker kunne jeg læse at Obama mente at Trump er uamerikansk. Kristeligt Dagblad assisterede min bedagede forståelse det amerikanske og præsenterede “det nye USA der hepper på Hillary Clinton”
Demokraternes præsidentkandidat skal samle et kludetæppe af mindretal for at vinde over Donald Trumps hvide vælgere ved USA’s valg i november
Det Demokratiske Partis nye ansigt er folk som Zak Davidson fra Columbia, Ohio. En hvid, veluddannet ateist på bare 22 år.
Det er 64-årige Norma Davenport, der har levet hele sit liv i et traditionelt afroamerikansk arbejderkvarter i Philadelphia.
Det er den homoseksuelle flådeveteran Ron Helms og hans jødiske veninde Joanne Goodwin fra Florida.
Og det er Sue Langley fra Virginia, der for 34 år siden immigrerede fra Thailand til USA med sine forældre.
Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud
At råbe “Intifada! Intifada!” og “Death to the USA!” mens man brænder israelske flag er i sandhed langt fra, hvad den negerlignende Steven W Trasher kalder “a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate” af Trump støtter. Trasher er bange for at de rabiate, svindende, vrede hvide vælgere er nok til at bringe Trump til Det Hvide Hus til november fordi Hillary ikke kan begejstre, “just watch Hillary Clinton being booed at her own party convention”. Den slags intern dissens får man ikke indtrykket af i medierne, især ikke de danske, men Townhall forsøgte at opgøre omfanget af udvandringen fra konventet, da Hillary blev nomineret
The level of media bias in reporting the Democratic National Convention is as high as I have ever seen outside of North Korea and the old Soviet bloc. The GOP convention was declared a disaster many times during its four-day run, but the DNC, reeling from revelations of the rigging of the primary contests, is getting far more benign descriptors, as the media avert their eyes from unpleasant realities.
Among the most unpleasant realities for Democrats and the media is the anger of Bernie supporters now that it is clear the campaign into which they threw their hearts and souls was fixed all along. Somehow, that anger must be minimized, trivialized, and eventually extinguished if Donald Trump is to be stopped. And in the eyes of the media, that threat is so overwhelming that no restraints whatsoever are justified in making the case against him as propagandists rather than honest observers and reporters.
So the focus last night at the DNC was “history being made,” (no Y chromosomes at the top of the ticket) and a soft focus look at Hillary’s record as a left wing activist using children as a front for demanding leftist policies and selected aspects of her personal relationship with Bill Clinton, the most popular living Democrat (if you ask Democrats).
As propaganda, it was skillful.
Godt dog at ISIS overhovedet blev nævnt for ifølge Breitbart blev det eller jihad eller terror slet ikke nævnt på konventets første dag. Til gengæld blev andendagen åbnet med af islamisten Sherman Jackson, der mener, om ikke sit, så hvad islam lærer ham om del af det nye USA der er homosexuelle, jøder etc. Man skal helst ikke nævne islam, ifølge Obama, ikke blot fordi det er “offensive to Muslims”, men “the kinds of rhetoric that we’ve heard too often, from Mr. Trump and others, is ultimately helping do ISIL’s work for us”. Omvendt med Hillary “She will stand up to ISIS”, som Martin O’Malley (ham er der spræl i) uambitiøst erklærede. Men at stå op imod ISIS er alt man tør på et demokratisk konvent, hvor al tale om faktisk at bekæmpe kalifatet fører til protester fra salen.
Det er svært at følge med efterhånden. Et meme på Facebook hed “0 dage siden et muslimsk terrorangreb”. I Frankrig har en præst fået skåret halsen over af to muslimer, der angreb midt under gudstjenesten. Ud over præsten, der med sine mere end 80 år kun vikarierede for den ferierende præst, var der to nonner, hvor den enes liv endnu hænger i en tynd tråd, og to kirkegængere. Alligevel var det nok kristenpraksis til et muslimsk angreb.
Eller, jeg forivrer mig måske, for selv om muslimerne skreg Allahu Akbar som de skar halsen over på den gamle mand, kender myndighederne endnu ikke deres motiv. Og mens myndighederne begynder at tjekke de to muslimers kontakt til døgnpsykiatrien eller interviewer tidligere klassekammerater om eventuel mobning eller det hele bare var et desperat råb på hjælp efter et afslag på asyl så hæfter jeg mig ved at den angrebne kirke var en del af et økumenisk projekt, hvor muslimer og kristne forsøgte at se ud over deres uenigheder (som at muslimerne burde slagte alle kristne nu eller vente til senere).
Vidste muslimerne dette? Og i så fald havde jeg forestillet mig at de hellere ville slagte den involverede imam for at besudle Allahs morderiske lære med snik-snak i selskab med kuffars. Principielt gør det jo heller ingen forskel at den slagtede præst var, hvad man kunne kalde en venligboer, der er stadig tale om terror. Og terror er, hvad der rammer alle, også kristne, selv om man ikke hører så meget om det. Fox News skriver dog, hvorledes den nye normal antager et stadigt mere muslimsk ansigt
Unfortunately, similar attacks on Christians are rarely recounted, although ISIS has made its intentions clear: “the Christian community… “will not have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women….”
Certainly Islamist radicals have not ignored this proclamation, even though accounts of their successful efforts may be hard to come by.
Only a scouring of Catholic news reports exposes an ongoing litany of desecration, arson and abuse. For example, a recent newsletter from Federation for Europa Christiana recounts (in French) the following:
“At Martigues…three successive attacks in May 2016: first the pastor extinguished a malicious fire on the altar of the church of the Madeleine. This same priest was later attacked and his eye was blackened….
“Then, at the Saint-Genest church, the same priest discovered the open tabernacle and communion wafers thrown to the ground…
“In April, 2016, all the crucifixes and crosses were shattered at the cemetery of La Chapelle-du-Bard….”
All told, 810 attacks on French Christian places of worship and Christian cemeteries took place in 2015.
“In recent weeks, Catholics in France and Belgium — countries still recovering from brutal ISIS attacks — have been hit with numerous acts of violence and aggression, including fires set in churches, an assault on a priest, the desecration of a tabernacle.
“More than 100 Catholic websites… of churches and congregations were hacked by suspected Tunisian cyber-jihadists who call themselves the Fallaga Team.”
On Saturday, ahead of today’s holiday dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, a group of Serbs came under fire from automatic weapons as they were cleaning the grounds of the garbage and debris that local ethnic Albanians are dumping at the ruins of the desecrated temple. Nobody was injured during the incident, that has been reported to the Kosovo police.
Today, about 100 villagers and their guests from various parts of the Kosovsko Pomoravlje District, along with some citizens who had left the area as early as in the 1970s, gathered at the monastery and celebrated the day in peace, and without incidents.
“Visiting my hometown brings back beautiful childhood memories, but scenes like the desecrated grave of my former neighbor - which was done during the past year - point out to the reality and the difficult lives that people who remained are leading.” Mijomir Lalic, who now lives in the town of Smederevo, told Serbia’s state broadcaster RTS.
Nenad Kojic, a professor at the Pristina University, now relocated to Kosovska Mitrovica, said those who live in the village now “have no intention of leaving.”
“It’s all the same that they destroyed our holy places, they cannot destroy our faith and our hope,” said Kojic.
The Binac monastery, dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, is one of the oldest Serbian temples built in the 14th century. It was completely destroyed in July 1999, after the war in Kosovo and after the arrival of international forces there.
Og inden nogen skulle fristes til at påpege tonen i debatten, så går det samme vej for kristne i muslimske lande. Her en stemningsrapport fra Ægypten
Since late May, Christians in Egypt have been the victims of at least a dozen sectarian attacks, and activists and politicians say the government has done little to stop it, despite Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s early overtures to the Coptic community and their staunch support of him.
“It is escalating in a very short time,” said Mina Thabet, programme director for minorities and vulnerable groups with the Egyptian Commission of Rights and Freedoms.
Among the assaults was one in late May on an elderly Coptic woman in Minya, who was stripped, beaten and paraded naked because of a rumour that her son was having a relationship with a Muslim woman. Seven homes in the town were set ablaze.
Victims said the police response was late and insufficient.
Sectarian tensions heated up even more on June 30, three years to the day after the beginning of the protests that led to the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, when a Coptic priest was gunned down in Al Arish, North Sinai in an attack claimed by the IS group. The group accused the priest of “waging a war against Islam”.
As gruesome as that attack was, the majority of the incidents have not taken place in the IS stronghold in northern Sinai, but in the Governorate of Minya, which is nestled along the Nile river about 250 kilometres south of Cairo.
Hours before the priest in Al Arish was shot, the under-construction house of a Coptic man in Minya was torched by a mob who thought he was building a church – despite his having signed an affidavit in the presence of police, the mayor and the local sheikh saying the structure would be a residence and would be used for no other purpose. The four adjacent homes, which belonged to his brothers, were also burned.
The building of churches is a flashpoint for sectarian tensions in Egypt. Per capita, there are far fewer churches serving the Christian community than there are mosques serving the Muslim community, and the building of new churches is strictly restricted under Egyptian law and requires special permissions. Christians for decades have had difficulty obtaining the necessary approvals and often face fierce opposition from Muslim neighbors.
While the recent violence has been concentrated in and around Minya, other Christian strongholds in the country have suffered as well. For example, an attack occurred on July 2 in the governorate of Sohag, which is about 500km south of Cairo and also has a large Christian population, when the teenage daughter of a priest was grabbed from behind by the hair and stabbed in the neck in what appeared to be a failed attempt to slit her throat. She was rescued by a bystander and survived the attack.
Tilbage til Danmark og et kig på venligboernes økumeniske projekt. For et par år siden vågnede den iranske kommunistpige op det umulige i et ægteskab med islam, om det var jøder, israelere eller progressive. Inger Holst husker tilbage til sommeren 2014
En lys og mild sommeraften samlede en flok mennesker sig på Christiansborg Slotsplads.
En taler bød dem velkommen: »Det kræver mod at komme her, det er svært at stå sammen om fred,« sagde taleren. Her var jøder, israelere, arabere, iranere, her var københavnere af alle slags. Det var i juli 2014 under endnu en voldsom konflikt i Mellemøsten.
Taleren var Jaleh Tavakoli, en af demonstrationens arrangører.
»Begge folk har ret til fred,« sagde hun.
»Begge folk har retten til et land.«
Imens hun talte, kom nye mennesker til. De kom fra Rådhuspladsen, hvor der var demonstration for palæstinensernes ret. Men ikke for andres. Jaleh Tavakoli var en af de få, der nåede at holde sin tale. Den startede med en erindring om hylende sirener og om den angst, hun selv havde oplevet i sin barndom under krigen mellem Iran og Irak.
Imens hun talte om disse minder, begyndte politisirener at hvine. Biler kørte med hornet i bund, med flag og fuckfingre strittende ud ad de nedrullede ruder.
De fleste af dem, der deltog i angrebet, var danskere med palæstinensisk baggrund.
Men blandt dem, der truende nærmede sig, kunne Jaleh Tavakoli genkende nogle af sine gamle, etnisk danske partikammerater fra Enhedslisten.
»Er det det her, du vil, Jaleh,« spurgte en af dem.
Et halvt år senere var Tavakoli medarrangør af det debatmøde om ytringsfrihed i Krudttønden, der blev angrebet af en herboende muslim. Der findes ingen frem med muslimerne, kun stilhed før massakren. Det positive er at mens folk på venstrefløjen skulle gøre sig anstrengelser for at registrere danske jøder og deres adresser på en særlig jødeliste, der skulle bruges, den dag den nu skulle bruges til hvad man dog ellers kunne bruge sådan en liste til så har vi allerede medlemslister af diverse partier og organisationer på venstrefløjen. Ikke at vi skal bruge den til andet end hvad Anne Grethe Holmsgaard havde tænkt sig med jødelisten, det er bare rart at have - hvis nu det skulle blive aktuelt med sådan en liste med navne og addresser.
Donald Trump fører ifølge CNN i meningsmålingerne over Hillary Clinton. Der skal tages det forbehold at Trump har fået ekstra opmærksomhed som han blev kåret til Republikanernes præsidentkandidat på der republikanske konvent. Nu er det så Hillarys tur til at højne opmærksomheden om sit kandidatur, men hun skal tage højde for en opmærksomhed der indtil videre er centreret om hvorledes Demokraterne har modarbejdet Bernie Sanders den anden kandidat til Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i en blanding af almindelig Clintonsk korruption og generel venstreorienteret antisemitisme (og så er der den almindelige dyrkelse af race-deling). Hillary har allerede ansat Demokraternes skandaleombruste partiformand til (forsat?) at lede hendes kampagne.
Og man kan håbe at Trump ender med nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Muligvis er han en charlatan og muligvis vil han være en katastrofe, men i forhold til alternativet, så har vi brug for en mand der kan sige sandheder. Om terror-angrebene mod Frankrig - og man kan inkludere alle europæiske lande i denne ligning - siger Trump
- Det er deres egen skyld, fordi de i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium, siger han.
Det gør ondt at læse og nogle er faldet over ham for at bebrejde ofrene. Men det er desværre sandheden. Hvis ikke man værger for sig inviterer man problemerne ind i sit land. Man kan meget vel beskylde “eliten” eller “venstrefløjen” eller “venligboerne” eller “politikerne”, men alt i alt har de europæiske nationalstater, og de er jo summen der indeholder elite, folk og fjolser, ikke taget var på sig selv. Det er tid til at se virkeligheden i øjnene.
- De er blevet kompromitteret af terrorisme. Her er, hvad jeg vil gøre: Ekstremt grundige undersøgelser. Det er et hårdt ord. Ekstreme undersøgelser. Vi skal stille hårde krav. Hvis en person ikke kan bevise det, de skal kunne bevise, kommer de ikke ind i det her land, siger Trump, der dog ikke besvarer mere uddybende spørgsmål om hans model for undersøgelserne.
- Folk blev så vrede, da jeg brugte ordet muslim. Uh, man må ikke sige muslim. Og det er okay, for nu taler jeg om territorier i stedet for muslimer, siger han.
Det er en helt anden indstilling end den europæiske, der klart spejler sig i crooked Hillary. Jean-Claude Juncker “the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump”, skriver Breitbart. Tro mod sit formål ræsonnerer formande at uanset omkostningerne er åbne grænser et gode
Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.
“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.
Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.
Det verdensfjerne udsyn, renset for de grimme realiteter gennemsyrer både ekspertise, medier og myndigheder. Her sad jeg med kaffen og læste en ganske almindelig artikel på Danmarks Radio om noget af det seneste terror
Der er åbenlyst ingen sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland. Men for mange tyskere føles det som terror, selv når det ikke er det, siger DR’s Tyskland-korrespondent Michael Reiter.
- Det giver en følelse af, at man ikke kan gå ud i det offentlige rum uden at blive ramt af et eller andet forfærdeligt til hver en tid, siger Michael Reiter og tilføjer, at utrygheden kommer til udtryk på de sociale medier, i de tyske avisers ledere og hos dem, han taler med.
- Der en udpræget følelse af, at verden er at lave. Sådan var det allerede efter i fredags, hvor tyskerne oplevede blodbad nummer to på en uge.
Angreb gavner højrefløjen
De voldomme begivenheder kan meget vel give den islam- og indvandringskritiske tyske højrefløj ekstra vind i sejlene, vurderer Michael Reiter. For alle gerningsmænd har anden etnisk baggrund end tysk.
- For det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschland er det vand på møllen, når der er tale om terror. For det bekræfter dem og deres vælgere i deres meget heftige kritik af kansler Merkels flygtningepolitik, siger Michael Reiter.
Det er altså kun for det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschlands vælgere at der er en sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland alle begået af indvandrere og at denne sammenhæng har at gøre med Merkels flygtningepolitik, hvor man “i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium”. Det borger jo ikke godt for det samlede elektorat.
“Skæggede mænd lavede tumult på nøgenbaderstrand” var en overskrift på Ekstrabladet, der i artiklen gav et lille hint ved at disse skæggede mænd “beskrives som værende ’sydlandske’ og som værende omkring 25 år gamle.” Som Møller på Uriasposten spekulerer i “kunne det godt være et efterspil til en fugtig kongres for kristen-arabiske julemænd, men nej”. Møllers sarkasme er desværre sørgelig præcis, hvis man læser de svenske medier, hvor det i ægte Camusks ånd er solen der var skyldig i de mange voldtægter. Midt i al det gejl kan man ikke fortænke den almindelige borger i at miste sin sunde fornuft
Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.
Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed
When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.
But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.
Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.
The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.
Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”
In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.
Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”
Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.
Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.
For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.
The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.
Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”
“Hvem var det, der vandt i dag, det var dem fra IS af!” skrev en god ven på Facebook. Erdogan tænkte måske det samme, i hvert fald udtalte han at det sørgelig forsøg på et kup var “en gave fra Allah”. Nogen konspirationsspekulerer i at det var en gave fra ham selv, som han har fået det til at handle om mere end nogle utilfredse officerer, der stod til at blive udrenset, med fyringen af 2700 dommere. Uanset hvad, skal nogle nok betale prisen, måske i form af likvideringer. Andre spekulerer i at Erdogans regime er blevet svækket grundet det ydmygende i hele miseren.
David P Goldman tegner i Asia Times et andet og mere dystert billede af Tyrkiets situation end den
Turkey faces a perfect storm of economic, political and foreign policy problems.
First, Turkey’s much-heralded economic growth spurt of the 2000’s has come to a grinding stop. The Erdogan boom, which inspired predictions that Turkey might emerge as another China, resembled the Asian experience less than it did the Latin American credidt bubbles of the 1980s or the American subprime bubble of the 2000s.
Secondly, Turkey’s internal cohesion is at risk due to the rapid increase of its Kurdish-speaking minority and the relative decline of the ethnic Turkish population.
The Kurdish demographic problem has led Erdogan into a political swamp from which he may not emerge. He won last year’s presidential election by stirring up national ardor against the Kurdish minority, and has kept the Kurdish southeast of the country in a low-level civil war since then. The leader of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party warned last March that Erdogan had brought Turkey to the brink of an ethnic war.
To prevent the Syrian Kurds from controlling the northern border of their country and linking up with their Iraqi compatriots, Erdogan covertly supported Sunni terrorists, including ISIS, as Michael Rubin explained last March in Newsweek. Erdogan’s back channel to ISIS blew up in Turkey’s face–literally–when ISIS suicide bombers killed 42 people and injured hundreds at the Istanbul Airport June 29.
Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the foundation of the modern state, Turkey’s army acted as the guarantor of the country’s secular state. The Islamist Erdogan attempted to reverse that, jailing hundreds of military officers on a spurious charge of plotting a coup in 2012. Most were released in 2014. Erdogan could not do without the military, however; his failed foreign policy made him dependent on the Turkish army, which reasserted its influence this year. Erdogan proudly called himself a “black Turk,” that is, a devout Muslim from the Anatolian hinterland, in contrast to the “White Turks,” the Europeanized secular party who came to power under Kemal Ataturk and ruled the country until the 2000s.
Jeg har ingen forhåbninger til Tyrkiet som den sekulære løgn Atatürk på imponerende kreerede. Det er bedre at se sine fjender, som det de er.
Der tales altid om emotioner, når man skal forklare EU-skepsis. Men som det er blevet demonstreret så tydeligt af reaktionerne på Brexit, så løber emotionerne af med EU-tilhængerne
Milton Friedman forewarned in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” Whereas “the argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument.” “The argument for individualism” and freedom, on the other hand, “is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”
Margrethe Aukens emotionelle reaktion på Nigel Farages afgang som formand for sit parti UKIP vidner om at EU vækker de ikke så sofistikerede og subtile emotioner
Satyajit Das beskriver i Independent nogle flere reaktioner fra det angelsaksiske overdrev
The EU is circling the wagons, painting Britain as a reluctant European, and seeks to punish her to dissuade other nations from similar actions. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s tart summary reflects this view: “It’s not an amicable divorce, but it never really was a close love affair anyway”.
The intellectual response is framed by cognitive dissonance. Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, lamented the fact that the referendum outcome was the result of a complex question being reduced to “absurd simplicity”.
Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University, saw it as “Russian roulette for republics”. He complained that the simple majority of those who voted (36 per cent of eligible voters voted for leaving) was an absurdly low bar – although that level is significantly higher than the average winning vote proportion in recent US presidential elections, for example. Such a significant decision, he said, should not be made without appropriate checks and balance.
And in an editorial for Business Insider, American columnist Josh Barro termed the decision “a tantrum”. British voters had made “a bad choice”. It was an “error of direct democracy”. Such important decisions should not be decided by voters but left to “informed” elected officials.
For those who believe they are born to rule, democracy should be for those who meet some standard set by them with the proviso that the vote coincides with what they think ought to happen. For this group, the Brexit vote signals the need to limit democracy to ensure that important decisions are left to self-certified experts.
I National Review har David French talt med en EU fortaler, der ikke forfalder til emotionerne og som giver en dyster strukturel beskrivelse af EU
It was a system that worked remarkably well for the international upper class. Men and women dedicated to commerce enjoyed unprecedented access to international markets. Activists dedicated to social justice could engineer their societies without ever truly facing the accountability of the ballot box. The logic of the system was self-proving. It would triumph through the sheer force of its virtue.
Unable to grasp the extent to which the new international order had endured and prospered not so much through its self-evident goodness but through the protection of American arms, it proved completely incapable of meeting the challenge when America chose to retreat. Vladimir Putin wanted no part of a system that sidelined Russia and viewed it as just one more economic and bureaucratic entity in a global superstate and decided to exert raw power to shape the world. He put boots on the ground in Crimea, and he dared the world to move him. He exerted his will in Syria, and he dared the world to stop him.
In response, John Kerry actually said, “You just don’t, in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.” It’s a comment that would be hilarious if it weren’t so impotent. Putin did as he liked, and “history” had nothing to say about it.
Det er den kølige analyse af EU. Man kan anse EU som at gode, når alt tages i betragtning, men indvendingerne imod det træge bureakrati og dets grundlæggende svigt. Men ‘er’ og ‘bør’ forveksles for venstrefløjens elite, med dens kollektivisme og flyvske idealer, hvor diffuse de så måtte være. Peter Hitchens leverer en fejende beskrivelse, af en elite uden nytte eller opfattelse af forpligtelse
The part of the referendum campaign that has angered me most is this: the suggestion, repeatedly made by pro-EU persons, that there is something narrow, mean and small-minded about wanting to live in an independent country that makes its own laws and controls its own borders.
I can think of no other country where the elite are so hostile to their own nation, and so contemptuous of it.
I have spent many years trying to work out why this is. I think it is because Britain – the great, free, gentle country it once was and might be again – disproves all their theories.
Most of our governing class, especially in the media, politics and the law, is still enslaved by 1960s ideals that have been discredited everywhere they have been tried.
These are themselves modified versions of the communist notions that first took hold here in the 1930s. But the things they claim to want – personal liberty, freedom of conscience, clean government, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, a compassionate state, a safety net through which none can fall, and a ladder that all can climb – existed here without any of these airy dogmas.
How annoying that an ancient monarchy, encrusted with tradition, Christian in nature, enforced by hanging judges in red robes, had come so much closer to an ideal society than Trotsky or Castro ever did or ever could.
The contradiction made the radicals’ brains fizz and sputter. How could this be? If it was so, they were wrong. Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth. Two and two must be made to make five, if it suits them.
So, rather than allow their hearts to lift at the sight of such a success as Britain was, and ashamed to be patriots, they set out to destroy the living proof that they were wrong.
They declared themselves ‘Europeans’. They regarded this as superior to their own country. ‘How modern! How efficient!’ they trilled. I have heard them do it. They did not notice that the EU was also a secretive, distant and unresponsive monolith, hostile or indifferent to the freedoms we had so carefully created and so doggedly preserved.
They failed to see that its ‘parliament’ does not even have an opposition, that its executive is accountable to nobody. They inherited jury trial, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights – the greatest guarantees of human freedom on the planet – and they traded in this solid gold for the worthless paper currency of human rights.
If they win on Thursday, the process of abolishing Britain will be complete. If they lose, as I hope they do and still think they will, there is a faint, slender chance that we may get our country back one day.
Som bekendt vandt de ikke og bitterheden luftes stadig. Måske fordi de frygter at festen er forbi. Hvis EU falder fra hinanden, som følge af en dominoeffekt udløst af Brexit, mister denne moralske overklasse et væsentligt våben mod en rationel og nødvendig politik, nemlig henvisning til den højere orden, som EU repræsenterer. Javist, FN og diverse konventioner vil stadig eksistere, men der vil ikke længere være en EU justits eller en fortælling om en europæisk offentlighed hvori et land kan blive paria. Pludselig vil vi kunne gennemføre Dansk Folkeparti og Nye Borgerliges forslag, hvis vi lyster.
På et mere prosaisk plan er der selvfølgelig også en frygt for at festen med overflødige jobs ender.