Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman

På det stærkt venstredrejede Point Of View International, tilskriver man Hillarys problemer med at hun er kvinde i “det mandsdominerede samfund“. En sådan vinkel finder det en naturlig antagelse at Hillary “nu rent faktisk er dygtigere end alle de andre” og lister så en masse punkter op af uretfærdigheder stakkels Hillary har måttet døje med i det mandsdominerede samfund. Argumentet er bygget om en lang række, øhm udsagn, fra Hillary Clintons liv og karriere, der vinkels som uretfærdigheder hun er blevet udsat for, og alle disse uretfærdigheder, konkluderes der så, tages så til indtægt for de krav der baree stilles til en en kvinde, hvis hun vil være præsident (i det mandsdominerede samfund, det må vi aldrig glemme). Det svarer til at parese var betingelsen for FDRs præsidentembede.

Det første punkt af uretfærdighed, nemlig modstanderen der beskrives som “en rigmand, fars dreng, sexistisk idiot med antidemokratiske holdninger og uden politisk erfaring” er helt selvmodsigende. POV mener i ramme alvor at Hillary har sværere med en indlysende uegnet modstander uden erfaring. For os andre lyder det mere som en skjult kønskvote ordning.

Det er også i POVs øjne uretfærdigt at Hillary tidligere har “tabt til en mand, der tåkrummende pinagtigt hyldes og fremstilles af landets oprindelige, kolonialistiske magthaverelite som “den første afrikansk-amerikanske præsident”, så det optegnes som et verdenshistorisk faktum, at en hvid kvinde kun ligger på tredjepladsen i menneskehierarkiet“. POV ved nemlig at kvinder er mere værd en halvnegermænd. Vi andre fornemmer måske at POV har ramt en uudtømmelig kilde indignation når man betænker at ved siden af opdele mennesker på baggrund af race, etnicitet, alder og kultur i findes 30 forskellige kønsidentiteter. Som minimum vil det altid være uretfærdigt for de 29.

Det er også uretfærdigt at Hillarys “hosteanfald og stressudløste luftvejssygdomme efter halvandet års uafbrudt døgnarbejde i offentlighedens søgelys fremstilles som en diskvalificerende faktor” - især når man glemmer hendes kollaps og anamnese. Og det at jobbet som præsident er 4 års ekstra uafbrudt døgnarbejde i offentlighedens søgelys. I det offentlige, hvor de fleste kvinder normalt brillerer, kan man normalt regne med en øv-dag oveni de mange sygedage. Og der skal også være tid til en lur.

Men mest uretfærdigt er at man ikke kan lave om på virkeligheden

3. Din kandidatur angribes vedholdende af myndighederne i dit land: Landets overordnede politimyndighed skal skamløst favorisere din modpart i valgkampen ved at rejse en tidligere flere gange afvist og grundløs sag mod dig, umiddelbart før valget, mens din mandlige modparts spionage-korruptionssag med landets klassiske stormagtsrival gemmes “for ikke at påvirke valgkampen”.

3a. Du trues med grundløse anklager: Du skal vinde, mens du vedvarende trues med anklage for tekniske “forbrydelser”, du har “begået” efter at have fulgt teknisk rådgivning, og derfor helt uden dit vidende og som vedrører formalia uden praktisk betydning.

3b. Der bruges overdrevent mange offentlige ressourcer på at miskreditere dig: De endeløse genoptagelser af de smædelignende anklager uden konkrete juridiske tiltag havde i enhver lignende situation overfor en hvid mand kostet vedkommende jobbet.

Ja, det hele er helt grundløst og bunder kun i at Hillary er kvinde i et mandsdomineret samfund. Men det værste er, at Hillary “skal have udholdt en åbenlyst utro mand i 30 år“. Det var nu ikke noget hun egentligt skulle, faktisk valgte hun det selv mod manges gode råd. Og hun gjorde nu mere end at udholde sin åbenlyst utro mand, hun forfulgte og sværtede de kvinder hendes åbenlyst utro mand benyttede sin magt til ‘at score’. Stand by your man!

Tom moralisme

Når en politiker er tømt for politisk indhold er der kun tom moralisme. Mette Frederiksen bliver i Berlingske Tidende citeret for mere fra sin nye potrætbog

»Det er en absurditet, at vi, som et af verdens mest ligestillede samfund, har så stor fokus på, hvordan kroppe skal se ud, at vi på en eller anden måde underlægger os nogle forestillinger, som er forkerte. På de sociale medier vil vi alle sammen fremstille os selv i det bedste lys, og der bliver fotoshoppet flittigt. Og på mange måder er det en hæslig udvikling,« lyder det fra S-formanden.

Mette Frederiksen mener også, at »det slører ligestillingsspørgsmålet, for vi er kommet til at begå nogle fejl ved os selv - vi kvinder i det her samfund.«

Kønsforsker Kenneth Reinicke fra RUC giver S-formanden ret i, at selvfremstillingen på de sociale medier har uheldige konsekvenser. Både kvinder og mænd er stadig underlagt nogle mainstreamforestillinger om, hvordan en rigtig mand og en rigtig kvinde skal se ud.

»Det er ikke lykkedes os endnu at løsrive os fra det billede. Der er et enormt kulturelt blik på kvinders kroppe og det er anderledes konstant end det er hos mændene. Det er ikke et sundt tegn, når det blik går ind og definerer en stor del af en kvindes identitet. Det er i hvert fald ikke frigørende og man skal ikke bilde sig ind, at det ikke har konsekvenser, når kvinder skal leve op til et fasttømret ideal. Det er jo heller ikke sundt, at vi er så kropsfikserede, selvom vi siger, at vi har friheden til at forme kroppen på den måde vi har lyst til,« siger han.

Problemet folkevandring af primært muslimer er resultatet af de strukturelle problemer af politisk konsensus, konventioner, EU, pressen og politikerne. Frederiksen er en del af de strukturelle problemer og oppebærer en fortsat katastrofal kurs. Så der tales udenom politik og opmærksomheden henledes på pseudoproblemer, som Frederiksen ikke kan gøre noget som helst ved, andet end i fuld offentlighed at pudse en af hendes skiftende glorier, anglende efter et eller andet segments sympati.

Debatten er håbløs. Uanset gode og sande budskaber som at man ikke kan skue hunden på hårende og de største værdier er indre værdier, har mennesker øjne og er indgroede æstetikere. Der er altid nogle der er mere populære end andre, om de så er flinke, kloge, sexede, rige, musikalske eller, som Mette Frederiksen, har en overlegen moral.

Og diskussionen om idealer er en af de  fasttømrede diskussioner vi ikke kan frigøre os fra. Idealer derimod skifter over og i tid. Der er heldigvis det store flertal, der er afslappede med sig selv og så nogle andre, der forfølger allehånde konkurrerende idealer, som den tåbelige ide at lade sig tatovere eller have piercinger. For nogle er det den slanke linje og for andre er det All About That Bass (bass, bass, bass, bass, bass) - så Frederiksen har flere ting kørende for sig.

Alle plager sig selv med de krav de sætter til sig selv eller mener omgivelserne sætter. Det er ikke let at være skatteyder eller virksomhedsejer med de røde apparaters mange krav, lettere er det at være asocial. Mænd plager især sig selv, med at føle sig ubrugelige, som afspejler sig i deres højere selvmordsrate. Kvinder plager sig selv oftere, men i lidt mindre alvorlig grad, med lidt mere ydre ting. Sådan er vi så forskellige og sådan kan vi lide hinanden. Og det giver mig et tyndt påskud for at poste følgende næsten aktuelle video, fra Black Pigeon Speaks

Krakkelerer meningsmålingtyranniet?

“Democrat Hillary Clinton has a 9-point lead over Republican Donald Trump in Ohio following the news of Trump’s vulgar talk about women and after the second debate between the candidates, according to a statewide poll released today by Baldwin Wallace University in Berea.” kunne man læse for to uger siden på Cleveland.com. Gode nyheder for Hillary Clintons kampagne da Ohio er en vigtig sving-stat.

Mange meningsmålinger, der giver Hillary Clinton et stort forspring er blevet masseret og medierne kolporterer dem ukritisk, men de forvrænger billedet af, hvad der er betydningsfuldt og hvad der er ligegyldigt. En mere en 10 år gammel optagelse af en lummer Donald Trump fra dengang han optrådte i radioprogrammer med sin lummerhed, blæses op til en skandale, mens Hillarys skrantende helbred, kriminelt lemfældige omgang med fortrolige oplysninger og hendes udsalg af amerikansk udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik til fremmede og fjendtlige magter. Imens tæskes Trumps tilhængere til vælgermøder. Det er ikke gratis at afsløre sine sympatier, hvis ikke  de harmonerer med det venstreorienterede mediekonsensus.

Et konsensus er stærkt fordi det demoraliserer modet til at sige sin mening og endda tale sandhed. Fortællingen om et konsensus kan fortrænge kritik og hvis det er vedholdende længe nok ændre mentaliteten hos en befolkning. Men et konsesus fortrænger også evnen til selvkritik og tiltrækker eftersnakker, hysterikere og ja-mænd og begynder hurtigt at udhule sin egen troværdighed. Diskrepansen mellem en stadigt grummere virkelighed overfor en stadigt mere virkelighedsfjern ekspertise får autoriteterne til at tage sig stadigt mere fjollede ud. Det ender i Komiske Ali, men vejen går over talkshows

Being President is a tough job. It’s one of the only jobs where you get a new approval rating every day. Now that we have this thing called social media, the President gets hundreds of judgments every hour of every day, many of them unpleasant. For the second time, President Obama has agreed to read them for our second-ever Presidential Edition of #MeanTweets.

Det kan være at Obama er ganske charmerende og demonstrerer en bedre komisk timing end hans pap-lignende tv-vært. Indrømmet, Obama som stand-up komiker er mere overbebevisende end Hiullary Clinton, som muskelbundt. Men er det virkeligt overbevisende at den amerikanske præsident og en fri tv-station i et stykke velforberedt politisk propaganda? Får den tavse vælger en fornemmelse af at Obama og Hillary kampagne står med de gode kort på hånden? Tænker den tavse vælger ikke at medierne virkeligt er i lommen på Hillary Clintons kampagne?

Donald Trumps slogan hedder “Make America Great Again!”. Modsat Trumps højenergiske selvcentrerede retorik, som “I’m gonna build a big beautiful wall”, “And I’m rich, I mean, I’m really, really rich!” og “I’ll grab ‘em by the pussy!”, så er hans slogan helt uden afsender. Det er en appel eller et bud og det er op til at alle, politikere, vælgere, medier, at gøre USA fantastisk igen. Trump sælger, under alt sit vulgære bravado, et budskab om fællesskab og ydmyghed og storhed.

Og, hvad handler det så om for den sjove, cool præsident Obama, der giver honnør med caffe latte, hvis budskab til iværksættere er “You did’nt build that!”, mens det var ham selv der fik ram på Osama bin Laden? “Well, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a president”. Så det kan godt være at han er den værste præsident i amerikansk historie, men ingen ulykker han kan lavet, er så slemme, at hans personlige ambition ikke er bedre.

Så er tvivlen begyndt at nage? Er der begyndt at være sprækker i den fortælling centrum venstre konsensus selv har konstrueret? For et par dage siden skrev det meget, meget venstredrejede Think Progress, at “?Ohio might turn out to be “Trump country” after all” fordi “Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat in Ohio, while Republican Sen. Rob Portman is trouncing former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland by more than 15 polling points“.

But before the president took the stage, Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper strode to the podium and, citing polls showing Donald Trump with a slight lead in the crucial swing state, launched into what he called a “pep talk.”

“Do you think we’re a Trump state, Ohio?”

“No,” the crowd roared.

“I don’t think so,” he called back to them. “We’re the state that elected President Obama in 2008 and 2012. We are the state that elects [Senator] Sherrod Brown, the progressive lion, again and again.”

“One more reminder,” he shouted as the crowd cheered. “Donald Trump couldn’t even win the primary here. This isn’t Trump country.”

Ked af det, men The Trump Train er på vej!

Et kup?

Donald Trumps Hollywood Walk of Fame er blevet smadret, skriver Deadline Hollywood, som Trumps tilhængere er blevet det igennem gennem hele valgkampen, skriver Lifezette. Hillary Clintons kampagne, med alle den mediestøtter og penge fra storfinansen er ikke ideologiske fascister, men deres modus operandi har antaget en fascistisk form, med semiorkestreret vold mod politiske modstandere og massiv propaganda. Det ligner et kup, skriver Peggy Ryan i American Thinker

Hillary has laughed off questions of a potential indictment since the beginning, sneered at suggestions that her scandal might keep her out of the White House.  Even more frightening than her confidence that she won’t be indicted is her unshakable faith that she’ll be elected.  Hillary’s not concerned about the coming election; she doesn’t campaign or hold press conferences, and she has few rallies.  It’s almost as if she doesn’t really need the votes.

That’s probably a good thing for her, since Hillary proved in the primaries that she can’t get the votes.  She had to cheat to beat Bernie Sanders, a 73-year-old socialist out of a win.  She had to tamp down Bernie supporters’ passion and enthusiasm and force them to accept her stale, depressing message.

The truth is, a large chunk of the Democrat base doesn’t like Hillary.  In fact, many can’t stand her.

So how is she winning?  I mean, that’s all we hear, right?  Hillary’s winning in a landslide, has a monumental lead that can’t be overcome.  Hillary’s shown to be winning because the media is  “with her,” or should I say “with them”?  Our once free press is working hand in hand with usurpers to engage in sedition and open treason; to defeat the Republican nominee, Donald Trump; and to impose a sick, evil woman, a criminal as our new leader.

To accomplish this goal, the press uses wartime psychological operations (psy ops), Soviet-style propaganda, and gaslighting to deceive, confuse, disrupt, and demoralize the enemy (that would be we).

Psyops Techniques:

False flags - staged events where the perpetrator is concealed and another party blamed.

  • The James O’Keefe videos show Democrat operatives bragging on how they stage violent protests at Trump rallies, that they have a national network to cover all locations.  The media are all in to blame Trump, paint him as an angry man who foments violence.

Shock and awe - the method of displaying overwhelming force or impressive technology to intimidate or demoralize an enemy.

  • Think polls, political experts who tell us it’s over, Hillary’s leads are insurmountable, there’s not enough time for Trump to “catch up.”

Propaganda:

  • Includes name-calling, manipulated statistics, and other techniques.  The media’s favorite is the bandwagon effect.  This tactic appeals to people’s desire to be on the winning team (”voters abandoning Donald Trump in droves” and “Hillary’s running away with the election”).

Gaslighting:

This is the left’s most insidious tool, based on deception and false information to make us doubt our own perceptions, our sanity.

  • Media show Trump getting trounced while they withhold more current data.  They dismiss as anecdotal (that’s the new buzzword for meaningless) empirical evidence that points to a Trump landslide – yard signs, bumper stickers, massive crowds, and unprecedented enthusiasm.  Their “experts” tell us the overflow cheering crowds mean nothing, don’t “translate” to votes.
  • And how many times must they tell us there is no voter fraud?  Yet O’Keefe has a video with a Democrat operative explaining how to accomplish mass voter fraud, and there’s mounting evidence to confirm voter fraud on a pandemic scale.

Psychological warfare leaves its victims feeling off balance, filled with self-doubt, isolated, and less likely to fight for our candidate.  This is the damage our media and government inflict on their own people.  The free press we’ve depended on to expose corruption, ensure fair elections, and protect democracy is now part of the corruption, rigging the elections, and defeating democracy.  Our protector turned assassin.

Now the media huddle with the left to plot their end run on democracy.  It’s a sprint to the finish line.  How far will they go?  All the way, folks.  I can see networks calling the race for Hillary even if they know it’s based on fraud.  I can picture Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, President Obama, our entire government and media telling us we must have a peaceful transition, that we can’t question the results under any conditions.  Oh, wait – they’re already doing that.

And now they’re setting up in case of a Trump landslide.  We could get “fake election results” by Russian hackers, they say.  There will be no “peaceful transition of power” if they lose.

Milo Yiannopoulos forklarer, veloplagt som altid, hvorledes mediernes demoraliserende meningsmålinger typisk bliver til

En kommende jordskredssejr?

De fleste medier, både i USA og herhjemme, er ikke i tvivl om at Hillary Clinton fører over Donald Trump i meningsmålingerne. En skribent på Point Of View International, skrev om Trumps chancer, at “Donald Trump har aldrig kunnet vinde den her valgkamp” (…) “og jo mere han kæftede op, jo mere ville midtervælgerne få øjnene op for, at han var upræsidentiel og umulig at vælge”. Begrundelsen var at Trump var racist og sexist og kun havde støtte grundet “fornuftens og faktualitetens åbenbare bortgang” til fordel for Trump-tilhængernes “mavefornemmelser”.

Men der er også nogle, der holder fast i at Trump ikke blot stadig har en chance, men rent faktisk har et lille forspring. På Investor’s Business Daily, ligger Trump side om side i meningsmålingerne, Rasmussen har en lille føring til Trump og en professor Helmuth Norpoth har skabt sin egen model, der har forudset de seneste fem presidenter i streg, skriver Fox News. Norpoths model består at to del modeller, hvor den ene model vægter, hvor godt kandidaten klarede sig internt i eget parti, jo større sejr som partiets kandidat, jo bedre chancer som præsident. Den anden del er en konstatering af at amerikanerne sjældent gider det samme parti på præsidentposten mere end 8 år.

Men hvorfor ser det ud til at meningsmålinger ikke er fordelt over et mere eller mindre bredt spektrum, men snarere falder i to grupper, Den der taler om en lille fordel til Trump og og den der taler om noget nær en jordskredssejr til Clinton? Zero Hedge skriver

Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary.  Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.

“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents.”

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll.

Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily “rig” a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another.  As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters.  Therefore, even a small “oversample” of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.  Moreover, the pollsters don’t provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to “fact check” the bias…convenient.

Det er svært at gennemskue virkeligheden gennem medierne, når man ikke kan stole på medierne. Men hvis man ser på den begejstring de to kandidater kan mønstre blandt deres kernevælgere, er det tvivlsom om Hillary overhovedet har kernevælgere udenfor medierne og showbusiness

Hvis man skal tro professor Norpoths model ser Trump ud som en kommende sejrherre. Åh, blot som et aber dabei, så mener Young Conservatives at “Trump could wind up winning the election bigly”. Det bygger de ikke på nogen model af faktualitet, men mere fornuftigt på deres mavefornemmelser for amerikanske vælgere, når Demokraternes systematiske og professionelle mødeterror bliver en stadigt større historie.

trump-okeefe-tweet

The truth emerges

Det var chefredaktøren for Washington Post Ben Bradleys ord da Watergate fældede Nixon. Og det kunne tage uger eller år, men sandheden kom frem.

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

The Art of the Deal

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berufsverbot… en overvejelse værd

Venstrefløjen ser ud til at lancere et voldsomt opgør med den hidtidige integrationspolitik. De kommer blot næppe til at erkende det. Information funderede “Kan en advokat forsvare udlændinge og samtidig være med i Pegida?”

Rasmus Paludan har været forsvarsadvokat for frihedsberøvede udlændinge. Samtidig er han stærkt udlændingekritisk og har i år deltaget i alle demonstrationer for ’For Frihed’ – det, der før hed Pegida. Det møder kritik, men Paludan selv kan ikke se problemet.

Og for de læsere der måske er lidt forvirrede over, hvad det er for foreninger, der tales om præciserer Information “den højreradikale forening For Frihed, som nok bedst er kendt ved sit gamle navn, Pegida”. Passende dog at frihed er højreradikalt for en avis, der underholder tanker om tankekontrol.

gc3a6tteleg-1

Socialdemokratiets formand (ja det hedder igen officielt Socialdemokratiet. Og det har det altid heddet på Monokultur, der ikke har meget til overs for tidstypisk pjat) Mette Frederiksen har skrevet en ny bog, skriver Jyllands-Posten nemlig, og de referer dette stykke

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

(…)

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

Så, kan man som muslim, der bekender sig til et had til; menneskeskabte love, ligestilling mellem køn, at kunne tale, tro og tænke frit, etc overhovedet være ansat i det offentlige? Kan man overhovedet have et dansk pas?

Berlingske Tidendes 80er propaganda

Sådan så Berlingske Tidendes, nu et par uger gamle kampagne ud og der medfulgte et interview med jordemoderen, der skulle uddybe nuanceringen af debatten. Er det en flygtning, islamist, eller jordemoder vi ser? Kasper Støvring spurgte på Facebook “Men hvad nu, hvis kvinden er alle tre ting? Det er da også en overraskende nuancering.”. For som det blev suppleret af flere, så er der ingen modsætning mellem islamisme, terrorisme og uddannelse og et eksempel blev hentet fra Uriasposten.

Men også et andet eksempel, som vi har været glade for på Monokultur, blev hentet frem. Douglas Murray beskrev nemlig for et par år siden, muslimen lidt mere nuanceret i forbindelse med nogle obligatoriske anti-israelske demonstrationer, han havde observeret i London, på baggrund af at Israel frækt igen-igen nægtede at lade sig ydmyge

I have watched them a bit in recent days, watched the contorted hatred on their faces as they scream at the embassy and then watched their friendly sociability as the headscarfed women are driven away by their menfolk, often with their children in tow — a family day outing in “diverse” modern London. Behind their smiles and the increasingly competent public relations that the pro-Hamas faction is managing in Britain, it is possible for some people to forget that what brings these people out is one simple thing: a hatred of the Jewish state and a desire to see it annihilated by the terrorists of Hamas or anyone else at hand.

Lene Kattrup havde mange gode indvendinger til dette stykke 80er propaganda, men jeg vil frem een, som ofte er fremdraget her på Monokultur, fordi det fremhæver den selvmodsigelse, der er indbygget i det multikulturelle narrativ

Overskriften (som er valgt af journalisten) er “Flygtning? Islamist? Jordemoder: »Selv om jeg ikke er streng, er jeg glad for mit tørklæde«.

Det synes jeg er en ”formindskende” og/eller misvisende omtale af hendes forhold til tørklædet og til den religion eller religiøse ideologi, som det islamiske tørklæde normalt er et symbol på, og som det sandsynligvis også repræsenterer for denne kvinde. For Soheila Azimi forklarer, at hvis hun havde skullet afføre sig det i arbejdstiden (men selvfølgelig kunne tage det på, straks hun fik fri), så ville hun have sagt sit job op. Dette fortæller os jo, at hun ikke kun er ” glad for tørklædet” som der står, og hun er jo så faktisk ”streng” på dette punkt. Det er en mulighed for, at hun bærer det for at vise, at hun går ind for sharialoven som lov. Lad læseren få lov til at tænke selv, ville jeg sige til journalisten og til Berlingske. Hvis journalisten var dygtig, kunne man jo have spurgt Soheila Azimi om det. Det ville have være klogt, men det tør journalisten måske ikke?

Nemlig. Der er ingen tvang i islam, men jeg skal have mit tørklæde på. Og hvad skal jeg mere…

Do it by the book

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

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

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

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

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

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

Den postfaktuelle venstrefløj

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

På vej mod interessante tider

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

Et russisk billede midt i freden

obama-pa-russisk

“Money, the media, and the establishment in cahoots are hard to beat”

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

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

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

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

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

Vogterne skal vogte sig for Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Et flertal formes

Arabere, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Pressen, USA, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on October 11, 2016 at 4:39 am

En CNN meningsmåling på videnskabelige præmisser havde Clinton som klar vinder af debatten mellem hende og Trump mandag nat, skriver Breitbart, der dog også tilføjer “Left out of that top-line figure: 58 percent of their sample “said they were supporting Clinton before the debate”. En fokusgruppe for samme CNN skulle tilsyneladende hjælpes til at holde det rette fokus

Det er som at overvære arabere til teoriprøve.

Nahed Hattar har jo tigget og bedt om at blive angrebet, gjorde alt for at provokere

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

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-10-06-kl-150952

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary rides af en mare: 2) Lungebetændelsen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og en hånd, når hun skal op ad trapper

Hillary rides af en mare: 1) serveren

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.

Den vrede hvide mand og senatoren fra Punjab

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvorfor fører Hillary ikke med 50%?

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.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress