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.

Velfærdsdøden

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

Obama - “one of the truly great phonies of our time”

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

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

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

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

——————————-

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

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

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Obamas medierede virkelighed

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

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

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

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

MACCALLUM: Nobody is talking about that.

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

MACCALLUM: We’re not talking about that here.

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

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

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

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

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

Uansvarlighed skal stoppe det nationale ræs mod bunden

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

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

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

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

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

flygtningetegneserie

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ahmed-med-sin-kuffert

Bill Clinton: “It’s a crazy time we live in…”

Diverse, Hillary Clinton, Politik, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 16, 2016 at 3:26 am

Hot Air skriver at Bill Clinton synes det er en mærkelig tid vi lever i, men af en lidt overraskende grund

“It’s a crazy time we live in. You know, when people think there’s something unusual about getting the flu,” Bill Clinton said. “Last time I checked, millions of people were getting it every year.”

Forkert - njah, ikke forkert, rigtigt, der er intet unormalt i at blive syg, men det er dog unormalt at kollapse fuldkommen og så ikke blive kørt til det nærmeste hospital af sine nærmeste. Det er også unormalt at lide af allergi, hedeslag, dehydrering, smitsom lungebetændelse og influenza på en gang og alligevel deltage i et arrangement, tætpakket med mennesker man kunne hoste på, for så frejdigt at udbasunere at man også lige svang forbi sine børnebørn, det ene kun et spædbarn, for at hoste videre på dem i 1 1/2 time.

Hvis man holder af at se Hillary Kollapse (og det gør jeg), så kan man gense øjeblikket, med The Black Childs analyse undervejs. Hillarys medarbejdere og hendes sikkerhedsfolk virker ganske rigtigt helt uanfægtede af situationen og gennemfører med en doven selvfølgelighed en velkoreograferet rutine. Ikke et eneste gip går der igennem nogen som helst da de næsten taber Hillary - hun synker mere end en hovedhøjde - som de slæber hende ind i bilen. Det er bare det sædvanlige hejs.

Og for at blive ved Bubba, så fører det sædvanlige hejs til sløseri og Hot Air funderer derfor også over hvor sløset den tidligere supersemantiker er blevet med sit sprog

What Bill really said was, “Next time I checked — last time I checked, millions of people were getting it every year.” Next time I checked?

That’s the second time this week Bill has said the opposite of what he meant to say at the start of a sentence. Earlier this week, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Bill said, “Frequently — well not frequently, rarely, on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years…” CBS was kind enough to edit the “frequently — well not frequently” part out when it aired the interview on the Evening News. Here Politico does Bill the same favor.

Jaeh, noget eller snarere det modsatte. Hvem interesserer sig længere for op og ned når ingen stiller kritiske spørgsmål? Det skal de nu til at gøre. Det har været en bitter pille for medierne og meningsdannerne at sluge, at en skør påstand om, at Hillary Clinton, en ældre kvinde med to dybe venetromboser bag sig (åreforkalkning) og en svær hjernerystelse det tog hende det meste af et år at komme sig over, havde et skrantende helbred rent faktisk viste sig at være sand. Tænk bare være CNN?

TV-komikeren Jimmy Kimmel indrømmede fyndigt at “these conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health would be a lot harder to believe if they didn’t actually come true”. I sit show havde Kimmel ellers gjort sit til at opretholde ideen om, at Hillary er stærk som en okse

Klippet løb lidt rundt på venstreorienterede medier dengang, men det var tydeligt for mig at se, at låget åbenlyst var løsnet på forhånd. Det er et overtryk i glasset, der gør at låget er stramt og i samme øjeblik, man får rykket lidt i låget er det derefter løst. Bevægelsen er altså et pludseligt ryk, og ikke som Clintons, en længere, sej bevægelse. Ikke at jeg anså eller anser denne demonstration af Hillarys stærke hænder, som en del af en konspiration, blot et naturligt sammenfald af interesser i showbiz/politik. Clintons kampagne ville ikke risikere at låget var for stramt for en 69 årig kvinde at løsne og Kimmel ville selvfølgelig heller ikke at hans højt profilerede gæster taber ansigt i hans feel good show. Jo, han var sikkert glad for at kunne gøre sig nyttig for sin politiske favorit, men demonstrationen gjorde blot grin med seernes intelligens fordi det dels var givet på forhånd og dels så lidt pinligt ud i udførelsen.

Men endnu mere pinligt var HLN, en søsterkanal til CNN, der ikke magtede at se en mand med en Trump t-shirt, skriver Daily Wire

…CNN’s sister network HLN blurred out the Trump 2016 logo of a man’s t-shirt it interviewed for a human interest segment on Wednesday. The man was being interviewed for his rescuing of a baby left unattended in a hot car.

slc3b8ret-trum-t-shirt-pa-cnn-ii

Det er skørt at leve med venstrefløjen og deres medier, de ser ud til at have tabt skoen.

hillarys-sko

Hillary falder i en kurv af begrædelige

deplorables

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 sagdeI’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump“. Hillary kunne nu ikke længere beskylde Trump for at føre en negativ kampagne eller danse med konspirationsteorier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vloggen Sargon of Akkad har lavet denne glimrende gennemgang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

Analyse med røven bar

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

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

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

Fribryderen Trump: løgn er bedre end sandhed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary i kapløb med tiden

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

wp-om-hillarys-helbred

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

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

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

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

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

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

Er Hillary Clinton færdig?

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?

Afklædt

Diverse, Donald Trump, Politik, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

Det undrer mig at venstrefløjen og deres dominerende medier undervurderer Donald Trump så meget. Jeg mistænker dem for at være forblændede af deres egne frustrationer over ikke at kunne forklare, hvorfor alle deres virkeligheder bryder sammen. Jeg vil ikke kalde det et had, for det er nok mere frygt. Frygt selvfølgelig for hvad de tror der kommer til at ske af ulykker, hvis Trumpo kommer til magten. Men mest frygt for at skulle se sig selv i øjnene og konfrontere sig selv med at man har dyrket illusioner som moralske sandheder.

Omvendt med Trump, en selfmade højrepopulist, der dygtigt omend vulgært (folkeligt) samler frustrationer med det indgroede og korrumperede magtapparat til en bevægelse, der når Det Hvide Hus førend Hillary sendes i fængsel kan få dem i panikangst. De hader og frygter alt hvad han står for at de ikke kan levere et sagligt modspil. I stedet for at sammenligne Trump med den italienske populist og narcissistiske charlatan Berlusconi, så kalder man ham Hitler. Og derved forstummer ikke blot enhver debat, men også enhver mulighed for at tænke selv.

Folk, der tror sig selv progressive, allierer sig med magten og undertrykkelsen i alle dens billigste former. Der jubles når storkapitalistiske overvågningsystemer som Google og Facebook fordrejer deres algoritmer til ulempe for højrefløjen, journalister praler med at de ikke serverer de dele af virkeligheden, der taler til Trumps fordel (hvilket er meget) og selv Goldman Sachs, kan uden at hæve et øjenbryn påbyde deres medarbejdere . Svaret på deres illusioners sammenbrud er at fordreje deres egen opfattelse af virkeligheden. Chokket udsættes, men effekten akkumuleres.

Milo Yiannopoulos ved hvor kort venstrefløjen tænker og holder sig retorisk et skridt foran og er chokeren uapologetisk overfor 3 debattører på deres egen hjemmebane. Jeg ved ikke om Trump er klædt på, men venstrefløjen har ikke noget tøj på.

Lidt antisemitisme til weekenden fra duetten Eno og Lykketoft

Antisemitisme, Diverse, FN, Historie, Israel, Muslimer, Politik, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

Tidligere udenrigsminister Mogen Lykketoft og nuværende  blev bedt om at tale imod antisemitisme og bashede derfor Israel

When Israel, the U.S. and Canada hosted a forum on anti-Semitism at the U.N, the General Assembly president, former Danish foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, spoke of Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians.

Musikeren og produceren Brian Eno, der støtter Boykot, Divest, Sanction bevægelsen imod Israels eksistens, fik kvababbelse, da det kom ham for øre, at en israelsk dansetrup dansede til hans musik, skriver Jewish Standard

In a letter to the dance company and its choreographer, Ohad Naharin, Eno said he was not aware until last week that Batsheva used his work.

“(T)hough in one way I’m flattered that you chose my music for your work, I’m afraid it creates a serious conflict for me,” he wrote.

“To my understanding, the Israeli Embassy (and therefore the Israeli government) will be sponsoring the upcoming performances, and, given that I’ve been supporting the BDS campaign for several years now, this is an unacceptable prospect for me.”

Eno condemned “the demolition of Palestinian homes and confiscation of Palestinian land” and the lack of “any attempt to limit settler activity in any way.”

“I am trying to understand the difficulties that must face any Israeli artist now – and in particular ones like yourselves who have shown some sympathy to the Palestinian cause,” he wrote. But the bottom line, Eno said in the letter, is “I don’t want my music to be licensed for any event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.”

Og det mindede en god ven om en tid, førend verdens 1,5 mia. muslimer blev regnet som et sårbart mindretal, hvor Brian Eno ikke var optaget af kampagner mod verdens 5 mio. israelere. I 1981 indspillede Eno, sammen med musikeren David Byrne, pladen “My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, der samplede tv-prædikanter, arabiske sangere m.m. Et af numrene var Qu’ran, der satte dyster musik til koranrecitation. Fedt nummer. De fik så en henvendelse fra British Council of Muslims, der førte til at nummeret blev erstattet med et andet på cd-udgaven.

Og et par gyldne ord fra Brian Eno

““I think we’re about ready for a new feeling to enter music. I think that will come from the Arabic world.””

““I’d love it if American kids were listening to Muslim music.””

Venezuela revisited

Muren faldt i 89, Kina gik over til markedskræfter og tordnede derudaf. Kannibalisme i Nordkorea gjorde det lidt pinligt med den traditionelle Nordkoreabod på 1 maj og så videre derudaf, men der er stadig socialister og kommunister og marxister, endda i Folketinget. Så de kaster sig over alt muligt andet, som velfærd, der nu ikke længere er bestikkelse af proletariatet, multikultur, som de efterhånden selv er begyndt at smage lidt af, og klima, der som var de Jehovas Vidner, har skiltet med Jordens undergang dag ud og dag ind i mere end 20 år.

Så når der kommer et eksempel, der minder om de gode gamle dage, inden de blev afsløret, så kommer alle de klassiske drømme om et bedre samfund frem igen. Og hjernen falder ud. Jeg faldt over to artikler fra to venstreorienterede medier, det amerikanske Salon og det engelske Guardian. Begge er skrevet for 3 år siden, begge handler om Venezuela og begge er blevet ondt behandlet af tiden.

Tiden, ak ja. Venezuela er i dag i en desperat forfatning. The Atlantic fortalte for nogle måneder siden, hvorledes wc-papir var blevet en så stor en mangelvare at det kunne resultere i strejker, uroligheder brød ud når el-nettet svigtede og regeringens desperate forsøg på besparelser, ved at indføre to-dages arbejdsuger for offentligt ansatte

In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in line for hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.

“The real culprit is chavismo, the ruling philosophy named for Chavez and carried forward by Maduro, and its truly breathtaking propensity for mismanagement“. I New York times var der en mere detaljeret beskrivelse af forholdene på et hospital. Men det er nu, tilbage til dengang.

Guardians Mark Weisbrot forvanskede venstrefløjens kritikeres advarsler allerede i overskriften som lød “Sorry, Venezuela hater: this economy is not Greece” og fortsætte hoverende “How frustrating it has been for them to witness only two recessions”. At kritisere Hugo Chavez og hans indlysende skadelige dispositioner er at hade Venezuela. For venstrefløjen er dissens det samme som onde motiver.

Now Venezuela is facing economic problems that are warming the cockles of the haters’ hearts. We see the bad news every day: consumer prices up 49% over the last year; a black market where the dollar fetches seven times the official rate; shortages of consumer goods from milk to toilet paper; the economy slowing; central bank reserves falling. Will those who cried wolf for so long finally see their dreams come true?

Not likely. In the opposition’s analysis Venezuela is caught in an inflation-devaluation spiral, where rising prices domestically undermine confidence in the economy and currency, causing capital flight and driving up the black market price of the dollar. This adds to inflation, as does – in their theory – money creation by the government. And its price controls, nationalisations and other interventions have caused more structural problems. Hyperinflation, rising foreign debt and a balance-of-payments crisis will mark the end of this economic experiment.

But how can a government with more than $90bn in oil revenue end up with a balance-of-payments crisis? Well, the answer is: it can’t, and won’t.

Og så følger en argumentationrække, der viste sig skrupforkert.

In 2012 Venezuela had $93.6bn in oil revenues, and total imports in the economy were $59.3bn. The current account was in surplus to the tune of $11bn, or 2.9% of GDP. Interest payments on the public foreign debt, the most important measure of public indebtedness, were just $3.7bn. This government is not going to run out of dollars.

Så langt som Weisbrot har fat i de rigtige nøgletal, og “The numbers are available on the website of the World Bank, but almost no journalists have made the arduous journey through cyberspace to find and report them”, så meget har Chavez sat over styr på få år (Atlantics artikel ovenfor har sin analyse).

Salon Magazines David Sirota gik modigt skridtet videre på baggrund af Weisbrots artikel; “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle“.  Skønt Sirota kommer med indvendinger, som at Chavez økonomiske politik ikke var perfekt (men alligevel et mirakel?), at Chavez ikke var nogen helgen, selvom demokratiet havde det bedre med ham i spidsen, at der trods alt var problemer med menneskerettigheder og at Chavez styre “also coincided with a boom in violent crime” så skal man også ihukomme “America’s drone assaults, civil liberties abuses, and war on voting”.

“Chavez’s name became a decontextualized epithet”, “the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results.”

As evidenced by the treatment of everyone from Martin Luther King to Michael Moore to Oliver Stone to anyone else who dares question neoliberalism and economic imperialism, that punishment is all about marginalization [*]

Så meget en bøh-mand blev Chavez, at ingen løftede et øje da “the Bush administration tried to orchestrate a coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan leader.” Nu man taler om, hvorledes nogen bliver til et tilnavn, så skelnes der i Sirotas artikel, mellem hvad Bush administrationen gjorde af forbrydelser og hvad USA gør uden at Obama nævnes. Der er åbenbart er brug for en kontekstualisering for at forstå et uperfekt mirakel.

Men netop læren fra Chavez er væsentlig og skal ses fordomsfrit, “Chavez’s passing should prompt as much reflection on the individual iconoclast as on the overarching economic ideas he came to embody.”

For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

Vi gør os alle illusioner og begår fejl. Men ved at erindre og erkende, hvad man troede var rigtigt, vokser man og bliver bedre og mere varsom med hovedkulds forelskelse og pludselig angst, når man konfronteres af nye udfordringer. Men når man har gjort en moral ud af sin illusion, så er der ingen vej tilbage, så holder man ved og begynder at akkumulere alle sine fejltagelser til banken sprækker af kognitiv dissonans.

Og det er hvad der gør så ondt i venstrefløjens hoveder lige nu.Intet de foretager sig på den store bane virker og deres insisteren på urealistiske og luftige ideer bliver mere desperat og aggressiv. Så når et lille korrupt land i Sydamerika får sig en socialistisk populist vælter alle drømmene op i dem, fordi en lille succes i en fjern afkrog kan vende hele billedet af total ideologisk og moralsk fiasko.

“Maybe now Chavez’s easily ridiculed bombast can no longer be used to distract from Venezuela’s record – and, thus, a more constructive, honest and critical economic conversation can finally begin.” sluttede David Sirota sin artikel og Chavez økonomiske mirakel for 3 år siden. Jeg skal ikke kunne sige om Sirota har lært at se mere ærligt og kritisk på virkeligheden, men venstrefløjen fortsætter deres evige jag efter illusioner.

* King blev skudt af et medlem af Ku Klux Klan for sin kamp for borgerrettigheder, mens More og Stone blev megarige og superstjerner ved at sprede konspirationsteoretiske løgne.

Dagen musikken fortsatte

68, Danmarks Radio, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Kunst og kultur, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 29, 2016 at 9:12 am

Joel Selvin mener i en ny bog at kunne kaste et bedre lys over omstændighederne omkring mordet på Meredith Hunter ved en Rolling Stones koncert i 1969, skriver Daily Mail. Det er historien om depravation, både Rolling Stones, især Mick Jaggers, men mest interessant også hippiebevægelsen. Og den fik mig til at tænke på en anden artikel, der husker tilbage på, hvorledes flower power endte i narko og ynk.

I 1969 var Rolling Stones stort set fallit, trods deres kommercielle succes, grundet de aftaler de havde med deres agent, som tog hele fortjenesten, fortæller Daily Mail. En turne på den amerikanske vestkyst, hvor bandet ikke var så fremtrædende, skulle rette op på det forhold og den sidste koncert, skulle være en åben og fri med deltagelse af andre at tidens toner, misundeligt inspireret af den foregående Woodstockkoncert, og den skulle tillige filmes.

Men forberedelserne til så stor en koncert var sjuskede. Man ombestemte sig en uge, før at koncerten skulle afholdes på Altamont Speedway ved San Fransisco, fremfor det mere velegnede Sears Point Raceway fordi Jagger mente det var for dyrt. Og fordi Jagger ikke kunne lide politiet, skulle Hells Angels stå for sikkerheden. Et andet band, The Grateful Dead havde gode erfaringer med de Hells Angels rockere, som de kendte, men dem Jagger hyrede for en masse bajere var anderledes

As a small team rushed to set up an inadequate, 4ft-high stage and a lighting system the day before the show, a toxic party began. Fans arriving ahead of the show tore down the neighbouring fences for firewood and sat around playing music, taking LSD, smoking joints and having sex.

Unknown to the complacent Stones, these were no longer the happy, innocent days of the Summer of Love. Some chemists had added the poison strychnine to their LSD recipe because it was said to extend the length of the trip. Some threw speed into the mix. Bad trips spread throughout the crowd at Altamont from the start, and many fell prey to acid-spiked drinks. The crucial detail of medical care had been put off until the last minute, leaving the site with eight doctors, four psychiatric doctors from UCSF hospital, and a Red Cross team who, mercifully, had turned up uninvited.

The Hells Angels, who were paid for their vague role as a disastrous informal security force with $500 of beer, left a bloody trail all day, riding their motorbikes through the crowd to the stage and beating men and women with pool cues.

These were not just the relatively civilised San Francisco Angels known to the Grateful Dead. As Altamont was on no one’s patch, the Angels came from an unstable mixture of chapters. Some of the bikers were frankly psychotic; many had something to prove.

A fat, naked Latino man was pummelled for dancing erratically and could later be seen covered in blood, his teeth missing. A naked woman dispensing hugs received similar treatment. The injured were littered backstage like wounded soldiers.

Angels crowded the stage, savagely knocking out singer Marty Balin of support band Jefferson Airplane while they played. One sat beside Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s Stephen Stills as he performed and stabbed him in the leg with a sharpened bicycle spoke every time Stills stepped forward to sing. Streams of blood soaked his trousers.

Even for the Stones, the signs were there from the beginning that this was not the peaceful hippy gathering Jagger had naively hoped for. Moments after their arrival by helicopter, a young man stepped into Jagger’s path and punched him in the face, knocking him down. ‘F*** you, Mick Jagger,’ he screamed. ‘I hate you!’

(…)

As they took to the stage, the Stones belatedly realised the situation had gone far beyond their control. Angels glowered at them from all around, and wouldn’t stop beating people in full view of the band.

Hunter, a black man with a white girlfriend, had attracted the attention of Angels all day. As the Stones went into Under My Thumb, Hunter was smashed in the face by a biker. He tried to scramble away into the audience, but four or five more Angels pounced on him.

He managed to get up and started to run away. Stumbling and out of breath, Hunter pulled a gun from his waistband.

In chilling scenes, The Maysles’ film, Gimme Shelter, captured the moment when 22-year-old Hells Angel Alan Passaro leapt through the air and plunged a hunting knife into Hunter’s neck. They tumbled to the ground together. Passaro kept stabbing the boy in the back. Several other Angels stamped on him. One stood on his head.

‘The hippies had no defense against this kind of ferocious savagery,’” kan man læse i en anden Daily Mail artikel om samme bog, men med flere gode billeder. Rolling Stones spillede videre og hippierne lyttede og trippede og fik bank. Man skulle virkeligt ikke have været der.

Meredith Hunters liv kunne være reddet, hvis ikke Rolling Stones havde insisteret på at bruge deres helikopter til at flyve hjem til hotellet, Hvor Jagger forsøgte at arrangere en trekant (af seksuel karakter forstås), i stedet for at få Hunter på hospitalet. 3 andre mennesker døde den dag; en druknede da han forsøgte at forcere et hegn ved en akvædukt og to blev kørt ned af en koncertgænger på et trip i en stjålen bil.

Jeg huskede som sagt en artikel fra The Atlantic, som via Joe Samberg, mindedes disse “hordes of kids who had been lured to California by utopian ideals and then settled into a life of sex, drugs, and lethargy”, som “by any middle-class standards, these people were living totally miserable lives.” i netop San Fransisco

There were two types of drug users on Telegraph Avenue. One group unapologetically shot heroin. The other group took mind-altering drugs but believed that opiates were a sinister way for The Man to keep poor people from climbing out of the ghetto. At first, some of the kids put up signs declaring, “No heroin dealers here.” Over time, Joe says, those signs came down and more and more people started using hard drugs. “All that stuff about consciousness was just sort of dropped.”

“You see these kids drinking Southern Comfort? Those two bottles appeared and disappeared in what couldn’t have been more than two minutes. These kids were 13, maybe 14. But they just consumed anything that would come their way.” (Joe Samberg)
Looking at Joe’s pictures, it’s clear how young some of those addicts were. One group of junior-high-aged girls, known as the Mini Mob, often showed up in Mickey Mouse t-shirts. “There were people there who had those young kids very much in their thrall,” says Joe. “They told them, ‘Listen, you don’t need to go to school. Everything you need to learn in life is right here on the street.’”

A lot had changed in Berkeley since 1964, when thousands of students—many of them wearing suits and ties—gathered at Sproul Plaza to champion civil rights and demand free speech. Campuses had been the sources of the counterculture’s boldest ideas, the places where young activists mobilized to fight segregation and the Vietnam War, taking classes in political theory and Eastern philosophy.

Now, college dropouts were congregating with misfits and runaways on the other side of Sather Gate. The outrage was still there, but the issues were murkier. While Joe was hanging out on Telegraph Avenue, his brother Paul published an anthology of underground newspaper diatribes called Fire! Among other things, the book ridiculed the whole idea of higher education:

College is a fantasy in the suburban mind of Mr. and Mrs. Work-Hard-Our-Life-Is-No-Fun-But-the-Kid-Will-Get-What-We-Can’t-Afford. The campus is a cultured nest egg where I-Don’t-Understand-He’s-Always-Been-a-Good-Boy and Oh-No-She’s-Not-That-Kind-of-Girl stroll hand in hand up the ladder to success, their tender heads floating in the lessons of the gentle professor. Only the kids never saw the professor. He was in his lab developing the new improved tear gas the kids are coughing under while the university president sits above it all.

Even at the time, though, Joe says he was “too sarcastic” to fully buy into the radical agenda. “The average person on the avenue was almost completely ignorant politically,” Joe says. “All they really cared about was drugs, drugs, drugs. They were nihilists and hedonists. They just supported anything that was against the establishment. There was no intellectual foundation. The spirit everyone had talked about—the feeling of love and new age and progressive politics—was dying a miserable death.”

f70318d511

Over time, Joe says he watched “mind-expanding” drugs give way to more and more heroin. “I never had the wherewithal to be a full-fledged drug addict,” says Joe. “I never had enough money. And I was never willing to sell my camera.” (Joe Samberg)

“That was my problem with the whole thing,” says Joe. “There’s no growth for people if they’re continuously on drugs. It started out with all this higher thinking—expanding your mind to become more conscious of what’s really going on in the universe. But once the drugs took over, all of those big ideas disappeared.”

The author of the Atlantic article, Mark Harris, reached a similar conclusion. He was a generation older than the Baby Boomers, but as a white New Yorker who wrote for Ebony and The Negro Digest, he was highly sympathetic to the youth activism of the 1960s. He just didn’t think the hippies, in particular, were bringing about any meaningful change. Drugs had stunted their emotional development, leaving them at the mercy of “their illusions, their unreason, their devil theories, their inexperience of life, and their failures of perception.” Instead of promoting brotherhood and equality, they’d taken over public spaces, picked all the flowers in Golden Gate Park, and refused to turn their music down to let their hardworking neighbors sleep. And as they begged for money and frequented free clinics, these children of the suburbs siphoned resources away from the urban locals who needed them most.

En tredie observation er at de mest ressourcestærke ideologer udlevede sig selv i en periode af deres liv og fortsatte derefter som iværksættere eller forfulgte seriøse karrierer. I deres kølvand efterlod de sig alle de dumme og svage, som de havde besnakket med deres løfter om frihed, virkelighedsflugt og ansvarsforskydning og som aldrig kom ud af deres misbrug.

Og der er jo ikke meget ved at have en dansk blog uden et dansk perspektiv, så her er Danmarks Radios dokumentar Christianias Børn: Skyggesiden af eventyret

Et slag i genderificeringen

Diverse, Historie, Kristendom, Ligestilling, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 28, 2016 at 9:10 am

En stor metaundersøgelse af menneskers seksuelle observans og opfattelse af køn gør op med nogle bærende dogmer båret frem af diverse bøssebevægelser.

In his article “Almost Everything the Media Tells You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong“, Dr. Ryan T. Anderson outlines some major conclusions about this report:

*The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

*Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

*Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery. The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’ As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

(…)

*In both males and females, significantly higher rates of homosexuality were found in participants who experienced childhood sexual abuse and in those with a risky childhood family environment.” (41% of non-heterosexual males and 42% of non-heterosexual females reported childhood family dysfunction)

(….)

*The report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

David French tager sig en slapper fra sin anti-Trump kampagne og skriver på National Review

The LGBT Left’s narrative is the new nonsense. But in response to the new nonsense, there are sectors of American and European politics and culture that can’t kick away the old norms of marriage and gender fast enough, and they keep doing so in spite of the mountain of evidence that those who forsake the allegedly oppressive “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,” to quote Black Lives Matter, face far greater challenges than those hidebound bigots who stick faithfully to the heteronormative nightmare of traditional male-female marriage.

What’s even worse — what’s downright insane — is that some on Left want to end the debate. They want to keep selling their moral vision to the public without any competition. Here’s their vision, in a nutshell: Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and the resulting physical or emotional harm is either reasonably tolerable or can be alleviated through a combination of government programs and public re-education.

The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”

Vi har før henvist til den norske dokumentarserie Hjernevask, som faktisk er et gensyn værd.

Mesterslumren

Diverse, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Politik, Pressen, USA, Videnskab, Ytringsfrihed, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 28, 2016 at 4:14 am

Hillary Clintons helbred skranter, så meget tør jeg godt sige, men jeg ved ikke om alle mærkelige billeder, nødvendigvis er beviser, som når hun for eksempel snubler på vej ind i et fly En side, der hedder Metabunk.org afkræfter med stor grundighed en internet myte om, at Hillary har en speciel læge stående klar med en kanyle, hvis hun pludselig skulle få et anfald (Kanylen er åbenbart en lommelygte og lægen en del af Secret Service).

Måske er Ezra Levant lige frisk nok med at kolportere alle historier om Hillarys besynderlige opførsel. Men han gennemgår også Hillary Clintons private emails og interviews om temaet at sove og det lægger anderledes ved til rygterne om hendes sundhedstilstand. Og Hillary og hendes nærmeste medarbejdere er meget optaget af Hillarys søvn. Får hun sin middagslur, er hun forvirret når hun vågner, kan hun sove hele vejen i en rigtig seng når hun flyver i militærets maskiner, hvilke videnskabelige artikler om søvn- og udmattelsesproblemer, synes præsidentkandidaten passer bedst på hende kandidaten. Hillary er tilsyneladende, hvad en avisartikel døbte “a master napper”.

Og det er helt rigtigt, som Lavant også påpeger, at det er mystisk at det optager pressen så lidt, at en journalist på New York Times endda mente at Google skulle skjule historierne på søgemaskinen. Andre tidligere præsidentkandidaters alder og helbred er tidligere kommet i søgelyset, som John McCain, der havde siddet i krigsfangelej under Vietnamkrigen, Bob Dole, der havde siddet i krigsfangelejr under Borgerkrigen og Ronald Reagan, der morsomt afmonterede hele emnet med en enkelt bemærkning om at man ikke skulle hænge hans modstander ud for sin manglende erfaring.

Fordi det er weekend, skal det ikke være alt for trættende

Hillary ved vejs ende?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

Eliten mod Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

How, indeed.

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress