Fra Berlin til Bogota samledes feminister for at demonstrere mod at amerikanerne har valgt at indsætte en heteroseksuel mand som deres præsident. Bogota er lidt en sjælden by i, hvad der næsten er en liste over byer i USA, Australien og Europa. New York Times har dog samlet en flot billedserie, der viser en imponerende opbakning. Men synet bedrager, venstrefløjen tabte valget, de er ikke i flertal. Men de er gode til at gå på gaden.

Formanden for Concerned Women for America, en pro-life (anti-abort) organisation, Penny Nance havde på CNN bidt mærke i, at Women’s March on Washington ikke inkluderede kvindelige pro-life aktivister

“March for life, been going on for 43 years, will have about, 400,000, 500,000, next weekend,” she said. “[I] will need all of you back here to have the same conversation next weekend, because that [March for Life] is ignored on a regular basis. This is not new.”

“It’s not about women, it’s about liberalism” svarede CNNs analytiker Bakari Sellers. Og det er rigtigt, det handler om venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Og i den selvforståelse giver det god mening at skrue op for den identitetspolitik, der kostede Hillary Clinton valget. Her et billede fra Pajamas Media

En god ven sagde at der er noget “beroligende at se manglen på noget som helst relevant eller konkret kritiserbart hos Trump i de mange demonstrationers skiltning og grafik“, det er helt indforstået. Tag feministen Ashley Judds (ja, det er der åbenbart en feminist der hedder) opsang til folket

Negre er stadig slaver og stadig i lænker, men nu som indsatte i fængslerne, siger Judd og kvinder hujer i begejstring så højt at ingen kan høre om nogen indvender; Jamen, det giver jo ingen mening. Negerslaver arbejdede for at den hvide mand kunne blive rig, negrene i fængslerne er derimod en enorm udgift for den hvide mand.

Så Judd er fri til at føle Hitler i gaderne og inden nogen siger, ja de forbandede venstreradikale med deres politiske vold, understreger Judd at hun tænker på Trump; overskæg skiftet ud med en toupe. Trumps hår er nu hans eget, han klipper det endda selv. Hun er indigneret over at Scarlett Johanson ikke tjener endnu flere millioner på sine film, hendes løs er skåret af testosteronslebne knive, som også lønnen for latino- og negerkvinder er markant lavere end… hvide kvinder? Ikke helt, den hvide MANDS privilegerede datter.

Den muslimske kvinde i baggrunden er sharia og Hamas tilhænger og mange af arrangørerne bag Women’s March on Washington er sponseret af George Soros. Men her er arrangørernes egne ord, hvorfor de marcherer

En pige vil være tryg i skolen, en negermand er feminist, hvilket ikke er et skældsord ifølge en aldrene negerkvinde, mens to andre supplerer at deres liv har betydning førend en asiatisk kvinde peger på sin gravide mave og siger “And so does hers!”. Stop!

Var det ikke meningen at pro-life aktivister ikke måtte være med?

Men sådan fortsætter det. En udefinerbar person vil ikke defineres af et badeværelse. Diversitet er smuk, en kvinde er ud af en immigrantfamilie (altså ikke en indianer) og med gråd i stemmen kan ikke forstille sig, hvor hun ville være, hvis ikke hun havde fået den chance - at dømme efter hendes asiatiske træk sikkert ikke et sted, hvor man fik chancen for et frit valg med den risiko at ens favoritkandidat kan tabe. En kvinde i hijab mener USA handler om frihed, en lille hvid pige vil smadre glasloftet, en anden gør det for sine mødre - sejt, hun ikke er en hvid MANDS privilegerede datter! En kvinde vil marchere fremad og ikke tilbage og en vil have sin stemme hørt på den mest irriterende måde og en gammel negermand vil marchere fordi han ikke kan trække vejret.

Det kan jeg snart heller ikke. Mens kampen mod ethvert udtryk for maskulinitet antager mere hysteriske toner, står feminister i Tyskland og skriger Allahu Akbar, ikke for andet end at være i trods til deres beskyttere.  Der er intet andet end en forsværgelse af den hvide kristne mand og alle hans gerninger og alt hans væsen. Og der bliver hvidt sort og op bliver ned.

Trump fortalte hele Verden i sin indtrædelsestale at hans regering vil sætte USAs interesser først. Tænk at det skal siges? Det burde være banalt for en folkevalgt at sætte sit folk først. Tænk at det kan vække anstød! “Politikken er vendt tilbage hinsides djøficeringen, akademiseringen og den tredje vejs afpolitiserende teknokrati” skriver Kasper Støvring om Trumps indsættelse som USA 45. præsident. Og det er svært at kapere for den politiske elite og dens medier og alle der identificerer sig med den.

Informations debatredaktør Susan Knorrenborg er inde på noget af det samme når hun kalder Donald Trump ’skamløs’ og kalder det hans “måske største aktiv”. Knorrenborg indrømmer at skamløshed kan være frigørende, men hun advarer mod “Trumps perverse frigørelse”

. Den skamløse vinder fritager sine tilhængere fra skam, fordi han skaber plads til alle de følelser, der før har været dømt ude. Til alt det, man tidligere har skammet sig over: arbejdsløsheden, de racistiske følelser, der bobler under huden, hadet til dem, der ved bedre og ikke holder sig tilbage for at belære en om, hvordan verden hænger sammen.

Trump inviterer alle, der har lyst, med ind i et gigantisk omklædningsrum, hvor man kan få lov at føle sig som en vinder, fordi man er på hold med ham, der vandt. Samtidig kan man få lov at stå ved alle sine ubehagelige tilbøjeligheder uden at skulle skamme sig det mindste.

USA’s nye præsident er manden, der ikke rødmer over at slå en skid, og derfor udløser pruttekonkurrence i stedet for forlegne blikke. De indviede holder sig ikke for næsen, for der er noget befriende i at få lov at prutte, som man vil, og lugte, som man gør inderst inde.

Knorrenborg selv skammer sig ikke over at sprede fake news og  indleder sin artikel

Han tilsviner USA’s ellers hellige krigsveteraner; han kalder mexicanere for voldtægtsforbrydere; han praler med at stikke sine lidt for korte fingre ind mellem fremmede damers ben; han truer med at forbyde muslimer indrejse til USA, og han slipper afsted med at påstå, at »begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af og for kineserne for at gøre USA’s produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige«.

Det meste af verden ryster på hovedet, flertallet af amerikanerne stemte på Clinton, og når Trump i dag indtager Det Hvide Hus, sker det med en mindre opbakning end nogen anden moderne præsident

Trump tilsvinede ikke (og pludseligt for venstrefløjen) ellers hellige krigsveteraner. Trump skosede derimod en afdød krigshelts forældre for at bruge deres døde søn til et plat politisk angreb på Trump.

Han kaldte ikke mexicanere over en karm for voldtægtsforbrydere.

Han vedstod sig dog at være ganske heterosexuel i en privat samtale for 10 år siden og han ville også forbyde tilstedeværelse af USAs fjender i USA - nøjagtig, som Roosevelt og Carter havde gjort det før ham.

Og ja, Trump tager selvfølgelig fejl når han påstår at “begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af og for kineserne for at gøre USA’s produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige“. Sandheden er, at begrebet global opvarmning er skabt af den vestlige venstrefløj for at gøre Vestens produktionsvirksomheder ikkekonkurrencedygtige. Ingen grund til at hakke unødigt på kineserne, de har rigeligt at slås med i deres skæve øjne.

Og Donald Trump hånede ikke “journalisten Serge Kovaleski med hans handicap”, som den ledsagende billedtekst påstår. Gavin MacInnes kan forklare mere her, hvor han skoser Merryl Streep, for den samme fejltagelse.

Det er også fake news at vedblive at kolportere myten om ‘the popular vote’, at Hillary Clinton er den moralske sejrfrue og Trumps sejr derfor illegitim. Det svarer til at man hævder en moralsk sejr i en basketkamp under henvisning til pointreglerne for scorede mål i fodbold. I USA har valg siden for rigtig lang tid siden handlet om at skaffe sig et flertal af valgmænd, som Tom Basile skrev i Forbes tilbage i december

If you ran a popular vote strategy, you’d run a completely different campaign in terms of allocation of time and resources. The game is not winning the popular vote, like it or not.

Further, there is no evidence that had the campaigns executed a popular vote strategy that Clinton would have won. Actually to the contrary, given the marked enthusiasm deficit on the Democrat side, Trump would likely have mobilized more voters from his states than Clinton would have in hers. Also, keep in mind that Clinton did have a robust turnout operation in key urban and suburban districts where she needed to perform well with her base. She still under-performed in those places that also would have been critical to a popular vote victory.

The press has weaved the issue into the coverage repeatedly using the phony recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as an excuse to mention the popular vote margin. Naturally, they’ve spent little time acknowledging that Hillary Clinton lost or under-performed President Obama in almost every single demographic group that mattered - including women.

Trump beviste, så langt det kunne lade sig gøre, at han ville være i stand til at vinde flertallet af stemmerne i hele USA, ved at smadre “the blue wall”, de stater, der regnes for så Demokratiske, at der end ikke syntes at være grund til at føre valgkamp i dem. Støvring citerer fra Brendan O’Neils glimrende og nu virale skriv i Spectator, hvorfor amerikanerne stemte Trump

Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. Because you talked more about gender-neutral toilets than about home repossessions. Because you beatified Caitlyn Jenner. Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs.

Because you cried when someone mocked the Koran but laughed when they mocked the Bible. Because you said criticising Islam is Islamophobia. Because you kept telling people, ‘You can’t think that, you can’t say that, you can’t do that

Nu jeg er ved det skamløse, den yderste venstrefløj smadrer gaderne, mens den beskylder Trump for at smadre alt andet. Her er billedet af venstrefløjens forståelse af “We, the people”, deres popular vote

På Danmarks Radio kan man læse at Trump måske endelig accepterer at russerne har hacket (DR skriver også at der sidste år blev “registreret over 100.000 hackerangreb mod Sverige fra fremmede magter“) det amerikanske valg, men at han stadig “kritiseres af både demokrater og republikanere for ikke klart at støtte efterretningstjenesternes konklusioner“. Men der er ikke gode grunde til klart at stole på de amerikanske efterretningstjenester, som Andrew McCarthy skriver på National Review,

Here, we are talking about a community whose own analysts have complained that their superiors distort their reports for political purposes. In just the past few years, they have told us that they had “high confidence” that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003; that the NSA was not collecting metadata on millions of Americans; and that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, “largely secular” organization. We have learned that the Obama administration intentionally perpetrated a disinformation campaign — complete with a compliant media “echo chamber” — to sell the public on the Iran nuclear deal (and the fiction that Iran’s regime was moderating). We have seen U.S. intelligence and law enforcement complicit in the Obama administration’s schemes to convince the public that “violent extremism,” not radical Islam, is the explanation for terrorist attacks; that a jihadist mass-murder attack targeting soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan was “workplace violence”; that al-Qaeda had been “decimated”; that the threat of the ISIS “jayvee” team was exaggerated; and that the Benghazi massacre was not really a terrorist attack but a “protest” gone awry over an anti-Muslim video.

Overfor dette står Julian Assanges ord om at Wikileaks ikke fik nogle emails fra russerne, men fra utilfredse medarbejde blandt Demokraterne. Hvis Assange taler sandt har russerne ingen indflydelse haft på det amerikanske valg af præsident, da alle historier i medierne ikke tog udgangspunkt i hvad russerne angiveligt havde fundet ud af, men hvad Wikileaks afslørede. Og Det var altså ikke løgne eller fake news, men afsløringer.

Og, som McCarthy videre skriver, så nævnes formanden for Demokraterne, John Podesta ikke med et ord i hverken rapporten fra CIA, FBI eller NSA. Det var ellers hans emails der blev ‘phished’, dvs at han blev lokket til selv at afsløre at hans password var “password” til uvedkommende. Og det var i Podestas emails, at man kunne læse, hvorledes Demokraternes ledelse snød Bernie Sanders til fordel for Hillary Clinton i primærvalget og hvorledes Clintons stab arbejdede tæt sammen med store dele af medierne.

Som Charles Krauthammer mindede om i National Review, så er russernes påståede indblanding sket på Obamas vagt, mens han belærte alle om, hvor sikkert det amerikanske system var og at 80erne gerne ville beholde deres udenrigspolitik. Så hvorledes kunne det ske? Ronald Deibart, der mener at Obamas forsøg på at skabe en diplomatisk krise mellem USA og Rusland “may be an admirable motive“, forklarer på Just Security, hvad der er galt med FBIs analyse

The DHS/FBI Joint Analysis Report on Russian information operations, which the administration refers to as “Grizzly Steppe,” is a disappointing and counterproductive document. The problems with the report are numerous and have been well documented by professionals in the computer security area. But the culture of secrecy and the lack of independent sources of verification that gave rise to it are far more pervasive.

Among the problems in the report: Instead of clearly mapping out the evidence linking the cyber espionage operations to Russia, the report provides generic charts on tradecraft and phishing techniques that apply to just about every cyber espionage campaign I and others have ever studied.

At the centre of the report (page 4) is a table that unhelpfully lumps together, without explanation, several different names attributed to Russian-associated cyber espionage campaigns alongside names of malicious software and exploits that have little or no direct link to Russia.

An appendix includes a spreadsheet meant to provide “Indicators of Compromise,” long lists of technical details supposedly associated with the espionage campaign. These include IP addresses, malware signatures, and command and control infrastructure, which network defenders are supposed to use to ward off Russian-backed espionage, and which would ostensibly be used to “fingerprint” Russia as the culprit. Unfortunately, many of these are out of date or irrelevant, or are used by multiple cyber espionage campaigns and not ones exclusively associated with Russia. To give just one example, journalist Micah Lee analyzed the IP addresses contained in the appendix, and found over 40 percent of them are exit nodes of the anonymizer Tor (meaning anyone in the world using Tor could be associated with these IP addresses). It is a disservice to both the general public and expert researchers to not clarify the degrees of confidence associated with each indicator. Without proper categorization or context, the indicators satisfy neither aim of helping network defenders or proving attribution.

Herunder forklarer John McAfee (!) til russisk TV (!) at “hacket” ligner amatørarbejde

Man husker nok valgkampen, hvor det vakte stor forargelse at Trump ikke ville forhåndsgodkende valgresultatet, skulle det gå imod ham. Antidemokratisk, blev det kaldt og en trussel imod demokratiet. Nu fyger der beskyldninger om at Trumps valg ikke blot ikke er legitimt, men at han er en russisk marionet, indsat ved noget der ligner et statskup. Helvede kender ingen vrede som en vraget venstrefløj.

“Occasional perceived craziness is a plus in both poker and high-stakes geostrategic diplomacy” siger Victor Davis Hanson i en afklædning af Obama-doktrinen på National Review.

Det meste af pressen er bekymrede over Donald Trumps manglende politiske erfaring og hans påståede ukendskab til Verden udenfor amerikanske realityshows tegner en udenrigspolitik der vil krabbe ubehjælpsomt mod krig og kaos. I den virkelige store Verden er der ikke plads til store armbevægelser og spontane Twitterkommentarer. Hans forgænger, Verdensmanden med de mange oprindelser, som han ikke helt ville vide af alligevel, forstod den fine balance på den internationale scene. Trump er elefanten i glasbutikken og allerede i overgangen mellem de to regeringer skaber Trumps ‘kontraordrer’ da også problemer, skiver bl.a Wall Street Journal.

De tog også anstød af at Trump passer sin twitter-konto og sin takke-turne og kun sparsomt deltager i de sikkerhedspolitiske møder. “I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years” forklarede han Fox News sin ‘efter-behov’ tilgang.

Trump er ikke en mad-man, men han har en rem af huden - og der lyttes til Trump.  Af alt, hvad der kommer ud af munden på ham så ved man det er alvor når han trækker en rød streg. Alan Dershowitz skriver i Algemeiner at Trump havde ret i at blande sig i Obamas svigt af Israel, da FNs sikkerhedsråd besluttede at gøre bl.a Østjerusalem til palæstinensisk territorium

The effect, therefore of the Obama decision to push for, and abstain from, a vote on this resolution is to deliberately tie the hands of the president’s successors, in particular President-elect Trump. That is why Trump did the right thing in reaction to Obama’s provocation. Had the lame-duck president not tried to tie the incoming president’s hands, Trump would not have intervened at this time. But if Trump had not urged the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution, he would have made it far more difficult for himself to try to bring about a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border to be sacrosanct, and any building behind those boarders to be illegal, would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.

Det har han gjort siden valget til kommende præsident og med god effekt. Eric Fernstrohm, der har været rådgiver for Mitt Romney, skriver om Trumps ‘can-do’ tilgang i Boston Globe

Trump has turned out to be the most energetic president-elect America has seen in a long time, intervening to save jobs and contain federal spending. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump is using the megaphone of his bully pulpit to get results.

He rescued 1,000 jobs by dangling tax incentives and the threat of retaliatory tariffs to convince air conditioning company Carrier not to move production from Indiana to Mexico. Democrats quibble over the number of jobs saved, but there’s no escaping the symbolism: Trump is on the side of workers, not big corporations.

Now there’s talk of a Trump effect, as more companies fearful of Trump’s “big stick” think twice about outsourcing American jobs.

Bill Ford, the chairman at Ford Motor Co., called Trump after the election to say the automaker changed its mind about moving some vehicle production offshore. Trump also said he lobbied Apple CEO Tim Cook about bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

“One of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you’re making your product right here,” Trump said he told Cook, according to a post-election interview with The New York Times.

Trump’s preinaugural swagger goes beyond the jobs front.

After Trump complained about the price tag for building the next Air Force One, the CEO of Boeing promised to limit costs. Trump put health care companies on notice that he wants drug prices, a major factor in exploding Medicare costs, to come down. His targeting of “out of control” overruns in the construction of F-35 fighter jets suggests defense contractors will feel the lash.

Trump may not get everything he wants, but if the transition is any indication, he seems to understand what his opponents do not. His success will hinge on jobs and bringing change to Washington, not how often he meets with intelligence briefers.

Og han ser ud til at få europæerne til at tage mere ansvar for eget forsvar. Den store kæp er mere end blot en sjofel reference til et af primærvalgenes lavpandede disputter, det er sikkerhedspolitik på det mest basale plan.

Derfor var hans nonchalante omtale af atomvåben under valgkampen også god sikkerhedspolitik og som skabt til en tid, hvor Verden ikke længere hviler nogenlunde trygt i at USA er den store hegemon. Ja, han var villig til at bruge atomvåben, hvis det lignede en god løsning - hvad ellers havde man dem for? Chokeret prøvede journalisten at finde en undtagelse i Trumps vanvid og spurgte om han også ville bruge atomvåben mod problemer i Europa

“Europe is a big place!” konstaterede Trump uden omsorg for pæne menneskers blodtryk og ængstelser - han talte heller ikke til dem.
Oliver og Obama, med sin fejlslagne (jeg lader tvivlen komme ham til gode) politik, kan gøre sig lystige alt det de vil. De er ikke relevante, de tabte valget og Trump bruger ikke deres medier til at tale med sine tilhængere. Trump talte til alle despoter og røvhuller ude den store verden, der har lært at grine ad Obamas svaghed og USA fald fra tronen. trump fortalte at når han kommer til, så har han allerede mandat i det amerikanske folk til at slå på gummen hvor han finder det for godt.
Det vidner om stor politisk indsigt at føre stormagtspolitik allerede inden man er valgt. Hillary gjorde det modsatte. Hun pustede sig op overfor vælgerne, mens hun legede med tanken om at gå i krig med Rusland.

Hvis man havde venstreintellektuelle tilbøjeligheder kunne man kalde det et eksempel på postfaktualitet, når Danmarks Radio i en overskrift skriver “Julepyntsdemonstrationer støder sammen i København“. Virkeligheden var at en lovlig og fredelig demonstration blev overfaldet af venstrefløjens… af venstrefløjen. Postfaktualitet er forbeholdt nyheder og fakta som den venstreorienterede offentlighed frygter at forholde sig til, og til sikring af at samme offentlighed kan købe sig lidt respit på meningsmonopolet, er fortrængningerne slemmet op med allehånde konspirationsteorier og falske historier fra venstre til højre. Man kaster løgn efter sandhed for at gøre alt til løgn. Søren Hviid Pedersen skriver i Berlingske Tidende

Måske vi i stedet skulle undersøge lidt mere kritisk, hvad denne kritik af det postfaktuelle rent faktisk går ud på? Det underlige ved politik er jo ikke, at politik skal være sandt, det har vi videnskaben til at afgøre. Politik er snarere om, hvordan vi enten bevarer eller ændrer ting i vores samfund. Det helt afgørende politiske spørgsmål er således: Hvad er det gode samfund og det gode liv? Set i lyset af det spørgsmål er vi alle lige kvalificerede til at deltage i diskussionen og besvarelsen af det spørgsmål. Det er derfor, vi hylder demokratiet som den ramme, hvorfra vi diskuterer politik.

Med dette in mente bliver jeg ærlig talt bekymret over al den snak om det postfaktuelle og det af to årsager. For det første fordi politik ikke er en sandhedssøgen, for hvis den politiske sandhed fandtes, behøvede vi ikke demokrati. Alt kunne overlades til eksperter, filosoffer, DJØFere og andet godtfolk! Så behøvede man ikke spørge borgerne, ja, måske skulle man slet ikke spørge befolkningen, netop fordi de ikke er eksperter. Men sandheden er demokratiets værste fjende, for jo mere nogen taler om politisk sandhed, jo mere skal man være mistænksom og kritisk. For det andet har kritikken af det postfaktuelle den slagside, at den næsten altid retter sig mod personer, partier og bevægelser, der forsøger at udfordre de etablerede systemers magt. Ideen om det postfaktuelle er således blevet et våben i hænderne på de eliter, der føler deres magt truet af de her postfaktuelle opkomlinge, der vover at udfordre deres magtpositioner.

Det er nu ikke nok for venstrefløjen, der ikke kan forstå at man kan opfattes som en bølle når man opfører sig som en bølle. Politiken interviewede skuespiller Nynne Pedersen og dramatiker Rosalinde Mynster, der dyrker devisen “Vi skal holde op med at behandle ytringsfrihed som en grundpille i demokratiet, for det lader til at myndiggøre alle stemmer” og mener det “er problematisk, at det er antiracisterne, der virker som bøllerne” og “Desuden behandler politiet antiracisterne som voldelige, og det indgyder til vold, når personer bliver behandlet sådan.” Ja, det er svært når selv pressens sædvanlige moralske ækvivalens ikke er tilstrækkelig til propagandasejre.

Men selv om interviewet i Politiken er oplysende er prssens daglige beskrivelse af virkeligheden et udslag af deres egne venstreorienterede ideosynkrasier. Pernille Vermund har helt ret i at “manipulerende statsfinansierede medier giver voldelige venstreekstremister frit spil“. Det er en politisk sympatitilkendegivelse at man forstår den vesntreradikales voldelige angreb på politisk dissens og man enten ikke kan eller vil se demokratiet, som den kultur, hvor vi kan være uenige i mindelighed. Det gælder også når BT i en overskrift skriver “USA’s nye vicepræsident frygtes: ‘Han er langt farligere end Donald Trump’” tager de for givet at Trump er en meget farlig mand fordi, det gør medierne bare.

Venstrefløjens medier har siddet så længe på den offentlige mening at de ikke længere kan acceptere debat og ser dissens som kontroversielt og det kontroversielle er altid et skridt fra racisme, nazisme eller en eller anden metastaserende fobi. Som de presses af faldende tillid og spirende alternativer, gør de hvad de gør om ikke bedst så hvad de magter, og skruer op for defameringen af, ja alle efterhånden. Frank Gaffney skriver i Breitbart

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

(…)

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

Af en eller anden grund, skal disse udskammelser af meninger ‘vi foragter’ gentages i danske medier. Danmarks Radio spørger i en “slår Trump stadig konen” overskrift “Trump afviser at omstridt rådgiver er racist” og beretter

Demokrater, borgerrettighedsorganisationer som Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer og selv en række republikanere kritiserer Trump for at have valgt den stærkt højreorienterede Stephen Bannon som sin chefstrateg.

Kritikerne siger, at Trump dermed lukker en racist, antisemit og fortaler for hvidt overherredømme ind i Det Hvide Hus.

Bannon blev hentet ind i Trump-valgkampen sidst på sommeren fra det højreradikale Breitbart News. Det er et medie, der har fremmet alt-right-bevægelsen.

Breitbart News beskrives af amerikanske medier som eksempelvis radiostationen NPR for at være en løs gruppering af racister, nynazister, antisemitter og folk, der arbejder for hvidt overherredømme i USA.

Det er altså den yderste venstrefløj, der i sin nederlagsforbitrelse fremturer med beskyldningerne. Så lad os lige kontekstualisere lidt - det bliver vigtigt længere nede. Middle East Forum sammensatte en top 10 over “campaign contributions from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS” for 1015-16 sæsonen. Og ikke overraskende var der “nine Democrats, one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285), and no Republicans”

Hillary Clinton tops the list, raking in $41,165 from prominent Islamists. This includes $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirateson November 15, 2014.

For example, Mrs. Clinton has accepted $3,900 from former CAIR vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras, who has defended numerous Islamists in Ohio indicted – and later convicted – on terrorism charges.

Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250. Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

Og Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer (CAIR) er selvfølgelig ikke en borgeretsorganisation, men en islamisk pressionsgruppe med bånd til HAMAS, der, som alle muslimske organisationer, kun har til formål at drage omsorg for islamiske interesser, omsorg som at sikre at ordet ‘jihad’ ikke indgår i en negativ sammenhæng. Grundlæggeren af CAIR, Omar Ahmad, har sagt følgende om de amerikansk-muslimske relationer

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.“

Derfor var det også naturligt at CAIR drog omsorg for San Bernadino terroristens familie PLO-style, som det er naturligt for deres formand at ville styrte den amerikanske regering, som det var naturligt at de propaganderede for Ahmed the Clock Boy, som man betvivlede faldne amerikanske soldater deres ære…

Hvad angår radiostationen NPR, så skylder Danmarks Radio måske at fortælle at det er en offentligt finansieret radiokanal, blot så man ved, hvor man har den i det politiske landskab. Og fordi offentligt finansierede medier ikke behøver at repræsentere andre interesser end de politikere, der skaffer finansieringen, så bliver det nødvendigt med en Ombudsmand der officielt skal sikre institutionen mod at blive overrendt af lange marcher, men som i realiteten selv er marcheret ind i institutionens hjerte til sikring af den officielle fortælling. Og denne ombudsmand Elizabeth Jensen, var så bestyrtet over at Breitbarts Joel B Pollack i et live interview fik chancen for at forsvare Trump og Bannon fermt mod nazi-, og sårn’ beskyldninger, at hun foreslog aldrig at lave live interviews med folk med kontroversielle holdninger. Og hvad der er kontroversielt ved vi fra Danmarks Radios liste af anklagere mod Bannon/Trump er dissens fra venstrefløjens fortælling. Breitbart skriver

Pollak, who serves as Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large and In-house Counsel, defended its Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon from false and defamatory claims of antisemitism and “white nationalism.” He also turned the tables, pointing out that NPR has “racist programming,” including a story that called the 2016 election results “nostalgia for a whiter America.”

NPR listeners were apparently outraged that anyone from Breitbart News had been given an opportunity to defend the website and its chairman.

In her response, “Listeners: Two Recent Interviews Are ‘Normalizing Hate Speech’,” Jensen concluded that the live format had allowed Pollak to get the better of host Steve Inskeep.

She suggested that future interviews be taped: “In addition, in my opinion, these interviews should not be done live. Inskeep is an excellent live interviewer, but live interviews are difficult, especially when there is limited time. A little contextualizing never hurts.”

Jensen went on to argue that “contextualizing” had worked for a similar interview with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, as well as for an interview Nov. 17 with white nationalist Richard Spencer. (Pollak responded to the latter interview in an article Nov. 18 rejecting NPR’s attempt to link Bannon and Breitbart with white nationalism.)

(som en sidebemærkning så havde BBC, endnu et offentligt finansieret medie en overskrift der lød “The Trump resistance movement builds” og indholdet skuffede ikke overskriften) Venstrefløjen og dens medier er en selvforsynende fødekæde af defameringsmaskiner.

Det var et rystende angreb på demokratiet, da Trump ikke ville forhåndsgodkende valgresultatet grundet de mange eksempler på svindel fra Demokraternes side. Nu protesterer venstrefløjsere over resultatet ALENE fordi det gik dem imod.

Kun venstrefløjen laver optøjer efter tabte valgkampe fordi den kun trives med kaos. John Perazzo skriver i Frontpage Magazinex

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

(…)

The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton’s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Medierne har mere travlt med at dyrke fortællingen om Trump tilhængernes amokløb på udsatte minoriteter. Og som Elizabeth Nolan Brown skriver på Reason, så er den fortælling falsk

But the narrative has been bolstered by a few high-profile incidents of alleged aggression in Trump’s America.

The first one to really go viral involved a Muslim female student at the University of Louisiana who claimed to have had her hijab ripped off and her wallet stolen the day after Trump’s election by two white men wearing Trump hats. But on Thursday, local police announced that the young woman had admitted she fabricated the story. “This incident is no longer under investigation,” the Lafayette Police Department said in a press release.

In another incident, this one in San Diego, a young Muslim woman’s purse and car were stolen by one white male and one Hispanic male. While the men allegedly made negative comments about Muslims, it seems car stealing was more their motivation than harassment or intimidation—which is obviously shitty, but not necessarily a Trump-inspired act of bigotry.

And an alleged incident of a gay man named Chris Ball getting beaten up by Trump supporters in Santa Monica on election night seems to have not happened the way it was initially recounted, if the incident even happened at all. The Santa Monica Police Department posted a message to Facebook Thursday saying that neither the department nor city officials had “received any information indicating this crime occurred in the City of Santa Monica” and “a check of local hospitals revealed there was no victim of any such incident admitted or treated.”

(…)

Other anti-Semitic imagery—such as “Sieg Heil 2016″ spray-painted on an abandoned store front in Philadelphia—may have been legit expressions of bigotry or may have been similar attempts at commentary on Trump’s election; it’s unclear because no one is taking credit for them. The bulk of racist graffiti incidents appear to have happened around middle- and high-schools, which doesn’t make their messages any less hurtful, I’m sure, but does suggest a phenomenon driven by mean and immature kids rather than rogue bands of serious neo-Nazis.

And while all sorts of horrible incidents are being reported on Twitter and Facebook… well, anyone can say anything on Twitter and Facebook. The bulk of these stories are “friend of a friend” told me types. But if men were really going around pulling knives on Muslim women on public buses in Trump’s name, there would at least be local or campus news reports of it. Same, too, for the alleged wave of transgender teen suicides which keep getting mentioned in media but for which no one can offer any evidence. (Update: more on the alleged suicides here.)

(…)

Update, November 12: Two more tales of race-based and Trump-inspired harassment have begun to unravel…

Imens foran Trump Tower, holder en bekymret borger et skilt med et sagtmodigt ønske

“Who’s gonna pay for my kids?” råber en kvinde vredt til en hvid mand, der tæskes på åben gade af et par sorte yngre mænd. Den hvide mand, der også får sin bil stjålet i samme ombæring, bliver beskyldt for at have stemt på Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump er en hadefuld, verdensfjern, sexistisk islamofob og jødehader” skrev Zenia Stampe, selv blottet for had, på sin Facebook væg. Jeg vil ikke fortabe mig i en diskussion om alle disse udsagn. Had er en følelse og jeg kender ikke The Donald godt nok til at udtale mig om Zenia har ret. Jeg synes også det er lige vel friskt nok at beskylde en mand, der har tjent mia. - og tro mig, Trump er rig. Jeg mener virkeligt, virkeligt rig, okay? - på noget så jordnært, som sine mange forskellige forretninger, for at være verdensfjern. Men jeg vil dvæle lidt ved modsætningerne i udtrykket “sexistisk islamofob” efter lige først at have anholdt beskyldningen om Trumps jødehad med et citat fra en alt andet end venlig artikel i det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine, hvor det hedder

Trump has an intimate familiarity with Jewish practice and Jewish life. His daughter, Ivanka, converted to Orthodox Judaism in 2009; if elected, Trump would be the first president to be the parent and grand-parent of observant Jews. Ivanka’s husband, real-estate magnate Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew and one of Trump’s top advisers. The Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer and general counsel are both observant Jews, and Trump has the support of perhaps the single most important political donor in the American Jewish world—Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Though he is a deeply repellent political figure to many American Jews, Trump can plausibly claim that Jews and Judaism are closer to the center of his life and work than they are for his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s favored Jews have a seemingly limitless confidence in their benefactor’s personal qualities. The Trump they know is decisive, serious, tolerant, and generous, and they’ve formed their impressions out of years or even decades of personal experience with the man. Despite this special access, their belief in Trump himself—which is often independent of any deep ideological kinship—helps demystify exactly why the real-estate developer, who is so blatantly and viscerally unpalatable to tens of millions of Americans, appeals to tens of millions of others.

The Trump Jews also hint at some of Trumpworld’s defining organizational tendencies. With the possible exception of Sheldon Adelson, every one of the major Trump Jews has known Trump for years, is personally friends with Trump, or is connected to his family through marriage. One of Trump’s Jews is known to be a registered Democrat. One of them was a leading Democratic donor who has a tortured history with one of Trump’s most dedicated surrogates.

Trump talte til amerikanerne som amerikanere, et hele, modsat Hillary, der hele tiden talte om allehånde minoriteter, som skulle tilgodeses. Hillarys beskrivelse af halvdelen af Trumps vælgere som ‘irredeemalbe’ og ‘deplorable’ (fortabte og begrædelige), som Obamas beskrivelse af mange amerikanerne som klyngende sig til deres bibel og skydevåben udkrystaliserer den pointe. Trump vil have det fælles og det kræver lige muligheder og det kræver overholdelse af samfundskontrakten, som er ens for alle borgere, der er frie til at vælge en identitet i privatlivet.

Hillary lover mange forskellige vælgergrupper at tilgodese deres behov og fremtiden står på et evigt ekspanderende vælgerkorps af minoriteter. Det er globaliseringen, det er hvad de unge vil have, det fortæller fokusgrupperne og det kommer væltende over grænsen. På sigt vil der ikke være grundlag for at være konservativ, andet end at leve isoleret i en udørk, fortabt med sin bibel og knugende sit skydevåben. Men problemet er, at man tilgodeser kun nogen på andres bekostning. Så hvor Trump vil tilgodese amerikanerne som et hele på bekostning af Wall Street og konkurrerende nationer, der udnytter de unfair aftaler, så tilgodeser Hillary sine mange minoriteter på bekostning af flertallet. Det kan Hillary kun gøre så længe flertallet er til at dræne for flere specielle rettigheder.

Efterhånden som flertallet, amerikanerne flest, eroderes via indvandring og metastaserende identitetspolitik skal minoriteterne tilgodeses på bekostning af hinanden og der bliver nu ikke længere tale om at tage fra de rige/mange for at give til de fattige/mange få, men om omfordeling af de resterende ressourcer. Og omfordeling slider på den gensidige loyalitet for alle var med da alle ville få. Og selv blandt de dele af flertallet, der holdt ved at dele ud af arven vil det akademiske spørgsmål, om det er appropriation at lære så meget af dem, trænge sig på. Det kulturmarxistiske paradigme vil bryde sammen under vægten af egne indre modsætninger. Og her er vi tilbage til det besynderlige “sexitiske islamofob”, for hvis man har et problem med sexisme og misogyne holdninger har man et problem med islam og så er man islamofob.

Problemet for Stampe, Hillary og venstrefløjen er at der ikke er noget, der kan samle minoriteternes interne modsætninger andet end had. De hader the Donald og Dansk Folkeparti og højrebølgen, den hvide mand, historien og den klare tanke og tankens ærlige sprog. Og det er hvad der kitter venstrefløjen sammen, had. De hader ikke at have noget at indvende mens der stadig er forpligtelser, så opfinder nye definitioner på sig selv og på undertrykkelse, som fritager dem deres forpligtelser. Så de hader majoriteten, der holder fast på den virkelighed ingen kommer udenom. De hader at tabe, men de ville gå til grunde hvis de vandt. Vi andre prøver at begrænse ødelæggelserne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det bliver tæt, men nu trækker Crooked Hillary fra, mens Sick Hillary ser ud til at stagnere. Jeg taler selvfølgelig om det spændende opløb til endestationen for Hillary Clinton, skal det være i fængsel? Eller når hun at kradse af først. Fredag eftermiddag redte hotel gitterly tilsyneladende en seng op.

FBI har genåbnet e-mailsagen grundet nogle emails de fandt på Hillary Clintons nærmeste rådgiver Huma Abedins mand Anthony Wieners telefon, da de efterforskede ham for en række sms korrespondencer af sexuelnaturhanharhaft med en 15 årig pige. Republikanerne mener at anklagen burde føre til at Hillary blev diskvalificeret som præsidentkandidat skriver Breitbart

What’s indisputable is that Hillary Clinton jeopardized classified information on thousands of occasions in her reckless attempt to hide pay-to-play corruption at her State Department. This alone should be disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency, a job that is supposed to begin each morning with a top secret intelligence briefing.

Ingen ved, hvad de nye fund indeholder eller hvor alvorligt det kan være. Thomas Lifson giver i American Thinker sit bud på de tre førende teorier om, hvorfor FBI igen begynder at rode rundt i Hillarys omgangskreds og deres emails

1. He might be seeking to restore his badly damaged reputation, recognizing that the damage he has inflicted on the FBI is substantial.  Three days ago, American Thinker published an open letter from a retired FBI Agent, Hugh Galyean, that laid out some of the damage Comey has inflicted on the institution he leads.  There is little doubt that this reached many in the FBI family, putting in print what people have only whispered about.  If those silenced voices start speaking out, Comey could face a serious loss of face. In this scenario, he is heading off a staff rebellion, possibly including mass resignations.
2. Rush Limbaugh today discussed an alternative theory, that by announcing an FBI Investigation resuming, Comey is putting a lid on further attention to Wikileaks. I guess this means that Clinton forces will argue we must wait for the investigation to be complete (after the election) before speaking about what the evil Russians are planting into our politics.
3. It is possible that something so dramatic came up in the pertinent emails that postponing a public reaction by not announcing the reopening of the investigation would, be regarded as political interference by covering up a smoking gun until after the election. In this scenario, Comey is assuming the evidence cannot be suppressed, and that he would be held accountable after it comes out. This scenario also indicates that we could be headed for a constitutional crisis, involving the possible indictment of a president-elect before an election. Or the evidence being turned over to the House of Representatives for impeachment hearings.

Der har ifølge Townhall været stor bitterhed blandt mange FBI agenter over Comey beslutning om ikke at retsforfølge Hillary Clinton for hendes brud på loven. Måske er der blot en anledning til at få sagen op igen uden obstruktion fra magtfulde interesser. Hillary tog på overfladen truslen mod hendes politiske liv og potentielt hendes frihed med stoisk ro og forlangte åbenhed om de emails, af hvilke hun selv har haft travlt med at slette

Som man kan se ser Hillary sund og rask ud og ved godt mod. Hillary Clinton klarede de tre debatter uden at kollapse og hendes viljestyrke imponerede Donald Trump. Og det burde det også gøre for hun er virkeligt ikke rask. Pajamas Media har samlet en liste fra de seneste 18 med Hillarys helbredsproblemer, fra dybe venetromboser, voldsom hjernerystelse og hosteanfald, som de prominete.

Ed Klein, der har skrevet bogen Guilty As Sin, fortæller på Townhall følgende anekdote, om et hosteanfald Hillary fik, mens hun diskuterede kampagnestrategi med Barak Hussein Obama i Det Hvide Hus “The president became so alarmed that he summoned one of the five doctors who rotate on duty 24/7 in the White House Medical Unit”

“The experience left the president and first lady shaken and worried,” said the source. “It was clear to them that Hillary was not well. They know how exhausting and draining a presidential campaign is. Clearly, the Hillary they saw in the White House was different than the Hillary the public has seen during her rallies and in the debates.

“They concluded that there was no way that Hillary could make it through such a demanding ordeal without getting some help from booster drugs.”

Booster drugs kan holde folk kørende længe, længe nok til en fængselsdom, tænker jeg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No,” the crowd roared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psyops Techniques:

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

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

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

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

Propaganda:

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

Gaslighting:

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

• Media show Trump getting trounced while they withhold more current data.  They dismiss as anecdotal (that’s the new buzzword for meaningless) empirical evidence that points to a Trump landslide – yard signs, bumper stickers, massive crowds, and unprecedented enthusiasm.  Their “experts” tell us the overflow cheering crowds mean nothing, don’t “translate” to votes.

• And how many times must they tell us there is no voter fraud?  Yet O’Keefe has a video with a Democrat operative explaining how to accomplish mass voter fraud, and there’s mounting evidence to confirm voter fraud on a pandemic scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

Et russisk billede midt i freden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det er som at overvære arabere til teoriprøve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og en hånd, når hun skal op ad trapper

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

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

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

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

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

‘How is this not classified?”

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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