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.

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.

Spas med Hillary

Diverse, Donald Trump, Forbrydelse og straf, Hillary Clinton, Politik, Satire, USA — Drokles on September 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm

Der er ‘entusiasme-skel’ mellem Hillary Clinton og Donald Trump, skriver Fox News. Hvor Hillary kan samle nogle hundrede tilhører til sine valgmøder, som hun omdøber ‘policy speeches’, kan Trump samle tusinder, som han pralende kalder ‘rallies’. Clinton er kedelig og formår ikke at begejstre. Men det er en uretfærdig kritik, for der er masser af spas med Hillary

Hillary går med kateter, kan man læse et sted. Hillary går med ble kan man læse et andet. Hillarys ble holder ikke tæt, mener nogen at se på dette billede

En lille sang

Og lidt patriotisk humor


Forsat god weekend.

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 – 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.

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.


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


Hillary falder i en kurv af begrædelige


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.

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?


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 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.

Information om Donald Trump

“Donald Trump er et røvhul” fortæller Jay Carson, en politisk konsulent på den populære TV serie House of Cards (den underlegne amerikanske version) til Information. Information er en verbos avis, så den har indlæg på indlæg om hvor stort et røvhul Donald Trump egentlig er, hvor kritikere kan lufte deres vrede uden at vi bliver klogere.

Det er Carsons opfattelse at medierne er medskyldige i at ingen forstår “at den republikanske præsidentkandidat, Donald Trump, er et forfærdeligt menneske og ude af stand til at lede et land” fordi samme medier overspillede deres kort, da de forsøgte at fortælle at Bill Clinton også var forfærdelig fordi han havde “haft en affære”.

»Der var ikke den fjerneste mulighed for, at en reality-tv-stjerne (Donald Trump var hovedpersonen i reality-programmet The Apprentice, red.) kunne blive præsidentkandidat i 2000 eller 2004 eller 2008. Det er gået den forkerte vej lige siden, og det er foruroligende og skræmmende.«


Hvor berømmelse og offentlig optræden betyder mere end ens hjerte og substans og ideer og overbevisninger. Det er derfor, at en fyr som Trump ender med at blive præsidentkandidat. Manden er et røvhul. Han er modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, han aner ikke, hvad han foretager sig, og han forstår ikke, hvordan den amerikanske regering fungerer – eller nogen som helst andre regeringer rundt om i verden. Han er den mest ukvalificerede kandidat til jobbet nogensinde, og han er et stort politisk partis kandidat. Det er bekymrende.«

Det handler om sex

Men hvordan er det dog gået så grueligt galt? Det har Jay Carson en teori om – det handler om sex – og den har han lånt fra bogen All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, der er skrevet af hans gode ven og skrivemakker på flere filmprojekter, Matt Bai.

»Indtil valgkampen i 1988 havde man aldrig set en sexskandale i amerikansk politik,« siger Carson.


»Gennem historien er der mange eksempler på mennesker, der i krisetider har udnyttet folkets frygt. Nogle af verdenshistoriens værste mennesker brugte dårlige tider til at skabe frygt hos folk og udøve magt. Donald Trump befinder sig ikke langt fra det. Det er præcis, hvad han er i gang med.«

Dermed ikke være sagt, at man ikke skal forholde sig til de mange vrede og ulykkelige mennesker i USA. Mennesker, der har måttet gå fra hus og hjem og har mistet deres arbejde.

»Det er noget lort, og det er barsk, og det gør én vred,« siger Carson. Men der er to væsensforskellige måder at tage fat i den problemstilling på.

»Der er Donald Trump-måden, hvor man puster til ilden og prøver at skyde skylden på nogle andre, indvandrere eller sorte og brune mennesker eller ens nabo eller regeringen eller hvem som helst. Man taler til folks værste og mest basale instinkter.

Og så er der måden, som Bernie Sanders gjorde det på. Han sagde: ’Jeg hører jer. Jeg ved, at I er pissevrede. Jeg er også pissevred. Lad os ikke ødelægge ting eller tæve mennesker til politiske møder. Lad os tale om løsninger på det i stedet.’ Det er Hillary Clinton også god til. Hun har bare været i politik i så lang tid, at hendes kampagne ikke havde den samme vrede eller det samme momentum. Bernie var et frisk pust, og han virkede lige så pissesur som de mennesker, der er pissesure. Folk kunne se og høre det på ham. Han fortjener ros for ikke at omgøre det til frygt, had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi og alle de andre fucked up-ting, som Donald Trump gør.«

Fucked-up, det er hvad Trump er.  Et røvhul, modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, der ikke aner hvad han foretager sig andet end had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi. Og nu nærmer vi os en perfekt storm, hvor Hi(tler)storien lurer, med krise og et folk, der må gå fra hus og hjem har en reel frygt kan udnyttes. Der er grund til vrede, men ikke til at tæve mennekser til politiske møder… åh, vent lige lidt, jeg syntes jeg læste noget lidt andet hos Bretibart

Pierson told The Kelly File (via

If you go back to the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails, this is on the PowerPoint playbook on the messaging — slide number 6 — with the messaging theme number 1: Violence.  They were looking for an opportunity to pick up somewhere to continue this narrative that somehow Donald Trump is violent.

Here is the relevant slide, in full. Note the suggestion to tie Trump to “incidents of violence.”


The worst case of violence was outside a San Jose rally in early June, where Trump supporters were viciously beaten and chased through the streets by a left-wing mob. Despite the fact that the rioters carried out their brutality shamelessly, in full view of the mainstream media, some media outlets blamed Trump for the violence. One headline blared: “San Jose rally turns violent as Trump supporters clash with protesters.”

And for the left, that was precisely the point: creating violence is a no-lose strategy. If protesters can provoke Trump supporters to be violent, they embarrass Trump and cast him as a fascist. And if the protesters themselves are violent, voters will understand that a Trump victory will be met with violent mob resistance.

The left has recruited some Beltway Republicans — the NeverTrump faction — as a willing echo chamber for this meme. Mere hours before the San Jose riot, David French — then considering a third-party run for president to undermine Trump and give the election to Hillary Clinton — accused Trump of inciting violence.

Trump’s primary opponents, too, blamed Trump for the riot that closed down his Chicago rally in April — rather than blaming the organized left-wing groups that created the chaos.

All of that has helped the left establish the predicate for future spin, so that when Donald Trump cites the familiar refrain that gun owners will defend their rights, he is accused of wanting to assassinate Hillary Clinton, and large portions of the media — including conservative media — believe it.

Så, det er demokraterne der tæver politiske modstandere, ligesom brunskjorterne? Og den frygt og vrede, som amerikanerne er i deres gode ret til at have, er den ikke fremkommet efter 8 år med håb og forandring? Kunne journalisten ikke have undret sig blot en lille smule? Og hvad er det med sex der forhindrer gode politikere i at stille op? Ligger talentmassen blandt de promikuøse? Og is så fald, hvad siger det så om Trump, der har haft så mange at han praler med dem?

Amerikanerne elsker countrymisk og tilgiver altid en angrende synder. Sagen om Bill Clinton handlede ikke om at han havde haft en affære, men om at han som præsident bollede med praktikanter, mens han var præsident og derefter løj om det under ed, som han også forsøgte at hindre rettens gang. Skyldsspørgsmål blev afgjort ved afstemning i kongressen, og her havde demokraterne flertal.

Men det handler om sex for venstrefløjen, så Information har også talt med “forfatteren Frank Browning, hvis seneste bog om ’kønnenes skæbne’, The Fate of Gender, netop er udkommet”, der mener at Trumps succes er et udtryk for “en vrede og en nagfølelse”, der gennemsyrer de vestlige samfund på grund af “ændringer og forskydninger inden for autoritets- og magtforhold” og “kønsfluiditet”

Browning siger, at denne ’kønsrevolution’ leverer et afgørende bidrag til forklaringen på den genopblussede ??højreorienterede ekstremisme i Europa.

Og til forklaringen på, hvordan det kunne gå til, at en tidligere reality-tv-showmand og ejendomsmatador kunne mobilisere støtte til at blive republikansk præsidentkandidat i USA ved at fremsætte utallige racistiske, sexistiske og fremmedfjendske kommentarer.

»Vi kommer i de kommende år til at se flere af den slags bevægelser, som Trump har været eksponent for,« forudsiger Browning. »Og en stor del af forklaringen på dette skal søges i kønsspørgsmål.«

Browning pointerer, at der er sket en grundlæggende forskydning i retning af, at mænd i dag beklæder stadig færre magtpositioner i samfundet, hvilket slår om i både en vigende respekt over for mænd og i en såret selvfølelse hos mænd.

Samtidig har mennesker, der vil udforske og eksperimentere med deres kønsidentiteter, fået mulighed for at udfolde sig mere åbent – ikke mindst via de muligheder, som internettet giver for at skabe netværk og møde ligesindede.

Også Jonathan Hedegaard, ja, han er måske ikke amerikaner, men han er bosat i USA, og er digter, kunstner og debattør, giver sit besyv med i Information, i hvad han også kalder et cirkus og “et dårligt realityshow”. Også han taler om “indebrændte vrede amerikanere, som globaliseringen kun efterlod krummerne”, der derfor er til falds for “brød og cirkus”. Der er ingen egentlige argumenter, så her er kunstneriske højdepunkter om Trump og amerikanerne

Cirkusset bliver stadig mere absurd, som Trump gang på gang lufter sin utæmmede stupiditet og samtidig fremstår underligt urørlig.

(…) hans modbydelige udfald mod muslimer, mexicanere, handicappede, krigsveteraner, en død soldats efterladte, politiske modstandere og kvinder, til det forhold, at han har ført en politisk valgkamp, hvor reelle løsningsforslag har virket irrelevante – og det på et sprogligt niveau, der kunne ligne en 5.-klasse-elevs til forveksling.

(…)Efter opfordringen til vold mod sine politiske modstandere er Trump ganske vist kommet under pres.

(…)Trump spejler sin befolkning. (…) Hvis USA fortjener Trump, må der være tale om et samfund præget af historieløshed, overflade over substans, og et samfund, der er ved at miste evnen til at lytte og fordybe sig – værdier, der bliver væk i den endeløse strøm af information og underholdning og videoer af katte, der ter sig på morsomme måder.

Et samfund, hvor folk har for travlt med at fange Pokémons til for alvor at interessere sig for politik. Disse tendenser ser man i hele Vesten. Vores kulturer er plaget af historieløshed, præcis som Trump. Vi glemmer og tilgiver selv de værste udfald. (…) Kun et folk, der selv er historieløst, kan stemme for en mand, der flirter med ophævelsen af NATO’s musketered og åbent vil bryde internationale konventioner.

(…) Det er et sjovt eksperiment at vælge en gammel, forstyrret realitystjerne til præsident.

(…)Trump overhovedet kan slippe afsted med sin grænseoverskridende brutale retorik. En retorik, der bærer præg af det støjende, vulgære, brutale og hangen til konspiration.

Den slags retorik kan kun overleve i det politiske rum, fordi den er så langt ude, og i sin enfoldige forenklethed så mærkeligt let at relatere til. Den minder meget om værtshusretorik. Og selv om det er sjovt nok at høre på kværulanten på værtshuset i et par minutter, er der en grænse for, hvor længe man gider lægge øre til stædigt uvidende sludder af typen: Obama er ikke født i USA. Eller barnlige fingerknipsløsninger på seriøse udfordringer: Vi bygger en kæmpe mur. Eller militant sprog såsom: Spær den politiske modstander inde, eller skyd hende for forræderi (som en af Trumps støtter foreslog).

Analysen er altid simpel for venstrefløjen, blottet for indhold, fremstiller man sin fjende, som lidende af allehånde smålige følelser og mindreværdskomplekser og den skinbarlige virkelighed forsvinder. Den virkelighed at der bare er andre mennesker, som mener truslerne mod civilisationen, det fælles, friheden, er reelle. At der rent faktisk vælter allehånde mennesker, fra fejlslagne stater og kulturer over grænserne, som en mur med et effektiktivt grænsevæsen kunne holde ude. At Hillary rent faktisk har begået lovbrud der retfærdiggør en fængsling. At det var Hillarys kampagne, der fandt på at Obama ikke er amerikaner. Og Trump sætter ord på den reelle frygt de har, deres reelle vrede over et misregimente, ikke fra deres neuroser, men det de kan se.

Afsporing af alt reelt er selvfølgelig ikke noget Information har monopol på, det er blot venstrefløjen.

Se, han har en lille tissemand, og vi ved jo, hvorledes sådanne mennesker er, moral knytter sig til fysisk pragt.

The Donald starter sin kampange

På National Review er de bekymrede over, hvilken skade Donald Trump gør mod den konservative tradition og hvor meget han potentielt kan skade dens anseelse i generationer fremover. De fleste amerikanere er mere bekymrede over, hvilken skade Hillary Clinton gør på USA og hvor mange generationer, det vil tage den stolte nation at komme sig. Donald Trump har været igennem den største løgnekampagne i et civiliseret land og alligevel, skriver Wayne Allen Root i Townhall, alligevel…

After all of THAT…after Hillary and the media and liberals…and the GOP establishment threw everything they had at Donald…

He is tied with Hillary (within statistical margin of error) in every major credible national poll out in the past few days. Pick your poll: Zogby, Rasmussen, LA Times/USC, Bloomberg, they all say he’s down 1 or 2 points with likely voters- which is tied. In the latest LA times/USC poll he’s down less than one point.

And we all know 5% to 10% of voters won’t admit they support Trump. Why would they after the three weeks of disaster I just described?

So that means he’s actually AHEAD by 3 to 5 points.

Hillary is like a NFL team ahead by 14 in the 3rd quarter…and the coach, players and fans all know it’s not enough. They can feel it. Disaster is coming. They are ahead by 14…and they just know they are dead.

If Hillary isn’t ahead by 15 to 20 points right now…at this absolute low point of Trump’s campaign…the deep, deep valley…Hillary is the one in deep trouble.

Her peak is actually the valley. Her fans and the mainstream media just don’t understand that yet. This is the high water mark of her campaign. It will never get better than this. And she’s tied, hanging on by her fingernails.

She won’t make it to the November 8th finish line. She is DOA (I mean politically, of course).

Even worse…

She knows any day between now and November 8th…Julian Assange and Wikileaks will drop a bombshell that will destroy her presidential run, political career and legacy all in one. She knows what’s coming, because she knows what’s in those emails. If Wikileaks has what Hillary thinks they have, her future involves the “Big House,” not the White House.

Because Wikileaks clearly has her 32,000 deleted emails. Secret emails that detail her crimes against the American people.

No wonder Hillary’s sick…no wonder she has “health issues”…no wonder she has trouble standing up behind a podium…or sitting on a couch without being propped up by large pillows…or walking up stairs…stress will kill you!

Hillary knows what’s coming…and it’s destroying her mental and physical health.

One more reminder- Donald Trump has not spent one dollar yet. His first TV ads start this weekend.

Og weekenden er her, The Donald giver amerikanerne et sobert valg

Der er essensen. Lige der! Vil man have kontrol med sit land, eller vil man ikke? Det er hvad folkedybet kerer sig om, det er hvad Trump taler om. Og venstrefløjen, medierne, snart sagt alt det etablerede, hader ham inderligt for det. De vil fortsætte deres drømme, hvor hensigten retfærdiggør fortrængning, hvor drømme om alt muligt umuligt er smukt, hvor op er ned og sort er hvid. Drømme om at man blot kan blive med med at sælge ud, ud af sine traditioner, statsborgerskaber, velfærd, hvor man blot kan blive ved med at bakke, at undskylde for fortiden og sin egen eksistens, indtil freden sænker sig og velstanden præsenterer sig selv jævnt for alle. Obama ville stoppe havspejlstigningen, men den bølge Trump har skabt, stopper ikke.

En nedladenhed for langt

I ferien linkede jeg til Midnight’s Edges video, der glimrende gennemgik en strid mellem folkene bag den nye version af filmen Ghostbusters og dens produktionsselskab SONY Pictures, på den ene side og et nørdet miljø af film-, fantasyfans og v/bloggere på den anden. Denne nye Ghostbusters film var instrueret af instruktøren Paul Fieg, der i forskellige interviews havde udtrykt negative holdninger til det mandlige køn, fordi han angiveligt var blevet mobbet i sine drengeår for sine ‘fine træk’. Og den nye Ghostbustersfilms hovedroller var, i modsætning til den originale fra 80erne, måske derfor besat af 4 kvinder. Udtrykket i den fladpandede humor, som traileren viste, havde i hvert fald mere end en snert af girl power. Og man kan godt argumentere for, at det er op ad bakke, at hævde en feministisk pointe, når man ikke kan finde på bedre, end en bleg efterligning af drengenes 30 år gamle film.

Kort fortalt, kunne fansne ikke lide traileren til nyindspilningen af Ghostbusters og rakkede på forhånd filmen ned. Sony og folkene bag Ghostbusters forsøgte at redde deres meget bekostelige bud på en blockbuster fra dårlig foromtale og mobiliserede bl.a social justice warriors, personer og grupper optaget ud i det hysteriske af at indrette verden efter deres metastaserende identitetspolitik, til at udskamme de forhåndskritiske fans, som fysisk uattraktive, hjemmeboende sociale tabere med misogyne og racistiske tendenser. Den slags, der stemte på Trump, som skuespilleren Dan Akroyd mente.

Men showbusiness er hårdt og folk der spiser pop-corn er ikke interesseret i at skifte underholdning ud med moraliserende identitetspolitik pakket ind i generisk humor og CGI. . Politisk aktivisme, kunsterisk forfængelighed, forsmåede følelser og drømme om et indbringende franchise gik i selvsving og endte i krig med de selv samme mennesker, hvis holdninger man forsøgte at massere, mens man tog deres penge. Variety fortæller at Ghostbusters vil ende med at tabe 50 mill dollars og at der således ikke er udsigt til “sequels”.

Midnigt’s Edge, har fulgt op på, hvorledes det er gået Ghostbusters efter premieren og hvordan stridighederne (hvor Milo Yiannopoulos i øvrigt blev permant udelukket fra Twitter)

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters has been released, and moviegoers around the world now have the opportunity to judge what has arguably been the most controversial movie of the year for themselves. This however, did not cause the controversies that had been plaguing the production to stop.

In this video we will dig into the movies opening, the critical reception, the various controversies in the aftermath of the release, as well as its boxoffice and subsequent sequel prospects, now that the movie is increasingly being referred to as a flop.

Eliten mod folket

For en måned siden skrev Jim Edwards i Business Insider at det var på tide at erkende at Brexit ikke vil ske, for i praksis kan ingen melde sig ud af EU fordi omstillingen vil være uoverskuelig og økonomisk ødelæggende. Trods den indsigt skrev Henry Porter for nogle dage siden i Vanity Fair at de økonomiske tømmermænd efter det Brexit, der altså endnu ikke er en realitet og ifølge Edwards aldrig vil blive det, allerede er blevet endnu værre. Andrew Greice skrev dog i Independent at mantraet t Downing Street var “We’re all Brexiteers now.” og andet også ville være politisk selvmord.

Der sker noget i det vestlige sind i disse år og store valg skal træffes og hvor udsigten til de enorme konsekvenser allerede trækker splittelsen frem i befolkningerne. Og det er først og fremmest eliten mod resten. Brendan O’Neill skriver om reaktionen på Brexit i The Spectator

Why is everyone so chilled out about the threats to Brexit? Why isn’t there more public fury over the plotting of lords and academics and experts to stymie Brexit and thwart the will of 17.4m people? In all the years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when democracy has been treated with as much disgust, with as much naked, Victorian-era elitism, as it is being today. And yet we’re all bizarrely mellow. We’re going about our business as if everything is normal, as if the elites aren’t right now, this very minute, in revolt against the people. We need to wake up.

Every day brings fresh news of the revolt of the elite, of the march of the neo-reactionaries against the mandate of the masses. At the weekend it was revealed that Brexit might not happen until 2019, because David Davis and Liam Fox can’t get their departments in order, the amateurs. The lovers of the EU and loathers of the blob could barely contain their glee. March for Europe, a celeb-backed, media-cheered chattering-class outfit agitated by the throng and the dumb decision it made on 23 June, spied an opportunity to do over Brexit entirely. ‘[W]e can help delay Brexit further and ultimately defeat it altogether,’ it said yesterday. ‘We can win this.’

‘We can win this.’ The ‘we’ they’re talking about is a minority view,backed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Owen Jones and Jarvis Cocker, yes, but by only 10,000 people on Facebook. And the thing they think they can win is the overthrow of the largest democratic mandate in British history.


It has to stop. We’re witnessing an explicit use of power and influence to overthrow, or at least water down, the say of the people. It is an outrage. And it’s being made worse by the uselessness of Theresa May’s cabinet, whose constant pushing back of triggering Article 50 gives the impression that it’s a scary, difficult thing to do (which it isn’t) and in the process inflames the anti-democratic ambitions of the new elites. We need to get real, and fast. Not only is Brexit at stake — so is democracy itself. Earlier generations took to the streets to roar against less ugly elitist campaigns than the one we’re currently living through. So why aren’t we on the streets protesting? I’m serious. They might have money and titles and newspaper columns, but we have the masses on our side. Let’s remind them of that.

Og det gælder også i det amerikanske præsidentvalg, hvor Donald Trump udfordrer den sidende elite, personificeret i al sin korrupte glans af Hillary Clinton. Den politiske analytiker Pat Caddell fortæller her i en samtale med Breitbarts Stephen Bannon om, hvorledes medierne angriber Trump, som ingen anden kandidat er blevet angrebet før, for at beskytte den elite, som de selv er en del af.

“The issue here for [Trump], which is clear, is that this is a country in trouble. This is a country where the economy and foreign policy are in trouble. And she represents — for a country that sees, by vast majorities, that the political class in Washington is corrupt, and rigging the system for themselves, that has not yet come center place,” he said.

“What they’re trying to do is disqualify him from the Presidency. He needs to now go back to saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute, what kind of country do you want to continue to have? The one that is, inevitably, slowly before our eyes, declining and not succeeding? Or do you want to take a chance on making things better? I can help you make things better.’ He has not engaged that. The minute he engages, this election will change amazingly,” Caddell predicted.

“She is locked in to what she is,” he said of Clinton. “All she can do is put up barriers, or throw up arguments, against Trump. Trump is the independent variable in this equation. He is the one that can force those things that matter to people to the front. That is what a change election is about.”

Bannon suggested that “the general population doesn’t know this is a change election,” with so much attention focused on the clash of personalities, and Trump’s negative qualities. Caddell faulted Trump and his campaign for lacking the preparation and discipline to impose their own narrative.


Bannon advised Trump to prepare himself for even worse treatment from the press, if he should find a way to close his polling deficit against Clinton — an eventuality Bannon described as a “miracle,” while Caddell thought it was highly likely.

“He will close this gap. He will,” Caddell predicted. “And I’ll tell you, you’re right about the media. So, therefore, what do you do about that? You must take it to the level of notwhining about the media. It’s not about whining. It is about that they are playing a detailed role, and a conscious role, in terms of protecting the political class, because theyare the political class.”

He cited polling data that showed the American people have lost faith in the media, arguing that “two-thirds of them believe their level of objectivity and bias is as high as ever — they’re the lowest they’ve ever been, in Gallup.”

“They need to be challenged institutionally,” he said of the press. “Remember what they’re trying to do. They’re not trying just to knock Trump off. They need to suppress that which they have not been able to do all year, this rebellion out in the hinterlands, in both parties — whether it’s the Democrats’ revolt with Sanders, the Republican revolt with Trump — to suppress this instinct of the American people, to take control back of their country.”

That’s the issue: who runs America?”

Kun 11% af amerikanerne mener Hillary Clinton er til at stole på.

Hillarys helbred halter

Diverse, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 11, 2016 at 1:39 pm

Der spekuleres meget i Hillary Clintons helbred, efter flere mærkelige optrædender med tilsyneladende spastiske bevægelser, fortløbende hosteanfald og pludseligt besvær med at forcere trapper. Tegneserifiguren Dilberts skaber Scott Adams har kaldt Hillary Clinton “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma”, “part pharmacological grab-bag”, i modsætning til donald Trump, der måske nok er Trump, “but he does seem to be the same person every day”.

Paul Joseph Watson har samlet nogle videoklip og spekulerer i at de er tegn på mindre anfald, udløst af stress og overstimulering af sanserne (og Watsons stemmeføring er her mindre anstrengende end normalt). Hvis halvdelen af det er sandt vil Trumps energi og spontanitet risikere at give Hillary mange anfald når de skal debattere. Breitbart har spurgt ekspertisen

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, observes that “strangely silent is the mainstream media about the fitness” for presidential office of Hillary Clinton. At AAPS’ website, Orient summarizes the concerns about Clinton’s health that she says are growing:

There’s the photograph of Secretary Clinton’s difficulty walking up some steps. Now inability to climb stairs does not necessarily disqualify a person for public office. However, neither she nor people with her apparently anticipated a problem. The people helping her seem to be preventing a fall. Did she simply trip? Or was it a seizure or a stroke?

Videos widely circulated on the internet are, if authentic, very concerning. One shows prolonged, inappropriate laughter; another, strange head movements. In a third, she appeared momentarily dazed and confused, and lost her train of thought.  Reportedly, she has a volcanic temper. (This is probably not new.)

A man who stays close to her, who is reportedly not a Secret Service officer, was photographed carrying something in his hand that purportedly might have been an autoinjector of Valium.

While we don’t have Mrs. Clinton’s medical records, it is widely stated that she experienced a fall that caused a concussion. Since then, she is sometimes seen wearing eyeglasses with prisms, as are used to correct double vision.

Orient explains that serious concussions can often cause traumatic brain injury that is not always detected on standard medical tests such as a CT or MRI.

“Many of our veterans who experienced blast injury from improvised explosive devices suffer from it,” she continues, adding:

These are some symptoms: difficulty thinking, attention deficits, confusion, memory problems, frustration, mood swings, emotional outbursts, agitation, headaches, difficulties with balance and coordination, and seizures. Many veterans with such an injury cannot hold a job or interact normally with their families.

“Obviously, it would be very dangerous for a person subject to symptoms like this to be dealing with foreign leaders or making critical decisions,” she states.


“Is it conceivable that Hillary supporters would really be voting for Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, or for the First First Husband President, Bill Clinton?” she asks. “The American people are entitled to know the objective medical facts about Secretary Clinton.”

Breitbart havde tidligere spurgt Dr. Drew om Clintons forbrug af blofortyndende medicin (anti-coagulant)

But, when you read she had a history of previous deep venous thrombosis in 1998 and 2009 – she’s had twice a clot in her leg – these are serious clots that lead to something called pulmonary embolism, which can also cause sudden death. So, she has an underlying recurrent blood clot in her leg, a clot in her transverse sinus…why is she clotting?

And then why would you leave her on the oldest and sort of most treacherous anticoagulant? If you’re going to leave somebody on an anticoagulant, why the oldest, old fashion anticoagulant – which by the way I’m a fan of Coumadin, I’m a fan of it – but for kind of spurious reasons, wouldn’t you think somebody who’s a candidate for president [would] have one of the newer anticoagulants that are safer, and the indications for her staying on anticoagulants are kind of spurious…it makes me worry about the sophistication of the healthcare she is getting.

Måske er spørgsmålet om Hillarys valg af garderobe er baseret på at skjule en voksenble ud ad en tangent, men når man ikke kan få sandheden på bordet må man jo prøve at spekulere over mulighederne, som Ray Heard gør hos Rebel Media

Bestil en doppler til DVT-damen, inden hun kommer ind på oval stue.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress