Pressens kamp for Hillay

Forleden henviste jeg til eksempler på hvorledes mediernes dækning af det amerikanske præsidentvalg var skævvredet, således at Donald Trump fik en uretfærdig hård medfart,hvor citater blev fordrejet, historier opdigtet og problemer overdrevet. Howard Kurtz fortæller på Fox News, at fordrejninger for nogle journalister er en bevidst handling, et kald nærmest

But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.

Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for theNew York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.

But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.

By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side.

Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”

For at konpensere for denne ubalance dækker medierne derfor Hillary Clintons kampagne ligeså skævvredet men, for variationens skyld uden tvivl, til fordel for Hallarys kandidatur. Således bliver åbenlyse problemer og historier om korruption og kriminalitet negligeret eller ignoreret. Som at faderen til den muslimske terrorist, der myrdede 49 mennesker i Orlando, får lov at mænge sig på demokraternes valgmøder, helt tæt på Hillary Clinton.


Kunne en far til en massemorder blive set tæt på Trump, ved et af hans valgmøder uden at det havde skabt overskrifter? Og det er ikke de eneste overskrifter, de amerikanske vælgere er gået glip af. Wayne Allyn Root har samlet nogle stykker, af hvilke her er et uddrag, for Breitbart

Let me list all the many shocking stories NBC News should be mentioning, if not covering extensively. Instead they won’t even admit these news stories and scandals exist.

  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and execution of an Iranian scientist helping the U.S. His name was prominently mentioned in Hillary’s hacked emails that undoubtedly ended up in the hands of our enemies. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and murder of Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens and those 3 American heroes at Benghazi. Hillary’s hacked emails gave up his location.
  • It appears I’m not the only one to think so. Hillary is now being sued by the parents of the dead Benghazi heroes for this gross negligence. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News. They did plenty of reporting about the one Muslim gold star father, but virtually zero coverage of the parents of dead Benghazi heroes. Donald had harsh words. Hillary lied to the parents’ faces with their children’s caskets lying nearby. Her actions may have led to their deaths. Still NBC says nothing.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails show the Clinton Foundation is one big extortion racket that involved “pay for play.” Those who donated to the infamous Clinton Foundation immediately got high-level access and contracts from Hillary’s State Department. Folks this is treason – pure and simple. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.

Can you even imagine if Donald Trump served in a presidential cabinet and sold out his access and government contracts in return for donations to his foundation? It would be the biggest news story in America. The FBI would be leading him away in handcuffs right now.

Det er alt sammen underordnet at The Donald ikke kan lide spædbørn.

Pressens kamp mod Trump

Det går ikke godt for Donald Trumps kampagne, der synker i meningsmålingerne, mens Hillary Clinton får stadigt mere vind i sejlene. Trumps aggressive stil, som vandt ham republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandidat fungerer ikke med samme succes, når de mange midtervælgeres hjerter skal vælges. Trumps har skudt sig meget i sine egne fødder med upræcise eller fejlagtige udsagn, et udbrud mod nogle forældre til en højt dekoreret soldat, faldet i kamp og rygter om en foruroligende villighed til at bruge atomvåben som en ufrivillighed ved at være omgivet af spædbørn. Er Trump alligevel den charlatan, som flere, inklusiv jeg selv, mistænker ham som?

Måske, men en del af forklaringen er også en amerikansk presse, der i en helt forrygende grad fører kampagne på vegne af Hillary. For ikke alt er som medierne Situationen med spædbarnet, der forstyrrede en tale og fik irriteret Trump ligner en grov fejlfortolkning af situationen og faderen til den dræbte soldat, der kæk viftede med en udgave af den amerikanske forfatning, mens han beskyldte Trump for ikke at kende endsige indholdet, viste sig at være en ivrig sharia tilhænger og samarbejdspartner med både Clinton Foundation og Saudiarabien. Justin Raimondo giver i Los Angeles Times et par eksempler fra sine lokale medier

My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.

To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?

The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?

The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.

Since last summer, Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate.

Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War.

Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.

Jeg faldt tilfældigvis over dette klip fra CNN, det støtter Hillary Clinton, som nogle venstreorienterede havde fremhævet fordi det efter deres mening, viste en Trump støtte blive sat eftertrykkeligt på plads. Det tror jeg de færreste neutrale seere vil mene, men det er en fin demonstration af uhæderligheden i de venstreorienterede medier. Corey Lewandowski, der blev fyret som leder af Trumps kampagne kommer underangreb i fra først CNNs faste politiske kommentator Angela Rye, tidligere leder af det sorte kadaver (ok, det var en undersættelse af the Congressional Black Caucus) og siden værten

Uhæderligheden består i at værten ikke vil vedkende sig det emne han selv bringer på banen. Og for at dække over pinligheden, da Lewandowski holder fast sit logiske spørgsmål, som værten kender og nægter at svare på, skal Lewandowski selvfølgelig afbrydes og råbes ad med fornærmende barnagtigheder. Det giver værten tid til at samle sig sammen til at beskylde Lewandowski for at være racist. Og det sker instinktivt og umiddelbart. “Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn’t work so instead it’s death by a thousand cuts” skriver Matthew Vadum i Breitbart og giver nogle eksempler på den forskel, hvormed pressen behandler Trump og Hillary

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton’s emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump’s statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation’s government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate’s path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. “Trump should be killing her on that point,” he said on the most recent installment of the “John Batchelor Show.”

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she’s destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum’s rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton’s lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman’s messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren’t asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate’s fall in December 2012 in which she suffered brain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don’t inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn’t held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

Hillary nu har faktisk holdt et pressemøde og det for journalister fra de sorte og latinske minoriteter. Dem takkede hun for deres gode arbejde for at hindre Trump i at føre en god kampagne

Clinton said, “Now I think journalists have a special responsibility to our democracy in a time like this. As Ida B. Wells once said, ‘People must know before they can act and there is no educator to compare to the press.’ Now many of you are showing the way.” (RELATED: No Whites Allowed, Clinton Speaks To Press For First Time In 260 Days)

“It’s a badge of honor when Jorge Ramos gets thrown out of press conference for challenging Donald Trump,” Clinton said, pausing for the applause from the journalists. (RELATED: Trump Kicks Out Univision’s Jorge Ramos At Press Conference But Later Lets Him Back In [VIDEO])

“Or when another news organization gets banned for reporting what he says. As Jorge said, ‘The best journalism happens when you take a stand. When you denounce injustice.’ So I hope you’ll keep calling it like you see it, keep holding all of us accountable.” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Emails Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])

“You know I have laid out all of these plans and I’m well aware that I have been sometimes made fun of for putting out these plans, about the economy and education and criminal justice reform and health care and gun safety measures and all the rest of it, but I do have this old fashioned idea, when you run for president, you ought to tell the voters of America what you would do as president.” (RELATED: Comey Confirms Hillary Clinton Lied To The Public About Her Emails [VIDEO])

“So, I am going to keep telling you what I would do because I want you to hold me accountable, press and citizens alike,” Clinton said. “Because the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been in our lifetimes. And we all have to do our part. So thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for inviting me to address you today.”

Godt man bor i Danmark


Nåh, ja. Det gør man jo.

Folkelige Trump mod big business Clinton

Diverse — Drokles on August 6, 2016 at 11:10 am

James P Pinkerton skriver at “the Republicans as the populist party and the Democrats as the establishment party” i Breitbart

Trump has, to be sure, changed the GOP: It is now the populist party.  Meanwhile, under Hillary Clinton, the Democrats are now the elitist establishment party.  The Post, now owned by Jeff Bezos of, the third richest man in America, boasting a fortune estimated at $66.5 billion, might be forgiven for missing the nuances of any argument involving criticism of the elite establishment.

Yet across the country, the choice is clear: If you’re not happy with the status quo, if you want change, you’re likely to lean Republican.  By contrast, if you think things are going fine, if you like the way we’re being led, you’re likely to be a Democrat—except, of course, for Bernie Sanders voters; we’ll come back to them later.

And so that’s the real role reversal this year: It’s a matter of speaking truth to power—or not.  And seeking real change—or not.


In 2008, Barack Obama captured the Democratic party, and it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton is now pledged to carry on his legacy; from a perceptual point of view, Hillary sealed that deal when she hugged Obama on stage on Wednesday night.  So yes, Clinton is Obama’s third term.

Of course, we must also remember that Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been tight with the power structure—and power has been good to them.  We can recall that they first made real money with the connected Rose Law Firm, back in Little Rock, and then they amassed a substantial fortune through their work with the Clinton Foundation in Manhattan.

So today, Republicans are the outsiders, and Democrats are the insiders.  In many ways, this might seem to be a risky stance for the “ins”; after all, the “right direction/wrong track” polling question stands at roughly 23:70.  That is, more than three times as many Americans are unhappy with the way things are going as happy.

Trump har banket hele den gamle elite af republikanere ud af spillet. Og hvis Trump skulle tabe, citerer Pinkerton den politiske rådgiver John Weaver for at give folkeligheden et håb; “I think we’ll have a lot of mini-Trumps in the 2018 midterm elections imitating what we’ve seen.  People always copy what they believe might be successful.”

For their part, the Democrats haven’t changed much.  The big change is that they are trying to hide their true selves, and they are using big money to help them do the hiding.

However, if we take a close look, we can see that the Democratic Party is as devoted to its pet causes as ever, including quotas of all kinds and fawning treatment for street radicalism.

As to quotas, we can examine, as an almost random example, the website of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and see the head-counting regime in full force.  Last year, in extraordinary detail, Badger State Democrats enumerated what they wanted in their 2016 convention delegation: African Americans, 12 percent; Hispanics, six percent; Native Americans, three percent; Asian/ Pacific Americans, two percent; LGBT Americans, 12 percent; and so on.

Indeed, the Democrats’ national party platform this year features a pledge to end “systemic racism”—which might leave some to wonder whether they noticed that Obama won the last two presidential elections.  But of course, activists are never satisfied with progress made and always want more.  And the ’16 platform gave it to them, and thus it includes this shout-out to #BlackLivesMatter, embedded in a call for ever more social engineering: “We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and that there is no place for racism in our country.”

Yet the main takeaway from Philadelphia isn’t that the Democrats are still McGovernized.

Instead, the big news from Philly is that big money is back.  And the even bigger news is that the Democrats don’t care who knows it.  In fact, Democrats have turned money into a point of pride; they have more cash than the Republicans.

Without a doubt, the differences are stark: Hedge funds and their employees gave $122.7 million to Hillary, but just $19,000 to Trump.  Some might be tempted to ask: Now what does that tell you? But for Hillary Democrats, it’s nothing but good news.

And how ’bout this New York Times headline: “After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore”? The Times quoted Charlie Crist, former Republican governor of Florida, now running as a Democrat for a House seat: “This is a good place to be—for a lot of reasons. We must have set up five fundraisers today.  This is the bank.”

Yes, sirree, the DNC is “the bank.” So Democrats, bow down to the one you serve, or at least, walk this way.  The Times continued, quoting more Democrats rolling in their dough—and not caring who knows it:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Clinton’s fundraisers.  “I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

To be sure, Hillary herself doesn’t talk about big money, at least not in public; maybe one day, we’ll find out what she said to Goldman Sachs—but not yet.  And so, okay, perhaps there’s a little hypocrisy at work.  As Politico explained, “While Clinton continues to promise to rein in the influence of big money, her donors this week have seemed emboldened, celebrating at private parties around town and mingling in the lobby of the Center City Ritz-Carlton over cocktails and seafood.”

So there we have it.  Of course, it’s not just the Clinton campaign that’s raking in the bucks; it’s also pro-Clinton SuperPACs, such as Priorities USA, which has $142 million, dwarfing any pro-Trump effort.

And that much money can, indeed, buy things.  As was reported in 2015, Hillary’s social-media following has some, uh, interesting characteristics:

Her official Facebook account had almost 685,000 fans. … At least 46,000 of them list Baghdad, Iraq, as their hometown.  While most of her US Facebook fans are older than 55 . . . Clinton enjoys the support of younger Facebook fans with 66 percent of her Iraqi female fans and 67 percent of males aged between 18 and 34.

Evidently, such dubious digital payola is still continuing: For some people, it’s a living to go online and support Hillary.  Yes, if your campaign has the money to spare, you can buy votes, or at least online pseudo-votes.

To be sure, some holes have been punched in the Clinton financial armor.  As many observers noted, nobody in Philadelphia mentioned the Clinton Foundation—evidently, it now polls as a negative for the Clintons, hence the silence.  So kudos to Peter Schweizer, author of the muckraking book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich.  By dint of his investigative prowess, Schweizer has knocked a major girder out from under Bill and Hill.

In addition, some caustic observers on the left have actually taken note of the persistent stench of plutocracy.  Under the headline, “The DNC Is One Big Corporate Bribe,” New Republic reporter David Dayen singled out marquee-name Democrats now working plush jobs in just one industry, tech, including:

Obama campaign guru David Plouffe (now with Uber) and Gore consultant Chris Lehane (now with Airbnb) . . . former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, now at Amazon.  . . . Former Attorney General and corporate lawyer Eric Holder took time off from his work with Uber and Airbnb to address the convention.

However, we can observe that all this money comes at a cost: With each new dollar, the Democrats are ever more bought into the establishment system.  And this is at a time when, as we have seen, more than two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.  So the Democrats, being bought and paid for, can’t help but appear smug and oblivious.

As The Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote, Hillary “embodies the establishment and political status quo.” From an electoral point of view, that’s sad!  Or as Trump himself tweeted, “Hillary will never reform Wall Street.  She is owned by Wall Street!”


In other words, maybe the Democrats’ whole huge effort to build a Potemkin village of faux ideology has come to naught.  As Mike Murphy, chief adviser to Jeb Bush and definitely not a Trump fan, tweeted on Thursday night: “The highly effective dog whistle this convention has been sending to disaffected Republicans ended abruptly in HRC’s speech…  #TooLiberal.”

Yes, the Democrats have a lot of money, and they used it to put a lot of lipstick on the pig, but maybe it wasn’t enough; it’s still a pig.

Michael Moore har, som mange andre, bemærket at Hillary Clinton ikke er inspirerende og på de socieale medier florerer et meme, som selvfølgelig ikke ligefrem er et bevis, der illustrerer den pointe


Mens Hillary nok fører i meningsmålinger, så er opbakningen til hende lunken. Trump deler vandene, men han formår at begejstre sine tilhængere og hans kampagne er, omend mindre, så mere folkeligt sponseret

Ved utgangen av juni var det totalt 85,9 millioner dollar (724 millioner kroner) i Hillary Clintons valgkampkasse og hos de såkalte super PACene som støtter henne. Til sammenligning hadde Donald Trump 22,5 millioner dollar (185 millioner kroner).

Men ifølge opplysninger fra Trumps egen kampanje har pengene fosset inn i juli. I en felles digital og såkalt direct mail-kampanje, har Det republikanske partiet og Trump-kampanjen samlet inn 64 millioner dollar.

The New York Times skriver at alt i alt fikk Trump og Det republikanske parti inn 82 millioner i juli, det betyr at de ligger helt i ryggen på Clinton som fikk inn 90 millioner dollar.

Dette er tall fra Trumps egen kampanje. Først når de offisielle juli-tallene fraFederal Election Commission foreligger senere denne måneden vil en få vite detaljer i Trump-kampanjens økonomi.


To tredjedeler av de pengene som kom inn i juli, kom over nettet. Ifølge The New York Times kan Trumps kampanje bli den første republikanske presidentkampanje som henter storparten av inntektene fra små givere. Mange har gitt mellom 10 og 25 dollar.

Dette er et fenomen man også så med demokraten Bernie Sanders kampanje.

Hillary Clinton får mer penger fra storkapitalen enn Trump. Hele 37 direkte eller indirekte bidrag til hennes kampanje har vært på én million dollar eller mer.

Hvis det kun er den hårde ideologiske kerne af demokrater og social justice warriors der orker eller føler sig forpligtet til at møde op kunne det måske forklare, hvorfor de, der møder op til konventer, ser ud til at opføre sig utåleligt

Post traumatisk negersyndrom

Eller slavesyndrom, men tanken er at hvide skal betale til negre selv om negre også holdt negre som slaver hjemme i Afrika. Og det er ikke noget at grine af: “We still feel that pain. We suffer discrimination, we suffer from racism…in every walk of life.” Jamen, så skal de da også ha’!

Faktisk var negre den foretrukne vare som negre i Afrika handlede i med og da europærerne kom til Afrika blev resultatet af dette kultursammenstød til en stor international eksportvare, hvad negrene i Afrika anså som ganske fair trade. Eller, der var allerede et arabisk marked før europærerne begyndte sine relationer til Afrika og det fortsatte efter europærerne havde fortrudt at lade sin økonomi basere sig på sort energi. I Frontpage Magazine kan man læse

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.”

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

Imens i Venezuela, prøver man nu om livegenskab kan redde den socialistiske drøm inden slaveriet bliver nødvendigt.

Kan Trump overvinde the pussy generation?

Donald Trump står som det bedste håb, for at stoppe den nedbrydning af Vestens frihedsforståelse, som Hillary Clinton ser ud til at ville forsætte i sporet efter Barak Hussein Obama. Men selv om han skulle vinde over Hillary, kan Donald Trump også sætte det hele over styr, som en anden Glistrup, hvis hans retorik viser sig kun at være fantasterier, som det konservative tidsskrift National Review slår til lyd for igen og igen. Her er lidt Trump kritik og perspektiv fra den mere afdæmpede og altid skarpe Thomas Sowel, som man kan læse i Townhall

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

Og efter en hurtig gennemgang af Obamas og Hillary Clintons forhold til magtudøvelse og ytringsfrihed (hvor muligheden for at kriminalisere skepsis til klimafortællingen afsøges konstant)(Dennis Prager kommer til lignende konklusioner) konkluderer Sowell

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

Russisk roulette indeholder muligheden for et positivt udkomme, så jeg krydser alligevel fingre for Donald Trump. Trump kan næppe frelse den Vestlig Verden, men han kan sætte en afgørende anden dagsorden ved at punktere den vestlige fortrængning af det ondes eksistens og blinde tro på at behandle sig ud af konfrontationer om nødvendigt ved selvopofrelse. Måske kan Trump fravriste venstrefløjen deres definitionsmagt over debatten, som Clint Eastwood fortæller Breitbart

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Clint Eastwood said in an interview with Esquire. “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

Eastwood specifically cited Trump’s comments criticizing a judge who was born to Mexican parents, but indicated he was tired of the media fueled controversy

“He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides,” he said “But everybody —the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”


“I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps,” he said, calling Clinton “a tough voice to listen to for four years.”

Eastwood criticized political figures who were using their position to make money, citing “too much funny business on both sides of the aisle.”

“She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,” he said, referring to Clinton.

Som et eksempel kan vi se på Trumps svar til en journalist fra CNN om det fortstående besøg fra selveste Pave Francis. Transcribtionen er fra Washington Times fordi jeg ikke kan stave til særligt meget på engelsk

Mr. Cuomo asked what Mr. Trump would say if a translator said to him: “‘The pope believes that capitalism can be a real avenue to greed. It can be really toxic and corrupt.’ And he’s shaking his finger at you when he says it. What do you say in response to the pope?”

“I’d say ISIS wants to get you,” Mr. Trump said. “You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that — you know, that’s a dream of theirs to go into Italy, you do know that.”

Medierne ææælsker at sætte modsætninger op, men de hader at stille de relevante modsætninger op. Paven er moralsk uangribelig, Paven ser anderledes på lengesager fordi han aldrig har skulle tjene dem selv, så hvad har Trump at sige til sit forsvar? Intet, Trump hamrer istedet den relevante dagsorden igennem, islamisk terrorisme breder sig fra alle steder, og det er Paven og hans ligesindede der er i en tilstand af fortrængning. Så spørgsmålet er nu ikke længere hvad Trump har at sige til Paven, men om Paven har noget at sige til realiteterne. Dette, sammen med Brexit og et fornuftigt valg i Frankrig og andre steder kan sætte en helt anden dagsorden og give mod til retskafne politikere på at det nytter at tale de fine fornemmelser midt imod fordi folkedybet er større end den den definerende klasse som er et med mediernes verdensbillede.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).


Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

Balfour erklæringen er alle katastrofers moder

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.


These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress