USA har brug for Trump

Diverse — Drokles on July 24, 2016 at 6:56 am

“[V]ærre end Donald Trumps megalomani er den autoritære stemning, han dyrker og hylder” skriver Politiken i en leder og at han “som præsident vil være en katastrofe“. Men når Politiken mener at “Valget af Donald J. Trump som præsidentkandidat er udtryk for en dyb krise i det republikanske parti” så overser de, hvor galt det står i USA og den vestlige verden. Derfor bliver de opstemte tea-party republikaneres tilråb også fejltolket

Konventet har med hjælp fra Trump og flere af talerne opfundet sit eget slogan, som har lydt igen og igen fra salen: »Spær hende inde!«, råber de med henvisning til demokraternes kandidat, Hillary Clinton.

LÆS OGSÅ Flere republikanere kræver Clinton fængslet - eller ligefrem henrettet

Ja, enkelte Trumpstøtter har ligefrem luftet tanken om, at Clinton bør henrettes for forræderi.

Hvor trist, at det stolte, republikanske parti synes at have glemt, at det er diktaturstater – ikke demokratier – der låser deres politiske modstandere inde.

Kravet om at låse Hillary Clinton inde bunder nemlig desværre ikke et vulgært ønske om blot at kunne smide sine politiske modstandere i kachotten. Blandt mange sager om korruption har Hillary Clinton også gjort sig kriminelt skyldig i lemfældig omgang med klassificerede oplysninger som udenrigsminister. Dette blev bekræftet af FBI, der dog alligevel valgte ikke at anbefale en rigsretssag mod Hillary Clinton, siden hun var præsidentkandidat. Med det stærkt Trump kritiske National Reviews ord

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

Eller med den altid fremragende Bill Whittles ord

Og så er der jo omfanget af Det Muslimske Broderskabs infiltration af Obamas og Hillary Clintons administration. “Hillary Clinton’s top aide and confidante Huma Abedin” er fra Saudiarabien

In the late 1990’s, while Huma Abedin was interning in the Bill Clinton White House and began her long association with Hillary Clinton, she served as an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Students Association.  Huma Abedin also worked at the aforementioned Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Huma Abedin, who was raised in Saudi Arabia during her formative years and was exposed to Saudi Wahhabist ideology, gravitated to Islamist organizations with ties to radical Saudi entities when she returned to the United States as a young adult.

Years later, with the prospect of an influential White House position side by side with her patron Hillary Clinton in sight, Huma Abedin still puts Islamist interests first. Evidence that the “Muslim Minority Agenda” espoused by the journal she once worked for is still her key priority is a video of Huma Abedin advocating unlimited admission of Syrian refugees into the United States.  She said that “we cannot turn these people away.”

Huma Abedin has operated within the same network revealed in the Congressional Joint Inquiry Report. She will be a carrier of “civilization jihad” into the inner circle of the White House if Hillary Clinton is elected president.


…both Huma and Hillary have a lot of explaining to do about Saudi Arabia, the big money that the Kingdom has given to the Clintons, and why Hillary knew the Saudis were funding terrorism and didn’t do anything about it. The public will have questions about Saudi Arabian-raised Huma Abedin, a woman who I’ve already said I believe is a Saudi plant.

If our media even TRIED to do their job and tell citizens the truth, the 28 Pages would sink Hillary Clinton faster than Ted Kennedy’s car sank in the dark waters of Chappaquiddick one July night.

An issue like the Saudi influence on the government and the Kingdom’s support for terrorism is where Donald Trump’s populism comes into all its glory. I don’t care whether you’re a staunch conservative or proud progressive, almost nobody likes or trusts Saudi Arabia. Everyone knows that the Saudis are out for themselves and are our “ally” in the same way a scorpion is an ally to a frog when it needs to get across the river.

The 28 Pages report confirms this in a section that’s title says it all: Lack of Cooperation in Counterterrorism Investigations.

The problem has been that Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all been in Saudi Arabia’s pocket. (Do those bedsheets they wear even have pockets? I’m a fashion expert, so I SHOULD know these things!)

When you have an issue with the political elites of both parties on one side and most of the American people on the other, it’s exactly why Donald J. Trump is the ideal man for his time.

Hillary and Huma won’t be able to avoid questions — like the three questions I said Hillary must answer about Huma — forever. It’s a time for answers.


Ja, Trump er højst sandsynligt en charlatan. Det ligner han i hvert fald fra mit kældervindue og mange har givet sober kritik, som Jim Tracher og Daniel Pipes. Trump siger hvad som helst ofr at blive valgt, men heri også sandheden. Og det er hvad USA, ja den vestlige verden, hvis jeg må være så flyvsk, har brug for. For alternativet ser meget, meget være ud. Victor Davis Hansen beskriver Trump således afvæbnende i National Review

By any definition, Trump is not a classical populist. His traction derives from opposing unchecked and cynical illegal immigration, not diverse and measured legal immigration. And he is rebelling not so much against a flabby, sclerotic status quo as against a radical, even revolutionary regime of elites who are now well beyond accustomed norms. It is hardly radical to oppose the Confederate doctrine of legal nullification in more than 300 sanctuary cities, or a de facto open border with Mexico, or doubling the national debt in eight years, or ruining the nation’s health-care system with the most radical reconstruction in the history of American health-care policy, or systematically running huge trade deficits with an autocratic China that does not adhere to international norms of free trade and predicates expanding political and military power in the South China Sea on its commercial mercantilism. Trump seemed incendiary in the primaries, but as he is juxtaposed to the official Clinton extremist agenda, he will likely be reinterpreted increasingly as more mainstream — a probability enhanced by his selection of Mike Pence as his running-mate.

Og Townhall skriver optimistisk at Trump haler godt ind på Clinton i meningsmålingerne.

The whole Clinton email affair and subsequent preferential treatment was viewed very negatively by the American people. According to a ABC News/Washington poll, 56% of the American people disagreed with Comey’s decision not to charge Clinton, while only 35% expressed support.

The American people know preferential treatment when they see it and in this situation it was clear that Hillary’s political influence was a major factor in the Department of Justice decision. It reminded the public of the double standard of justice that exists in our country, a condition that is anathema to Americans who care about fairness in our criminal justice system.

Not surprisingly, Hillary’s already low ratings for trustworthiness and honesty plummeted. The result was that Hillary’s national poll numbers versus Trump started to drop significantly. In the latest Rasmussen poll, Trump received a new high of 44%, with a strong 7% edge over Clinton. He is also leading in the latest LA Times poll by a 43-40% margin and is tied with Clinton in the most recent New York Times poll. Most importantly, in the new Quinnipiac University battleground state polls, Trump enjoyed a slight lead over Clinton in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio and was tied with Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state Republicans have not won 1988.

Blot en lille detalje om forskellen på de to kandidater. Mens Hillary inviterer moderen til den småkriminelle Michael Brown, der efter at have røve en kiosk blev skudt og dræbt da han forsøgte at overfalde en politimand,   havde Trump inviteret Susan Smith, moderen til en af de dræbte amerikanere ved angrebet på den amerikanske ambassade i Benghazi .

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress