Sweden Adopts Stern Response to Country’s Rape Epidemic
Now that the influx of Muslim refugees into the country has catapulted Sweden to the top of the international heap when it comes to the crime of rape, government officials have determined it is time to take action. That action is the publication of a “sex guidebook” intended to convey a message to immigrants from Muslim countries that rape is wrong.
Youth and Civil Affairs Authority Director General Lena Nyberg explained that “the issue seems to be one of culture shock for young Muslim males entering Swedish society. These refugees were raised in a culture that explicitly designates females as sex objects for Muslim men. Naturally, these young men have a hard time adjusting to the western concept of equal rights for women.”
“Even worse, their religious doctrine declares that women who show their faces in public are whores,” Nyberg continued. “Consequently, Swedish women who go out in public with their faces showing are considered legitimate targets for punitive rape, assault, and murder by devout Muslims. Hopefully, our guide book will clarify the situation and deter Muslim men from committing these crimes.”
In Rinkeby, a suburb of Stockholm, local Imam Iwan Akillya denounced the guidebook, calling it “a violation of our religious rights and duties. Unbelievers trying to force their degraded western values on the people of Islam is unacceptable. True believers must follow the Quran, not the satanic blather of Swedish bureaucrats. It is Allah’s command that the faithful have a duty to slay the unbelievers, though it does permit using them as temporary sex slaves before killing or converting them.”
Nyberg said “the Imam’s statement is unfortunate. We hope it doesn’t reflect the real feelings among the young immigrants we are trying to reach. Our assumption is that those coming to our country as refugees are interested in fitting in with a new culture. Otherwise, why would they have chosen to leave the country of their birth?”
Akillya pointed out “the key flaw in the government’s reasoning is that Sweden is their country. All the world is for Allah. The sooner the unbelievers recognize this and convert to Islam, the sooner they can begin to enjoy membership in the only legitimate religion and know the peace of being one with the umma.”
In related news, Germany’s threat to support a European Union penalty of $75 million on Poland for its refusal to take in more Muslim refugees brought a stinging reply from Poland’s foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski. “We have seen the crime and social disruption that the importation of these so-called refugees has done to other European nations,” he said. “Germany, of all countries, should be keenly aware of the havoc that unwanted invaders can do to a country. By our estimation, the uninvited German visitors of 1939 ended up causing close to a trillion dollars worth of damage to Poland. Before Germany goes on a campaign to intimidate us to accept more invaders perhaps they should consider paying for the damage their country inflicted on all the places their troops went without being asked during World War II.”
Dem PAC Files Ethics Complaint
The Democratic Coalition filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics alleging that Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ suggestion that ESPN host Jemele Hill’s tweet labeling the President “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists” might be a “fireable offense,” broke the law.
Democratic Coalition chairman Jon Cooper insisted that “we cannot ignore the sinister implications of what the Trump Administration has done here. Mrs. Sanders contends she is entitled to express her opinion about the outrageous comments of Ms. Hill, but clearly her statement was intended to intimidate ESPN into firing one of its valued employees for merely expressing her opinion about Trump and his henchmen.”
Nate Lerner, the Democratic Coalition’s executive director, cast Sanders’ words as “another example of the Trump White House’s blatant disregard for the Constitution. A few months ago we had Kellyanne Conway urging people to buy Ivanka’s clothing line, now this. It is of the utmost importance that we hold the Trump administration accountable for its illicit behavior. If Sanders doesn’t go to jail over this it will be a dark day for our democratic institutions.” The law Lerner has in mind calls for a fine, up to 15 years in prison, or both.
Whether ESPN could conceivably be frightened into a firing action it disagrees with based on comments made by a Trump Administration official seems dubious. Anti-Trump commentary has become an annoying and intrusive part of the network’s sports broadcast coverage over the past year. The only employee ESPN has fired for expressing political views was former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling after he questioned the wisdom of laws forcing organizations to allow professed “transgendered” individuals to use whatever restroom or locker room they pleased despite their conflicting physical anatomy.
Weiner Pleads for Leniency
Former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) asked a Manhattan federal court to grant him leniency after his conviction for sending obscene emails and texts to an under-aged 15-year-old girl last year. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 21 to 27 months for a charge that carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Weiner’s lawyers argued that “the girl was the instigator of the crime. She preyed upon the weaknesses of a man who was widely known as a sex pervert. Now she’s written a book and will profit from the experience. So, to say that she was an innocent victim is false.”
A second mitigating factor cited was “the fact is, Mr. Weiner’s wife has already suffered enough. Her political career has been crushed. She’s lost the confidence and affection of former Secretary of State, and the only person she truly loves, Hillary Clinton. Under the State of New York’s community property law, her suffering ought to be credited against her husband’s legal liability.”
A third mitigating factor cited was that “given the narrow margin of her loss, it could be argued that the untimely revelation of Mr. Weiner’s misdeeds tipped the scales against Mrs. Clinton in her run against Donald Trump for the presidency. Surely, the misery now being experienced by this dedicated public servant and her supporters is sufficient punishment without putting Mr. Weiner behind bars.”
Lastly, Weiner’s lawyers argued that “putting this man in jail will deprive his son of his father’s presence. The boy’s development would be stunted without the daily interaction and guidance his father would be able to provide if he is allowed to go free. Who will teach the boy how to be a man? Who will teach the boy the difference between right and wrong? For the sake of this young boy’s future he needs his father.”
Hillary Admits “Mistakes Made”
One of the more bizarre revelations in Hillary Clinton’s campaign autopsy book—What Happened—was her admission that she tried Voodoo, “but it didn’t work. I had dolls of all the key players—Trump, Bannon, Limbaugh. I stuck them with pins like you’re supposed to, but none of them even got sick, much less died.”
The former presidential candidate speculated that “some sort of Russian radiation or hypersonic interference may have short-circuited the effectiveness of this time-tested technique. I mean, it’s not like I haven’t successfully used this tool before. We made a lot of problems disappear when Bill was governor of Arkansas and when we were in the White House. So, there’s got to have been some outside interference that prevented it from clearing a path to my election last year. Putin and the Russians seem to be the logical answer.”
A more predictable Clinton reaction in the book was her castigation of the “mistakes made by every woman who didn’t vote for me. They had a chance to make history by electing the first person without a penis to the presidency, but they blew it.”
“I’ve been searching for the reasons,” Clinton said. “In some cases I think it was a case of spousal abuse intimidating women from acting independently and voting for me. In other cases I think domineering fathers discouraged their daughters from breaking free of the patriarchy. So fearsome were these baleful male influences that even the secret ballot could not overcome their fear of what would happen to them if the men in their lives suspected they had voted for me.”
Though Clinton feigned a vague implied sympathy for women frightened away from voting for her, she refused to offer any absolution. “I’m not letting anyone off the hook for the evil they’ve done by not voting for me,” Hillary declared. “It’s their sin and they should suffer their well-deserved anguish and sleepless nights for as long as they live—like the young woman whose mother made her publicly apologize to me for not voting for me. Perhaps the humiliation that woman experienced will inspire other mothers to exert more effective control over their daughters the next time a woman runs for president.”
In related bad news for Mrs. Clinton, a County Circuit Court in Maryland ordered the State Bar to open an investigation into the conduct of three lawyers who allegedly helped her illegally delete her emails. Judge Paul Harris ruled that “an accusation that lawyers who have a special obligation to obey the law actually broke the law merits more than a hasty dismissal.” Harris rejected arguments from the three lawyers—David Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—that the case was frivolous since a similar complaint had already been dismissed in Arkansas, saying that “we should aspire to higher standards of ethics than might prevail in Arkansas.”
Meanwhile, 1600 newly released Clinton emails from her term as Secretary of State provide fresh examples of a “pay to play” scheme wherein donors to the Clinton Foundation received special favors from the State Department. Not only do these emails indicate a pattern of self-dealing corruption, they also contradict her testimony that she turned over all her Department-related correspondence before erasing only her personal correspondence upon leaving the office in 2013. A Clinton spokesperson, in a not-for-attribution statement, denied that the former Secretary of State’s testimony constituted perjury “because she was never asked to testify under oath. So whatever lies she may have told are, technically, not perjury.”