Sunday, August 25, 2019

Relationship Troubles

When it rains, it pours. Today’s Carolyn Hax column contains another compelling slice of contemporary life. In truth, as with the prior post, it dates to many years ago. So, you might have seen it already. I had not.

So, I will quote the letter, and then we will examine the situation:

I've been dating my boyfriend for about six months, and it's been fantastic. Around the same time — pure coincidence — I started talking to an ex whom I hadn't spoken to in years. (It ended badly). I have no desire to be part of his life again, but I like the idea of being on peaceful terms with somebody. My boyfriend is not pleased and has all but flat-out asked me to stop talking to him. If I let him make this call for me, will it continue to escalate from there?

— Detroit

Let’s stipulate that this woman is not a child. If she had a previous boyfriend and has not spoken to him in years, because the relationship ended badly, she is a fully fledged adult. 

We will report the Hax response, which is, that she should never allow her boyfriend to have any influence on who she is and is not talking to:

You have an admirable, credible motive for keeping in touch. If he doesn’t believe it’s admirable, then his values don’t line up with yours. If he doesn’t believe you, then why is he even with you? The only response from him that passes the fantastic-relationship test is to trust you. Ask for it. Tell him it’s nonnegotiable — as is your being worthy of it.

This was not one of Hax’s better days.

First, Detroit does not have an admirable, credible motive for keeping in touch. She had been out of touch for many years, so there is no need for her to do so now. Let’s imagine that the man abused her. It happens all the time. What admirable and credible motive can she have for maintaining contact with a man who mistreated her. She is playing with fire....

Second, why would we assume that Hax knows the entire story. The letter is merely a sketch. For all I know, the boyfriend might sense that the man’s motives are not quite that innocent. Why do you imagine that he has gotten back in touch... if not to seduce her again? Do you really believe that he wants to show her how he has become an upstanding citizen? Only the most naive among us will think good thoughts about the man's motives.

The woman does not see it. Or she does not want to see it. Or she is being manipulated by someone who presumably manipulated her before. But, the boyfriend sees something that he does not like. However obtuse the average man is, the boyfriend might sense that his girlfriend is intrigued by her old boyfriend, that she still feels something for him.

Hax does not know whether this is true. She does not know what the boyfriend is seeing, and does not even care to know. 

The woman should voluntarily cease to have contact with her ex. She has no business wallowing in past passions. Or, as the French call it, nostalgie de la boue. Nothing good can come of it. If she follows Hax’s ill-considered advice, she will blow up her current relationship and find herself back in the arms of someone who mistreated her. 

If she were a decent and honorable individual her boyfriend would not need to tell her to walk away from her past bad relationship. Hax seems to believe that the woman should conduct herself as though she were perfectly independent and autonomous. If she does, if she fails to respect her boyfriend’s feelings, she will soon lose her current boyfriend. Independent and autonomous are euphemisms for: alone.

It's what happens when you take bad advice.

Married While Feminist

Today Carolyn Hax prints a letter from a woman who is sorely discommoded about her layabout husband. You see, he does not do his fair share of household chores. He lies around watching television and playing video games. She nags him constantly about his failure to contribute, but to little avail. She wants to go out and to do fun things, but he only does so begrudgingly.

Of course, the letter does not offer us the information we need. First, we do not know what he does for a living. If he is unemployed, it’s one thing. If he has a high stress job, it’s quite another. And we do not know whether she is or is not working herself. The marital dynamic is normally defined according to such considerations. Thus, as often happens with these letters, we are flying blind. 

What we do know is that unhappy housewife is a nag and a pest and a shrew. She is talking about walking out of the marriage. I suspect that her husband has already done so. Why would he put up with her constant complaining? She wants to break him down completely and does not understand why he does not respond positively? Huh... she might try to rethink her strategy.

If so many evenings culminate in a fight, that tells me that the two are not indulging in very much intimacy. Thus, the marriage is pretty much over right now. Thanks largely to her... but naturally, rather than blame herself, she blames her hapless husband.

Anyway, here is the letter:

Before we married, my husband and I enjoyed doing fun stuff together. Now, he just wants to watch TV or play video games. When he does leave the couch, it's to play poker or basketball with his guy friends. He NEVER helps me around the house unless I've completely broken him down — asking nicely, nagging, cajoling, etc. By that point, I'm upset because I've had to expend so much energy for his minimal help, and he's upset that he's had to get off the couch.

I've also tried everything to get us to do recreational things together, but when I've managed to get him out the door, the results have been disastrous. He spoils the whole activity by pouting and faultfinding. These evenings always culminate in a huge fight!

I love my husband dearly and can't imagine leaving him. However, I thought my marriage would be a best-friend partnership, and now I feel like live-in domestic help. We don't have kids yet because I feel like my hubby's already too much of one. I don't think he's depressed because he's always pretty happy and up for going out with the guys.

What do I do? Get divorced? I've tried to talk to him about how I feel, but he thinks I'm being critical and gets defensive and angry.

— Confused

For the record, doing stuff around the house is not the same as going out to do stuff together. One does not know whether they were living together before they married or whether she was that obnoxious before the wedding. One does not understand where Confused got the idea that she had to beat up on her husband in order to get him to vacuum the floors. 

Evidently, Confused is following the feminist playbook, called How to Wreck a Marriage. She is so convinced that her husband should be doing his fair share of the chores that she never even questions whether her strategy--nagging and nagging and fighting-- is accomplishing the goal she has set. It seems to be an unrealistic goal, so perhaps she should change her approach.

Like a therapy-addled soul, she imagines that all she needs to do is to express her feelings about the matter. She does so, to no avail. Apparently, it never crossed her mind to negotiate the matter, to come to an agreement.

As you can guess, Hax recommends that she leave him, perhaps so she can find another husband to boss around and to alienate. Hax believes that Confused is trying very hard. She is wrong. Confused is not trying at all. She cannot bring herself to think that her vision of a feministically correct marriage is an illusion, and that she should change her errant ways.

Confused had thought that marriage was a “best friend partnership.” Wherever did she get that idea? It’s that idea that is destroying her and making her marriage into hell. The rhetorical flourish, to the effect that her husband is really a child, means that she has imbibed far too much of the feminist Kool-Aid. 

Why did she not know that she and her husband were not on the same page before getting married? And does she expect that her husband will share diaper duty with her if she has a child? Does she want her husband to become a Mr. Mom? And, if so, why has she never raised these issues with him? Perhaps she does not care what he thinks because she is married to her ideology. 

Again, given that we do not know who is working outside of the home and who is not, I recommend that she stop asking him to do anything at all. If the housework is too onerous, she should hire a maid. And then she should ask herself whether she wants to be married to a man she loves or to be married to an ideology.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Is Donald Trump Making America Crazy?

You would think that the mental health profession would be all-in for President Donald Trump. If we are to believe Matt Ford in The New Republic and Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, Trump is making us all crazy, mad, insane, depressed, anxious, stressed out and sick. You come away thinking that maybe he was put into office by the pharmaceutical manufacturers to ensure a continuing market for their medications.

Naturally, both writers trot out the usual quantity of evidence to demonstrate their points. And yet, neither are, to my understanding, mental health professionals. Why this means that we should care about what they think about mental health issues escapes me.

Neither of these two uninformed authors cares at the least that the Trump presidency has been accompanied by increasingly hysterical shrill attacks on Trump. Why would we not want to say that the anguished masses are simply emulating the leftist dimwits who are filling the airways and the media with their cries of anguish? And why would we not attribute the increasing divisions that characterize American life to the inability of Democratic politicians to accept the results of the 2016 election, with decorum?

Still, Matt Ford is whining in his tea about the cruelty that Donald Trump is inflicting on those who have entered the country illegally. Very caring, very compassionate and very motherly... don't you think?

Is he suffering the same despair over the horrors that were visited on people in Iraq and Syria after President Obama walked away from those war zones… and left ISIS to do what it pleased? Did Matt Ford or Dahlia Lithwick shed the least tear for the gang rapes, the sex trafficking and the misery inflicted on Christians in Iraq and Syria? Did they become agitated over the executions of thousands of gays in Iran while Obama was sucking up to the ayatollahs? Or were they prostrate at the altar of the Great Obama, worshiping his brilliance and blaming it all on George W. Bush?

Dare we mention that shifting the blame, refusing to take any responsibility for one’s actions, for one’s failure to accept political reality and the results of democratic elections will make you deranged… regardless. Joining a Resistance movement that harkens back to World War II, suggests that you are out of touch with reality and that you have defined yourself as a disloyal opposition. Unhinged, to say the least. Pathetic and pitiful, to say the most.

So, the whiny left, being thoroughly in touch with its feminine side, is horrified at the prospect of taking risks, of competing in the world, of defending American interests. I am not going to tell you whether these competitive activities, of standing tall for American national pride, are being conducted as well as they might. If the Wall Street Journal editorial board believes that Trump is mishandling the trade war with China, we have a right to be skeptical.

And yet, restoring national pride, the national pride that Barack Obama did not believe to be his concern, would naturally contribute to the nation’s emotional well being. After all, the antidote for depression is not hope. It’s success and achievement. I would note again, to repeat myself, that when Obama disparaged America and refused to stand tall and proud for the nation, he demoralized the nation. Demoralizing the nation produced anger, as it naturally would.

The rather feeble thinkers noted here do not understand that Obama paved the way for Trump, that Obama laid down the predicate that made Trump reasonable, that without Obama we would have had no Trump. They ought to consider their own contributions to their own mental health, their failure to accept responsibility for their own hysterics and take a deep breath. Now, exhale... but not too much. All that carbon dioxide will pollute the planet and precipitate the oncoming climate apocalypse. Are they going to blame that on Trump too?

If you are making yourself crazy because you believe that the sky is falling, you have a problem. Even Barack Obama, who just bought a waterfront estate on Martha’s Vineyard, obviously does not believe that the rising ocean will drown it in ten years. If you think it will, it’s time to go back on your meds.

Anyway, to give the two authors their due, Ford is seriously agitated over the fact that Trump is wasting time. One does not know how he knows this. We do not know whether or not it’s a theory that is being trafficked by Trump or his detractors. Since Ford does not know any better, he takes it to be gospel truth.

It’s a bizarre accusation from someone who knows nothing about mental health. So, humor him:

Wasting time is a defining feature of Trump’s presidency. He is fairly adept at frittering away his own days, spending an indeterminate number of hours languishing in front of the television, simply to watch cable news coverage of himself so he can then offer comments about it on Twitter. But when it comes to wasting the time of everyone around him, the president is without peer. Trump’s haphazard style of governance forces journalists, lawyers, and government officials to expend innumerable hours on doomed initiatives and errant tweets. His corrosive effect on American politics forces Americans to devote far more hours of their life to thinking about him than they should. All of this amounts to a tax of sorts on the national psyche—one that can never be repaid.

Human lives are bounded by time and attention. Every moment that’s spent focused on one thing can’t be spent another way. At a certain level, it’s not healthy to tabulate all of these expenses. In other circumstances, however, it’s unhealthy not to do so. I first started thinking about how Trump wastes Americans’ time two months after he took office. In the early morning of March 4, 2017, he sent a series of tweets alleging that former president Barack Obama “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” before the election. “Nothing found,” Trump added. “This is McCarthyism!”

If I recall correctly, McCarthyism was about accusing American politicians and bureaucrats of being in collusion with Russia, or better, with the Soviet Union. As it happened, the American left has been selling the same conspiracy theory, theory that had no real merit, for years. For Trump to raise the issue does not feel overly exaggerated. Why has Ford not become deranged for having imbibed the swill that has just been definitively rejected by the sainted but not entirely coherent Robert Mueller. 

And then Ford complains that Trump’s immigration policy is making him crazy. Apparently, the vision of migrants flooding over the border fills him with warm, fuzzy feelings. Trying to keep the country’s border intact causes him to scream hysterically:

Unfortunately, they pale in comparison to his reckless approach to policy-making. His hastily written executive order to enact a ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries in 2017 led to hours of chaos at U.S. airports before federal courts finally intervened. After multiple rewrites and more than a year of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld a narrower version of the measure last summer. It would become a recurring theme: Trump regularly announces bombastic moves on immigration, then leaves it to federal agencies, lawyers, and the courts to try to fashion some sort of order from the wreckage.

As for Lithwick, she too complains bitterly at the time and energy it takes her to follow Trump’s tweets. Dare I mention the obvious, if she is consuming herself following Trump’s tweets, then she has a serious problem. No one is forcing her to be obsessed with Trump. It’s a choice, one for which she ought at least to take a little responsibility. She likes Ford’s ideas, sadly enough:

Ford’s formulation is a useful way to think about the massive toll, in terms of time and energy stolen from Americans forced to pay attention to inane tweets and half-baked policy, this presidency has had on all of us. As Ford observes, Trump, himself an inveterate squanderer of time, is wasting all of ours: “Trump’s haphazard style of governance,” he writes, “forces journalists, lawyers, and government officials to expend innumerable hours on doomed initiatives and errant tweets. His corrosive effect on American politics forces Americans to devote far more hours of their life to thinking about him than they should.” The problem is that we have no choice but to follow the inane tweets and oppose the half-baked policy. There are serious consequences that follow to transgender soldiers, DACA kids, green card holders, and, of course, families at the border when we don’t.

Better yet, Lithwick continues, Trump is making us, especially Latinos, physically ill. Why would she not, one muses, herself whether the generalized hysteria mounted by the anti-Trumpers not be contributing to this generalized malaise?

In the Washington Post, William Wan and Lindsey Bever write that “Researchers have begun to identify correlations between Trump’s election and worsening cardiovascular health, sleep problems, anxiety and stress, especially among Latinos in the United States.” In other words, it’s not just that Trump is wasting our time and mental space; he’s also making us physically ill.

Of course, Lithwick gets paid to follow American politics, especially the legal variety. And yet, we might suggest that she not take it all so personally, not become so emotionally involved in her work. The sky is not falling. The nation will not collapse in a heap because an illegal alien does not have a toothbrush. Time for Ford and Lithwick to take a deep breath and dial down the hysteria. It’s making people crazy. And, unless we are mental health professionals, we do not want that. 

Underperforming Schoolchildren in New York

As you know, New York’s Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is an inveterate social justice warrior. He says that he cares about education but all he really cares about is diversity. 

Carranza has been on the job for a year now, and apparently, New York’s school children have shown miniscule improvements in math and languages. Hip Hip Hooree. 

And yet, racial and ethnic disparities still exist. The New York Post reports that New York’s schoolchildren are still chronic underperformers. Some groups underperform more than others. Here is the story:

More than half of city school kids still can’t handle basic math or English, even though this year’s state exams scores ticked up slightly, according to state data released Thursday.

While state officials lauded scoring upticks, only 47.4 percent of city students in grades 3 to 8 scored at proficient levels in English and 45.6 percent made the grade in math, according to the numbers.

The city’s overall English proficiency rate edged up by 0.7 percent from the prior year and math scores improved by 2.9 percent, the numbers show.

The city’s Asian kids had the highest rate of math and English proficiency yet again, the data show.

In math, 74.4 percent made the grade, followed by white students at 66.6, Hispanics at 33.2, and African-Americans at 28.2.

All ethnic groups posted gains in math, with whites improving by 3 percent, Hispanics by 2.9, African-Americans 2.8, and Asians 2.2, according to the figures.

Asian kids also set the pace in English with a 67.9 percent proficiency rate, followed by whites at 66.6, Hispanics at 36.5, and blacks at 35. All groups posted slight increases in the category.

You will note the irony: Asian children perform better at English than do white children.

Of course, charter schools performed the best of all:

City charters schools, now teaching roughly 10 percent of the city’s student population, markedly outperformed traditional public schools again, according to the state.

A total of 57.3 of charter city kids made the grade in English, the same percentage as last year – and 63.2 scored at proficient levels in math, a 3.6 percent jump.

The Success Academy charter schools boasted top results on the state tests once again.

Of the 7,405 Success Academy kids who took the exam, 99 percent passed math, with 86 percent hitting the the highest level of 4.

In English, 90 percent passed English, with 41 percent notching the top mark.

Network officials highlighted the performance of their Flatbush school, where all 47 of their third graders passed both exams. The school, which opened in 2016, does not have older grades yet, officials said.

One can only wonder what the numbers would look like if the city did not count charter schools. As you know, and to New York City’s and the Democratic Party’s shame, the teachers’ unions have been doing everything in their power to shut down charter schools. If that does not work, they will make sure that the city does not allow any more of them to open. We do not want New York schoolchildren to get a decent education, do we?

Friday, August 23, 2019

The Question of Jewish Loyalty

To say the least, Donald Trump should be more careful with his words. So says Eli Lake, and he is correct. Trump has a communication problem and he does not improve it by speaking for himself, unfiltered.

A more savvy communicator would not have chosen the slogan, America First, for his political campaign. I trust that we need not explain that one.

So, Trump maladroitly raised the issue of loyalty in one of his verbal fusillades against the Gang of Four and their enablers in the Democratic Party. How can American Jews, Trump suggested, continue to support the anti-Semites it their midst. Where is their sense of loyalty, or some such.

Eli Lake explained the point:

At the same time, the context of these particular comments shows that he is not engaging in anti-Semitism. In the modern context, the questioners of Jewish loyalty — think of Representative Ilhan Omar — tend to aim their calumny at the Jewish state: Diaspora Jews, according to this slander, are more loyal to Israel than to the country where they are citizens.

By contrast, Trump has raised the issue of Jewish loyalty not to question Jewish allegiance to the U.S., but to ask why Jewish Americans are not more loyal to Israel. His point is that the Republican Party, and his policies in particular, have been a boon to the Jewish state. Why wouldn’t Jewish Americans reward him with their votes?

In this respect, Trump’s comments are a rejection of the nativist claim that Jewish citizens are more loyal to Israel than to the U.S. After all, his administration moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. His administration recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He has used his bully pulpit to call out progressives like Omar, who suggest American support for Israel undermines the national interest. His diplomats have pressed countries like Argentina and Paraguay to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

It makes eminently good sense. 

And yet, the highly esteemed (by me) Bari Weiss, writing in the Times, took some serious umbrage at the notion that Trump would use the word “loyalty” in referring to American Jews.

The major debate tearing apart the American Jewish community on this particular Wednesday is whether or not the 45th president of the United States just accused them — us — of disloyalty to Israel and the Jewish people or of disloyalty to the Republican Party and the man who has remade it in his image.

“Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they are defending these two people over the state of Israel?” President Trump said on Tuesday, referring to Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, Democratic congresswomen who support the boycott movement against Israel. “And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

And also,

What do you hear in the president’s statement, which, like many things he blurts out, manages to be both opaque and outrageous at once? If you’re pro-Trump or Trump-curious, you’ll generously hear an assertion that Jews should be loyal to Israel. If you’re anything like me, you can’t help but hear echoes of the sinister charge of dual loyalty.

Of course, we do not recommend parsing Trump’s remarks. Conceptual precision is not his strong suit. And yet, we are within our blogger rights to twist the issue, the better to make it a bit more cogent. It’s Weiss’s prerogative to hear whatever echoes she hears, but that does not an interpretation make.

Take a different approach. What if Trump was questioning American Jews’ blind loyalty to the Democratic Party. This has nothing to do with dual loyalty or any other such absurdity. It does raise the issue of how American Jews can continue to remain loyal to a political party that has become the epicenter of American anti-Semitism, that has single handedly made anti-Semitism legitimate again.

This does not mean that all American anti-Semitism is coming from the political left. Now that anti-Semitism is acceptable, certain members of the right have come out from under their rocks. And the media has been happy to promote their bigotry … the better to allow leftists to continue supporting the Democratic Party.

In truth, anti-Semitism was revived by Chicago politicians, under the aegis of Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright. Pres. Obama treated the prime minister of Israel with boundless contempt. And when Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress, most members of the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted the event. Most of them could not bring themselves to denounce Farrakhan.

In truth, Islamist radicalism has, in America and in Europe, led the march to bring back anti-Semitism. And yet, President Obama could never pronounce the name and could never treat Islamid radicalism for the cesspool of anti-Semitism that it is. His more zealous followers concluded that it was not a problem. When Islamist terrorists shot up a kosher supermarket in Paris and murdered several people, Obama could not bring himself to declare it an anti-Semitic act.

Bari Weiss ought to consider these facts before she jumps to a wrong conclusion.

Let’s not forget that once upon a time there really was a Hitler. And he was in power in Germany for eight years before Pres. Franklin Roosevelt lifted a finger to stop him. And let’s not forget that Roosevelt did everything in his power, during the Hitler years to ensure that European Jews could not escape Europe. We do not know what a Republican president would have done, but surely FDR is responsible for his conduct of foreign policy. He is also responsible for sending the St. Louis, a ship filled with nearly a thousand Jewish refugees, back to Europe in 1938... and to the death camps. And let’s not forget, yet again, that the New York Times did yeoman work covering up the persecution of Jews in Europe and the Holocaust.

Given these facts-- there are many more-- how can you explain the loyalty that many Jews continue to feel toward the Democratic Party? Do they think that things would have been much worse if Republicans had been in power during the FDR years? Are they mortified by the fact that their very own Messiah, that is, FDR, sold them and their families out for political gain… because allowing Jews into America would have offended his labor union supporters? Or do they claim that FDR did everything he could, but that all the bad things that happened were forced on him by Republicans?

So, the loyalty issue cuts several ways. If Trump had been a more capable communicator he would have raised the issue of Jewish loyalty to the Democratic Party, to the party of the Gang of Four, to the party that is fostering and condoning Jew hatred, to the party of Barack Obama. After all, Obama made it safe to be anti-Semitic again in America.

But, Jews supported Obama, so they must feel obliged to shift the blame onto Republicans and onto Donald Trump, a man I called America’s first Jewish president.

The Truth about Greenland

Given our current level of political derangement, we often miss the truth and the facts. Consider Greenland. You have probably heard that President Trump concocted the most absurd idea that any human being has ever had, and that he sprung it on the unsuspecting prime minister of Denmark. About the fallout, read yesterday’s posts.

Today we learn that the ideal was originally floated by Sen. Tom Cotton… to the Danish ambassador. Thus, the government of Denmark had been informed a year ago. It should not have come as a surprise. It was Cotton, among others, who presented the idea to Pres. Trump.

In the days after news of President Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland emerged, the idea was derided as “absurd,” “completely insane” and “an April Fool’s Day joke.”

Now, one Republican senator has declared that he not only agrees—but he already pitched the idea to Denmark.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas proposed the idea to the Danish ambassador to the U.S. in August 2018, in a meeting in the senator’s office that had been arranged to discuss the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, according to a spokeswoman for Mr. Cotton.

The ambassador, Lars Gert Lose, was “caught a little off guard,” said the senator’s spokeswoman, Caroline Tabler. After Mr. Cotton laid out the reasons why the U.S. would want to purchase Greenland, an ice-covered autonomous Danish territory between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, the conversation “moved on,” Ms. Tabler said.

Such is the background. Such are the facts… for those who care.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Meanwhile, Back in Denmark

Meanwhile, back in Denmark. Ah, yes, glorious Denmark, a nation that counts among the happiest in the world. The country cannot defend itself, but little matter that. It sits happily under the American military umbrella.

And yet, all is not well in Denmark. You see, military conquest is not the only way to occupy a country and to transform its culture. There are, dare we say, more peaceful means. Among them, mass migration by people who refuse to assimilate into the local culture.

Judith Bergman reports on what is happening in Denmark today. One understands that the problems were not caused by President Trump. And one also understands that the weak sisters of Western Europe, led by France and Germany and Great Britain and Sweden… have happily welcomed millions of Muslim migrants… people who have undertaken to change local cultures. Given that the weak sisters are nothing if not weak, they are mostly letting it happen.

Bergman writes:

Earlier this year, in his New Year's speech, Denmark's prime minister at the time, Lars L√łkke Rasmussen, mentioned that religious parallel societies constitute a problem and that immigrants need to learn to "put secular laws over religious ones".

What, however, if, in the community involved, there seems no desire to do that?

"When I was in high school", Rasmussen continued "there were around 50,000 people with a non-Western background in Denmark. Today, there are almost half a million. In one generation, our country has changed".

Would that Donald Trump were Denmark's largest problem.

The new migrants, most of whom have settled in Copenhagen, prefer Islamic law to Danish law:

Just how great are the problems was revealed in a recent survey, Integrations Barometer 2018, published by the municipality of Copenhagen. The Integration Barometer -- which measures the degree of integration in the municipality among young people with a non-Western background -- showed that almost one third of 18-29 year-olds (31%) believe that "religious and cultural laws must be adhered to, even though they may be contrary to [Danish] law".[1] The issue, then, is whether these young people believe that Islamic sharia law should take precedence over Danish law. The statistic represents an increase from 2016, when a similar survey showed that 24% wanted sharia law. In addition, the number of youths who view democracy in a positive light has fallen from 86% in 2016 to 79% in 2018[2].

As for who is promoting sharia law, we look first to the mosques. As it happens, Danish authorities have approved mosques that are being directed from Iran, of all places:

The Imam Ali Mosque, which opened in 2015 and is the largest in Denmark – it was built with 2 minarets 32 meters tall and with room for 1,500 people, at a cost of 80 million Danish kroner ($1,800,000; 1,600,000 euros) -- has been at the center of the debate. The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten recently revealedthat, when, in 2002 the association behind the mosque, Ahlul Bait, asked to be approved as a religious community, it had in its statutes a provision saying it operated under the supervision of Iran's 'Supreme Leader', Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. At first, this news was a matter of concern for the Ministry of Church Affairs, but then Ahlul Bait simply rewrote its statutes and the ministry gave its approval.

The Danes are on the case however. They passed a law declaring that imams would not be allowed to preach in favor of rape. How is that one working out?

In 2016, Denmark introduced various initiatives against religious preachers who sought to "undermine Danish laws and values and who support parallel legal systems". One of those initiatives criminalized speech in Danish mosques that condones violence and rape. "This," said the Minister of Church and Culture, Bertel Haarder, at the time, "will have an impact on what people put up with from their religious leaders."

What Haarder apparently failed to consider was that "people" might not disagree with their "religious leaders" and would therefore be happy to "put up" with sermons and teachings that in fact actually do go against Danish laws and values.

The Danes, in a spasm of idealistic fervor, imagined that they needed but to pass a new law… and that imams would cease preaching for violence. They did not figure out that those who attend such mosques are fully on board with marital rape... and prefer sharia law to Danish law.

Anyway, the invasion into Denmark is proceeding apace. And the Danes do not know how to deal with it. Their culture will almost certainly be defeated in the end.

Bergman notes this salient fact:

In 2006, there were 115 mosques in all of Denmark. By the end of 2017, that number had increased to approximately 170 mosques in total -- an increase of nearly 50% in little more than a decade. It is unclear, how many of those mosques have been formally approved by the Ministry of Church Affairs.

As if Donald Trump is Denmark’s biggest problem.