Det globale klimakterium

Diverse — Drokles on June 21, 2018 at 6:24 am

klimaramt-klode

Under den besynderlige titel “Danmark skal hjælpe med at brødføde en klimaramt klode” advarede Dan Jørgensen i 2014. Han havde læst i en FN rapport, at fremtiden, også den lige om hjørnet, ville byde på fødevaremangel grundet flere og værre tørker med oversvømmelse vil ødelægge verdens afgrøder. Alle ved hvor svært det er at få noget til at gro i troperne.

Hvis man ville vide hvad klimaforandringerne vil bringe, skrev det ventreorienterede Think Progress sidste år, skulle man blot se på den irske kartoffel hungersnød (1845-89). “Economic inequality and rampant xenophobia make environmental disasters worse” - hvorfor det sikkert var derfor Dan Jørgensen mente, at det vil være op til danskerne, med deres xenofobe rigdom, at redde resten af verden.

Think Progress indrømmede, at deres lære af klimaforandringer, fra et tilfælde førend mennesket på nogen meningsfuld måde kunne have påvirket klimaet, ikke havde nogen årsag i klimaet, da selve kartoffelpesten var et parasitangreb. Men fordi de engelske protestanter udbyttede de livegne irske katolikker og fortsatte med at eksportere deres rigelige afgrøder af anden slags til England, havde de fattige irlændere stort set intet andet at spise end de kalorierige kartofler, der nu var ramt af parasitter.

“Basically, what you had is a society controlled by what we would today call neoliberal capitalism, in which the rich viewed poor people as totally superfluous” citerede de en professor for at sige. Og fordi alt bliver slemt med klimaforandringer vil det, der er slemt allerede, som det neokapitalistiske samfund, blive endnu være med klimaforandringer. 1 million irlændere døde i de år og en million emigrerede til USA, hvor de også fandt og selv udviste xenofobi. Og så stod der noget med automatiseringer og Trump, men hvorom alting var, så var det perspektivet ifølge Think Progress.

Men på Politico hæftede man sig ved et andet problem ved klimaforandringer end hvad Think Progress, Dan Jørgensen. FN frygtede nemlig, at der kommer til at gro for store afgrøder grundet den CO2 rige atmosfære. Også det vil være galt, for alt der forandrer sig fører kun ulykker med sig, hvis ikke i den ene retning så i den anden. Så fremtiden bringer en omvendt kartoffelkrise, hvor folk kvæles i kalorier.

Det er historier, som disse, der gnaver i folks tillid til den brovtende ekspertise. Og klimasagen er også reelt set helt død, skrev Steven F Hayward for Wall Street Journal

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.

Det var forudsigeligt, skrev han videre, ikke fordi det var en tosset ide, hvilket det var, men fordi den slags politiske bevægelser har en livscyclus ifølge Anthony Downs. I den første fase slår nogle eksperter og aktivister alarm over et eller andet de finder er et problem. Denne fase afløses af ‘dopamin’ fasen, hvor aktivister overvejer mulighederne i løsninger på katastrofen. Dernæst indses det at omkostningerne vil være astronomiske for at forhindre katastrofen og til slut taber offentlig langsomt interessen, som dommedagsbasunerne bliver færre og mere fjollede.

A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”

Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

På Verdensnaturfondens hjemmeside kan man læse at “Klimaforandringerne er en kendt synder, og er medskyldig i det markante insektfald overalt i verden”. Så overalt i Verden, fra troperne til polarcirklen, lever der insekter som nu dør fordi de rammes af klimaet.

Det vender for Trump

Diverse — Drokles on June 20, 2018 at 9:26 am

Der er masser af undersøgelser i det amerikanske juridiske system, ikke blot af den siddende præsident Trump og hans modkandidat Hillary Clinton og allehånde personer tilknyttet de to og deres valgkampsorganisationer, men også af systemet selv. Justitsministeriet har i ugens løb har Justitsministeriet offentliggjort en rapport (af flere og kommende) om FBIs gøren og laden under præsidentvalgkampen. Og det viser sig at der var mange, der havde en ide om, hvorledes de kunne hjælpe amerikanerne med at træffe et kvalificeret valg; et læk-o-rama kaldte Allah-pundit det.

56 årige James Wolfe, “security director, responsible for receiving, maintaining and managing all classified intelligence shared with the [Senate Intelligence Committee] by U.S. spy agencies (or is it informant agencies?)” havde en affære med en journalist først i tyverne, ved navn Ali Watkins, som han forsynede med allehånde fortrolige oplysninger fra sit arbejde, så hun kunne få sit scoop og han bevise at han endnu kunne. Begge havde de et anstrengt forhold til udsigten af 8 år under Trumps præsidentskab. Andrew C McCarthy giver en smagsprøve

For example, in spring 2017, Wolfe tipped Ms. Watkins that Russian spies had attempted to recruit Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page back in 2013. This leak did not occur in a vacuum. It had been revealed that the Obama Justice Department used the unverified Steele dossier, generated by the Clinton campaign, to obtain FISA-court surveillance warrants against Page. To control the damage, Democrats and other, uh, non-partisans wanted to claim that the FBI had reasons independent of the dossier to suspect that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia.

Wolfe obliged with the leak, enabling Watkins to write a BuzzFeed article provocatively headlined “A Former Trump Adviser Met with a Russian Spy” — although the story could just as easily have been entitled “A Former Trump Adviser Helped Justice Department Prosecute Russian Spies.” (Page voluntarily provided information that prosecutors used to arrest Moscow’s operatives.)

The indictment implies that Watkins’s story was based in part on top-secret intelligence provided to the committee by a U.S. intelligence agency on March 17. On that day, Wolfe and Watkins exchanged 82 texts, in addition to having a lengthy phone call. On April 3, the day the story was published, they exchanged 124 texts and spoke on the phone after Watkins appeared on national television to discuss her report.

Wolfe cultivated other journalists, too, using what the indictment calls “anonymizing messaging applications,” and arranging surreptitious meetings in restaurants, bars, private residences, and secluded areas of the Hart Senate Office Building. Wolfe gave one unidentified reporter a heads-up that the committee had subpoenaed Page, and he even provided that reporter with Page’s personal contact information. Later, after the reporter’s story was published, Wolfe extended congratulations: “Good job! . . . I’m glad you got the scoop.” The reporter responded with thanks, noting that Page was not “pleased” but did not deny being subpoenaed. Page complained to the committee about media leaks, to no avail.

For skønt Trump mener at han ville vinde en meningsmåling blandt FBIs medarbejdere ‘med en større margin end nogen nogensinde har vundet en meningsmåling’ er kulturen i dele af FBI degeneret til, at flere fandt det naturligt at støtte ‘modstandsbevægelsen’, den del af den politiske opposition, der ville yde Trump modstand uanset hvad - uanset hans førte politik. Foragten for Trump og hans vælgere, der af en FBI medarbejder blev kaldt fattige, uuddannede, dovne skiderikker, som skal bekæmpes, var tilsyneladende så almindelig, at man på direktionsgangene ikke syntes at have haft kvaler med at begå ulovligheder

Eller sådan synes det at se ud, hvis man skal tolke på tidligere stedfortædende direktør Andrew McCabe forsøg på at opnå immunitet mod at vidne foran Kongressen. McCabe har haft en ledende rolle både i efterforskningen af alting Rusland og i Hillary Clintons email sag. Mens FBI på forhånd gav ledende medlemmer af Hillary Clintons stab immunitet, selv om de bl.a. havde medvirket til at destruere bevismateriale så var man anderledes nidkære med at retsforfølge Trump medarbejdere for ikke at være konsistente i deres vidneudsagn.

In fact, the most hair-raising section of the report, an entire chapter, is devoted to communications among several FBI officials (not just the infamous duo of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page), which overflow with abhorrence for Trump (“loathsome,” “an idiot,” “awful,” “an enormous d**che,” “f**k Trump”) and his core supporters (“retarded,” “the crazies,” one could “smell” them). More alarmingly, the agents express a determination to stop Trump from becoming president (e.g., Strzok, on being asked if Trump would become president, says “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”; and on being assured that his election is highly unlikely, opines that “we can’t take that risk” and that the bureau needs “an insurance policy” against him).

Med det målrettede had, der her demonstreres kan der næppe herske tvivl om at enhver antydning af bevismateriale mod Trump for at have et uheldigt forhold til ‘russerne’ var blevet lækket for længst. De har overspillet deres kort og satset på at de kunne finde et eller andet inkriminerende hvis blot de roede længe nok. Men Trump var smart. Han viste at der ikke var noget at finde og har brugt tiden på at styrke amerikansk økonomi og amerikanske interesser, mens hans fjender skaffede sig selv mere reb af hænge i.

Pyjamasdrengen har fået sparket

Diverse — Drokles on June 15, 2018 at 9:03 am

To medlemmer af det norske Fremskrittspartiet indstiller Trump til Nobels Fredspris for sin rolle i fredsprocessen i Korea. Lidt tidligt vil jeg mene, men i det mindste har Trump udrettet mere end blot ikke at være Bush, som hans forgænger Barak Obama vandt prisen for - eller var det for ikke at være hvid? Det var en anden tid dengang skrev Robert L Erlich Jr National Review, som minderne skyllede over ham med stemninger

Recall a lifetime ago (actually it was 2008), when a certified dove won the presidency in a landslide. One of his first official acts was to undertake a trip to a number of Muslim countries, wherein apologies were offered for America’s “imperialist” past. Assurances were also made: The cowboy Bush and his warmongering neocons were gone. Mr. Obama would now inform the world that America had learned its lesson. The U.S. would no longer manifest its arrogance on the world stage. We would henceforth strive to have the world like us — especially our charismatic but unthreatening young president, who was counterintuitive himself, seeming to act on the premise that if the United States was ostentatiously embarrassed about its dominance and power, we would be better liked. And we were better liked, but much more endangered and much less intimidating.

American withdrawal from world hot spots followed. Where we did show up, we made sure to provide the enemy with the date and time of our engagement. Where we did take action, only tentative commitment followed. Who can forget Secretary of State John Kerry promising a “unbelievably small, limited kind of [bombing] effect” against Bashar al Assad’s murderous regime, or a famously failed “red line” in that same country; or the description of deserter Bowe Bergdahl as having served with “honor and distinction”; or freezing defensive missiles in Poland to placate Vladimir Putin; or our feckless response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea; or the specter of funding the Iranian ballistic-missile program and the mullahs’ terror activities throughout the Middle East?

Alas, too many voters within flyover America saw all this as a step too far — too much weakness — too many vacuums — too many “kick me” signs displayed for consumption by America’s bullies. With apologies to Austin Powers, American had lost, indeed given away, its “mojo.”

And then one day the unlikeliest of political leaders appeared. Many voters (including some who ended up voting for him) saw Mr. Trump as unprepared to tackle the world’s most intractable problems. Another subset of supporters maintained serious concerns about “policy by tweet” and the man’s propensity to engage in sideshow fights with antagonistic politicians, reporters, and celebrities.

But there was one aspect to the Trump phenomena that all of his supporters firmly believed: that the “kick me” sign that had hung around America’s neck for eight years would be gone. Good riddance.

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-06-15-kl-091611

Victor Davis Hanson fangede også tendensen, pyjamasdrengens selvoptagede og egocentriske regime

6 dage i Juni II - De udvalgtes åg

Diverse — Drokles on June 12, 2018 at 7:40 pm

Det var aldrig meningen at Israel skulle blive, som det er idag, skrev Göran Rosenberg f.eks i Information sidste år. Rosenberg var skuffet på den Første Zionistiske Kongres vegne over at Israel i de 121, der er gået, med alt hvad der er sket af uforudset ting i historien, ikke har været efter den oprindelige og lettere diffuse plan. Rosenberg sammenligner simpelt hen nogle drømme med et nutidsbillede uden hensyn til at vilkårene har ændret sig - hensynet til virkeligheden er den mangel han stiver sin indignation af med. For eksempel kollapsede det Osmanniske Rige, hvis velvilje planen afhang, som følge af 1. Verdenskrig. En anden udvikling man ikke havde set i 1898 var at det ellers stort set tomme land omkring Judæa og Samaria ville tiltrække allehånde arabere, som jøderne skabte økonomisk liv. Det var heller ikke med i planen at araberne ville erklære jihad mod selv ideen om at jøder ikke levede ydmygede under muslimsk fod, men havde deres egen bestemmekalot på issen. Virkeligheden optræder faktisk ikke i Rosenbergs domfældelse af Israel.

6-dageskrigen blev, ganske rigtigt, et afgørende vendepunkt for Israels identitet og forhold til araberne. Fra at Israel kunne overleve arabernes forsøg på folkemord, beviste Israel i juni ‘67, at de kunne ’settle all family business’ til den arabiske og muslimske Verdens store ydmygelse - og de var ikke uskyldige. Og vist førte den sejr til en brovtende selvforståelse og det er alt hvad Rosenberg mener er relevant. “Uanset årsagerne til krigen” indleder han således et afsnit, og fortsætter

…varede det ikke længe, før Israels erobring af Østjerusalem og Vestbredden blev beskrevet som en historisk tilbagevenden. En bred politisk bevægelse på tværs af partier under navnet ’Hele Landet Israel’, Eretz Israel Hachlema, krævede, at ’Judæa’ og ’Samaria’ skulle beholdes. Den faktiske – og senere formelle – annektering af Østjerusalem (inden for stærkt udvidede bygrænser) blev forholdsvis hurtigt sat i værk. Få år senere var de første jødiske bosættelser på besat jord et faktum, deriblandt den aggressivt national-religiøse enklave i det centrale Hebron.

(…)

Med tilbagekomsten til Hele Landet Israel skabtes de militære, politiske og territoriale forudsætninger for jødiske bevægelser baseret på forestillingen om, at jødisk nationalt herredømme over den erobrede ’hellige jord’ var en opfyldelse af bibelske profetier. De millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu beboede og benyttede området, var reduceret til en hindring på jødernes vej.

Med den jødisk-ortodokse tænker Yeshayahu Leibowitz ord, blev det jødiske folks stat “et statsapparat for jøders tvangsherredømme over et andet folk”. Uanset årsagerne, vold er forkert, så spar ham for “den selvmedlidende tone” om selvforsvar “uanset om der måtte være nogen sandhed i disse påstande eller ej”.

Men desværre, sandheden kan ikke forskastes. Araberne forkastede FNs delingsplan og derved også deres krav på jorden. Jorden mente de, at de kunne erhverve sig uden om FN ved at tage den med magt og slagte jøderne. Derved afsværgede de sig også retten til det, der ikke var Israel (Israel anerkendte FNs delingsplan og har efter international lov, ret til det land, som Delingsplanen definerede) og det blev, som det stadig er, omstridt land.

I ‘48 blev Østjerusalem besat af Jordan, der straks ødelagde alle synagoger og jødiske kirkegårde med mere. De millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu boede og benyttede området havde ingen kvaler med den manøvre. Området tilhørte altså ikke dem, men en hvilken som helst repræsentant for arabere eller muslimer. Omstridt land besat af trediepart… hvem besætter Israel det fra? Jordan eller de millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu beboede og benyttede området?

Og hvorfor er hellig jord sat i citationstegn, når det var araberne der erklærede hellig krig? Og hvorfor benyttes navnet ‘Palæstina’, som det korrekte, når det hverken er arabisk eller jødisk (det er et romersk hånenavn) - og ikke indkluderer Jordan, som ellers var en del af det Palæstinensiske Mandat? Fordi fakta ikke betyder noget, kun anklagen.

Rosenberg medgiver at det er “givetvis korrekt”, at Israel bliver bedømt med en anden målestok end andre stater, men det syntes altså så uvæsentligt at han end ikke finder det væsentligt om det faktisk er korrekt. For hvis Israel bliver målt med andre alen, så hænger det sammen med at “at forventningerne helt naturligt blev eksalterede og frygten apokalyptisk”, ved vores civilisations udsigt til “Jødernes tilbagekomst til ’det hellige land’”. Det er altså jødernes egen skyld at de ikke har levet op til vores forventninger.

6 dage i Juni

Diverse — Drokles on June 10, 2018 at 3:56 am

Jeg missede 50 året, men 51 er også et år at huske 6-dageskrigen, her på datoen for den sidste krigs-dag. Medierne huskede det dog for enhver anledning til såkaldt Israelkritik forpasses aldrig.

USAs præsident Trump har lige omfavnet de enevældige arabiske herskere og Israels ultranationalistiske leder som de gode og stemplet iranerne som de onde” skrev tidligere dansk Udenrigsminister og Formand for FNs Generalforsamling Mogens Lykketoft i Berlingske Tidende. Dette synspunkt, som Lykketoft dutter Trump på, kalder han en “ekstrem forenkling”. Araberne bliver enevældige herskere i selskab med Trump, men er ikke en del af den virkelighed, som Israel skal overleve under. Næh, “De største trusler mod Israel kommer fra Israel selv”, slog hans overskrift fast. Og så bandt han, ganske sigende om tiden og den panik som Trump har skabt, sit håb til “tidligere chefer for militær og efterretningstjenester”

Lykketoft er ikke politiker uden evnen til at kunne besnakke de mindre indsigtsfulde. Hamas er den “islamiske bevægelse” og ikke en terrorbevægelse, hvis eksistensformål det er at udslette Israel og alle dens iboende jøder. Den slags er man vandt til, men Lykketoft er også mere subtil.

Et retorisk begreb som “det historiske Palæstina” skal få læseren til at se det land for sig som der strides om, så udgør Israel allerede broderparten af der hvor Palæstina jo ligger, som det har ligget siden den historiske tid startede. Da palæstinenserne efter 67 opkaldt sig selv efter Palæstina og ikke længere bare var en samling arabiske klaner, der end ikke kunne enes om at føre koordineret krig mod jøderne ved delingen, er det naturligt for mange. at tiltro palæstinenserne førsteret til landet. Så Israel har allerede fået mere end de burde ved deres blotte eksistens.

Med det etableret er der således anderledes dybde når Lykketoft smører retorisk på med at Israel “fortsætter undertrykkelsen, ydmygelsen og koloniseringen af de palæstinensiske områder”. Se, ikke palæstinensernes områder, som retorisk vil være de områder de allerede har, men de palæstinensiske områder hvori Israel befinder sig. “Israels regering har ingen reel vilje til at opgive besættelsen” får vi også at vide, som var selv Israel en stor besættelse.

Og se det i lyset af hans indledning af kronikken

FN bestemte i 1947, at jøderne skulle have et hjemland i Palæstina, og at landet skulle deles i en jødisk og arabisk stat med Jerusalem som neutral zone. Historien tog en anden drejning med krigen i 1948-49, som for jøderne var en frihedskrig og for palæstinenserne en katastrofe.

Han fortæller ikke at jøderne accepterede hvad FN tilbød, som de havde accepteret de seks foregående tilbud og holdt fest i det ganske land og derved fik deres land af FN. Araberne sagde nej til tilbudet, som de havde sagt nej til de seks forudgående, om at få deres del af resten af ‘det historiske Palæstina’ (anderkendt) af FN. De valgte krigen, som de tabte - og dermed står de uden krav på land i det nu omstridte område.

Han fortæller heller ikke at araberne allerede havde fået 80% af det historiske Palæstina han er så glad for at nævne. Det hedder Jordan og det besatte Jerusalem, som et led i krigen mod det af FN nyoprettede Israel, skændede alle jødiske kirkegårde og ødelagde synagogerne. Jordan annekterede faktisk hele Vestbredden, mens Ægypten annekterede Gaza - og aldrig var der en ‘palæstinenser’ der klagede over at være besat. For det katastrofale havde intet at gøre med antallet af flygtninge. Nogle hundrede tusinder er desværre ikke særligt mange mennesker i det regnskab, nogenlunde det samme antal som der de kommende år måtte flygte af jøder fra den arabiske verden til Israel. I Europa blev ca 12 millioner af tyskere fordrevet fra Østeuropa. Katastrofen bestod i at Israel overhovedet blev etableret, da jødisk selvherredømme strider imod islamisk lære.

Lykketoft får dog fortalt at under hans “formandskab holdt FN også et stormøde mod antisemitisme” hvor han i en tale sagde “at det ikke er antisemitisk at kræve afslutning på besættelsen og undertrykkelsen af det palæstinensiske folk eller kræve stop for ulovlige bosættelser på besat jord”. Det er der en islamisk bevægelse, der gerne vil skrive under på.

Venstrefløjens ondskab

Diverse — Drokles on June 9, 2018 at 6:30 am

Charles Krauthammer har bemærket at konservative anser venstrefløjsere (liberals) som idioter, mens venstrefløjsere betragter konservative som onde. Idioter kan man forsøge at få i tale og måske forklare dem, hvor i alverden det går galt i deres små hoveder - og måske lærer man selv noget undervejs. Men har man først dømt sin modpart som ond, så er der ingen grund til debat. Med ondt skal det onde bekæmpes.

Derfor faldt det helt naturligt for en række show-biz celebriteter at tilsvine Ivanka Trump for at være sin fars datter. Anledningen var et bedårende fotografi Ivanka havde offentliggjort på Twitter af hende selv med sin lille søn. “Feckless cunt!” kaldte en TV-entertainer hende til sit publikums store begejstring og celebritetskollegaers fulde støtte, der lagde ekstra lag på eller var fiffige som Sally ikke-uden-min-datter Fields, der mente at ‘fissen’ var modsætningen til Ivanka, god, smuk og livgivende som den var. Og Jon Stewart kendte Bee, som det mest sympatiske mennekse overhovedet, så hvis hun har tilsvinet nogen måtte det være fortjent. Hun er god, ergo…

Den amerikanske forfatningsekspert Alan Dershowitz er et af de mennesker, der har forsyndet sig allermest mod al anstændighed ved ikke at tolke Trump juridiske forhold ufavorabelt, skriver Legal Insurrection. Og det er nedslående læsning, for de af os, der tror på at debat i sidste ende kan gennemførs selv med idioter. Et halvt år gammelt eksempel er Elie Mystal på sitet Above The Law. Mystal fordømmer alle mennesker, der har stemt på, støttet eller ikke sagt fra overfor den Trump, der er “openly bigoted, is an admitted sexual predator, courts nuclear war, lies, cheats, steals”. Hun har mistet, ikke droppet, mistet, venner og familie fortæller hun som hun beskriver sin systematiserede foragt for dissidenter

In bucket A, you have all the private people, the friends and family, who you can no longer talk to. How can you still break bread with people who think that their economic grievances are so important that it justifies national racism towards you, your children, and your immigrant wife? I’ve lost friends because post-Trump I can’t even trust them to be around my kids.

In bucket B, there are the public people. The ones you don’t know personally but whose work or art you respected. I cannot respect somebody who will raise their voice and expend their effort on the same side that the Nazis are fighting for. I cannot forgive that. Some of these people openly support Nazis, others merely compartmentalize the white supremacy away from whatever policy point they think is really important. Either way, these people are irredeemable. When you decide to roll around in trash it matters little if you are rotten to the core or if you just smell that way. I’m keeping a list, for when the wheel comes back around.

In bucket C, there are those who are silently complicit. They don’t say anything overtly Trumpish, but they also don’t do anything at all to resist. These are the “both siders.” They are LEGION in media. I see you. You’re dead to me too.

Oprevet derfor skriver hun hvorledes “ Washington Post ran a piece today that allowed Dershowitz” at forklare sin position. Dershowitz - “a junkie who gets high off of playing devil’s advocate” kan kun, måske(!) blive tilgivet, hvis det viser sig, at en virus har sat sig på hans hjerne og reduceret ham midlertidigt til “some kind of brain eating, p***y-grabbing zombie“. Men sådan er det nok ikke, konstaterer hun mismodigt og konkluderer “Evil continues to win the day“.

—————————————-

Vi på Monokultur har med glæde benyttet Charles Krauthammers indsigt i amerikansk politik i 10 år. Det er sørgeligt, at han nu er dødsyg af cancer. Han offentliggjorde sit værdige og bevægende farvel til denne Verden i Washington Post. “It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living” skriver han bl.a efter at have takket allehånde mennesker i sit liv, fra familie til læsere. Det kan anbefales at læse.

Europa

Diverse — Drokles on June 8, 2018 at 6:35 am

Der var en opsigtsvækkende sag i USA, hvor en voksen mand sagsøgte sine forældre for at smide ham ud hjemmefra. Forældrene mente at deres søn havde brug for at stå på egne ben, hvilket sønnen mente var en krænkelse af hans rettigheder og en trussel mod hans velbefindende. Den sag randt mig ihu da jeg læste følgende beklagelse over den nye italienske virkelighed med to populistpartier i regeringen, skeptiske overfor EU, afrikanske migranter hærgende i bybilledet, og regnskabsføring, i Der Spiegel

Europe is currently battling on many fronts, both internally and externally. The EU must adopt a united stance on Donald Trump, whose misguided policies threaten both Europe’s security and prosperity. Trump is forcing Europe into a trade war and, worse yet, he threatens to scrap the postwar international order that enabled the Europeans to find their place in the world — through trade and the structures of the World Trade Organization and the security it found in the form of NATO.

But how can the EU wage a trade war if Italy threatens to spiral into chaos? At a time when the EU could be proving itself as an alternative to Trump’s unilateralism, when Japan, Mexico and the members of South America’s Mercosur are lining up to conclude free trade agreements with Brussels, Europe may instead be facing months, if not years, of squabbling over a possible bailout for Italy. And then, almost as an afterthought, there’s Brexit, Britain’s departure from the EU, which is set to take place in nine months.

The attention instead is on Italy, a founding member of the EU, a pillar of NATO and the third-largest economy in the eurozone. If this country teeters, it will shake the entire architecture of the European Union.

Det sku’ være så godt… Ja, den internationale orden, hvor Europa fandt sin plads, ikke helt gennem “trade and the structures of the World Trade Organization and the security it found in the form of NATO”, men mere bag høje toldmure om Det Indre Marked, gratis beskyttet af det amerikanske militær. Så hvad skal der nu blive af EU “a bastion of reason“, “when Trump and Putin are trying to tear down the multilateral order, established over many years through painstaking work, and instead insist on the survival of the fittest.” Forstår “semi-autokraten” Trump da slet ingen ting?

“The longer the EU grows together, the more people are drifting apart from each other” citeres en italiensk filosof for at sige - måske fordi det lyder mere seriøst end at citere Prinsesse Leia. Og EUs kvaler vil selvfølgelig ikke udmønte i en borgerkrig, som Alessandro Gagaridis spekulerer i på Eurasia Review. EU falder fra hinanden (hvis det falder fra hinanden) af manglende interesse i de forskellige medlemstater. Fordi der ikke er en fælles offentlighed til at binde EU sammen vil der heller ikke være en fælles interesse i at holde på de enkelte medlemslande. Derfor kan man intet lære af eksemplerne USA og Jugoslavien. De frigjorte medlemslande vil blot komme ud af huset og stå på egne ben.

Et blodigt teater

Diverse — Drokles on June 5, 2018 at 10:20 am

“De mejes ned som fluer”, skriver Fathi El-abed i et løgnefyldt indlæg på BT. Som fluer ikke mejes er 93 ud af 112 dræbte Hamas terrorister (resten er grangiveligt glade amatører). Sidste år kunne man i New York Post læse at Hamas brugte halvdelen af den udenlandske støtte til at belønne terrorister. Det er også meget bedre uden en mellemmand, som UNWRA, der spilder for mange penge på potemkin kulissen.

Brendan O’Neill skriver i Spiked Online, at der er en klam symbiose mellem vestlige journalister, ivrige efter en simpel historie mellem gode ofre og onde undertrykkere, og Hamas propaganda. Og det er denne interesse for den gode historie, der er med til at holde konflikten på et unaturligt intenst niveau. Uanset hvor dårligt palæstinenserne ’som folk’ er blevet stillet ved at deres arabiske ledelse ukonstruktive kurs mod den Israels eksistens, belønnes ledelsen selv ved at opvirgle til nye kampe og sammenstød. Hamas får magt ved at levere døde civile til forslugne vestlige medier, konflikten er “a piece of bloody theatre, staged for the benefit of outsiders

It now seems undeniable that this was no instinctive, grassroots protest, but rather one that was carefully orchestrated by Hamas. As a New York Times reporter described it, after midday prayers clerics and leaders of Hamas ‘urged thousands of worshippers to join the protests’. And Hamas’s urging was littered with false claims. It told people ‘the fence had already been breached’ and Palestinians were ‘flooding into Israel’. This was a lie. A Washington Post reporter details how Hamas’s leaders told people to keep attacking the border fence because ‘Israeli soldiers [are] fleeing their positions’. In truth, as Hamas knew only too well, the IDF was reinforcing its positions.

Israel had made clear, including in an airdrop of leaflets, that anyone who sought to dismantle the fence in Gaza, the de facto border between this part of Palestine and Israel, risked coming to harm. And still Hamas encouraged the protesters to strike at the fence. Still it sought to swell the angry ranks by pleading with people to go from their mosques to the border. Why would it do this? Why would the governing party of a territory knowingly put that territory’s citizens into serious danger?

Hele Behind The Smokescreen. Det er de færreste journalister, der, som Daniel Sugarman, indrømmer at de fejlede ved at kolportere Hamas propaganda. De fortsætter at servere, hvad Hamas kokkerer og offentligheden sluger det. Matthew J Brodsky skrev i The Weekly Standard

For example, there were more than 40 staffers covering Israel and Palestinians, which was more than the AP had in China, Russia, and India combined. The situation was worse along Israel’s periphery. Before the 2011 Arab upheaval, there was a single, permanent, Assad-regime-approved AP reporter in Syria.

As Friedman pointed out, “The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago.” It had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita in 2013 than Portland, Oregon.

To fit the pre-designed narrative, the media have distilled the role of Palestinians, scrubbed the inconvenient truths that run contrary to their storyline, and transformed them into reactionary protagonists. Their motivations and messages are then explained away with talking points that lead back to Israel. Cut to a Fatah party member wearing a suit in the West Bank as he repeats the word “occupation,” then add a quotation from the beacon of morality known as the United Nations Security Council, hit save, and send. These stories practically write themselves.

Alligevel har angrebet på Israels grænser ikke skabt voldsom opmærksomhed, som man ellers traditionelt kan forvente. Der tales ind imellem om ‘demonstranter’ i titusindvis - når det går højt til. Men det er ikke særligt mange mennesker når man betænker at ingen af de 1,8 mio. i Gazastriben bor meget mere end et stenkast fra Israels Grænse. Ikke underligt at de fleste foretrækker ramadanhyggens lækkerier fremfor lugten af morgenstundens brændte bildæk og naturreservater. Jovist lyves der stadigt af gammel vane, men medierne anser ikke denne historie for den mest presserende, mere som kævl i sigøjnerlandsbyen.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market

Diverse — Drokles on June 3, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Dette EU ‘forslag’, også kendt som Article 13, vil gøre følgende handling fra min side ulovligt

Critics of the proposed directive claim that Article 13 violates the fundamental rights of internet users, contradicts rules previously established by the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, and misunderstands the way people engage with material on the internet. Memes, remixes and other types of user-generated content would all be put at risk, they claim, as these could technically be seen as breaches of copyright.

Public domain organisation, the COMMUNIA International Association, says the EU’s measures “stem from an unbalanced vision of copyright as an issue between rightsholders and infringers”, and that the proposal “chooses to ignore limitations and exceptions to copyright, fundamental freedoms, and existing users’ practices”.

The Article stipulates that platforms should “prevent the availability” of protected works, suggesting these ISSPs will need to adopt technology that can recognise and filter work created by someone other than the person uploading it. This could include fragments of music, pictures and videos. If you’ve ever been on the internet, you’ll know that this ‘remix’ culture is a key part of how online communities function. The worry is that Article 13 will hinder this, and create a type of censorship that ignores nuances in how content can be adopted, quoted or parodied.

Nemlig at citere ud fra ‘fair use’. Ikke blot det, men det vil ligeledes være en ulovlig handling at linke til citatets ophav, i dette tilfælde Thomas McCullan. Den umiddelbare konsekvens er at kun nyheds- og it-giganter kan operere på internettet, hvilket vil koncentrere adgangen til information på få hænder - ganske i EUs ånd, som med Jean-Claude Junckers ord, handler om at “stand up against the rampant populism that we are seeing in all countries” ifølge Breitbart

“I want governments to agree on a perfectly straightforward principle. On foreign policy, if we want to be efficient … Europe must from here and onwards have a qualified majority. We can’t lead the world if we [are] hobbled by unanimity,” he said.

Veteran Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) parliamentary group leader Guy Verhofstadt also spoke at the session, claiming: “Democracy is important just because of Europe. When there was no European Union there was utter desperation in Europe, fascism in Europe between the two World Wars.

“It is since we have had the European Union that we have guaranteed democracy in the European Union, that is what we have achieved,” he claimed.

Det handler om at samle Europa.

Spygate?

Diverse — Drokles on June 1, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Det meget seriøse medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus, Republikaneren Trey Gowdy, har løftet lidt af låget for, hvad ‘man’ ved om hvor meget FBIs efterforskningen af russiske forbindelser i trumps stab kammede over i politisk spionage for den siddende regering. Som formand for Kongressens Sikkerhedsudvalg har Gowdy første parket til alt, som efterretningstjenesterne er villige til at afsløre bag lukkede døre. Og Gowdy ser ingen tegn på at Trump og hans stab skulle have været ofre for spionage på FBIs vegne.

Townhalls Guy Benson ser Gowdys vurdering, som en bekræftelse på, at teorierne om ’spygate’ stammer fra overdrevet. Han hæfter sig ved at både Carter Page og George Pappadopoulos, der arbejdede for Trumps kampagne, allerede var i FBIs søgelys længe før Trump annoncerede sit kandidatur, at Trump havde fortalt tidligere FBI direktør Kames Comey og at han mere end nogen, hellere end gerne ville vide om nogen i hans stab, arbejde for russiske interesser. Og derpå spekulerer Benson

Even if the feds were examining the conduct and associations of a small number of individuals “loosely connected to” the Trump campaign as part of a broader probe, the FBI’s focus and targets had “nothing to do with Donald Trump,” he said.  Either the South Carolinian has an extremely strong poker face and somehow has it in for the president, or he’s seen enough material about the provenance and progress of the investigation that he’s convinced Trump is not a target and is not in any serious peril.  My suspicion that the latter is true is only deepened by Gowdy’s advice that Trump ought to talk to Robert Mueller (within reasonably confined parameters, he adds) in order to formally assert his innocence on alleged “collusion.”

(…)

What Gowdy et al appear to be signaling is that there was enough ’smoke’ to justify the feds’ use of an informant within the Trump campaign, which is not tantamount to spying on Team Trump in order to harm the campaign.  I’ll say it again: The easiest way the “deep state” could have devastated Trump’s (already thin-seeming) electoral chances would have been to leak the existence of a multi-pronged federal counter-intelligence investigation into Trump campaign figures, circa October 2016.

Altså har hverken Trump eller hans ‘kampagne’ været under FBIs lup, blot enkelte medlemmer der uafhængigt havde tiltrukket sig opmærksomhed. Benson citerer en underspillet Gowdy for at fortælle Fox: “Those who have not seen the information?  I don’t know what informs their perspective.” National Review ledte an i de konservatives ‘Never Trump’ kampagne og derfor er det ironisk at Andrew McCarthy holder ved at argumentere for ‘Spygate’. Uanfægtet af Gowdys priviligerede første parket til virkeligheden, svarer han “Gee, senator, when you were carefully perusing the evidence of what the FBI was doing, did you ever sneak a peek at what the FBI said it was doing?

McCarthy hæfter sig ved, hvad alle har adgang til, nemlig Comeys vidneudsagn til Kongressen, hvori han slog fast at hans job var at finde ud af, om der var nogen som helst forbindelse mellem Trumps kampagne og ‘russerne’. “Comey went to extraordinary lengths to announce that the FBI was not merely zeroing in on individuals of varying ranks in the campaign; the main question was whether the Trump campaign itself — the entity — had “coordinated” in Russia’s espionage operation.”

It is a diversion for Gowdy to prattle on about how Trump himself was not a “target” of the Russia investigation. As we’ve repeatedly observed (and as Gowdy acknowledged in the interview), the Trump-Russia probe is a counterintelligence investigation. An accomplished prosecutor, Gowdy well knows that “target” is a term of art in criminal investigations, denoting a suspect who is likely to be indicted. The term is inapposite to counterintelligence investigations, which are not about building criminal cases but about divining and thwarting the provocative schemes of hostile foreign powers. In that sense, and in no other, the foreign power at issue — here, Russia — is always the “target” of a counterintelligence probe; but it is never a “target” in the technical criminal-investigation sense in which Gowdy used the term . . . unless you think we are going to indict a country.

(…)

So, apart from the fact that Gowdy is dodging the question about whether the Trump campaign was being investigated, his digression about “targets” is gibberish. Since the Obama administration was using its counterintelligence powers (FISA surveillance, national-security letters, unmasking identities in intelligence reporting, all bolstered by the use of at least one covert informant), the political-spying issue boils down to whether the Trump campaign was being monitored. Whether Trump himself was apt to be indicted, and whether threats posed by Russia were the FBI’s focus, are beside the point; in a counterintelligence case, an indictment is never the objective, and a foreign power is always the focus.

Second, if Gowdy has been paying attention, he must know that, precisely because the Trump campaign was under investigation, top FBI officials had qualms of conscience over Comey’s plan to give Trump a misleading assurance that he personally was not under investigation.

Det er en af McCarthys mest gennemgående pointer at skelne mellem kontraspionage og efterforskning af kriminelle forhold. Det første skal ikke ende i en retssag, men i at indsamle viden om fjendens aktiviteter uden at denne opdager det. Derfor giver det mening at “Comey and then–acting attorney general Sally Yates had met with the political leadership of the Obama administration — President Obama, Vice President Biden, and national-security adviser Susan Rice — to discuss withholding information about the Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration.”

It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign — not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign — was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe. Indeed, we now know that Obama’s Justice Department had already commenced FISA surveillance on Trump campaign figures, and that it was preparing to return to the FISA court to seek renewal of the surveillance warrants. We also know that at least one informant was still deployed. And we know that the FBI withheld information about the investigation from the congressional “Gang of Eight” during quarterly briefings from July 2106 through early March 2017. (See Comey testimony March 20, 2017, questioning by Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.).) Director Comey said Congress’s most trusted leaders were not apprised of the investigation because “it was a matter of such sensitivity.” Putting aside that the need to alert Congress to sensitive matters is exactly why there is a Gang of Eight, the palpable reason why the matter was deemed too “sensitive” for disclosure was that it involved the incumbent administration’s investigation of the opposition campaign.

(…)

Comey’s unidentified adviser connected the dots: Because (a) the FBI’s investigation was about the campaign, and (b) the campaign was Trump’s campaign, it was necessarily true that (c) Trump’s own conduct was under FBI scrutiny.

“Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.” Alligevel bad Trump om at få det for en dag om nogen i hans stab havde arbejdet for ‘russerne’? “Such a specious argument” fortsætter McCarthy og pointerer at Trump først fremsatte det ønske lang tid efter at ‘informanter’ havde infiltreret hans organisation, efter at Comey allerede havde ladet Trumpo vide at de vidste hvem der tissede i hvilke senge i Moskva uden dog at fortælle hvorfra denne “viden” stammede fra (fra modstanderen Hillary Clinton) og at hans nylige præsidentskab var født ind i mediernes  beskyldninger om russiske forbindelser.

Alle træerne tegner en skov.

It’s Laruell, America!

Diverse — Drokles on May 28, 2018 at 10:17 pm

En fyr optog en computerstemme, der på et leksikon-site udtalte navnet Laurel på sin iPhone. Optagelsens kvalitet giver noget høj-frekvent støj, der forstyrrer visse menneskers perception af virkeligheden. De hører istedet Yanni.

“Attempting to erase the line between fact and fiction, truth and reality is a core feature of authoritarianism” sagde Hillary Clinton, da hun modtog Harward Universitys medalje for “service to the country” ifølge Fox News. Jeg skal ikke kloge mig på Harvards standarder, men vi er da mange, der er glade på USAs vegne over, at hun gjorde alle den tjeneste at tabe valget og med det identitetspolitikkens forlorne prominens.

Hillary og hendes beundrere, flertallet af hvilke hun først fik da Trump blev hendes udfordrer, tænker selvfølgelig på at Trump og hans vælgere, er truslen mod demokratiet, at det er deres manglende anerkendelse af mediernes verdensbillede, der er fornægtelsen af virkeligheden. Der vil altid være nogle mennesker, der hører Yanni, men når det tilsyneladende alle på en fløj, er der andre kræfter på spil, måske mest en blanding af idioti, kalkule og angst. Klummeskribenten David Brooks fra New York Times forklarede, ifølge Breitbart, PBS Newshour, at præsidenten forsøgte at erstatte fakta med sin egen fortælling, en fortælling, hvor han var offeret

Brooks said Trump has “realized that the Mueller investigation is not a bad thing for him, but a good thing for him, that if he can create a narrative that it’s him vs. the swamp, and that all the arms of the US government are really politicized, things controlled by the Democrats or the elites, by whoever, then he can use the soap opera, give it a new plot twist every single day, which is really what he’s been doing all week, a new set of tweets just to get us talking about it. And that — it reinforces his — the idea that he’s the brave outsider fighting the swamp, and that they’re all a bunch of political animals, and he’s the brave one. And it’s working for him.”

He added, “Personally, I’m sick of all the daily stories about it. I think we overplay it, frankly. When the Mueller report comes out, that’ll be a big deal. But just the who goes to what meeting, frankly, I find less important than the way he’s been able to manipulate it into a soap opera benefiting himself.”

Brooks later stated the president has “got a story. And somehow, we’re stuck in this, where his story trumps our facts.”

Brooks hører altså Yanni. Eller  i dette tilfælde; ‘a human ressource’ som blot samler ‘information’ i dølgsmål. Trumps spin består i at kalde det for spionage. Ifølge Den Danske Ordbog er spionage en “aktivitet der består i hemmeligt at indsamle og videregive militære, politiske eller økonomiske oplysninger om en fjendtligsindet stat, en myndighed eller et konkurrerende firma“. Så at tale om en spion er en pæn måde at omtale en mulvarp i Tumps stab, hvis arbejde er en “fordækt fremgangsmåde eller virksomhed med et hemmeligt, ofte skadende formål“.

By and large, “confidential informants” do not emerge from the womb with a passion to protect the United States. Quite often, they become informants because they’ve gotten themselves jammed up with the police. Some are sociopaths: shrewd enough to know that the only way out of either a long prison term or a short life expectancy is to become the government’s eyes and ears; self-aware enough to know that, in undercover work, bad character, mendacity, and survival instincts are tools of the trade.

Altså, a ’scumbag’, siger Andrew C McCarthy, der ikke har meget til overs for elitens selvbillede

For this species of arrogance, setting the narrative is a jealously guarded prerogative. We are to understand the bureaucracy’s work as unimpeachably noble and that so, therefore, are its tactics. Consequently, the government’s “cooperator” is never to be called a spy. He’s a “confidential informant” or, as the FBI’s former Director James Comey put it in a tweet this week, a “confidential human source.”

These are not neutral terms. The implication is that these operatives are always benign, even vital. A “source” is that most treasured of intelligence assets, to be protected at all costs — even the need for accountability when power is abused must give way to the confidentiality of intelligence “methods and sources.” “Source” connotes a well-placed asset who has bored into the inner sanctum of jihadists or gangsters — an “informant” whose information saves lives.

Obama vidste at Trump blev overvåget og aflyttet, hvis ikke han selv var initiativtager. Dette magtmisbrug var blot kulmineringen af en lang række af andre succesfulde tilfælde af magtmisbrug, der havde sat en stadig højere standard for, hvad man kunne slippe afsted med. Pressens ukritiske tilbedelse af præsidentparret Obama, kombineret med den ‘hvide skyld’, beskyttede dem mod offentlig kritik, skriver Bruce Bialosky. Og så kalkulerede de tillige med, at Hillary ville vinde - ja hun skulle vinde, så Trump skulle stoppes. Eller med Wayne Allen Roots ord

Obama was on the hook for his own crimes: spying, surveillance, criminal weaponization of government agencies like the IRS. And he was also on the hook for allowing Hillary’s crimes, including the Uranium One deal, where the Clinton Foundation received $140 million in donations from Russia.

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-05-28-kl-194338

Og flere er begyndt at lytte bedre efter

Somehow this must all be getting through. Despite 93% negative news coverage from the mainstream media, President Trump is sitting pretty at 50% approval at Rasmussen (the most accurate pollster of the 2016 election). More shockingly, Reuters generic Congressional poll has shifted from Democrats winning by 16 points back in February, to Republicans up by 6 points this week. YES, I said Republicans are now leading by 6 points.

That’s a 22-point swing in a matter of months. And a 9-point swing in a week. The supposed “blue wave” is finished.

Why do you think this is? Because the average American now understands what happened.

Take that sound-bite! You know you want to…

Diverse — Drokles on May 26, 2018 at 1:31 pm

Han gjorde det med vilje, Trump, formulerede sig, så en sætning kunne misbruges som sound-bite, væk fra det indledende forbehold, skrev James Delingpole i Breitbart. Man kunne godt tænke sig at det var sandsynligt, at Trump vidste at ved bruge bruge ordet ‘udyr’ om ‘theese people’ ville han som på en kontakt tænde det forblændende, had det meste af pressen og hans politiske modstandere lider under. ‘Disse personer’ var ikke mexicanere over en karm, men medlemmer af banden MS-13, hvis brutalitet ikke tåler sammenligning med dyr. Breitbart har en liste af eksempler på blodtørsten, som når teenagere bliver banket ihjel med køller, stukket ihjel med mere en hundrede knivstik fulgt af “beheading and dismembering him, and cutting out his heart” osv.

Scott Adams mener i samme ånd, at dette var øjeblikket, hvor nogle skæl faldt fra deres øjne. Hvor de kunne se, ikke blot hvad Trump gjorde, men også begynde at reflektere over, hvor ofte han har gjort det før og at han hver gang har vundet på det. Det betyder ikke blot at de må oppe sig, det betyder også, at de må revidere deres billede af Trump. Manden er måske nok alligevel ikke racist, når han aldrig udtaler sig racistisk eller ytrer sympati med racistiske tanker og personer. Trumps vælgere ved hvem han er, har accepteret hans vulgariteter og hører hvad han siger. Og dem i midten, ser nu, igen, at det er Trump, der bliver forsøgt karaktermyrdet, at det er konstruktiv politik, der får et skud for boven, hver gang af disse vendettaer over et tabt valg.

Uanset om det var med vilje eller om Pressen er begyndt at tænke i det små, så føjer dette seneste nederlag sig ikke blot til rækken af ‘misforståelser’ af hvad Trump egentlig sagde eller gjorde, som pressen har slidt sin troværdighed ned med. Det føjer sig også til en lang liste af opgør, hvor Trump hele tiden får positioneret som forsvarer af rimelighed, mens hans modstandere, blændet af alting Trump ud fra en ide om at udgøre en modstandbevægelse(!), står som folkets egentlige fjender.

Der er ingen undskyldning for at fejle så spektakulært, som de har gjort også i denne sag. Selvfølgelig havde de ikke sympati med MS-13, som er den sjove logiske følge hvis man tager deres selvretfærdige udbrud for gode varer, men de spillede på at ingen ville få konteksten at høre. Det gør dem til infame løgnere, som kun ‘basen’ står ved. Det nytter ikke noget at spille dumme-kortet som i ‘jeg reagerede blot på, hvad medierne gengav’, fordi man her afslører at man ikke bare er dum, men tror vælgeren også er det og tillige demonstrerer at man er mere optaget af hvordan Trump udtrykker sig, end de helt alvorlige og meget virkelige problemer Trump forsøger at løse, så den enkelte amerikaner kan forfølge deres drømme om velstand og fremgang uden at skulle hakkes ihjel i den by, som af uransagelige progressive årsager har givet illegale migranter frit lejde. Hvordan den end vendes og drejes har Trumps modstandere kun udtrykt deres despekt for almindelige mennesker.

Og sådan har det været hver gang, skriver Deroy Murdock i National Review, der ser optimistisk midtvejsvalget. Da Trump flyttede den amerikanske ambassade til Jerusalem, som næsten enig Kongres bad den siddende præsident Bill Clinton gøre i 1996, skiftede Demkraternes sympati pludseligt. Nu kunne man derfor se dem begræde israelernes vold, mens Hamas stormløb på Israels grænser forblev upåtalt. Trumps kritikere og terroristerne.

Den samme historie da Trump sløjfede aftalen med Iran, som end ikke var skrevet under og som alle, inklusiv Obama, anerkendte ikke ville fraholde iranerne fra at blive en tomvåbenmagt valgte de igen den forkerte side imod USAs interesser. Når Trump letter skatterne og øger den amerikanske median-hustandsindkomst med 2000 dollars er det krummer, som Pelosi sagde. Når Trump skoser NFL stjerner for ikke at respektere symbolet på at uagtet uenighed så er USA et fællesskab, tager Trumps kritikere side imod fællesskabet og vånder sig over ideen om at der er noget som helst at samles om.

Victor Davis Hanson skrev for et par uger siden

Something or someone was needed to remind the country that there is no longer a Democratic party as we once knew it. It is now a progressive and identity-politics religious movement. Trump took on his left-wing critics as few had before, did not back down, and did not offer apologies. He traded blow for blow with them. The result was not just media and cultural hysteria but also a catharsis that revealed what Americans knew but had not seen so overtly demonstrated by the new Left: the unapologetic media bias; chic assassination talk; the politicization of sports, Hollywood, and entertainment in slavish service to progressivism; the Internet virtue-signaling lynch mob; the out-of-control progressive deep state; and the new tribalism that envisions permanent ethnic and racial blocs while resenting assimilation and integration into the melting pot. For good or evil, the trash-talking and candid Trump challenged progressives. They took up the offer in spades and melted down — and America is getting a good look at where each side really sits.

In the end, only the people will vote on Trumpism. His supporters knew full well after July 2016 that his possible victory would come with a price — one they deemed more than worth paying given the past and present alternatives. Most also no longer trust polls or the media. To calibrate the national mood, they simply ask Trump voters whether they regret their 2016 votes (few do) and whether any Never Trump voters might reconsider (some are), and then they’re usually reassured that what is happening is what they thought would happen: a 3 percent GDP economy, low unemployment, record energy production, pushbacks on illegal immigration, no Iran deal, no to North Korean missiles pointed at the U.S., renewed friendship with Israel and the Gulf states, a deterrent foreign policy, stellar judicial appointments — along with Robert Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, and lots more, no doubt, to come.

Identitetspolitikken har fjernet det folkelige hos mange venstrefløjspartier i Vesten og følgeligt skabt grobund for nye partier der både til højre (som Nye Borgerlige) og venstre (som Dansk Folkeparti), har deres interesse i det eksisterende fællesskab af borgere uanset, hvorledes de appelerer til det nationale eller ej.

Man kan snyde en del af Folket…

Diverse — Drokles on May 24, 2018 at 11:33 pm

For tiden skriver de danske medier ikke så meget om Trump, som de ellers har for vane. Trump-historien i skrivende stund er at en domstol har forbudt ham, at udelukke personer fra hans twitter konto. Så selv om Danmarks Radio har den meget dramatiske overskrift: “Dom: Trumps Twitter-blokering strider mod forfatningen“, så er der ingen straf på tale, blot en henstilling om at Trump fremover ikke udelukker skøre kuler fra hans kommentarspor. Dommen lægger vægt på at ‘offentlighedens tjenere’, hvor præsidenten er den øverste, ikke kan udelukke folk forgodtbefindende fra, hvad der anses for et offentligt forum. Kun Twitter selv har den magt tilsyneladende og det kunne der da godt komme nogle interessante betragtninger ud af, om hvad Twitter er, hvad der er Præsidentens og hvad der er privatpersonen Trump (der bruger sin egen Twitter konto og ikke Det Hvide Hus).

Men mere spændende er det, efter min mening, at følge hvorledes Trumps forfølgere nu selv er blevet de forfulgte.

Det vender nemlig nu i USA, til inspiration for os andre, Trump vinder over sine modstandere. Andrew C McCarthy, som jeg har modstået at citere fra for en gangs skyld, tegner et tydeligt billede af hvorledes sagen mod Hillary Clintons kriminelle omgang med fortrolige papirer hang sammen med beskyldningerne mod Trump for at være i ledtog med russerne. En taktik på to ben udtænkt inderst inde i ’sumpen’, der skulle sikre Demokraterne magten de næste 8+ år - og ingen ville vide noget om den.

Men sådan gik det ikke, de tabte valget og dermed deres greb om den magt de misbrugte for at beholde. De kan ikke slette deres spor og forsøget påp at delegitimere Trump og valget af ham er et forsøg på at overdøve den straf der venter dem og de der vil se retfærdigheden ske fyldest. Og de står på spring, kan man læse i Daily Caller, FBI agenterne, der er forbitrede over, hvorledes en håndfuld karrierefolk politiserede FBI og ruinerede forholdet til offentligheden for det næste tiår

“There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey’s behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs,” former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday. “They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify.”

(…)

The special agent out of WFO alleged that rank and file FBI agents are fed up and desperately want action from the DOJ, according to the transcripts.

“Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey,“ the special agent said, according to transcripts provided to TheDC. (RELATED: Report: FBI Recommends Firing Andrew McCabe)

“The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership. Go against the Muslim Brotherhood, you’re crushed. Go against the Clintons, you’re crushed. The FBI has long been politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement.”

Der er med andre ord lagt i kakkelovnen. Historikeren Conrad Black skriver om den kommende tid

As the rot spreads and evidence of the questionable involvement of elements of the Obama administration in the sand-bag job on Trump appears at earlier dates, before the 2016 political conventions, demands from congressional committees for more information from the Justice Department are becoming more extensive and insistent. The more sophistical Trumpophobes are claiming the Congress is over-reaching, beyond its right to know and at risk, as dishonest law-enforcement and intelligence officials always allege, of danger to agents and sources. It’s nonsense of course; no one is asking for the release of such material. The Trumpophobes have retreated so far they have backed up almost onto the president’s toes, and sometime soon, he will, as is his perfect executive right, order the release of all the FBI, Justice, State, and Intelligence dirty linen. Let the inelegantly soiled under-garments fall where they may; none of it is his.

Also to be heard from this spring of surprises, will be the inspector general’s further report on the FBI agent planted in the Trump camp. The New York Times has already spread the Vaseline on that one, that the agent was just looking for Russians. Why was he doing so in the Trump campaign? This turkey won’t fly either. U.S. attorney John Huber’s inquiry into FISA surveillance of Trump campaign part-timer Carter Page and of the Uranium One relationship with the Clintons (in Uranium One, Rosenstein was the U.S attorney and Mueller was the FBI director) has been going for six months. When Horowitz and Huber have finished, on the public evidence to date, it will appear that untruthful applications and certifications were made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by former attorney general Loretta Lynch and her deputy Sally Yates, and other officials including Rosenstein, to approve illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign. Attorney General Sessions is not recused on Clinton emails or other matters not closely related to Russian election interference, and, having been investigated by McCabe, is probably ready to return from recusal and end Rosenstein’s compulsive waffling.

A snapshot of this welter of dubious antics today reveals these points: The tide is running in the president’s favor; high and trusted positions have been seriously misused in a partisan cause that would not have come to light if the election result had been different and is the greatest scandal in American history; the Trumpophobes can’t go on trying to make grenades out of marshmallows like the amusing divertissement of Stormy Daniels (whose obnoxious lawyer wasn’t her lawyer — just a volunteer militant Democratic publicity hound and undischarged bankrupt); and the public is bored with Mueller, and unless he looks at the Democrats too his investigation will be an unmitigated fiasco. Anyone who sees a blue wave in the mid-terms coming out of this immense shambles is in the desert suffering a mirage with Maxine Waters.

Newt Gingrich ser heller ingen ‘blå bølge’ i horisonten

Sharyl Attkinson arbejder løbende på en tidslinje over sammensværgelsen mod Trump.

Semantisk løgn

Diverse — Drokles on May 24, 2018 at 6:39 am

Trumps modstandere i både efterretningsvæsenet og oppositionen og deres presse har travlt med at nedtone betydningen af at efterretningsvæsenet under den forrige præsident begyndte at spionere på sin politiske modstander. Som da tidligere FBI direktør Richard Comey, der blev fyret af Donald Trump (hvorefter han lækkede FBI notater til pressen med det formål at få åbnet en efterforskning af Trump) ændrede den juridiske ordlyd i sit resume af Hillary Clintons skødesløse håndtering af fortroligt materiale til et folkeligt udtryk, der derfor ikke krævede at blive handlet på. Og som han også, på daværende justitsminister Loretta Lynchs vegne, omtalte efterforskningen af Clinton, ikke som ‘an investigation’, men som ‘a matter’ - igen for at sløre at der var tale om regulære ulovligheder.

Nu hedder det fra pressen og efterretningsvæsenet at der ikke var tale om spionage, men blot indsamling af information begået af nogle i Trumps stab. At de indsamlede information uden at fortælle det og at det var deres primære formål med at være i eller tage kontakt til staben. At den ene lokkede den unge Papadopoulos til London med lovning om at han kunne få 3.000 dollars for lidt rådgivning om olieboringer er på ingen måde suspekt. Her fra New York Times udlægning

F.B.I. agents were seeking more details about what Mr. Papadopoulos knew about the hacked Democratic emails, and one month after their Russia investigation began, Mr. Papadopoulos received a curious message. The academic inquired about his interest in writing a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a subject of Mr. Papadopoulos’s expertise.

The informant offered a $3,000 honorarium for the paper and a paid trip to London, where the two could meet and discuss the research project.

“I understand that this is rather sudden but thought that given your expertise it might be of interest to you,” the informant wrote in a message to Mr. Papadopoulos, sent on Sept. 2, 2016.

Mr. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and arrived in London two weeks later, where he met for several days with the academic and one of his assistants, a young woman.

Over drinks and dinner one evening at a high-end London hotel, the F.B.I. informant raised the subject of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails that had spilled into public view earlier that summer, according to a person familiar with the conversation. The source noted how helpful they had been to the Trump campaign, and asked Mr. Papadopoulos whether he knew anything about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Papadopoulos replied that he had no insight into the Russian campaign — despite being told months earlier that the Russians had dirt on Mrs. Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails. His response clearly annoyed the informant, who tried to press Mr. Papadopoulos about what he might know about the Russian effort, according to the person.

The assistant also raised the subject of Russia and the Clinton emails during a separate conversation over drinks with Mr. Papadopoulos, and again he denied he knew anything about Russian attempts to disrupt the election.

Det er det samme når man går på biblioteket. Og det bliver bedre endnu.

Informants take great risks when working for intelligence services, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, testified before Congress on Wednesday. Their identities must not be exposed, he said, hinting at congressional efforts to obtain the name of the source. “The day that we can’t protect human sources is the day the American people start becoming less safe.”

De samler bare informationer, men er i alvorlig fare, hvis de bliver taget i det. Vi har jo også alle øjne at se med så hvad er der særligt ved en vindueskigger? #OprejsningTilLurerAndersNu!

‘Impeach 44!’

Diverse — Drokles on May 23, 2018 at 4:37 am

Hvis man tvivler på at et efterretningsvæsen kan være så ensidigt politiske at, de så let vil overskride deres faglige etiske retningslinjer og  sætte deres karrierer på spil i et demokrati, hvor der er tradition for at magten svinger frem og tilbage uden at meget ændres af den grund, så giver McCarthy en glimrende sammenstilling af hvorledes Justitsministeriet og FBI behandlede Hillary og hendes folk meget, meget anderledes end Trump og hans folk. Matt Vespa har sans for ironi og lægger til billedet af en politisk korrumperet FBI-top

Wait—so, disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe not only lied to investigators multiple times about unauthorized media leaks, he also discussed the infamous Trump dossier with CNN? The funny thing is the reason then-FBI Director James Comey said he briefed the president on the dossier, which was an opposition research project funded by the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign, is that CNN had it.  In a series of emails obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, it shows top FBI officials were in contact with the news organizations about the dossier.

McCabe is seen writing, “a flood is coming.” All of this on top of the allegation that the FBI had someone spying on the Trump campaign. Comey said prior to the briefing that CNN was angling for a “news hook.” Well, what better way to unleash the Russian collusion hysteria than the top domestic law enforcement and intelligence chief briefing the incoming president about a document that’s one of the centerpieces of this shoddy theory. Just a friendly reminder, there is zero evidence that the Kremlin colluded with the Trump team to tilt an election. Zero.

Det har altid været suspekt, at de embedsmænd og efterretningsagenter, der har lækket så ivrigt om alting vedrørende Trump-Rusland, ikke har kunnet finde fælles fodslag i, hvornår interessen for denne fortælling startede og på hvilket grundlag, skriver den fremragende Andrew C McCarthy. Indledningsvis opstod interessen da en marginal Trump-medarbejder, Carter Page, skulle være rejst til Moskave for at få russerne til at hacke Demokraternes servere og således få Trump til at vinde valget(?). Historien kom fra den, af uverificerede rygter og anonyme kilder bestående rapport, som den tidligere engelske efterretningsagent Christopher Steele havde lavet på Demokraternes foranledning. Det var den rapport, som FBI brugte til at få dommerkendelser til at overvåge Page og alle han kom i kontakt med.

Dernæst var det den endnu mere marginale medarbejder George Pappadopoulos, der i ebrieret tilstand skulle have blabret oversig i en snak med en australsk diplomat, om hvorledes han havde hørt fra en russisk akademiker, at russerne havde emails, der kunne være skadelige for Hillary Clintons chancer. I den historie, skriver McCarthy, har Trumps kampagne ikke noget at gøre med selv hackingen, da russerne i så fald allerede havde hacket Demokraternes servere (ingen ved om de blev hacket, FBI godtog blot Demokraternes forklaring). Ingen ved heller ikke om det ikke var de 30.000 emails, som Hillary slettede fra sine servere og som var dem Trump talte om i valgkampen. I så fald er det ikke dem, som ‘collusion’ historien hviler på.

Da det kom frem at der rent faktisk var en spion plantet i Trumps kampagne, genoplivedes Page historien med det ‘tvist’, at FBI blev opmærksom på Page pga timingen mellem Pages Moskvatur og Wikileaks offentliggørelse af Demokraternes beskidte undertøj, der fik øjnene op for betydningen af, hvad Pappadopoulos havde snøvlet. FBI kendte nemlig til Page i forvejen, ikke bare fordi han var en Ruslandsapologet, men fordi han i 2013 havde samarbejdet med FBI i en sag, hvor han og andre forretningsfolk var blevet kontaktet af russiske spioner (der mente han var en idiot). Efter en længere analyse af den forhåndende viden, konkluderer McCarthy

Carter Page and Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign in early spring, and the FBI was concerned about their possible ties to Russia. These were not trifling concerns, but they did not come close to suggesting a Trump-Russia espionage conspiracy against the 2016 election.

These FBI concerns resulted in a briefing of the Obama NSC by the FBI sometime in “late spring.” I suspect the “late spring” may turn out to be an earlier part of spring than most people might suppose — like maybe shortly after Page joined the Trump campaign.

There are many different ways the Obama administration could have reacted to the news that Page and Manafort had joined the Trump campaign. It could have given the campaign a defensive briefing. It could have continued interviewing Page, with whom the FBI had longstanding lines of communication. It could have interviewed Manafort. It could have conducted a formal interview with George Papadopoulos rather than approaching him with a spy who asked him loaded questions about Russia’s possessions of Democratic-party emails.

Instead of doing some or all of those things, the Obama administration chose to look at the Trump campaign as a likely co-conspirator of Russia — either because Obama officials inflated the flimsy evidence, or because they thought it could be an effective political attack on the opposition party’s likely candidate.

From the “late spring” on, every report of Trump-Russia ties, no matter how unlikely and uncorroborated, was presumed to be proof of a traitorous arrangement. And every detail that could be spun into Trump-campaign awareness of Russian hacking, no matter how tenuous, was viewed in the worst possible light.

The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Page or Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.

Deep State er, med Conservative Treehouses ord, gået fra benægtelse til retfærdiggørelse, og taler om en nøje tilrettelagt plan for at spinne historien. Tucker Carlson siger at den styrende klasse er ude af kontrol - hvilket nok er mere rigtigt. Eller rettere, uden kontrol. Deep States dæmning er ved at sprænges, og en ellers påfaldende langmodig Trump slår tilbage - og Helvede følger med!

Trump kan få offentliggjort alle dokumenter vedrørende dette morrads, som han vil. Men jo længere han venter, jo mere vil hans modstanderes troværdighed blive udhulet, når sandheden går op for flertallet af amerikanere.

Når muslimer bygger samfund

Diverse — Drokles on May 20, 2018 at 10:32 pm

Islamisk Stat var ikke en undtagelse, der var et ganske velovervejet og planlagt eksperiment, som skulle prøve islams opskrift på et samfund imod virkeligheden. Det gik som det gik fordi det ikke kunne gå anderledes, så langt som begejstringen holdt.

Krigerne var høje på Tramadol, der tillod dem at torturere folk ihjel, fortalte en kurdisk officer i Raqqa CBC News, som han viste dem rundt i tidligere torturkamre. Islamisk Stat var (også) meget optaget af papirarbejde og havde rapporter på alle de myrdede og torturerede. Historieløse, som man er uden for Europa og især i den del af Verden, stod arkiverne for at skulle brændes. Det handler kun om hævn.

New York Times har gennemgået 15.000 dokumenter, Islamisk Stat efterlod, som de blev drev væk fra deres kalifat. Dokumenterne viser at Islamisk Stat “wielded power through two complementary tools: brutality and bureaucracy”. Alle embedsmænd blev kaldt tilbage på arbejdet, som terrororganisationen erobrede den ene by efter den anden, og skulle genoptage deres hidtidige funktioner, for ellers…

Ledgers, receipt books and monthly budgets describe how the militants monetized every inch of territory they conquered, taxing every bushel of wheat, every liter of sheep’s milk and every watermelon sold at markets they controlled. From agriculture alone, they reaped hundreds of millions of dollars. Contrary to popular perception, the group was self-financed, not dependent on external donors.

More surprisingly, the documents provide further evidence that the tax revenue the Islamic State earned far outstripped income from oil sales. It was daily commerce and agriculture — not petroleum — that powered the economy of the caliphate.

The United States-led coalition, trying to eject the Islamic State from the region, tried in vain to strangle the group by bombing its oil installations. It’s much harder to bomb a barley field. It was not until last summer that the militants abandoned Mosul, after a battle so intense that it was compared to the worst combat of World War II.

While the militants’ state eventually crumbled, its blueprint remains for others to use.

“We dismiss the Islamic State as savage. It is savage. We dismiss it as barbaric. It is barbaric. But at the same time these people realized the need to maintain institutions,” said Fawaz A. Gerges, author of “ISIS: A History.”

“The Islamic State’s capacity to govern is really as dangerous as their combatants,” he said.

De kristne og shiitterne flygter, kvinderne fyret. Langt skæg og korrekt islamisk kåbelængde bliver obligatorisk. Og gradvist kommer der nye forordninger og ministeriernes navne og funktioner bliver ændret; ministeriet for moralpoliti, ministeriet for plyndring af antikviteter, ministeriet for krigsbytte og landbrugsministeriet skal ikke længere måle døgnets regnmængde - regn er en gave fra Allah og hans gaver skal ikke måles. Gradvist blev det hele mere og mere muslimsk mod undergangen.

Alle Præsidentens Mænd

Diverse — Drokles on May 19, 2018 at 8:47 pm

FBI havde en ‘informant’ plantet i Trumps valgkampagnestab, det står nu fast. FBIs efterforskning sigtede ikke mod et kriminelt forhold, da de ikke kunne samle nok indicier, der kunne retfærdiggøre en sådan. I stedet indledtes en kontraspionagesag, som egentlig burde rettes imod de ‘russere’, man havde besluttet sig for at mistænke som skyldige i amerikanernes fejlvalg af præsident, imod egne statsborgere, nemlig imod Trump og hans stab. Kontraspionage kræver kun sandsynligheder og foretages, selvfølgelig, i hemmelighed, forklarer Andrew C McCarthy

Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

That’s your crossfire hurricane.

Og siden kontraspionage handler om landets sikkerhed, var det “With the blessing of the Obama White House”! Og det bringer igen to to afskedigede FBI ansatte, agenten Peter Strzok og juristen Lisa Page på banen. De to delte deres støtte til Hillary Clinton og had til Trump som de delte kropsvæsker, skriver Matt Vespa

This was the investigation signed off by FBI agent Peter Strzok. Sztrok was a top counterintelligence agent before being transferred to human resources after his extramarital affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page was made public and the two’s texts, which numbered in the tens of thousands, were riddled with anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiments. Once then-FBI Director James Comey was fired by President Trump in May of 2017, Robert Mueller took over the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversees him.

The Page-Strzok texts formed the basis of inquiry into the FBI’s role in all of this. How impartial were they? The texts were so problematic that Mueller removed him in August of 2017. The two discussed how they felt the FBI was going too hard on Hillary as well; Strzok was also involved in that investigation as well. Was the bureau in the tank? The optics weren’t good, especially when reports came that Strzok was presented with evidence that the former first lady’s email server was breached and did nothing about it. But the main focus was the text Strzok sent about a meeting with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe in which he referenced an “insurance policy” against Trump. Many have alleged this is a reference to the Trump dossier, which was used to obtain a spy warrant against Carter Page, who was a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign. This is unsettling because the dossier was a bankrolled project by Democrats. The Clinton campaign hired research firm Fusion GPS, who then contracted former MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile dirt on Trump. Still, the counterintelligence probe into Russian collusion and the Trump team, in which there is still zero evidence, moved forward:

To historier om energi

Diverse — Drokles on May 18, 2018 at 5:41 pm

Nøje udvalgt, cherry-picked hedder det vist, for at understrege en pointe. Pierre L Gosselin fra No Tricks Zone skriver

A few days ago I reported here how the German solar industry had seen a monumental jobs-bloodbath and investments had been slashed to a tiny fraction of what they once had been.

Over the years Germany has made approvals for new wind parks more difficult as the country reels from an unstable power grid and growing protests against the blighted landscapes and health hazards.

Now that the wind energy boom has ended, the Baseler Zeitung reports that “the shutdown of numerous wind turbines could soon lead to a drop in production” after having seen years of ruddy growth.

Vindmøllerne er gamle, er stadigt dyrere at vedligeholde og subsidierne rinder gradvist ud. Og nu foreligger der en regning, når man skal rydde op efter alle de øjebæer. Vingerne er svære at brænde af, hvilket gør det fristende at dumpe dem i tredieverdenslande og det armerede betonfundament er dyrt at fjerne, skriver Gosselin videre.

Imens i USA, er Trump ved at frigøre naturens ressourcer på en anderledes produktive og miljøvenlig facon - drill baby, drill! Stephen Moore argumenterer i Townhall for at OPEC er dødt fordi USA har fravristet  Saudiarabien for dens alt-afgørende indflydelse på olieprisen og dermed olieproduktionen.

The Wall Street Journal confirms that U.S. oil production “is expected this year to surpass Saudi Arabia’s” and that we will rival Russia for No. 1 in the world. American production will rise to almost 11 million barrels a day, the most ever in American history. Doesn’t it seem like yesterday when the left was running around shrieking about “peak oil”? More like peak idiocy.

Last week Reuters argued that the American shale boom should be called “Donald Trump’s Revenge.” The story reported that U.S. oil “now floods Europe at the expense of OPEC and Russia.” Couldn’t have happened to a couple of nicer guys. America is now selling more than a half-million barrels a day, thanks in no small part to the end of the oil and gas export ban in 2016.

Det er Trumps optimisme der er afgørende - og den grundlægger muligheden for en midtvejsvalgsejr til Republikanerne.

Bedrageriske protester

Diverse — Drokles on May 17, 2018 at 8:19 am

Hamas Mahmoud Al-Zahhar fortalte Al-Jazeera at ideen om de fredelige protester er en løgn der skal tjene til at ‘bedrage offentligheden’. Og offentligheden vil bedrages. En CNN journalist tweeter et billede af Trump i et sigtekorn, BBCs Mellemøstredaktør kalder Gazastriben for et åbent fængsel, Trumps datter kaldes ‘fars lille dæmon‘, som hendes smilende kontrafej taget ved den festlige indvielse af USAs ambassade i Jerusalem retorisk og visuelt forbindes med de voldelige optøjer, Russia Times kaldte det en ‘forfærdelig massakre’ og ingen af dem lægger mærke til den bevidstløse mands faste greb eller viser manden på krykkers mirakuløse helbredelse.

En analyse i den venstreorienterede israelske avis Haaretz hedder det at protesterne ikke er fra Hamas hånde men titusindvis af mennesker, villige til at dø. Så store tal mangler vi stadigt at komme op i dette seneste folkemord på palæstinenserne. 50 af de dræbte er Hamasfolk, ifølge Hamas selv og Elder of Zioyn skriver bl.a

With all the trouble Hamas is going through, they are very determined. When Israel tried to impede the riots by warning bus companies in Gaza not to bring people to the border, Hamas threatened to imprison the drivers - leaving them no choice.

Similarly, in order to encourage the largest possible of participants in what was supposed to be the last day of the riots, Hamas declared a general strike and even UNRWA complied and closed down.

Den engelske oberst Richard Kemp har udfærdiget en rapport om Hamas’ bedrageriske strategi, skriver Algemeiner

“Hamas’s use of actual smoke and mirrors to conceal its aggressive maneuvering on the Gaza border is the perfect metaphor for a strategy that has no viable military purpose but seeks to deceive the international community into criminalizing a democratic state defending its citizens,” Kemp wrote.

As part of the HLMG’s ongoing project to assess the impact of Western armies facing enemies deploying terrorist tactics — including deliberate war crimes such as hiding military personnel and infrastructure among a civilian population — Kemp has been observing Palestinian activity and the IDF’s response on the Gaza border since the current spate of violence broke out on March 30. The strategy pursued by Gaza’s Hamas rulers “includes creating situations which compel the IDF to respond with lethal force so that they are seen to kill and wound ‘innocent’ Palestinian civilians,” Kemp said. “In some cases, including during the current wave of violence, we have seen Hamas present their fighters as innocent civilians; numerous fake incidents staged and filmed which purport to show civilians being killed and wounded by Israeli forces; and films of violence from elsewhere, eg. Syria, portrayed as violence against Palestinians,” Kemp continued.

Jerusalem underkender muslimernes virkelighedsopfattelse, det er ‘Katastrofen’. “We will not allow today to be the day the Muslim world loses Jerusalem” sagde Erdogan midt i en tirade, hvor Israel belv beskyldt for at være en terrorstat, der begik folkemord, som optakt til en ny Verdenskrig - hvis nogen, andre end medierne, skulle være i tvivl om, hvad der er stridens kerne.

Sagen mod Trump, ‘unraveling faster than a mummy on a merry-go-round’

Diverse — Drokles on May 15, 2018 at 10:01 pm

Det er Gutfelds beskrivelse af arven fra Obamas udenrigspolitik. Og det ser ud til at være en passende beskrivelse af sagen mod Trump, som stadigt flere amerikanere ser som en heksejagt. Ingen ved, hvad Mueller mener Trump har gjort, om han overhovedet har overtrådt loven og i givet fald hvilken lov, skrev Andrew C McCarthy i en lærd indføring i sammenstødet mellem amerikanske retsstatprincipper og de politiske checks and balances. FBI er bare gået igang med at undersøge alle ting Trump, hans venner og disses hund.

Anledningerne til disse efterforskninger bliver stadigt mere spegede. Meget tyder på at Steele-rapporten, den med de tissende Moskva-ludere, som Hillary Clintons kampagnemaskine bestilte som et led i at finde smuds på modkandidaten Trump, blev brugt som basis for dommerkendelse til overvågning af en af Trumps kampagnemedarbejdere. Rapporten er fuld af u-verificerede og nogle gange højt kulørte oplysninger om Trump og russere og FBI tabte hurtigt tiltroen til den og til ophavsmanden, den tidligere engelske efterretningsagent Christopher Steele, men fortsatte uagtet med præsentere den for en dommer, for at få opretholdt overvågningen.

Og nu viser det sig angiveligt, at den også har været anvendt som begrundelse for at plante en spion i Trumps kampagne. Sådan en rigtig fysisk een. Ædruelige Andrew C McCarthy argumenterer i en lang og kompliceret klumme om hvorfor han mener at det er det sandsynlige ud fra de oplysninger, der er tilgængelige. Oven i det, viser det sig sandsynligvis også, at FBI har forsøgt at kapre en russisk rigmand, til at vidne imod Trump qua hans dårlige relation, til trumps tidligere kampagneleder Paul Mannafort

‘Deep State’ er ikke en historie uden kød, det ser ud til at være inficeret med særinteresser, der går imod det siddende præsidentskab. Baggrunden for undersøgelsen af Trumps tidligere sikkerhedsrådgiver, Michael Flynn, har været svært gennemskueligt fordi FBI og Justitsministeriet kun har villet, og det er under pres fra Kongressen, frigive censurerede dokumenter af hensyn til statens sikkerhed. Men de ucensurerede dokumenter viser, at det mere var af hensyn til den ‘dybe stats’ sikkerhed, rapporterede Sean Davis. Andrew C McCarthy skrev i National Review

They tell us that their lack of transparency is necessary for the protection of national security, vital intelligence, and investigative operations. But what we find out is that they were concealing their own questionable judgments and conflicting explanations for their actions; their use of foreign-intelligence and criminal-investigative authorities to investigate Michael Flynn, Trump’s top campaign supporter and former national-security adviser; and their explicitly stated belief that Flynn did not lie in the FBI interview for which Special Counsel Robert Mueller has since prosecuted him on false-statements charges.

Flynn erklærede sig skyldig i at have givet et forkert vidneudsagn til FBI, altså løjet, om samtaler med den russiske ambassadør i USA Sergej Kislyak. Men

Flynn pled guilty “even though the [FBI] agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.” There was no elaboration on this point — no discussion of why Flynn was interrogated by FBI agents in the first place; no insight on deliberations within the FBI and Justice Department about whether Flynn had deceptive intent; no explanation of how he came to be charged months later by Mueller’s prosecutors even though the trained investigators who observed Flynn’s demeanor during the interview did not believe he’d lied.

This news that Flynn’s interrogators had not sensed deception was not altogether new. It had been reported that then–FBI director James Comey had made this revelation in closed-session testimony before the committee on March 2, 2017. (See my column.) Yet, during media interviews to promote his just-released memoir, Comey — who has rebuked the House Intelligence Committee report as an effort to tear down our law-enforcement institutions — repeatedly expressed bafflement that anyone could possibly have construed his testimony to imply that the agents believed Flynn had not lied.

Det er ikke det eneste, der er censureret. Også i den interne kommunikation mellem de to Trump-hadende FBI medarbejdere, der blev fyret i skændsel, Lisa Page og Peter Strzok, har FBI sløret information, der f.eks. kunne kaste lys over, hvilken sammenhæng deres kommentarer om en ‘forsikringspolitik’ i tilfælde af en Trumpsejr kunne dække over. Ifølge McCarthy (jeg ved det, men han er altså skarp) leverer Pages og Strzoks dialog “a day-to-day narrative of the goings-on in the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations by two of the highest, most plugged-in officials in the government”.

Strzok and Page are singularly well-informed, central players in the Clinton and Trump investigations. They tell us exactly what is going on and why — or at least they would if the Justice Department had not blacked out key parts of their running conversation.

Thanks mostly to the dogged work of Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, hundreds of pages of the Strzok-Page texts have been released publicly — trust me on that: I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.

Og efter en del indsigt, spørger MaCarthy: “[A]re they telling us that Hillary Clinton was investigated — and given a pass — for the unauthorized transmission of classified information by FBI officials who were themselves actively engaged in the unauthorized transmission of classified information?”

Nogen husker nok at Mueller fandt frem til at der rent faktisk var 13 russiske rigmænd (og et firma der ikke eksisterede), med en eller anden forbindelse til det russiske magt apparat, som på den ene eller anden måde havde stået bag påvirkning af amerikanske sind midt i valgkampe og umiddelbart derefter. Udover ‘bot’s’ og mem, hvad de angiveligt hafttvivlsomt held til at forsamle nogle mennesker til demonstrationer for og imod Trump - og Hillary. Ved en lejlighed havde de endda sat to sådanne i stævne i håbet om lidt gang i gaden. Men da alle disse russere ikke var bosat i USA var der ikke mere at gøre ved det, ingen kunne retsforfølges, Mueller havde gjort sit arbejde så godt han kunne og det væsentlige var at han havde afdækket russisk indblanding i det amerikanske valg.

Men havde Mueller nu også det?  En af de anklagede russiske rigmænd har taget anstød af anklagerne og har hyret amerikanske advokater for at rense sit gode navn og rygte. Disse advokater kræver derfor nu at Mueller beviser sine anklager i en retssag eller trækker anklagerne tilbage. Mueller har svaret, at han ikke er parat til en retssag, men dommeren holder på at Mueller selv har startet retssagen ved sine anklager - hvilket forekommer logisk

I sagen mod Trumps tidligere kampagne-leder Paul Manafort, leverede dommeren en sønderlemmende kritik af Muellers efterforskning. Mens Mueller ledte efter russiske forbindelser fandt hans folk nemlig ud af at Mannafort flere år tilbage havde lobbyet på vegne af ukrainske interesser uden at have oplyst myndighederne om sin fortjeneste. Dette er ulovligt, men bliver sjældent straffet og Mannafort indviglede i at samarbejde med FBI og overdrog alle dokumenter og servere de forlangt. Alligevel stormede FBI, med skarpladte våben, Mannaforts hjem midt om natten og gennemførte en visitation af hans kone, der var i nattøj. Ingen kunne være i tvivl om at det var et forsøg på at presse Mannafort til at besværte sin tidligere arbejdsgiver Trump

“The vernacular is to sing,” he said.

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” the judge said. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead to Mr. Trump” and his eventual prosecution or impeachment.

“It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants,” Ellis, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing on Manafort’s motion to dismiss the Virginia charges.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress