Medierne, Demokraterne og venstrefløjen var Putins nyttige idioter

Diverse — Drokles on February 17, 2018 at 11:39 am

Det var vel det, Ruslandshysteriet burde være endeligt ovre. Ikke at alle ikke hele tiden har vidst, hvad der foregår, nemlig at russerne gør, hvad der passer dem og hvad amerikanerne selv har gjort 81 gange som var det æbletærte, nemlig forsøgt at påvirke den andres valghandlinger. Breitbart skriver at 13 russere er blevet blevet stævnet af Robert Muellers efterforskningsarme på anklager om “ulovligt” at have brugt sociale medier til at påvirke det amerikanske valg, identitetstyveri, arrangeret demonstrationer eller andre ‘events’, betalt Dagsdahls osv - både for og imod Trump.

The indicted Russian organization Internet Research Agency allegedly created a team of “specialists” who were “tasked to create social media accounts that appeared to be operated by U.S. persons” then “divided into day-shift and night-shift hours and instructed to make posts in accordance with the appropriate U.S. time zone.” Internet Research Agency also allegedly “circulated lists of U.S. holidays so that specialists could develop and post appropriate account activity” and that said specialists were “instructed to write about topics germane to the United States such as U.S. foreign policy and U.S. economic issues.”

They created social media groups designed to enflame the fringes of American society, including pushing Black Lives Matter, immigration control, religious groups, and certain geographic areas inside the United States. Examples cited in the indictment include accounts called things like Blacktivist, United Muslims of America, Army of Jesus, Secured Borders, South United, and Heart of Texas.

“By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers,” the indictment says.

The Defendants also allegedly bought social media ads starting in or around 2015 designed to promote their controlled entities, “spending thousands of U.S. dollars every month.” They falsely made a Twitter account called @TEN_GOP to make it appear as though they were the Republican Party of Tennessee, a major political party in a U.S. State.

Nickel and dime stuff, without a little witt attached to it.  David Never-Trump Frenchs harcelerer i National Review over at russerne overhovedet blander sig og den engang glimrende Jonah Goldberg undrer sig i samme tidsskrift over at konservative ikke viser synderlig forargelse - for at blande sig i andre landes debatter kunne amerikanerne ikke finde på, med deres Radio Free Europe. Jo, det er ikke pænt at puste til nogen ild, men det er så normalt som at aflytte Merkels telefon og præsidentielt anbefale briterne at blive i EU, med mindre de vil nedgraderes fra friends til it’s complicated.

French lægger vægt på at russerne forsøgte at udbygge amerikanernes allerede eksisterende “weak public trust”, uden at adressere, hvorfor tilliden er så lav. En af grundene, kan jeg afsløre uden at chokere nogen, findes i den hysteriske dækning af hvad der fra starten lignede en tåbelig konspirationsteori. En konspirationsteori hviler på, hvad der foregår i kulissen. En valghandling er en offentlig affære, alle har adgang til alle udsagn - det gælder faktisk at nå så mange mennesker som muligt. Så hvis man ikke kan pege på en historie, et udsagn eller en information, som man har studset bare det mindste over - og intet konkret bliver nævnt - har den ikke været nær så relevant, som Graham Chapmans “He’s right, did you know that?” nazi. Eller med tidligere præsident Obamas ord; “How is that even possible?”

For French er det en skærpende omstændighed da “it also demonstrates an intent to generally sharpen American political divides and radicalize American citizens”. Det er en besynderlig pointe, der sigter imod symptomer, hvis årsager han og hans never-Trumpere undgår. De eneste, der er blevet radikaliserede er den del af venstrefløjen, der holdt på Hillary Clinton og de fleste store medier. Og det var ikke fordi de blev konfronteret med russiske trollefarme, men fordi de blev konfronteret med en uapologetisk orange mand fra de hvide rækker, rundet af kapitalisme og kristen kultur - så langt som den ikke stillede sig i vejen for hans greb om livets glæder. Mediernes, kommentatorernes, eksperternes og de politiske modstandere har fyldt debatten, med radikaliserede og splittende historier, som at Trump og hans skare af fortabte begrædelige var racister, fascister, voldsparate, misogyne, antisemitter og allehåndefober. Trump ville smadre økonomien enten før eller efter han han havde startet en ny atomkrig som optakt til sit totalitære terrorvælde med etniske udrensninger.

Russerne har ikke betydet en døjt i forhold til splittelsen i det amerikanske samfund, eller i andre vestlige lande, for den sags skyld. Venstrefløjen dyrker splittelsen nu revolutionen blev aflyst med Murens fald. Den gang blev de støttet økonomisk, men det viste sig at de var selvkørende spielverderbere. Det er minoritetsrettigheder der sættes over fællesskabet, der skal vige pladsen for fremmede kulturer, seksuelle besynderligheder og frit opfundne nye køn - de er cock holsters for alting fjendtligt.

Notat kamp mellem Republikanerne og Demokraterne

Diverse — Drokles on February 15, 2018 at 9:48 am

Der er nu startet en notatkrig mellem Republikanerne og Demokraterne, hvor vinderen kan afgøre hvilken fortælling amerikanerne skal høre om Trump, Rusland og Depp State. Republikanerne begyndte da formanden for efterretningsrådet Devin Nunes offentliggjorde et notat, der tegnede et billede af at FBI havde forladt sig lidt for meget på den rapport om Trumps lyssky affærer, der bl.a involverede tisselege med prostituerede i russiske hotelværelser og at der var for mange agenter med negative emotioner imod Trump og mulige skjulte dagsordner, som også havde arbejdet på Hillarys sager om emails.

Presset på Trump er opretholdt af muligheden om det lyssky. En Kafkask situation, hvor ingen kender den egentlige forbrydelse, forbrydelse indgår end ikke i efterforskningsleders Robert Muellers arbejdsbeskrivelse, men hvor selve efterforskningens eksistens er nok til en folkedom. Hvis det står til medierne. Demokraterne ønsker at henvise til alt, der potentielt kan henligge i mørket, så de protesterede voldsomt over, at Nunes notat fortalte, hvad Nunes mente var konklusionen på alle de oplysninger, efterretningsrådet havde set og hørt, nemlig at der ikke var noget på Trump, men derimod problemer med efterretningsvæsenets arbejdsgange og nekelte medarbejderes motiver. Derfor lancerede Demokraterne deres eget notat, Adam Schiff notatet, der endnu venter på de juridiske institutioners tilladelse til at blive offentliggjort, hvor de ønsker at nuancere eller bestride Nunes konklusioner.

Man skal ikke være den store analytiker, for at mistænke Demokraterne at udarbejde et notat, der indeholder for mange fortrolige oplysninger, til at det kan blåstemples i sin helhed. Kun ved at holde oplysninger i mørket, kan de opretholde anklagerne mod, ikke blot Trump, men også Republikanerne, for forskelsbehandling. For faktuelt, kan Schiffs notat højst sandsynligt ikke være et sagligt opgør med Nunes notat, da der i mellemtiden er fremkommet endnu et notat, Grassley-Graham notatet.

“The Grassley-Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo” skriver Josehp McCarthy i National Review og forklarer

The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced, Clinton-campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page, and in doing so, they concealed the Clinton campaign’s role. Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016, the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

(…)

What the Grassley-Graham memo tells us is that the Nunes memo, for all the hysteria about it, was tame. The Grassley-Graham memo tells us that we need not only a full-blown investigation of what possessed the Obama administration to submit such shoddy applications to the FISA court, but of how a judge — or perhaps as many as four judges — rationalized signing the warrants.

(…)

Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.

Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense.

In May 2017, as I have detailed (here), Steele was required to respond to interrogatories. He emphasized that his dossier allegations were “raw intelligence” that was “unverified” and “warranted investigation.” He further described his reports as “limited intelligence” that described mere “indications” of “possible” coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. He was not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of what he’d been told, he explained; he passed it along because it needed further investigation.

Beyond all that, we now learn through the senators’ memo, and some follow-up reporting, that two longtime Clinton cronies, Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal, fed their own anti-Trump dossier to Steele, through a State Department official, Jonathan Winer. In the fall of 2016, Steele, while working on his Clinton-funded project, reported this Clinton-crony information to the FBI.

Still, the FBI and Justice Department elected not to tell the FISA court that the Clinton campaign was paying for Steele’s unverified, unverifiable anti-Trump research.

Og hvis Steeles rapport har ligget til grund for efterforskningen og dermed haft ‘illegitim’ påvirkning af den demokratiske proces, en form for kup-forsøg, skal han så ikke straffes, måske endda henrettes, som Scott Adams argumenterer for?

Wayne Allen Root mener på Town Hall at nettet nu strammes om både Hillary Clinton og Barak Obama. To FBI agenter, Lisa Page og Peter Strzok, blev fjernet fra efterforskningen af alting Trump-Rusland, da det blev afsløret at de både byttede stærkt Trump fjendske meninger og kropsvæsker uden om ægteskabet. Ud fra deres sms korrespondance kan man tilsyneladende forstå at FBI brugte “untraceable burner phones“, som var de selv en del af en kriminel organisation. Og at både Hillary og Obama blev løbende orienteret om en ukurant plan B, til at underløbe Trump

It gets worse. The Hillary exoneration letter wasn’t just changed to exonerate Hillary. The FBI changed “President” to “senior government official” when describing who Hillary sent illegal personal emails to while traveling in a nation called a “sophisticated adversary” to the USA. Could that nation be Russia? Why didn’t they name that country? Perhaps because they’re afraid Americans would figure out the “Russian Collusion scandal” belongs to Obama and Hillary.

And if Hillary sent emails to President Obama on a personal email, guess who else broke the law? President Obama. The FBI pulled off a 2 for 1…they changed words to exonerate both Obama and Hillary.

Og ifølge et vidneudsagn fra en FBI agent til Kongressen modtog Clinton Foundation, Bill og Hillarys velgørendhedsfond, der mistænkes for at være en del af en større korruptionsmaskine, store pengebeløb fra russiske interesser, da disse købte sig ind i det uranproducerende firma Uranium One.

Den store mand og tiden

Diverse — Drokles on February 13, 2018 at 5:36 am

Jeg synes (endelig, efter mere end 12 år, indleder jeg en blog med den formulering) at kunne se en tendens til, at store personligheder, bliver mindsket i tidens film og serier. Denne eller hin store kunstner var faktisk en simpel narkoman, havde bøvl i privaten eller spøjse vaner. En hvilken som helst film eller serie om Dronning Elisabeth den første - måske med undtagelse af Shekar Kapurs Elisabeth fra 1998, der mere retteligt burde have heddet Lord Walsingham Renser Ud - fokuserer på hendes frustrerede kærlighedsforhold til Leicester Citys træner, i stedet for at betone det singulært mest interessante ved hendes liv, nemlig at hun rejste en nation i knæ og sendte den på vej til at erobre Verden. Og Hello Josephine.

Den seneste film om gode gamle Winston Churchill, Darkest Hour fokuserer på de dramatiske dage fra Chamberlain træder tilbage til Churchill holder sin berømte ‘Vi skal kæmpe allehånde steder og vi skal aldrig overgive os!’ tale. I filmen kommer Churchill i tvivl, svajende mellem, hvad der er let og hvad der er rigtigt, er det kongen og hans kone, der holder sammen på ham. Filmen udtrykker denne tvivl i en scene, hvor den vægelsindede Churchill tager metroen til parlamentet for at holde sin ‘vi skal kæmpe’ tale. Her taler han med almindelige pendlere, der viser sig at være ganske patriotiske og ivrige efter at give Hitler en dragt prygl. Flere af deres udsagn, bliver til Churchills berømte ord. Sådan skal vi tro gårsdagens pendlere tænkte og talte. Sådan skal vi tro Churchill var. Og sådan skal vi forstå historiens gang.

Problemet med den scene er ikke så meget at den er fri fantasi - en film har en hvis varighed og poesi er i stand til at fortælle sandheden. Problemet er at den lyver. Churchill var ikke i tvivl om nødvendigheden, selvom han kunne tvivle på sejren. Og denne distinktion er vigtig for, hvad der lå bag hans enestående handlekraft. Ved at lade Churchill og hans taler være et ekko af folket bliver Churchill til en populist, der rider på bølge af folkelig kampgejst.

Kunstnerisk kan man sagtens eksternalisere en persons indre konflikter og det er en god ide samtidig at vise Churchill, som en folkets mand. Og publikums følelser kan engageres gennem emotionelle virkemidler, som i Apollo 13, hvor det er et langt drama, både i den uheldige rumkapsel, hvor stemningen mellem astronauterne er på kogepunktet og i Houston, hvor teknikkerne hektisk improviserer løsninger, der kan rense luften for CO2 og klemme et par ekstra minutter ud af de flade batterier.

Men selv om den mission i sandhed var et regulært drama, hvor alt hvilede på en knivsæg, så var der ingen konflikter, ingen panik og ingen improviserede løsninger. Det VAR mænd af den rette støbning, som gik til opgaven med rettidig omhu. Alle eventualiteter var der tænkt på og lavet procedurer over og alle var koncentrerede, professionelle - og bemærkelsesværdigt rolige. Og her er det grangiveligt svært at skildre et stort drama, gennem stoisk rolige professionelle, hvis fremtoning, stemmeføring og handling indgyder tillid og sikkerhed - for kan man tro på det, når man selv ved hvor let man bliver bange? Så filmen drejer på nogle faktuelle knapper, for at få dramaet i den rette emotionelle proportion og vi er stadig benovede over, hvor godt vores, endda virkelige, helte klarede skærene.

I et storpolitisk drama, hvor vi allerede ved at det ender med den anden Verdenskrig, er der rigeligt af konflikt og masser af patos i Churchills ord til at holde publikum på kanten af sædet. Så det er uforståeligt at man vælger at spænde vognen for hesten og lader folket føre Churchill. Churchill red ikke på en bølge. Modstanden mod krig i hans regering og i Parlamentet afspejlede ganske godt, den generelle stemning, en forhandlingsløsning er gerne at foretrække. Demokrati er kompromisets kunst, civiliserede mennesker finder en løsning i mindelighed. Men de tøver også med at indse, når bedrageren står foran dem.

I 1940 var folket ikke ivrige efter krig, det er de sjældent. De ved godt, hvad krig koster, hvem der skal kæmpe den og hvad man kan miste - de havde 20 år forinden ofret en generation i skyttegravene. Sejrherrerne vil ikke have revanche, de vil have ‘aldrig mere krig’, som nogle håbede ville blive resultatet af blodsudgydelserne. Folk holder af hverdagen. Det er derfor det er så heroisk, når de endelig sætter i bevægelse, fordi de indser nødvendigheden ikke kan forhandles.

Og Churchill tvivlede ikke på nødvendigheden. “Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now!!!” formanede han i slutningen af 30erne sin regering “Hitler constitutes the greatest danger for the British Empire!”, som Klaus Wiegrefe skriver i Spiegel. Og “[a] furious Hitler publicly berated Churchill as a “warmonger”". Churchill havde læst tilstrækkeligt Mein Kampf til at han i 1939 kunne skrive at “the Third Reich represented an unprecedented “cult of malignancy”".

Darkest Hour menerat kunne påvise en tvivl i mødereferaterne fra den engelske regerings krisemøder i maj 1940, der endte med at England erklærede Tyskland krig, mens flåden desperat forsøgte at få resterne af de engelske ekspeditionsstyrker hjem fra Dunkirk. Og det er rigtigt at møderne, der forløb over flere dage, registrerer skiftende og modstridende udsagn fra Churchill. Men det er forkert at læse en politisk forhandling, hvor Churchill søgte at få et konsensus bag sin strategi, som en tvivl - det kaldes forhandling og overtalelse - og “[t]he Duke of Marlborough’s descendant was on his own”. History Extra skriver

The ensuing discussion at the meeting would finally pitch Halifax and those who supported him – a large proportion of the ruling Conservative Party – full force against one of their own: Churchill, whose stubborn will to fight on alone seemed, to Halifax, impervious to reason and hard evidence and against the country’s best interests.

Når Churchill tilsyneladende indrømmede at en forhandlingsløsning, med Musollini som forhandlingsleder, var det med betingelsen, hvis det kunne lade sig gøre. Det kunne det selvsagt ikke, men man skal have sin opposition derud, hvor de selv indser, at de tager fejl, hvis man skal have dem med i ens konsensus.

The War Cabinet convened again the following day, 28 May, to once more discuss the issue of Italy. Lord Halifax spoke first: “We should give a clear indication that we should like to see mediation by Italy.” But Churchill said he felt it was “clear that the French purpose was to see Signor Mussolini acting as intermediary between ourselves and Herr Hitler” and that “he was determined not to get into this position”. Halifax – surely thinking ‘here we go again!’ at yet another row-back from Churchill – disagreed strongly with this suggestion. Churchill continued, stating that he believed “the French were trying to get us on to the slippery slope… The position would be entirely different when Germany had made an unsuccessful attempt to invade this country.”

Was Churchill, having agreed to consider a peace deal, now adding a new caveat that it should be pursued only after a failed German attempt to invade Britain?

The idea that Britain, without an army (as it now looked), was equipped to repel a German invasion (which looked likely) was a notion that Halifax did not even want his name linked to.

The argument continued, with Churchill adding that: “Signor Mussolini, if he came in as mediator, would take his whack out of us. It was impossible to imagine that Herr Hitler would be so foolish as to let us continue our re-armament. In effect, his terms would put us completely at his mercy. We should get no worse terms if we went on fighting, even if we were beaten, than were open to us now.”

Halifax was understandably infuriated. He could not fathom what Churchill felt was “so wrong” in the proposed idea of mediation. Chamberlain, sensing this frustration, came in on Halifax’s side, saying: “It was clear to the world that we were in a tight corner, and [I] did not see what we should lose if we said openly that, while we would fight to the end to preserve our independence, we were ready to consider decent terms if such were offered to us.”

Faced with losing Chamberlain’s support to Halifax, Churchill returned to his rhetorical roots and stated: “[T]he nations which went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished.”

Churchills rationaler er en afvisning af enhver tanke om kompromis. At forhandle om sin egen undergang er værre end end at møde den i kamp, for når man kæmper har man muligheden for at vinde. Churchill havde netop skrevet en biografi om Marlborough - der aldrig havde deltaget i et slag han ikke vandt - han vidste at Halifax og Chamberlain var til fals for slesk tale og billig portvin. De skulle forarbejdes indtil deres tilhængere kunne se at de var på det gale spor

What to tell his peers, then? Should he listen to them or instruct them? And how much persuasion to apply when the price his listeners might pay, if persuaded, is their own blood?

It is not certain that Churchill knew full well what he would tell them. But as he walked he began to form an idea. He must reveal that a peace deal with Hitler has its advocates and has indeed been under consideration. It was even possible that Hitler was behind the Italians’ overtures, sending out a subtle signal of readiness to talk. Out of all this, he must discern the mood of his ministers, before publicly disclosing his own.

“I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man [Hitler]. But it was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms from Germany than if we went on and fought it out. The Germans would demand our fleet – that would be called ‘disarmament’ – our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler’s puppet would be set up – ‘under Mosley [Sir Oswald Mosley, British fascist] or some such person’. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other side, we had immense reserves and advantages. And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. Therefore, he said, ‘We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or elsewhere, and if this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

When on the brink of defeat, Churchill – speaking from the heart – summoned all the skills in his arsenal and produced a masterful display of rhetoric, one that we must assume took its shape in the orator’s head in the fleeting moments before expression, too late to edit it.

What it meant was this. He had decided. Decided no longer to sit on the fence. Decided to pre-emptively quash any campaign of support Halifax might be attempting for his ‘European Settlement’. Decided to risk the Foreign Secretary’s resignation, and with it a no confidence vote against himself. Decided, on balance, that it was better – despite all the valid and powerful and moral arguments against – to fight on, returning to his original position, but now with a full sense of the poor odds, the dangers, the costs, possible sacrifices that lay ahead. His countrymen and countrywomen must risk death; be ready to choke in their own blood.

“Churchill had outflanked his opponents” konkluderes der. Churchill var en stor retoriker, men retorik var et redskab til at nå et mål og ikke blot tomme fraser fra højstemte pendlere.

“Resolution personified, Winston Churchill” siger Dave Davis i en samtale på NPR med Candice Millard om hendes bog Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill. Millard fortæller at Churchill “wanted to be in the most difficult, most dangerous battles he could find”. I kamp med pashtunske krigere, der slagtede løs på hans enhed, red Churchill rundt på en hvid pony, der var købt ind, for at fremhæve ham selv på slagmarken, overbevist om sin egen udødelighed. “I do not believe the gods would create so potent a being as myself for so prosaic an ending” citerer Millard ham for at skrive hjem til sin mor. Som journalist under Boerkrigen i 1899, var han ombord på et tog med britiske forstærkninger til fronten, da det blev afsporet og briterne faldt i et baghold

And the first two cars are thrown off the tracks. Several men are killed and horribly wounded. The man right next to Churchill has his arm blown off.

And then they’re stopped and they’re surrounded by just this hailstorm of shells and bullets. Winston Churchill, 24 years old, one of the few civilians on the train, takes over the defense of this train. He immediately jumps out, running back and forth, shouting orders to people, and even more extraordinary, they listen to him. You know, this is a train full of uniformed soldiers who have their commander, his friend, Aylmer Haldane, right there. And even Haldane listens to Churchill and says, absolutely, that’s the way to go. And every man who makes it out alive credits Churchill’s resourcefulness and bravery for saving their lives.

DAVIES: Right. And of course, this involved trying to decouple what’s the movable part of the train from the cars that have been blown off the track…

MILLARD: (Laughter) That’s right.

DAVIES: …Trying to get the engineer to maneuver it into place and move the derailed cars out of the way so that what’s left of the train can escape all while, you, know gunfire is raining down. And he’s moving about in the open, taking charge. It was really quite a moment.

MILLARD: It’s his instinct to take charge. Everybody else sees that. They see his confidence. They see his courage. And it happens in a heartbeat, and it works.

Tidens forhold til store mænd afspejles i den forrykte forskrækkelse for alting Trump. Ja, han skulle nævnes igen - men i det mindste halder det ikke om klimaet. Endnu.
Se hellere Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years med Siegfrid Farnon fra 1981 episode 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 (herunder), 6, 7 og 8

Nunes notat er et lys i mørket

Diverse — Drokles on February 7, 2018 at 11:11 pm

De kloge strides om Nunes notatet, der beskriver hvorledes efterretningsrådets formand Nunes fortolker de oplysninger rådet har fået fra efterretningsvæsenet. Alt der kommer fra en politiker er et partsindlæg, hvad der for nogle forhåndsdiskvalificerer det, men som i realiteten blot er et forbehold, som det skal læses med. Og der har været kritik af at informationerne mangler sammenhæng og at der er meningsforstyrrende udeladelser.

Men tilbage står, at FBI under den tidligere Administration i et eller andet omfang har brugt eller måske forladt sig på, en dubiøs politisk efterretningsrapport, Steele rapporten med tisse-legene, bestilt og betalt af daværende præsidentkandidat Hillary Clintons kampagne, til at opnå ret til at overvåge en medarbejder i daværende præsidentkandidat Trumps kampagne, Carter Page - og således opnået mulighed for også at overvåge dele af Trump og hans kampagne by proxy. Victor Davis Hanson skrev

He was apparently known to intelligence agencies for years (supposedly under investigation variously by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), and he may have been the object of a 2014 FISA warrant. But such intelligence agents were never able to bring charges against him, and it appears he even cooperated with American intelligence in gathering info against the Russians. So why would the FBI and DOJ, suddenly in 2016, believe that mention of Page’s name in an unverified opposition-research dossier warranted four FISA warrants to find wrongdoing?

After all, if he was so well known to the FBI for so many years, during which they never charged him with being a Russian agent, and if the FBI nonetheless still regarded him as suspicious in 2016, why not simply go to a regular court to obtain a warrant to wiretap him? Such a court, of course, would be less secretive, not known for a 99 percent approval rate, subject to far more deliberation, and less useful for surveilling Trump associates.

A more likely supposition is that it was not Page’s past flirtations with the Russians (who supposedly dubbed him an “idiot”) that abruptly brought him back into the sights of the DOJ and FBI in 2016. Instead, it was his brief and minor relationship with Trump, and his appearance in a bogus dossier, that offered useful pretexts for court-ordered surveillance sweeps and indirect targeting of possible Trump associates.

Page was simply a tool, to be surveilled in hopes of also sweeping up other names and information that might corroborate some shred of the dubious Steele dossier. In that narrow sense, his name might as well have been Jones or Smith.

So far, all Carter Page has been found guilty of is momentarily working for the Trump campaign. His likely future lawsuits against Steele, Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, the FBI, and the DOJ will probably follow a number of avenues.

Og Hanson minder om at “Shortly before leaving office, Obama abruptly issued yet another expansion of the Reagan-era Executive Order 12333, dramatically enlarging some 17 government agencies’ legal authority to surveille U.S. citizens — an order that had followed even earlier expansions of the number of officials privy to surveilled information.” Så Hanson citerer tidligere Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas, som hun fortalte MSNBCs Morning Joe om hvorledes den tidligere Administration ville samle så meget information om Trump og Rusland og sprede det, førend Trumps Administration fandt ud af, hvilke metoder man havde brugt

I was urging my former colleagues and — and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed — aimed at telling the Hill people, “Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.” Because, I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.

(nyd en analyse af Farkas kropssprog, da en journalist ville høre mere om denne samling af information på Trump) Derfor er Nunes smart når han offentliggør sit notat, om det er partisk eller ej. Demokraterne, pressen og FBIs eneste svar er nu at levere den sammenhæng, som republikanerne så vil yderligere nuancere og således eksponeres hele ‘deep state’s’ arbejdsgang, eller rettere Sumpens essens, for en måbende offentlighed. For der er selvfølgelig ikke tale om et samlet FBI endsige en samlet efterretningstjeneste, men centralt placerede rådne æbler, som søger at underløbe demokratiet.

Disse rådne æbler har dog fået lov til at rådne i en politisk kultur, som den tidligere Administration har dyrket, hvor embedsstanden er brugt foruroligende politisk. Fra at give miljøstyrrelsen EPA ukonstitutionel magt til at lade skattemyndighederne forfølge konservative organisationer særligt nidkært. Det er klart i et sådant miljø, at ansatte med stærke holdninger, som agent Peter Strzok, der sms’ede i et væk med sin kollega om et hemmeligt netværk og en nødplan skulle Trump blive præsident, og den af Trump fyrede tidligere FBI direktør James Comey.

Comey mente at offentliggørelsen af Nunes notat både var uden betydning, “Dishonest and misleading”, som det var OG at det ville være skadeligt for USAs sikkerhed. Sikkert mest skadeligt for ham dog, mente den tidligere FBI agent Jim Kallstrom, der pegede på Comeys rolle, ikke blot som lækker af notater, men også som aktiv politisk agent. Det var Comey, der efter aftale med den tidligere Justitsminister ikke blot ændrede formuleringerne i sin rapport over Hillary Clintons ulovligheder, så de ikke fremstod i juridiske termer, men også og på den baggrund anbefalede ikke at foretage sig yderligere, stik mod hans kompetence og stik mod lovens ord og bogstav.

Presset mod Trump næres af alt gedulgt, kun ved at pege mod truslen fra mørket kan man skræmme befolkningen. Og så nytter det jo ikke at nogen har den frækhed at tænde lyset, så amerikanerne kan få syn for sagn.

Så begynder det store bagslag

Diverse — Drokles on February 3, 2018 at 6:02 am

Et notat udarbejdet af formanden for Kongressens efterretningsudvalg Devin Nunes, der kaster lidt lys på, hvorledes FBI satte sig for at efterforske alle indvolverede i Trumps kampagne er offentliggjort. Notatet er udarbejdet på baggrund af, hvad Nunes mener at efterretningsudvalget har fået præsenteret af oplysninger vedrørende Muellers mange efterforskning af alting Trump, russere og obstruktion.

Mistanken fra Trump sympatisørers og alment juridisk bekymrede borgeres side har været i hvor høj grad, den famøse Steele rapport er lagt til grund. Steeles rapport var i starten sponseret af en republikansk Trump rival, men fandt vej til Demokraternes kampagne, hvor dens fokus skiftede mod russiske kontakter og tisselege i Moskvahotelværelser. Og FBI er selvfølgelig i sin gode ret til at bruge den som udgangspunkt for sine egne undersøgelser, men de må ikke forlade sig på den. Den altid ædruelige Andrew C McCarthy skriver i National om notatet, at det viser at FBI åbnede en sag mod en af Trumps medarbejdere på et problematisk grundlag, for siden at kunne åbne sager mod resten af Trumps stab

The memo states that the Obama administration concealed from the court that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the political campaign of Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Nor was the court informed that the dossier’s author, former British spy Christopher Steele, told a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Trump from being elected president.

Moreover, despite presenting dossier information as probable cause on four separate occasions — for the initial FISA warrant in October 2016, and three times in the ensuing months — the FBI failed to verify the dossier’s explosive allegations and failed to inform the court that its efforts to corroborate the allegations had been unavailing. Indeed, the memo relates that the government once presented a news story to the court as corroboration for Steele’s claims, apparently unaware that Steele himself was the source for the news story.

(…)

The FISA court warrant targeted Carter Page, who had volunteered to serve as a Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser. The memo relates that the warrant was originally issued on October 21, 2016, and re-authorized three times thereafter. Under FISA, warrants targeting American citizens lapse after 90 days. If you’re keeping score, that means a warrant based on claims that Trump was corruptly aligned with the Kremlin was renewed twice after Donald Trump became president.

According to the committee testimony of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, the information in the dossier was necessary to the probable-cause showing required to justify issuance of a FISA warrant. That is, the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier information.

David Harseany skrev  i National Review før notatets offentliggørelse

For that matter, even if President Donald Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians, or whatever crime Special Counsel Robert Mueller has settled on pursuing, it doesn’t mean the Obama administration was above abusing its power to spy on opponents. It’s highly plausible, in fact, that an administration that had little compunction about spying on journalists and others and then lying about it would feel comfortable dropping standards to snoop on its political adversaries.

For medierne og Demokraterne synes logikken at være, at demokratiet skal stå til ansvar for efterretningstjenesterne og ikke omvendt.

Det er blevet påstået at notatet er rettet til at formanden for efterretningsudvalget, den republikanske Nunes, for at passe en bestemt fortælling til fordel for Trump. Nunes har bedyret, at der var tale om et par kommafejl og et par enkelte udeladelser af information, der ikke blev skønnet relevant at offentliggøre også af andre medlemmer af sikkerhedsrådet og fra begge partier. Ellers er striden ikke om sandheden, men i hvor høj grad det er taget ud af en sammenhæng eller måske endda sammensat af udvalgte oplysninger.

FBI hæfter sig ved den manglende sammenhæng, som de er bekymrede for om giver et misvisende billede  Allahpundit, der nu forventer en PR krig, hvor “a waterfall of leaks from both sides is on the way”, skriver i Hot Air at

If the Steele dossier was the *only* thing the FISA Court had to go on, maybe the feds shouldn’t have cleared that bar. But if they have Steele plus their own independently developed evidence? This is what the FBI statement is alluding to, I think, when it mentions “material omissions.” Nunes’s memo is going to claim that the Steele dossier was part of the FISA application, which is probably true. But, says the FBI, what about the other parts? This is why we need the underlying intelligence too.

Trey Gowdy er ikke helt enig i den sidste konklusion. Men han mener, at nogle FBI agenter, med meget stærke negative følelser for Trump, skulle forklare hvad de mente, når de talte om et “hemmeligt selskab” og om det indbefattede ovennævnte FBI direktør Andy McCabe. McCabe, der var stærk involveret i efterforskningen af Hillarys e-mail sag, som han syntes at sylte og hvis kone fik et stort bidrag til hendes politiske kampagne fra en Clinton allieret, blev for nogen tid siden bedt om at trække sig tilbage.

Hvis notatet loyalt gengiver arbejdsgangen er det logisk at Demokraterne og den del af “modstandsbevægelsen”, den foregående regering lod etablere og som endnu sidder tilbage, ikke er interesseret i at få sandheden at vide. Jo mere der ligger hen i mørket, jo mere kan mørkemænd tales frem i offentlighedens bevidsthed. Mørket motiverer gængen; ved at pege begrunde de uendelige efterforskninger med mistanker baseret på undersøgelsernes eksistens har man sluttet ringen et niveau over Kafka. Men Donald T er ingen Josef K.

Siden kalder de dig racist - og så vinder du!

Diverse — Drokles on January 20, 2018 at 2:00 am

Casper Støvring er måske lidt skuffet over Donald Trumps første år “bl.a. fordi Trump har fyret Stephen Bannon“. Men målt på politisk succes uafhængigt af ens egne forventninger (de der regnede med at Trump ville starte en atomkrig burde være overmåde lykkelige - men de virker sjovt nok stadigt deprimerede) ligner Trump en sejrherre. Victor Davis Hanson mener Trump er en succes ved alt det han ikke er, nemlig forgængeren Barak Obama. Ved systematisk at afmontere den stat, som er vokset siden Reagans afgang og hvis snærende regulering især Obamas regering pålagde økonomien

Few Republicans in the executive branch sought to reduce government employment, deregulate, sanction radical expansion of fossil-fuel production, question the economic effects of globalization on Americans between the coasts, address deindustrialization, recalibrate the tax code, rein in the EPA, secure the border, reduce illegal immigration, or question transnational organizations. To do all that would require a president to be largely hated by the Left, demonized by the media, and caricatured in popular culture — and few were willing to endure the commensurate ostracism.

Og så er der sagaen om Trumps mentale helbred, som hvis det begynder at rable, giver mulighed for at få ham fjernet fra posten som præsident ifølge forfatningen. Men helbredsundersøgelsen viste at Trumps gener var så rigeligt stærke til at bære hans korpus og misundelsesværdige livsstil gennem begge præsidentperioder. Chok, og lægen blev i mere end tre kvarter spurgt ud om alt vedrørende Trumps fysiske og kognitive tilstand; om han udviste tegn på demens, hvad en eventuel fejlmåling af hans højde kunne betyde for hans bmi, om han var på stoffer, om han brugte gebis, led af OCD og både om han rørte sig for lidt OG spillede for meget golf. Svaret til den presse, der ikke syntes at præsidentkandidat Hillary Clintons kollaps, hyppige faldulykker, hjernerystelser og gentagne blodpropper var en historie, var nej, nej, nej. Et af de mere bizarre spørgsmål lød om ikke Trump burde lade sig inspirere af, hvorledes hans forgænger tog sig af sit helbred, til hvilket, den altid lystige, Jon Miller foreslog “Like, take up smoking?”.

Så når Trump rent faktisk får noget fra hånden og økonomien er i kraftig bedring, han har påviseligt har styr på sine fakulteter og når man end ikke kan stole på ruzzernes evne til at underminere demo0kratiet, ja, så er der ikke meget tilbage andet end den evige racisme. Og den fik endnu en hysterisk tur, da Trump stillede det fornuftige spørgsmål, om hvorfor man dog optager så mange mennesker fra lortelande. Alle lortelande har kulørte og sorte befolkninger, så derfor var det en racistisk bemærkning, frem for en præcis obsevation til eftertanke.

Scott Adams rådede sine følgere at se sagen på CNN for det underholdende i at høre alle på deres sendeflade gentage ordet ‘lortelande’. Og ganske rigtigt, selv den pænere CNN vært Anderson Cooper tog ordet i sin mund og spurgte sine gæster om de kendte til om der blandt de lortelande, som Trump sigtede til, havde en overvejende hvid befolkning. Svaret var et rungende nej, men årsagen blev ikke diskuteret. Præmissen om at Trump er racist tvang dem til at motivforske i stedet for at se på virkeligheden, at hvide befolkninger har været bedre til at bygge nationer - indtil, altså, de begyndte at tage begrædelige mængder af fortabte mennesker ind fra lortelande.

Ben Shapiro mener at medierne, der med Morten Urhskov Jensens ord har været “udsøgt ringe”, har en bevidst strategi med at gøre “Trump’s idiotic and obscene statements” til et spørgsmål om hans indlejrede racisme. I stedet for at analysere om et givent udsagn er racistisk, antager man at kende hans indre motiver, for derefter at kriminalisere ham, hans politik og alle dens støtter

If they label Trump racist, they can pillory anyone who disagrees as a representative of broader American racism. The media take a Trump statement — say, Trump’s excoriation of MS-13 — and pillory it as racist, then claim that public support for Trump is evidence of widespread white privilege and institutional racism. The syllogism is simple: Trump is a racist; only racists support a racist; Americans who support Trump are racists.

Og medierne, bemærker Shapiro, tager kun anstød af racisme, når det drejer sig om deres politiske modstandere og gør derfor lystigt brug af antisemitiske Al Sharpton og Black Lives Matter, som sandhedsvidner. Anklagen hviler selvfølgelig på en fordrejning af det sagte. Trump sagde shithole countries, altså nedrakkede han en række lande. Hvis han havde spurgt, bare for at tage et tilfældigt eksempel, hvorfor USA tillod mennesker fra “the basket of deplorables” og kaldte dem irredeemable, havde medierne haft en bedre sag.

Mediernes og venstrefløjens desperate racismefortælling og deres manglende evne til at acceptere at Trump er et fit and stable genius er den sidste krampetrækning i deres kritik af Trump, der ikke er andet tilbage. Imens har Trump fordoblet antallet af sorte supportere fra 8% til 17% (med en overvægt af mænd), som han også , førend sine præsidentplaner, har doneret 10.000 dollars til øjenoperationer til mennesker i netop lortelandet Haiti.

Truslen mod ytringsfriheden kommer fra højre

Diverse — Drokles on January 17, 2018 at 3:46 am

Året er begyndt med at folk som den svenske samfundsrevser PeterSweeden, der fik lukket sin PayPal konto, Britain First Paul Rimmer, blev arresteret i Belfast mens det engelske politi er på jagt efter borgere, som fremkommer med anstødelig tale om pædofil-ringe af anden etnisk herkomst, den østrigske identitære leder Martin Sellner, der også har svært ved at åbne både bank- og Youtubekonto, har fået sin bil brændt af, mens man roligt kan tale om at slå mænd ihjel.

PET advarer ifølge Jyllands-Posten derimod om at “[t]ruslen fra højreekstremistisk terror i Danmark er vokset” og fremkommer med et eksempel “I juni pløjede en mand i en varevogn eksempelvis en gruppe muslimer ned ved en moské i London” og brandattentater i Sverige

Ude i Europa gik tendensen den modsatte vej forrige år. Ifølge Europols seneste årlige rapport om terrortrends i alle EU-landene tegnede venstreekstremister sig i 2016 for 27 fejlslagne, forhindrede eller udførte angreb ? en skarp stigning fra 2015 ? mens højreekstremister kun stod bag ét angreb (et brandattentat mod en moské i Holland). Jihadister stod bag 13 gennemførte eller forpurrede angreb på tværs af EU.

De venstreradikale og/eller anarkistiske angreb bestod primært af improviserede brandbomber eller mindre sprængladninger, fremhæver Europol i rapporten, som altså er et år bagud i forhold til PET’s analyse. I Italien, hvor 16 af angrebene udsprang, gik terrorgrupperne efter mål med forbindelse til behandlingen af flygtninge og migranter, såsom udrejsecentre.

Langt den største trussel mod Danmark kommer fra militant islamisme, som også fylder klart mest i PET-analysen.

“Det må eje sin egen bitre ironi at sidde på Jyllands-Posten - forskanset bag hegn og bombesluser - og skrive om “truslen fra højre” skrev Uwe Max Hansen på Facebook

Politiken skrev at politikerne herhjemme tøver med at skride ind, men “hadet stortrives på nettet”. Selv om Tyskland tvinger sociale medier som Facebook og Twitter til at censurere, hvad de opfatter som racistisk, så bekymrer de store it-giganter sig også selvstændigt over deres evne til at “præge bevidstheden hos enkeltindivider, forme den offentlige debat og dermed påvirke hele planetens fremtid.” Drømmen om et teknologisk medborgerskab og debat døde med det Arabiske Forår, men “Hvis man vil forstå, hvor meget der har forandret sig til det værre, er det blot at følge den amerikanske præsident og hans daglige twitter-provokationer”, skriver Information under overskriften “Internettet er blevet ond og farligt“. Og præge debatten ondsindet, det er lige hvad de store teknologigiganter gør og Prager University sagsøger derfor Google/Youtube for censur.

Det har længe været en sandhed at Tvitter “shadowbans” højreorienterede og nu har James O’Keefe

Så naturligvis var Jacob McHangama foruroliget over Trumps danske støtters “stadig larmende tavshed - eller relativisering” fordi Trump vil “udvide injurielovgivningen i USA”.

Krigen mod de to køn er også rettet mod børn

Diverse — Drokles on January 12, 2018 at 7:49 am

En hel familie i England kalder sig “gender fluid“, skrev Daily Mail og helt uden at afsløre nogen skepsis og spurgte i en anden artikel om en moder gjorde ret i at “hjælpe en 6-årig” med at skifte køn. I Californien foretog en børnehavelærer, hvad nogle har betegnet som en ceremoni, for en dreng på 5 år, der stod for at blive rettet for en pige. Det er noget af en fejring for en forvirring, som oftest er induceret udefra og som langt de fleste børn vokser fra. Og så er der selvfølgelig den detalje at hormonbehandling af børn ødelægger deres senere evne til selv at få børn. Og indoktrineringen rammer børnene tidligt, skrev Yiannopoulos, med en SvampeBob Firkant agtig malebog, der fortalte de små poder, at mænd kan menstruere. En ondsindet ideologisk kampagne gnaver i civilisationens paneler

A 2011 survey by the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) found 41% of transgender people had attempted suicide in the U.S.” skrev Daily Wire tidligere på året. Og så er der skyggetallet, alle dem, der blot har ladet det blive ved overvejelserne, men hvis vilje til at leve lige netop har vejet mere end deres ulykkelige situation.

Men der er også lavpraktiske konsekvenser af at dyrke forvrængningen. En blot 18-årig engelsk fyr skifter kø for anden gang. Fra at gennem et kønsskifte som 15-årig fortrød Brad “after prolific use of drugs and alcohol and numerous suicide attempts” sin tid som ‘pige’. Fandt hans omgivelser det fascionabelt at ægge denne unge og usikre fyr udi denne ødelæggelse af sig selv? Eller prøvede de at holde ham fast i, at han var værdifuld i sig selv og måske havde brug for mere hjælp til at indse dette og finde sig til rette i sig selv?

Hvordan skal det gå børnene når moden ender?

A new world order

Diverse — Drokles on January 11, 2018 at 10:15 am

“[W]>e’re starting to look out for America and not looking out for everybody else” fortæller Rick Manning til Breitbart, som økonomien buldrer derudaf med stigende beskæftigelse til følge. Og dette opsving handler også om at begrænse indvandringen, som Neil Munro skriver også på Breitbart

The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration. Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.

Og ligeledes på Breitbart, hyldede Brett Decker “Trump’s emphasis on expanding domestic manufacturing”

Decker went on to say that “one of [his] favorite things that Trump has done [was when] he was with some of the automakers, and he pointed to the head of Toyota of America, he said, ‘You have to build plants here.’ Within a short period of time, Toyota canceled a factory they were building in Mexico and said they were going to put it in the U.S., instead. What is that, a few thousand extra manufacturing jobs?” Decker added, “Trade policy, I think, is one of the clearest areas where, if you look at the deindustrialization of America, how much government policy matters. The period between 1994, when NAFTA was passed, and 2014, a 20-year period … our trade deficit with [Canada and Mexico] went up 430 percent. … We get zero benefit out of these trade deals.” America’s hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to other countries, said Decker, was economically disadvantageous: “Fundamentally, I think most people know in their heart of hearts, you can’t just be a consumer economy. If you want to consume anything, you have to make something. We’ve had decades of policy where we just decided we didn’t have to make anything anymore.”

Og hvis man kerer sig om de virkeligt udsatte, så er antallet af mennesker der er afhængige af ‘food stamps’, faldet med 2 millioner, skriver Breitbart endvidere.

Der er meget økonomerne ikke ved om økonomi, siger David Harsanyi i National Review. USA er holdt op med at betale regningen, der enabler Verden til ikke at komme videre. Det er et skid-eller-stå-af-potten øjeblik.

Trump Derangement Syndrome goes down i Fire and Fury

Diverse — Drokles on January 11, 2018 at 8:10 am

Bogen Fire And Fury er måske den endelige kulmination af Trump Derangement Syndrome. Conrad Black skriver i National Review, at de afsindige påstande bogen fremturer med, som at alle omkring Trump inklusiv hans egen familie anser ham for mentalt uegnet som præsident, afslører dybden af Trump Derangement Syndrome, så meget endda, at Trumps mere velovervejede kritikere nu kan se problemets omfang

Instead of taking the headship of an accelerating dump-Trump movement, Wolff shamed the sane opponents of Trump into separating from the bloodless assassins, the Carl Bernsteins and Maxine Waterses, and into beginning to reconstitute themselves as a loyal opposition. The initial enthusiasm for the Wolff demonography, replete with polite references to Steve Bannon, formerly represented as the puppet-master of the Trump dunciad, gave way to cooler heads recognizing that the game was up.

(…)

But then, as is his habit, the president sortied out of what David Brooks calls the “Potemkin White House” and dealt his enemies a shattering rebuff. He had the cameras present in the cabinet room for almost an hour as he led, rather magisterially, as all admitted, a discussion of immigration issues with 22 Democratic and Republican leaders of both congressional houses, and sat himself next to leading Democrats Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Steny Hoyer. The country saw that Donald Trump is reasonable, persuasive, and knowledgeable. To prove to skeptics that miracles occur, CNN’s ne plus ultra of fake-news authorship, Wolf Blitzer, uttered words of respectful admiration for the president. On a higher plane, relatively pro-Trump commentator Mollie Hemingway wrote in the Federalist (January 8) that the effort to portray Trump as mentally unbalanced and stupid and incompetent was an attempted “coup.”

(…)

To appreciate what has happened, a little perspective is needed: Trump’s candidacy was a joke; then he was unelectable, then his election could be invalidated, then he could be impeached, and then he could be removed for past harassment of women, or violating the Logan Act, or obstruction of justice, and now mental incapacity.

Det televiserede møde med repræsentanter fra både Republikanerne og Demokraterne vil blive et definerende øjeblik for Trumps præsidentskab, spåede Joel Pollack i Breitbart. For selv om Trump udfordrede sin bases tålmodighed ved at tale for meget DACA og for lidt MAGA, så trak det større veksler på venstrefløjen at se Trump blive normaliseret

The DACA meeting could mark the start of a “pivot” for Trump, one that starts with a compromise on DACA and continues through bipartisan solutions on health insurance and infrastructure. That shift could become a runaway “Schwarzenegger 2.0,” a lurch toward liberalism that costs Trump his political base. But it could also mean that the debate shifts towards Trump. As he pointed out, even Democrats are starting to admit chain migration has to go. Trump sold himself on the campaign trail as a dealmaker. He has had few opportunities to demonstrate that skill, other than a short-term funding bill that was agreed behind closed doors last fall. Democrats have refused to deal with Trump in any meaningful way, even when doing so would be in their own self-interest. So he created, at least, the spectacle of compromise. He forced them to talk to him in front of the cameras. There may be no going back.

Et par danske eksempler på TDS, kan man læse i Information, hvor Martin Burcharht er under det indtryk, at Trump indgår en politisk aftale for at redde sig fra den uafhængige særanklager Robert Mueller og på Facebook hvor Niels Ivar Larsen, ligeledes Information, i et godt eksempel på Donning-Krueger effekten, bliver klædt af af en tilfældig McHangama-følger.

En anden og lidt overset konklusion man kan drage fra Fire and Fury er, hvorledes Trump og hans administration, i deres påståede åbenhjertighed, tilsyneladende ikke har følt, de har haft noget at skjule - hvilket underminerer teorierne om sinistre forbindelser til Rusland.

Så her i Trump-hysteriets afterglow blev TV stjernen Oprah Winfrey næsten kåret som Demokraternes næste præsidentkandidat efter at hun holdt en politisk tale ved årets Golden Globe. Foran andre Hollywood celebriteter var hun nu pludselig bannerfører for #metoo, mens der cirkulerede billeder af hende kysse Weinstein på nettet. Hendes chancer for en sejr blev selvfølgelig omgående diskuteret ivrigt, uagtet alle de ubekendte faktorer, der ikke blot er anti-Trumpianisme. Hendes mange kvaliteter, som et kæmpe self-made brand og dollar milliadær, hendes gode kommunikationsevner og udstråling, høje begavelse osv, kunne hun så klare også at være upopulær, som alle politiske personer også er, havde hun lig i lasten, kunne hun tages seriøst osv. Og så var der jo noget der manglede, nemlig hendes politik.

Men også her er det et skift til fordel for opfattelsen af Trumps reelle evner som præsident. Et af de bærende argumenter for Hillary Clintons egnethed som præsident, var hendes kompetence, optjent gennem mange års politisk virke. Ved nu også at ønske sig en celebritet helt uden nogen form for politisk erfaring, anerkender man bagvendt Trumps embede, som en succesfuldt eksempel til efterfølgelse. Man har ikke bare set at det kan lade sig gøre, men at det ovenikøbet er godt.

POTUS VSG

Diverse — Drokles on January 9, 2018 at 1:14 pm

I i et interview med Daily Mail fortæller Michael Palin (Monty Python) om den sorg han føler for sin Python ven Terry Jones, der er ramt af en demenssygdom og sin (da) kommende film om magtkampen i Kremlin efter Stalins død. Og når man ikke laver en film om Hitler, så er Trump selvfølgelig ligesom “Stalin’s style, trying to be the strong man who can say anything”. Bortset fra at “Trump didn’t quite know what he was doing” hvor “Stalin was much more skilful at choosing who was going to be with him.’” og derfor er Trump mere som Mussolini, “always juts his chin out and turns away at the end of a speech”. Det er frygteligt, siger Palin, “actually how similar it is”.

Det markerede vel den sidste krampetrækning for Trump-er-Hitler fortællingen, som var svært at oprethold i længden, når man samtidig beklagede at Trump ikke ville lede Verden. I stedet har man kastet sig over Michael Wolffs bog “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,”, der er skrevet med en form for insight viden og beskriver Det Hvide Hus som et kaos omkring en narcissistisk og inkompetent Trump.

I samme ånd konkluderer Jonah Goldberg, i et absurd forsøg på at positionere sig væk fra Trumps mest hysteriske kritikere, i National Review at ”The president is a man out of his depth, propped up by a staff and a party that needs to believe more than what the facts will support” - ikke ud fra en analyse af virkeligheden, men af Trumps lix tal og generelle mangel på dannelse.

Problemet er blot, siger John Nolte i Breitbart, at denne petitjournalistik og fabrikerede sladder ikke korresponderer så godt med virkeligheden. En mentalt ustabil Trump ville ikke kunne vinde valget i første hug og hans Hvide Hus ville selvfølgelig ikke kunne skabe store politiske resultater i sit første år, som skattereform, bugnende økonomi og nedkæmpelse af ISIS, hvis det henlå i kaos.

By far, though, Trump’s greatest accomplishment last year was keeping his eye on the ball. Nixon, Clinton, and Bush 43, all lost their way while dealing with scandal, media frenzies, and investigations. Not Trump. Despite unprecedented distractions, there is no greater testament to his mental stability than his laser-like focus on his political priorities, which is a superhuman feat — quite the opposite of a mentally unstable moron.

If anyone is showing symptoms of schizophrenia it is the media. For more than a year, they have pushed a conspiracy theory about Trump wanting to win so bad he colluded with the Russians. Now they want us to believe Trump didn’t want to win the presidency at all. How’s that for lunacy?

En ophidset Alan Dershowitz anklagede på Fox News venstrefløjen for at bruge de samme metoder som totalitære regimer, ved at erklære politiske modstande som sindssyge. Trump selv tog anklagerne om sin mentale ustabilitet i sædvanlig Trump ånd og tweetede lystigt “Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart”, listede sit imponerende cv og konkluderede lystigt “I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”.

Og det reddede Scott Adams (Dilbert) dag, der jublede over Trumps evne til at erobre sine modstanderes dagsorden. For selv om angrebet på Trump var af højeste kvalitet, ved at så tvivl om Trumps mentale tilstand, vil det lykkes Trump at knytte sit navn ordene geni og stabilitet. Og det vil cementeres af hans hysteriske kritikere, der i vantro sarkastisk vil gentage Trumps påstand om sit eget geni, om og om igen året ud. Sætning efter sætning, der indeholder ordene ‘Trump’ og ‘geni’. Det virkede i hvert fald for Thatcher, da en russisk journalist kaldte hende ‘Jernladyen’.

Terror i Mumbai

Diverse — Drokles on January 6, 2018 at 2:36 am

Terrorangrebet burde bekymre os alle, siger den venstreorienterede Fareed Zakaria, fordi nogle få dårligt trænede men højt motiverede terrorister, kan bringe en hel by i knæ. Det er en fin observation om tippingpoints, populationer og deres samfund, som den gode Zakaria dagligt modstår at drage konsekvensen af som TV-vært på CNN.

Trump til tiden

Diverse — Drokles on December 30, 2017 at 8:56 pm

Det er svært at være konservativ Never-Trumper i disse dage, så Jonah Goldberg, manden der skrev klassiskeren Liberal Fascism, har det svært. Som året er rindet ud og Trumps førsteårsrapport får flotte karakterer er det blevet stadigt mere sørgeligt at læse Goldbergs stadigt mere omvendte rationaliseringer for, hvorfor han og hans ligesindede alligevel ikke tog radikalt fejl. Det er som at følge salige Tøger Seidenfaden argumentere for at Salman Rushdiesagen var materielt forskellig fra Muhammedsagen ved kvaliteten af det kunstneriske udtryk. Trist for Seidenfaden har æstetik intet at sige i et principielt spørgsmål som ytringsfrihed og således endte den engang vægtige og begavede debattør tragisk sit liv mens han komisk afviklede sit renomme.

Jeg håber Goldberg har mange år i sig endnu, men så længe han forsvarer det ganske ultimative udsagn #NeverTrump, der kun kan retfærdiggøres på antagelsen om en nært forstående katastrofe, glider også han udi i komikken. I et indlæg på National Revies for at par uger siden trækkes smilet frem; “Refusing to Be Reflexively Anti-Trump Isn’t Selling Out“. Allerede i overskriften er blevet en ‘refleks’ for Goldberg at lade en stråmand holde sammen på positionen. John Nolte nævner da også hoverende Goldberg, som den første i sin hvem-sagde-hvad svada på Breitbart og gennemgår hvorledes Trump ikke blot ikke har været en katastrofe, men en bragende succes, med skattereform, nedkæmpelse af ISIS og økonomisk vækst som et par af de centrale præstationer

And now, just one year into Trump’s presidency, #NeverTrump has once again been exposed for who they truly are — bitter, dishonest saboteurs more interested in their lofty place at the trough than the future of their own country.

All these bitter clingers have left now is to further degrade outlets such as the once-necessary National Review, a once-cherished laboratory of vibrant conservative ideas and thought, which is now a hangout for sore losers to keep rewriting the same column over and over and over again about how pure and virtuous they are, as they scold the rest of us for fighting for and sticking with a president who has delivered in ways they told us was not even within the realm of possibility.

Goldbergs forsøg på at rationalisere sig fri at dette intellektuelle morrads er endnu mere sørgeligt i al sin smålighed. “Who Deserves Credit for the Trump Administration’s Accomplishments” spørger han igen på National Review og tilføjer “There’s little evidence that Trump has actually involved himself in the process of governing”. Dette er “det større spørgsmål” for Goldberg, hvem kan egentlig tage æren for succesen, der nu bliver erkendt omend bagvendt

If the president deserves credit for the defeat of Islamic State, it’s because he let “the generals” do their thing. On the other hand, credit (or blame) for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris accord on climate change certainly goes to him.

In general, it seems to me that Trump’s success (such as it is) is less attributable to sudden mastery of the issues than to staying out of the way of rank-and-file Republican policymakers, activists, and bureaucrats.

For instance, the task of selecting judicial appointees, starting with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, has largely been outsourced to the Federalist Society.

Men igen, ingen katastrofe, ingen grund til #NeverTrump, den slemme mand viste sig at have en ‘hands of’ tilgang - og virkeligheden så, at det var godt. Goldbergs observation er alligevel ganske interessant, Trump er, hvad Reagan betegnede som “the big picure guy” og hans stab er hans “detail men”. Dette er en glimrende ledelse, hvor man uddelegerer opgaveløsninger til de, der har forstand dertil. Alternativet er at lade sig nedsynke i politiske petitesser at sin egen forfængelighed. Dette gjorde Obama og ingen af hans resultater ser ud til at overleve, baseret som de var, ikke på kyndighed og kompromis, men på hans ‘pen and phone’.

Det er synd for Goldberg, at han ikke læser sit eget tidsskrift, for heri skrev Victor Davis Hanson at æstetikere som Goldberg, har brug for at tage en dyb indånding og indrømme “that sometimes past mellifluous appeasement is more dangerous than present flamboyant deterrence”. Alting har en tid, minder Hanson om og modstiller en række store og mindre store amerikanske lederes temperamenter, mellem de sindige som Eisenhower og de koleriske som Patton. Hanson medgiver at det nok er en fordel at have begge sider inkorporeret i sin personlighed, som Lincoln og Reagan, men…

Nonetheless, the mercurial and uncouth style enjoys an ambiguous role in American cultural, political, and military history. It is an ancient crux perhaps captured from Homer to John Ford as the essence of the tragic hero, whose very excesses are precisely what both saves others and dooms himself.

The most creative artists always remind us of the role of irony and paradox — that great things can come from sometimes less than great men, that what appears dangerous is actually what is safe, what should seem good in theory proves awful in fact, what is supposedly proven beyond a doubt only all the more proves groupthink to be asininity.

Outsiders who do not fit — and perhaps should not fit in civilization’s status quo — are sometimes the only ones who can save it from itself. They possess uncivilized talents that are as critical in crises as they can become bothersome if not dangerous in calm.

In March 1945, we were lucky to have a Curtis Le May. In 1968, we laughed at our now Dr. Strangelovian running mate of George Wallace, an easily caricatured but nonetheless authentic American hero who had saved both the B-29 program and the Strategic Air Command.

So the public is always confused by the loud and rambunctious style. It usually prefers predictable competence to unpredictable singularity — at least until realization hits that the accustomed and status quo cannot continue.

Og ligeledes på National Review, bed Michael Barone mærke i at flere Trump kritikere, efterhånden er ved at få øjnene op for, at Trumps politik ikke skal bedømmes på, hvad der var situationen for 70 år siden, men af virkeligheden

A revived Europe has turned sluggish, while low-wage nations in Asia, Latin America, and even Africa are open for investment. First Japan and then China, and now others, will be moving up as competitors.

America has proved competitive at the top levels. But a country whose labor force is always going to include many low-skilled workers may have some continuing interest in incentivizing low-skilled employment. That’s not Cowen’s view or mine, but it’s apparently Trump’s. Maybe it’s not just dismissible as crazy ranting.

Something similar may be said for Trump’s foreign policy, considered as a perhaps unstable amalgam of his soberly drafted National Security Strategy and his sometimes impulsive tweets.

Trump sees Iran as a clear enemy and Israel as a strong friend and looks with favor on the de facto, publicly unacknowledged alliance of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states. Left on the back burner are the long-moribund Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, once considered the key to solving every regional problem.

no-country-for-ethan-edwards

No country for Ethan Edwards, men han var manden til tiden, manden der hentede den bortførte datter hjem, om familien ville det eller ej. Og manden til tiden kan ikke indeholdes i tidens samfund.

Very fake news

Diverse — Drokles on December 19, 2017 at 5:29 am

I forrige uge rapporterede flere medier, at Wikileaks skulle have tilbudt Trump og hans kampagnestab adgang til de e-mails der var blevet hacket/lækket fra partiet Demokraternes servere og at dette skulle være sket inden nyheden om hacket/lækagen blev kendt af offentligheden. Dette blev tolket som en rygende pistol på at Trump arbejdede koordineret sammen med Wikileaks og dermed inddirekte med Rusland. Det hele var baseret på en e-mail fra en ellers ukendt Michael J. Erickson til Trumps søn Donald Trump Jr, hvori Jr blev tilbudt en digital krypteringsnøgle.

Men historien holdt ikke vand og medierne ukritiske behandling var med Glenn Greenwalds ord i The Intercept et ‘ymygelsesorgie’. Den ukendte Erikson viste sig nemlig at være en tilfældig fyr, der bare havde sendt en opfordring til Junior EFTER, at e-mailsne var blevet offentliggjort og altså allerede kunne ses af hvem som helst. Men denne ‘nothingburger’ af en nyhedshistorie var faktisk fyldt med et delikat indhold, skriver Conservative Treehouse (CTH), for medierne havde mere end en anonym kilde til de samme oplysninger, mere end en kilde som altså havde lavet den nøjagtigt samme dateringsfejl…

It was leaked from within the committee, and later reported by CNN, that the date was “September 4th, 2016”; a date convenient for a collusion narrative between Trump Jr and WikiLeaks.

However, the real date, on the actual email, was “September 14th, 2016”; a day after Wikileaks published the content of their DNC leaks and a date that makes the entire CNN report a ‘nothingburger’.

However, CNN reports that two independent sources originally leaked to them the contents of what they had seen on the email in question.  But CNN never saw the email, until later in the day.

Think about this carefully.

?Two “independent sources” both looked at an email, and both came away from reading that email with the wrong date?   How is that possible?

It has been CTH contention for several weeks that a counterintelligence sting operation has been going on within the IC community.  False trails of information, seeded by ‘White Hat’ investigators, intended to be captured by ‘Black Hat’ leakers – and delivered to their usurping allies in media.  The stories are fake, the leaks are real.

All investigative documents, relating to the witness, are provided to the congressional committees prior to the interviews with the witnesses; or, if the information is classified, each committee member has an opportunity to review the documents via a controlled SCIF environment when no physical copies are allowed as part of the evidence.

The Don JR./Wikileaks email could very easily be part of a ‘sting’.  The date was intentionally seeded as incorrect.  The resulting story is fake. The leak, however, is real.

Each nugget of disinformation exposes a specific leaker. Each trail used in the sharing of that disinformation exposes the enabling media.  The White Hat plants the fake news seed, and then watches to see where, when, how, to-whom, and from-whom, it shows up.

Komiteen der omtales er House Intelligence committee, som følger efterretningstjenesterne og også Muellers efterforskning. Lækager i politisk øjemed herfra er derfor “a VERY BIG deal”, som CTH skriver. Og denne på en gang let og radikalt redigerede historie er blot en af mange falske historier om Trump og russerne, skriver Greenwald, hvilket er sin helt egen problemstilling

Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend — one could say a constant — when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia, and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential, and reckless stories that have been published — and then corrected, rescinded, and retracted — by major media outlets when it comes to this story.

(…)

But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has not happened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump-Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

Fortællingen om Trump og Rusland er døende. De fleste store amerikanske Nyhedshuse har ført kampagnejournalistik udi det selvforførende, og deres politiske engagement har kostet dem den troværdighed, der er deres levebrød. At fortsætte denne kurs er ikke farbar, når der ikke ser ud til at der er lys fordi de ikke er en en tunnel, men gravet ned i et hul. Oveni det er der masser af bedre historier om efterretningstjenesternes politiske samspil med Demokrater og den tidligere regering, som andre medier vinder på.

Det eneste der har holdt de store nyhedshuse sammen om Trump-russer fortællingen så længe, er deres samlede tyngde, der har givet deres historier et indtryk af substans i et fælles og deri uimodsagt verdensbillede. Et konsensus, som alle dissidenter er blevet lattergjort på baggrund af. Ironisk det samme, der gjorde at de og Demokraterne helt forregnede sig i valgkampen og at de har forført sig selv til at tro at de kunne omgøre samme valg. Selvsving ser ikke ud til at være en god taktik på længere sigt.

Jerusalem sikrer Trump endnu et touchdown

Diverse — Drokles on December 17, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Trumps beslutning om at flytte den amerikanske ambassade i Tel Aviv til Israels hovedstad Jerusalem har endnu engang sat hans modstandere i en situation, hvor de skal argumentere imod en virkelighed, som Trump med det samme træk har eksponeret. I og med at Trump både har tilkendegivet viljen til at fortsætte fredsprocessen (død som den ellers er) og begrænset anerkendelsen til Vestjerusalem, er der tale om en rent symbolsk handling, skriver Jonathan S Tobin I National Review. Og han konkluderer derfor at arabisk eller muslimsk vrede derfor ikke handler om fredsprocessens tilstand, “but from a desire to destroy the Jewish state”.

The continued Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state or Jewish ties to Jerusalem that is made manifest by their threats of a new intifada over a largely meaningless gesture by Trump remains the real problem. Trump may not be advancing a peace process that is already doomed, but he may give those willing to look clearly at the situation another demonstration of Palestinian intransigence.

Selvfølgelig kunne den snart muslimske by Malmö i Sverige byde på derboende muslimer, der råbte “Sigt og skyd på jøderne!”. Også Times Square i New York havde en højrøstet rød-grøn demonstration, hvor der blev råbt på “Intifada! Revolution!”, “Fra floden til havet” og det nostalgiske “Kaybar! Kaybar! Åh jøder!” om Muhammeds massakre på lokale jøder i de gode gamle dage. Og i moskeen i New Jersey blev der kaldt til folkemord.

Sveriges kammeradvokat anså det for at et brandbombeattentat mod en synagoge i Gøteborg havde “med de aktuelle politiske hændelser at gøre“. Det var altså ikke et udtryk for alment negative følelser rettet mod jøder, at nogen på baggrund af en amerikansk beslutning om et adresseskift i Israel angriber en synagoge i Sverige. Og det til trods føler svenske jøder sig ikke trygge i Sverige, hvorfor de er på vej til Israel.

I Espergærde blev et butikscenter smadret med sten og der blevet skrevet grafittier, som “’Israel ud af Jerusalem’, men også nogle andre ting, som ikke er særlige pæne og derfor heller ikke behøver at blive nævnt”, hvilket blev betegnet som “pro-palæstinensisk graffiti” af TV2 Lorry.

Den tyske Kansler Angela Merkel og hendes kollegaer var “i chok” over antisemitiske optøjer i det centrale Berlin. Socialdemokraten Sigmar Gabriel sagde at der “ingen ret og heller ingen retfærdig grund til at afbrænde israelske flag, at opvigle had mod jøder eller at drage Israels ret til at eksistere i tvivl”. Alligevel støttede den tyske regering ikke amerikanernes “holdning, for status i Jerusalem bliver løst med rammerne for to-stats-løsningen”, som Merkel gentog den palæstinensiske præmis af at en anerkendelse af Jerusalem er en anerkendelse af Israel.

Og herhjemme var de tidligere udenrigsministre Mogens Lykketoft og Per Stig Møllerpå linje med deres europæiske kollegaer. Lykketoft kaldte endda beslutningen “tragisk” fordi USA derved opgiver at “presse Israel” til en tostatsløsning. “De allerfleste vetoer, der er nedlagt i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, de er nedlagt af USA for at beskytte Israel mod at give indrømmelser mod Palæstina” fortsatte han sin logik.

Selvfølgelig skaber muslimerne sig, de fleste af ugens dage er ikke arbejdsdage, men Vredens Dag i den muslimske verden. Det palæstinensiske selvstyres Mahmoud Abbas rådgiver havde på forhånd truet i flæng på hans vegne; “Hele Verden kan komme til at betale en pris” hvis USA flyttede deres ambassade til Jerusalem. Den del af Verden, der er så uheldig at indholde muslimer har betalt prisen længe. En tegning eller et adresseskift kan altid få bølgerne til at gå lidt højere. Men skønt eksperter som Rasmus Boserup advarede om at den arabiske verden ville “eksplodere i raseri” mest er der tale om ‘medieparodier’, som Bassam Tawil skriver for Gatestone Institute.

Med Douglas Murrays ord

The reaction around the world in recent days has been a reminder of the one central truth of the whole conflict. Those who cannot accept that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel tend to be exactly the same as those who cannot accept the State of Israel.

(…)

Those who have most forcibly criticised him, on the other hand, have shown something weak, as well as ugly, about themselves: When the facts on the ground were staring them in the face, they chose instead to bow to domestic fantasies of their own creation.

Sådan ser modstanden ud. Brandbombninger, knivstikkerier og terror til lyden af hysterikere i gader og moskeer og fra arabiske ledere, der tørster efter blod og folkemord. På deres side står Trumps kritikere i medierne, eksperterne og politikerne, efterladt uden et eneste argument for at efterkomme virkeligheden, at Jerusalem er Israels hovedstad og at en ambassade naturligvis skal ligge der. Istedet peger de forskrækket og moraliserende på hadet og volden og begræder hvor skrækkeligt det er at det ikke den frygten der dikterer politikken, mens Verden alligevel ikke går under, som de troede.

“When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains”

Diverse — Drokles on December 17, 2017 at 4:49 pm

“Don’t laugh: I have a serious reason for raising my cats gender-neutral” skrev en kvinde sidste år i Washington Post. Hun havde i omgang med sine katte indset, hvorledes det var frygteligt for mennesker, der insisterede på at opfatte sig selv, som noget andet end det de rent faktisk var, ikke at få omverdenen med på deres virkelighedsforvrængning. Sammenblandingen af kattenes indre liv med menneskers indbefattede ikke de fjollede navne hun havde givet dem.

Men hendes fjollerier er ikke hendes egne, de er en del af en seriøs bevægelse. Den amerikanske tidligere diplomat Todd Huizinga argumenterede, ifølge Pajamas Media, at fornægtelsen af realiteter er den iboende totalitarisme i LGBTQ bevægelsen, “because if it’s obviously not connected with reality, you have to force those who are arguing for reality onto the sidelines”. Og hvor der er totalitarisme lurer volden. Josh Craddock skrev i National Review

Transgender TV star Laverne Cox has said that “misgendering a transgendered person” is “an act of violence.” Another transgender activist, Riley Dennis, argues that common dictionary definitions of violence such as those I examined above are “outdated,” and that “violence” includes “all types of societal power imbalances” that might cause “psychological harm” by making a transgendered person “feel bad.” Nora Berenstain, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Tennessee, adds that using words and phrases like “transgenderism,” “male genitalia,” and “biological sex” is also a form of “discursive transmisogynistic violence.” And on and on it goes.

If “misgendering” is an act of violence, then New York City’s speech code imposing staggering fines for “incorrect” pronoun usage is legitimate. Under the Orwellian theory of speech-violence, refusing to endorse a controversial anthropological claim about the nature of human sexuality constitutes violence, no different from punching an ideological opponent in the face. The same speech-violence theory underlies France’s decision to criminalize expression that exerts “psychological and moral pressure” on women considering abortion.

Of course, such an elastic definition neuters violence of any coherent meaning. Anything resulting from what social-justice advocates label a “power imbalance” — which according to their dogma is just about everything — would then be considered “violence.” Set aside for a moment the question of whether identifying an individual using pronouns that correspond to his or her biological sex or expressing moral disapproval of abortion actually causes psychological harm. The notion that words that make people “feel bad” are acts of violence is frighteningly capacious.

If words that make people feel bad are violence, then people who are offended would be justified in using physical force as a means of self-defense. Some masked campus radicals already cheer this notion, and welcome it as a convenient excuse to go on riotous rampages to stop controversial speakers from invading their safe spaces with ideas they dislike. Those who care about the free exchange of ideas have cause for concern.

Og venstrefløjen fører krig mod realiteterne gennem en konstant fordrejning af ordenes betydning. “Language is not language unless it is communal, and it cannot be communal unless it can refer, quickly and clearly, to the things in front of our noses: to husbands and wives and hats.” skriver Anthony Esolen i The Public Discourse

Now, sex is the first thing we notice about someone, and the last thing we forget. It’s easy to see why this should be so. It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. A woman’s voice is not like a man’s voice, even when the woman is Greer Garson and the man is Frankie Valli. A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so, and on those exceedingly rare occasions when you cannot determine someone’s sex from a glance or from one moment on the telephone—and some people will go through their entire lives without a single such experience—we feel that it is strange and disconcerting, just as we would feel if we were in the presence of someone who was born without arms. We are not talking about a mere statistical norm here, but about what is paradigmatically human.

To pretend, therefore, that we do not know what we immediately and urgently perceive is to do violence at once to human nature, language, the possibility of a shared life, and the intellect’s capacity to apprehend reality. If I cannot say, “There is a man walking down the street,” then it is hard to see how I can make any reliable judgment about anything at all that bears on human existence. If I cannot say, “Joey is going to grow up to be a fine man someday,” then what in life is left to talk about? Everything else is less certain than sex. We may disagree about whether President Eisenhower was a good leader of men, a loyal husband and father, or a pious Christian; but if we cannot agree that President Eisenhower was a man, then speech itself is but sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or, rather, speech collapses into action, and reason lies prone before appetite. Speech delivers the bribes and threats of people who want what they want and do not care overmuch how they get it.

LGBTQ bevægelsen og venstrefløjen med den, påstår at de vil have mennesker til at føle sig trygge uanset deres sexuelle identitet, skriver Esolen, men i realiteten vil de det modsatte. De søger at gøre normale mennesker ubekvemme til mode ved at frarøve dem, hvad deres sanser fortæller om det indlysende. Normale mennesker går på æggeskaller fordi samtalen er mineret med potentielle moralske transgressioner og ethvert fejltrin er et oplæg til yderligere belæring og aggressiv moralisering

The inventors of such ugly and meaningless collocations as “xe” and “zir” do not want to enrich the language, and they do not want us to probe more deeply and sensitively into the realities of male and female. They want to impoverish the language and to prevent us from acknowledging things about men and women that even little children perceive.

(…) It would infect common sense with confusion and madness. It would render people incapable of obvious judgments: so that you cannot say that Laurie is “strong for a girl” because she can do fifteen unmodified pushups, or that little Mike needs a father in his life, or that every culture known to man has celebrated the union of man and woman in marriage. And that prompts the question: why should anybody want to do this to other people? Cui bono?

Det er grundlæggende en krig mod familien, skriver Esolen. Normale mennesker kan lide realiteterne og finder glæde i at se drenge spille fodbold i parken og piger tegne på verandaen. Normale mennesker river gerne et hus ned fordi det er unyttigt, grimt eller faldefærdigt, men de ville aldrig rive det ned fordi det er smukt. Den naturlige orden er smuk, med dens to køn og kulturens orden, huset, er smukt med ægteskabets forpligtelser.

Overskriften er C S Lewis og jeg har i al min udannethed bare planket citat fra en National Review artikel om de transkønnedes opløsning af kvindesporten.

Når ulve hyler VIII (jødespecial 3)

Diverse — Drokles on December 16, 2017 at 1:24 pm

De franske jøder forlader Frankrig, skriver Breitbart

The Paris commuter newspaper 20 Minutes documents an “internal exodus” during 2017 of Jews from the Seine-Saint-Denis department, saying it is emblematic of broader concerns that French Jews, like their brothers and sisters across Europe, are finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile their faith with the changing demographics of the continent.

The paper reports that Jews are leaving their homes on the northeastern fringe of Paris to escape the open hostility that French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on Sunday condemned as “well-rooted.” The newspaper reports:

This ‘internal exodus’ is difficult to quantify, but it is clear that many synagogues of Seine-Saint-Denis have closed, for lack of people. In Pierrefitte, the rabbi has recorded a 50 percent decline in the congregations since his arrival thirteen years ago. A similar story is told in (nearby) Bondy, where attendance on Yom Kippur (the holiest day of the Jewish calendar) has fallen from about 800 to 400 in the last decade.

The Bondy synagogue president saw a “deteriorating climate” of the last 15 years as driving the exodus, “It’s hard to explain, it’s provocations, it’s looks,” he lamented. “There are places where we do not feel welcome.”

Tyske Claus Strunz forsøgte i stil med amerikanske Shoshana, at gå en tur i Berlin med en kippa på hovedet

Herhjemme prædikede Hizb ut-Tahrir fra Masjid Al-Farug moskéen i København om Jihad mod Israel og i Odense mente socialrådgiver Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, der er ansat af Fyns politi, at der var meget arabisk militært isenkram, der blot stod og samlede støv. Og Politiken slog en nostalgisk tone an i debatten med denne tegning

skc3a6rmbillede-2017-12-14-kl-013319

Red Admin

Diverse — Drokles on December 15, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Det gælder selvfølgelig om at fjerne Trump fra posten som USAs præsident, skrev Andrew C. McCarthy tidligere på måneden. Efterforskningen af Trumps valgkampsmaskine påståede samarbejde med “russerne” bygger ikke på en forudsætning om noget konkret, endsige kriminelt og den øverst ansvarlige Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein har ikke defineret noget forhold, der stiller ham inhabil. Ledende efterforsker Mueller har fået carte blanche til blot at rode i alle præsidentkandidat Trumps mænds snavsede undertøj.

It started out as a fishing expedition, under the vaporous heading of “collusion,” into “contacts” between Russian officials and Trump associates — notwithstanding that collusion is not conspiracy and that it was perfectly legal for Trump associates to have contacts with Russia (just like Clinton associates did). It was to be expected that the Trump campaign and transition would have such contacts once it was apparent that Trump could well become — and did in fact become — the next president of the United States.

Only one conceivable crime could have arisen out of the “collusion” that was the pretext for Mueller’s probe: the knowing complicity of Trump associates in Russia’s hacking of Democratic email accounts. Of course, there was never evidence of such a scheme . . . but why should that matter? The point here was to have the theater of an investigation run by a prosecutor — the rest is just details.

See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements.

McCarthy mener at det er oplagt, at efterforskning er en hævn fra den tidligere præsident og hans administration; dels for at folket havde forkastet Obamas politiske diskurs, dels fordi Trump ville rulle Obamas politik tilbage. Derfor gik den afgående administrations sidste politiske taktik på to ben; dels skulle Trumps præsidentskab de-legitimeres ved fortællingen om den russiske indblanding og Trumps angivelige medskyldighed, dels kastede man grus i det diplomatiske maskineri ved at afvige fra gængs politik og afstå fra at beskytte Israel mod FNs Sikkerhedsråds urimelige resolution, der erklærede af Judæa, Samaria og Østjerusalem er arabisk og at jøderne ikke har noget krav derpå. ““Stay strong Israel. January 20th is fast approaching!” tweetede Trump opmuntrende.

Trumps sikkerhedsrådgiver in spe Michael Flynn tog i overgangsperioden kontakt til den russiske ambassadør Sergei Kislyak for at klargøre at Trumps politik var at beskytte Israel mod Sikkerhedsrådet og gerne så at Rusland stemte imod resolutionen eller i det mindste udskød afstemningen til Trumps administration var blevet indsat så de kunne nedlægge veto. Flynn talte også med Kislyak om den eskalerende diplomatiske krise, som fortællingen om Ruslands kapring af det amerikanske demokrati havde medført (det er jo trods alt en fortælling, som beskylder en fremmed atommagt for noget nær en krigshandling) og forsikrede at Trumps administration ville fare med lempe, hvis Ruslamd udviste tilbageholdenhed.

Kislyak var under overvågning, så FBI har kendt til Flynns kontakt og møder med den russiske ambassadør. Alligevel udspørger de ham om det og kan derfor bevise at han lyver, da han, måske påvirket af ikke at give den mindste indrømmelse til den på det tidspunkt hysteriske russer-fortælling. Dette, mener McCarthy, sker for dels at straffe ham og inddirekte Trumps administration for at underminere Obama adminstration ens forrædderi af Israel, dels at forstærke russer-fortællingen og knytte den til de sanktioner man havde indført mod Rusland, hvilket ville binde Trumps hænder i forholdet til Rusland.

Muellers efterforskning sker ikke i god tro, konkluderer McCarthy, “It is the exploitation of the executive’s intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement powers in order to (a) criminalize Trump political policies with which the Obama administration disagreed and (b) frame Clinton’s electoral defeat as the product of a traitorous scheme rather than a rejection of Democratic-party priorities”.

Med disse politisk betændte forudsætninger var det ikke overraskende da Washington Post og New York Times, ingen fans af Trump, afslørede, at en af Muellers efterforskere havde stærke anti-Trump meninger. Disse havde han udvekslet via sms med sin elskerinde, sammen med pro-Hillary Clinton meninger, hvilket var blevet opdaget af hans arbejdsgiver Mueller, der derpå havde fyret ham, for at foregribe spekulationer om partiskhed i efterforskningen.

Pajamas Media giver smagsprøver på nogle af de udvekslede beskeder mellem Strzok og hans elskerinde Lisa Page, der ikke efterlader megen tvivl om han stærke meninger. Trump var ““loathsome human being,” “an idiot,” “awful,” and a “douche,”” og han betroede Page at han havde spist middag med en ligesindet kollega og talt om Trump tilhængere; som han mente at kunne lugte We both hate everyone and everything”. Meninger har du dog lov at have, selv som offentligt ansat, men…

In a text some are calling a “smoking gun,” Page linked to a New York Times article and said: “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.”

Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”

Men alt dette skete i sommer og oplysningerne skulle presse ud af et modvilligt FBI og justitsministerium af Senatets høring. Muellers talsmand forsikrede, at efterforskeren Peter Strzok ikke havde foretaget sig noget ulovligt med sine meninger, men, spekulerede flere medier, hvorfor så fyre ham og hvorfor holde det hemmeligt?

Og det viste sig da også at historien om Strzok var interessant for andet end Trump-had og utroskab, da Strzok ikke blot havde haft en ledende rolle i de indledende undersøgelser om eventuelt samarbejde mellem Trump-kampagnen og russerne, da FBIs chef hed James Comey, han ledte også efterforskningen mod Hillary Clinton i sagen om hendes emails. Strzok var med til at afhøre Clinton og ændrede den juridiske formulering ‘grossly negligent’, som er et strafbart forhold, til lægmandsudtrykket ‘extremely careless’ i FBIs endelige rapport.

Men Strzok er kun et symptom på at noget er ‘gået skrækkeligt galt’ med Muellers grasserende efterforskning. Det er uklart om efterforskningen af Trump og hans kampagnestab er blevet til på baggrund af Steele rapporten - den private efterforskning af Donald Trump, som Hillarys valg-kampagne fik lavet på bestilling hos den tidligere britiske efterretningsagent Richard Steele og som påstod at Trump betalte prostituerede for at tisse i hotelsenge, som Obamas havde sovet i. Det er til gengæld klart at der har afsløret sig interesser for at inkriminere Trumps medarbejdere i offentligheden ved at lække oplysninger til pressen om mistanker og kommende sigtelser.

Den slags er hvad man må forvente, skriver Victor Davis Hanson, når man propper sin kommision med medarbejdere med en stærk antipati imod Trump.

Efterforskningens raison d’etre kom i stand efter at den foregående FBI direktør, som Trump havde fyret, lækkede private noter til pressen i håb om at de ville kaste tilstrække med offentlig mistanke til at ’special efterforsker’ mod Trump, til trods for at Trump ikke var under nogen mistanke - ifølge Comey selv. Og heldigt for Comey lykkedes hans plan så godt at det blev hans bedste ven Robert Mueller, der skulle lede efterforskningen, der nu er muteret til også at dreje som om ‘obstruction of justice’ - hvilket er ironisk da FBI selv står anklaget for ‘obstruction of Congress’.

Mueller er republikaner, men 8 af de 15 hovedefterforskere han udvalgte, havde doneret penge til Hillarys valgkamp, og 6 af dem havde været involveret i efterforskningen af Hillarys e-mail ‘matter’. Og alle kom de fra Washington DC, en by der er ganske fjendtligt indstillet overfor Trump.

Og eksempler på inhabilitet grundet politiske antipatier er mange. En anden af Muellers efterforskere, havde i en privat email rost en højtstående embedsmand i justitsministeriet for ikke at gennemføre Trumps ordre. “Jeg er så stolt, i ærefrygt’ havde han benovet skrevet. En tredie burde have erklæret sig selv inhabil da hun havde arbejdet på at imødegå Trumps politik, som hun også var juridisk rådgiver for Clinton Foundation og selvfølgelig bidragsyder til Clintons valgkamp. En fjerde havde kontakter med det firma, der hyrede Steele til at undersøge Trump i første omgang. En femte havde ydet juridisk bistand til en Hillary Clinton medarbejder, der havde forsøgt at slette bevismateriale imod Clinton i e-mailsagen ved at smadre hendes Blackberries med en hammer.

Der er næppe tale om forbrydelser i øvrigt, siger juraprofessor Alan Dershowitz, men etiske overtrædelser, som justitsministeriet må undersøge. Men selv om “Washington is an incestuous place” har de mange strå knækket kamelens ryg, mener Hanson. Trump bør dog ikke fyre Mueller eller påvirke hans undersøgelse, argumenterer Hanson videre, for den ser ud til at begrave sig selv i sine egne skandaler

Indeed, the only remaining trajectory by which Mueller and his investigators can escape with their reputations intact is to dismiss those staff attorneys who have exhibited clear anti-Trump political sympathies, reboot the investigation, and then focus on what now seems the most likely criminal conduct: Russian and Clinton-campaign collusion in the creation of the anti-Trump Fusion GPS dossier and later possible U.S. government participation in the dissemination of it. If such a fraudulent document was used to gain court approval to surveil Trump associates, and under such cover to unmask and leak names of private  U.S. citizens — at first to warp a U.S. election, and then later to thwart the work of an incoming elected administration — then Mueller will be tasked with getting to the bottom of one of the greatest political scandals in recent U.S. history. Indeed, his legacy may not be that he welcomed in known pro-Clinton, anti-Trump attorneys to investigate the Trump 2016 campaign where there was little likelihood of criminality, but that he ignored the most egregious case of government wrongdoing in the last half-century.

“Vi er et folk der har en stat” udtrykte Reagan sin skepsis mod det nødvendige onde i en centralmagt og mindede videre advarende om “det ikke en stat, der har et folk!” Men for embedsmænd i USA er det åbenbart modsat.

Sejrherren Trump

Diverse — Drokles on December 14, 2017 at 8:17 am

Newsbusters skriver at “the media have approached the Trump presidency with unrelenting hostility” med udgangspunkt i en optælling over positive og negative historier om Trumps præsidenskab, som Media Research Center har foretaget

Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources).

skc3a6rmbillede-2017-12-14-kl-020129

Og alligevel er Trump ved at vinde, skriver det venstreorienterede Huffington Posts politiske analytiker Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Trods dårlige meningsmålinger og de fleste analytikeres spådomme, får Trump nemlig holdt sine valgløfter. og det er hårdt at skulle indrømme, indrømmer Hutchinson ærligt.

Trump fik sin højesteretsdommer igennem som han også polstrer resten af det juridiske system med dommere, der tager udgangspunkt i lands lov og ret. Han fik sin indrejsebegrænsning af terrorister, reduceret statens ejerskab af jord, fik sit parti til at støtte den efebofili anklagede dommer fra Alabama Roy Moore, som ‘doug’ tabte, mens den populære Demokratiske senator fra Minnesota Al Franken forlader sit sæde i skam over ‘upassende’ seksuel adfærd.

Ydermere ser det selv for Hutchinson ud til at Trump stadig står uplettet i ‘russer’ sagen, selv om det formuleres noget bagvendt, mere endda end de andre bagvendte indrømmelser. Så er der skattereformen, som gled gennem Senatet, mens Obamas sundhedsreform ser stadigt mere truet ud. Men hans tre største sejre er udover hans overraskende kontrol af sit parti Republikanerne og hans stærke base, hans sejr over medierne “which is always off to the races in giving round-the-clock coverage to his self-serving, vapid tweets as if they were the word from the Mount”

The third winning front for Trump is his perennial ace in the hole: the media. He remains a ratings cash cow for the networks and makes stunning copy for the print media. He knew that from day one of his presidential bid and he knows it even more now. He will continue to suck the media air out of everything that the Democrats do and try to do. Take his phony war with the NFL owners over the national anthem protest by a handful of Black players. A couple of tweets from him knocking the owners for alleging caving into the players was more than enough to distract from his bumbling, inept, and dangerous handling of the North Korea nuclear threat, and his clueless saber rattle of Iran over the nuclear curtailment pact with the U.S.

This has been his patent ploy, distract and deflect. The public and networks take the bait every time.

Og således er det, som Scott Adams forudsagde, begyndt; som december nærmer sig sin afslutning forlader analytikerne og kommentatorerne de daglige kampe og ser året der gik for at gøre regnskabet op. Og i det store billede ser Trump ud som den sejrherre han selv ser i spejlet. Trump ironiserer endda over sin egen succes, når han under en tale i Pensecola bryder den fjerde væg med ordene “It’s all psycological, to a large extent, that’s what creates greatness!“, siger Scott Adams.

Det er samtidig Adams pointe at Trumps omtale af sig selv i tredie person ikke er udtryk for en narcissime, men en bevidst brug af den persona han har skabt (Og derfor kan man altså ikke fjerndiagnosticere Trumps person, som det ellers er så populært). Og den persona ægger optimismen i amerikanerne gennem den ‘positive thinking’, som Trump selv benytter sig af. Det er meget psykologisk.

“War is over, if you want it” sang Lennon, så hvorfor skulle man ikke kunne “Make Amerika Great Again”? - Hvis det altså er det man vil?

“Uanset hvad De siger, vil det blive brugt imod Dem!”

Diverse — Drokles on December 12, 2017 at 12:21 am

Nogenlunde således faldt ordene fra en betjent til Egon i den første Olsenbanden film. Og satiren er desværre sand, man skal aldrig tale med politiet. Det er ikke til din fordel og du kan komme til at tilstå noget du ikke har gjort, forklarer juraprofessor James Duane

Even if your client is innocent and denies his guilt and mostly tells the truth he can easily get carried away and tell som little lie and telle some little lie or make som little mistake that will hang him.

Og Det var præcis, hvad der skete for to af Trumps medarbejdere, George Papadopoulos, en medarbejder på Trumps valgkamp og Micheal Flynn, Trumps kortvarige sikkerhedsrådgiver. Men mere end det, så har politiet også deres egne idiosynkrasier. I National Review kunne man læse dette destillat af hvorledes politiet kan bruge deres ressourcer alt efter hvem, de efterforsker

George Papadopoulos is a low-level subject of the collusion investigation who did not commit any crimes in his many contacts with Russia-connected sources. Yet Mueller induced him to plead guilty to a felony count of lying to investigators about the timing of his first meeting with such a source. In stark contrast, while a number of Clinton subordinates asserted their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions on the ground that truthful answers could incriminate them, none of them was prosecuted. Instead, the Obama Justice Department gave them immunity.

Og Daniel Greenfield sammenligner FBIs behandling af tidligere direktør for CIA Petraeus med deres behandling af Flynn

Petraeus, Obama’s CIA Director, lied to FBI agents about passing classified materials to his mistress. Despite being caught in the lie on a recording, he was never charged for it, as Flynn was. Instead he only pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information and received a slap on the wrist.

While Justice Department personnel had wanted to hold Petraeus accountable, the final decision was made by Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Comey. Lawyers for Petraeus insisted that he couldn’t be chargedwith lying to the FBI because DOJ guidelines recommend not charging “in situations in which a suspect, during an investigation, merely denies guilt in response to questioning by the government.” Petraeus admitted making false statements, but was never charged over them.

That’s what makes Flynn’s case so striking.

General Petraeus lied about committing a crime. His mishandling of classified information was a serious issue. And yet he was never charged for it.

General Flynn lied about something that was not a crime. His conversations were authorized by officials in the incoming Trump administration. And even by the outgoing Obama administration.

A week before Trump’s inauguration, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that there was nothing“necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials” because Flynn was “part of the transition team.”

The question had been about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Obama’s own people had been carrying on talks with Iran and Syria before he entered the White House. The Iranian contacts eventually climaxed in an illegal agreement in which the Obama regime shipped billions in foreign currency to the terror regime on unmarked cargo planes. Those billions have helped finance Iran’s current war in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Israel, Lebanon and around the region.

Flynn was doing his job.

Team Mueller, with its string of Obama and Hillary backers, hasn’t actually found a crime that he committed. The only crime it could find was created wholly out of its own investigation.

When a crime wouldn’t exist without an investigation, then the investigation created the crime.

Pludselig fandt de to herrer sig skyldige i at have løjet for et politi, som de aldrig burde have assisteret, i en efterforskning, som ikke havde bund i realiteter.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress