Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 520

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 18

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1244

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1442

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 306

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/cache.php on line 431

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/class.wp-dependencies.php on line 31

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/http.php on line 61

Warning: explode() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-content/plugins/bannage.php on line 15
Monokultur » 2017 » December


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.

Jerusalem, stridens falske kerne

Diverse — Drokles on December 10, 2017 at 2:36 am

“Jerusalem helt central for verdens tre store monoteistiske religioner” skriver Steffen Jensen på og udtrykker en af de mest typiske usagligheder i debatten. Jerusalem er kun central for jøderne, thi her havde de deres tempel i flere omgange. Kristus Rige var ikke af denne verden, skønt Jesus prædikede og helbredte en hel del i Jerusalem, hvor han også mødte sit endeligt Via Dolorosa. Og Jerusalems betydning Krisdendommen er betinget af dens centrale betydning for jøderne, da Jesus og hans disciple selv var jøder.

Og så er der islam, som ikke kan finde et ord om Jerusalem i Koranen, men begærer den ikke desto mindre. Muslimerne klynger sig til senere tolkninger af et par enkelte vers, hvor Muhammed drømmer, at han flyver til den østligste moske. Der lå ikke nogen moske i Jerusalem i det syvende århundrede. Således er niveauet. Jerusalem, som alt andet land, har kun interesse for muslimerne, når den er i de vantros hænder. Narrated Middle East Forum

Delving further in a seminal 2001 Middle East Quarterly article, Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes finds vast ebbs and flows in expressed Muslim views of Jerusalem’s sacredness over the centuries, peaking when the city is occupied or threatened by non-Muslims. While there were few hadiths (accounts of the Prophet Muhammad’s words and action) referencing Jerusalem prior to the Crusades, a rich flurry of them appeared when Muslim rulers needed a means of inspiring their subjects to wage jihad against the “Franks.”

Once safely in Muslim hands, however, interest in Jerusalem dissipated so rapidly that Saladdin’s grandson traded the city back to Europeans just 40 years later in exchange for military aid against a rival. Interest rose again until Jerusalem was regained in the thirteenth century, then declined for six-and-a-half centuries. It rose again during the British mandate period, when Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the infamous grand mufti of Jerusalem, needed a mechanism for inciting his followers to violence. Interest then declined (Al-Aqsa Mosque fell into disrepair, no Arab leader even bothered to visit East Jerusalem for nearly two decades) when the Jordanians ruled the Old City. Its falling into Israeli hands set in motion a new wave of Jerusalem-mania cultivated and instrumentalized by rejectionist Palestinian leaders and others (notably Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, as MEF writing fellow Burak Bekdil has discussed here and here). “The Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else,” Pipes concludes.

“Islam carries the expectation that a land once under Muslim control (Dar al-Islam) is an endowment (waqf) that must inevitably revert to Muslim rule,” Pipes writes in a more recent treatment. In this respect, the distinction between western and eastern Jerusalem – and, more generally, between territories held by Israel in 1949 and new ones captured in 1967 – is immaterial.

This is why even “moderate” Palestinian leaders balk at officially recognizing the right to exist of a Jewish state, whatever its borders. At most, they are prepared to accept that a state by the name of Israel exists and extend generic diplomatic recognition to it, and only provided that the “right of return” to Israel for millions of Palestinians – which would mean the evisceration of Israel’s Jewish majority if exercised – not be formally disavowed in a final status settlement, which is unacceptable to most Israelis.

shekel-of-israel-anno-68

Herover en to tusind år gammel shekel (ægte jødepenge) med Jerusalem og Israel indgraveret.

Adam Holm har internaliseret Katastrofen

Diverse — Drokles on December 9, 2017 at 7:42 am

Adam Holm, det pæne og ellers så fornuftige menneske, havde “brugt det forgangne døgn på at gispe efter vejret” over den frygtelige nyhed at anerkender det basale faktum, at Jerusalem er Israels. “Donald Trump er gal” indledte han derfor et ophidset Facebook opslag, hvori han argumenterede for at Trumps beslutning var “monumentalt forrykt”, et udtryk for hans “åbenlyse foragt for fakta og historisk indsigt”, som efterlod indtrykket af “en geopolitisk terminator”.

Blæse vær med advarslerne fra arabiske allierede, FN, EU, Vatikanet og et hav af forstandige Mellemøstkendere, deriblandt folk med jødiske rødder og tilknytning til Israel. Never mind, at USA endegyldigt lukker og slukker for muligheden af en genoptaget fredsproces; til helvede med årtiers forståelse for palæstinensernes, ja hele den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet i forhold til Al-Aqsa-moskéen, og glem de vældige politiske og sikkerhedsmæssige spændinger, der knytter sig til spørgsmålet om Jerusalems status.

Men ifølge et populært mem, som tilskrives Einstein, så er galskab forventningen om forskellige resultater ved at gentage de samme handlinger. Araberne har aldrig indgået en fred de ikke var tæsket til og ‘palæstinenserne’ har bare aldrig sagt ja til noget løsningsforslag og derfor fylder de nu op på omstridt land. Ved at ligge under for frygten for arabisk-muslimsk vrede og afstå fra at anerkende Jerusalem som Israels hovedstad, skriver Middle East Forum, har man blot tilskyndet “unrealistic hopes among Palestinians that rejectionism will pay off“.

With the peace process at an impasse of their own making, Palestinian leaders have in recent years launched an aggressive campaign to delegitimize Israel in international fora, culminating in a burgeoning Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in the West, a UNESCO resolution last year minimizing Jewish connections to the Temple Mount, and a UN Security Council resolution(2334) months later that effectively declared Israel claims in disputed East Jerusalem null and void. Instead of pursuing a peaceful path to statehood, they have incited violence against Israel, while trying to persuade the rest of the world to recognize Palestinian statehood in the absence of peace.

The success of these endeavors partly reflects the growing dependence of European left-wing political parties on Muslim immigrant votes, according to MEF Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow Michel Gurfinkiel.However, MEF Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow Efraim Inbar argues that many in the West “simply do not want the Jews to have full control over the eternal city.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who made an unprecedented visit to Jerusalem last July, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose foreign ministry officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem in April, apparently felt no such taboo.

The Obama administration’s turn against Israel gave an enormous boost to the delegitimation campaign. “Years of hostile U.S. actions under the Obama administration, from the Iran nuclear dealto UNSCR 2334, have emboldened Israel’s enemies to believe that they can win the public relations war against the Jewish state,” wrote Roman shortly after Trump’s inauguration. “Together with Israel, the Trump administration must now convince them that they have lost.”

Der er altså også forstandige Mellemøstkendere, der bifalder Trumps træk og ikke, som EU og Vatikanet frygter deres arabiske allierede. Som Yoram Ettinger, der i Algemeiner giver 7 grunde til at Trump gjorde det rigtige, ved at efterkomme den amerikanske Kongres vedtagelse fra 1995. Udover at demonstrere overfor araberne at man ikke ligger under for deres trusler og at vold ikke fører noget med sig så giver man omverden en mulighed for at skelne mellem udenrigsministeriet på den ene side og flertallet af amerikanere, Kongressen og præsidenten på den anden

4. Palestinian terrorism and hate-education were fueled by the December 1988 US recognition of the PLO, the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. On the other hand, the 2011 US veto of a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlements policy was not followed by anti-US terrorism — contrary to assessments made by the State Department.

5. The non-implementation of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act has not advanced the peace process; instead, it has radicalized Arab expectations and undermined the US posture of deterrence, which is critical for US national security and global order.

Trump ved, som Yoram Hazony skriver, at man ikke får fred bare ved at ydmyge Israel. “For nearly seven decades, the state of Israel has endured an unusual humiliation: Alone among the nations of the world, it has been denied the sovereign right to determine its own capital“indleder han sin artikel i Wall Street Journal og bifalder den observation at det kun har ægget arabernes modstand, ikke blot mod fred, men Israels eksistens.

We have been warned by enemies and by friends that this historic moment will be met with violence. That is quite possible. Every significant step in the return of the Jews to Israel and Jerusalem since the Balfour Declaration has been met with acts of vengeance. But if this pattern has a clear lesson for us, it is this: If the American administration holds firm, this storm will pass.

Med det forbehold at Holm udtrykker sin forfærdelse i et Facebook opdatering, givet skrevet i al hast, da han trækker den psykiatriske diagnose af Trump tilbage i sidste afsnit, så er det stadigt påfaldende at der ikke leveres et eneste argument imod at behandle Israel, som man bahandler ikke blot ethvert andet civiliseret land, men selv groteske regimer. At henvise til at Trump er i dissens i forhold til et hurtigt opstillet konsensus er næsten i sig selv et selvmål. Og listen er tillige pinlig, når man påstår at Trump foragter historisk indsigt. Trump har nemlig indsigt, den eneste der tæller og altid har gjort det i Mellemøsten og det er ikke servile skåltaler i Cairo, det er magt! Hvem har den største kæp and ‘belive Trump, there is no problem!’

Og hvilken indsigt nævner Holm så? FN, hvor de arabiske allierede sammen resten af den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet samlebåndsfordømmer Israel med EUs forskræmte indsigtsfulde hjælp? Og hvilken indsigt har Vatikanets teologer pludseligt fået i realpolitik? Det er alle politiske entiteter, som Trump, der handler i politiske interesser ud fra givne præmisser. Og disse er lige blevet ændret.

Og som alle politiske entiteter er også eksperter af vidt forskellige overbevisninger, som jeg just har givet eksempler på. Generelt er jeg skeptisk overfor eksperter, der antager at den nuværende situation er den naturlige og endelige, thi historien kommer altid som den største overraskelse for dem. Havde den forstandige Mellemøstekspertise forventet Det Arabiske Forår? Da de fik reorienteret sig, havde de forventet Det Muslimske Broderskabs sejr over den progressive ‘Twitter-’ og Facebookgeneration’? Hvad laver Sovjetologerne idag? Hvad sagde Balkaneksperterne før borgerkrigen?

I sin kvababbelse over handlekraft, skønt kun symbolsk, forholder Holm sig ikke til et eneste relevant spørgsmål. Hvor længe endnu skal Israel ydmyges og behandles som en paria forend freden sænker sig? Hvad har araberne ud af at opføre sig ordentligt når de belønnes for larm og spetakler?

Selv om man ikke kan kræve den store analyse af en Facebook opdatering, afslører Holms hurtige skriv, endda åbenbart tilblevet i en emotionel tilstand, hans instinktive forståelse af Verden omkring ham. En forståelse af konsensus. Hjælp, Trump er anderledes, Trump ændrer en politisk retning, der ikke har virket i 70 år. Holm skuffer, når han trods sit sædvanligvis fordomsfrie intellekt og store viden ligger underdrejet den muslimske fortælling ved at sætte “hele den islamiske verdens særlige sensitivitet” over kendsgerninger. At han henviser til en fredsprocess efter hundrede år med entydige pal-arabisk afslag på alle forslag udviser han den europæiske elites særlige naivisme i forhold til kultursammenstødet. Et arabisk narrativ har overtaget et vestligt intellekt.

JerUSAlem

Diverse — Drokles on December 7, 2017 at 9:20 am

Trump gør alvor af Jerusalem Embassy Act, en lov vedtaget af Kongressen med støtte fra begge sider af salen i 1995. Loven siger at USA skal flytte sin ambassade fra Tel Aviv til Jerusalem senest 31 maj 1999, men skiftende præsidenter har ignoreret loven da de har anset den for et indgreb i deres ret til at føre udenrigspolitik på USAs vegne. Og Tjekkietfulgte efter et par timer senere.

Tyrkiet advarede at det kunne blive en ‘katastrofe’, hvis USA flyttede deres ambassade fra Tel Aviv til Jerusalem og de truede med at kappe de diplomatiske bånd til Israel. Udgangspunktet var i forvejen ikke for god og Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan har for nylig beskyldt Israel for at ‘ødelægge Jerusalems islamiske karakter’(!) og mente at dette ville ’sætte hele den muslismek verden i bevægelse’-

Iran kaldte det “a clear act of aggression” og Hamas mente det ville legitimere ‘besættelsen’ og stred mod det faktum at Jerusalem tilhørte palæstinenserne, muslimerne og araberne. Saudiaraberne og de fleste andre arabiske lande forholdt sig blot dybt bekymrede.

Men Trump og USA konstaterer blot realiteterne - igen - Israels hovedstad hedder Jerusalem.

Jøderne accepterede FNs delingsplan i 1947, som sagde at Jerusalem skulle være en åben by under international ledelse. Det gjorde araberne ikke, de gik i krig. Det lykkedes jordanske tropper at indtage Østjerusalem, med den gamle bydel og Grædemuren, hvorpå de ødelagde jødiske huse og synagoger og fordrev jøderne (heldigvis for dem). Frem til 1967 var jøder forment adgang til deres egne helligdomme i deres eget land. Der var intet krav fra stedlige arabere om en ny stat og intet krav om nogen særlig status for Jerusalem. Araberne har intet krav på Jerusalem da de forkastede delingsplanen og i øjeblikket fylder de op på omstridt land. De overspillede deres kort i deres tro på at de kunne få det hele, fra floden til havet - frit for jøder.

Og det er på alle måder en god ide, som en slags omvendt hollandsk udsalg. Jo mere besvær araberne skaber, jo mindre bliver der tilbage at forhandle om. Den palæstinensiske journalist Bakr Awida mener ikke at en amerikansk ambassade i Jerusalem vil hæmme fredsprocessen. Og tidligere sikkerhedsrådgiver for George W Bush Elliott Abrams mener også at den muslimske vrede kommer til at vare en måneds tid og at USA endelig har fået en præsident, der ikke giver sig for voldsmandens veto. En bagvendt kompliment fra Jonathan S Tobin, der kalder Trump “an ignorant fool“, men at der måske er en metode i galskaben at “it’s entirely possible that Trump is either being guided to or is stumbling along a path that could be saner than the supposedly safer course steered by his predecessors on Jerusalem.

But what Trump’s potential move would do is put the Palestinians on notice that their decades of denial of the legitimacy of a Jewish state and its historic ties to Jerusalem will no longer be tolerated. It would be a symbolic gesture aimed at reminding them that their century-long war on Zionism that is still inextricably tied to Palestinian national identity must end. The conflict will only really cease when the Palestinians get the message from an international community that has enabled their rejectionism that it is no longer willing to keep playing the same game.

Now let’s see how the bigots respond.

SFs Holger K Nielsen kalder det ifølge Danmarks Radiokontraproduktivt” og “Det går ikke, at man fra USA’s side entydigt siger, at Jerusalem er Israels hovedstad” og “moderate palæstinensere, som ønsker at forhandle. De bliver hele tiden faldet i ryggen af USA og den israelske regering“. Samme holdning har Venstre, der ved udenrigsordfører Michael Aastrup Jensen siger at “Der skal forhandles om, hvad Jerusalem skal og ikke skal” og kalder det “en atombombe (…) i en meget anspændt situation“.

Når Trump går ind og underminerer den måde, man normalt konflikthåndterer på, så ender vi et sted, som slet ikke kan kontrolleres” fortalte Rasmus Boserup, der er ekspert i arabisk politik og samfund ved Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier til Ekstra Bladet. Måske glemmer han Einsteins bemærkning om det fjollede i at gentage det samme eksperiment med forventing om forskellige resultater

Apropos vores eksperter og politikere, David French, der absolut ikke er fan af Donald Trump, siger at beslutningen om at flytte ambassaden til Jerusalem er “defying some of the worst people in the world” derfor one of the best, most moral, and important decisions of his young administration“. En opsang til Verdenssamfundets dobbeltstandard

From the birth of the modern nation-state of Israel, an unholy mixture of anti-Semites and eliminationists have both sought to drive the Jewish people into the sea and — when military measures failed — isolate the Jewish nation diplomatically, militarily, and culturally. Working through the U.N. and enabled by Soviet-bloc (and later) European allies, these anti-Semites and eliminationists have waged unrelenting “lawfare” against Israel. (Lawfare is the abuse of international law and legal processes to accomplish military objectives that can’t be achieved on the battlefield.)

The scam works like this: The U.N. and other international bodies establish rules that apply only to Israel, or they hold Israel to higher standards than any other nation on earth; then, when Israel (or its primary ally, America) object to those unjust rules and double standards, the Arab world threatens unrest, riots, or, at worst, renewed jihad. A cowardly European community goes along, perpetuating injustice in the name of “stability.”

(…)

The U.N., moreover, adjusted its definition of refugees for the special and sole benefit of Palestinians. Contrary to conventional international law, the U.N. treats the descendants of Palestinian war refugees as refugees themselves. Thus, incredibly, the population of Palestinian “refugees” from the 1948 and 1967 conflicts is growing. The result is a perpetual, unique, and artificial crisis, one that is designed specifically to place pressure on one nation on planet Earth: Israel.

Trump-Rusland historien som murbrækker

Diverse — Drokles on December 5, 2017 at 10:14 am

To medarbejdere, en mindre hjælper ved navn George Papadopoulos og Trumps tidligere sikkerhedsrådgiver Flynn er kommet i vanskeligheder fordi de har talt usandt til FBI. Papadopoulos ved ikke at kunne huske tidspunkterne for nogle samtaler med nogle russere, Flynn for helt at benægte at han som sikkerhedsrådgiver in spe kontaktede den russiske ambassadør og andre repræsentanter for medlemmer af FNs Sikkerhedsråd og lod dem forstå, hvad USA kom til at mene om underkendelsen af jødernes ret til Judæa og Samaria uagtet Obamas stille forræderi.

FBIs efterforskningsleder af alting russisk Robert Mueller har indtil videre intet frembragt, der på nogen måde, kan indikere at Trump og hans stab på nogen måde har samarbejdet med ‘russere’ om at blive USAs præsident. Mueller har fået frie hænder og næsten ubegrænsede ressourcer og i hans arbejdsplan indgår ordet kriminelt ikke, ingen konkrete mistanker skal derfor følges og ingen konkrete teorier for hvad der kunne være foregået, skal defineres. Bare frie hænder til at rode rundt i hele Trumpstabens undertøj og altså intet bevis eller indikation af et bevis har det kastet af sig. Det eneste undersøgelsen af Trumpkampagnens kontakt til ‘russere’ ser ud til at kastet af sig er kriminalitet, skriver Danield Greenfield - og så er det en heksejagt.

We’re now in Act 3 of a leftist conspiracy to invent a conspiracy to justify its own conspiracy.

In Act 1, the Clintons created the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and used a British former intelligence agent with connections to Russia and the FBI to inject the dossier into the FBI. In Act 2, Obama officials used the dossier to justify their eavesdropping on Trump officials In Act 3, Team Mueller is using that illegal eavesdropping to entrap and generate crimes against assorted Trump officials.

After all this time, the conspiracy theory remains as unproven as ever.

And the conspiracy theory is that the past election was illegitimate, that Trump doesn’t belong in the White House and Hillary does, and that radical measures must be taken against the First Amendment, the Electoral College and our entire political system to prevent such a “mistake” from occurring again.

That’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s a radical leftist conspiracy against America.

Både sikkerrådgiver Flynn og ovennævnte Papadopoulos har begge erklæret sig skyldige i at lyve for FBI. Men de har ikke tilstået at have deltaget i nogen sammensværgelse, såsom at tage eller forsøge at tage illegal kontakt til ‘russere’. Det vil sige at ikke nok med at der ikke er etableret et bevis for en sammensværgelse, så kan d’herrer ikke bruges som vidner da det eneste vi ved er at de lyver. Sammen med tidligere kampagneleder Paul Manaforts økonomiske trangressioner fra tiden før Trump understreges indtrykket, at der intet er i russer-fortællingen. Både Hillary-støtten Alan Dershowitz og National Reviews Andrew C McCarthy mener derfor, at Muellers ‘russer’ undersøgelse er og altid har været en rigsretsundersøgelse.

Og hvad der skal ende i en Rigsret er at Trump måske har hindret en efterforskning. Her er vi tilbage til team-Trump, der efter valget tog kontakt til medlemmerne af FNs Sikkerhedsråd. Men da der kun er en præsident ad gangen og denne er den siddende, kan man forestille sig at Trump har villet dække over en sådan faux-pas og frygtet at den såkaldte Logan-act, der forbyder andre end de rette myndigheder at føre politik på USAs vegne, ville træde i kraft. Og at det måske var denne frygt, der ansporede Flynn til at lyve om at han faktisk havde talt med den russiske ambassadør i tiden fra valgsejren til indsættelsen. Men selv i det tilfælde, ser det ikke ud til at være grundlag for en rigsret, argumenterer McCarthy videre

The FBI and the Justice Department are not a separate branch of government; they are subordinates of the president delegated to exercise his power, not their own. Even on Comey’s account, Trump did not order him to shut down the Flynn investigation, even though he could have. Trump could have ordered an end of the Russia counterintelligence investigation, but he did not. He could have pardoned Flynn, which would effectively have ended the FBI’s criminal investigation — beyond any possibility of review. We can stipulate that these would have been sleazy things to do, potentially damaging to national security, and still grasp that the president had the undeniable power to do them.

Similarly, the president had undeniable power to fire the FBI director. You can argue that his reason was corrupt, but the truth is that he didn’t need a reason at all — he could have done it because it was Tuesday and he felt like firing someone; he could have done it because he figured that the Justice Department’s criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails investigation gave him the political cover he needed to dispense with a subordinate he found nettlesome. The point is that even if the president hoped that cashiering Comey would derail an investigation he was addled by, it was wholly in Trump’s discretion to fire the director. Moreover, firing the director did not derail the Russia investigation; it has proceeded apace under the director whom Trump appointed to replace Comey.

The president may not be prosecuted in a criminal judicial proceeding for exercising his discretion, however objectionably, in executive matters over which the courts have no power of review. If Mueller tried to indict him, Trump would have unfettered discretion to fire Mueller and to direct the Justice Department to drop the case.

You may not like that, but that’s the way it is. It is not, however, the end of the matter.

Men, skriver McCarthy videre, Kongressen har stadig magten til at beslutte sig for en Rigsret. Dette vil dog være en absurd ide og vil i givet fald skabe en konstitutionel krise argumenterer Alan Dershowitz,

Sumpen pisker en stemning om landsforræderi op som den omsætter i en undersøgelseskommision, hvis uhæmmede adfærd, tvinger medlemmer af team-Trump til fejltagelser, som de straffes for i håbet om at Trump vil reagere retfærdigt og give dem et velplaceret spark ud af vagten, hvilket de vil bruge til at stille ham for en rigsret for misbrug af sin magt.

Ønsketænkning

Diverse — Drokles on December 4, 2017 at 10:27 am

Så overbevist om Trumps samarbejde med ‘russerne’ er pressen at ABCs nyhedsvært Bryan Ross troede at Flynn havde afsløret hvorledes russerne havde hjulpet Trump med at vinde valget, skriver Daily Caller. Ross projektion sendte aktiemarkedet (i den boomende økonomi) på en rutchetur og han er suspenderet fra sit arbejd i 4 uger. Og således blev Rosss mere end ’sexed up’ nyhed modtaget på ABCs The View, hvor alle er kvinder, venstreorienterede og ekstatisk glade for udsigten til at deres eget system måske er blevet kuppet af en fremmed og, hvad de anser som fjendtlig, magt

Men også FBI har sine idiosynkrasier og en agent blev fyret fra efterforskningen da han blev afsløret i en anti-Trump korrespondence, skriver Breitbart. Dette er ikke overraskende, hverken at Mueller reagerer så kontant på en potentiel mistanke om skjulte dagsordner i FBI, hans ry skulle være ulasteligt. Men det er heller ikke overraskende at der blandt FBIs ansatte, som i hele ‘Deep State’, findes et væld af ansatte med stærke følelser imod Trump og hans dagsorden.

Jeff Cruoere skriver i Townhall at FBI at flere agenter reagerede i vrede over da en whistleblower afslørede, at daværende justitsminister Loretta Lynch havde haft et halv time langt møde på en flyvestation med tidligere præsident Bill Clinton i løbet at valgkampen, mens Hillary, hans egen kone, stadig blev efterforsket.”One unidentified FBI agent lamented that the meeting was disclosed to the press and claimed that “We need to find that guy” in order to get him fired” skriver Cruoere og siger at det afslører at FBI var mere optaget af, hvad der kunne skade deres chef og Hillarys chancer for at blive præsident, end for den amerikanske offentlighed, der ret beset betaler deres løn og er hele deres eksistensberettigelse.

Hvis FBI havde haft en ærlig interesse for deres fag ville de være blevet vrede over, hvad der stærkt lignede en politisk studehandel, som ville underløbe deres arbejde, som er at sikre det amerikanske folk mod ulovligheder. Da Hillary endelig blev interviewet sammen med 17 andre involverede, af FBI skete det ikke under ed og ingen noter blev taget. Og daværende direktør Comey, der blev fyret af Trump tidligere på året, havde allerede skrevet konklusionen på FBIs efterforskningsrapport. Holdt sammen med hvorledes skattemyndighedernes chikane af konservative og Tea Party organisationer, ligner det en tanke, at FBI er en del af sumpen.

Trump og det britiske folks specielle forhold

Diverse — Drokles on December 3, 2017 at 8:16 am

Sargon of Akkad (nederst i posten) har en glimrende gennemgang af den moralpanik, der har spredt sig i det engelske politiske parnas og de engelske medier, da Trump tweetede 3 videoer af muslimsk vold. Mays regering der mener at ‘hvide’ der er engagerede i velgørenhedsorganisationer ikke er inkluderende nok, underholder allerede ideen om at straffe mennesker med op til 15 års fængsel for at se “ekstremistisk materiale på nettet“. Jo, de aner nok at de sidder på en krudttønde og så nytter det jo ikke at Trump videretweeter den banale sandhed, at med islam følger volden.

Trump modtog bl.a kritik for sin sløsede facon, der gør ham egnet til at være en almindelige journalist, ved at en af videoerne alligevel ikke viste muslimsk vold, men en ægte hollænder, der sparkede en krøbling ned, mens hans ven grinende filmede det. Den anden video viste en fyr der blev smidt ned fra et hustag i Ægypten og derpå pryglet ihjel af den vrede muslimske pøbel. Den tredie af Islamisk Stats egen Sheikh Omar Raghba, der i Yakubiya for et par år tilbage, smadrer en Jomfru Maria statue, som et symbol på det kristne folkemord, han retfærdiggør i islams krav om total dominans.

Trump planlægger ikke hver enkelt tweet eller udtalelse til en specifik reaktion. Men hans overordnede metode er at tale til sin base, hvor end den befinder sig i Verden og hvis ‘eliten’ går i selvsving og ender i en fælde, hvor de på en gang modsiger den virkelighed som Trump påpeger, uanset hvor uæstetisk og afslører en dagsorden der ikke er fællesskabets. Angrebet på Trump var først og fremmest at videoerne stammede fra Britain First og de er uæstetiske, eller som Washington Post formulerede det “the main takeaway. Jayda Fransen…“. Nuff said, som de siger, og virkeligheden kan gå sin skæve gang. James Delingpole skriver i Breitbart

First, let’s just establish what he was NOT doing:

Winning the hearts and minds of radical Muslims; making liberals love and respect him more; getting nice coverage in the Guardian and the New York Times; persuading Never Trumpers that they might have misjudged him; winning over Theresa May and the rest of the faux-Conservative political class.

No. Trump doesn’t give a damn for any of these people. (And who can blame him?)

Instead he was sending a message to the people he cares about: all those ordinary people out there, not just in the U.S. but in Europe and beyond, who are shocked, appalled, scared by the way their countries are slowly (or quite quickly in the case of some countries, Sweden, for example) surrendering to Islam; who feel betrayed by the pusillanimity of their political leaders and let down by the failure of most of their media to report on the rapes and the sexual grooming and the violence being committed disproportionately by Muslims, both immigrants and home-grown radicals; who feel unable to speak – except in embarrassed whispers – about their fears about being stabbed or machine-gunned or blown up or mown down by yet another jihadist simply for the crime of going about their daily, Western life; who bitterly resent being tarred as Islamophobic or xenophobic or uncaring when all they want is to be allowed to live their life in peace in a country whose traditions, laws and cultural values remain the ones they grew up with and which make their homeland worth living in.

These are the people Trump was reaching out to with those tweets.

Mueller maler helt ad helvede til

Diverse — Drokles on December 2, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Tidligere FBI direktør James Comey var skadefro, da han tweetede “But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” - et citat fra Biblen. Jep, specialundersøger Robert Mueller har sigtet Trumps tidligere kampagnechef og sikkerhedsrådgiver Michael Flynn for at lyve om sin kontakt til den russiske ambassadør Sergei Kislyak. Og Flynn har erklæret sig skyldig.

Spørgsmålene er mange, hvor højt op i hierakiet var man klar over dette, på hvis initiativ tog Flynn kontakt osv, hvilket fører til den oplagte domino spekulation “That Mueller would treat Flynn as someone worth flipping, presumably in pursuit of a bigger case, is, to say the least, suggestive.” som The New Yorker udtrykker det. Mon ikke, “Julen kommer tidligt i år” for venstrefløjen.

Og dog.

Det fremgår måske ikke så klart, når man læser de danske medier, eller de venstreorienterede medier de skriver af efter (”New York Times skriver, at retsdokumenterne fra i dag sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, præcis hvor meget Donald Trump vidste om Flynns samarbejde med russerne” skriver Danmarks Radio), men Flynns kontakt til den russiske ambassadør “was not illegal, and it was not “collusion” som David French skriver i National Review med påmindelsen, at den givne kontakt skete i december 2016, måneden efter Trump havde vundet præsidentvalget

First, the statement says that the day after President Obama announced sanctions in response to Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, Flynn called a “senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (PTT)” who was with other “senior members of the PTT” at Mar-a-Lago. On the call, Flynn and the “senior official” said that they did not want Russia to “escalate the situation.” Flynn called the Russian ambassador “immediately after” his call with the senior official to communicate the incoming administration’s request. The next day, Putin announced that Russia would not retaliate against the United States, and the Russian ambassador later informed Flynn that Putin had decided not to retaliate in response to his request.

Second, the statement also says that Flynn initiated contact with Russia and other foreign governments in an effort to influence a U.N. Security Council vote on an Egyptian resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn made these calls at the behest of a “very senior member” of the PTT. In this instance, Flynn was unsuccessful. The Russian ambassador told Flynn that “Russia would not vote against the resolution.”

Third, the statement briefly outlines false statements Flynn made about his relationship with the government of Turkey. These false statements appear unrelated to any dealings with Russia, in any capacity.

Flynns forbindelse til Tyrkiet drejer sig blandt andet om at han skulle deltage i et komplot, der skulle kidnappe Gülen, Erdogan store ‘interne’ fjende(!).

Andrew C McCarthy forklarer ligeledes i National Review, at når man skal få dominobrikkerne til at falde, skal man have sit vidne til at erklære sig skyldig i en sammensværgelse for at bevise at en sådan fandt sted. Først derefter går man videre med at føre sag mod den næste i hierakiet. Men…

That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.

To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

French konkluderer da derfor også

So, at the end of the day, we may well end up with multiple senior members of the administration facing prison time for covering up no crime and no collusion, just contacts. If that’s justice, it’s a form of justice that will leave no one standing on the political high ground and partisans on both sides seething with rage and bitterness.

Mueller har ikke fået til opgave at finde noget kriminelt, men blot al sammenhæng mellem Rusland, russere og Trump og hans stab. Medierne har forvirret sig selv med gummibegreber som samarbejde/collusion med russerne. Ingen ved, hvad de vil sige andet end at den lover en forjættende udfrielse fra den virkelighed der volder dem så mange smerter.

Monokultur kører på WordPress