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: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 535

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 542

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 578

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


Venstrefløjens ondskab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————————————-

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

Statsmanden Trump og Charlottesville

Diverse — Drokles on August 19, 2017 at 3:05 am

Den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump mødte voldsom kritik for sin reaktion på gadekampene i Charlottesville mellem en gruppe, der kaldte sig Unite The Right på den ene side og moddemostranter fra fortrinsvis Antifa, Black Lives Matter og forskellige venstrefløjsgrupper. Unite The Right bestod bestod bl.a af Ku Klux Klan, ny-nazister og forskellige grupper for hvidt overherredømme og hvide identarister og Trumps brøde bestod i at han ikke vill fordømme dem entydigt, men istedet sagde at der var fejl på begge sider den forfærdelige dag.

Trump gav efter for kritikken af hans oprindelige fordømmelse af vold på begge sider og fordømte de hvide supremacister, ikke blot for deres voldelige adfærd men også for at være i modstrid med den grundlæggende ide om USA, som han ser binder nationen sammen, nemlig ideen om at alle er skabt lige af Gud og at alle nyder den samme beskyttelse af loven. Dette er statsmanden der taler, som medierne valgte at overhøre, fordi fortællingen om Trumps dans med racisme skal erstatte fortællingen om hans dans med russerne, nu balkortet alligevel ikke indeholder Putins navn.

Men forleden gav Trump pokker i medierne og ville hellere tale om fakta, hvilket der kom en forrygende pressekonference ud af

Med fare for at blive beskyldt for whataboutery, så er det værd at se tilbage på, hvorledes den tidligere præsident Barak Obama reagerede, da en sort racist, ægget af Black Lives Matters inflammatoriske retorik og bekræftet af præsidentens løgne, myrdede 5 betjente i sommeren 2016. Daily Wire skriver

Responding to the outrage over Sterling and Castile, President Obama said their deaths were “not isolated incidents” but were “symptomatic” of a criminal justice system plagued by “racial disparities.” That evening, during a Black Lives Matter rally, Johnson opened fire on Dallas police officers, shooting a dozen officers, five of whom died from their wounds. Before the police were forced to shoot him dead, he told them that he was deliberately targeting “white people, especially white officers” and that the Black Lives Matter movement had inspired his actions.

“The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter; he said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers,” Dallas Police Chief David Brown told reporters.

In his initial response, Obama, like Trump, did not single out black nationalists or the movement associated with the heinous act. Instead, Obama said that he was “horrified” by the “vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement.”

“There is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any violence against law enforcement,” said Obama. “Anyone involved in the senseless murders will be held fully accountable. Justice will be done.”

Obama also used the moment as an opportunity to push for more gun control. “Today is a wrenching reminder of the sacrifices they make for us,” Obama said of police officers. “We also know when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately, it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic.”

Året før i 2015 myrdede en hvid racist 9 sorte kirkegængere under en gudstjeneste i byen Charleston. Obama talte hverken om morderens motiv eller ideologiske grundlag, men lagde vægt på generelle racerelationer og slog også her til lyd for en stramning af våbenloven. Der er altså ikke præcedens for at præsidenten skal afsværge den ene part i en konflikt alene på det ideologiske indhold.

Derfor generer det mig at den ellers altid sobre Charles Krauthammers analyse er så glimrende en repræsentant for kritikken af Trump

What Trump is missing here is the uniqueness of white supremacy, KKK, and Nazism. Yes, there were bad guys on both sides. That’s not the point. This was instigated, instituted — the riot began over a Nazi riot, a Nazi rally. And the only killing here occurred by one of the pro-Nazi, pro-KKK people.

USA har ganske rigtigt sin egen unikke historie med hvidt overherredømme og Ku Klux Klan (mens nazismen er en tysk opfindelse med socialistiske rødder). Men USA har også selv for nylig født Black Lives Matter bevægelsen, som Obama har rost og hvis racisme ikke blot ligger implicit i bevægelsens navn, men også udtrykkes ved enhver given lejlighed. Og sammen med de forskellige kommunistiske grupper som ANTIFA er venstrefløjen i USA, og resten af vesten i øvrigt, er denne side af volden i Charlottesville, generelt hævet over kritik.

Black Lives Matter bevægelsen har været en hidtil uset racistisk succes, ikke set siden Ku Klux Klans velmagtsdage i midten af 1920erne. Succesen består djævelsk nok ved, at det er lykkedes BLM at bilde de etablerede medier og de fleste politikere og kommentatorer ind, at dens racisme ikke findes. Måske har det ikke været svært, for som P T Barnum sagde om showbiz, så skal man give folk det de vil have. Og hvad de vil have er en fortælling, hvor end ikke mord på 5 hvide betjente kunne rive blårene fra øjnene. Tværtimod fremturede man med at insistere på at det inkluderende mod-udtryk All Lives Matter var racistisk ved ikke at fremhæve sorte eksplicit.

Trump siger det indlysende når politiske hooligans kommer op at slås, nemlig at de i udgangspunktet er lige gode om det. Når han minder medierne om den politiske vold, der udgår fra venstrefløjen, er reaktionen så hysterisk, som man kan forvente hos personer, der bliver konfronteret med deres fortrængninger. Det fører direkte til Krauthammers anden sætning “That not the point“. Er det ikke? Og ifølge hvem? Ikke præsidentet Trump! Ifølge Krauthammer er der kun en pointe med fordømmelse, hvilket ville negere dens betydning, hans pointe. Alt andet er et moralsk fallit.

Det var den politiske vold som Trump talte om. Ikke om kombatanternes ideologiske bevæggrunde, som Krauthammer og resten af den forargede elite hævder. Det var derfor han kaldte det en horribel dag, fordi han talte om konkrete tidsbundne begivenheder og handlinger. Trump lagde i samme anledning vægt på, at alle er lige for Gud ifølge forfatningen og derfor også lige for loven. Sort eller hvid, ingen har ret til at bruge politisk vold.

Men Trump er leder og han har en anden pointe, der minder om sammenhold. Trump minder om at der i det USA som han har arvet efter Obama, er enorme politiske spændinger, som ikke er blevet helet men uddybet. Sammenrendet af nazister og klansfolk og hvem der ellers morer sig med at lege ‘hvid identitarist’ er et randfænomen i befolkningen og står ikke til at blive commes il faux i den brede offentlighed, som venstrefløjens ditto har været i årtier.

Derfor må Krauthammer også fuske med sprogets logik, når han postulerer “the riot began over a Nazi riot, a Nazi rally”. Ja, rigtig mange, især lokale, blandt mod-demonstranterne kom ikke for at slås, det er klart. Men i begge lejre kom der grupper for at slås. Men hvem startede? At lægge skylden på nazisterne for simpelthen at holde en lovligt anmeldt demonstration, hvad der er den logiske konsekvens af Krauthammers kvababbelse, giver ingen mening. Grupper på begge sider kom for at slås, UTR i håbet om at møde en moddemonstration og moddemonstrationen meldte sig lystigt, fordi det er deres politiske virke.

Det er ikke Trump, der har allieret sig med det yderste højre og deres bøller. Det er mainstream medier og det politiske konsensus, der har allieret sig med det yderste venstre og deres bøller. Det er denne virkelighed, som Trump demaskerer ved at påtale det åbenlyse. Og deraf hysteriet.

For all of OUR people

Diverse — Drokles on January 21, 2017 at 5:55 am

Det må være herligt for amerikanerne med en præsident, der forstår at skelne mellem hvad der er vigtigt og hvad der er udenlandsk.  Det gjorde Trump i sin indtrædelsestale og lovede at give noget af Washingtons magt tilbage til dets rette ejere, nemlig Folket. Det er chokerende tale for alle eksperter, journalister, politikere og despoter. Charles Krauthammer fortæller hvorledes Trump henvender sig til mere end et publikum

Jyllands-Posten skriver at “talen har fået alarmklokkerne til at bimle højere” i “et i forvejen kriseramt EU” fordi den “modarbejder det hele den ide, som Den Europæiske Union er bygget på“. Jeg vidste at der var en grund til at jeg holdt af den. Og man kan jo kun være enig, når Trump konstaterer; “through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other“.

Det uapologetiske er Trump og hans regerings største kvalitet. ”If everybody plays by the rules of the Cathedral of Political Correctness, then everybody gets paid, nobody ever loses” skriver Charles Hurt i Breitbart og tilføjer “And absolutely nothing ever actually gets done”. Trump mener hvad han siger - ifølge en ekspert i kropssprog - og det er hans mandat

Mr. Trump’s mandate is not a partisan one. He owes very little to the Republican Party and absolutely nothing to the Democratic Party. He handily defeated partisans on both sides of the political aisle.

He also owes nothing to any industry or special interest group except the voters who elected him and the free market system that made him a billionaire. He is owned by no one.

As a result, Mr. Trump stands poised to reinvent the entire federal government in favor of the American people alone. He is a tireless agent of disruption and an unbending force for creative destruction.

The fabulous, entertaining, funny, unpredictable and daring real estate tycoon achieved this historic political realignment using one very simple strategy: attack political correctness and all its vestiges and all its purveyors at every turn.

After all, what is Washington and the Leviathan federal bureaucracy and all of American politics today but a Cathedral of Political Correctness? Here there are protocols for everything. Everyone has titles, dress codes. Everybody knows their pew and if they sit in the wrong one there will be consequences.

Og Hurt giver et par eksempler på “A face-off between a grandstanding politician who just wanted to make a point and a strategic-thinking pragmatist who wants to accomplish something very concrete and vital to America’s existence” fra ministerhøringerne

During Rex Tillerson’s hearing to become secretary of State, Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, demanded that the globe-trotting dealmaker denounce Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “war criminal.” Mr. Tillerson declined. Instead, he highlighted his desire to work with Russia to eliminate ISIS around the world.

It was a telling moment. .

(…)

Retired Gen. Jim Mattis vowed to be Defense secretary over the most lethal fighting force possible. And all Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Democrat, cared about was how to make the military better accommodate people who are lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender or questioning.

“Frankly, Senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with,” Gen. Mattis replied.

Not since Rhett Butler has the word “frankly” been so skillfully used to silence the pleadings of a desperate and delusional woman.

Her er præsident Donald John Trumps indsættelsestale i sin helhed

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people. Together we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships, but we will get the job done. Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent. Thank you.

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning because, today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and, while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration, and this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of an historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves. These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public, but for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists.

Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

We are one nation and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home and one glorious destiny. The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.

We’ve defended other nations’ borders, while refusing to defend our own, and spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas, while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.

But, that is the past and now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today, are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body and I will never, ever let you down.

America will start winning again. Winning like never before. We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams. We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American. We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow. We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth. At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and, through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when god’s people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear. We are protected and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and most importantly, we will be protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action constantly complaining, but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action. Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

We stand at the birth of a new millennium ready to unlock the histories of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease and to harness the energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow. A new national pride will lift our sights and heal our divisions. It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky. They fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator. So, to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And, yes, together, we will make America great again. Thank you. God bless you and god bless America. Thank you. God bless America.”

Og til venstrefløjens, pressens, politikernes og alles de desillusionerede hystaders krænkede følelser: Well, Frankly, my dear

Kodeord for kodeord

Danmarks Radio kan man læse at Trump måske endelig accepterer at russerne har hacket (DR skriver også at der sidste år blev “registreret over 100.000 hackerangreb mod Sverige fra fremmede magter“) det amerikanske valg, men at han stadig “kritiseres af både demokrater og republikanere for ikke klart at støtte efterretningstjenesternes konklusioner“. Men der er ikke gode grunde til klart at stole på de amerikanske efterretningstjenester, som Andrew McCarthy skriver på National Review,

Here, we are talking about a community whose own analysts have complained that their superiors distort their reports for political purposes. In just the past few years, they have told us that they had “high confidence” that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003; that the NSA was not collecting metadata on millions of Americans; and that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, “largely secular” organization. We have learned that the Obama administration intentionally perpetrated a disinformation campaign — complete with a compliant media “echo chamber” — to sell the public on the Iran nuclear deal (and the fiction that Iran’s regime was moderating). We have seen U.S. intelligence and law enforcement complicit in the Obama administration’s schemes to convince the public that “violent extremism,” not radical Islam, is the explanation for terrorist attacks; that a jihadist mass-murder attack targeting soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan was “workplace violence”; that al-Qaeda had been “decimated”; that the threat of the ISIS “jayvee” team was exaggerated; and that the Benghazi massacre was not really a terrorist attack but a “protest” gone awry over an anti-Muslim video.

Overfor dette står Julian Assanges ord om at Wikileaks ikke fik nogle emails fra russerne, men fra utilfredse medarbejde blandt Demokraterne. Hvis Assange taler sandt har russerne ingen indflydelse haft på det amerikanske valg af præsident, da alle historier i medierne ikke tog udgangspunkt i hvad russerne angiveligt havde fundet ud af, men hvad Wikileaks afslørede. Og Det var altså ikke løgne eller fake news, men afsløringer.

Og, som McCarthy videre skriver, så nævnes formanden for Demokraterne, John Podesta ikke med et ord i hverken rapporten fra CIA, FBI eller NSA. Det var ellers hans emails der blev ‘phished’, dvs at han blev lokket til selv at afsløre at hans password var “password” til uvedkommende. Og det var i Podestas emails, at man kunne læse, hvorledes Demokraternes ledelse snød Bernie Sanders til fordel for Hillary Clinton i primærvalget og hvorledes Clintons stab arbejdede tæt sammen med store dele af medierne.

Som Charles Krauthammer mindede om i National Review, så er russernes påståede indblanding sket på Obamas vagt, mens han belærte alle om, hvor sikkert det amerikanske system var og at 80erne gerne ville beholde deres udenrigspolitik. Så hvorledes kunne det ske? Ronald Deibart, der mener at Obamas forsøg på at skabe en diplomatisk krise mellem USA og Rusland “may be an admirable motive“, forklarer på Just Security, hvad der er galt med FBIs analyse

The DHS/FBI Joint Analysis Report on Russian information operations, which the administration refers to as “Grizzly Steppe,” is a disappointing and counterproductive document. The problems with the report are numerous and have been well documented by professionals in the computer security area. But the culture of secrecy and the lack of independent sources of verification that gave rise to it are far more pervasive.

Among the problems in the report: Instead of clearly mapping out the evidence linking the cyber espionage operations to Russia, the report provides generic charts on tradecraft and phishing techniques that apply to just about every cyber espionage campaign I and others have ever studied.

At the centre of the report (page 4) is a table that unhelpfully lumps together, without explanation, several different names attributed to Russian-associated cyber espionage campaigns alongside names of malicious software and exploits that have little or no direct link to Russia.

An appendix includes a spreadsheet meant to provide “Indicators of Compromise,” long lists of technical details supposedly associated with the espionage campaign. These include IP addresses, malware signatures, and command and control infrastructure, which network defenders are supposed to use to ward off Russian-backed espionage, and which would ostensibly be used to “fingerprint” Russia as the culprit. Unfortunately, many of these are out of date or irrelevant, or are used by multiple cyber espionage campaigns and not ones exclusively associated with Russia. To give just one example, journalist Micah Lee analyzed the IP addresses contained in the appendix, and found over 40 percent of them are exit nodes of the anonymizer Tor (meaning anyone in the world using Tor could be associated with these IP addresses). It is a disservice to both the general public and expert researchers to not clarify the degrees of confidence associated with each indicator. Without proper categorization or context, the indicators satisfy neither aim of helping network defenders or proving attribution.

Herunder forklarer John McAfee (!) til russisk TV (!) at “hacket” ligner amatørarbejde

Man husker nok valgkampen, hvor det vakte stor forargelse at Trump ikke ville forhåndsgodkende valgresultatet, skulle det gå imod ham. Antidemokratisk, blev det kaldt og en trussel imod demokratiet. Nu fyger der beskyldninger om at Trumps valg ikke blot ikke er legitimt, men at han er en russisk marionet, indsat ved noget der ligner et statskup. Helvede kender ingen vrede som en vraget venstrefløj.

“An insult to the intelligence of the world”

Diverse — Drokles on January 6, 2017 at 5:43 am

Det kaldte Charles Krauthammer Obamas medvirken til at FNs Sikkerhedsråd vedtog at Judæa og Samaria inklusiv Jerusalems gamle jødiske kvarter med jødernes største helligdom faktisk tilhører araberne. “It’s as if the UN passed a resolution declaring Mecca and Medina to be sovereign Jewish or Christian territory,” fortsatte han og i National Review perspektiverede han, at alle jøder, der bor eller arbejder i Øst-Jerusalem nu er internationale pariaer og han mindede om at Abbas allerede har truet enhver israelsk soldat med blive stævnet til den internationale krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Og så spørger Krauthammer:

What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

Medlem af PLOs styregruppe Mustafa Barghouti sagde ærligt “Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would deny the right of the Palestinian people who are citizens of Israel and that is totally unacceptable. Israel cannot be a Jewish and a democratic state at the same time” ifølge Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post citerer også Abbas for bramfrit at love et jødefrit Palæstina: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands“.

Med det in mente kunne man læse at den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry (der selv tjener på besat land) mente ligesom at Israel kunne være både jødisk og demokratisk - man måtte opgive en af delene.

Andrew C McCarty undrede sig da også over, at USA selv har været med til at formulere både Afghnaistans og Iraks forfatninger. I den afghanske slås det fast at “Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state” og “No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan“. Og i Iraks forfatning er “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation” 0g “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established”. Begge disse forfatninger indeholder ligeledes paragraffer, der udtrykkeligt stipulerer at ingen antidemokratisk lov må vedtages.

Så islam går hånd i hånd med demokrati, mens jødedommen er dens modsætning. På den præmis virker det jo selvfølgelig logisk, at man ingen skrupler støtter palæstinensernes ambitioner om etnisk udrensning, mens Israel skal opgive land og enten demokrati eller identitet.

munir

Herover ansvarlig for Fatahs medier Munir Aljagub, med en tegning der viser hvorledes fred mellem Fatah og Hamas er et våben til at likvidere Israel (Elder Of Ziyon).

På selveste CNN kaldte Mark Goldfeder Obamas inddirekte støtte til FNs ‘landgrab in Israel‘ for “a cowardly move of a lame-duck politician” og hyklerisk da Obama selv overfor FN havde sagt at “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations”. Og så minder Goldfeder om at Sikkerhedsrådets resolutioner ikke er det samme som international lov og fortæller historien om Israels juridiske tilblivelse

In 1922 the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine established an area (which included the West Bank) to be a national home for the Jewish people. Article 6 of the mandate explicitly encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.” (”The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”)

When the United Nations was formed it affirmed existing arrangements of this nature, and after Britain announced that it would leave the area, the United Nations proposed a partition plan that was not accepted by the relevant sovereign parties, (because the Arab world rejected it) leaving the Mandate lines unrevised.

Scholars such as Eugene Kontorovich and Abraham Bell have noted that under the international legal principle of Uti possidetis juris, “widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization,” emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries, and thus international law clearly dictates that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. Israel thus has title to the land.

When Israel declared independence in 1948 it was immediately attacked by five Arab nations. The United Nations blamed the Arabs for the violence and aggression meant to undermine the Resolution and forcefully take land, and the Spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee readily agreed.

If there was ever an occupation of Palestinian territory under international law, it happened between 1948 and 1967, when two of the invading Arab armies, Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip) occupied territory that they had taken through aggressive action — the kind of aggressive action that the new Resolution explicitly reminds us is forbidden under international law.

This was, of course, territory that was part of the Mandate for Palestine and therefore rightfully under Israeli title: from 1949 to 1967, Jordan and Egypt literally occupied Palestine. The Green Line was drawn for no other reason than to mark off on a map how far the two invading armies had managed to get. The armistice agreements themselves state that these were not ever meant to be actual borders. Thus to give meaning under international law to these ‘pre-67 lines’ is, ironically, to retroactively ratify aggression against the mandate and support occupation.

Dette land fik israelerne tilbage da de ved “defensive re-conquest” vandt over araberne i 6-Dages Krigen. En mere udførlig gennemgang af Artikel 80 leverer Daniel Horowitz, der kalder ideen om et besat Palæstina for fake news og råder den kommende præsident Donald Trump til at stoppe med forfølge ambitionen om endnu en arabisk-palæstinensisk stat.

“Stay strong Israel. January 20th is fast approaching”!

Den lange march gennem FNs institutioner

Tidligere kortavarig  Knessetmedlem for Arbejderpartiet Einat Wilf forsøgte med lidt optimisme ovenpå FNs resolution 2334, der delegitimerer alt israelsk udenfor 1967 ‘grænsen’, inklusiv Øst-Jerusalem med Grædemuren og det gamle jødiske kvarter. Wilf påpegede at resolutionen ved sin skelnen mellem bosættelser og selve Israel “essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem”. Optimismen slutter vi af med, men først til Caroline Glieck der i Jerusalem Post skriver om de palæstinensiske araberes diplomatiske svikmølle

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

Anne Bayefsky, der tidligere så glimrende har beskrevet FNs konstante krig mod Israel, skriver på Fox News

The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Abbas ser frem til at kunne stille israelske sikkerhedsstyrker for den International Krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Elder Of Ziyon mindede med et par gamle avisudklip om arabernes jødefri ønske for ‘Palæstina’. Men videre og måske mere foruroligende skriver Bayefsky

At its core, this UN move is a head-on assault on American democracy. President Obama knew full well he did not have Congressional support for the Iran deal, so he went straight to the Security Council first. Likewise, he knew that there would have been overwhelming Congressional opposition to this resolution, so he carefully planned his stealth attack.

He waited until Congress was not in session. Members of his administration made periodic suggestions that nothing had been decided. There were occasional head fakes that he was “leaning” against it. He produced smiling photo-ops from a Hawaiian golf course with no obvious major foreign policy moves minutes away. Holiday time-outs were in full-swing across the country. And then he pounced, giving Israel virtually no notice of his intent not to veto.

Profound betrayal of a true democratic friend of the United States is the only possible description.

FN taler ikke om Yemen og den slags får Charles Krauthammer at foreslå at USA burde stoppe med at være vært for FN og omdanne FN-bygningen til ejerlejligheder. Og netop Trump er optimismen

Glædelig Hannukah til jøderne - I får brug for det

Jeg troede Julens absurditet var Prins Charles, der vil have at englænderne vil bruge Julen ikke til at tænke på “Lord our savior” men at tænke på Muhammed, fordi pædofeten var nødt til at emigrere til Medina for at finde sin frihed. Den frihed benyttede han, som bekendt for alle andre end Charles, til at etablere en intolerant stat, slagte de jøder han ikke solgte fra som slaver og alle sine kritikere, førend han vendte tilbage og erobrede Mekka. Ja, det er værd at tænke når man slipper hans følgere løs i Europa.

Men desværre er Charles afsindighed overgået af rigtig politik ved Obama, der har tilladt at FN definerer Tempelbjerget inklusiv Grædemuren som tilhørende araberne. Ben Shapiro skriver

Just in time for Chanukah, President Barack Obama has unleashed all the anti-Jewish fury of his administration on the state of Israel. According to a senior Israeli official, both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been pushing a United Nations resolution behind the scenes that would essentially declare East Jerusalem, which includes the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, non-Jewish territory off limits to Israel, as well as labeling any Jew living outside the pre-1967 armistice lines illegitimate.

The draft resolution is an utter rejection of Judaism’s claims to Jerusalem – a historical absurdity, since the only reason anyone cares about the spot is because of Judaism’s claims to it, which predated any Muslim claims by well over a millennium. It rejects Israel’s ability to defend itself by maintaining territory outside the “Auschwitz borders” of pre-1967 Israel. It ignores international law – the resolution says that Israel is occupying “Palestinian territory,” which makes no historical sense given the fact that there was never any sovereign Palestine, that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded prior to 1967 and called for the full destruction of the state of Israel (as indeed, the Palestinian governing organizations continue to do), and that Israel’s enemies never agreed to any international agreement granting them sovereignty over the territory. Essentially, the UN calls for all areas outside the pre-1967 lines, which would include East Jerusalem, to become Judenrein.

This isn’t a major shock from the Obama administration, which has a long, inglorious history of Jew-hating activity when it comes to Israel. This is the same administration that signed an Iran deal that puts Israel’s very existence in jeopardy, that forced Israel to apologize for attempting to blockade arms shipments to the terrorist group Hamas, that tried to stymie Israel’s ability to defend herself during a rocket war with Hamas, that pressures Israel consistently to make concessions to would-be Jew-murderers, that goes silent when American Jews are killed in Israel, that funds a terrorist unity government.

Mark Levin tweetedeIt appears anti-Semite Obama is working with the extremist Palestinians, and using the Israel-hating UN, to undermine our ally Israel“. Og i The Weely Standard skriver Elliot Abrams at Obama har tilladt FN at vedtage “a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution

Just weeks before leaving office, he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm. So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins, and he will leave Democrats even worse off.

It’s pretty clear that he does not care. Obama has gotten himself elected twice, the second time by a decreased margin (the only time a president has been reelected by fewer votes than in his first term), but he has laid waste to his party. In the House, the Senate, the state governorships, and the state legislatures, the Democrats have suffered loss after loss. Today’s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party, by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least away from the Democrats and toward neutrality. Donald Trump’s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto, Netanyahu’s fervent pleas for one, and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood: not with Israel, not even with Egypt, but with the Palestinians. Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House.

Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This may turn both settlers—even those in major blocs like Maale Adumim, that everyone knows Israel will keep in any peace deal—and Israeli officials into criminals in some countries, subject to prosecution there or in the International Criminal Court. The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Now add this wording to the previous line and it means that even construction in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City is “a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

Yet Barack Obama thought this was all fine and refused to veto.

National Review forsøger at forstå omfanget af resolutionen og spørger “If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem, is he or she now a criminal? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals?“. Abrams spørger “The remaining question is whether Jewish leaders and Democratic politicians who vouched for Obama and defended him for eight years will now tell the truth”. Jonah Goldberg skriver i samme ånd at “Obama has just thrown [liberal Jews and other supporters of Israel] under the bus” med sit forræderi og blandt Obamas egne partikammerater er der også vrede, skriver The Tower. I det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine skriver Lee Smith at “The lame-duck president is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure

In a sense, the UN vote is a perfect bookend to Obama’s Presidency. A man who came to office promising to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, has done exactly that by breaking with decades of American policy. It is also seeking—contrary to established tradition and practice, which strictly prohibit such lame-duck actions—to tie the hands of the next White House, which has already made its pro-Israel posture clear.

No doubt that many of those critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship will defend and applaud the administration’s action, even as the effects of the resolution are obscene. So what if it enshrines in international law the fact that Jews can’t build homes or have sovereign access to their holy sites in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3000 years? Israel, as Kerry said, is too prosperous to care about peace with the Palestinians. Maybe some hardship will shake some sense into the Jewish State—which after all, could easily have made a just and secure peace with the Palestinian leadership at any time over the past two decades, if that’s what it wanted to do. Accounts to the contrary, from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, say, or left-wing Israeli politicians like former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the late Shimon Peres, are simply propaganda generated by the pro-Israel Lobby, whose wings the President has thankfully clipped.

But the Obama Administration’s abstention isn’t just about Israel or bilateral relations with a vital partner in a key region. It’s also about the prestige of the United States and its power—the power, for instance, undergirding international institutions like the United Nations. Consider how the Obama Administration has used the UN the last several years—to legalize the nuclear program of Iran, a state sponsor of terror, and make it illegal for Jews to build in their historical homeland. In Turtle Bay, the White House partners with sclerotic socialist kleptocracies like Venezuela in order to punish allies, like Israel. Is this American moral leadership? For Sean Penn, maybe.

Det er Jul og der er håb. Om mindre end en måned træder en mand ind som ny amerikansk præsident

trump-forsvarer-israel

Within a couple of hours, Egypt withdrew the resolution, at least temporarily, and its president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, called Mr. Trump to discuss how “to establish true peace in the Middle East,” according to an aide to the president-elect.

Skrev New York Times og selv Charles Krauthammer var imponeret. Resolution blev kørt igennem alligevel da alle, med Tom Lehrers ord, hader jøderne.

The times they are a changing

Diverse — Drokles on November 13, 2016 at 2:38 pm

Jeg skrev tidligere at Demokraterne havde satset på at gøre de ekspanderende minoriteter/særinteresser til det nye proletariat/folk, hvis interesser man ville varetage og at dette så ud til at vare i al evighed da globalisering og metastaserende identiteter var fremtiden. Og at denne tankegang havde et indbygget problem, fordi særinteresser kommer i indbyrdes konflikt når de skal til at slås om de samme ressourcer. Når kryben er tom bides hestene.

Nu skal Demokraterne så finde ud af, hvad der gik galt. Hvorledes kunne Demokraterne selv dog vælge en uelsket og belastet kandidat som Hillary Clinton? Og hvorledes kunne amerikanerne dog finde på at Vælge noget så vulgært som Donald Trump? Dette er en mulighed for at lære og derfor en chance for at komme styrket tilbage. Men det er også en risiko for at fortrænge dybere ned i det yderste venstre

Meanwhile, across the country, Democratic activists, who lean well to the left, are conducting their own “reassessment,” and that’s sure to affect inside-the-beltway thinking, as well as future party personnel.

A post-election poll, for example, commissioned by a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, concluded that the Vermont socialist would have defeated Trump by an “historic margin.” Others might question the plausibility of the poll—after all, it’s the ultimate instance of an unprovable hypothetical—and yet at the same time, it’s obvious that Democratic activists are eager to believe it.  Even today, just days after Clinton’s defeat, the Sanders people are already gearing up to take control of the state parties.

Also in the wake of the election, a tide of street protest is roiling the country, and that anger is contagious, at least to the left.  Here’re the words of one young protestor in San Francisco:

As a white, queer person, we need unity with people of color, we need to stand up.  I’m fighting for my rights as an LGBTQ person. I’m fighting for the rights of brown people, black people, Muslim people.

A Republican can dismiss such sentiments as just the ranting of a loony lefty.  And yet a Democrat can’t, because such voices are numerous, perhaps even predominant, at the Democratic grassroots. Moreover, the institutional Democrats in D.C., frozen out of power in the capital as they are, now lack any sort of political bulwark from which to repel the activist onslaught.

Indeed, the new trend of radical thinking has already bled into D.C.  We can see this from a November 10 news item in The Huffington Post: It seems that a Green activist working at the Democratic National Committee stood up in a DNC meeting and heckled Donna Brazile, the outgoing DNC chair.  As the young man, identified only as “Zach,” said to Brazile, “You are part of the problem,” referring to Brazile’s early support for Clinton over Sanders.  And then Zach added this nutty oratorical fusillade:

You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change.  You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.

Whereupon Zach stalked out of the room.  Now that crazed bit of speechifying performance-art might strike most Americans as insane, but this is the mindset of Democratic activists these days: Losing has a way of running some people off the rails (assuming they were ever on them).

And so now we see the ideological predicate for that big pendulum swing looming dead-ahead in the Democrats’ future: Democratic activists, enraged by what’s happened in the last week, and blaming the establishment, are determined to “fix” the party’s problem, even if, in their shortsightedness, such “fixing” actually makes the problem worse.

demokrat-tager-nederlaget-tungt

For republikanerne skulle det se bedre ud, skønt de mange der svigtede Trump og de mange der direkte modarbejdede ham. Dem må man regne som uden for indflydelse, eller i hvert fald sat i skammekrogen af, at Trump ikke blot leverede præsidentembedet, men leverede det med stil og uden at tabe indflydelse i de to kamre. Charles Krauthammer, der tidligere har våndet sig over Trumps kandidatur, fordi han mente det spærrede for en ordentlig kandidat og risikerede det republikanske partis indflydelse i mange år frem er optimist

Hillary ved vejs ende?

Der er sikkert et ord for det i spinddoktor vokabularet, når en kandidat er nået derhen i sin kampagne, at der ikke er mere at sige. Om det er desperation eller måske endda fallit ved jeg ikke, men Hillary Clinton har brugt et af hendes få valgmøder på “not talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter.” Istedet talte hun om the Alt Right, den bevægelse blandt republikanere, som Trump står i spidsen for og som er et rodsammen af alle venstredrejede demokraters sorger. Breitbart, Ku Klux Klan, konspirationsteoretikere, bøssehadere, misogyne antisemitter og racister og så videre.

Infowars Paul Joseph Watson var med røde øjne begejstret for opmærksomheden da dårlig omtale er bedre end ingen omtale og gjorde sig lystig over at Clinton beskyldte andre for konspirationsteoretiseren, mens hun selv plejede en forestilling om at hendes politisk opposition var betalt og styret af Vladimir Putin.

Charles Krauthammer var ikke sikker på det var en god ide for Hillarys kampagne at forlade sig helt på ad hominem, og mente specifikt at dette “slightly over the top”, især, da hun tilskrev Trump den tvivlsomme ære at mobning i skolerne angiveligt var i stigning. Og så er det jo altid svært at holde sig ren når man kaster med mudder

Politicians are always appearing on stages and welcoming people who have unsavory histories, and I would say that for Hillary, she should be a little bit careful since her support for Black Lives Matter — does she really want to be associated with a group that chants about killing cops? And nobody would accuse her of supporting that, but that is always a risk. So it is a cheap kind of political warfare. There are of course incidents — the Mexican judge story and all that, that even Paul Ryan had to admit was a form of classical racist speech. But I think this is the old story, I’m not sure if it is going to have an effect, and surely his calling her a bigot is not going to have a lot of effect either. I think we are at the bottom of the barrel of a race we knew would be down and dirty, and that is exactly where we are now.

Ah, ja, mudderkastning. Breitbart ihukom en venstredrejet artikel af ældre dato, der vånede sig over den racistiske tone, der bar Hillarys kampagne om at blive Demokraternes præsident kandidat  for 8 år siden, dengang modstanderen hed Barak Hussein Obama

In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary [won narrowly by Hillary Clinton] — a race in which Clinton had a 20-point lead only a few months ago — the racism and hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign were laid bare for all a nation to scorn.

Desperate and willing to do anything to win, the Clintons resorted to a naked form of racism aimed directly at white working-class voters in the rural portions of the state. Their message: Barack Obama cannot win because he’s black.

In the early stages of the campaign, it was Clinton’s cadre who kept playing the race card. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s co-chair, Billy Shaheen, accused Obama of being a drug dealer; then there was the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somali garb leaked to the press by Clinton’s staff.

In the aftermath of the South Carolina primary, former President Bill Clinton compared Obama’s victory to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. His message was clear: Obama was a marginal, black candidate.

[…]

To anyone who has followed the Clinton campaign closely, it is all too apparent that her top political strategists — reeling from losses from coast to coast and badly miscalculating the grassroots power of the Obama movement — made a tactical decision to go negative, as that would be the only way for Clinton to stop Obama and somehow allow her to steal the nomination.

And go negative they did — with a subtle yet consistent racism underscoring every turn.

Breitbart, supplerer med flere eksempler og et fact-check. Og for at det ikke skal være Breitbart det hele (tidligere Breitbart chef ) har den gode Jamie Glazov også en debat med Michael Cutler om hvorledes Hillary ikke gavner sortes interesser.

Og ifølge Breitbart, er der også en anti-Clinton bevægelse blandt Demokraterne, der mener at Hillary ikke gavner sin sag, ved at fremstå “unhinged”. Måske er hun blot uforståelig for hendes vælgere, der gerne vil høre hende “talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter”

(2:16 I’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump”) Og selvfølgelig har Trump ikke noget imod niggere.

Shia mod sunni

Saudi-arabien har til Irans store fortrydelse henrettet en shiamuslimsk imam. Diplomatiske forbindelser er sløjfet og truslerne om hævn hænger stadigt tykkere i luften. Sunni mod Shia med Saudiarabien og Iran hovedaktørerne i dette seneste kapitel i denne snart 1.400 år gamle islamiske krig ser ud til at blusse op igen. Charles Krauthammer koncentrerer sin analyse i National Review om Obamas udenrigspolitik

Commenting on Saudi Arabia executing an Iranian cleric, Krauthammer said, “I can’t say the Saudi execution of this Shiite cleric was very wise, but they did see it as in their national interest, and I think they are acting fairly desperately. Because they look around and their protector since the 1930s when King Saud met with FDR, and they essentially established this relationship — ‘you supply us oil, we protect you’ — is deeply in jeopardy.”

“They look at the way Obama has abandoned them,” Krauthammer continued. “The nuclear deal is just the culmination of the process. Abandoned them in Syria, abandoning the red line, has done nothing since the signing of the nuclear agreement.”

Krauthammer said the Saudis now worry about encirclement: “Iran has become increasingly aggressive in Syria. In Yemen, which is, remember, is right on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia – it’s not removed the way Syria is – and they see serious encirclement.”

Også i Wall Street Journal kan man læse om den amerikanske eftergivenhedspolitiks fallit

President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military aggression and greater anti-American hostility.

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran.

(…)

The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: The hard-liners run Iran.

Og for at tvære pointen helt ud “The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions”. “Change” var hvad folk ville have uden at vide hvad det rent faktisk indebar og så fik de forandring. En forandring til det værre fordi flertallet ikke kunne tænke.

Det hele er nu ikke Obamas skyld. Islam er en rådden verden og et kollaps eller endnu en krig er uundgåeligt uanset vestlig naivitet. Spengler tegner i Asia Times et dystert billede for Saudiarabien, som lider under faldende olipriser (hvilket Obama med sin anti-fracking politik ikke har hverken lod eller del i)

Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years, according to an October estimate by the International Monetary Fund (as I discussed here). The House of Saud relies on subsidies to buy the loyalty of the vast majority of its subjects, and its reduced spending power is the biggest threat to its rule. Last week Riyadh cut subsidies for water, electricity and gasoline. The timing of the executions may be more than coincidence: the royal family’s capacity to buy popular support is eroding just as its regional security policy has fallen apart.

For decades, Riyadh has presented itself as an ally of the West and a force for stability in the region, while providing financial support for Wahhabi fundamentalism around the world. China has been the kingdom’s largest customer as well as a provider of sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles. But China also has lost patience with the monarchy’s support for Wahhabi Islamists in China and bordering countries.

According to a senior Chinese analyst, the Saudis are the main source of funding for Islamist madrassas in Western China, where the “East Turkistan Independence Movement” has launched several large-scale terror attacks. Although the Saudi government has reassured Beijing that it does not support the homegrown terrorists, it either can’t or won’t stop some members of the royal family from channeling funds to the local jihadis through informal financial channels. “Our biggest worry in the Middle East isn’t oil—it’s Saudi Arabia,” the analyst said.

China’s Muslims—mainly Uyghurs in Western China who speak a Turkish dialect—are Sunni rather than Shia.  Like Russia, China does not have to worry about Iranian agitation among Shia jihadis, and tends to prefer Iran to the Sunni powers. As a matter of form, Beijing wants to appear even-handed in its dealings with Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example in recent contacts between their respective navies. Chinese analysts emphasize that Beijing has sold weapons to both—more in absolute to terms to Iran but more sophisticated weapons to the Saudis.

More pertinent than public diplomacy, though, is where China is buying its oil.

Nonetheless, China’s oil import data show a significant shift away from Saudi Arabia towards Russia and Oman (which China considers part of the Iranian sphere of influence). Russia’s oil exports to China have grown fourfold since 2010 while Saudi exports have stagnated. Given the world oil glut, China can pick and choose its suppliers, and it is hard to avoid the inference that Beijing is buying more from Russia for strategic reasons.  According to Russian sources, China also has allowed Russian oil companies to delay physical delivery of oil due under existing contracts, permitting Russia to sell the oil on the open market for cash—the equivalent of a cash loan to Russia.

Det er alt sammen meget spændende og man kunne jo nyde sine popcorn til øllerne, hvis ikke det var således at den vestlige naivitet havde importeret nisserne. Ifølge BBC er der stigende bekymring for at “the sectarian divides so bitterly apparent in much of the Middle East” mellem sunnimuslimer og shiamuslimer udvikler sig yderligere i England. En shiamuslim fortæller

“Even at Soas, a university I love, Sunnis and Shias have big arguments all the time,” says Anahita.

“And elsewhere in London, we have the same problem - Sunni and Shia arguing. You can clearly see it when you walk in Edgware Road or Kilburn.

“If you have a green bracelet or anything that shows you are Shia, they look at you as if you are not even Muslim, or you don’t exist. It’s very disrespectful, and very sad.

“Islamic societies in general and especially in London are getting bigger all the time. But not in a good way.”

En tilflyttet shiamuslim mærker nu hvordan muslimer behandler ikke muslimer - og så er det lige pludselig ikke godt at der bliver flere af de andre muslimer i London. Hvor flygter muslimerne næste gang hen, når de bliver mange nok?

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

Atomaftalen med Iran er måske ikke en garanti for fred i vor tid, men måske i stedet “Fred i vor tid!”. I hvert fald ser den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry ud til at have fået betænkeligheder ved at Irans indgroede had til Den Store Satan USA, der skal DØ! sammen med Israel oma. ikke forsvundetReuters skriver

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

Mere hos Memri. Bruce Thorntorn i Frontpage Magazine at atomatalen med Iran er en katastrofe

We also know who bears the responsibility for this fiasco––Barack Obama. Historically ignorant and terminally narcissistic, Obama has all the superstitions and delusions of the progressive elite. And one of the most persistent and hoary of those beliefs is the fetish of diplomacy as a means to resolve disputes without force.

We must remember that Obama pointedly ran on the promise to “reinvigorate” American diplomacy. This trope was in fact a way to run against George Bush, whom the Dems and the media had caricatured as a “cowboy” with an itchy trigger finger, a gunslinger scornful of diplomacy and multilateralism. That charge was a lie––Bush wasted several months on diplomacy in an unsuccessful attempt to get the U.N.’s sanction for the war, even though the U.S. Congress had approved it, Hussein was in gross violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and the U.N. already has passed 17 Security Council resolutions, all of which Hussein had violated.

Yet the narrative that Bush had “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war,” as then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put it, lived on. For the progressives committed to crypto-pacifism and to the belief that America is a guilty aggressor, the story was too politically useful. Obama, one of the most programmatic progressives in the Senate, embodied all those superstitions. As senator he continually criticized the war in Iraq, scorned the ultimately successful “surge” of troops in 2007 as a “reckless escalation” and a “mistake,” and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008.

As a presidential candidate, his whole foreign policy was predicated on his being the “anti-Bush” who would “reinvigorate diplomacy” and initiate “engagement” with all our enemies in order to defuse conflict and create peace. As president, Obama has been true to his word. He has apologized, groveled, bowed to potentates, “reset” relations with our rivals, shaken hands with thugs, and now talked Iran into being a nuclear power. As for “peace,” it is nowhere to be found as violence and atrocities multiply from Ukraine to Yemen, Tunisia to Afghanistan.

(…)

The belief that words alone can transcend this eternal truth of human nature––a belief deeply engrained in the mentality of our leaders and foreign policy establishment–– led to the disaster of World War II, and will despite this lesson of history lead to a lesser, but still dangerous, disaster.

But there is yet another factor in this debacle that must be acknowledged: the tendency of democracies to privilege short-term comfort over long-term threats. In democracies the use of force must have the assent of the voters, who in the U.S. every 2 years hold leaders accountable at the ballot box. Setbacks, mistakes, atrocities, casualties, and all the other unfortunately eternal contingencies of mass violence try the patience of voters, and citizen control of the military gives them a means of expressing their impatience or anger. As de Tocqueville recognized more than 150 years ago, “The people are more apt to feel than to reason; and if their present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten.” That pretty much sums up America’s response so far to Obama’s agreement.

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

(…)

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

Men det går fra farce til skandale. Obama underløber kongressen for at få sin aftale istand

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

“The astonishing thing, which no one has pointed out”, skriver den ægyptiske Imad Al-Din Adib, der sammenligner Iran-aftalen med Chamberlains München-aftale “is that even if Iran complies to the letter with the 85 sections of the agreement, the agreement itself, once its 10-year duration is up, allows [Iran] to produce a nuclear bomb in the 11th year.”

Obama og muslimerne

Diverse — Drokles on September 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Charles Krauthammer skriver i Washington Post

In the week following 9/11/12 something big happened: the collapse of the Cairo Doctrine, the centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was to reset the very course of post-9/11 America, creating, after the (allegedly) brutal depredations of the Bush years, a profound rapprochement with the Islamic world.

Never lacking ambition or self-regard, Obama promised in Cairo, June 4, 2009, “a new beginning” offering Muslims “mutual respect,” unsubtly implying previous disrespect. Curious, as over the previous 20 years, America had six times committed its military forces on behalf of oppressed Muslims, three times for reasons of pure humanitarianism (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo), where no U.S. interests were at stake.

But no matter. Obama had come to remonstrate and restrain the hyperpower that, by his telling, had lost its way after 9/11, creating Guantanamo, practicing torture, imposing its will with arrogance and presumption.

First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.

(…)It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist.

What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence?

obama-we-are-all-osama

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

obema-med-jc3b8dec3b8jne-og-jc3b8destarsnstripes

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

obama-som-abe-pa-flag

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

obamadukke-brc3a6ndes

Fra Washington Times

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.

politimandens-vantro

Billederne er hentet her

3. Internationale?

Diverse — Drokles on December 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm

Charles Krauthammer skriver i Washington Post at socialisterne har grebet klimaet, som et sidste våben i forsøget på at vælte deres gamle fjende Kapitalismen

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

(…)

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Og det er ikke helt så langt fra virkeligheden, som man kunne ønske sig, hvis man lytter til denne taler fra Københavns gader

De snakkende klassers viden

Diverse, Pressen — Drokles on September 16, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Fra Berlingske Tidende

I sit første interview efter udnævnelsen til Republikanernes vicepræsidentkandidat for to uger siden kunne Sarah Palin ikke svare på, om hun har en holdning til Bush-doktrinen - den centrale sikkerhedspolitiske rettesnor for den nuværende præsident, republikaneren George W. Bush.

Doktrinen blev til efter terrorangrebet på USA den 11. september 2001 og forbeholder USA ret til at præventive angreb på et andet land for at forsvare amerikanske interesser. Doktrinen var en central del af tankesættet bag invasionen af Irak i 2003.

»Er du enig med Bush-doktrinen,« spurgte studievært Charlie Gibson fra ABC News Palin.

»I hvilken forstand, Charlie,« spurgte hun tilbage.

»Ja, altså…hvordan fortolker du den,« spurgte en overrasket Gibson.

»Hans verdenssyn,« spurgte en stadig forvirret Palin.

»Altså Bush-doktrinen, som blev til i september 2002 før Irak-krigen,« lød det halvt hjælpsomt, halvt forbløffet fra Gibson.

»Jeg mener, at det præsident Bush har forsøgt at gøre er at rydde denne verden for ekstremistisk islamisme. Terrorister, som er djævelsk opsatte på at ødelægge vores land,« svarede Palin.

Morgenradioavisen fokuserede forleden på den pause på nogle pinefuldt lange sekunder fra spørgsmålet blev stillet, til Palin samlede sig nok til at fremstamme, hvad der skulle gøre det ud for et svar. Er det ikke for dårligt at en vicepræsidentkandidat ikke har almen viden? Hvor uvidende har man egentlig lov at være, hvis man står, som den næsten i køen til at lede verdens førende land? Jeg mener, kender vi ikke alle sammen Bushdoktrinen efterhånden? Charles Krauthammer er ikke så sikker i Washington Post

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge in his inaugural address that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

Hø, hø, hø, hvor er hun dog dum, tænkte journalisterne over en bred karm, der med deres sygeplerskerlange uddannelse tilhørte den boglige elite - ja hvis ikke intelligensiaen. I virkeligheden opførte de sig, som bønderkarlene, der skal afgøre de dannedes dyst på disputeren mellem den fordrukne degn og Erasmus Montanus. Hun er dum! fordi hun tøver, hun er dum fordi hun ikke aner, hvad hun bliver spurgt om, hun er dum fordi hun er ude af den. Som Charles Krauthammer rammende udlægger Gibsons holdning

….he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Meget af det had, der har ramt Pia Kjærsgaard har en del af det samme ophav.

Monokultur kører på WordPress