31. oktober 2017

USA: Hillary-fløj betalte for rapport, der ‘berettede om Trumps skandaler og samarbejde med russerne’

‘Leoparddrengen’, der har 21.000 følgere på Twitter, rettede søndag et angreb mod Berlingske, på grund af avisens bloggosfæriske ‘bataljon af hadspredende galninge’. Identiteten fik støtte fra Paula Larrain, tidligere vært på TV-avisen, der mente redaktør Tom Jensen burde ‘tage kritikken’ til efterretning. Hun var aktiv hos De Konservative for blot to valgperioder siden.

Jeg gætter på, at Larrain & Co. også er bekymret over Bent Blüdnikow-klummen ‘USA set med borgerlige briller’. Fra B.dk – Amerikanske journalister er i chok.

“I sidste uge kom en afsløring, der rystede journalisterne i den etablerede presse. Washington Post skrev tirsdag, at Hillary Clintons kampagnestab og Det demokratiske Partis organisation sammen havde betalt for den rapport om Donald Trump, der berettede om Trumps skandaler og samarbejde med russerne. Det var denne rapport, udarbejdet af den britiske fhv. efterretningsmand Christopher Steele, der berettede, at Trump havde været sammen med russiske ludere på et hotel og at de havde tisset i den seng, hvor præsident Obama og hans hustru tidligere havde sovet. Saftige sager hvoraf intet indtil nu er dokumenteret, men som blev gentaget og gentaget i amerikansk og europæisk presse.

Clinton-staben og Det demokratiske Partis organisation kanaliserede pengene hemmeligt gennem et advokatfirma ved navn Perkins Coie, som betalte et selskab ved navn Fusion GPS, der så igen havde fået fat i Cristopher Steele. Det vil sige, at Clinton-staben og demokraterne samlede smuds med baggrund i russiske kilder for at sværte en præsidentkandidat til. Clinton-folkene og demokraterne tav om deres aktive andel i kampagnen og løj systematisk over for journalisterne. Journalisterne var lette ofre, for de var så forhippede på at få noget skidt på Trump og hans stab, at de blindt troede på alle oplysninger. …

Sagen rejser spørgsmål om FBIs ageren generelt og endnu en sag ryster FBI, fordi det nu er kommet frem, at russerne betalte store beløb til Clinton-parrets fond i 2009-2010, samtidig med at russerne erhvervede rettigheder til forekomster af uran i USA. Det skete i den periode, hvor FBIs leder var Robert Mueller – ja, den samme Robert Mueller, som er sat til at undersøge om Trump-staben intrigerede med russerne. …

Wall Street Journals kommentator Kimberley A. Strassel skriver: ‘Hvis Steele-rapporten endte hos det demokratiske partis organisation og Clintons politiske medarbejdere, så kan du bande på, at den også havnede i Obamas Hvide Hus. Dette forklarer måske, hvorfor Obamas politiske aktører begyndte at aflytte Trump-staben. De ledte efter noget afslørende, noget der kunne diskvalificere Trumps kandidatur. …’

En af de interessante aspekter af de sensationelle nye afsløringer er, at journalisterne fra de etablerede medier, som har brugt store ressourcer for at finde noget snavs om Trump, nu er i chok.”



17. august 2017

Trump angribes for afbalanceret Charlottesville-kommentar – ‘Alt-left’ praler: “… we chased the Nazis”

Først fik Donald Trump stryg i medierne, fordi han efter Charlottesville-optøjerne pointerede, at volden kom fra begge sider af det politiske spektrum. Herefter trak han lidt i land, og tog entydig afstand fra voldelige racister. I seneste kommentar er han tilbage på sporet, og pointerer at ‘alt-left’ består af meget voldelige mennesker. En relativ afbalanceret Trump. Ekstra Bladet er selvfølgelig ligeglad med den slags detaljer, for det afgørende er ikke om begge sider var (lige) voldelige, men hvorvidt en ‘ex-KKK-leder’ takker Trump for fairness.

Barack Obama hyldede i sin tid som præsident flere gange Black Lives Matter-bevægelsen, og sidste sommer, kort efter en sort Black Lives Matter-sympatiserende aktivist myrdede fem politibetjente i Dallas, undgik han behændigt at sætte ord på gerningsmandens anti-hvide udgangspunkt.

Trump har de store medier mod sig, men de kan ikke vinkle sig ud af virkeligheden. Herunder seks udvalgte øjenvidneberetninger sakset fra Los Angeles Times – Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville? Here’s what witnesses say. Når man skærer retorikken fra, så siger højre- og venstrefløjen det samme som tilfældige iagttagere: Moddemonstranterne ville kampen, og fik den – til begge parters tilfredshed.

“Hunter Wallace, a far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: ‘The streets were not barricaded. Violent antifa [anti-fascists] were not penned in their own area as per our agreement with the Charlottesville Police Department, but were roaming the streets and blocking the entrance to Lee Park. They immediately launched an attack on our group with mace, pepper spray, bricks, sticks and foul liquids. The police stood idly by on the sidelines while a brawl was allowed to ensue. We had to fight our way into Lee Park and dozens of our people were injured by mace and pepper spray as we marched through the gauntlet.’

Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group: ‘With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.’

Jordan Green in the Nation, a leftist publication: ‘A phalanx of black-helmeted white supremacists — members of the Traditionalist Workers Party, Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and other hate warriors — commanded the steps at the southeast corner of the park, repelling attempted incursions by Wobblies, communists, and a multiracial cast of irregulars eager to fight back. Water bottles and other projectiles flew in both directions, while police tear-gas canisters thudded into an adjacent parking lot, oftentimes lobbed back into the park by plucky leftists.’

Unicorn Riot: ‘Police then pushed the white supremacists out of Emancipation Park, and closed the park…. Unable to continue rallying in the park, the white supremacists took to the streets, where they were quickly followed and confronted by anti-racists. Several more extremely violent fights took place, with police looking on from their nearby substation.’

University of Virginia student Isabella Ciambotti: ‘I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counter-protester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.’

Leftist anti-fascist organizers from Washington, D.C.: ‘Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move toward a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.'”

(Militante fra ‘Redneck Revolt’ med automatvåben, Charlottesville, 12. august 2017; Foto: NYT)

“In Charlottesville, about 20 members of a group called the Redneck Revolt, which describes itself as an anti-racist, anti-capitalist group dedicated to uniting working-class whites and oppressed minorities, carried rifles and formed a security perimeter around the counterprotesters in Justice Park, according to its website and social media.” (New York Times, 14. august 2017)

The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park. … Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 13. august 2017)

(‘Alt-Right scum your time has come’, Antifa-banner, Charlottesville, 12. august 2017; Foto: Buzzfeed)

“From the Midwest to the South, punch a Nazi in the mouth” (Antifa-tilråb, Twitter, 12. august 2017)



28. juli 2017

BT om ‘Trumps nye vanvidsskib’

Det er godt tolv år siden USA begyndte at bygge det 337 meter lange hangarskib USS Gerald R. Ford, der lørdag blev officielt indviet af præsident Donald Trump under en højtidelighed ved flådebasen i Norfolk, Virginia. Skibets lancering skulle oprindeligt have fundet sted i efteråret 2015.

Den slags detaljer er rare at have i baghovedet, når BT kalder hangarskibet for ‘Trumps nye vanvidsskib’, velvidende at beslutningen blev truffet under George W. Bush, og skulle have været lanceret under Barack H. Obama.

(BT, 25. juli 2017, ‘Trumps nye vanvidsskib’)

Oploadet Kl. 10:54 af Kim Møller — Direkte link25 kommentarer


13. april 2017

USA: Obama-rådgiver søgte efterretninger om ‘Trumps kampagnestabs møder og politiske intentioner’

Det siger alt om mediernes indspisthed, at de på den ene side kan angribe Trump-lejren med baggrund i lækkede efterretninger om russiske forbindelser, og samtidig kan affærdige aflytning af Trump-lejren som værende fake news. Ikke alle alternative vinklinger er i sagens natur gode, men to plus to giver stadig fire.

Bent Blüdnikow gennemgår sagen i Berlingske – Obamas medarbejder søgte efterretningsoplysninger om Trumps folk – det er ikke ‘fake news’.

“Da præsident Trump tweetede, at fhv. præsident Barack Obama havde ‘aflyttet’ ham, beskrev de etablerede medier som New York Times, Washington Post og CNN det som en fuldkommen udokumenteret påstand. I sidste uge kom det imidlertid frem, at Obamas sikkerhedsrådgiver Susan Rice i en række tilfælde bad om at se identiteten på de Trump-medarbejdere, som var nævnt i efterretningstjenesternes rapporter.

I første omgang nægtede Susan Rice at svare på henvendelser om sagen fra flere journalister, men i løbet af tirsdagen sagde hun til MSNBC, at hun ganske rigtigt havde bedt om at få identiteten oplyst på flere Trump-medarbejdere, men at dette var normal procedure, lovligt og at hun ikke havde gjort det af politiske årsager, men for at forstå de efterretningsrapporter, som hun havde læst, rigtigt i dybden. Hun sagde, at hun ikke havde lækket disse navne og at anklagen var ‘komplet falsk.’

Efterretningsrapporterne indeholdt, ifølge oplysninger fra bl.a. Drudge Report, konklusioner om samtaler, der var optaget mellem udenlandske diplomater, der talte om Trumps hold. De omfattede også nogle gange kommunikation mellem Trumps folk og udenlandske diplomater. Rapporterne indeholdt følsomme oplysninger om, hvem Trump mødtes med og deres holdninger til udenrigspolitik.

Denne nye udvikling styrker mistanken om, at Trump måske alligevel havde fat i noget rigtigt, da han 4. marts erklærede i et tweet, at Obama havde ‘aflyttet mig’ i Trump Tower. Sagen om Rice er desuden interessant, fordi New York Times under valgkampen kunne nævne personer fra Trumps hold, som efterretningstjenesten var interesseret i på grund af deres russiske kontakter.

Mens de borgerlige medier forfølger sagen intenst, så har mainstream medier som New York Times, Washington Post og CNN været meget langsomme med at følge op på sagen. … I disse medier er det stadig Trump-folkenes evt. samarbejde med russerne for at vinde valget, der er den eneste historie.

Interessant i den sammenhæng er Wall Street Journal, der er borgerlig, men har lagt sig på en Trump-kritisk linje. Avisen har en høj grad af troværdighed og den har nu i tre ledere i sidste uge beskæftiget sig med Susan Rice-sagen:

‘Vores kilde bekræfter, at Rice også undersøgte dusinvis af andre efterretningsprapporters konklusioner, som teknisk skjuler Trump-folks identiteter, men var skrevet på en sådan måde, at det blev åbenlyst, hvem de var. Dette betød, at tilsløringen i hovedsagen var meningsløs. Alt dette er højst usædvanligt og bekymrende (…) Rice havde intet logisk behov for at afsløre Trump-kampagnens ansatte andet end af politisk nysgerrighed (…) Vi har fået at vide af en kilde, der har set de afslørede dokumenter, at de omfattede politisk information om Trumps kampagnestabs møder og politiske intentioner.

Wall Street Journal kritiserer i lederen demokraterne og den etablerede presse for ikke at tage sagen alvorligt: ‘Intet af dette skal hindre undersøgere i at kigge efter Trumps russiske forbindelser. Se endelig efter hvor de oplysninger leder hen. Men medierne er løbet som vilde bæster efter den historie og ignorerer, hvordan Obama-administrationen muligvis har misbrugt indenrigsk overvågning til politiske mål. Amerikanerne fortjener at kende sandheden om begge sager.'”

Oploadet Kl. 07:36 af Kim Møller — Direkte link9 kommentarer


25. januar 2017

Om venstremilitans i USA: “… you can be a violent leftist radical and go on to live a pretty kickass life.”

Lidt for langt, men spækket med detaljer, der aldrig bliver til en dokumentar sendt på en af public service-kanalerne. Fra Status 451 – Days of Rage

“‘People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States.’ — Max Noel, FBI (ret.)

Recently, I had my head torn off by a book: Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage, about the 1970s underground. It’s the most important book I’ve read in a year. … One thing that Burrough returns to in Days of Rage, over and over and over, is how forgotten so much of this stuff is. Puerto Rican separatists bombed NYC like 300 times, killed people, shot up Congress, tried to kill POTUS (Truman). Nobody remembers it.

Also, people don’t want to remember how much leftist violence was actively supported by mainstream leftist infrastructure. I’ll say this much for righty terrorist Eric Rudolph: the sonofabitch was caught dumpster-diving in a rare break from hiding in the woods. During his fugitive days, Weatherman’s Bill Ayers was on a nice houseboat paid for by radical lawyers. ..

[…]

In the end, the Weather’s fugitives turned themselves in with little trouble. To give you an idea: Bill Ayers was scott-free. Cathy Wilkerson did a year. Bernardine Dohrn got three years probation and a $1500 fine. The radical lawyers, accessories to Weather’s bombings? Nada. Zip. Zero.

They did pretty well afterwards. Bernardine Dohrn was a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University for more than twenty years. Another Weatherman, Eleanor Stein, was arrested on the run in 1981; she got a law degree in 1986 and became an administrative law judge. Radical attorney Michael Kennedy, who did more than any to keep Weather alive, has been special advisor to President of the UN General Assembly. And, of course, Barack Obama, twice President of the United States, started his political career in Bill Ayers’s living room.

This is the difference between the hard Left & hard Right: you can be a violent leftist radical and go on to live a pretty kickass life. This is especially true if you’re a leftist of the credentialed class: Ph.D. or J.D.

The big three takeaways for me about Weatherman, when it comes to political violence in America as we might see it in 2016:

– Radicalism can come from anywhere. The Weathermen weren’t oppressed, or poor, or anything like that. They were hard leftists. That’s it.

– Sustained political violence is dependent on the willing cooperation of admirers and accomplices. The Left has these. The Right does not.’

– Not a violent issue, but a political one: ethnic issues involving access to power can both empower and derail radical movements.”

Oploadet Kl. 20:29 af Kim Møller — Direkte link7 kommentarer

Ny billeddokumentation: Ekstra Bladet erkender manipuleret sammenligning – ‘Trump fans jubler’

Det er selvfølgelig godt at Ekstra Bladet erkender egen fejl, men symptomatisk for MSM så vælges der en ‘Trump fans jubler’-vinkel. Journalistik handler ikke om håneretten, og ret beset så er det uinteressant hvem der jubler. Som man tydeligt kan se på CNN’s Inauguration Megapixel, der er taget i samme sekund Trump tages i ed, så er The Mall relativt tætpakket helt frem til det store hvide medietelt. Hvis medierne manipulerer om en tv-dækket begivenhed, hvor langt går de så, når de ikke risikerer at blive fældet af billeddokumentation.

Fra EB.dk – Trump fans jubler efter foto-indrømmelse: Og linker stolt til mega-foto

“- Jeg kan godt forstå at Trump teamet brokker sig over en unfair fremstilling.

– Der var store problemer/forsinkelser med sikkerhedstjek (og udfordringer med trafik i byen) osv., så mange kom først ind meget sent før kl. 12.

– Så at vise et billede fra kl. 11 er en bevidst fordrejning.

Sådan skriver nationens! Don Deal i en af de mere end 5500 kommentarer, der er skrevet om antallet af fremmødte mennesker til Donald Trumps indsættelsesfest.

– CNN’s Gigapixel billede fra lidt over 12 viser et noget andet billede end det ovenstående, som medierne bruger til sammenligningen.

– Udover at bruge et ‘fordrejet’ billede, kom medierne så også med et super lavt estimat på kun 250.000 fremmødte.

(Screencap: Dr.dk, 21. januar 2017 – Sammenlign billedet til venstre med Megapixel-billederne)

Hele Danmarks Radio i citat.

Da Barack Obama blev indsat som præsident i 2009, var the National Mall foran USA’s kongresbygning sort af mennesker. I går var billedet et noget andet, da indsættelsen af Donald Trump fandt sted. Det viser luftfotos af pladsen, der er taget 45 minutter inden indsættelsesceremonien gik i gang. Sammenligner man de to luftbilleder, er der stor forskel på antallet af mennesker, der er mødt op.” (DR Nyheder, 21. januar 2017)

“Flere medier, blandt andet New York Times og DR Nyheder, bragte i går to luftfotos, der sammenlignende fremmødet ved Trumps indsættelse fredag med Barack Obamas indsættelse i 2009. Begge billeder var taget 45 minutter før indsættelsesceremonien… Flere medier har med hjælp fra eksperter estimeret, at omkring 250.000 mennesker var mødt op ved indsættelsesceremonien, men det tal, bestrider præsident Donald Trump. Da Barack Obama blev indsat som præsident i 2009, blev det vurderet, at omkring 1,8 millioner mennesker var til stede.” (DR Nyheder, 22. januar 2017)

Oploadet Kl. 03:42 af Kim Møller — Direkte link18 kommentarer


21. januar 2017

Et par ord om mediedækningen af Trumps indsættelse: ‘A work of fiction inspired by the truth’

Jeg gik hurtigt kold i live-dækningen, men det umiddelbare indtryk forklares i slutscenen af In the heart of the Sea, hvor den unge forfatter Herman Melville forklarer den aldrende Thomas Nickerson, at bogen om hans dramatiske hvalfangst vil blive ‘A work of fiction inspired by the truth’.

Intet symboliserer demokrati bedre end en fredelig overgang mellem folkevalgte præsidenter, men de mange udfald mod Trumps legitmitet, blev ikke set som et angreb på demokratiet som sådan. Hele 26 demokrater valgte at blive væk fra indsættelsen, herunder borgerrettighedsforkæmperen John Lewis, der forleden pointerede, at han ikke mente var Trump var ‘a legitimate president’. Da George W. Bush for seksten år siden blev indsat, blev han væk fordi han ikke mente Bush var ‘the true elected president’.

Militante venstreradikale grupperinger havde på forhånd proklameret at ceremonien skulle drukne i kaos, og DR Nyheder kan eksempelvis vise billeder af flere hundrede maskerede af slagsen der smadrer forretningsfacader og biler – i et indslag og en artikel der taler om ’sortklædte aktivister’. Havde ‘Bikers for Trump’ hærget på samme måde, så havde medierne talt om voldelige højreekstremister, og end ikke overvejet ‘aktivist’-etiketten.

Washington DC er fjendeland for Republikanerne og i særdeleshed for Donald Trump, og det afspejler sig naturligvis i antallet af fremmødte. ‘Tyndt fremmøde til Trumps indsættelse’, skrev TV2.dk, hvad også blev en større sag på EB.dk, der sammenligner med det rekordstore fremmøde ved indsættelsen af Barack Obama for otte år siden.

Der findes ikke perfekt talmateriale, men Donald Trump samlede formentligt et sted mellem 700.00 og 900.000 tilhørere. Væsentligt flere end Ronald Reagan og de to Bush’er, og på niveau med Bill Clinton indsættelse i 1993. På ingen måde en pr-katastrofe, men alt afhænger naturligvis af vinklen.

(Foto: EB.dk, 20. januar 2017)

(Barack Obamas indsættelse, 20. januar 2009; NBC Washington)

(Donald Trumps indsættelse, 20. januar 2017; TV2 News)

Tre citater fra indsættelsestalen.

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.”

“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.”

“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.”

Oploadet Kl. 00:39 af Kim Møller — Direkte link61 kommentarer


31. oktober 2016

Overblik: Hillary Clintons private emailserver – De mest ødelæggende Wikileaks…

Det kan være svært at finde hoved og hale i Hillary Clintons email-sag. Henrik Ræder Clausen giver et overblik.

“I sin tid som udenrigsminister brugte Clinton ikke det officielle e-mail system, men i stedet en privat server, som hun fik stillet op hjemme. Det var der flere grunde til – selv citerer hun bekvemmelighed, Colin Powell citeres for at have foreslået, at det ville være en effektiv måde at omgå USA’s lovgivning om offentlighed i forvaltningen.

Som Udenrigsminister har man naturligvis adgang til statshemmeligheder på højeste niveau, og en del af dem er gået igennem hendes server – det er fastslået tidligere. Hun påstår selv, at hun ikke har fået vejledning i at omgås fortroligt materiale, men det modsiges af en erklæring, der bærer hendes underskrift.

Ved den tidligere undersøgelse blev Clinton pålagt at udlevere hele indholdet fra serveren. Efter at have modtaget rettens ordre, gennemgik hun og hendes medarbejdere indholdet, besluttede hvad de ville overdrage til retten, og slettede de øvrige med Bit Bleacher. Det udgør destruktion af bevismateriale – ligesom da de hamrede telefoner og iPads i stykker i stedet for at udlevere dem.

Hvor alvorligt er den slags så? Mine amerikanske venner, der kender til håndtering af statshemmeligheder, tøver ikke: ‘Varetægtsfængsling indtil skadens omfang er kortlagt. Derefter en retssag med en ikke helt lille straframme.’

At Hillary Clinton har undgået retsforfølgelse indtil nu er pinligt for det amerikanske retssystem, der har et professionelt ansvar for at kunne identificere lovbrud, og for at retsforfølge overtrædelser uden hensyn til, hvor fine forbindelser, folk måtte have. Dermed har det tidligere frafald af retsforfølgelse udgjort en korruption af retssystemet som sådan, hvilket FBI nu søger at rette op på.

Der er andre gode grunde til at Trump sagde til Clinton, at hun fortjener at ende i fængsel – dette må være tilstrækkeligt her og nu.”

Flere tusinde emails er lækket af Wikileaks. Herunder en række overskrifter fra The Top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks (so far). Kontekst og link på siden.

1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence).

2. Hillary Clinton dreams of completely ‘open borders’

3. Hillary Clinton received money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

5. Paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies

7. Top Hillary aides mock Catholics for their faith

8. Hillary deleted her incriminating emails. State covered it up. Asked about using White House executive privilege to hide from Congress.

9. Bribery: King of Morocco gave Clinton Foundation $12 million for a meeting with Hillary, 6 months later Morocco gets weapons

10. State Department tried to bribe FBI to un-classify Clinton emails (FBI docs)

14. Bill Clinton receives $1 million ‘birthday gift’ from ISIS-funding Qatar while Hillary was SoS, Qatar receives arms flow increases of 1,482%

15. Hillary campaign prays for shooters in news stories to be white

20. CNN leaked primary debate question to Hillary through head of DNC

21. Democrats created fake Trump ‘grope under the meeting table’ Craigslist employment ad in May 2016

23. Rigging media polls through oversampling

24. ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’ How millions of dollars were raised for the Clintons. Blurred lines between personal and Foundation money

29. Hillary took money from foreigners for campaign (illegal)

33. List of reporters that Hillary wined and dined, including biggest journalists and pundits of CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, and a lot more. Off the record.

36. Racist remarks about Blacks and Muslims

37. Hillary’s poor health (collapsing, memory loss, drug research)

44. Billionaire George Soros has influence over Hillary, ties to election fraud in systems used for U.S. voting

59. Plotting to attack Obama because ‘his father was a Muslim’

66. Hillary tweaks her policies based on donors’ wants

68. Illegally coordinating with Priorities USA, a SuperPAC funded by George Soros

75. Staging fake anti-Trump protest, conspiring with Univision CEO

82. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in direct contact with the Hillary campaign

98. Clinton campaign memorized their email cover-up script

Oploadet Kl. 11:13 af Kim Møller — Direkte link19 kommentarer


15. august 2016

Victor Davis Hanson: “the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior”

Inspireret af denne artikel, pointerede jeg i en Facebook-debat i går, at det der drev historien frem, ikke var økonomi som tidligere, men internationalisme/nationalisme, identitet. At der derfor ikke var videre forskel på en mand som Bonnichsen, Rohde-segmentet og Enhedslistens internationale socialister. En århusiansk lektor kommenterede mit (otte linjer lange) oprids med ordene: “Sikke meget sludder man kan skrive på kun fem linjer. Er du beruset?”, og kaldte det for en ‘konspiration’. Ham om det. Jeg sov som en baby i nat.

Et lidt tørt, men fremragende indlæg af historiker Victor Davis Hanson hos City Journal – Imagine There’s No Border.

“Borders are in the news as never before. … Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term ‘illegal alien’ has given way to the nebulous ‘unlawful immigrant.’ This, in turn, has given way to ‘undocumented immigrant,’ ‘immigrant,’ or the entirely neutral ‘migrant’—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.

Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of ‘borders discourse.’ What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the ‘other’—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. ‘Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,’ as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics.

… Undaunted, the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior, a triumph over artificially imposed difference.
Yet the truth is that borders do not create difference—they reflect it. Elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive.

… Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a ‘citizen of the world.’ Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside…

While elites can build walls or switch zip codes to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups—Peggy Noonan described them as the ‘protected’ and the ‘unprotected’—was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico ‘an act of love,’ his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital and influence to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family—in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg offers another case study. The multibillionaire advocates for a fluid southern border and lax immigration enforcement, but he has also stealthily spent $30 million to buy up four homes surrounding his Palo Alto estate. They form a sort of no-man’s-land defense outside his own Maginot Line fence, presumably designed against hoi polloi who might not share Zuckerberg’s taste or sense of privacy. Zuckerberg’s other estate in San Francisco is prompting neighbors’ complaints because his security team takes up all the best parking spaces. Walls and border security seem dear to the heart of the open-borders multibillionaire—when it’s his wall, his border security.

Academics may now caricature borders, but key to their posturing is either an ignorance of, or an unwillingness to address, why tens of millions of people choose to cross borders in the first place, leaving their homelands, language fluency, or capital—and at great personal risk. The answer is obvious, and it has little to do with natural resources or climate: migration, as it was in Rome during the fifth century AD, or as it was in the 1960s between mainland China and Hong Kong—and is now in the case of North and South Korea—has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations.

Western rules that promote a greater likelihood of consensual government, personal freedom, religious tolerance, transparency, rationalism, an independent judiciary, free-market capitalism, and the protection of private property combine to offer the individual a level of prosperity, freedom, and personal security rarely enjoyed at home. As a result, most migrants make the necessary travel adjustments to go westward—especially given that Western civilization, uniquely so, has usually defined itself by culture, not race, and thus alone is willing to accept and integrate those of different races who wish to share its protocols. …

Even the most adamant ethnic chauvinists who want to erase the southern border assume that some sort of border is central to their own racial essence. The National Council of La Raza (‘the race’; Latin, radix) is the largest lobbying body for open borders with Mexico. Yet Mexico itself supports the idea of boundaries. Mexico City may harp about alleged racism in the United States directed at its immigrants, but nothing in U.S. immigration law compares with Mexico’s 1974 revision of its ‘General Law of Population’ and its emphasis on migrants not upsetting the racial makeup of Mexico—euphemistically expressed as preserving ‘the equilibrium of the national demographics.’ In sum, Mexican nationals implicitly argue that borders, which unfairly keep them out of the United States, are nonetheless essential to maintaining their own pure raza.

Mexico, in general, furiously opposes enforcing the U.S.–Mexican border and, in particular, the proposed Trump wall that would bar unauthorized entry into the U.S.—not on any theory of borders discourse but rather because Mexico enjoys fiscal advantages in exporting its citizens northward, whether in ensuring nearly $30 billion in remittances, creating a powerful lobby of expatriates in the U.S., or finding a safety valve for internal dissent. … When Latino youths disrupt a Donald Trump rally, they often wave Mexican flags or flash placards bearing slogans such as ‘Make America Mexico Again.’ But note the emotional paradox: in anger at possible deportation, undocumented aliens nonsensically wave the flag of the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to, while ignoring the flag of the nation in which they adamantly wish to remain.

Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side, a reflection of the singularity of one entity in comparison with another. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen—and can be so understood—as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.”



9. august 2016

Plakat i DR-vært Lise Rønnes spisestue: ‘Foreigners, please don’t leave us alone with the Danes’

Boligportalen Boliga fortæller, at DR-vært Lise Rønne har sat sit hus på Østerbro til salg for 9,5 millioner kr. På Nybolig.dk kan man se et smagfuldt indrettet hjem, hvor der er kælet for detaljerne. I spisestuen hænger en Barack Obama-plakat, og værre – Superflex’ selvhadske værk: ‘Foreigners, please don’t leave us alone with the Danes’.

(Foto: Udsnit fra Nybolig.dk)

Oploadet Kl. 04:00 af Kim Møller — Direkte link37 kommentarer
Arkiveret under:
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 

Næste side »



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper