Terrorisme: Attention, un aveuglement peut en cacher un autre (Rhetorical tricks aside, the reality is that during Obama’s tenure scores of innocent Americans have been murdered on U.S. soil by jihadists, mostly inspired by or acting under the direction of foreign terror groups)

26 février, 2017
https://pibillwarner.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/26581-terrorthreatsnapshot_sept_website.png?w=450&h=428
https://infogram.io/p/dea9a0118ed0319648c2609ed7d0088a.png
https://swedishsurveyor.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/immigrationeurope.jpg?w=451&h=353
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/pics/932.jpg
Daech dispose d’équipements militaires nombreux, rustiques mais aussi lourds et sophistiqués. Plus que d’une mouvance terroriste, nous sommes confrontés à une véritable armée encadrée par des militaires professionnels. Quel est le docteur Frankenstein qui a créé ce monstre ? Affirmons-le clairement, parce que cela a des conséquences : ce sont les États-Unis. Par intérêt politique à court terme, d’autres acteurs – dont certains s’affichent en amis de l’Occident – d’autres acteurs donc, par complaisance ou par volonté délibérée, ont contribué à cette construction et à son renforcement. Mais les premiers responsables sont les Etats-Unis. Général Vincent Desportes (17.12.2014)
We should take great pride in the progress that we’ve made over the last eight years. That’s the bottom line. No foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland. (…) The most deadly attacks on the homeland over the last eight years have not been carried out by operatives with sophisticated networks or equipment directed from abroad. “They’ve been carried out by home-grown and largely isolated individuals who were radicalized online. Barack Hussein Obama (MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Fla., Dec. 6, 2016)
L’Amérique est un endroit meilleur et plus fort qu’il ne l’était quand nous avons commencé. (…) Si je vous avais dit il y a huit ans que l’Amérique renverserait une grande récession, redémarrerait notre industrie automobile et entammerait la plus longue période de création d’emplois de notre histoire … si je vous avais dit que nous ouvririons un nouveau chapitre avec le peuple cubain , que nous fermerions le programme d’armes nucléaires de l’Iran sans tirer un coup de feu, et tuer le cerveau des attentats du 9/11 … si je vous avais dit que nous gagnerions l’égalité au mariage et le droit à l’assurance maladie pour 20 millions de nos concitoyens – Vous auriez pu dire que nos objectifs étaient un peu trop élevés. (…) Les relations raciales sont meilleures qu’avant, croyez-moi, mais nous se sommes pas encore où nous devons être. (…) En raison de l’extraordinaire courage de nos hommes et de nos femmes en uniforme, des officiers du renseignement, des forces de l’ordre et des diplomates qui les soutiennent, aucune organisation terroriste étrangère n’a planifié et exécuté avec succès une attaque dans notre pays ces huit dernières années. Et bien que Boston et Orlando nous rappellent à quel point la radicalisation peut être dangereuse, nos forces de l’ordre sont plus efficaces et plus vigilantes que jamais. Barack Hussein Obama (Chicago, 10.01.2017)
Regardez ce qui se passe en Allemagne, regardez ce qui s’est passé hier soir en Suède. La Suède, qui l’aurait cru ? La Suède. Ils ont accueilli beaucoup de réfugiés, et maintenant ils ont des problèmes comme ils ne l’auraient jamais pensé. Donald Trump
La sécurité nationale commence par la sécurité aux frontières. Les terroristes étrangers ne pourront pas frapper l’Amérique s’ils ne peuvent entrer dans notre pays. Regardez ce qui se passe en Europe! Regardez ce qui passe en Europe! J’adore la Suède mais les gens là-bas comprennent que j’ai raison. J’ai un ami, c’est quelqu’un de très très important. Il adore la Ville lumière. Pendant des années, tous les étés, il allait à Paris, avec sa femme et sa famille. Je ne l’avais pas vu depuis longtemps et j’ai dit “Jim, comment va Paris?”; “Je n’y vais plus. Paris n’est plus Paris. Il n’aurait jamais raté une occasion. Aujourd’hui, il n’envisage même plus d’y aller. Donald Trump
Je ne ferai pas de comparaison, mais ici il n’y a pas de circulation d’armes, il n’y a pas de personnes qui prennent des armes pour tirer dans la foule. François Hollande
Examinant mon passeport, il relève que j’ai bénéficié récemment d’un visa « J1 », accordé notamment aux universitaires. J’ai été, en effet, professeur invité à l’Université Columbia de New York, de septembre 2016 à janvier 2017. Il conclut que je suis donc revenu travailler « illégalement » avec un visa expiré. J’ai beau expliquer que ma situation n’a rien d’anormal, sinon l’université n’aurait pas pu m’inviter, rien n’y fait. N’étant pas en possession d’un document fédéral m’autorisant à travailler aux États-Unis, je suis en infraction. La décision sera confirmée plus tard par son supérieur hiérarchique – que je n’aurai pas la possibilité de rencontrer. (…) Vers 21h, il reste une demi-douzaine de personnes, somnolentes et inquiètes, un Africain ne parlant pas bien l’anglais, les autres sans doute d’origine latino-américaine. Je suis apparemment le seul Européen – le seul « blanc ». Arrivent alors deux officiers de police. Ils se dirigent vers le monsieur assis devant moi, peut-être un Mexicain, bien mis de sa personne. Ils lui montrent un billet d’avion et lui disent qu’ils vont l’emmener. Invité à se lever, il est alors menotté, enchaîné à la taille, et entravé aux chevilles. Je n’en crois pas mes yeux. Des images d’esclaves me traversent l’esprit: la policière qui lui met les fers aux pieds est une Africaine-Américaine, vaguement gênée. J’imagine le temps qu’il va mettre pour rejoindre la porte d’embarquement. Je me demande surtout si c’est le même sort qui nous attend. Je préfère croire que lui a commis un délit sérieux. J’apprendrai par la suite que « c’est la procédure ». Cette façon de faire – proprement indigne – serait exigée par les compagnies aériennes. Je ne suis pas sûr, au demeurant, que les conditions d’expulsion soient plus humaines chez nous.A 1h 30 du matin – cela fait plus de 26 heures que j’ai quitté mon domicile parisien – je vois une certaine agitation. Une policière vient vers moi et me demande quelle est ma destination finale aux États-Unis et si quelqu’un m’attend à l’aéroport. (…) Quelques minutes plus tard, un policier au ton cette fois amical me rend mon téléphone et mon passeport, dûment tamponné, et me déclare autorisé à entrer aux États-Unis. Les restrictions qui m’ont été imposées sont levées, ajoute-t-il, sans que je puisse savoir ce qui va rester dans leurs fichiers. Il m’explique que le fonctionnaire qui a examiné mon dossier était « inexpérimenté » et ne savait pas que certaines activités, dont celles liées à la recherche et à l’enseignement, bénéficiaient d’un régime d’exception et pouvaient parfaitement être menées avec un simple visa touristique. « Il ne savait pas ». Abasourdi, je lui demande, ou plutôt je déclare que c’était donc une erreur. Il ne me répond pas. Il me laisse simplement entendre qu’ayant, lui, une longue expérience, il a vu le problème en prenant son poste en début de nuit. Il aura l’amabilité de me raccompagner à la sortie d’un aéroport totalement désert, m’indiquant l’adresse d’un hôtel dans la zone portuaire. À aucun moment, ni lui, ni ses collègues ne se sont excusés. En réalité, ma libération n’a rien eu de fortuit. Elle est la conséquence de l’intervention de mon collègue auprès du président de l’université Texas A & M, d’une professeure de droit chargée des questions d’immigration, et de plusieurs avocats. Sans eux, j’aurais été conduit menotté, enchaîné, et entravé à l’embarquement pour Paris. Historien de métier, je me méfie des interprétations hâtives. Cet incident a occasionné pour moi un certain inconfort, difficile de le nier. Je ne peux, cependant, m’empêcher de penser à tous ceux qui subissent ces humiliations et cette violence légale sans les protections dont j’ai pu bénéficier. J’y pense d’autant plus que j’ai connu l’expulsion et l’exil dans mon enfance. Pour expliquer ce qui s’est passé, j’en suis rendu aux conjectures. Pourquoi le contrôle aléatoire est-il tombé sur moi? Je ne le sais pas mais ce n’est pas le fruit du hasard. Mon « cas » présentait un problème avant même l’examen approfondi de mon visa. Peut-être est-ce mon lieu de naissance, l’Egypte, peut-être ma qualité d’universitaire, peut-être mon récent visa de travail expiré, pourtant sans objet ici, peut-être aussi ma nationalité française. Peut-être aussi le contexte. Quand bien même aurais-je commis une erreur, ce qui n’est pas le cas, cela méritait-il pareil traitement? Comment expliquer ce zèle, évident, de la part du policier qui m’a examiné et de son supérieur hiérarchique sinon par le souci de faire du chiffre et de justifier, au passage, ces contrôles accrus? J’étais d’autant plus « intéressant » que je ne tombais pas dans la catégorie habituelle des « déportables ». Telle est donc la situation aujourd’hui. Il faut désormais faire face outre-Atlantique à l’arbitraire et à l’incompétence la plus totale. Je ne sais ce qui est le pire. Ce que je sais, aimant ce pays depuis toujours, c’est que les États-Unis ne sont plus tout à fait les États-Unis. Henry Rousso
La chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et les Premiers ministres des 16 Landers allemands ont conclu jeudi un accord visant à faciliter les expulsions de réfugiés dont la demande d’asile a été rejetée. Les expulsions sont normalement du ressort des landers, mais Merkel souhaite coordonner un certain nombre de choses au niveau fédéral pour accélérer les procédures. Le gouvernement fédéral veut s’accaparer plus de pouvoirs pour refuser des permis de séjour et effectuer lui-même les expulsions. L’un des objectifs centraux du plan en 16 points est de construire un centre de rapatriement à Potsdam (Berlin) qui comptera un représentant pour chaque lander. En outre, il prévoit la création de centres d’expulsion à proximité des aéroports pour faciliter les expulsions collectives. Un autre objectif est de faciliter l’expulsion des immigrants qui présentent un danger pour la sécurité du pays et de favoriser les «retours volontaires» d’autres migrants par le biais d’incitations financières s’ils acceptent de quitter le pays avant qu’une décision ait été prise au regard de leur demande d’asile. Une somme de 40 millions d’euros est consacrée à ce projet. Selon le ministère allemand de l’Intérieur, 280.000 migrants ont sollicité l’asile en Allemagne en 2016. C’est trois fois moins que les 890.000 de l’année précédente, au plus fort de la crise des réfugiés en Europe. Près de 430 000 demandes d’asile sont encore en cours d’instruction. L’Express
When President Trump last week raised Sweden’s problematic experience with open door immigration, skeptics were quick to dismiss his claims. Two days later an immigrant suburb of Stockholm was racked by another riot. No one was seriously injured, though the crowd burned cars and hurled stones at police officers. Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Sweden’s current problems. If anything, he understated them. Sweden took in about 275,000 asylum-seekers from 2014-16—more per capita than any other European country. Eighty percent of those who came in 2015 lacked passports and identification, but a majority come from Muslim nations. Islam has become Sweden’s second-largest religion. In Malmö, our third-largest city, Mohamed is the most common name for baby boys. The effects are palpable, starting with national security. An estimated 300 Swedish citizens with immigrant backgrounds have traveled to the Middle East to fight for Islamic State. Many are now returning to Sweden and are being welcomed back with open arms by our socialist government. In December 2010 we had our first suicide attack on Swedish soil, when an Islamic terrorist tried to blow up hundreds of civilians in central Stockholm while they were shopping for Christmas presents. Thankfully the bomber killed only himself. Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life. Police officers, firefighters and ambulance personnel are regularly attacked. Serious riots in 2013, involving many suburbs with large immigrant populations, lasted for almost a week. Gang violence is booming. Despite very strict firearm laws, gun violence is five times as common in Sweden, in total, as in the capital cities of our three Nordic neighbors combined. Anti-Semitism has risen. Jews in Malmö are threatened, harassed and assaulted in the streets. Many have left the city, becoming internal refugees in their country of birth. The number of sex crimes nearly doubled from 2014-15, according to surveys by the Swedish government body for crime statistics. One-third of Swedish women report that they no longer feel secure in their own neighborhoods, and 12% say they don’t feel safe going out alone after dark. A 1996 report from the same government body found that immigrant men were far likelier to commit rape than Swedish men.  (…) Our nation’s culture hasn’t been spared either. Artists accused of insulting Islam live under death threats. Dance performances and art exhibitions have been called off for fear of angering Islamists. Schools have prohibited the singing of traditional Christian hymns because they don’t want to “insult” non-Christian immigrants. Yet reports made with hidden cameras by journalists from Swedish public media show mosques teaching fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. Sweden’s government now spends an incredible amount of money caring for newly arrived immigrants each year. The unemployment rate among immigrants is five times as high as that of native Swedes. Among some groups, such as Somalis, in places like Malmö unemployment reaches 80%. Jimmie Åkesson and Mattias Karlsson
Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe, author Naomi Wolf said on the BBC’s Newsnight programme recently. (…) The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants – of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world. This was three times higher than the number of cases in the same year in Sweden’s next-door neighbour, Norway, and twice the rate in the United States and the UK. It was more than 30 times the number in India, which recorded about two offences per 100,000 people. On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries. But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries’ records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely. « In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics, » she says. « So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record – one victim, one type of crime, one record. » The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden – it’s almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010. So something’s going on. But Klara Selin says the statistics don’t represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked. The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn’t deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place – a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010. « There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes. Due to the internet, for example, it’s much easier these days to meet somebody, just the same evening if you want to. Also, alcohol consumption has increased quite a lot during this period. « But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before. » The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they’d been recorded as another category of crime. BBC
Comment se fait-il, alors, qu’en 2008, le Danemark, voisin de la Suède, avait seulement 7,3 viols pour cent mille habitants par rapport à 53,2 en Suède ? La législation danoise n’est pas très différente de celle de la Suède et il n’y a aucune raison évidente pour laquelle les femmes danoises auraient moins tendance à signaler un viol que les femmes suédoises. En 2011, six mille cinq cent neuf viols ont été signalés à la police suédoise – mais seulement trois cent quatre vingt douze au Danemark. La population du Danemark est d’environ la moitié de celle de Suède et, même ajustée à ces chiffres, la différence est donc significative. En Suède, les autorités font ce qu’elles peuvent pour dissimuler l’origine des violeurs. Au Danemark, l’Office Statistique Officiel de l’État, Statistics Denmark, a révélé qu’en 2010, plus de la moitié des violeurs condamnés étaient issus de l’immigration. Depuis 2000, il n’y a eu qu’un seul rapport de recherche sur la criminalité des immigrants. Cela a été fait en 2006 par Ann-Christine Hjelm de l’Université Karlstads. Il est apparu que, en 2002, 85% des personnes condamnées à au moins deux ans de prison pour viol par Svea hovrätt, une cour d’appel, étaient nées à l’étranger ou étaient des immigrants de deuxième génération. Un rapport de 1996 du Conseil National Suédois pour la Prévention du Crime est arrivé à la conclusion que les immigrants en provenance d’Afrique du Nord (Algérie, Libye, Maroc et Tunisie) étaient vingt-trois fois plus susceptibles de commettre des viols que les Suédois. Les chiffres pour les hommes venus d’Irak, de Bulgarie et de Roumanie étaient, respectivement de vingt, dix-huit et dix-huit. Les hommes venant du reste de l’Afrique étaient seize fois plus susceptibles de commettre un viol ; et les hommes originaires d’Iran, du Pérou, de l’Équateur et de Bolivie, dix fois plus enclins à en commettre que les Suédois. Une nouvelle tendance a frappé la Suède de plein fouet au cours des dernières décennies : le viol collectif – pratiquement inconnu auparavant dans l’histoire criminelle suédoise. Le nombre de viols collectifs a augmenté de façon spectaculaire entre 1995 et 2006. Depuis lors, aucune étude n’a été faite à ce sujet. L’un des pires cas s’est produit en 2012, quand une femme de trente ans a été violée par huit hommes dans une cité pour demandeurs d’asile, dans la petite ville de Mariannelund. Cette femme était une connaissance d’un Afghan qui avait vécu en Suède pendant un certain nombre d’années. Il l’a invitée à sortir avec lui. Elle avait accepté. Cet Afghan l’avait emmenée dans une cité pour réfugiés et l’y avait laissée, sans défense. Pendant la nuit, elle a été violée à plusieurs reprises par des demandeurs d’asile et quand son « ami » est revenu, il l’a violée aussi. Le lendemain matin, elle a réussi à appeler la police. Le Procureur de la Suède a qualifié cet incident de « pire crime de viol de l’histoire criminelle suédoise. » Gatestone institute
Depuis les Attentats du 11 septembre 2001, la France doit faire face, comme d’autres pays, à une menace plus diffuse et qui n’émane plus d’États bien identifiés. Les attentats les plus récents sont généralement revendiqués par l’État islamique. Eric Denécé évalue à 102 morts le nombre de victimes françaises du terrorisme islamiste entre 2001 et le 5 mai 20156. Les tueries de mars 2012 à Toulouse et Montauban font un total de 8 morts dont l’agresseur. Les attentats de janvier 2015 à Paris et dans sa région (au siège de Charlie Hebdo, à Montrouge, à Dammartin-en-Goële et la prise d’otages du magasin Hyper Cacher de la porte de Vincennes) font un total de 20 morts dont les trois terroristes. Le 19 avril 2015 Sid Ahmed Ghlam assassine Aurélie Châtelain à Villejuif et se blesse avant de pouvoir attaquer plusieurs églises. Le 26 juin 2015, attentat de Saint-Quentin-Fallavier: Yassin Salhi décapite son patron et fait deux blessés. Il se suicide en prison 6 mois plus tard. Lors des attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en France, deux kamikazes font détoner leur ceinture d’explosifs au Stade de France, faisant une victime ; en même temps, diverses fusillades à la Kalachnikov visent des restaurants situés dans le 10e et 11e arrondissements de Paris, suivies d’une nouvelle fusillade puis d’une prise d’otages au Bataclan, qui se soldera après assaut des forces de l’ordre par la mort de 89 otages et des trois terroristes impliqués. Au total, le bilan s’élève à 130 morts et 415 blessés7. Les attentats seront revendiqués par l’État islamique8. Tous les terroristes sont abattus par les forces de l’ordre ou meurent dans ce qui sont les premiers attentats suicides en France, sauf Salah Abdeslam qui sera capturé 4 mois plus tard en Belgique Le 13 juin 2016, un terroriste, Larossi Abballa (Français d’origine marocaine), ayant fait allégeance à l’État islamique perpètre un double meurtre sur des fonctionnaires de police, un commandant et sa compagne, agent administratif, par arme blanche, à leur domicile9. Le bilan est de trois morts, dont l’assassin, abattu lors de l’assaut du RAID. Le couple laisse un jeune enfant. Lors de l’attentat du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel fonce délibérément sur la promenade des Anglais à Nice, au volant d’un poids lourd de 19 tonnes avec lequel il écrase de nombreux passants qui regardaient la fin du feu d’artifice lors de la fête nationale française. L’attentat fait 86 morts et 434 blessés, dont de nombreux enfants. Le terroriste est abattu par la police à bord de son véhicule. Le père Jacques Hamel est égorgé le mardi 26 juillet 2016 lors de l’attentat de l’église de Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, ses deux assassins sont abattus par la police alors qu’il sortaient avec des otages. Le 3 février 2017 se déroule une attaque au Musée du Louvre à Paris. Des militaires sont agressés par un homme les attaquant avec deux machettes. L’un d’eux est légèrement blessé et ses camarades neutralisent l’assaillant en ouvrant le feu. Plusieurs projets d’attentats sont déjoués en 2015, notamment contre des églises et des bases militaires10. Le plus spectaculaire est l’attentat du train Thalys le 21 août 2015 où Ayoub El Khazzani est arrêté dans sa tentative par un français et des militaires américains en permission. Une tentative d’attentat de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris par des femmes est déjoué en septembre 2016. En 2016, de nombreux projets sont également déjoués dans le pays11. En France, la région parisienne, la région Rhône-Alpes et l’agglomération Roubaix-Tourcoing sont considérées comme des « viviers du terrorisme islamique » selon Claude Moniquet, codirecteur de l’European strategic Intelligence and Security Center. En France, environ 5000 personnes font l’objet d’une fiche « S » (Sûreté de l’État) et la majorité des terroristes de la seconde vague d’attentats qui ont touché la France étaient fichés « S » eux aussi. Wikipedia
Les déclarations controversées de Donald Trump associant immigration et criminalité en Suède ont involontairement ravivé le débat dans le pays scandinave sur les réussites et les échecs de sa politique d’intégration. Deux jours après les propos du président américain samedi en Floride, des émeutes dans un quartier nord de Stockholm où vit une majorité de personnes issues de l’immigration ont semblé mettre en pièces l’argumentaire déployé pour lui répondre. (…) Lundi soir en effet, plusieurs dizaines de jeunes ont affronté les policiers venus procéder à l’arrestation d’un trafiquant de drogue, incendiant des voitures, pillant des commerces. Les forces de l’ordre ont effectué un tir à balles réelles pour se dégager, a indiqué à l’AFP Lars Byström, porte-parole de la police de la capitale. Les images ont fait le tour du monde, brouillant la réponse des autorités suédoises à Donald Trump et à la chaîne Fox News qui a diffusé un reportage sur l’insécurité en Suède dont le président républicain s’était inspiré. Pour Tove Lifvendahl, éditorialiste du quotidien Svenska Dagbladet, il existe bel et bien « une once de vérité dans ce qu’a dit Trump ». « Que cela nous plaise ou non, c’est l’occasion de se demander si la perception que l’étranger a de nous et la perception que nous avons de nous-mêmes coïncident », écrivait-elle mercredi. Les contradicteurs de M. Trump font valoir que la Suède n’a pas connu d’attentat depuis 2010, qu’elle n’enregistre pas d’inflation criminelle depuis l’accueil de 244.000 migrants en 2014 et 2015 –un record en Europe par habitant –, et qu’elle demeure au total un pays parmi les plus sûrs du monde. Parmi les plus riches aussi. Si la Suède n’est pas épargnée par les difficultés de l’intégration, elle est loin de connaître les tensions entre communautés, les inégalités, la pauvreté et la violence à l’oeuvre aux États-Unis, soulignent-ils. Une autre vision met en avant la surreprésentation des personnes d’origine étrangère dans les statistiques de la délinquance, leur sous-activité professionnelle, les règlements de compte, les quelque 300 jeunes partis faire le jihad en Syrie et en Irak, le repli religieux, l’existence présumée de zones de non-droit… (…) Benjamin Dousa, un élu local conservateur d’origine turque, dénonce lui dans une tribune « une émeute par mois, un incendie de voitures par jour et le plus fort taux d’homicides par balles au niveau national » par habitant. En tout état de cause, le président américain a tort de stigmatiser une population en raison de son origine ethnique ou religieuse, estiment les sociologues Susanne Urban et Oskar Adenfelt. La clé de l’intégration est sociale et passe par « l’accès à l’État-providence, aux services sociaux, à l’emploi, à une école de qualité, à la mixité et au droit de peser sur la vie locale », défendaient-ils mercredi dans le grand quotidien Dagens Nyheter. Le Point/AFP

Attention: un aveuglement peut en cacher un autre !

Alors qu’après ses récentes allusions aux problèmes soulevés par l’immigration et le terrorisme islamiques en Europe nos médias se sont dument gaussés de la prétendue ignorance du président Trump …

Inspiré certes pour la Suède d’un reportage quelque peu sensationaliste sur un pays qui, sans compter un attentat-suicide d’un immigré irakien heureusement sans victimes il y a sept ans, tout en ayant apparemment dramatiquement sa définition du viol se trouve avoir ces dernières années le record du nombre de viols comme de migrants par habitant …

Et que refusant toute « comparaison » après, sans parler il y a deux mois ou encore hier en une Allemagne en pleine révision de sa politique migratoire, la quarantaine d’attentats et projets d’attentats islamistes depuis 2012 pour quelque 240 morts et 800 blessés, un président français nous assure qu’ « ici (…) il n’y a pas de personnes qui prennent des armes pour tirer dans la foule »

Pendant qu’apparemment victime du zèle d’un employé inexpérimenté et d’un contrôle de sécurité prolongé à un aéroport américain un mois à peine après un attentat à l’aéroport de Fort Lauderdale ayant fait cinq morts et six blessés, un universitaire français né en Egypte, porteur d’un ancien visa de travail et en route pour une conférence rémunérée se fend d’une tribune entière déplorant avec force « images d’esclaves » que « les États-Unis ne sont plus tout à fait les États-Unis » …

Comment ne pas repenser à un autre président américain

Qui au terme de deux mandats qui, suite à l’abandon d’un Irak alors sécurisé, ont vu pas moins de 124 attentats ou tentatives d’attentats islamiques …

Dont une douzaine, entre Little Rock, Fort Hood, Boston, Moore (Oklahoma), Queens, Brooklyn, Garland, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, St. Cloud (Minnesota), New York,  Columbus, d’attaques majeures …

Nous annonçait tranquillement il y a un mois qu’ « aucune organisation terroriste étrangère n’a planifié et exécuté avec succès une attaque dans notre pays ces huit dernières années » ?

A Complete List of Radical Islamic Terror Attacks on U.S. Soil Under Obama

James Barrett

Dailywire
December 7, 2016

In a speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, President Obama declared that « [n]o foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland. » The claim earned perfunctory applause, but a closer look at the reaction of many of the servicemen and women there made clear what they really thought about the administration’s handling of national security.

The President’s claim — which he has repeated in some form or fashion over the last few years — is an obvious rhetorical attempt to gloss over the reality of the threat of radical Islamic terror on American soil. The attempt to disconnect « lone wolf » terrorists from the terror organizations who often inspire them does nothing to alleviate the pain of those who have suffered at the hands of jihadists and only hurts prevention efforts. Rhetorical tricks aside, the reality is that during Obama’s tenure scores of innocent Americans have been murdered on U.S. soil by jihadists, most of whom were inspired by or acting under the direction of foreign terror groups, particularly the Islamic state.

Below is a list of the major, verifiable radical Islamic terror attacks « successfully planned and executed » on U.S. soil since Obama first took office in 2009 (the first section provided by Daily Wire’s Aaron Bandler):

Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2009. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and murdered one soldier, Army Pvt. William Andrew Long, and injured another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, at a military recruiting station in Little Rock. Muhammad reportedly converted to Islam in college and was on the FBI’s radar after being arrested in Yemen–a hotbed of radical Islamic terrorism–for using a Somali passport, even though he was a U.S. citizen. In a note to an Arkansas judge, Muhammad claimed to be a member of al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, the terror group’s Yemen chapter.

Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009. Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up a military base in Fort Hood and murdered 14 people. Hasan was in contact with al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack and shouted « Allahu Akbar! » as he fired upon the soldiers on the Fort Hood base. After being sentenced to death, Hasan requested to join ISIS while on death row. It took six years for Obama to acknowledge the shooting as a terror attack instead of « workplace violence. »

Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. Tamerlan and Dhozkar Tsarnaev set off two bombs at the 2013 Boston marathon, killing three and injuring over 260 people. The Tsarnaev brothers later shot and murdered Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier. The Tsarnaev brothers were self-radicalized through online jihadist propaganda and through a mosque with ties to al-Qaeda.

Moore, Oklahoma, September 24, 2014. Alton Nolen beheaded a woman, Colleen Huff, at a Vaughan Foods plant and stabbed and injured another person. While Nolen’s motives are unclear, he appears to have been another radicalized Muslim who was obsessed with beheadings.

Queens, New York, October 23, 2014. Zale Thompson, another self-radicalized Muslim, injured two police officers with a hatchet before being shot dead by other cops. Thompson reportedly indoctrinated himself with ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Shabab–a Somali jihadist terror group–websites and was a lone wolf attacker.

Brooklyn, New York, December 20, 2014. Ismaayil Brinsley shot and murdered two police officers execution-style and his Facebook page featured jihadist postings and had ties to a terror-linked mosque.

Garland, Texas, May 3, 2015. Two gunmen shot up the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, where a Mohammed cartoon contest was taking place, and were killed by a police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four Marines and a sailor at a military base in Chattanooga and was believed to have been inspired by ISIS.

San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. Two radical Islamists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, shot and murdered 14 people and injured 22 others at an office holiday party.

Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016. Omar Mateen, 29, opened fire at a gay nightclub, killing 49 and injuring 53. The FBI investigated Mateen twice before his rampage, but did not take any substantive action. Officials believe Mateen was self-radicalized but he pledged fealty to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before his death. « The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west, » Mateen posted on his Facebook page after committing his heinous act at Pulse nightclub. « I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me, » he wrote.

St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 17, 2016. Dahir Ahmed Adan, a 20-year-old Somali refugee, began hacking at people with a steak knife at a Minnesota mall, injuring nine people before he was shot dead by off-duty police officer Jason Falconer. The FBI said numerous witnesses heard Adan yelling « Allahu akbar! » and « Islam! Islam! » during the rampage. He also asked potential victims if they were Muslims before inflicting wounds in their heads, necks, and chests. The FBI believe he had recently become self-radicalized. (As the Daily Wire highlighted, the Minneapolis Star Tribune attempted to blame « anti-Muslim tensions » for his murderous actions.)

New York City/New Jersey, September 17, 2016. Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year-old naturalized citizen from Afghanistan, set off multiple bombs in New York and New Jersey. In Chelsea, his bomb resulted in the injury of over 30 people. Rahami wrote in his journal that he was connected to « terrorist leaders, » and appears to have been heavily influenced by Sheikh Anwar, Anwar al-Awlaki, Nidal Hassan, and Osama bin Laden. « I pray to the beautiful wise ALLAH, [d]o not take JIHAD away from me, » Rahami wrote. « You [USA Government] continue your [unintelligible] slaught[er] » against the holy warriors, « be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Sham [Syria], Palestine … « 

Columbus, Ohio, November 28, 2016. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, an ISIS-inspired 20-year-old Somali refugee who had been granted permanent legal residence in 2014 after living in Pakistan for 7  years, attempted to run over his fellow Ohio State students on campus. After his car was stopped by a barrier, he got out of the vehicle and began hacking at people with a butcher knife before being shot dead by a campus police officer. He injured 11 people, one critically. ISIS took credit for the attack, describing Artan as their « soldier. » Just three minutes before his rampage, Artan posted a warning to America on Facebook that the « lone wolf attacks » will continue until America « give[s] peace to the Muslims. » He also praised deceased al-Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki as a « hero. »

Voir aussi:

Les États-Unis sont-ils encore les États-Unis?
Il faut désormais faire face outre-Atlantique à l’arbitraire et à l’incompétence la plus totale.
Henry Rousso
Historien, directeur de recherches au CNRS (Institut d’histoire du temps présent)
Le Hugffington Post

26.02.2017

Le 22 février dernier, j’ai atterri vers 14h30 à l’aéroport de Houston, aux États-Unis, en provenance de Paris. Je devais me rendre à un colloque de la Texas A&M University (College Station), où j’ai été invité à plusieurs reprises ces dernières années. Au guichet de l’immigration, une fonctionnaire me refuse l’entrée et m’emmène dans une salle attenante pour contrôle, sans explications. Une trentaine de personnes y attendent que l’on statue sur leur sort. J’observe machinalement une certaine fréquence dans les entrées et sorties. Au bout de trois quarts d’heure, alors que la plupart de ceux qui attendent repartent sans problèmes, un jeune officier de police me demande de le suivre dans un bureau particulier. Commence alors un interrogatoire informel. Je lui demande ce qui me vaut d’être là. Il me répond : « contrôle aléatoire » (random check). Il me demande ce que je viens faire aux États-Unis. Je lui présente alors la lettre d’invitation de l’université. Cette intervention doit-elle être rémunérée ? Je confirme – c’est la règle dans beaucoup universités Nord-américaines. Il m’objecte alors que je n’ai qu’un visa touristique et non un visa spécifique de travail. Je lui réponds que je n’en ai pas besoin, que l’université s’est occupée comme d’habitude des formalités et, surtout, que je fais cela depuis plus de trente ans sans jamais avoir eu le moindre ennui. Son attitude se fait alors encore plus suspicieuse. Examinant mon passeport, il relève que j’ai bénéficié récemment d’un visa « J1 », accordé notamment aux universitaires. J’ai été, en effet, professeur invité à l’Université Columbia de New York, de septembre 2016 à janvier 2017. Il conclut que je suis donc revenu travailler « illégalement » avec un visa expiré. J’ai beau expliquer que ma situation n’a rien d’anormal, sinon l’université n’aurait pas pu m’inviter, rien n’y fait. N’étant pas en possession d’un document fédéral m’autorisant à travailler aux États-Unis, je suis en infraction. La décision sera confirmée plus tard par son supérieur hiérarchique – que je n’aurai pas la possibilité de rencontrer.

On bascule alors dans une autre dimension. Le policier me fait prêter serment et me soumet à un interrogatoire étendu : questions sur mon père, ma mère, ma situation familiale, me posant près d’une dizaine de fois les mêmes questions: qui m’emploie, où j’habite, etc. J’ai la copie du procès-verbal. Il relève toutes mes empreintes digitales, pourtant déjà enregistrées dans le système comme pour tous les visiteurs. Il opère une fouille au corps en règle, malgré mes protestations. « C’est la procédure », me rétorque-t-il. Il m’informe ensuite que je vais être refoulé (deported) et mis dans le prochain avion en partance pour Paris. Il ajoute que je ne pourrai plus jamais entrer dans le pays sans un visa particulier. Je suis stupéfait mais ne peux rien faire sinon prévenir mon collègue de l’université. Le policier me demande si je veux contacter le Consulat de France à Houston. Je réponds par l’affirmative mais c’est lui qui se charge de composer le numéro, plusieurs heures après, aux alentours de 19h, appelant le standard et non le numéro d’urgence, donc sans résultat. Il m’indique également qu’il n’arrive pas à contacter Air France pour mon billet. Cela fait déjà près de cinq heures que je suis détenu et je comprends alors que rien ne se passera avant le lendemain.

Je m’apprête donc à passer encore entre une dizaine ou une vingtaine d’heures installé sur une chaise, sans téléphone – l’usage en est interdit –, avant de pouvoir occuper un fauteuil un peu plus adapté à la situation de personnes ayant effectué un long voyage. Toutes les heures, un fonctionnaire vient nous proposer à boire ou à manger, et nous fait signer un registre comme quoi nous avons accepté ou refusé. Malgré la tension, j’observe ce qui se passe dans ce lieu insolite, à la fois salle d’attente anodine et zone de rétention. Si la plupart des policiers adoptent un ton réglementaire, non discourtois, quelques-uns ricanent discrètement en observant cette population hétéroclite sous leur contrôle. Une policière engueule une femme dont le garçon de trois ans court dans tous les sens. Un homme se lève pour demander ce qu’il en est de sa situation. Trois policiers lui hurlent de s’asseoir immédiatement.

Vers 21h, il reste une demi-douzaine de personnes, somnolentes et inquiètes, un Africain ne parlant pas bien l’anglais, les autres sans doute d’origine latino-américaine. Je suis apparemment le seul Européen – le seul « blanc ». Arrivent alors deux officiers de police. Ils se dirigent vers le monsieur assis devant moi, peut-être un Mexicain, bien mis de sa personne. Ils lui montrent un billet d’avion et lui disent qu’ils vont l’emmener. Invité à se lever, il est alors menotté, enchaîné à la taille, et entravé aux chevilles. Je n’en crois pas mes yeux. Des images d’esclaves me traversent l’esprit: la policière qui lui met les fers aux pieds est une Africaine-Américaine, vaguement gênée. J’imagine le temps qu’il va mettre pour rejoindre la porte d’embarquement. Je me demande surtout si c’est le même sort qui nous attend. Je préfère croire que lui a commis un délit sérieux. J’apprendrai par la suite que « c’est la procédure ». Cette façon de faire – proprement indigne – serait exigée par les compagnies aériennes. Je ne suis pas sûr, au demeurant, que les conditions d’expulsion soient plus humaines chez nous.

L’attente continue, cette fois avec une réelle angoisse. A 1h 30 du matin – cela fait plus de 26 heures que j’ai quitté mon domicile parisien – je vois une certaine agitation. Une policière vient vers moi et me demande quelle est ma destination finale aux États-Unis et si quelqu’un m’attend à l’aéroport. Je réponds avec un début d’énervement – à éviter absolument dans ce genre de situations – que le chauffeur de l’université, qui se trouve à deux heures de route, est sans doute reparti… Elle me prie alors de ne pas me rendormir car je vais être appelé. Quelques minutes plus tard, un policier au ton cette fois amical me rend mon téléphone et mon passeport, dûment tamponné, et me déclare autorisé à entrer aux États-Unis. Les restrictions qui m’ont été imposées sont levées, ajoute-t-il, sans que je puisse savoir ce qui va rester dans leurs fichiers. Il m’explique que le fonctionnaire qui a examiné mon dossier était « inexpérimenté » et ne savait pas que certaines activités, dont celles liées à la recherche et à l’enseignement, bénéficiaient d’un régime d’exception et pouvaient parfaitement être menées avec un simple visa touristique. « Il ne savait pas ». Abasourdi, je lui demande, ou plutôt je déclare que c’était donc une erreur. Il ne me répond pas. Il me laisse simplement entendre qu’ayant, lui, une longue expérience, il a vu le problème en prenant son poste en début de nuit. Il aura l’amabilité de me raccompagner à la sortie d’un aéroport totalement désert, m’indiquant l’adresse d’un hôtel dans la zone portuaire. À aucun moment, ni lui, ni ses collègues ne se sont excusés.

En réalité, ma libération n’a rien eu de fortuit. Elle est la conséquence de l’intervention de mon collègue auprès du président de l’université Texas A & M, d’une professeure de droit chargée des questions d’immigration, et de plusieurs avocats. Sans eux, j’aurais été conduit menotté, enchaîné, et entravé à l’embarquement pour Paris.

Historien de métier, je me méfie des interprétations hâtives. Cet incident a occasionné pour moi un certain inconfort, difficile de le nier. Je ne peux, cependant, m’empêcher de penser à tous ceux qui subissent ces humiliations et cette violence légale sans les protections dont j’ai pu bénéficier. J’y pense d’autant plus que j’ai connu l’expulsion et l’exil dans mon enfance. Pour expliquer ce qui s’est passé, j’en suis rendu aux conjectures. Pourquoi le contrôle aléatoire est-il tombé sur moi? Je ne le sais pas mais ce n’est pas le fruit du hasard. Mon « cas » présentait un problème avant même l’examen approfondi de mon visa. Peut-être est-ce mon lieu de naissance, l’Egypte, peut-être ma qualité d’universitaire, peut-être mon récent visa de travail expiré, pourtant sans objet ici, peut-être aussi ma nationalité française. Peut-être aussi le contexte. Quand bien même aurais-je commis une erreur, ce qui n’est pas le cas, cela méritait-il pareil traitement? Comment expliquer ce zèle, évident, de la part du policier qui m’a examiné et de son supérieur hiérarchique sinon par le souci de faire du chiffre et de justifier, au passage, ces contrôles accrus? J’étais d’autant plus « intéressant » que je ne tombais pas dans la catégorie habituelle des « déportables ». Telle est donc la situation aujourd’hui. Il faut désormais faire face outre-Atlantique à l’arbitraire et à l’incompétence la plus totale. Je ne sais ce qui est le pire. Ce que je sais, aimant ce pays depuis toujours, c’est que les États-Unis ne sont plus tout à fait les États-Unis.

 Voir aussi:
Valeurs actuelles

25 février 2017 

Irrespect. Suite à une nouvelle critique du président américain sur la situation sécuritaire de la France et de sa capitale, François Hollande a de nouveau dérapé. Une faute que la droite n’a pas manqué de souligner.

François Hollande a sans doute la mémoire courte. Alors que Donald Trump citait vendredi “un ami” effrayé par l’insécurité qui règne à Paris, le chef de l’État a tenté de répliquer, samedi 25 février, affirmant qu’en France il “n’y a pas de circulation d’armes, il n’y a pas de personnes qui prennent des armes pour tirer dans la foule”.

“Comment François Hollande peut-il ainsi effacer les victimes ?”

Passablement remontée contre cette réponse fallacieuse, qui fait fi des dizaines de victimes récentes du terrorisme dans l’Hexagone, la droite a confronté le président socialiste à ses incohérences. François Fillon a par exemple rappelé les drames de “Toulouse, Charlie, Bataclan, Nice” et dénoncé un “effacement” des victimes.

Du côté du Front national, Florian Philippot s’est insurgé contre le “manque de respect pour les familles des victimes des attentats” et l’“indécence” du locataire de l’Élysée, quand Nicolas Bay a fustigé un “oubli [des victimes] du Bataclan et de Charlie Hebdo”.

Voir également:

L’effet Trump? La Suède s’interroge sur sa politique d’intégration

Le Point/ AFP

22/02/2017

Voir de même:

Trump Is Right: Sweden’s Embrace of Refugees Isn’t Working

The country has accepted 275,000 asylum-seekers, many without passports—leading to riots and crime.

Jimmie Åkesson and Mattias Karlsson
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 22, 2017

When President Trump last week raised Sweden’s problematic experience with open door immigration, skeptics were quick to dismiss his claims. Two days later an immigrant suburb of Stockholm was racked by another riot. No one was seriously injured, though the crowd burned cars and hurled stones at police officers.

Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Sweden’s current problems. If anything, he understated them. Sweden took in about 275,000 asylum-seekers from 2014-16—more per capita than any other European country. Eighty percent of those who came in 2015 lacked passports and identification, but a majority come from Muslim nations. Islam has become Sweden’s second-largest religion. In Malmö, our third-largest city, Mohamed is the most common name for baby boys.

The effects are palpable, starting with national security. An estimated 300 Swedish citizens with immigrant backgrounds have traveled to the Middle East to fight for Islamic State. Many are now returning to Sweden and are being welcomed back with open arms by our socialist government. In December 2010 we had our first suicide attack on Swedish soil, when an Islamic terrorist tried to blow up hundreds of civilians in central Stockholm while they were shopping for Christmas presents. Thankfully the bomber killed only himself.

Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life. Police officers, firefighters and ambulance personnel are regularly attacked. Serious riots in 2013, involving many suburbs with large immigrant populations, lasted for almost a week. Gang violence is booming. Despite very strict firearm laws, gun violence is five times as common in Sweden, in total, as in the capital cities of our three Nordic neighbors combined.

Anti-Semitism has risen. Jews in Malmö are threatened, harassed and assaulted in the streets. Many have left the city, becoming internal refugees in their country of birth.

The number of sex crimes nearly doubled from 2014-15, according to surveys by the Swedish government body for crime statistics. One-third of Swedish women report that they no longer feel secure in their own neighborhoods, and 12% say they don’t feel safe going out alone after dark. A 1996 report from the same government body found that immigrant men were far likelier to commit rape than Swedish men. Last year our party asked the minister of justice to conduct a new report on crime and immigration, and he replied: “In light of previous studies, I do not see that a further report on recorded crime and individuals’ origins would add knowledge with the potential to improve the Swedish society.”

Our nation’s culture hasn’t been spared either. Artists accused of insulting Islam live under death threats. Dance performances and art exhibitions have been called off for fear of angering Islamists. Schools have prohibited the singing of traditional Christian hymns because they don’t want to “insult” non-Christian immigrants. Yet reports made with hidden cameras by journalists from Swedish public media show mosques teaching fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

Sweden’s government now spends an incredible amount of money caring for newly arrived immigrants each year. The unemployment rate among immigrants is five times as high as that of native Swedes. Among some groups, such as Somalis, in places like Malmö unemployment reaches 80%.

Our party, the Sweden Democrats, wants to put the security and welfare of Swedish citizens first. We are surging in the opinion polls and seem to have a good chance of becoming the country’s largest party during the elections next year. We will not rest until we have made Sweden safe again.

For the sake of the American people, with whom we share so many strong historical and cultural ties, we can only hope that the leaders in Washington won’t make the same mistakes that our socialist and liberal politicians did.

Mr. Åkesson is party chairman of the Sweden Democrats. Mr. Karlsson is the party’s group leader in Parliament.

Voir par ailleurs:

Hommage national aux victimes du terrorisme: Trois décennies d’attentats en France

Laure Cometti

20 minutes

L’hommage national aux victimes du terrorisme, qui a lieu chaque année le 19 septembre, depuis 1998, prend ce lundi un écho particulier. Depuis janvier 2015, 236 personnes sont mortes dans des attentats en France, sur un total de 271 en trente ans. 20 Minutes revient sur les attaques terroristes perpétrées dans l’Hexagone au cours des trois dernières décennies.

1986

Cette année est marquée par neuf attaques terroristes, dont six sont meurtrières. Elles s’inscrivent dans une vague d’attentats, de décembre 1985 à septembre 1986, dont certains seront imputés au Hezbollah.

Le mois de septembre est particulièrement meurtrier. Le 8, une explosion fait un mort et dix-huit blessés dans le bureau de poste de l’Hôtel de Ville à Paris. Le 12, plus d’une cinquantaine de personnes sont blessées par une bombe placée dans un magasin Casino à la Défense. Le 14, une nouvelle explosion tue deux personnes dans le pub Renault des Champs-Elysées. Le lendemain, c’est la préfecture de police de Paris qui est visée : une bombe fait un mort et 51 blessés. Le 17, ce mois de septembre meurtrier s’achève par un attentat à la bombe devant le magasin Tati de la rue de Rennes, toujours à Paris. Le bilan est de sept morts et une cinquantaine de blessés.

1995

Entre juillet et novembre, l’Hexagone est le théâtre d’une série d’attaques à la bombe imputées à l’organisation terroriste algérienne du Groupe islamique armé (GIA). La seule attaque meurtrière est celle de la station de RER B Saint-Michel à Paris, le 25 juillet. Le bilan est de huit tués et plus d’une centaine de blessés.

Près de Lyon, une bombe est découverte le 26 août sur une ligne de TGV. Les empreintes digitales de Khaled Kelkal sont retrouvées sur l’engin explosif. Le jeune homme, impliqué dans l’attentat de la station Saint-Michel, est abattu par la police le 29 septembre. Arrêté deux jours auparavant, son complice Karim Koussa a été jugé et condamné à de la prison. Deux autres membres du GIA ont été arrêtés le 1er novembre dans le cadre de l’enquête sur cette vague d’attentats, Boualem Bensaïd et Smaïn Aït Ali Belkacem, tous deux jugés et incarcérés.

Le 3 septembre, une bombe blesse quatre personnes sur un marché du boulevard Richard Lenoir à Paris.

Les transports en commun de la capitale sont ciblés à deux autres reprises, sans faire de morts : le 6 octobre à Maison-Blanche (seize blessés) et le 17 octobre dans une rame du RER C, entre les stations Saint-Michel et Quai d’Orsay (une trentaine de blessés).

1996

Le 3 décembre, une explosion tue quatre personnes et en blesse plus de 90 à la station de RER B de Port-Royal. Les auteurs de l’attaque n’ont pas été identifiés.

2000

Le 19 avril, une bombe explose dans un restaurant de la chaîne McDonald’s à Quévert (ôtes-d’Armor), tuant une employée. L’enquête démontrera plus tard que la bombe devait exploser pendant la nuit. Trois hommes appartenant à la mouvance indépendantiste bretonne seront jugés puis acquittés dans cette affaire qui n’a pas été élucidée à ce jour.

2007

Le 6 décembre, un colis piégé explose dans un cabinet d’avocat au 52, boulevard Malesherbes à Paris. La secrétaire du cabinet est tuée sur le coup. L’affaire n’est pas élucidée à ce jour.

2012

En mars, Mohamed Merah tue sept personnes par balle à Toulouse et Montauban. Il s’agit de trois militaires et de  trois élèves et un professeur d’une école juive. Le terroriste islamiste est abattu le 22 mars après une intervention du Raid dans le quartier de Côte Pavée à Toulouse.

2015

Le début de l’année est marquée par la tuerie au siège de Charlie Hebdo. Les frères Saïd et Chérif Kouachi, qui affirment agir au nom de l’organisation Al-Qaida dans la péninsule arabique (Aqpa), abattent le 7 janvier huit membres de la rédaction de l’hebdomadaire, un dessinateur invité à la conférence du journal, deux policiers et un agent de maintenance de l’entreprise Sodexo. Les terroristes sont tués deux jours plus tard à Dammartin-en-Goële.

Le lendemain, une policière municipale est tuée à Montrouge par Amédy Coulibaly qui mènera la prise d’otages du magasin Hypercacher de la Porte de Vincennes, le 9 janvier. Le terroriste, qui se revendique du groupe Etat islamique (EI) dans une vidéo, est abattu après avoir tué un employé et trois clients de la boutique vendant des produits casher.

Le 26 juin, Yassin Salhi décapite son patron sur le site de l’usine AirProducts. Fiché S pour ses liens avec l’islam radical, le présumé coupable s’est suicidé en prison le 23 décembre de la même année.

Le 13 novembre au soir, des attaques simultanées à Saint-Denis et Paris font 130 morts et plus de 400 blessés. Il s’agit des pires attaques terroristes de l’histoire de la France. Tous les auteurs de ces attentats, revendiqués par Daesh, sont morts en kamikazes. Salah Abdeslam, l’unique membre encore vivant des commandos, a été arrêté en le 18 mars 2016 en Belgique et remis à la France où il a été écroué.

2016

Le 13 juin, un policier de Magnanville et sa compagne employée au commissariat de Mantes-la-Jolie (Yvelines) sont assassinés chez eux par  Larossi Abballa, qui avait revendiqué son action sur Twitter et Facebook au nom de Daesh. Le terroriste est abattu par le Raid.

Le soir de la fête nationale, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, au volant d’un camion, fonce dans la foule quelques instants après le feu d’artifice du 14 juillet sur la Promenade des Anglais à Nice. Le bilan est de 86 morts et plus de 300 blessés. L’attaque est revendiquée par Daesh.

Le 26 juillet, un prêtre est tué lors d’une prise d’otages pendant la messe dans une église catholique à Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. Les auteurs, deux djihadistes sont abattus par les forces de l’ordre. Cette attaque est aussi revendiquée par Daesh..

Voir de même:

Nordactu.fr

19/07/2016

Alors que le bilan humain de l’attentat de Nice du 14 juillet n’est pas encore définitif, Nord Actu a dressé la liste chronologique des attentats terroristes islamistes qui ont touché la France depuis début 2012, ainsi que les tentatives déjouées par les services de sécurité dont nous avons eu connaissance. La liste des projets d’attentats est donc non-exhaustive, mais permet de se faire une idée sur la quantité d’actions islamistes entreprises depuis 4 ans en France. Le bilan humain provisoire de cette guerre fait état de 254 morts et 684 blessés.

(NDLR: les attentats ayant « abouti » apparaissent en gras)

Attentats de mars 2012 par Mohammed Merah : 8 morts et 6 blessés.

Attentat du 25 mai 2013, un individu tente d’égorger un militaire à la Défense : 1 blessé.

Attentat déjoué en octobre 2013 : Un homme arrêté à Lille après son retour de Syrie.

Attentat déjoué en février 2014 : Le carnaval de Nice.

Attentat déjoué en juillet 2014 : Des lieux chiites à Créteil.

Attentat déjoué en août 2014 : Des synagogues à Lyon.

Attentat déjoué en septembre 2014 : Une réunion du CRIF à Lyon.

Attentat du 20 décembre 2014 à Joué les Tours, un individu attaque le commissariat à l’arme blanche, il est abattu : 1 mort et 3 blessés.

Attentat du 21 décembre 2014 à Dijon, un individu fonce dans la foule avec son véhicule au cri d’ «Allah Ahkbar» : 13 blessés.

Attentat du 22 décembre 2014 à Nantes, modus operandi similaire à l’attaque de Dijon : 1 mort et 10 blessés.

Attentats de janvier 2015 (Charlie hebdo + Montrouge + Hyper Kasher) : 17 morts et 22 blessés.

Attentat du 3 février 2015 à Nice, Moussa Coulibaly attaque des militaires à l’arme blanche : 3 blessés.

Attentat du 19 avril 2015 : Meurtre d’Aurélie Châtelain à Villejuif par Sid Ahmed Ghlam lors du vol de son véhicule devant servir à des actions contre des églises (voir ci-dessous) : 1 mort.

Attentat déjoué en avril 2015 : Une ou plusieurs églises en région parisienne par Sid Ahmed Ghlam (le suspect avait effectué des repérages autour du Sacré Cœur  de Montmartre et de deux églises de Villejuif).

Attentat de Saint-Quentin-Fallavier 26 juin 2015 : 1 mort et 2 blessés.

Attentat déjoué en juillet 2015 : Une base militaire dans les Pyrénées-Orientales.

Attentat du 21 août 2015 (attaque d’un train Thalys entre Bruxelles et Paris) : 3 blessés.

Attentat déjoué en octobre 2015 : Hakim Marnissi voulait attaquer la base navale de Toulon.

Attentat déjoué en octobre 2015 : Arrestation à Fontenay-sous-Bois, Salim et Ahmed M., deux frères « velléitaires pour le jihad syrien » qui ont planifié de s’en prendre à « des militaires, des policiers et/ou des juifs ».

Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 (Bataclan + terrasses de cafés + Stade de France + St Denis) : 137 morts et 413 blessés.

Attentat déjoué en novembre 2015 : Le quartier de la Défense.

Attentat déjoué en décembre 2015 : « Des représentants de la force publique » dans la région d’Orléans. Les deux suspects voulaient s’en prendre notamment au préfet du Loiret et à une centrale nucléaire.

Attentat déjoué en décembre 2015 : Interpellation d’un couple à Montpellier, la femme aurait dû commettre un attentat suicide à l’aide d’un faux-ventre de femme enceinte rempli d’explosifs.

Attentat du 1er janvier 2016 à Valence : un individu fonce sur des militaires avec son véhicule. Il doit être neutralisé par des tirs, un passant est blessé : 3 blessés au total.

Attentat du 7 janvier 2016 au commissariat de la Goutte d’Or à Paris : 1 mort (l’assaillant).

Attentat du 11 janvier 2016 à Marseille, un kurde de 15 ans attaque un enseignant juif à la machette : 1 blessé. Des policiers étaient également visés.

Attentat déjoué en janvier 2016 : Fort Béar dans les Pyrénées orientales, un gradé devait être kidnappé puis décapité. 3 interpellés.

Attentat déjoué du 2 février 2016 : Arrestation à Lyon de 6 individus qui projetaient d’attaquer des « clubs échangistes en France ».

Attentat déjoué du 9 mars 2016 : Un individu radicalisé d’une trentaine d’années a embarqué à l’aéroport de Nantes en direction de Fès. Il a été arrêté au Maroc par les autorités marocaines. Il était en possession de plusieurs armes blanches et une bonbonne de gaz.

Attentat déjoué du 9 mars  2016 : Un franco-algérien a délibérément lancé sa voiture contre la façade d’un commissariat de police à Firminy. D’après Noëlle Deraime, directrice départementale de la sécurité publique, il ne s’agit pas d’un accident.

Attentat déjoué en mars 2016 : 4 jeunes femmes devaient attaquer une salle de concert, deux cafés et un centre commercial à Paris.

Attentat déjoué en mars 2016: Quatre personnes (3 hommes et 1 femme) ont été interpellées par la DGSI dans le XVIIIe arrondissement de Paris ainsi qu’en Seine-Saint-Denis. Elles sont suspectées de s’être préparées à commettre des attentats dans la capitale.

Attentat déjoué en mars 2016 : Arrestation de Rada Kriket à Boulogne Billancourt, d’Anis B. à Rotterdam et d’Abderahmane Ameuroud  à Bruxelles pour « risque imminent d’action terroriste ».

Attentat déjoué le 8 avril 2016: Arrestation de Mohamed Abrini, recherché depuis les attentats du 13 novembre, à Anderlecht. Il révèle que le commando des attentats du 22 mars 2016 à Bruxelles devait à nouveau frapper la France.

Attentat du 24 avril 2016: Un militaire de l’opération Sentinelle est agressé au cutter par un individu tenant des propos en arabe à Strasbourg. L’agresseur prend la fuite et est interpellé le 4 mai 2016. Bilan : 1 blessé.

Attentat contre un couple de policiers du 13 juin 2016 à Magnanville par Larossi Abballa : 3 morts.

Attentat du 14 juin 2016 à Rennes, une lycéenne âgée de 19 ans est agressée à coups de couteau par un homme de 32 ans connu des services de police qui voulait procéder à un « sacrifice » au cours du ramadan, selon ses propres termes. Bilan : 1 blessé.

Attentat déjoué le 16 juin 2016: Un jeune homme de 22 ans arrêté par la DGSI à la gare de Carcassonne en possession d’un couteau et d’une machette projetant un attentat en s’attaquant à des touristes américains et anglais ainsi qu’aux forces de l’ordres et « mourir en martyr ».

Attentat déjoué le 17 juin 2016: À Béziers, un détenu converti à l’islam et radicalisé voulait commettre un attentat contre un club naturiste au Cap d‘Agde car il n’aimait pas les « culs-nus ». L’individu s’est fait allonger sa peine de 6 mois supplémentaires.

Attentat du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice : 84 morts et 202 blessés

Le détail des attentats déjoués en France depuis un an

INFO LE FIGARO – Des projets d’assassinats et d’attentats, visant notamment un centre commercial, une salle de spectacle ou encore une centrale nucléaire, ont été révélés devant la commission d’enquête parlementaire.

«Nous avons tout eu»: le 18 mai, devant la commission d’enquête, le coordonnateur national du renseignement, Didier Le Bret, résume en une formule les multiples attaques, contrecarrées ou non, qui ont visé le pays. Pour la première fois, le rapport de Sébastien Pietrasanta fournit le détail d’une dizaine d’attentats déjoués en France en un an. Certains, comme celui ciblant la base militaire de Port Vendres où trois djihadistes voulaient filmer la décapitation d’un haut gradé ou celui en octobre contre des militaires de la base de Toulon, sont connus. D’autres sont restés plus confidentiels. Ainsi, le document révèle que, le 16 mars, «quatre jeunes femmes, dont trois mineures (…) ont été interpellées à Roubaix, Lyon et Brie-Comte-Robert» alors qu’«elles avaient formé le projet d’attaquer une salle de concert, deux cafés et un centre commercial à Paris».

Ce coup de filet a lieu huit jours avant que la DGSI interpelle Reda Kriket à Boulogne-Billancourt et découvre à Argenteuil une «cache» remplie d’armes de guerre et d’explosifs susceptible de perpétrer une attaque au nom de Daech. Les 15 et 16 décembre dernier, la DGSI arrêtait Rodrigue D. et Karim K., deux terroristes en puissance qui «projetaient de s’attaquer à des militaires et des policiers orléanais». Le rapport dévoile que «tout en minimisant son implication dans ce projet», Karim K. a «reconnu vouloir assassiner le préfet du Loiret et s’attaquer à une centrale nucléaire». Avant de préciser que «les deux mis en cause ont confirmé le rôle d’Anthony D., djihadiste français de l’EI évoluant en Syrie depuis fin 2014, comme soutien financier».

Communications cryptées

Au même moment, la DGSI, toujours elle, appréhendait, à Tours, Issa Khassiev, un Russe d’origine tchétchène «susceptible d’avoir rejoint la Syrie en 2013» et qui envisageait de «réaliser une action violente en France avant de regagner la zone syro-irakienne pour y mourir en martyr». Lors d’une perquisition, celui qui a prêté «allégeance à l’EI» avait «proféré des menaces à l’encontre des fonctionnaires de police présents». Outre le cas d’un radicalisé en prison projetant d’assassiner une députée parisienne interpellé en octobre «après s’être lui-même dénoncé (…)», le document évoque aussi l’arrestation, à Fontenay-sous-Bois, de Salim et Ahmed M., deux frères «velléitaires pour le djihad syrien» qui voulaient s’en prendre à des «militaires, des policiers et/ou des juifs». Ces réussites policières ne peuvent cependant obérer les échecs des attentats de janvier et de novembre qui enseignent que «les terroristes ne relèvent plus d’aucune logique nationale ni dans leur profil ou leur recrutement, ni dans leur mode opératoire et la conception de leurs attaques».

Rappelant que «les commandos ne se sont effectivement rendus sur le territoire français que la veille des attaques, un délai peut-être trop bref pour être repérés par les seuls services français», Sébastien Pietrasanta considère que «cette tactique a également si bien fonctionné parce que les terroristes ont encore accru leur mobilité par une bien plus grande furtivité que par le passé». Le directeur général de la sécurité extérieure, Bernard Bajolet, l’a concédé devant la commission Fenech: «La difficulté à laquelle nous nous heurtons est que ces terroristes sont rompus à la clandestinité et font une utilisation très prudente, très parcimonieuse, des moyens de communication: les téléphones ne sont utilisés qu’une seule fois, les communications sont cryptées et nous ne pouvons pas toujours les décoder.» «Pour connaître leurs projets, il faut avoir des sources humaines directement en contact avec ces terroristes, décrit le patron de la DGSE. Or ces réseaux sont très cloisonnés, ils peuvent recevoir des instructions de caractère général, mais avoir ensuite une certaine autonomie dans la mise en œuvre de la mission qui leur est confiée.» (…). Et le rapporteur Pietrasanta de conclure: «L’explosion des communications électroniques, le développement du darknet, la mise à portée de tous de moyens de communication bénéficiant de puissants chiffrements – telle que l’application de messagerie Telegram – rendent les terroristes plus furtifs aux yeux des services de renseignements et leur imposent d’opérer des sauts capacitaires réguliers.»

Voir de plus:

Sweden’s rape rate under the spotlight

  • 15 September 2012

The Julian Assange extradition case has put Sweden’s relatively high incidence of rape under the spotlight. But can such statistics be reliably compared from one country to another?

Which two countries are the kidnapping capitals of the world?

Australia and Canada.

Official figures from the United Nations show that there were 17 kidnaps per 100,000 people in Australia in 2010 and 12.7 in Canada.

That compares with only 0.6 in Colombia and 1.1 in Mexico.

So why haven’t we heard any of these horror stories? Are people being grabbed off the street in Sydney and Toronto, while the world turns a blind eye?

No, the high numbers of kidnapping cases in these two countries are explained by the fact that parental disputes over child custody are included in the figures.

If one parent takes a child for the weekend, and the other parent objects and calls the police, the incident will be recorded as a kidnapping, according to Enrico Bisogno, a statistician with the United Nations.

Comparing crime rates across countries is fraught with difficulties – this is well known among criminologists and statisticians, less so among journalists and commentators.

Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe, author Naomi Wolf said on the BBC’s Newsnight programme recently. She was commenting on the case of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who is fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden over rape and sexual assault allegations that he denies.

Is it true? Yes. The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants – of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world.

This was three times higher than the number of cases in the same year in Sweden’s next-door neighbour, Norway, and twice the rate in the United States and the UK. It was more than 30 times the number in India, which recorded about two offences per 100,000 people.

On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries.

But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries’ records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely.

« In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics, » she says.

« So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record – one victim, one type of crime, one record. »

The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden – it’s almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010.

So something’s going on.

But Klara Selin says the statistics don’t represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.

The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn’t deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place – a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010.

« There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes. Due to the internet, for example, it’s much easier these days to meet somebody, just the same evening if you want to. Also, alcohol consumption has increased quite a lot during this period.

« But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before. »

The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they’d been recorded as another category of crime.

So an on-the-face-of-it international comparison of rape statistics can be misleading.

Botswana has the highest rate of recorded attacks – 92.9 per 100,000 people – but a total of 63 countries don’t submit any statistics, including South Africa, where a survey three years ago showed that one in four men questioned admitted to rape.

In 2010, an Amnesty International report highlighted that sexual violence happens in every single country, and yet the official figures show that some countries like Hong Kong and Mongolia have zero cases reported.

Evidently, women in some countries are much less likely to report an attack than in others and are much less likely to have their complaint recorded.

UN statistician Enrico Bisogno says surveys suggest that as few as one in 10 cases are ever reported to the police, in many countries.

« We often present the situation as kind of an iceberg where really what we can see is just the tip while the rest is below the sea level. It remains below the radar of the law enforcement agencies, » he says.

Naomi Wolf has also written that Sweden has the lowest conviction rate in Europe.

She was relying on statistics from a nine-year-old report, which calculated percentage conviction rates based on the number of offences recorded by the police and the number of convictions. But this is a problematic way of analysing statistics, as several offences could be committed by one person.

The United Nations holds official statistics on the number of convictions for rape per 100,000 people and actually, by that measure, Sweden has the highest number of convictions per capita in Europe, bar Russia. In 2010, 3.7 convictions were achieved per 100,000 population.

Though it’s still the case, as Wolf pointed out to the BBC, that women in Sweden report a high number of offences – and only a small number of rapists are punished.

So there’s a lot that official statistics don’t tell us. They certainly don’t reveal the real number of rapes that happen in Sweden, or any other country. And they don’t give a clear view of which countries have worse crime rates than others.

Rape is particularly complex, but you’d think it would be straightforward to analyse murder rates across different countries – just count up the dead bodies, and compare and contrast.

If only, says Enrico Bisogno. « For example, if I punch somebody and the person eventually dies, some countries can consider that as an intentional murder, others as a manslaughter. Or in some countries, dowry killings are coded separately because there is separate legislation. »

What’s more, a comparison of murder rates between developed and less developed countries may tell you as much about health as crime levels, according to Professor Chris Lewis, a criminologist from Portsmouth University in the UK.

The statistics are to some unknown degree complicated by the fact that you’re more likely to survive an attack in a town where you’re found quickly and taken to a hospital that’s well-equipped.


Présidence Trump: Vous avez dit surréaliste ? (It’s the unbearable smugness of the press, stupid !)

19 février, 2017
walk-on-water-o obamatime trum-meltdown-time-cover time

impeach

Montage - Parler comme Macron

Le plus difficile n’est pas de dire ce que l’on voit mais d’accepter de voir ce que l’on voit. Charles Péguy
Qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage. LaFontaine
Nous crions d’un bout à l’autre de l’Afrique : Attention, l’Amérique a la rage. Tranchons tous les liens qui nous rattachent à elle, sinons nous serons à notre tour mordus et enragés. Sartre (1953)
Les deux grands partis, c’est l’amicale des boulistes. Mais sans l’amitié et sans les boules… Emmanuel Macron
La politique internationale que je veux conduire pour notre émancipation vraie et donc pour notre sécurité, c’est celle qui respectera l’équilibre, qui préservera l’indépendance française, qui assurera la stabilité des Etats et qui, partout, défendra nos valeurs et nos principes. Emmanuel Macron
Coup sur coup, Emmanuel Macron nous a dit en deux déclarations son rapport à l’Histoire. Affirmant qu’il n’existe pas de culture française, il s’inscrit , digne enfant du «terranovisme», dans cette perspective sans racines que le rapport avorté du conseiller d’Etat Tuot exaltait en 2013 pour mieux reconstruire un passé accueillant aux vents de tous les communautarismes. L’assimilation de la colonisation française en Algérie à un «crime contre l’humanité», outre qu’elle sur-infecte des plaies mémorielles chez nombre de nos compatriotes pieds noirs et harkis, criminalise notre histoire au service d’une repentance dont la visée électorale n’échappe à personne . Cette double prise de position à quinze jours d’intervalles efface les clins d’œil plus anciens à Jeanne d’Arc et au récit national que sa visite ministérielle au Puy-du-fou en terre vendéenne avait esquissé. Accélérant sa campagne, toute de symboles bien plus que d’offre programmatique, Macron déroule le discours dominant, celui de la com’, celui de la sidération par l’activisme communicant et par l’exaltation d’un imaginaire rallié au culte de l’immédiat . Le jeune Macron n’aime pas l’ancien ; il le fait savoir et à son corps défendant il en vient même parfois à l’avouer jusque dans une rhétorique post-oratoire nourrie d’un phrasé saccadé tout droit issu de cette culture «power-point» qu’il parle couramment à l’instar des nouvelles élites sans lettre ni mémoires. Macron s’installe ainsi, jour après jour, comme la plus exacerbée et exacerbante métaphore de la com’. Il en délivre tous les rythmes et tous les codes. Les premiers se manifestent par une hyper-saturation de l’espace médiatique, par un face-à-face permanent et construit avec les médias, par une économie de la com’ qui circule non pas du candidat au peuple mais du produit au people… Le marketing n’est pas tant celui du préau , du marché – lieux de mémoire des vieilles politiques républicaines – que celui des scènes calculées avec ses plans médias, ses salles chauffées par des agitateurs de shows télévisés, ses photos calculées à destination d’une presse magazine friande de poses prétendument spontanées mais millimétriquement sophistiquées. Macron reflète la société médiatique ; il en est tout à la fois le Narcisse et la Léthé, la déesse de l’oubli … Car là où souffle l’esprit de la com’ se déploie aussi le voile de l’amnésie. La com’ agit par magie ; elle vise d’abord à transformer notre rapport au réel, soit en le liquidant par dénégation et en lui substituant un avenir tout d’optimisme et d’harmonie, soit en exorcisant son passé. Macron joue des deux registres: il promet un horizon de bonheur consumériste et liquide les spectres d’une histoire lourde, belliqueuse, conflictuelle, traumatisante… Il est le héraut des générations mainstream pour lesquelles il n’y a pas d’Histoire mais des histoires qui viennent se greffer les unes aux autres, morceaux d’un puzzle très «united color» à la mode Benetton… Macron préfère la publicité au réel, on l’aura compris. Cette vieille culture française, son Histoire, il n’a sans doute pas appris à les aimer… et en ce sens il est le produit d’un temps où les maîtres ont failli à transmettre . Quand il n’y a plus de transmission reste alors la com’… Arnaud Benedetti
C’est une manière de s’exprimer qui rappelle la campagne de Tony Blair, en Grande-Bretagne. On l’appelait aussi le candidat du flou (« Tony Blur »). Enoncer des lieux communs permet à chacun de comprendre ce qu’il a envie de comprendre. Tout cela est très fluide et offre donc peu de prises à ses adversaires, au-delà du ‘ »ah, mais vous n’avez pas de programme !' » (…) Ces dix dernières années, nous avons eu des programmes-catalogues de plus en plus précis jusqu’aux 1.000 pages de Bruno Le Maire. Or, ça ne fonctionne pas car les Français n’y croient plus. La présidentielle se joue surtout autour de la confiance en un homme ou une femme politique. Emmanuel Macron préfère donc créer un imaginaire autour de sa candidature en utilisant des mots apaisants. Le programme de Macron, c’est Macron. Christian Delporte
Chaque réunion publique est guettée par les médias car elle révélera une facette inédite, tenue secrète longtemps et indéfiniment annoncée, du ‘produit’ fini (ici le programme), qui est toujours en projet, fruit d’ajustements en fonction du marché politique et des « feedbacks » de clients/électeurs sur les phases bêta. Cécile Alduy
Ces intellectuels tétanisés par la culpabilité postcoloniale battent la campagne médiatique. Ils font de l’islamophobie le ressort exclusif des grandes manifestations antiterroristes du 11 janvier… Proclamer « Je suis Charlie », c’est pour eux faire acte d’islamophobie ! Cette cécité les conduit à minimiser le péril djihadiste de peur de désespérer Molenbeek comme les compagnons de route du Parti communiste s’interdisaient de dénoncer les exactions du stalinisme de peur de « désespérer Billancourt ». Par-delà l’organisation terroriste Daech, qui a fracturé la cohésion rêvée de la patrie, je crois que deux forces de désintégration sont à l’œuvre dans la société française. D’une part, les mouvements communautaristes, qui font prévaloir l’appartenance religieuse et ses marqueurs dans l’espace public. De l’autre, une conception identitaire et étroite de la France, dont le fond est ethno-racial et xénophobe. Gilles Kepel
Nous pourrons nous souvenir de ce jour et dire à nos enfants (…) qu’alors la montée des océans a commencé à ralentir et la planète à guérir. Barack Hussein Obama (discours de nomination, St Paul, 04.06. 2008)
The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing. (…) We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.  Ben Rhodes (conseiller-adjoint à la sécurité extérieure d’Obama)
Je ne sais pas, on m’a donné cette information. En fait, j’ai vu passer cette information. Mais c’était une victoire très substantielle, vous ne croyez pas ? Donald Trump (18.02.2017)
Je ne considère pas le président-élu comme un président légitime. Je pense que les Russes ont contribué à aider cet homme à être élu. Et ils ont aidé à détruire la candidature d’Hillary Clinton. Ça n’est pas bien, ça n’est pas juste et ça n’est pas le processus démocratique. Je n’irai pas à l’investiture. John Lewis
Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white, working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in? Bill Kristol
I think she’s the favorite. I have a sense that it would have happened anyway and that, at the end of the day, people were going to come home to who they were. And what’s depressed me, frankly, most about this race is, we went into this country a divided nation, and now the chasms are just solidified, so divided along race, divided along gender, urban/rural, college-educated/non-college-educated. We can go down the list. And, basically, less educated or high school-educated whites are going to Trump. It doesn’t matter what the guy does. And college-educated going to Clinton. Everyone is dividing based on demographic categories. And, sometimes, you get the sense that the campaign barely matters. People are just going with their gene pool and whatever it is. And that is one of the more depressing aspects of this race for me. (…) And, well, it’s a campaign of hate. Obama is a campaign of at least hope. At least his first campaign was. This is just a campaign of hate. And, you know, people who don’t like Trump really don’t like Trump. And I guess I’m among them. And we just saw in our report about the Trump voters in Pennsylvania. Did you see — when they were shouting on the road, did you see anything nice about Trump? No. Send Clinton to jail. (…) So we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America. But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced. And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way. David Brooks (November 5, 2016)
Theodore White wrote that America is Republican until 5:00 or 6:00 at night. And that’s when working people and their families got off work, had supper, and if America is going to vote — be Democratic, it’s going to happen between 5:30 and 8:00 at night. That has been totally turned on its ear. The working-class, blue-collar, non-college-educated base of the Democratic Party is the base of Donald Trump’s campaign this year. And the Democrats are now an upscale party. Mark Shields
How can we get rid of Trump ?  We’re just a month into the Trump presidency, and already so many are wondering: How can we end it? One poll from Public Policy Polling found that as many Americans — 46 percent — favor impeachment of President Trump as oppose it. Ladbrokes, the betting website, offers even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends. Sky Bet, another site, is taking wagers on whether Trump will be out of office by July. (…) Trump still has significant political support, so the obstacles are gargantuan. But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office. The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is “unable” to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election? Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation. (…) The better known route is impeachment. But for now it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger. My take is that unless things get much worse, removal may be a liberal fantasy. Progressives thought that Trump would never win the nomination or the election. He survived the “Access Hollywood” tape and countless crises that pundits thought would doom him, so it’s not clear why Republicans would desert him now that he’s president. Some people believe that the 2018 midterm elections will be so catastrophic for the G.O.P. that everyone will be ready to get rid of him. I’m skeptical. In the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018: The Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25. (…) And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early? Nicholas Kristof
We have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our very democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton were where Trump was, what the right would be doing on this issue? This goes to the very core of our democracy. Thomas Friedman
L’enjeu est trop important pour demeurer silencieux (…) Nous croyons que la grave instabilité émotionnelle révélée par le discours et les actions de M Trump le rend incapable de servir comme président de façon sécuritaire. Lettre ouverte de 35 psychiatres et personnels psychiatriques
Lancer des insultes psychiatriques est une mauvaise façon de répliquer aux attaques de M Trump contre la démocratie. Allen Frances
It was a wild press conference. (…) He spent the first part of his remarks talking about accomplishments that he thought the media, the fake media, whatever he wants to call us, we’re not paying enough attention to. But then, instead of focusing on these accomplishments and offering an optimistic, positive view of what he’s doing for this country, it was an airing of grievances. It was Festivus. It was complaints about the media. At one point, he said the leaks were real, but the news is fake, which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. He said things that were not true. Peter Alexander from NBC pointed out one of them when (Trump) said he had the biggest electoral victory win since Ronald Reagan. That’s not true. Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Obama, George H. W. Bush, all were bigger. But, moving on. If you are a soldier in harm’s way right now, if you are a hungry child in Appalachia or the inner city, if you are an unemployed worker in a hollow shell of a steel town, that’s not a President that seemed focused on your particular needs and wants. That’s a President focused on his bad press. It was unhinged, it was wild and I can’t believe that there are Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House who don’t understand that might play well with the 44% of the population that voted for the President, but a lot of Americans are going to watch that press conference and think ‘That guy isn’t focused on me.’ I don’t know even what he’s focused on. Jack Tapper (CNN)
En août dernier, Donald Trump avait qualifié Barack Obama de «pire président» de l’histoire américaine. Avide consommateur de médias (même s’il les déteste), Donald Trump a sans doute vu passer l’enquête réalisée par la chaîne parlementaire C-SPAN. Et il n’a sans doute pas apprécié les résultats. Selon cette étude, publiée vendredi, les historiens classent Barack Obama au douzième rang des présidents américains, la meilleure performance depuis la neuvième place de Ronald Reagan en 1988. Dans trois catégories, Obama entre dans le top 10 : «quête d’une justice égale pour tous» (3e), «autorité morale» (7e) et «gestion économique» (8e). En revanche, il se classe parmi les derniers (39e sur 44) en matière de relations avec le Congrès et termine à une très moyenne 24e place en relations internationales. A en croire cette étude, les trois meilleurs présidents de l’histoire se nomment Abraham Lincoln, George Washington et Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Libération
Avec son sens du détail et son éloquence habituels, Donald Trump résume ainsi sa position : «Je regarde deux Etats ou un Etat, et j’aime la solution que les deux parties aiment. Les deux me conviennent». En une petite phrase digne d’un élève de CM1, Donald Trump balaie plusieurs décennies de diplomatie américaine. Le négociateur-en-chef est déjà au travail. Libération
I’ve got to say, with all due respect, Mika, you and immediate members of your family didn’t care four years ago or eight years ago when you all were running around screaming hope and change. Hope and change. What does that mean? And Barack Obama, remember? He said when I get elected, people will look back on this as the moment when the oceans began to recede. Joe Scarborough (July 2016)
Have you heard the one about the presidential candidate who was once so popular that comedians were frightened to make jokes about him? (…) Mr Obama has provided rich fodder for comedians looking to prick his pomposity, predicting that people would look back at his nomination as the moment « when the rise of the oceans began to slow ». He also told Congressmen that his campaign was « the moment . . . that the world is waiting for ». The attitude was summed up by Dana Milbank, the Washington Post’s resident political humourist, who declared: « Barack Obama has long been his party’s presumptive nominee. Now he’s becoming its presumptuous nominee. » Mr Letterman listed top ten signs that Barack Obama is overconfident, which included « Offered Bush 20 bucks for the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner » and « Having head measured for Mount Rushmore. » Mr Obama is also under fire for moving politically towards the centre ground, moderating positions he had once boasted were evidence of his unique appeal. Jay Leno, of the long-running Tonight Show, said: « Barack Obama now says he’s open to offshore oil drilling. So, apparently, when he promised change, he was talking about his mind. » The Telegraph (09 Aug 2008)
Nobody could describe Donald Trump as lacking in self-confidence, but the billionaire egomaniac is emotional jelly compared with King Barack. Even before he won the Nobel peace prize, Obama was telling America that his elevation to the presidency would be remembered as ‘the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow’. He doesn’t have Mr Trump’s gold-plated helicopter, private jet, penthouse and yacht. But when it comes to self-reverence and sheer hauteur there is no one to beat him. Someone who believes his political personality can reverse global warming will have no doubts about his ability to persuade the British people to stay in the European Union. Just a few of his mellifluous sentences and a flash of those teeth and surely the British people will go weak at the knees! The polls show that Britain is split on the EU, so King Barack will come and help the nation resolve its indecision — to the delight of David Cameron and George Osborne. The timing of his visit, halfway through the EU referendum debate, is no accident. There is a longstanding international understanding that world leaders don’t visit during election campaigns — but such conventions were obviously designed for lesser mortals. Obama has no qualms and the Prime Minister has no shame: he needs every endorsement he can get. The Chancellor is pulling all the strings he can so the likes of the IMF’s Christine Lagarde ask us to stay in. Short of engineering a Second Coming, a visitation from King Barack is to their minds the best plug imaginable. That enthusiasm does not seem to be shared as much by British voters. Polls show that only 4 per cent of us think Mr -Obama’s primary reason for wanting us to stay in the EU is because ‘he cares about Britain’. A majority of us recognise that Mr Obama finds it easier ‘to deal with Europe as one bloc’. It’s not, as some Tory MPs have alleged, that Obama hates Britain. It’s just that he cares less about us — and our neighbours — than any of his recent predecessors. The ‘pivot’ to Asia, turning America’s strategic gaze away from Europe and towards the Pacific, has been his chief international objective. The turmoil in Europe and the Middle East — the Ukraine and Syrian refugee crises which have, at the very least, been encouraged by US withdrawal from the world — were distractions from his focus on China and the rising economies of East Asia. The world has not become a safer place as a result of Obama’s policy of ‘leading from behind’. (…) The arrogance is breathtaking but it is far from the only manifestation of, dare I say it, the madness of King Barack. Mr Obama does not let any adviser, voter or foreign leader get in his way. During his two-term presidency, his Democratic party has lost control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But King Barack was unimpressed at the verdicts of the people. By royal decree, or as the White House calls it, executive order, he has attempted to stop illegal immigrants being deported, increase the minimum wage, intensify gun regulation and cut greenhouse gas emissions. All of these policies may be cheered from Europe. But the US constitution is quite clear: it’s the job of the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass laws and it’s the job of the President to either veto or implement them. There is a word for ignoring and overruling the legislative branches of the American government and that word is ‘undemocratic’. It was not supposed to be this way when Mr Obama launched his transformational bid for the presidency. He came to national attention with an uplifting speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention. He told his party about gay Americans living in red-leaning Republican states and how blue-leaning Democratic states worshipped ‘an awesome God’. There weren’t red states or blue states but ‘one America: red, white, and blue’. An America demoralised by the Iraq war, the global recession and bitterness towards the often tongue-tied George W. Bush embraced Obama and his soaring oratory in 2008, in the hope that he would unite an unhappy, fractious nation. It has not come to pass, of course. Whether it’s the Black Lives Matter protests at police violence or the fact that only 1 per cent of Americans think the people who caused the 2008 crash have been brought to justice, the American left is as energised and angry as the right. Today, barely a quarter of Americans think their country is heading in the right direction. They are more pessimistic about their economic prospects than the Brits or Germans. You would, perhaps, expect the American right to be angry, because Mr Obama does little to build ties with them. He didn’t attend the funeral of the conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia or that of Nancy Reagan — choosing to speak at a music festival instead. But his lack of respect and charity is not confined to Republicans. It recently emerged that Obama declined to invite the Clintons to dinner at the White House because Michelle, the First Lady, has struggled to forgive Bill Clinton for criticising her husband. Jeffrey Goldberg’s extraordinary recent essay in the Atlantic magazine about Obama’s foreign policy gave insight after insight into the President’s arrogance. Angela Merkel is ‘one of the few foreign leaders Obama respects’. When Obama reversed his Syrian policy and decided that President Assad’s crossing of those famous ‘red lines’ would not, after all, be punished, his secretary of state, John Kerry, and defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, found out hours after he’d told his advisers. It’s a common experience for so many of his colleagues. Hillary Clinton was overruled on Syria, generals were overruled on Iraq. Obama blamed David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for the Libyan ‘shit show’. It is never King Barack’s fault. Obama’s election in 2008 inspired the world. But after eight years, it’s hard not to blame his abrasive style of politics for the rise of anti-politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Americans are rebelling against the emergence of an imperial presidency. As Barack Obama offers his hand to the Queen this week, and lectures the British on their place in the world, voters here might feel somewhat resentful, too. Tim Montgomerie
Tiré à quatre épingles, col blanc éclatant et cravate rouge vif, l’homme grand, noir, élégant, fait son apparition sur scène devant des milliers de drapeaux américains portés par une marée humaine en délire. Des applaudissements se mélangent aux cris hystériques, pleurs et voix hurlant en chœur « Yes we can ». Les larmes coulent sur les joues du révérend Jesse Jackson qui vient d’apprendre que le rêve de Martin Luther King s’est réalisé en ce 4 novembre 2008. Et le monde entier assiste, le souffle coupé, à cette scène inédite de l’histoire. « Hello Chicago », lance le quadragénaire avec un sourire tiré des publicités de dentifrice. « S’il y a encore quelqu’un qui doute que l’Amérique est un endroit où tout est possible, ce soir, vous avez votre réponse. » Et la foule s’enflamme. Ce soir-là, Barack Obama a réussi son pari en devenant le premier président noir des Etats-Unis. Aux yeux de ses électeurs, il n’était pas seulement l’incarnation de l’ » American dream ». Il était aussi celui qui allait tendre l’oreille aux difficultés des minorités, sortir une nation de la pire crise économique depuis la Grande Dépression, ramasser les pots cassés de George W. Bush, soigner les plaies d’un pays hanté par la guerre et l’insécurité, rendre aux familles leurs soldats partis en Irak et en Afghanistan, offrir des soins de santé aux plus démunis… La liste est sans fin. (…) Les attentes étaient particulièrement grandes au sein de la communauté afro-américaine (…) « Tout le monde a cru qu’avec Obama nous allions rentrer dans une ère post-raciale. C’est donc assez ironique que la race soit devenue un problème majeur sous sa présidence », affirme Robert Shapiro, politologue à l’université new-yorkaise de Columbia. (…) Outre quelques discours, le Président se distingue par le peu d’initiatives prises en faveur de sa communauté. Certes, il a nommé un nombre sans précédent de juges noirs. Et, paradoxalement, cette reprise de la lutte pour l’égalité est parfois notée comme une victoire du Président, malgré lui. (…) Dans un premier temps, l’ancien sénateur a aussi suscité la colère des immigrés en situation irrégulière en autorisant un nombre record d’expulsions. Barack Obama finira par faire volte-face et s’engagera dans une lutte féroce pour faire passer au Congrès le « Dream Act », projet de loi légalisant 2 millions de jeunes sans-papiers. En vain. Furieux, le chef d’Etat signera alors un décret permettant à ceux-ci d’obtenir un permis de travail et donc de les protéger. Aussi, peu de présidents américains peuvent se targuer d’avoir fait autant progresser la protection des droits des homosexuels. En mai 2012, « Newsweek » surnommait Barack Obama « the first gay president », pour saluer sa décision de soutenir le mariage homosexuel. Quelques mois plus tard, la loi « Don’t ask, don’t tell », interdisant aux militaires d’afficher leur homosexualité, était abrogée. Et, en 2015, Barack Obama criait « victoire », alors que la Cour suprême venait de légaliser le mariage gay. Reste que le natif de Hawaii n’est pas parvenu à réduire les inégalités sociales et raciales qui sévissent toujours aux Etats-Unis. En 2012, 27,2 % des Afro-Américains et 25,6 % des Latinos vivaient sous le seuil de pauvreté, contre 9,7 % des Blancs. Autre épine dans le pied du Démocrate : la débâcle de la ville de Detroit, majoritairement peuplée par des Noirs et déclarée en banqueroute de 2013 à 2014. (…) Peut-être était-il trop dépensier. Surnommé « Monsieur 20 trillions », Barack Obama est accusé d’avoir doublé la dette publique. (…) L’histoire se souviendra d’Obama comme de celui qui aura doté les Etats-Unis d’un système d’assurance santé universelle. L’ »Affordable Care Act », lancé en 2010 après quinze mois de tractations, est « la » grande victoire du Démocrate. (…) Mais (…) le système montre-t-il ses limites puisque (…) il comprend (…) trop de personnes malades, nécessitant des soins, et pas assez de personnes en bonne santé. Ce problème est devenu récurrent et des compagnies d’assurances quittent le programme », explique Victor Fuchs, spécialiste américain de l’économie de la santé. (…) En 2009, le Président envoie 30 000 hommes supplémentaires en Afghanistan, pour ensuite déclarer la fin des opérations militaires en Irak, avant de bombarder la Libye. (…) Sa crédibilité en prend un coup lorsqu’il refuse de frapper la Syrie, même après que Bachar Al-Assad eut franchi la fameuse ligne rouge, tracée par Obama lui-même, en utilisant des armes chimiques contre les rebelles. En huit ans, le prix Nobel de la paix, arrivé au pouvoir comme un Président antiguerre, aura entériné le recours à la force militaire dans neuf pays (Afghanistan, Irak, Syrie, Pakistan, Libye, Yémen, Somalie, Ouganda et Cameroun). Le « New York Times » indique d’ailleurs que « si les Etats-Unis restent au combat en Afghanistan, Irak et Syrie jusqu’à la fin de son mandat […] il deviendra de façon assez improbable le seul président dans l’histoire du pays à accomplir deux mandats entiers à la tête d’un pays en guerre ». Le Congrès aura été le talon d’Achille de Barack Obama. (…) Résultat : l’adepte du « centrisme » laissera derrière lui un paysage politique plus polarisé que jamais. « Il n’y a pas une Amérique libérale et une Amérique conservatrice, il y a les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. Les érudits aiment à découper notre pays entre Etats rouges et Etats bleus […] mais j’ai une nouvelle pour eux. Nous formons un seul peuple », avait-il pourtant déclaré lors de la Convention démocrate de Boston le 27 juillet 2004. Ce jour-là, une star politique était née. Barack Obama avait tout : la rhétorique enflammée, le charisme hors norme, l’intelligence, le parcours au parfum de rêve américain et la famille idéale. Avec son style châtié, son allure juvénile, sa capacité à susciter l’enthousiasme des jeunes électeurs, il était le candidat parfait du XXIe siècle. Trop parfait, peut être. A tel point qu’il aura suscité plus d’espoirs qu’il ne pouvait en porter. « Il a été meilleur candidat en campagne qu’il n’a été président », regrette M. McKee. La Libre Belgique
My frustration (…) is that for eight years, I wanted the press to press President Obama on things like the jayvees, the red line, leading from behind, Aleppo, and they didn’t. And in the first month, they’re pressing Trump, and they’re upset that he’s not saying (…) things that Manhattan-Beltway media elites want him to say. Instead, he says this. Let me play for you, I think, the key line in the 77 minute press conference yesterday, is this one, cut number four: « Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press, the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. » (…) that’s the key. The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. (…) He never corrects anything that he says, and he says lots of wrong things. But that one comment, they don’t trust you anymore, is a summation of where we are in America, because I really do think Manhattan-Beltway elites have lost the country. They’ve lost it. There’s just no confidence in, I’m not going to say us, because I am neither in nor of the Beltway-Manhattan media elite. I live in California still. Hugh Hewitt
It’s not because of anything obviously Donald Trump did. The press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own, and we can have a long conversation about what created that. Part of it, though, is what you mentioned about the local weather report, which is to say a lot of hysterical coverage about every little last thing that doesn’t warrant it. John Dickerson
If there are winners and losers in America, I know the losers. They lost jobs to China and Vietnam. And they’re dying younger, caught in an endless cycle of jail, drug charges and applying for disability to pay the child support bill. They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they’re angry. They’re angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they’re voting now for Donald Trump. My Republican friends are for Trump. My state representative is for Trump. People who haven’t voted in years are for Trump. He’ll win the primary here on March 15 and he will carry this county in the general. His supporters realize he’s a joke. They do not care. They know he’s authoritarian, nationalist, almost un-American, and they love him anyway, because he disrupts a broken political process and beats establishment candidates who’ve long ignored their interests. Michael Cooper (writer, attorney, and liberal Democrat who lives in rural North Carolina, March 2016)
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time. And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid. It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel? We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice. You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized. This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence! That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement. Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological. That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong. As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew. There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well. Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover. What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Will Rahn (CBS, 10.11.2016)
When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. Salena Zito
Les journalistes prennent toujours Trump au pied de la lettre mais sans le prendre au sérieux. Ses électeurs, en revanche, le prennent au sérieux mais ne le prennent pas au pied de la lettre. Par exemple, quand il propose de construire un mur à la frontière mexicaine, les journalistes exigent des détails, veulent savoir comment il va s’y prendre. Ses électeurs comprennent qu’il ne veut pas vraiment édifier un mur. Ils entendent simplement qu’il propose une politique migratoire plus saine et plus intelligente. Peter Thiel
I expected some broken dishes, some firings, some chaos, and some rookie mistakes. We got all of that. But I also expect a systems-thinker to tame the chaos over time as he learns on the job. For example, the leaks will stop as soon as Trump fires the right people. He’ll figure out which meetings he can skip. He’ll know who to trust. He’ll learn where all the buttons and levers are. It’s a process. If you are comparing the incoming Trump administration to the smooth transfer of power that defines our modern history, that’s an irrational comparison. If the country wanted a smooth ride it would have elected Hillary Clinton. Instead, voters opted to “drain the swamp.“ And you can’t drain the swamp without angering the alligators and getting some swamp water on your pants. That’s what we’re watching now. My liberal friends are gleefully scouring the semi-fake news and sending me articles that show Trump is “incompetent.” That’s the new narrative on the left. The Hitler illusion is starting to fade because Trump refuses to build concentration camps as his critics hallucinated he would. And Israel likes Trump, which is making the Hitler illusion harder to maintain. So the critics are evolving their main line of attack from Hitler to “incompetent,” with a dash of “chaos.” You’ll see those two words all over the Opposition Media’s coverage. It isn’t a coincidence. Persuasion-wise, focusing on incompetence and chaos is a strong play by the anti-Trumpers. One would expect the new Trump administration to have lots of growing pains. That means the Opposition Media will have plenty of fodder that they can frame as incompetence and chaos. Confirmation bias will make it all seem to fit the narrative. This is the same persuasion play that Trump used when he assigned to his opponents nicknames such as Lyin’ Ted and Crooked Hillary. He depended on future news cycles to serve up lots of confirmation bias to make his labels more credible over time. Trump’s opposition is running the same persuasion play on him. Now everything he does will be seen through their frame of “incompetence” and “chaos.” Even if it isn’t. That is strong persuasion. If you step out of the Opposition Media’s framing of Trump, another frame that fits the data is that he’s learning on the job, just like he learned every other field that he entered and eventually mastered. I don’t know what you expected when Trump went to Washington, but it isn’t too different from what I imagined. I assumed there would be broken dishes. And I assumed it would take him months to get his systems in place. When I worked in corporate America, I was usually involved in setting goals for the department. When we didn’t meet those goals, I always pointed out that the problem could be on either end. Either the goals were unrealistic or the performance was bad. Both explanations fits the data. Likewise, Trump’s first few weeks do look exactly like “incompetence” and “chaos” if you are primed to see it that way. But they also look like a systems-thinker simultaneously draining the swamp and learning on the job. Scott Adams
We live in our own personal movies. This is a perfect example. Millions of Americans looked at the same press conference and half of us came away thinking we saw an entirely different movie than the other half. Many of us saw Trump talking the way he normally does, and saying the things he normally says. Other people saw a raving lunatic, melting down. Those are not the same movies. So how can we know who is hallucinating in this case? The best way to tell is by looking for the trigger for cognitive dissonance. In this case, the trigger is clear. Trump’s unexpected win forced the Huffington Post to rewrite their mental movies from one in which they were extra-clever writers to one in which they were the dumbest political observers in the entire solar system. You might recall that the Huffington Post made a big deal of refusing to cover Trump on their political pages when he first announced his candidacy. They only carried him on their entertainment pages because they were so smart they knew he could not win. Then he won. When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed. Apparently the Huffington Post chose to rewrite their movie so Trump is a deranged monster, just like they warned us. That’s what they see. This isn’t an example of so-called “fake” news as we generally understand it. This is literally imaginary news. I believe the Huffington Post’s description of the press conference is literally what they saw. If you gave them lie detector tests, they would swear they saw a meltdown, and the lie detector would say they were telling the truth. There are two clues that the Huffington Post is hallucinating and I’m not. The first clue is that they have a trigger and I don’t. Reality violated their egos, whereas I was predicting a Trump win all along. My world has been consistent with my ego. No trigger. All I have is a warm feeling of rightness. The second clue is that the Huffington Post is seeing something that half the country doesn’t see. As a general rule, the person who sees the elephant in the room is the one hallucinating, not the one who can’t see the elephant. The Huffington Post is literally seeing something that is invisible to me and other observers. We see a President Trump talking the way he normally talks. They see a 77-minute meltdown.  Scott Adams
Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later. According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch. Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13. So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi. (…) But of course nothing matches the audacity of trope by Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice on September 16, 2012. Rice went on several Sunday shows to peddle a story she knew was completely phony, one that was already quickly unraveling even as most in the media and administration tried to keep it intact. (…) In a press gaggle on Air Force One the next day, guess how many times Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Rice’s comments? Ten? Five? One? Not once. Let me repeat that. The day after Obama’s national security advisor was on five news programs to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video, not one reporter asked the White House about it. I actually had to re-read the transcripts several times, even checking the date over and over, to make sure this was accurate. Her name did not even come up. (…) Sometimes the hypocrisy, double standard, and outright lies by the media under the Trump presidency is funny. Sometimes it is infuriating. But never was the media’s complicit sheep-like coverage more evident than in the days after Benghazi, behavior you can never imagine now. They have yet to admit their mistakes and failures, even as more evidence is revealed. Remember that the next time you want to worry about how Trump is responsible for undermining the media’s integrity and credibility. Julie Kelly
Trump thrives despite, not because of, his crudity, and largely because of anger at Barack Obama’s divisive and polarizing governance and sermonizing — and the Republican party’s habitual consideration of trade issues, debt, immigration, and education largely from the vantage point of either abstraction or privilege. Victor Davis Hanson
Democrats would seed the summer and autumn election battlefields with new and updated models of politically correct IEDs. They used this technique very effectively in 2012 to render a decent Mitt Romney as a tax-cheating, greedy Wall Street vulture, who ignored his regular garbageman, beat up kids in prep school, and strapped his terrified dog to his car top. Four years earlier the Democrats had blown John McCain to smithereens and left him little more than a closet racist and an adulterous and senile coot, who could not remember how many estates he owned nor the shenanigans of his pill-popping spouse. To avoid the rain of shrapnel, Romney had to battle both the moderator and his opponent in a presidential debate while contextualizing his own personal success and fortune. McCain, meanwhile, swore off referring to the racist personal pastor of Barack Obama and to Obama’s own litany of “typical white person” and “get in their face.” We forget that long before the wild man Trump, the most un-Trumpian, sober and judicious McCain and Romney were flattened by bogus charges against their spouses and false claims, respectively, of adultery and tax-cheating — and were completely unable to defend themselves from such smears and slanders. Instead of staying on a winning message and avoiding the subterranean traps, Trump on cue tramped right through this progressive minefield. The explosive result was predictable. He wasted precious hours rudely taking on a Mexican-American judge — who, to be fair, had foolishly joined a “La Raza” lawyers’ organization (imagine a white counterpart as a member of a local legal organization with “The Race” in its name) — or jousting with a Gold Star family, indifferent to the fact that the father was an immigration lawyer who logically would oppose Trump’s immigration moratoria. So when all these mines went off, Trump in theory always had some sort of legitimate counter-argument: Yes, Megyn Kelly was not commensurate in her sexism questions, in that she did not ask Hillary Clinton to account for her own sexist past, whether laughing over aspects of a case involving a rapist client, or demonizing Bill’s victims of coerced sex. And, yes, it was also a fact that bombastically inviting Putin to find Hillary’s missing 30,000 e-mails could not be a breach of security if they were truly about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding. Victor Davis Hanson
Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views. In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie. When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication. In contrast, we were to believe Obama’s adolescent faux Greek columns, hokey “lowering the seas and cooling the planet,” vero possumus seal on his podium as president-elect, and 57 states were Lincolnesque. Why would 2016 not end up again in losing nobly? Would once again campaigning under the Marquess of Queensberry rules win Republicans a Munich reprieve? The Orangeman Cometh In such a hysterical landscape, it was possible that no traditional Republican in 2016 was likely to win, even against a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton, who emerged wounded from a bruising primary win over aged socialist Bernie Sanders. Then came along the Trump, the seducer of the Right when the Republican establishment was busy early on coronating Jeb Bush. After the cuckolded front-runners imploded, we all assumed that Trump’s successful primary victories — oddly predicated on avoidance of a ground game, internal polling, ad campaigns, sophisticated fundraising, and a sea of consultants and handlers — were hardly applicable to Clinton, Inc. She surely would bury him under a sea of cash, consultants, and sheer manpower. That Trump was an amateur, a cad, his own worst enemy, cynically leveraging a new business or brand, and at any time could say anything was supposedly confirmation of Hillary’s inevitable victory. Her winning paradigm was seen as simply anti-Trump rather than pro-Hillary: light campaigning to conserve her disguised fragile health, while giving full media attention to allow Trump to elucidate his fully obnoxious self. Her campaign was to be a series of self-important selfies, each more flattering to the beholder but otherwise of no interest to her reluctant supporters. For insurance, Clinton would enlist the bipartisan highbrow Washington establishment to close ranks, with their habitual tsk-tsking of Trump in a nuanced historical context — “Hitler,” “Stalin,” “Mussolini,” “brown shirt,” etc. For all Hillary’s hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists, she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55. Hillary would rely on the old Obama team of progressive hit men in the public-employee unions, the news ministries, the pajama-boy bloggers, the race industry, and the open-borders lobbies to brand Trump supporters as racist, sexist, misogynist, Islamophobic, nativist, homophobic. The shades of Obama’s old white reprehensible “Clingers” would spring back to life as “The Deplorables.” Yet for all Hillary’s hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists, she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55. Trump at his worst was never put away by Hillary at her best, and he has stayed within six to eight points for most of his awful August and is now nipping her heels as October nears. Fracking Populist Fury Trump’s hare-and-tortoise strategy, his mishmash politics, reinventions, mastery of free publicity, and El Jefe celebrity had always offered him an outside chance of winning. (…) Trump’s electoral calculus was easy to fathom. He needed to win as many independents as Romney, enthuse some new Reagan Democrats to return to politics, keep steady the Republican establishment, and win at least as much of the Latino and black vote as had the underperforming McCain and Romney — all to win seven or eight swing states. He planned to do that, in addition to not stepping on IEDs, through the simple enough strategy of an outraged outsider not nibbling, but blasting away, at political correctness, reminding audiences that he was not a traditional conservative, but certainly more conservative than Hillary, and a roguish celebrity billionaire with a propensity to talk with, not down to, the lower middle classes. That the establishment was repulsed by his carroty look, his past scheming, his Queens-accented bombast, and his nationalist policies only made him seem more authentic to his supporters, old and possibly new as well. In sum, if Trump’s D-11 bulldozer blade did not exist, it would have to be invented. He is Obama’s nemesis, Hillary’s worst nightmare, and a vampire’s mirror of the Republican establishment. Before November’s election, his next outburst or reinvention will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree that Clinton’s erudite callousness should repel her own. Victor Davis Hanson
In his energetic harnessing of popular anger, Trump, my own least favorite in the field, was the more effective candidate in gauging the mood of the times. These are all valid rejoinders to those who say that recalcitrant conservatives, independents, and women should not hold their nose and vote for Trump. But they are not the chief considerations in his favor. Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump’s sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters. The Beltway establishment grew more concerned about their sinecures in government and the media than about showing urgency in stopping Obamaism. When the Voz de Aztlan and the Wall Street Journal often share the same position on illegal immigration, or when Republicans of the Gang of Eight are as likely as their left-wing associates to disparage those who want federal immigration law enforced, the proverbial conservative masses feel they have lost their representation. How, under a supposedly obstructive, conservative-controlled House and Senate, did we reach $20 trillion in debt, institutionalize sanctuary cities, and put ourselves on track to a Navy of World War I size? Compared with all that, “making Mexico pay” for the wall does not seem all that radical. Under a Trump presidency the owner of Univision would not be stealthily writing, as he did to Team Clinton, to press harder for open borders — and thus the continuance of a permanent and profitable viewership of non-English speakers. Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. One does not need lectures about conservatism from Edmund Burke when, at the neighborhood school, English becomes a second language, or when one is rammed by a hit-and-run driver illegally in the United States who flees the scene of the accident. Do our elites ever enter their offices to find their opinion-journalism jobs outsourced at half the cost to writers in India? Are congressional staffers told to move to Alabama, where it is cheaper to telecommunicate their business? Trump’s outrageousness was not really new; it was more a 360-degree mirror of an already outrageous politics as usual. (…) The problem, however, is that a displaced real person, unemployed and living with his 80-year-old grandmother in a financially underwater and unsellable home, cannot easily move to the North Dakota fracking fields, any more than the destruction of an 80-acre small-farming operation owing to foreign agricultural subsidies is in any way “creative.” What we needed from our conservative elites and moderates was not necessarily less free-market economics, but fair in addition to free trade — and at least some compassion and sensitivity in recognizing that their bromides usually applied to others rather than to themselves and the political class of both parties. When Trump shoots off his blunderbuss, is it always proof of laziness and ignorance, or is it sometimes generally aimed in the right direction to prompt anxiety and eventual necessary reconsideration? Questioning NATO’s pro forma way of doing business led to furor, but also to renewed promises from NATO allies to fight terror, pony up defense funds, and coordinate more effectively. Deploring unfair trade deals suddenly made Hillary Clinton renounce her prior zealous support of the “gold standard” Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.(…) Many of us did not vote in the primaries for Trump, because we did not believe that he was sufficiently conservative or, given his polarizing demeanor, that he could win the presidency even if he were. The irony is now upon us that Trump may have been the most conservative Republican candidate who still could beat Hillary Clinton — and that if he were to win, he might usher in the most conservative Congress, presidency, and Supreme Court in nearly a century. Victor Davis Hanson
The United States (…) is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals. The first concerns the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, which were unique documents for their time and proved transcendent across time and space. Both documents enshrined the ideal that all people were created equal and were human first, with inalienable rights from God that were protected by government. These founding principles would eventually trump innate tribal biases and prejudices to grant all citizens their basic rights. Second, given America’s two-ocean buffer, the United States could control its own demographic destiny. Americans usually supported liberal immigration policies largely because of the country’s ability to monitor the numbers of new arrivals and the melting pot’s ability to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry immigrants, who would soon relegate their racial, religious, and ethnic affinities to secondary importance. Finally, the United States is the most individualistic and capitalistic of the Western democracies. The nation was blessed with robust economic growth, rich natural resources, and plenty of space. It assumed that its limited government and ethos of entrepreneurialism would create enough widespread prosperity and upward mobility that affluence—or at least the shared quest for it—would create a common bond superseding superficial Old World ties based on appearance or creed. In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision (…) This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo. A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states. At one point Clinton defined her notion of identity politics by describing Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up… Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” (…) but (…) ethnic solidarity can cut both ways. In the 2016 elections, Trump won an overwhelming and nearly unprecedented number of working class whites in critical swing states. Many either had not voted in prior elections or had voted Democratic. The culture’s obsession with tribalism and special ethnic interests—often couched in terms of opposing “white privilege”—had alienated millions of less well-off white voters. Quietly, many thought that if ethnic activists were right that the white majority was shrinking into irrelevance, and if it was acceptable for everyone to seek solidarity through their tribal affiliations, then poor whites could also rally under the banner of their own identity politics. If such trends were to continue in a nation that is still 70 percent white, it would prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in a way never envisioned during the era of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton discovered that Obama’s identity politics constituencies were not transferrable to herself in the same exceptional numbers, and the effort to ensure that they were often created new tribal opponents. (…) it is not certain that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at its current near record rate, which has resulted in over 40 million immigrants now residing in America—constituting some 13 percent of the present population. Trump is likely not just to curtail illegal immigration, but also to return legal immigration to a more meritocratic, diverse, and individual basis. Were immigration to slow down and become more diverse, the formidable powers of integration and intermarriage would perhaps do to the La Raza community what it once did to the Italian-American minority after the cessation of mass immigration from Italy. There are currently no Italian-American quotas, no Italian university departments, and no predictable voting blocs. (…) class is finally reemerging as a better barometer of privilege than is race—a point that Republican populists are starting to hammer home. The children of Barack Obama, for example, have far more privilege than do the sons of Appalachian coal miners—and many Asian groups already exceed American per capita income averages. When activist Michael Eric Dyson calls for blanket reparations for slavery, his argument does not resonate with an unemployed working-class youth from Kentucky, who was born more than 30 years after the emergence of affirmative action—and enjoys a fraction of Dyson’s own income, net worth, and cultural opportunities. Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs. The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power. Victor Davis Hanson
Struggling rural America proved disenchanted with the country’s trajectory into something like a continental version of Belgium or the Netherlands: borderless, with a global rather than national sense of self; identity politics in lieu of unity and assimilation; a statist and ossified economy with a few winners moralizing to lots of losers—perhaps as a way of alleviating transitory guilt over their own privilege. The full lessons of the 2016 election are still being digested (or indeed amplified), but one constant is emerging that the world outside our bi-coastal dynamic, hip, and affluent culture is not very well understood by those who lead the country. The Left feels that the interior is a veritable cultural wasteland of obesity, Christianists, nihilist self-destructive behavior, and evenings that shut down at dusk in desperate need of federal moral and regulatory oversight. The doctrinaire Right advises the interior losers of globalization to hit the road in search of good jobs and take a hard look in the mirror and cure their self-inflicted pathologies. Such stereotyped pessimism about rural America are no exaggeration. (…) The plight of the contemporary rural America in a word was not due to an epidemic of laziness or of innate genetic ineptness, but more likely the onslaught of globalism, a sort of Tolkien master ring that gave its coastal wearers enormous power to create and manage worldwide wealth, prosperity, and power, but by its very use proved corrupting to those in its midst. (…) But the rural shakedown did not mean that our red-state interior tuned out from politics, big business, universities, government, popular culture and mass entertainment. Far from it; cable TV, the Internet, and smart phones plugged rural America into coastal culture as never before. And what fly over country saw and heard each day, it often did not like. The first disconnect between coastal and interior America was the elevation of race over class—with a twist of scapegoating the losers of globalization as somehow culpable winners because of their supposed “white privilege.” Fairly or not, the lower middle classes heard a nonstop message from mostly affluent white liberals and well-off minority activists, virtue-signaling one another by blaming those far less well off as somehow beyond redemption. So-called middle and rural America—oddly people more likely to put their children in public schools and assimilate and integrate than was the elite—grew accustomed to being insulted by Barack Obama as clingers, or by Hillary Clinton as “irredeemables” and “deplorables,” as popular culture became fixated on privileged whiteness. And that tired message soon became surreal: coastal white people with the money were liberal and accusatory; interior white people without it were conservative and thus culpable. The villains of television and Hollywood, when not corporate conspiracists, Russian oligarchs, or South African residual Nazis, were often redneck Americans with southern drawls. The new minstrel shows were reality television’s ventures into the swamps, the seas, the forests, the Alaskan wilderness, and the empty and endless highways, where each week with condescension we saw smoking, overweight and gap-toothed fishermen, loggers, and truckers do funny and stupid things with boats, saws, and semis. The second unwelcome message was the politicization of almost everything. Beyoncé turned her 2016 Super Bowl show, traditionally non-political entertainment, into a peaen to Black Lives Matter and the old Black Panther party. Multimillionaire Colin Kaepernick deflected attention from his own poor play on the field for the San Francisco 49ers by scapegoating America for its supposed -ologies and –isms—but of course himself did not take the trouble to vote. Hollywood actors, who make more in an hour than most do in a year, periodically finger-pointed at Middle America for its ethical shortcomings. Turn on late night talk shows or early morning chat sessions to receive the monotonous message that entertainment is properly indoctrination. Even charity became progressive politics. The locus classicus of multimillionaire moralizing was the Clinton team: she selling influence at the State Department, he collecting the ensuing checks at the Foundation; both veneering the shake-down with left-wing moralistic preening. (…) Third, the gulf in America between concrete and abstract things widened. Banking, insurance, universities, government, social media, and programing were reflections of the work of the mind and well compensated; fabrication, construction, transportation, drilling, mining, logging and farming were still muscular, essential for the good modern life—and yet deprecated as ossified and passé. The ancient wisdom of the necessary balance between thought and deed, muscle and mind, was forgotten in the popular culture of the coasts. Yet rural America assumed it could still learn how to use iPhones, search the web, and write in Microsoft Word; but coastal America did not know a chainsaw from a snow blower. A tractor or semi might as well have been a spaceship. And those with expansive lawns soon had no idea how to mow them. That divide by 2016 posed a Euripidean question: What is wisdom and who were the real dullards, who were the real smart ones: the supposed idiots with Trump posters on their lawn who swore they were undercounted, or the sophisticated pollsters and pundits who wrote off their confidence as delusional if not pathetic? Finally, speech, dress, and comportment bifurcated in a way not seen since the 19th century. Ashley Judd and Madonna might have thought screaming obscenities, vulgarities, and threats established their progressive fides, but to half the country they only confirmed they were both crude and talentless. What do Ben Rhodes, Pajama Boy, and Lena Dunham have in common? They all appeared to the rest of the country as arrogant, young, hip, and worldly without knowing anything of the world beyond them. Some object that Trumpism is pure nihilism and a vandal act rather than a constructive recalibration. Perhaps. But red-state America shouted back that if those who demanded open borders never themselves lived the consequences of open borders, then there would be no open borders. If those who proposed absolute free transfers of capital and jobs always expected others to lose money and jobs as the cost of the bargain, then there would be no such unlimited free flows. If the media were continually to stereotype and condescend to others, then they themselves would be stereotyped and talked down to. For a brief moment in 2016, rural America shouted that the last shall be first, and first shall be last. Before we write off this retort that led to Trump as a mindless paroxysm, remember that it was not those in Toledo, Billings, Montgomery, or Red Bluff who piled up $20 trillion in collective debt, nearly destroyed the health care system, set the Middle East afire, turned the campus into Animal Farm, or transformed Hollywood into 1984-style widescreen indoctrination. Trump was rural America’s shout back. One way or another, he will be its last. Either Trump will fail to restore prosperity and influence to the hinterland and thus even as president go the way of a flash-in-the-pan, would-be president Ross Perot—or he will succeed and thus make a like-minded successor superfluous.  

Attention: un surréalisme peut en cacher un autre !

Surréaliste, hallucinant, déjanté

Au lendemain d’une première conférence de presse du président Trump …

Pour laquelle nos médias n’avaient à nouveau pas de mots assez durs …

Alors qu’entre vote populaire, piratage russe, taille de la foule ou boycotts de l’investiture, fuites des services secrets, prétendues analyses psychiatriques ou appels explicites à l’assassinat …

Tout est bon, du premier DJ venu aux prétendus historiens, pour remettre en question la légitimité du choix du peuple américain …

Pendant qu’à coups de fuites judiciaires désormais quotidiennes et au profit d’un énième démagogue du déni et du « hope and change »

L‘hallali continue en France contre le seul véritable candidat de l’alternance …

Comment ne pas voir …

Non seulement l’incroyable deux poids deux mesures comparé à l’élection d’un Barack Obama …

Présenté il y a huit ans  comme le nouveau messie …

Mais l’incapacité proprement surréaliste des médias, sauf rares exceptions, à prendre toute la mesure …

Non seulement de la dimension historique d’une victoire (Congrès et postes de gouverneurs compris) que tout le monde annonçait impossible …

Face à la machine infernale qui avait laminé avant lui les trop gentils McCain et Romney …

Mais aussi de la défiance et de la colère de toute une partie de l’électorat américain …

Que les interminables chipotages actuels ne peuvent que renforcer ?

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press

Bill Rahn

Nov 10, 2016

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.

This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!

That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.

Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.

That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.

As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew.

There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.

Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.

Voir aussi:

Commentary: Hot takes are written by the winners

Bill Rahn

June 29, 2016

Have you heard much recently about the white working class? If not, then you haven’t been paying attention to the pundits, a profession currently obsessed with divining their motives, parsing their logic, and blaming them for the sorry state of politics in the Western world.

And why not? The white working class is responsible for Donald Trump – just look at how he cleaned up in Appalachia during the primaries! They, or at least people like them, gave us Brexit, which caused even American media folk to convulse in despair, partly because this overseas event is somehow an indicator that Trump can win.

We think to ourselves: what will these idiots do next? What do they really want? How much of it is their fault? How much of it is ours?

Is drug addiction to blame? The decline of family and religion? Or what about neoliberalism, the retreat of the welfare state and the return of rapacious capitalism? Maybe they’re just racist. Maybe it’s a mix of all this, a bouillabaisse of grievances both real and imagined that just might spell the end of the global projects so beloved by elites.

Regardless, the white working class has captured the imagination of journalists, who have come to talk about them like colonial administrators would talk about a primitive inland tribe that interferes with the construction of a jungle railway: They must be pacified until history kills them off.

Just about all the mainstream punditry concerning the white working class, from the left and the right, fits this description. The elites (and if you write for a living, you’re a damn elite) all seem to be talking about a people who seem vaguely alien. There’s an anthropological quality to it, like when the New York Times’ David Brooks pledges to leave New York more often, living among the natives in order to better understand their dysfunction.

The reporters and pundits cloistered along the coasts look upon the white working class with a mix of fascination and disdain. The tribe’s beliefs, savage as they are, can be excused somewhat (« you know, free trade sure did kill a lot of their jobs ») or simply mocked (« these jerks don’t realize how good they’ve got it »). In either case, it’s easy to see we are all writing about people we can’t fully empathize with.

That’s the sort of statement that will rub a lot of journalists the wrong way, so let me explain. You don’t have to go far in Washington to hear an impressive, noteworthy person at this or that publication tell you about their hardscrabble upbringing on the mean streets of wherever, and that such meager beginnings don’t justify political radicalism.

Sure, OK. But every time you talk to someone who has a media job in New York or D.C., you’re probably talking about someone who has skills that our economy rewards, regardless of upbringing. They can write or speak or analyze something complex. They have abilities that haven’t yet been outsourced or automated. The people who report and talk about the news, for all their griping about low wages and the decline of print, tend to do quite well in our globalized economy.

The white working class is made up of people without such gifts. And moreover, because no set of policies can prioritize everyone, they were always designed to be the losers of our globalized economy. Their jobs would be taken away in the name of efficiency, with the marginal upside that the goods they purchase would be cheaper because they were now being made for less by people overseas.

So what we’re left with is a bunch of beneficiaries of the current economic order discussing the losers of the current economic order. And this raises the question of whether people who have a lot to gain from the status quo are well equipped to report accurately about how it’s cracked up.

Because that is what we’re seeing, a profound upending of the order of things. And predictably enough, journalists have been among the last people to realize this development, which makes more sense when you consider that the news is reported and analyzed by globalization’s winners, even as the subject increasingly becomes globalization’s losers.

The rise of Trump, a candidate tapping into a deep well of resentment that both conservatives and liberals were unwilling to touch, shouldn’t have come as such a surprise. Same with the Brexit vote — why are we so shocked that a multinational and barely democratic bureaucracy would be so unloved? Again, as reporters scramble to understand what in hell is going on with the world, we’ve seen a consensus develop that Britain surely must have left the EU by accident — a thesis that’s almost wholly dependent on a limited number of anecdotes about regretful voters.

Maybe. Or maybe the European project, like so many cosmopolitan initiatives, has just produced a lot more losers than the elites, including the press, ever accounted for.

Voir également:

A Message From Trump’s America

Working-class whites have been ignored by both parties, and they’re dying from despair.

Michael Cooper Jr. | Contributor

US News

March 9, 2016

Donald Trump received 70 percent of the primary vote in Buchanan County, Virginia, and 60 percent in Martin County, Kentucky. He is strongest in Appalachia because the biggest indicator of support for Trump, according to a survey by the RAND Corporation, is agreeing with the statement, « people like me don’t have any say. »

I live in Trump’s America, where working-class whites are dying from despair. They’re dying from alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide, trying to take away the pain of a half century’s economic and cultural decline. In the foothills of Appalachia, Wilkes County, North Carolina, is second in the nation in income lost this century, where the number of manufacturing jobs decreased from 8,548 in the year 2000 to about 4,000 today, according to Stateline.



On the losing side of automation, globalization and the « rural brain drain » our community was powerless to stop furniture factories from closing down or Wal-Mart from coming in. And after decades of decline folks were too beaten down and disorganized to fight back when pharmaceutical companies flooded the area with OxyContin. As a result, Wilkes had the third highest overdose rate in America in 2007 and busted 50 meth labs in 2013. [Overdose rates dropped 69 percent by 2011 after North Carolina responded to the crisis.]

Now, I walk into the courtroom every week and see the faces of childhood friends in a town where 23 percent of the population lives in poverty and 25 percent never finished high school.

So if there are winners and losers in America, I know the losers. They lost jobs to China and Vietnam. And they’re dying younger, caught in an endless cycle of jail, drug charges and applying for disability to pay the child support bill.

They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they’re angry. They’re angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they’re voting now for Donald Trump

My Republican friends are for Trump. My state representative is for Trump. People who haven’t voted in years are for Trump. He’ll win the primary here on March 15 and he will carry this county in the general.

His supporters realize he’s a joke. They do not care. They know he’s authoritarian, nationalist, almost un-American, and they love him anyway, because he disrupts a broken political process and beats establishment candidates who’ve long ignored their interests.

When you’re earning $32,000 a year and haven’t had a decent vacation in over a decade, it doesn’t matter who Trump appoints to the U.N., or if he poisons America’s standing in the world, you just want to win again, whoever the victim, whatever the price.

Trump won’t win the presidency, of course. If he’s nominated conservatives will walk out of the Cleveland convention in July and run a third ticket candidate, and there are not enough disaffected white males in Pennsylvania or Ohio to make up for the independent women who would vote for Hillary Clinton in November. But the two parties can no longer afford to ignore Trump’s America.

To win again in the Deep South and Appalachia, the Democratic Party must recall the days of Roosevelt’s New Deal and Kennedy’s New Frontier by putting people to work rebuilding America, and making college free after two years of national service.

Trump’s appeal as a strongman reveals the desire in Middle America for public action. His supporters want healthcare, like Social Security and are frustrated by the gridlock on Capitol Hill, so they must return to the days of Eisenhower, standing for conservative principles but also compromising when possible.

As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead, Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.

According to the Republican Party, the biggest threat to rural America was Islamic terrorism. According to the Democratic Party it was gun violence. In reality it was prescription drug abuse and neither party noticed until it was too late.

Unlike registered independents who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, America’s non-voters tended to be poorer, less educated citizens who are fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Neither party listened to them, let alone represented this populist center, until Trump gave them a voice.

America will survive Trump’s campaign, and the temptations of protectionism and xenophobia he offers. But in the aftermath that follows, both political parties must start prioritizing the working-class for a change. And that starts by listening to Trump’s forgotten America.

Voir encore:

The Deplorables Shout Back

Struggling rural America proved disenchanted with the country’s trajectory into something like a continental version of Belgium or the Netherlands: borderless, with a global rather than national sense of self; identity politics in lieu of unity and assimilation; a statist and ossified economy with a few winners moralizing to lots of losers—perhaps as a way of alleviating transitory guilt over their own privilege.

The full lessons of the 2016 election are still being digested (or indeed amplified), but one constant is emerging that the world outside our bi-coastal dynamic, hip, and affluent culture is not very well understood by those who lead the country.

 The Left feels that the interior is a veritable cultural wasteland of obesity, Christianists, nihilist self-destructive behavior, and evenings that shut down at dusk in desperate need of federal moral and regulatory oversight.

The doctrinaire Right advises the interior losers of globalization to hit the road in search of good jobs and take a hard look in the mirror and cure their self-inflicted pathologies. Such stereotyped pessimism about rural America are no exaggeration. Recently Bill Kristol, former editor of the Weekly Standard, seemed to dismiss the white working class as mostly played out—an apparent argument for generous immigration that was critical in replacing it: “Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white, working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” He went onto imply that poor whites were purported lazy and spoiled in comparison to immigrant groups—a fact not born out by comparative rates of reliance on government aid programs. PBS commentator and New York Times columnist David Brooks earlier had suggested the white working classes who were voting for Trump did not exercise independent judgement, but as the less educated were just “going with their gene pool.”

The plight of the contemporary rural America in a word was not due to an epidemic of laziness or of innate genetic ineptness, but more likely the onslaught of globalism, a sort of Tolkien master ring that gave its coastal wearers enormous power to create and manage worldwide wealth, prosperity, and power, but by its very use proved corrupting to those in its midst.

As I look outside the windows of my farmhouse this morning and scan a 360-degree panorama, I can absorb globalization, its success and failures. The countryside is now devoid of farmers who used to anchor small-town life—everything from the school board to the Masonic Lodge—of the San Joaquin Valley of California. In its place is a mosaic of huge vertically-integrated corporate farms that have swallowed up the tesserae of failed small acreages and turned the land into the most productive and profitable food production units in the history of agriculture.

But who am I to look out the window at others, when the story is my own as well? All my siblings went belly up in small farming. I held on to the old homestead and a remnant 40 acres only by renting out to a superb farming corporation while earning my living from the coast. Such a strange Faustian bargain globalization proved to be: unlimited affluence for some without shared prosperity, instant electronic social media and communications without much to communicate, and hip culture without much cultural transcendence. I could assure Bill Kristol that my siblings who could not make a living when peaches went from $9 a lug to $4 and raisins crashed from $1,400 a ton to $450 were not lazy. And I would say to David Brooks that their genetic material did not preclude rational judgment.

America’s rural class was gobbled up in a variety of ways. The consolidation of agriculture, the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing, and franchising of retailing created an underclass dependent on social services and low wages. A smaller and mostly younger group got with the plan, left rural America, fled to the coasts or regional big cities, obtained the proper credentials and became successful. Some in between stayed on and went about their old ways, often confused that the familiar but often empty landscapes and infrastructure might still mean that business could go on as usual.

But the rural shakedown did not mean that our red-state interior tuned out from politics, big business, universities, government, popular culture and mass entertainment. Far from it; cable TV, the Internet, and smart phones plugged rural America into coastal culture as never before. And what fly over country saw and heard each day, it often did not like.

The Great Divides(s)

The first disconnect between coastal and interior America was the elevation of race over class—with a twist of scapegoating the losers of globalization as somehow culpable winners because of their supposed “white privilege.” Fairly or not, the lower middle classes heard a nonstop message from mostly affluent white liberals and well-off minority activists, virtue-signaling one another by blaming those far less well off as somehow beyond redemption.

So-called middle and rural America—oddly people more likely to put their children in public schools and assimilate and integrate than was the elite—grew accustomed to being insulted by Barack Obama as clingers, or by Hillary Clinton as “irredeemables” and “deplorables,” as popular culture became fixated on privileged whiteness. And that tired message soon became surreal: coastal white people with the money were liberal and accusatory; interior white people without it were conservative and thus culpable.

The villains of television and Hollywood, when not corporate conspiracists, Russian oligarchs, or South African residual Nazis, were often redneck Americans with southern drawls. The new minstrel shows were reality television’s ventures into the swamps, the seas, the forests, the Alaskan wilderness, and the empty and endless highways, where each week with condescension we saw smoking, overweight and gap-toothed fishermen, loggers, and truckers do funny and stupid things with boats, saws, and semis.

The second unwelcome message was the politicization of almost everything. Beyoncé turned her 2016 Super Bowl show, traditionally non-political entertainment, into a peaen to Black Lives Matter and the old Black Panther party. Multimillionaire Colin Kaepernick deflected attention from his own poor play on the field for the San Francisco 49ers by scapegoating America for its supposed -ologies and –isms—but of course himself did not take the trouble to vote. Hollywood actors, who make more in an hour than most do in a year, periodically finger-pointed at Middle America for its ethical shortcomings. Turn on late night talk shows or early morning chat sessions to receive the monotonous message that entertainment is properly indoctrination.

Even charity became progressive politics. The locus classicus of multimillionaire moralizing was the Clinton team: she selling influence at the State Department, he collecting the ensuing checks at the Foundation; both veneering the shake-down with left-wing moralistic preening. When Hillary lost her reins of power; Bill had no more influence to sell; the Foundation lost its reason to be, and the entire criminal enterprise was exposed for what it always was: QED.

Third, the gulf in America between concrete and abstract things widened. Banking, insurance, universities, government, social media, and programing were reflections of the work of the mind and well compensated; fabrication, construction, transportation, drilling, mining, logging and farming were still muscular, essential for the good modern life—and yet deprecated as ossified and passé. The ancient wisdom of the necessary balance between thought and deed, muscle and mind, was forgotten in the popular culture of the coasts. Yet rural America assumed it could still learn how to use iPhones, search the web, and write in Microsoft Word; but coastal America did not know a chainsaw from a snow blower. A tractor or semi might as well have been a spaceship. And those with expansive lawns soon had no idea how to mow them. That divide by 2016 posed a Euripidean question: What is wisdom and who were the real dullards, who were the real smart ones: the supposed idiots with Trump posters on their lawn who swore they were undercounted, or the sophisticated pollsters and pundits who wrote off their confidence as delusional if not pathetic?

Finally, speech, dress, and comportment bifurcated in a way not seen since the 19th century. Ashley Judd and Madonna might have thought screaming obscenities, vulgarities, and threats established their progressive fides, but to half the country they only confirmed they were both crude and talentless. What do Ben Rhodes, Pajama Boy, and Lena Dunham have in common? They all appeared to the rest of the country as arrogant, young, hip, and worldly without knowing anything of the world beyond them.

‘The Last Shall be First, and First Shall be Last’

Some object that Trumpism is pure nihilism and a vandal act rather than a constructive recalibration. Perhaps. But red-state America shouted back that if those who demanded open borders never themselves lived the consequences of open borders, then there would be no open borders. If those who proposed absolute free transfers of capital and jobs always expected others to lose money and jobs as the cost of the bargain, then there would be no such unlimited free flows. If the media were continually to stereotype and condescend to others, then they themselves would be stereotyped and talked down to.

For a brief moment in 2016, rural America shouted that the last shall be first, and first shall be last. Before we write off this retort that led to Trump as a mindless paroxysm, remember that it was not those in Toledo, Billings, Montgomery, or Red Bluff who piled up $20 trillion in collective debt, nearly destroyed the health care system, set the Middle East afire, turned the campus into Animal Farm, or transformed Hollywood into 1984-style widescreen indoctrination.

Trump was rural America’s shout back. One way or another, he will be its last. Either Trump will fail to restore prosperity and influence to the hinterland and thus even as president go the way of a flash-in-the-pan, would-be president Ross Perot—or he will succeed and thus make a like-minded successor superfluous.

Voir de plus:

The End Of Identity Politics

Victor Davis Hanson
Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
 

Who are we? asked the liberal social scientist Samuel Huntington over a decade ago in a well-reasoned but controversial book. Huntington feared the institutionalization of what Theodore Roosevelt a century earlier had called “hyphenated Americans.” A “hyphenated American,” Roosevelt scoffed, “is not an American at all.” And 30 years ago, another progressive stalwart and American historian Arthur Schlesinger argued in his book The Disuniting of America that identity politics were tearing apart the cohesion of the United States.

What alarmed these liberals was the long and unhappy history of racial, religious, and ethnic chauvinism, and how such tribal ties could prove far stronger than shared class affinities. Most important, they were aware that identity politics had never proved to be a stabilizing influence on any past multiracial society. Indeed, most wars of the 20th century and associated genocides had originated over racial and ethnic triumphalism, often by breakaway movements that asserted tribal separateness. Examples include the Serbian and Slavic nationalist movements in 1914 against Austria-Hungary, Hitler’s rise to power on the promise of German ethno-superiority, the tribal bloodletting in Rwanda, and the Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish conflicts in Iraq.

The United States could have gone the way of these other nations. Yet, it is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals.

The first concerns the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, which were unique documents for their time and proved transcendent across time and space. Both documents enshrined the ideal that all people were created equal and were human first, with inalienable rights from God that were protected by government. These founding principles would eventually trump innate tribal biases and prejudices to grant all citizens their basic rights.

Second, given America’s two-ocean buffer, the United States could control its own demographic destiny. Americans usually supported liberal immigration policies largely because of the country’s ability to monitor the numbers of new arrivals and the melting pot’s ability to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry immigrants, who would soon relegate their racial, religious, and ethnic affinities to secondary importance.

Finally, the United States is the most individualistic and capitalistic of the Western democracies. The nation was blessed with robust economic growth, rich natural resources, and plenty of space. It assumed that its limited government and ethos of entrepreneurialism would create enough widespread prosperity and upward mobility that affluence—or at least the shared quest for it—would create a common bond superseding superficial Old World ties based on appearance or creed.

In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision—“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo.

A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states.

At one point Clinton defined her notion of identity politics by describing Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up… Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

***

What is the future of diversity politics after the 2016 election? Uncertain at best—and for a variety of reasons.

One, intermarriage and integration are still common. Overall, about 15 percent of all marriages each year are interracial, and the rates are highest for Asians and Latinos. Forty percent of Asian women marry men of another race—one quarter of African-American males do, as well—and over a quarter of all Latinos marry someone non-Latino.

Identity politics hinges on perceptible racial or ethnic solidarity, but citizens are increasingly a mixture of various races and do not always categorize themselves as “non-white.” Without DNA badges, it will be increasingly problematic to keep racial pedigrees straight. And sometimes the efforts to do so reach the point of caricature and inauthenticity, through exaggerated accent marks, verbal trills, voice modulations, and nomenclature hyphenation. One reason why diversity activists sound shrill is their fear that homogenization is unrelenting.

Second, the notion of even an identifiable and politically monolithic group of non-white minorities is also increasingly suspect. Cubans do not have enough in common with Mexicans to advance a united Latino front. African-Americans are suspicious of open borders that undercut entry-level job wages. Asians resent university quotas that often discount superb grades and test scores to ensure racial diversity. It is not clear that Hmong-Americans have much in common with Japanese-Americans, or that Punjabi immigrants see themselves politically akin to Chinese newcomers as fellow Asians.

Third, ethnic solidarity can cut both ways. In the 2016 elections, Trump won an overwhelming and nearly unprecedented number of working class whites in critical swing states. Many either had not voted in prior elections or had voted Democratic. The culture’s obsession with tribalism and special ethnic interests—often couched in terms of opposing “white privilege”—had alienated millions of less well-off white voters. Quietly, many thought that if ethnic activists were right that the white majority was shrinking into irrelevance, and if it was acceptable for everyone to seek solidarity through their tribal affiliations, then poor whites could also rally under the banner of their own identity politics. If such trends were to continue in a nation that is still 70 percent white, it would prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in a way never envisioned during the era of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton discovered that Obama’s identity politics constituencies were not transferrable to herself in the same exceptional numbers, and the effort to ensure that they were often created new tribal opponents.

Fourth, it is not certain that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at its current near record rate, which has resulted in over 40 million immigrants now residing in America—constituting some 13 percent of the present population. Trump is likely not just to curtail illegal immigration, but also to return legal immigration to a more meritocratic, diverse, and individual basis. Were immigration to slow down and become more diverse, the formidable powers of integration and intermarriage would perhaps do to the La Raza community what it once did to the Italian-American minority after the cessation of mass immigration from Italy. There are currently no Italian-American quotas, no Italian university departments, and no predictable voting blocs.

Fifth, class is finally reemerging as a better barometer of privilege than is race—a point that Republican populists are starting to hammer home. The children of Barack Obama, for example, have far more privilege than do the sons of Appalachian coal miners—and many Asian groups already exceed American per capita income averages. When activist Michael Eric Dyson calls for blanket reparations for slavery, his argument does not resonate with an unemployed working-class youth from Kentucky, who was born more than 30 years after the emergence of affirmative action—and enjoys a fraction of Dyson’s own income, net worth, and cultural opportunities.

Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs.

The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

Voir de même:

How Can We Get Rid of Trump?

We’re just a month into the Trump presidency, and already so many are wondering: How can we end it?

One poll from Public Policy Polling found that as many Americans — 46 percent — favor impeachment of President Trump as oppose it. Ladbrokes, the betting website, offers even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends.

Sky Bet, another site, is taking wagers on whether Trump will be out of office by July.

There have been more than 1,000 references to “Watergate” in the news media in the last week, according to the Nexis archival site, with even some conservatives calling for Trump’s resignation or warning that he could be pushed out. Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor who covered Watergate, says that Trump’s Russia scandal isn’t now at the level of Watergate but could become at least as big.

So let’s investigate: Is there any way out?

Trump still has significant political support, so the obstacles are gargantuan. But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office.

The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is “unable” to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election?

Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation.

“In the unlikely event that Pence and a majority of Trump’s bizarre cabinet were to grow the spine needed to do the right thing with the process set up by that provision, we would surely be in a situation where a very large majority of the public, including a very substantial percentage of Trump’s supporters, would back if not insist upon such a move,” Tribe said. “In that circumstance, I can’t imagine Trump and his lawyers succeeding in getting the federal courts to interfere.”

The better known route is impeachment. But for now it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

My take is that unless things get much worse, removal may be a liberal fantasy. Progressives thought that Trump would never win the nomination or the election. He survived the “Access Hollywood” tape and countless crises that pundits thought would doom him, so it’s not clear why Republicans would desert him now that he’s president.

Some people believe that the 2018 midterm elections will be so catastrophic for the G.O.P. that everyone will be ready to get rid of him. I’m skeptical. In the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018: The Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25.

So while Democrats can gnash their teeth, it’ll be up to Republicans to decide whether to force Trump out. And that won’t happen unless they see him as ruining their party as well as the nation.

“The only incentive for Republicans to act — with or without the cabinet — is the same incentive Republicans had in 1974 to insist on Nixon’s resignation,” Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia told me. “The incentive is survival.”

Trump does have one weakness, and it’s parallel to Nixon’s. Republicans in Congress were willing to oust Nixon partly because they vastly preferred his vice president, Gerald Ford — just as congressional Republicans prefer Mike Pence today.

If I were betting, I’d say we’re stuck with Trump for four years. But as Sabato says: “Lots of things about Donald Trump’s election and early presidency have been shocking. Why should it stop now?”

And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?

Voir de plus:

When President Obama’s National Security Advisor Lied, The Media Laughed

It’s somewhat ironic that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Michael Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor.

 Julie Kelly

Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later.

According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”

It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch.

Lying to Us Only Matters If We Dislike You

Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.

So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi.

The day after Hillary Clinton’s deputy had that call with key Capitol Hill staffers, including advisors to senators Durbin, Feinstein, and McGaskill, to dispute the notion the attack was about an anti-Muslim video, here’s what Carney said: “I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible.”

On September 14, hours before the remains of the Benghazi victims would arrive at Andrews Air Force Base, Carney was still blaming the video. Just steps from the Oval Office, Carney opened his briefing with this: “First of all, we are obviously closely monitoring developments in the region today. You saw that following the incidents in response to this video, the president directed the administration to take a number of steps to prepare for continued unrest.”

Carney went on to mention the video/film/movie another 30 times during his briefing. He stuck with his story even after some reporters pushed back, citing other sources who said it was indeed a pre-mediated attack. One reporter said several senators admitted the “attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror,” and asked Carney, “is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?”

Carney: “Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter…” Who cares, Sean Spicer called Justin Trudeau Joe, OMG!

Susan Rice’s Audacity of Trope

But of course nothing matches the audacity of trope by Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice on September 16, 2012. Rice went on several Sunday shows to peddle a story she knew was completely phony, one that was already quickly unraveling even as most in the media and administration tried to keep it intact.

You can read most of her comments here, but Rice repeats the line that Benghazi attack was not premediated and was connected to the demonstrations in Cairo over the video (a document obtained by Judicial Watch last year shows Hillary Clinton met with Rice a few days before her television appearances). Which presidential administration is fact-challenged, again?

In a press gaggle on Air Force One the next day, guess how many times Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Rice’s comments? Ten? Five? One? Not once. Let me repeat that. The day after Obama’s national security advisor was on five news programs to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video, not one reporter asked the White House about it. I actually had to re-read the transcripts several times, even checking the date over and over, to make sure this was accurate. Her name did not even come up.

No discussion about the investigation. No discussion about emerging evidence from around the world that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack. (The only time it was mentioned was when Jen Psaki criticized Mitt Romney’s comments about how the administration handled Benghazi and questioned whether he was ready for “primetime.”)

Here’s what they did discuss: Debate prep, Occupy Wall Street, and the Chicago’s teachers strike. An actual human reporter asked this: “It was a beautiful weekend for golf and he wasn’t out on the course. Is it safe to assume maybe he was doing some preparation at the White House?” WHAT? Then they joked about football and “Saturday Night Live.”

Sometimes the hypocrisy, double standard, and outright lies by the media under the Trump presidency is funny. Sometimes it is infuriating. But never was the media’s complicit sheep-like coverage more evident than it the days after Benghazi, behavior you can never imagine now. They have yet to admit their mistakes and failures, even as more evidence is revealed.

Remember that the next time you want to worry about how Trump is responsible for undermining the media’s integrity and credibility.

Voir par ailleurs:

US Election 2008: The joke is finally on Barack Obama
Have you heard the one about the presidential candidate who was once so popular that comedians were frightened to make jokes about him?

Tim Shipman in Washington
The Telegraph

09 Aug 2008

The punchline is this: the more seriously he took himself, the more Barack Obama has become a laughing matter.

Only a month ago American comedians and satirists were complaining that they found it hard to get people to laugh at the first black presidential nominee. A New Yorker cover cartoon showing him as a Muslim extremist was roundly denounced.

But growing Obama fatigue among voters after his pseudo-presidential visit to Europe and the Middle East has unleashed a wave of satirical fire, mocking Mr Obama for his apparent belief that he has the election in the bag.

Last month Jon Stewart, host of the satirical news programme The Daily Show, had to tell his audience that they were allowed to laugh at Mr Obama after a joke fell flat.

But Mr Stewart made comedic hay during the Illinois Senator’s international trip, mocking his progress through the Holy Land, where he said the candidate stopped « in Bethlehem to see the manger where he was born. »

Late night comic Jimmy Kimmel also cracked a joke at Mr Obama’s expense: « They really love Barack Obama in Germany. He’s like a rock star over there. Impressive until you realise that David Hasselhoff is also like a rock star over there. »

The jokes are important because they increasingly draw on evidence that voters are tiring of Mr Obama’s elevated opinion of himself, the wall to wall coverage of his pronouncements, and the feeling that he should concentrate on voters back home.

A writer with one of the leading comedy shows in the US, who preferred not to be named because of continuing sensitivities about how far comedians should go from some network executives, said: « We had a hard time convincing people that Obama is funny for a long time. Our audiences seemed unsure whether to laugh at him. The first black president is not a gag. But that’s changing because he’s doing more stuff that’s easy to mock and people are more familiar with him. »

Too familiar, some say. A poll last week by Pew research found 48 percent of those questioned said they had been hearing too much about the Democratic presidential candidate recently, nearly double the figure for his Republican rival John McCain.

Mr Obama has provided rich fodder for comedians looking to prick his pomposity, predicting that people would look back at his nomination as the moment « when the rise of the oceans began to slow ».

He also told Congressmen that his campaign was « the moment . . . that the world is waiting for ».

The attitude was summed up by Dana Milbank, the Washington Post’s resident political humourist, who declared: « Barack Obama has long been his party’s presumptive nominee. Now he’s becoming its presumptuous nominee. »

Mr Letterman listed top ten signs that Barack Obama is overconfident, which included « Offered Bush 20 bucks for the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner » and « Having head measured for Mount Rushmore. »

Mr Obama is also under fire for moving politically towards the centre ground, moderating positions he had once boasted were evidence of his unique appeal.

Jay Leno, of the long-running Tonight Show, said: « Barack Obama now says he’s open to offshore oil drilling. So, apparently, when he promised change, he was talking about his mind. »

BEST OBAMA JOKES

Craig Ferguson: « Barack Obama was in Germany » today, and « he did this speech and 100,000 people showed up. There were so many Germans shouting and screaming that France…surrendered just in case. »

Jimmy Kimmel: « They really love Barack Obama in Germany. He’s like a rock star over there. Impressive until you realize that David Hasselhoff is also like a rock star over there. »

David Letterman: Signs Barack Obama Is Overconfident.

Proposed bill to change Oklahoma to ‘Oklabama.’

Offered Bush 20 bucks for the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.

Asked guy at Staples, ‘Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?’

Having head measured for Mount Rushmore.

Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama Presidential Library.

Jay Leno: « Of course, Obama’s supporters got him his usual birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. »

Jay Leno: « Obama’s people are trying to portray McCain as cranky, and McCain is trying to portray Obama as arrogant, you see. And when Obama was asked what he thought about being called arrogant, well, he said he was ‘above having to answer that question.' »

Jay Leno: « See Barack Obama on the news? He’s becoming a workout fanatic. He’s at the gym, like, twice a day, sometimes three times a day at the gym, yeah, according to his staff. Well, he has to stay in shape to do those flip-flops. »

Jay Leno: « Barack Obama back from his big European tour. Did you see him in Europe? People were cheering him, holding up signs, blowing him kisses. And that was just the American media covering the story. »

Voir par ailleurs:
Une semaine à la Maison Blanche

Première démission, rupture diplomatique, conférence de presse surréaliste : Trump en roue libre

Frédéric Autran, correspondant à New York
Libération
18 février 2017

Le président américain, visiblement éprouvé, a traversé cette semaine la première crise majeure de son mandat. Et elle vient de l’intérieur de son administration.

Samedi 11 février – Secret défense à la bougie

Tout le week-end, Donald Trump recevait le premier ministre japonais Shinzo Abe dans son club privé de Mar-a-Lago, en Floride. Samedi soir, les entrées du dîner, une salade arrosée de sauce au bleu, venaient d’être servies quand le président américain a reçu un appel : la Corée du nord venait de lancer un missile balistique de moyenne portée. La suite est stupéfiante. Plutôt que de se retirer dans une salle sécurisée, Trump et Abe ont évoqué le sujet à leur table, sur la terrasse. Faute d’éclairage suffisant, des conseillers des deux dirigeants ont éclairé des documents avec leur téléphone portable. Le tout à quelques mètres de richissimes membres du club venus, eux aussi, dîner à la bougie. Officiellement, le président américain avait été informé plus tôt, et dans une salle sécurisée, de la provocation de Pyongyang. Et les documents étalés sur la table n’étaient pas confidentiels. Les observateurs ne sont guère convaincus. Et soulignent l’hypocrisie de Donald Trump qui, tout au long de la campagne, n’a eu de cesse d’attaquer Hillary Clinton sur sa gestion chaotique des informations confidentielles.

Dimanche 12 février – «Abus de pouvoir judiciaire»

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News : le benjamin des hommes clés du président, Stephen Miller, a fait le tour des émissions politiques dominicales. A 31 ans, le conseiller politique de Donald Trump – dont il est aussi la «plume» – a défendu avec véhémence le décret anti-immigration du président, suspendu par la justice. «Les pouvoirs du président en ce domaine ne peuvent pas être contestés. Ce pays ne vit pas dans un régime de suprématie judiciaire», a-t-il martelé sur Fox News, criant à l’«abus de pouvoir judiciaire». Il faut dire que pour le très droitier Miller, l’échec du décret controversé est personnel. Selon plusieurs sources, il a fait partie du cercle restreint de conseillers chargés de sa rédaction. Après quelques jours de réflexion, la Maison Blanche a finalement décidé de ne pas poursuivre la bataille en justice. Au lieu de ça, un nouveau décret devrait être signé en début de semaine prochaine par Donald Trump. Un texte préparé, cette fois, par des experts et des juristes.

Lundi 13 février – Trump est-il malade ?

Le débat avait déjà fait rage lors de la campagne, poussant l’Association américaine de psychiatrie à rappeler à l’ordre ses membres. Pas question, prévenait-elle dans un communiqué, de se livrer à une quelconque analyse mentale du patient Trump. Les débuts chaotiques du nouveau président ont relancé les discussions. Lundi, une trentaine de professionnels de la santé mentale ont adressé une lettre ouverte au New York Times. «L’enjeu est trop important pour demeurer silencieux», écrivent-t-ils, dénonçant notamment «l’incapacité» du président «à tolérer des opinions différentes des siennes» et «sa profonde incapacité à faire preuve d’empathie». En conclusion, les auteurs de la lettre disent croire que «la grave instabilité émotionnelle indiquée par les discours et les actions de M. Trump le rendent incapable de servir sans risque comme président».

Mardi 14 février – La Maison Blanche en crise

Donald Trump avait sans doute rêvé d’une autre Saint-Valentin. Ce mardi, on est loin de l’ambiance mots d’amour et bouquets de fleur. C’est la crise, la grosse, à la Maison Blanche. La veille au soir, le conseiller à la sécurité nationale, Michael Flynn, a démissionné à la demande de Donald Trump. Une première aussi tôt dans une présidence américaine. Ancien général, Flynn paie officiellement le prix de ses mensonges au vice-président Mike Pence, à qui il aurait assuré n’avoir jamais parlé des sanctions contre la Russie lors de ses conversations téléphoniques avec l’ambassadeur russe à Washington. La presse, alimentées par des fuites massives au sein des services de renseignement, révèle que cela a pourtant été le cas. Au-delà du cas Flynn, l’épineux dossier des relations troubles entre l’équipe Trump et le Kremlin refait surface. Il n’est sans doute pas prêt de disparaître.

Mercredi 15 février – Négociateur en chef

Après Theresa May, Shinzo Abe et Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump reçoit à la Maison Blanche le Premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Netanyahu. Dans les heures précédant la rencontre, l’administration américaine fait planer le doute sur l’appui à la «solution à deux Etats» au Proche-Orient. Avec son sens du détail et son éloquence habituels, Donald Trump résume ainsi sa position : «Je regarde deux Etats ou un Etat, et j’aime la solution que les deux parties aiment. Les deux me conviennent». En une petite phrase digne d’un élève de CM1, Donald Trump balaie plusieurs décennies de diplomatie américaine. Le négociateur-en-chef est déjà au travail.

Jeudi 16 février – 77 minutes de folie

Attendue fébrilement chaque samedi soir, l’imitation de Donald Trump par Alec Baldwin au Saturday Night Live vaut son pesant de cacahuètes. Mais l’acteur américain, salué à chacun de ses performances, arrivera-t-il seulement un jour à la hauteur de l’original ? Le Donald n’est jamais aussi bon que lorsqu’il fait le show. Et jeudi après-midi, sous les dorures de la East Room de la Maison Blanche, il avait décidé de descendre dans l’arène pour se payer son ennemi favori : les médias. Pendant les 77 minutes d’une conférence de presse extrêmement tendue, débutée par un long monologue de doléances et d’auto-satisfaction, Donald Trump a rendu coup pour coup. Il a critiqué les médias «très très malhonnêtes», n’hésitant pas à demander à un journaliste de se taire, à un autre de s’asseoir. Il a promis de pourchasser les auteurs des «fuites criminelles» d’informations confidentielles et nié toute collusion avec la Russie. Au jour 28 de sa présidence (sur 1460), Donald Trump a dégoupillé. Le ton de la campagne est de retour : taper fort, mentir souvent, détourner l’attention à tout prix. Décidément, le milliardaire a bien du mal à abandonner le costume de candidat pour endosser celui de président.

A suivre Trump au jour le jour

Vendredi 17 février – Obama dans le haut du panier

En août dernier, Donald Trump avait qualifié Barack Obama de «pire président» de l’histoire américaine. Avide consommateur de médias (même s’il les déteste), Donald Trump a sans doute vu passer l’enquête réalisée par la chaîne parlementaire C-SPAN. Et il n’a sans doute pas apprécié les résultats. Selon cette étude, publiée vendredi, les historiens classent Barack Obama au douzième rang des présidents américains, la meilleure performance depuis la neuvième place de Ronald Reagan en 1988. Dans trois catégories, Obama entre dans le top 10 : «quête d’une justice égale pour tous» (3e), «autorité morale» (7e) et «gestion économique» (8e). En revanche, il se classe parmi les derniers (39e sur 44) en matière de relations avec le Congrès et termine à une très moyenne 24e place en relations internationales. A en croire cette étude, les trois meilleurs présidents de l’histoire se nomment Abraham Lincoln, George Washington et Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Vivement 2020 que Donald Trump fasse son entrée dans le classement.

Voir aussi:

Pour sa première conférence de presse, Trump fait du Trump !

VIDÉO. Le président élu, qui sera investi le 20 janvier, a répondu aux questions des journalistes. Et, comme souvent avec Donald Trump, c’était surréaliste.

Le Point.fr (avec AFP)

 11/01/2017

Présidence Trump: Attention, un fascisme peut en cacher un autre (Behind the Left’s constant crying wolf, Trump’s actions are largely an extension of prior temporary policies and a long-overdue return to sanity)

14 février, 2017
no-borders http://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape/public/images/methode/2017/02/03/21099374-e933-11e6-925a-a992a025ddf7_1280x720.JPG?itok=IYzRzJ5Zhttps://refusefascism.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0881.jpghttps://assets.metrolatam.com/cl/2015/10/21/18gnguw7qnrvujpg-1200x800.jpghttp://www.bigbendnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1123US_Sunrise_haze_fence_up_hill-Kopie.jpghttps://jcdurbant.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image.jpeg?w=1200&h=http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Deportation-Obama-HuffPost.jpg
deporter-in-chief
o-deportations
o-deportations-stats
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/02/blogs/graphic-detail/20140208_gdc296.png
Les fascistes de demain s’appelleront eux-mêmes antifascistes. Churchill
Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. (…) Flynn was a fat target for the national security state. He has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama. Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals. He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn’s breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed. In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama’s incoming national security adviser and Iran’s foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening. In the end, it was Trump’s decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. « First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus, » he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree. Eli Lake
There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration. From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern. Devin Nunes (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence)
The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down. The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function. Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. « Finally, » they say, « someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president! » It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously. President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It’s weaponized spin. But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials. In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That’s bad. But the answer isn’t to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state. Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump. It is the role of Congress to investigate the president and those who work for him. If Congress resists doing its duty, out of a mixture of self-interest and cowardice, the American people have no choice but to try and hold the government’s feet to the fire, demanding action with phone calls, protests, and, ultimately, votes. That is a democratic response to the failure of democracy. Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn’t an acceptable alternative. Down that path lies the end of democracy in America. Damon Linker
The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades. Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He largely ceased deportations of undocumented immigrants. He issued executive-order amnesties. And he allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law. The press said nothing about this extraordinary overreach of presidential power, mainly because these largely illegal means were used to achieve the progressive ends favored by many journalists. The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws. Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment. He picked and chose which elements of the Affordable Care Act would be enforced — predicated on his 2012 reelection efforts. Rebuffed by Congress, Obama is now slowly shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center by insidiously having inmates sent to other countries (…) One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be. In 2017, a President Trump or a President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means. Victor Davis Hanson
Key to the strategy of change is to remind citizens that the present action is a corrective of past extremism, a move to the center not to the opposite pole, and must be understood as reluctantly reactive, not gratuitously revolutionary. Such forethought is not a sign of timidity or backtracking, but rather the catalyst necessary to make change even more rapid and effective. Take Trump’s immigration stay. In large part, it was an extension of prior temporary policies enacted by both Presidents Bush and Obama. It was also a proper correction of Trump’s own unwise and ill-fated campaign pledge to temporarily ban Muslims rather than take a pause to vet all immigrants from war-torn nations in the Middle East. Who would oppose such a temporary halt? Obviously Democrats, on the principle that the issue might gain political traction so that they could tar Trump as an uncouth racist and xenophobe, and in general as reckless, incompetent, and confused. Obviously, the Left in general sees almost any restriction on immigration as antithetical to its larger project of a borderless society run by elites such as themselves. Obviously Republican establishmentarians fear any media meme suggesting that they are complicit in an illiberal enterprise. Perhaps the Trump plan was, first, to ensure that radical Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers do not enter the U.S., as they so often enter Europe; second, to send a message to the international community that entry into the country is a privilege not an entitlement; and, third, symbolically to reassert the powers of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage as we slow and refine legal immigration. (The U.S. currently has about 40 million foreign-born residents, or a near record 14 percent of the population; one in four Californians was not born in the United States.) (…) Take the wall with Mexico and the campaign promise to make “Mexico pay.” (…) The aim again is to remind the country that the action is a reaction to past excess and extremism. To take another example, if we are going to get into a minor tiff with Australia over its refugee problem, then it might be wise to explain that Australia’s own refugee policies are among the most restrictive in the world, and that, on principle, the United States cannot involve itself in the internal immigration affairs of other nations and therefore must allow Australia free rein to determine its own immigration future. And we carefully would explain the consequences of that decision of non-interference. In truth, Australia, not Trump, was the more culpable. (Immigrants, many from the Middle East, heading toward Australia will undergo vetting that permits them entry into the U.S. but not into Australia — in a deal that was understandably not much publicized by the lame-duck Obama administration?) In terms of strategy, the Trump people surely grasp the rationale of their opponents: to react hysterically to every presidential act, raising the volume and chaos of dissent to such a level that moderate Republicans go into a fetal position and sigh, “Please just make all this go away” — and thus turn their animus upon their own. Trump may think that the Left’s crying wolf constantly will imperil their authenticity and turn their shrieks into mere background noise Or he may wager that the protesters will raise the temperature so high they themselves will melt down before the administration does. Perhaps. But just as likely, the Left is gambling that each outrage is a small nick to the capillaries of the Trump administration — after a few months the total blood loss will match the fatal damage of an aneurysm. The result will then be such a loss of public credibility that the Trump administration will become paralyzed (think Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the furor over Iraq), or so deterred that it will shift course and fall into line. Trump needs to carefully consider the full effect of executive orders and the certain reactions against them to the second and third degree — not because he should cease issuing them (so far the orders have almost all been inspired), but to ensure that they are effective and understood. In this way, they may win rather than lose public support, especially if the relevant cabinet secretaries are on board and out front with the media. In other words, only by taking actions deliberately and with forethought can he bring about not so much change as a long-overdue return to sanity. Victor Davis Hanson
La chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et les Premiers ministres des 16 Landers allemands ont conclu jeudi un accord visant à faciliter les expulsions de réfugiés dont la demande d’asile a été rejetée. Les expulsions sont normalement du ressort des landers, mais Merkel souhaite coordonner un certain nombre de choses au niveau fédéral pour accélérer les procédures. Le gouvernement fédéral veut s’accaparer plus de pouvoirs pour refuser des permis de séjour et effectuer lui-même les expulsions. L’un des objectifs centraux du plan en 16 points est de construire un centre de rapatriement à Potsdam (Berlin) qui comptera un représentant pour chaque lander. En outre, il prévoit la création de centres d’expulsion à proximité des aéroports pour faciliter les expulsions collectives. Un autre objectif est de faciliter l’expulsion des immigrants qui présentent un danger pour la sécurité du pays et de favoriser les «retours volontaires» d’autres migrants par le biais d’incitations financières s’ils acceptent de quitter le pays avant qu’une décision ait été prise au regard de leur demande d’asile. Une somme de 40 millions d’euros est consacrée à ce projet. Selon le ministère allemand de l’Intérieur, 280.000 migrants ont sollicité l’asile en Allemagne en 2016. C’est trois fois moins que les 890.000 de l’année précédente, au plus fort de la crise des réfugiés en Europe. Près de 430 000 demandes d’asile sont encore en cours d’instruction. L’Express
Jamais les Etats-Unis n’ont expulsé autant d’immigrés clandestins. Au point où « The Economist  » n’hésite pas à qualifier Barack Obama de « deporter-in-chief » (le chef des expulseurs). Depuis son arrivée à la Maison-Blanche, quelque 2 millions de clandestins ont été expulsés, soit à un rythme neuf fois plus élevé qu’il y a vingt ans et un record pour un président américain. Et la « machine infernale à expulser  » coûte cher aux Etats-Unis, plus que tout autre budget fédéral destiné à la lutte contre la criminalité. La conséquence de ces expulsions est lourde. Non seulement elles conduisent à des séparations familiales déchirantes, mais elles appauvrissent l’Amérique, affirme l’hebdomadaire. Le nouveau patron de Microsoft, Satya Nadella, né en Inde, est évidemment l’exemple des bienfaits de l’immigration pour l’économie. La moitié en outre des doctorats universitaires sont obtenus par des immigrés, ainsi que quatre cinquièmes des brevets dans le domaine pharmaceutique. Les refus de plus en plus fréquents d’accorder des permis de séjour à des étudiants réduisent les chances de former de nouveaux Nadella. Sans oublier les clandestins non qualifiés qui acceptent des emplois dont les Américains ne veulent pas… et qui paient leurs impôts. Pour Obama, il s’agit d’un paradoxe qui s’explique peut-être par sa volonté de faire porter le chapeau à son opposition républicaine hostile à son projet de réforme visant à légaliser 12 millions d’immigrés illégaux. Mais le président ne devrait pas utiliser une telle stratégie et plutôt s’employer à enrayer la machine infernale des expulsions. Les Echos (10/02/2014)
Washington s’inquiète de voir la violence liée à la guerre contre les narcotrafiquants empiéter sur les États-Unis (…) La guerre contre le narcotrafic menée par le président Felipe Calderon a provoqué une explosion de violence (plus de 7 200 morts officiellement en 2008). Barack Obama s’est dit mardi «préoccupé par le niveau accru de la violence (…) et son impact sur les communautés vivant de part et d’autre de la frontière.» Dans la foulée, la Maison-Blanche a dévoilé une nouvelle stratégie pour endiguer la montée en puissance des gangs mexicains, qui gagnent des milliards de dollars en exportant la drogue vers les États-Unis, où ils se fournissent en armes et en argent liquide. Washington prévoit d’augmenter les effectifs des agents des ministères de la Justice, du Trésor et de la Sécurité intérieure et ­d’installer de nouveaux outils de surveillance aux postes frontières. L’Administration Obama compte aussi s’appuyer sur les 700 millions de dollars d’aide aux forces de sé­curité mexicaines alloués pour 2008 et 2009. Parallèlement, les États-Unis en­visagent de placer des troupes en état d’alerte, probablement des réservistes de la Garde nationale, qui seraient envoyés à la frontière en cas d’urgence. Ils souhaitent aussi imposer un nouvel accord militaire au Mexique. Le Figaro (25/03/2009)
Newly obtained congressional data shows hundreds of terror plots have been stopped in the U.S. since 9/11 – mostly involving foreign-born suspects, including dozens of refugees. The files (…) give fresh insight into the true scope of the terror threat and cover a wide range of cases, including: A Seattle man plotting to attack a U.S. military facility An Atlantic City man using his “Revolution Muslim” site to encourage confrontations with U.S. Jewish leaders “at their home An Iraq refugee arrested in January, accused of traveling to Syria to “take up arms” with terror groups While the June 12 massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub marked the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since 2001, the data shows America has been facing a steady stream of plots. For the period September 2001 through 2014, data shows the U.S. successfully prosecuted 580 individuals for terrorism and terror-related cases. Further, since early 2014, at least 131 individuals were identified as being implicated in terror. Across both those groups, the senators reported that at least 40 people initially admitted to the U.S. as refugees later were convicted or implicated in terror cases. Among the 580 convicted, they said, at least 380 were foreign-born. The top countries of origin were Pakistan, Lebanon and Somalia, as well as the Palestinian territories. (…) Specifically, they show a sharp spike in cases in 2015, largely stemming from the arrest of suspects claiming allegiance to the Islamic State. (…) The allegations detailed in the subcommittee’s research pertain to a range of cases, involving suspects caught traveling or trying to travel overseas to fight, as well as suspects ensnared in controversial sting operations which civil-liberties groups including the ACLU have criticized. In a 2014 report, Human Rights Watch said nearly half of the federal counterterror convictions at the time came from “informant-based cases,” many of them sting operations where the informants played a role in the plot. (…) But even in some of those cases, federal agents got involved after learning of a serious suspected plot. In the case of the Seattle suspect, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, authorities said he approached someone in 2011 about attacking a military installation. That citizen alerted law enforcement and worked with them to capture Latif and an accomplice. Fox news (June 2016)
A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in. In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. (…) The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. (…) According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa. At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens. These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order. Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun. Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver’s license scheme that was extremely worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never claimed. The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it. Another example that should have come to mind is that of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University in November 2016. Artan was a Somalian who arrived in 2007 as a refugee. Center for immigration studies

Attention: un fascisme peut en cacher un autre !

Gouvernement par décrets, ouverture virtuellement complète des vannes de l’immigration mexicaine, amnisties par fait du prince, villes-refuges quasiment soustraites à la loi fédérale, court-circuitage du Congrès accordant l’accès à l’arme nucléaire à un pays appelant à l’annihilation d’un de ses voisins, explosion complètement inouïe du budget fédéral, loi calamiteuse sur la sécurité sociale, élargissement non maitrisé et caché de terroristes notoires, record largement secret d’exécutions parajudiciaires, dénonciation systématique du prétendu racisme policier privant de fait les plus démunis de leur droit à la sécurité la plus élémentaire  …

A l’heure où, quand ce n’est pas l’ancien président lui-même, nos beaux esprits et nos belles âmes des médias et du monde du spectacle (ou même apparemment de la fonction publique ou des services secrets ?)

Multiplient, entre révélations d’écoutes secrètes ou analyses de poignées de mains, les fuites, obstructions et  dénigrements pour saboter les premières semaines, certes quelque peu cahotiques, de l’Administration Trump …

(Contrairement à ce que nos médias paresseux et partiaux nous rabâchent, ce n’est pas pour « contacts inappropriés » avec l’ambassadeur russe mais pour mensonge à ses chefs – du moins officiellement – que Flynn démissionne et que – vendetta personnelle ? – le FBI n’a pas hésité à confirmer, pour ceux qui ne le savaient pas encore, la mise sur écoute systématique de tous les contacts des citoyens américains avec l’étranger, hauts fonctionnaires et ambassadeurs compris) …

Pendant que se confirme l’origine majoritairement musulmane des auteurs d’attentats sur le sol américain depuis ou avant le 11 septembre …

Et qu’alors que la fameuse générosité européenne semble se heurter elle aussi au dur mur de la réalité de ce côté-ci de l’Atlantique, se poursuit l’hallali contre la seule véritable alternance aux cinq années de gâchis socialiste …

Comment ne pas voir …

En creux pour ceux qui ont encore un peu de mémoire …

Et au-delà de l’évident correctif face à la véritable radicalité d’une administration ayant battu tous les records, si l’on ajoute les « memorandums », de décrets présidentiels …

L’incroyable indulgence complice qui avait suivi l’élection de Barack Obama il y a huit ans …

Mais aussi la non moins incroyable amnésie …

Pour une administration qui non seulement appliqua plusieurs moratoires sur l’immigration de certains pays musulmans  …

Mais poursuivit, au moins jusqu’en 2010 et sur fond d’intensification du trafic de drogue, la construction d’un des pas moins de douze murs que compte la planète

Et, entre deux promesses d’amnistie, battit en son temps le record toutes catégories d’expulsions de clandestins ?

Entre les États-Unis et le Mexique, un mur très politique
Philippe Gélie

Le Figaro

02/10/2006

LES ÉTATS-UNIS vont ériger une barrière de 1 120 kilomètres de long sur leur frontière avec le Mexique. La loi adoptée en ce sens par le Sénat vendredi soir, juste avant la fin de la session parlementaire, ignore la volonté du président d’introduire une réforme globale de l’immigration, dans laquelle le volet répressif aurait été complété par un programme d’accueil des travailleurs étrangers. Mais, à cinq semaines des élections de mi-mandat, George W. Bush a annoncé son intention de ratifier la loi telle qu’elle est, plutôt que d’offrir un spectacle de division dans son propre parti.

Le texte prévoit l’érection d’au moins deux rangées de palissades et de grillages sur un peu plus de la moitié des 3 200 kilomètres de frontière entre les États-Unis et le Mexique, principal point d’entrée des immigrants clandestins. Il donne 18 mois au département de la Sécurité du territoire pour prendre «le contrôle opérationnel» de la frontière, notion définie par l’arrêt de «tous» les passages illégaux. En moyenne, 1,2 million de clandestins sont arrêtés chaque année du côté américain, un chiffre constant depuis dix ans malgré le renforcement incessant des contrôles.

Des obstacles juridiques

Cent vingt kilomètres de palissades existent déjà, le nombre de gardes-frontière a été triplé et 6 000 soldats de la Garde nationale ont été déployés en renfort l’été dernier. Le seul résultat visible jusqu’ici a été de repousser les candidats à l’immigration toujours plus loin dans des zones désertiques, faisant passer le nombre de morts d’une douzaine à 400 par an. Selon les autorités d’Arizona, la fortification de la frontière a donné le jour à une nouvelle criminalité organisée, plus sophistiquée que les passeurs d’autrefois. À raison de 1 600 dollars par immigrant, son chiffre d’affaires atteindrait 2,5 milliards de dollars par an.

La réponse du Congrès a été de budgéter 1,2 milliard de dollars pour lancer un projet qui devrait en coûter au total 7 milliards d’ici à son achèvement fin 2008. Il prévoit la multiplication des drones, des radars, des caméras de surveillance et des plaques sensibles enfouies dans le sol. Les zones concernées par ce «mur» de haute technologie s’étendent sur une partie de la Californie, la quasi-totalité de la frontière sud de l’Arizona et du Nouveau-Mexique, ainsi que deux tronçons le long du Rio Grande au Texas. Le terrain, extrêmement difficile par endroits, jette le doute sur la faisabilité de l’opération : il faudra gravir des sommets escarpés, plonger au fond de canyons ou traverser des rivières rapides.

Des obstacles juridiques sont également prévisibles, la barrière étant censée traverser plusieurs réserves indiennes dont les tribus sont opposées à sa construction. Des associations de protection de la nature prévoient d’introduire des recours en justice au nom du respect de la vie sauvage. Même les ranchers du Texas s’inquiètent de l’impact sur leur main-d’oeuvre de travailleurs frontaliers. «Ce n’est pas réalisable, estime le sénateur de l’Arizona Jim Kolbe, c’est juste une déclaration politique avant les élections.»

Voir aussi:

Barack Obama veut sécuriser la frontière avec le Mexique

Lamia Oualalou, à Rio de Janeiro
Le Figaro

25/03/2009

Washington s’inquiète de voir la violence liée à la guerre contre les narcotrafiquants empiéter sur les États-Unis, alors que Hillary Clinton est attendue mercredi à Mexico.

La secrétaire d’État Hillary Clinton doit s’attendre à un accueil plutôt froid en arrivant au Mexique mercredi. Sa visite, la première d’une série de visites de hauts fonctionnaires avant le voyage du président Barack Obama, prévu à la mi-avril, a pour objectif de panser les plaies alors que les relations entre les deux pays, qui partagent une frontière de 3 000 kilomètres, traversent une phase délicate.

La guerre contre le narcotrafic menée par le président Felipe Calderon a provoqué une explosion de violence (plus de 7 200 morts officiellement en 2008). Barack Obama s’est dit mardi «préoccupé par le niveau accru de la violence (…) et son impact sur les communautés vivant de part et d’autre de la frontière.» Dans la foulée, la Maison-Blanche a dévoilé une nouvelle stratégie pour endiguer la montée en puissance des gangs mexicains, qui gagnent des milliards de dollars en exportant la drogue vers les États-Unis, où ils se fournissent en armes et en argent liquide.

Washington prévoit d’augmenter les effectifs des agents des ministères de la Justice, du Trésor et de la Sécurité intérieure et ­d’installer de nouveaux outils de surveillance aux postes frontières. L’Administration Obama compte aussi s’appuyer sur les 700 millions de dollars d’aide aux forces de sé­curité mexicaines alloués pour 2008 et 2009.

Parallèlement, les États-Unis en­visagent de placer des troupes en état d’alerte, probablement des réservistes de la Garde nationale, qui seraient envoyés à la frontière en cas d’urgence. Ils souhaitent aussi imposer un nouvel accord militaire au Mexique. «La question de la sécurité a pris une place excessive et exclusive, il faut que les États-Unis se recentrent sur la relation commerciale, qui est fondamentale», dit Laura Carlsen, directrice des Amérique au Centre de politique internationale – CIP, basé à Washington.

Représailles commerciales
La semaine dernière, le gouvernement de Felipe Calderon a établi une liste de 90 produits américains qui seront surtaxés à l’entrée du territoire mexicain. Une décision prise en représailles à une mesure du Congrès américain mettant fin à la circulation de camions mexicains au-delà du Rio Grande, comme le prévoyait l’accord de libre-échange nord-américain (Alena), qui unit les États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique. Le Congrès estime que les véhicules mexicains ne répondent pas aux normes de sécurité américaines. «C’est une mesure protectionniste, dictée par le puissant syndicat de camionneurs Teamsters», tranche Leo Zuckermann, analyste au Cide, un centre d’études politiques et économiques à Mexico.

«En ces moments de crise économique, alors qu’il faut éviter le protectionnisme, les États-Unis envoient un signal négatif au Mexique et au reste du monde», estime le ministre de l’Économie Gerardo Ruiz Mateos. La liste des produits frappés de surtaxe – fruits, légumes, shampoings – exclut les denrées de première nécessité afin de ne pas pénaliser le consommateur. Mexico a également tenu à ce qu’ils proviennent de 40 États américains. «Le but est de montrer à la Maison-Blanche que la relation commerciale pèse dans les deux sens, et qu’elle est fondamentale pour certains États», explique Laura Carlsen.

Pour Barack Obama, la crise avec le Mexique vire au casse-tête. «Il a promis pendant sa campagne de renégocier l’Alena à l’avantage des travailleurs américains, une proposition rejetée par Mexico, rappelle Tomas Ayuso, chercheur au Coha (Conseil sur les affaires hémisphériques) de Washington. Mais il est dangereux de froisser le Mexique, qui est son troisième partenaire commercial.»

Obama semble l’avoir compris. Il a changé de discours, substituant aux critiques des éloges sur «l’ex­tra­ordinaire travail» de Felipe Calderon.

Voir également:

Le mur États-Unis-Mexique en 15 images

Le reportage de Christian Latreille

Radio Canada

7 juin 2016

L’immigration est un sujet controversé de la campagne présidentielle américaine. Le candidat républicain Donald Trump promet notamment de bâtir un mur plus haut et plus long entre les États-Unis et le Mexique. Nous sommes allés voir ce fameux mur.

Le mur entre les deux pays se construit par étapes. Le fondateur de l’association des Anges de la frontière, Enrique Morones, montre deux générations de murs. La première atteint trois mètres et a été fabriquée sous Bill Clinton avec de la tôle recyclée de la guerre du Vietnam. La deuxième, d’environ cinq mètres de hauteur, a été construite sous George W. Bush.

Derrière Enrique Morones, une brèche dans le mur. En fait, le mur n’est pas uniforme et ne s’étend que sur 1120 km des 3200 km de la frontière entre les États-Unis et le Mexique. Plus souvent une montagne, une rivière ou un désert séparent les deux pays.

Après le mur, le désert. Les bénévoles des Anges de la frontière, un groupe né en 1986, déposent des bouteilles d’eau pour aider ceux qui doivent survivre dans le désert aride après avoir franchi le mur.

Les clandestins attachent des morceaux d’étoffe sous leurs souliers pour éviter de laisser des traces de pas facilement détectables par les gardes-frontières.

La zone de San Diego-Tijuana comprend un des systèmes de sécurité les plus sophistiqués le long de la frontière entre les États-Unis et le Mexique.

Mur, clôture, caméras, détecteurs et barbelés. Il y a aussi les patrouilleurs qui surveillent continuellement le mur. Malgré tout cet arsenal, de nombreux immigrants réussissent à passer illégalement chaque semaine.

Les clandestins parviennent à percer le mur avec des scies mécaniques. Selon les gardes-frontières, seulement 30 % des clandestins qui tentent d’entrer illégalement au pays se font prendre. « On fait du mieux qu’on peut, avec ce qu’on nous donne », dira l’un d’eux.

Le syndicat des gardes-frontières a appuyé le candidat Donald Trump. Le vice-président, Terence Shigg, apporte des nuances à la position de Trump sur l’immigration. Le candidat républicain propose notamment de déporter les quelque 11 millions de sans-papiers qui se trouvent aux États-Unis. Selon Terence Shigg, la déportation massive n’est pas la solution; il faut plus de gens pour traiter les demandes d’asile, plus de juges en immigration, plus de centres de détention.

Christopher Harris, du syndicat des gardes-frontières, se tient du côté américain de la frontière. À quelques pas de là, il a tué un clandestin; un douloureux souvenir qui le hante encore. Il aime citer une ancienne patronne : « Montrez-moi un mur de 15 pieds, et je vous montrerai une échelle de 16 pieds ».

On estime à près de 11 000 le nombre de personnes mortes depuis 1994 en tentant d’entrer illégalement aux États-Unis. Plusieurs centaines d’entre elles sont enterrées ici, dans ce cimetière de fortune.

Les corps de nombreuses personnes n’ont pas été réclamés. Elles restent donc anonymes. Des « John Doe », comme l’indique l’inscription sur la pierre. C’est pour éviter que les victimes ne tombent dans l’oubli que les Anges de la frontière entretiennent régulièrement le cimetière.

Jeune enfant, Walfred a été abandonné au Guatemala par sa mère, qui a tenté sa chance aux États-Unis. Après quatre ans d’attente, il a réussi à franchir la frontière illégalement pour la rejoindre. Pour le moment, il est protégé par un décret présidentiel signé par Barack Obama en 2012.

Walfred et sa mère connaissent des jours plus heureux. Elle gère une petite entreprise d’entretien ménager, tout en vivant dans la clandestinité. Un sacrifice qu’elle accepte volontiers pour être avec son seul enfant.

Voir encore:

The Obama Administration Stopped Processing Iraq Refugee Requests For 6 Months In 2011

Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

After two terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2009, the FBI began reviewing reams of evidence taken from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that had been used against American troops in Iraq. Federal investigators then tried to match fingerprints from those bombs to the fingerprints of individuals who had recently entered the United States as refugees:

An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home — a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army’s Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

According to a 2013 report from ABC News, at least one of the Kentucky terrorists passed background and fingerprint checks conducted by the Department of Homeland Security prior to being allowed to enter the United States. Without the fingerprint evidence taken from roadside bombs, which one federal forensic scientist referred to as “a needle in the haystack,” it is unlikely that the two terrorists would ever have been identified and apprehended.

“How did a person who we detained in Iraq — linked to an IED attack, we had his fingerprints in our government system — how did he walk into America in 2009?” asked one former Army general who previously oversaw the U.S. military’s anti-IED efforts.

President Barack Obama has thus far refused bipartisan calls to pause his administration’s Syrian refugee program, which many believe is likely to be exploited by terrorists seeking entry into the United States. The president has not explained how his administration can guarantee that no terrorists will be able to slip into the country by pretending to be refugees, as the Iraqi terrorists captured in Kentucky did in 2009. One of those terrorists, Waad Ramadan Alwan, even came into the United States by way of Syria, where his fingerprints were taken and given to U.S. military intelligence officials.

Obama has also refused to explain how his administration’s security-related pause on processing Iraq refugee requests in 2011 did not “betray our deepest values.”

Voir de même:

Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order

Jessica Vaughan
Center for immigration studies
February 11, 2017

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

  • Somalia: 20
  • Yemen: 19
  • Iraq: 19
  • Syria: 7
  • Iran: 4
  • Libya: 2
  • Sudan: 1
  • Total: 72

According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.

Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.

Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver’s license scheme that was extremely worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never claimed.

The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it. Another example that should have come to mind is that of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University in November 2016. Artan was a Somalian who arrived in 2007 as a refugee.

President Trump’s vetting order is clearly legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to the national interest. He should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order, but if judges demand more reasons, here are 72.

Voir aussi:

Homeland Security

Anatomy of the terror threat: Files show hundreds of US plots, refugee connection

Now PlayingWhy are Democrat women so rattled by Trump?

Newly obtained congressional data shows hundreds of terror plots have been stopped in the U.S. since 9/11 – mostly involving foreign-born suspects, including dozens of refugees.

The files are sure to inflame the debate over the Obama administration’s push to admit thousands more refugees from Syria and elsewhere, a proposal Donald Trump has vehemently opposed on the 2016 campaign trail.

“[T]hese data make clear that the United States not only lacks the ability to properly screen individuals prior to their arrival, but also that our nation has an unprecedented assimilation problem,” Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told President Obama in a June 14 letter, obtained by FoxNews.com.

The files also give fresh insight into the true scope of the terror threat and cover a wide range of cases, including:

  • A Seattle man plotting to attack a U.S. military facility
  • An Atlantic City man using his “Revolution Muslim” site to encourage confrontations with U.S. Jewish leaders “at their homes”
  • An Iraq refugee arrested in January, accused of traveling to Syria to “take up arms” with terror groups

While the June 12 massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub marked the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since 2001, the data shows America has been facing a steady stream of plots. For the period September 2001 through 2014, data shows the U.S. successfully prosecuted 580 individuals for terrorism and terror-related cases. Further, since early 2014, at least 131 individuals were identified as being implicated in terror.

Across both those groups, the senators reported that at least 40 people initially admitted to the U.S. as refugees later were convicted or implicated in terror cases.

Among the 580 convicted, they said, at least 380 were foreign-born. The top countries of origin were Pakistan, Lebanon and Somalia, as well as the Palestinian territories.

Both Sessions and Cruz sit on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which compiled the terror-case information based on data from the Justice Department, news reports and other open-source information. The files were shared with FoxNews.com.

The files include dates, states of residence, countries of origin for foreign-born suspects, and reams of other details.

Specifically, they show a sharp spike in cases in 2015, largely stemming from the arrest of suspects claiming allegiance to the Islamic State. They also show a heavy concentration of cases involving suspects from California, Texas, New York and Minnesota, among other states.

The senators say the terror-case repository still is missing critical details on suspects’ immigration history, which they say the Department of Homeland Security has “failed to provide.” Immigration data the senators compiled came from other sources.

Sessions and Cruz asked the president in their letter to order the departments of Justice, Homeland Security and State to « update » and provide more detailed information. The senators have sent several letters to those departments since last year requesting immigration histories of those tied to terror.

“The administration refuses to give out the information necessary to establish a sound policy that protects Americans from terrorists,” Sessions said in a statement to Fox News.

Asked about the complaints, DHS spokeswoman Gillian M. Christensen told FoxNews.com the department “will respond to the senators’ request directly and not through the press.”

“More than 100 Congressional committees, subcommittees, caucuses, commissions and groups exercise oversight and ensure accountability of DHS and we work closely with them on a daily basis. We’ve received unprecedented requests from a number of senators and representatives for physical paper files for more than 700 aliens,” she said, adding that officials have to review each page manually for privacy and other issues.

Cruz ran unsuccessfully this year for the Republican presidential nomination. Sessions, an ardent critic of the administration’s immigration policies, is supporting presumptive GOP nominee Trump.

The allegations detailed in the subcommittee’s research pertain to a range of cases, involving suspects caught traveling or trying to travel overseas to fight, as well as suspects ensnared in controversial sting operations which civil-liberties groups including the ACLU have criticized.

In a 2014 report, Human Rights Watch said nearly half of the federal counterterror convictions at the time came from “informant-based cases,” many of them sting operations where the informants played a role in the plot.

The report said: “In some cases the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated or invented the target’s willingness to act.”

But even in some of those cases, federal agents got involved after learning of a serious suspected plot. In the case of the Seattle suspect, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, authorities said he approached someone in 2011 about attacking a military installation. That citizen alerted law enforcement and worked with them to capture Latif and an accomplice.

FoxNews.com’s Liz Torrey contributed to this report. 

Voir par ailleurs:

La guerre des cartels mexicains franchit la frontière des Etats-Unis

Déjà, l’Arizona subit une hausse alarmante de la criminalité. Selon différentes sources, l’Etat frontalier serait devenu la principale plaque tournante nord-américaine de l’immigration illégale et du narcotrafic. Ailleurs, sur l’ensemble du territoire, les cartels mexicains contrôleraient la plupart du marché, d’après un rapport du Centre national de renseignement des drogues. Liés aux gangs américains, ils seraient parvenus à s’implanter dans 230 villes des Etats-Unis.

Nicolas Bourcier

EL PASO (TEXAS) ENVOYÉ SPÉCIAL

Le Monde

24.03.2009

« N ‘y allez pas. » D’emblée, l’injonction de Ramon Bracamontes prend des allures de mise en garde. Les mots, le ton de ce journaliste texan d’El Paso, enquêteur reconnu, calme et d’habitude souriant, en disent long sur le degré d’inquiétude qui prévaut de ce côté-ci de la frontière.

Evoquer le Mexique et la ville d’en face, Ciudad Juarez, située juste de l’autre côté du Rio Grande et de son « rideau de fer », c’est prendre le risque de subir une logorrhée interminable de crimes et d’horreurs liés à la guerre des narcotrafiquants et leurs sicaires. « Moi-même, j’ai peur, insiste-t-il. Les autorités américaines au Mexique m’ont affirmé qu’elles ne pouvaient plus assurer la protection des ressortissants des Etats-Unis. Et de ce côté-ci, nous assistons, chaque jour un peu plus, au débordement de cette violence. »

C’est dire l’importance de la première visite, prévue les mercredi 25 et jeudi 26 mars, de la secrétaire d’Etat Hillary Clinton au Mexique. Sa venue a été placée sous le signe de la lutte contre la drogue. Plus de 800 policiers et militaires y ont été tués depuis décembre 2006. Quelque 6 000 assassinats y ont été recensés l’année dernière (le double de 2007). Avant Noël, les autorités ont découvert dans la petite ville de Chilpancingo, enveloppées dans des sacs en plastique, huit têtes décapitées de soldats puis trois autres dans une glacière à Ciudad Juarez en janvier. Quelques jours plus tard, c’était au tour du responsable de la police locale de démissionner sous la pression des cartels de la drogue. Le maire de la ville frontière, lui, a fini par s’installer avec sa famille en face, à El Paso.

Déjà, en décembre 2006, lors de son élection, le président mexicain, Felipe Calderon, avait admis que « le crime organisé était devenu hors de contrôle ». Depuis, le chef de l’Etat, conservateur et partisan d’une stratégie musclée contre le crime organisé, a déployé sur le territoire 45 000 soldats contre les gangs des narcotrafiquants, dont près de 5 000, cagoulés de noir et lourdement armés, pour la seule ville de Ciudad Juarez.

Les arrestations se sont multipliées – souvent de façon arbitraire, d’après les organisations de défense des droits de l’homme. Les règlements de compte dans les prisons ont atteint de nouveaux sommets. Tout comme les attaques contre des domiciles, les extorsions, les saisies de cocaïne, les prises d’otages et les meurtres avec plus de 1 100 homicides pour les seules huit premières semaines de l’année.

Les autorités mexicaines assurent que le pouvoir central est en train de gagner. A les en croire, l’explosion de violence serait paradoxalement le fruit des efforts de l’Etat pour désorganiser le trafic de drogue. En novembre 2008, Noe Ramirez, le procureur en charge de l’unité spécialisée dans le crime organisé, n’a-t-il pas été inculpé pour avoir fourni des informations au cartel de Sinaloa contre un demi-million de dollars par mois ? Et Francisco Velasco Delgado, le chef de la police de Cancun, arrêté pour avoir protégé le cartel dit du Golfe, commanditaire présumé de l’assassinat en janvier d’un général ?

Pour Washington, l’effort reste insuffisant. Rendu public il y a quelques semaines, un document du Pentagone concluait que deux grands pays pouvaient connaître un effondrement rapide de l’Etat : le Pakistan et, précisément, le voisin mexicain. Un avis rejeté fermement par Mexico, mais alimenté depuis par de nombreuses voix. Barry McCaffrey, général à la retraite et « M. Drogue » de Bill Clinton, affirme que les Etats-Unis ne peuvent pas se permettre d’avoir « un narco-Etat à leur porte« , ajoutant que « les dangers et les problèmes croissants du Mexique menacent la sécurité nationale de notre pays ».

Déjà, l’Arizona subit une hausse alarmante de la criminalité. Selon différentes sources, l’Etat frontalier serait devenu la principale plaque tournante nord-américaine de l’immigration illégale et du narcotrafic. Ailleurs, sur l’ensemble du territoire, les cartels mexicains contrôleraient la plupart du marché, d’après un rapport du Centre national de renseignement des drogues. Liés aux gangs américains, ils seraient parvenus à s’implanter dans 230 villes des Etats-Unis.

C’est dans ce contexte que le général Victor Renuart, le chef du commandement de la zone Amérique du Nord, a expliqué, lors d’une audition au Sénat, le 17 mars, que Washington envisageait d’envoyer plus de troupes ou d’agents spécialisés à la frontière. Selon lui, toutes les composantes des forces de l’ordre et de l’armée seront probablement concernées dans ce combat sans pour autant donner une estimation chiffrée des besoins.

Deux semaines auparavant, Rick Perry, le gouverneur républicain du Texas, avait exigé l’envoi de 1 000 hommes supplémentaires. « Je me fiche de savoir s’il s’agit de militaires, de gardes nationaux ou d’agents des douanes, a-t-il lâché. Nous sommes très préoccupés par le fait que le gouvernement fédéral ne s’occupe pas de la sécurité à la frontière de façon adéquate. »

Une équipe formée de représentants de plusieurs agences gouvernementales s’est réunie la semaine dernière afin d’épauler Mexico. Une initiative qui fait suite au déjeuner, le 12 janvier à Washington, entre Barack Obama et le président mexicain. D’après l’hebdomadaire The Economist, citant des sources mexicaines, M. Calderon aurait proposé un « partenariat stratégique » et la mise en place rapide d’un groupe binational d’experts afin d’améliorer la coopération entre les deux pays.

Devant l’éventualité d’une nouvelle militarisation de la frontière, le président mexicain a exhorté, il y a quelques jours, Washington à surveiller, de son côté, plus étroitement ses importations d’armes et leur vente aux particuliers. Il a demandé des contrôles plus stricts à la frontière d’où les cartels reçoivent leur arsenal et des millions de dollars en espèces en provenance des Etats-Unis.

Après Hillary Clinton, le président américain effectuera à son tour une visite officielle, les 16 et 17 avril, au Mexique. La première en Amérique latine depuis son accession à la Maison Blanche.

Nicolas Bourcier – EL PASO (TEXAS) ENVOYÉ SPÉCIAL

En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2009/03/24/la-guerre-des-cartels-mexicains-franchit-la-frontiere-des-etats-unis_1171893_3222.html#Z3v6zkJA11su7rMg.99

Ce que peut (encore) faire Barack Obama avant la fin de son mandat

Le président sortant a jusqu’au 20 janvier 2017, date de l’investiture de Donald Trump, pour prendre ses dernières mesures.

Lucas Wicky

Le Monde

28.12.2016

Barack Obama entre dans la dernière ligne droite de son mandat présidentiel. Le 20 janvier 2017, Donald Trump, dont l’élection a été confirmée le 19 décembre par le vote des grands électeurs, prêtera serment et s’installera à la Maison Blanche. Le président sortant se trouve ainsi placé dans la position inconfortable du « lame duck » (canard boiteux), selon l’expression consacrée outre-Atlantique : celle d’un élu dont le mandat arrive à terme et qui est toujours en poste, alors que son successeur est déjà élu mais n’occupe pas encore le poste.

Pour autant, M. Obama ne semble pas disposé à faire « profil bas » durant cette période de transition officielle, qui limite, théoriquement, ses marges de manœuvre. Pour preuve, le 20 décembre, il a décrété l’interdiction des forages gaziers et pétroliers dans de vastes zones de l’Arctique et de l’Atlantique. Les observateurs y ont vu une sorte de coup de force avant l’arrivée de M. Trump, tant cette disposition s’inscrit à rebours des orientations de ce dernier, qui, au contraire, a promis de déréguler l’extraction pétrolière pendant son mandat.

Barack Obama va-t-il profiter des prochaines semaines pour faire passer d’autres mesures avant de quitter la fonction présidentielle ? En a-t-il les moyens ? Voici un tour d’horizon des leviers dont il dispose encore, ou pas, et de la pérennité des mesures qu’il pourrait prendre.

Peut-il faire voter de nouvelles réformes ?

Non

En tout cas, pas en passant par le Congrès (pouvoir législatif). Depuis deux ans, M. Obama n’y dispose pas d’une majorité. C’est pourquoi toutes les réformes d’ampleur du président sortant ont été bloquées. Les élections de mi-mandat avaient en effet permis aux républicains d’obtenir la majorité au Sénat, tandis qu’ils contrôlaient la Chambre des représentants depuis 2010. Les démocrates n’ont pas réussi à renverser ce rapport de force lors des dernières élections, en novembre.

Peut-il « contourner » les parlementaires ?

Oui, dans certains cas

Des leviers ont notamment permis à M. Obama d’agir sur la question des armes, de promouvoir la diversité au sein de la Sécurité nationale ou de protéger une partie de la mer de Bering. Il s’agit des executive actions, en l’occurence des décrets présidentiels (executive orders) ou des mémorandums, qui viennent préciser la manière dont une loi existante doit s’appliquer (les décrets doivent nécessairement mentionner la loi concernée, à la différence des mémorandums).

Le président dispose d’un troisième outil afin de se passer de la validation du Sénat : les accords exécutifs. M. Obama y a eu recours en politique étrangère. Par exemple pour « signer l’accord de Paris sur le changement climatique et conclure l’accord controversé sur le programme nucléaire iranien », note John Copeland Nagle, professeur de droit à l’université Notre Dame law school.

M. Obama a toutefois eu moins recours aux décrets présidentiels que ses prédécesseurs républicains, Ronald Reagan et George W. Bush, mais à plus de mémorandums, selon USA Today.

Les décisions prises à travers des « actes exécutifs » sont-elles irréversibles ?

Non

L’utilisation de ces executive actions n’est pas explicitement prévue par la Constitution des Etats-Unis. Leur utilisation a plusieurs fois été jugée abusive ou « anticonstitutionnelle » par les républicains. En réalité, il revient aux tribunaux fédéraux (s’ils sont saisis par un plaignant) ou à la Cour suprême (en cas d’appel) de juger si ces actes exécutifs respectent ou non la Constitution.

Quoi qu’il en soit, la plupart de ces actes exécutifs peuvent être « instantanément défaits par Donald Trump », prévient Vincent Michelot, professeur de civilisation américaine à Sciences Po Lyon.

C’est d’ailleurs ce que promet le futur locataire de la Maison Blanche, qui a l’intention de revenir sur plusieurs réformes de son prédécesseur. Dans son contrat présidentiel, on peut lire ce qu’il compte faire dès son premier jour de mandat :

« Premièrement, abroger toutes les actions exécutives inconstitutionnelles, mémorandums et décrets mis en place par le président Obama. »

Certains actes présidentiels pris par M. Obama peuvent-ils contraindre son successeur ?

Oui

Face au risque de détricotage par son successeur, M. Obama possède une marge de manœuvre : appliquer, à travers des executive actions, des lois n’étant pas prévues pour être réversibles. C’est ce qu’il a fait pour interdire les forages offshore en Arctique et Atlantique : il s’est appuyé sur l’Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, loi sur les terres du plateau continental, qui donne au président le pouvoir de protéger les eaux fédérales et rend cette protection permanente dans le temps.

Le texte actuel ne permet pas d’autoriser à nouveau l’exploitation d’hydrocarbures une fois qu’une zone a été sanctuarisée. Et Vincent Michelot de préciser :

« Certaines règles édictées ces derniers jours seront très difficiles à abroger […] et consommatrices de temps parlementaire. Elles donnent aussi la possibilité aux associations de défense de l’environnement de porter le débat devant le judiciaire, ce qui signifie des procédures d’une durée de deux à quatre ans. »

Ce type de mesure pourrait-il être multiplié dans les prochains jours ? Vincent Michelot n’exclut pas cette possibilité :

« Si d’autres décisions similaires sont dans les tuyaux, notamment en matière d’environnement, M. Obama a tout intérêt à ne pas les annoncer à l’avance, pour bénéficier de l’effet de surprise et surtout mettre l’administration Trump au pied du mur. »

Le président sortant dispose-t-il d’autres pouvoirs en cette fin de mandat ?

Oui

Barack Obama a par exemple la possibilité de suspendre des dirigeants de l’administration ou de l’armée et de rendre publics des programmes confidentiels. L’hebdomadaire de gauche The Nation l’a appelé, début décembre, à utiliser une partie de ces pouvoirs. Notamment pour « déclassifier des documents secrets, gracier des lanceurs d’alertes [comme Chelsea Manning ou Edward Snowden] et punir des hauts responsables ayant abusé de leur pouvoir ». Pour l’heure, le président démocrate n’a pas donné suite à leur demande.

Par ailleurs, l’article II de la Constitution des Etats-Unis confère au président le pouvoir « d’accorder […] des grâces pour crimes contre les Etats-Unis ». Il s’agit d’une prérogative que M. Obama a largement utilisée au cours des derniers jours.

Pour la seule journée du 19 décembre, il a accordé 153 « commutations » (réduction ou suppression de peine) et 78 « pardons » (oubli de la condamnation après que celle-ci a été effectuée et plein rétablissement des droits civils – le vote par exemple). Il a d’ores et déjà battu le record historique du nombre de grâces accordées par un président en exercice.

« Il y aura d’autres grâces présidentielles pour certains condamnés », pronostique Vincent Michelot. L’administration Obama redoute un tournant sécuritaire avec M. Trump. Ce mouvement de grâces est donc également un message politique. Le dernier communiqué de la Maison Blanche sur le sujet est explicite :

« Nous devons rappeler que la grâce est un outil de dernier ressort et que seul le Congrès peut mettre en place les réformes plus larges nécessaires pour assurer à long terme que notre système de justice pénale fonctionne plus équitablement et plus efficacement au service de la sécurité publique. »


Médias: Le Monde ressuscite l’Index (Who will fact-check the fact-checkers ?)

12 février, 2017
decodex
Exemple de fiabilité pour le site de «Valeurs actuelles» et le blog «les Crises»le-monde-decodexNous sommes entrés dans un mouvement qui est de l’ordre du religieux. Entrés dans la mécanique du sacrilège : la victime, dans nos sociétés, est entourée de l’aura du sacré. Du coup, l’écriture de l’histoire, la recherche universitaire, se retrouvent soumises à l’appréciation du législateur et du juge comme, autrefois, à celle de la Sorbonne ecclésiastique. Françoise Chandernagor (février 2007)
Nous avons recensés 600 sites, majoritairement français mais aussi anglais et américains et quelques allemands, avec cinq niveaux de fiabilité, repérés par cinq couleurs. Nous distinguons en gris les sites collectifs, donc non classés, comme Wikipedia, en bleu les sites parodiques, comme Le Gorafi ou NordPresse, en rouge les sites pas du tout fiables, complotistes ou trompeurs, comme le portail IVG.net qui, sous couvert d’informations, veut manipuler les femmes pour les décourager d’avorter, en orange les sites peu fiables ou très orientés, type FdeSouche, ou les attrape-clics qui republient des informations non recoupées, et enfin en vert les sites très fiables. C’est n’est pas un jugement sur leur opinion, mais sur leur démarche journalistique. L’idée n’est pas de faire du clic ni de l’argent, c’est une démarche citoyenne. Samuel Laurent
L’Index librorum prohibitorum (Index des livres interdits) est un catalogue instauré par le pape Paul IV en 1559 durant le Concile de Trente (1545-1563). Il s’agit d’une liste d’ouvrages que les catholiques romains n’étaient pas autorisés à lire. Le but de cette liste était d’empêcher la lecture de « livres pernicieux » jugés immoraux ou contraires à la foi. La Congrégation de l’Index fut instituée en 1571. L’Index fut régulièrement mis à jour jusqu’en 1961, par ajout de la Congrégation de l’Inquisition ou du pape. La liste n’était pas un simple travail de réaction ; les auteurs étaient invités à défendre leurs travaux, qu’ils pouvaient corriger et rééditer s’ils désiraient éviter l’interdiction, et une censure avant publication était encouragée. (…) Depuis la « Notification de la suppression de l’index des livres interdits », émise par le Vatican en 1966, cet index perd son caractère obligatoire et n’a plus valeur de censure, même s’il reste un guide moral. C’est de cet Index qu’est venue l’expression “Être mis à l’Index“. Ainsi, cette censure a gravement attenté à la Liberté d’expression, et a pourri le débat public pendant plus de 400 ans. Nous en étions débarrassés depuis plus de 50 ans, croyant être enfin entrés définitivement dans une période de liberté de pensée et d’expression. Et puis Le Monde a ressuscité l’Index… Les Crises
En proposant à ses lecteurs un moteur de recherche permettant de vérifier la fiabilité des sites d’information, «le Monde» se met dans une situation où il est à la fois juge et partie. (…) Jusqu’à présent, les fact-checkeurs se contentaient de fact-checker au détail, article par article, rumeur par rumeur, photo par photo, assertion par assertion, chiffre faux par chiffre faux. C’était (quasi) irréprochable déontologiquement, même si ce travail indispensable n’a pas empêché, aux Etats-Unis, l’élection de l’affabulateur complotiste Trump. Mais sans doute rien ne pouvait-il empêcher l’élection de Donald Trump, face à l’impopularité de Hillary Clinton. Désormais, donc, le Monde décode en gros. Tant de savoir accumulé devait trouver un débouché. Sur le papier, le saut est défendable. Dans la pratique, le diable est dans les détails. Depuis que l’extension est entrée en service, les critiques ont été nombreuses, essentiellement de la part des classés rouges. On pouvait s’y attendre. Encore faut-il distinguer les grandes objections qu’on peut faire au projet. (…) Plus sérieuse est une troisième critique : le Monde a catégorisé à la hache. A ma droite, en vert, tous les médias «professionnels», avec journalistes encartés. A ma gauche, en rouge, tous les autres. Hors carte de presse, point de salut. D’un coup d’un seul, l’apport historique d’Internet à l’enrichissement de l’info traditionnelle est jeté avec l’eau du bain Trump-Brexit. Ainsi, Valeurs actuelles, et sa condamnation à la haine raciale, est en vert, alors que Fakir, le site de François Ruffin, auteur de Merci patron !, est en rouge. Sur le point particulier de Valeurs actuelles, on sent d’ailleurs bien l’embarras de Decodex, qui assure dans le même mouvement que «le site est en principe plutôt fiable», tout en nuançant que «certaines enquêtes sont à prendre avec précaution». Décode qui pourra. Mais ce n’est pas le pire. Le pire, c’est que ce partage lui-même ne vaut que pour la presse française. Si le Monde n’a pas voulu se fâcher avec les chers confrères (et concurrents) français en les badigeonnant tous de vert, il n’a pas les mêmes scrupules s’agissant de la presse étrangère. Prenons la Grande-Bretagne. Le Daily Mail, pro-Brexit, qui a repris les mensonges du camp du «Leave», est catalogué orange («présente souvent les faits de manière racoleuse et exagérée»). Pourquoi pas ? Mais le Guardian, média phare du Remain anti-Brexit, qui a multiplié les prédictions apocalyptiques pour l’instant nullement confirmées dans les faits, est catalogué fiable. Pourquoi l’un et pas l’autre ? Plus sérieux : de quel droit, une source d’information vient-elle dire que d’autres sources d’informations concurrentes sont fiables ou non ? Quelle est sa fiabilité ? C’est comme si on demandait à la compagnie de taxis G7 de labelliser Uber ou aux agences immobilières de dire si Airbnb est une appli cool. Journal favorable à la mondialisation, le Monde classe en vert les journaux pro-mondialisation et les autres en rouge. Le Monde est purement et simplement en conflit d’intérêts. Juge et partie. Mort (provisoire ?) d’une belle idée. Daniel Schneidermann
Verificator arrive. Les menteurs n’ont qu’à bien se tenir. Orwell aurait pu l’inventer : un outil qui prétend distinguer le vrai du faux, ça aurait fait rêver Big Brother. C’est Le Monde qui l’offre aujourd’hui au lecteur-citoyen supposé égaré dans le maquis de l’information. Grâce à une panoplie informatique appelée Decodex (dont fait partie Verificator), il pourra se repérer et distinguer le bon grain journalistique de l’ivraie propagandiste. Dès ce matin, 600 sites, français en majorité, seront notés par un moteur de recherches à l’aide d’un système de pastilles de couleurs notant leur fiabilité: gris pour les sites collectifs, comme Wikipedia, bleu pour les sites parodiques, comme Le Gorafi, rouge pour les sites « pas du tout fiables, complotistes ou trompeurs », orange pour les sites « peu fiables ou très orientés », vert pour les sites « très fiables ». Ce système rappelle furieusement celui qui classe les voitures en fonction de leur nocivité pour l’environnement. Faut-il comprendre que Le Monde fait la chasse aux pollueurs du web ? (…) C’est tout de même curieux. En général, les journalistes du Monde n’aiment pas du tout qu’on les accuse d’être des donneurs de leçon. Or, voilà qu’ils se proclament eux-mêmes arbitres des élégances morales de la profession. Au nom de quoi le service « Décodeurs » du Monde serait-il habilité à décerner des brevets de fiabilité ? N’y aurait-il pas un petit conflit d’intérêt dans le fait que Le Monde, qui est producteur d’information, soit aussi celui qui délivre l’AOC ? Bien sûr, Jérôme Fenoglio, interrogé sur France Inter par une Sonia Devillers en pamoison devant tant de génie, se défend de toute volonté de censure idéologique : il s’agit simplement d’offrir à ceux qui le veulent (il insiste sur le fait qu’on n’est pas obligés, ouf) un moyen de savoir s’ils sont chez des charlatans ou chez des gens sérieux, si ce qu’ils consomment est de l’information ou une contrefaçon. Intention fort louable bien sûr. Reste à savoir comment on distingue les uns des autres. Et, à entendre les rares exemples donnés par les initiateurs de cette usine à gaz, on peut déjà redouter un filtre idéologique. Ainsi sait-on déjà que FDesouche sera classé « orange », en raison, suppose-t-on, de son caractère « très orienté ». Comme FDesouche ne publie que des informations puisées ailleurs, dans des médias certainement labellisés « verts » par Decodex, cela signifie qu’une information cachère dans Le Parisien devient immangeable chez FDesouche. En réalité, FDesouche publie des informations avérées et orientées. Tout comme Le Monde qui a, des années durant, dénoncé à grand bruit la menace populiste, et informé à très bas bruit sur la menace islamiste. La conclusion, c’est qu’une sélection particulière d’informations parfaitement exactes peut se révéler « très orientée ». En attendant, on aimerait savoir si l’Humanité et les Inrocks auront droit à leur pastille orange. Mais peut-être Verificator considèrera-t-il que ces titres, certes « très orientés », le sont aussi très bien. Qu’on ne se méprenne pas, quand Jérôme Fenoglio affirme qu’on peut être en désaccord à condition d’être d’accord sur les faits, il soulève un problème grave. Les complotistes de tout poil, qui pullulent sur internet, menacent le monde commun. Mais ce n’est pas un label décerné par Le Monde qui y changera quelque chose. Nos vaillants décodeurs oublient que ne s’informent sur les sites complotistes que ceux qui veulent croire aux complots. Et pour ceux-là, la pastille orange décernée par Le Monde fonctionnera comme un signe de ralliement plutôt que comme une marque d’infamie. En réalité, Decodex repose sur une définition pour le moins problématique de l’information. Celle-ci serait faite de faits dont le journaliste, nous disent Fenoglio et ses camarades, n’est que l’humble interprète. Interprète est le mot juste. Car si on a besoin d’interpréter les faits c’est qu’il n’est pas si facile de les définir. On peut sans doute savoir assez facilement combien de gens ont assisté à l’intronisation de Donald Trump (ou en tout cas avoir la certitude que le président américain ment). Mais la plupart des faits sont étroitement dépendants de celui qui les observe : s’il existait des faits autonomes, il serait facile de savoir si, oui ou non, le niveau baisse à l’école (sujet sur lequel les journalistes de Causeur et ceux du Monde n’ont pas la même vérité). Ou si l’intégration progresse. Ou si les Français sont de plus en plus racistes. Et il ne suffit pas de brandir des chiffres. Le problème, presque insoluble, c’est que, souvent, les mots n’ont pas le même sens pour tout le monde. On peut dire, chiffres à l’appui, que les capacités de lecture des élèves s’améliorent. Mais le mot « lecture » ne désigne plus la même réalité. Croire qu’on réinventera le monde commun à coups d’algorithme relève au mieux de la naïveté technologique, au pire de l’arrogance politique. Aucun robot ne résoudra pour nous la difficile question de la vérité. Alors chers confrères, arrêtez de décoder ! Elisabeth Lévy

Vous en aviez rêvé, Le Monde l’a fait !

Au lendemain d’une revanche des bouseux

Qui a décidément, du côté des mauvais perdants, beaucoup de mal à passer …

Et ce, malgré l’accumulation, entre accusation de piratage russe ou du système électoral, des excuses et des coups bas …

Devinez ce que viennent de nous sortir les décodeurs du Monde ?

Non content de s’écrire désormais avec l’histoire et la sociologie dans les prétoires …

Le journalisme va enfin pouvoir disposer, digne de la Sorbonne ecclésiastique des plus beaux jours, de son propre Index à lui tout seul  !

I. Quand le Monde ressuscite l’Index librorum prohibitorum

L’Index librorum prohibitorum (Index des livres interdits) est un catalogue instauré par le pape Paul IV en 1559 durant le Concile de Trente (1545-1563).

Il s’agit d’une liste d’ouvrages que les catholiques romains n’étaient pas autorisés à lire. Le but de cette liste était d’empêcher la lecture de « livres pernicieux » jugés immoraux ou contraires à la foi.

La Congrégation de l’Index fut instituée en 1571. L’Index fut régulièrement mis à jour jusqu’en 1961, par ajout de la Congrégation de l’Inquisition ou du pape. La liste n’était pas un simple travail de réaction ; les auteurs étaient invités à défendre leurs travaux, qu’ils pouvaient corriger et rééditer s’ils désiraient éviter l’interdiction, et une censure avant publication était encouragée.

On a ainsi pu trouver parmi les centaines d’auteurs dans l’Index : René Descartes, Daniel Defoe, Blaise Pascal, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Jean de La Fontaine, Johannes Kepler, Alexandre Dumas, Érasme, Honoré de Balzac, Charles Baudelaire, François Rabelais, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Pierre Larousse, Fénelon, Gustave Flaubert, Fontenelle, John Locke, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Anatole France, Baruch Spinoza, Nicolas Machiavel, Frédéric II de Prusse, André Gide, Auguste Comte, Condorcet, Nicolas Copernic, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Emmanuel Kant, Montaigne, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, Émile Zola…

J’ai une pensée émue pour toutes ces personnes, qui, un jour, ont découvert qu’elles étaient mises à l’Index et que c’était diabolique de les lire – vous comprenez pourquoi.

Depuis la « Notification de la suppression de l’index des livres interdits », émise par le Vatican en 1966, cet index perd son caractère obligatoire et n’a plus valeur de censure, même s’il reste un guide moral.

C’est de cet Index qu’est venue l’expression “Être mis à l’Index“.

Ainsi, cette censure a gravement attenté à la Liberté d’expression, et a pourri le débat public pendant plus de 400 ans.

Nous en étions débarrassés depuis plus de 50 ans, croyant être enfin entrés définitivement dans une période de liberté de pensée et d’expression.

Et puis Le Monde a ressuscité l’Index…

Voir aussi:

Au Monde, on décode à pleins tubes!

Decodex est en ligne

Elisabeth Lévy
est fondatrice et directrice de la rédaction de Causeur.

Causeur

02 février 2017

Verificator arrive. Les menteurs n’ont qu’à bien se tenir. Orwell aurait pu l’inventer : un outil qui prétend distinguer le vrai du faux, ça aurait fait rêver Big Brother. C’est Le Monde qui l’offre aujourd’hui au lecteur-citoyen supposé égaré dans le maquis de l’information. Grâce à une panoplie informatique appelée Decodex (dont fait partie Verificator), il pourra se repérer et distinguer le bon grain journalistique de l’ivraie propagandiste. Dès ce matin, 600 sites, français en majorité, seront notés par un moteur de recherches à l’aide d’un système de pastilles de couleurs notant leur fiabilité: gris pour les sites collectifs, comme Wikipedia, bleu pour les sites parodiques, comme Le Gorafi, rouge pour les sites « pas du tout fiables, complotistes ou trompeurs », orange pour les sites « peu fiables ou très orientés », vert pour les sites « très fiables ». Ce système rappelle furieusement celui qui classe les voitures en fonction de leur nocivité pour l’environnement. Faut-il comprendre que Le Monde fait la chasse aux pollueurs du web ? En tout cas, pour Causeur, les paris sont ouverts. J’avoue qu’une pastille verte me vexerait presque.

Un léger conflit d’intérêt

C’est tout de même curieux. En général, les journalistes du Monde n’aiment pas du tout qu’on les accuse d’être des donneurs de leçon. Or, voilà qu’ils se proclament eux-mêmes arbitres des élégances morales de la profession. Au nom de quoi le service « Décodeurs » du Monde serait-il habilité à décerner des brevets de fiabilité ? N’y aurait-il pas un petit conflit d’intérêt dans le fait que Le Monde, qui est producteur d’information, soit aussi celui qui délivre l’AOC ? Bien sûr, Jérôme Fenoglio, interrogé sur France Inter par une Sonia Devillers en pamoison devant tant de génie, se défend de toute volonté de censure idéologique : il s’agit simplement d’offrir à ceux qui le veulent (il insiste sur le fait qu’on n’est pas obligés, ouf) un moyen de savoir s’ils sont chez des charlatans ou chez des gens sérieux, si ce qu’ils consomment est de l’information ou une contrefaçon. Intention fort louable bien sûr. Reste à savoir comment on distingue les uns des autres. Et, à entendre les rares exemples donnés par les initiateurs de cette usine à gaz, on peut déjà redouter un filtre idéologique.

FDesouche classé « orange », en raison, suppose-t-on, de son caractère « très orienté »

Ainsi sait-on déjà que FDesouche sera classé « orange », en raison, suppose-t-on, de son caractère « très orienté ». Comme FDesouche ne publie que des informations puisées ailleurs, dans des médias certainement labellisés « verts » par Decodex, cela signifie qu’une information cachère dans Le Parisien devient immangeable chez FDesouche. En réalité, FDesouche publie des informations avérées et orientées. Tout comme Le Monde qui a, des années durant, dénoncé à grand bruit la menace populiste, et informé à très bas bruit sur la menace islamiste. La conclusion, c’est qu’une sélection particulière d’informations parfaitement exactes peut se révéler « très orientée ». En attendant, on aimerait savoir si l’Humanité et les Inrocks auront droit à leur pastille orange. Mais peut-être Verificator considèrera-t-il que ces titres, certes « très orientés », le sont aussi très bien.

Pas de problème pour Les Inrocks ou l’Humanité

Problème de référence?

Qu’on ne se méprenne pas, quand Jérôme Fenoglio affirme qu’on peut être en désaccord à condition d’être d’accord sur les faits, il soulève un problème grave. Les complotistes de tout poil, qui pullulent sur internet, menacent le monde commun. Mais ce n’est pas un label décerné par Le Monde qui y changera quelque chose. Nos vaillants décodeurs oublient que ne s’informent sur les sites complotistes que ceux qui veulent croire aux complots. Et pour ceux-là, la pastille orange décernée par Le Monde fonctionnera comme un signe de ralliement plutôt que comme une marque d’infamie.

En réalité, Decodex repose sur une définition pour le moins problématique de l’information. Celle-ci serait faite de faits dont le journaliste, nous disent Fenoglio et ses camarades, n’est que l’humble interprète. Interprète est le mot juste. Car si on a besoin d’interpréter les faits c’est qu’il n’est pas si facile de les définir. On peut sans doute savoir assez facilement combien de gens ont assisté à l’intronisation de Donald Trump (ou en tout cas avoir la certitude que le président américain ment). Mais la plupart des faits sont étroitement dépendants de celui qui les observe : s’il existait des faits autonomes, il serait facile de savoir si, oui ou non, le niveau baisse à l’école (sujet sur lequel les journalistes de Causeur et ceux du Monde n’ont pas la même vérité). Ou si l’intégration progresse. Ou si les Français sont de plus en plus racistes. Et il ne suffit pas de brandir des chiffres. Le problème, presque insoluble, c’est que, souvent, les mots n’ont pas le même sens pour tout le monde. On peut dire, chiffres à l’appui, que les capacités de lecture des élèves s’améliorent. Mais le mot « lecture » ne désigne plus la même réalité.

Croire qu’on réinventera le monde commun à coups d’algorithme relève au mieux de la naïveté technologique, au pire de l’arrogance politique. Aucun robot ne résoudra pour nous la difficile question de la vérité. Alors chers confrères, arrêtez de décoder !

Voir aussi:

Chronique «Médiatiques»
Decodex décodé
En proposant à ses lecteurs un moteur de recherche permettant de vérifier la fiabilité des sites d’information, «le Monde» se met dans une situation où il est à la fois juge et partie.

Daniel Schneidermann

Libération

5 février 2017

Dans le monde merveilleux des surveillants surveillés et des fact-checkeurs fact-checkés, amusons-nous aujourd’hui à décoder Decodex. Decodex, c’est le nouveau joujou mis en ligne la semaine dernière par le Monde, et qui partage les médias en ligne entre plutôt fiables et pas fiables du tout. Vous arrivez sur pipeule.com ou sur bidon.fr, et le joujou, pardon l’extension, vous le classe en vert ou en rouge, avec quelques lignes d’explication de vote.

C’est un pari audacieux. Jusqu’à présent, les fact-checkeurs se contentaient de fact-checker au détail, article par article, rumeur par rumeur, photo par photo, assertion par assertion, chiffre faux par chiffre faux. C’était (quasi) irréprochable déontologiquement, même si ce travail indispensable n’a pas empêché, aux Etats-Unis, l’élection de l’affabulateur complotiste Trump. Mais sans doute rien ne pouvait-il empêcher l’élection de Donald Trump, face à l’impopularité de Hillary Clinton.

Désormais, donc, le Monde décode en gros. Tant de savoir accumulé devait trouver un débouché. Sur le papier, le saut est défendable. Dans la pratique, le diable est dans les détails. Depuis que l’extension est entrée en service, les critiques ont été nombreuses, essentiellement de la part des classés rouges. On pouvait s’y attendre. Encore faut-il distinguer les grandes objections qu’on peut faire au projet.

Première objection : Decodex ne convaincra que les convaincus. Seuls la téléchargeront ceux qui font a priori confiance au Monde, pour discerner la bonne de la mauvaise info. Objection rejetée : entre les convaincus de la fiabilité, par nature, de la presse traditionnelle, et les convaincus de sa congénitale propension au mensonge et à la manip, reste heureusement le grand marais de tous ceux qui doutent, cherchent, tâtonnent, hésitent, recoupent. Et donc, oui, il existe pour une initiative de ce genre un public intéressé.

Objection de rechange : auprès de la seconde catégorie, l’anathème jeté par Decodex sur les sites «douteux» n’aura aucun effet. Il ne fera que les conforter dans leur certitude que l’objet de cet anathème est digne de confiance, du fait même de l’anathème d’un «média du système». Objection retenue cette fois, mais c’est un risque à courir.

Plus sérieuse est une troisième critique : le Monde a catégorisé à la hache. A ma droite, en vert, tous les médias «professionnels», avec journalistes encartés. A ma gauche, en rouge, tous les autres. Hors carte de presse, point de salut. D’un coup d’un seul, l’apport historique d’Internet à l’enrichissement de l’info traditionnelle est jeté avec l’eau du bain Trump-Brexit. Ainsi, Valeurs actuelles, et sa condamnation à la haine raciale, est en vert, alors que Fakir, le site de François Ruffin, auteur de Merci patron !, est en rouge. Sur le point particulier de Valeurs actuelles, on sent d’ailleurs bien l’embarras de Decodex, qui assure dans le même mouvement que «le site est en principe plutôt fiable», tout en nuançant que «certaines enquêtes sont à prendre avec précaution». Décode qui pourra.

Mais ce n’est pas le pire. Le pire, c’est que ce partage lui-même ne vaut que pour la presse française. Si le Monde n’a pas voulu se fâcher avec les chers confrères (et concurrents) français en les badigeonnant tous de vert, il n’a pas les mêmes scrupules s’agissant de la presse étrangère. Prenons la Grande-Bretagne. Le Daily Mail, pro-Brexit, qui a repris les mensonges du camp du «Leave», est catalogué orange («présente souvent les faits de manière racoleuse et exagérée»). Pourquoi pas ? Mais le Guardian, média phare du Remain anti-Brexit, qui a multiplié les prédictions apocalyptiques pour l’instant nullement confirmées dans les faits, est catalogué fiable. Pourquoi l’un et pas l’autre ?

Plus sérieux : de quel droit, une source d’information vient-elle dire que d’autres sources d’informations concurrentes sont fiables ou non ? Quelle est sa fiabilité ? C’est comme si on demandait à la compagnie de taxis G7 de labelliser Uber ou aux agences immobilières de dire si Airbnb est une appli cool. Journal favorable à la mondialisation, le Monde classe en vert les journaux pro-mondialisation et les autres en rouge. Le Monde est purement et simplement en conflit d’intérêts. Juge et partie. Mort (provisoire ?) d’une belle idée.

Voir également:

«Qui fact-checkera les fact-checkeurs ?» : le Decodex du Monde suscite des critiques

Des journalistes ont exprimé leur scepticisme envers la démarche du Monde qui consiste à établir le degré de fiabilité des sites d’information sur internet. Certains acteurs mis à l’index se demandent ce qui fonde la légitimité du Monde à distribuer les bons points.

«Un premier pas vers la vérification de masse de l’information». C’est ainsi que se définit «Decodex» le nouvel outil du Monde pour décrypter la fiabilité de l’information sur internet et lutter contre les intox qui pullulent sur le web. La démarche, qui se veut pédagogique, prend notamment la forme d’un moteur de recherche, le logiciel classe les sites soumis en plusieurs couleurs: vert pour «plutôt fiable», jaune pour «peu fiable» rouge pour «très peu fiable» ou bleu pour «parodique». Ainsi le site Gorafi reçoit une pastille bleue, tandis que «Fdesouche», la revue de presse identitaire, reçoit une gommette jaune, et le site ivg.net, dans le viseur du gouvernement parce qu’il culpabiliserait les femmes désirant avorter, une pastille rouge. La liste de tous les sites classés par Decodex assortis des commentaires a par ailleurs été publiée par un blog.

Labellisation du bon journalisme

A première vue, l’idée de séparer le bon grain de l’ivraie journalistique peut paraître louable. Mais très vite, des voix se sont élevées pour dénoncer un monopole de la labellisation du «bon journalisme» assez contestable. Où est la part de la ligne éditoriale dans le jugement de ce qu’est un site fiable? Par exemple le site «Valeurs

actuelles» d’abord classé en vert, s’est vu attribuer la gommette orange «peu fiable» quelques jours plus tard. En cause, la condamnation de l’hebdo pour «provocation à la haine raciale» pour sa Une sur les Roms en 2015. «Certaines enquêtes ou reprises d’autres médias sont à prendre avec précaution.» indique le «Decodex».

Du côté de l’hebdo droitier, on préfère rire de cette mise à l’index. «Au début nous étions très inquiets d’être en vert, mais on s’est très vite rassurés en voyant qu’on était passé au orange», se gausse Geoffroy Lejeune, le directeur de la rédaction. «Nous songeons d’ailleurs à Valeurs Actuelles à mettre en œuvre notre propre Decodex. Les Décodeurs du Monde y seraient en violet ou en marron», lâche-t-il.

Autre mécontent: Olivier Berruyer, blogueur et fondateur du site Les Crises, qui s’est vu lui carrément décerner l’infamante étiquette rouge «très peu fiable» en raison de la diffusion de «théories conspirationnistes, notamment sur la crise ukrainienne.». Il se retrouve dans le même sac qu’Égalité et réconciliation, le site d’Alain Soral, ou le site complotiste antisémite Panamza. Pour justifier son choix, Le Monde s’appuie sur une source unique: un article issu d’un blog hébergé par…. le Monde. Dans un article documenté, Olivier Berruyer, développe un long argumentaire contre ce qu’il appelle une «liste maccarthyste» et compare le Decodex à l‘Index librorum prohibitorum, la liste établie par l’Eglise des ouvrages que les catholiques n’avaient pas le droit de lire. «Je n’ai pas créé un site d’information, mais un simple blog personnel pour échanger avec les lecteurs ; et le Monde n’a pas à utiliser l’immense poids de son image pour tenter de me discréditer – sans fondement en plus.», se plaint le blogueur. La journaliste Aude Lancelin, auteur du Monde libre, un brûlot remarqué sur les dérives du journalisme, l’a soutenu.

Juge et partie

Outre les plaintes de réprouvés, Decodex suscite des doutes chez d’autres journalistes. «Qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage. Qui veut discréditer un site trouvera toujours une fausse information quelque part.» remarque Vincent Glad qui tient un blog sur le site de Libération. Le journaliste fait remarquer que si le blog de l’économiste souverainiste Jacques Sapir est classé «orange» parce qu’il «il relaie parfois de fausses informations, niant la présence de soldats russes en Ukraine en 2014, pourtant établie», «il serait facile de rétorquer que Le Monde publie aussi à l’occasion de fausses informations, comme récemment le faux piratage par les Russes d’une centrale américaine.» On peut aussi noter que le magazine people France dimanche reçoit une pastille verte «plutôt fiable», alors que le journal avait annoncé en Une le divorce d’Emmanuel Macron, ce qui avait suscité une plainte de ce dernier.

«Au nom de quoi le service «Décodeurs» du Monde serait-il habilité à décerner des brevets de fiabilité? N’y aurait-il pas un petit conflit d’intérêt dans le fait que Le Monde, qui est producteur d’information, soit aussi celui qui délivre l’AOC?» se demande Élisabeth Lévy dans Causeur. Pour Daniel Schneiderman, fondateur du site de critique des médias Arrêts sur image, il y a également une difficulté à ce que Le Monde soit à la fois juge et partie. «De quel droit, une source d’information vient-elle dire que d’autres sources d’informations concurrentes sont fiables ou non? Quelle est sa fiabilité? C’est comme si on demandait à la compagnie de taxis G7 de labelliser Uber ou aux agences immobilières de dire si Airbnb est une appli cool», écrit-il dans Libération.

Derrière cette polémique, c’est toutes les mutations du journalisme contemporain qui sont en question. A l’ère des populismes, des réseaux sociaux, et de la «post-vérité», les médias traditionnels peuvent-ils garder le monopole de l’information? Y-a-t’il une définition «légale» du journalisme? Certains ont eu beau jeu de rappeler que Le Monde et Libération avaient applaudi en une l’entrée des Khmers rouges dans Phnom Penh en 1975, et qu’il n’y a pas d’objectivité journalistique pure, définissable a priori.

D’aucuns soulignent qu’en plus d’être contestable, cette démarche pourrait bien être inefficace et ne prêcher que les convertis, à l’heure où la confiance des Français dans leurs médias n’a jamais été aussi faible. Ainsi, pour Jean-François Kahn, une telle opération ne peut être crédible que si les médias font leur mea-culpa. «Cette démarche pourrait être positive et courageuse si elle était précédée d’un examen de conscience», explique au Figaro l’ancien directeur de Marianne.

«Il y a une telle suspicion envers les médias qui se sont trompés qu’il faut reconquérir la confiance des gens. Il faudrait faire un grand examen de conscience médiatique sur le traitement de l’Irak, la Libye, la Syrie par exemple.» Il s’interroge aussi sur les modalités que pourrait prendre une éventuelle labellisation des sources: «Il faudrait que ce soit une institution, un genre de Conseil constitutionnel de journalistes, qui puisse élaborer cette classification.»

Voir encore:

Who will check Facebook’s ‘fact checkers?’

In response to recent concerns about “fake news” and opinion-swaying hoaxes, Facebook has unveiled new measures to address the issue. But unless done right, these steps may create more problems than they solve — and boost claims that the “fake news crisis” is an attempt to impose political controls on the media.

One Facebook measure gives power to consumers themselves: Anyone will be able to report a hoax by clicking the upper right hand corner of a post.

This may accomplish some good, but the potential for abuse is immediately obvious. People can flood the system with fake reports of fake news, either to punish websites and news organizations they dislike or to subvert the fake-news-flagging process itself

More than a few people on the right and the “anti-establishment” left will get a huge kick out of slapping the “fake news” label on The New York Times, The Washington Post or CNN.

However, Facebook’s main mechanism for “fake news” oversight will be a program involving third-party fact-checkers. These organizations will check stories submitted as “fake” by readers. If they are, in fact, determined to be fake, they will be flagged as “disputed by third parties.”

People will see the “disputed” warning when they are about to share a link to such a story and will be encouraged to read the fact-checking report. Opportunities for advertising revenue from “disputed” news items will be severely limited as well.

Of course, that brings us to the great question first posed by the Roman satirical poet Juvenal some 2000 years ago: Who will watch the watchmen?

The announcement that established fact-checking organizations will be in charge of classifying some stories as fake was quickly met with derision on the right.

Indeed, conservatives have long claimed that fact-checking was riddled with anti-conservative bias and even conflicts of interest (as when PolitiFact, one of Facebook’s six United States-based fact-checkers, shot down a critique of a Clinton Foundation initiative without disclosing that one of that program’s principal funders was a major donor to PolitiFact’s parent organization, the Poynter Institute).

Conservatives argue that most fact-checking is opinion dressed up in the mantle of “Just the facts” — a blatant liberal attempt to control the discourse.

Are those charges fair? Depends on how you look at it.

For instance, in 2013 the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that over a four-month period, PolitiFact had rated 32 percent of Republicans’ claims as totally false (“pants on fire”) compared to just 11 percent of claims by Democrats, while rating 22 percent of Democratic claims and just 11 percent of Republican claims as “entirely true.”

The CMPA did not evaluate these ratings but merely tabulated them. Does this mean that PolitiFact was biased, or that Democrats were actually more truthful? The only thing we know for sure is that the fact-checking is, to use Facebook’s terms, “disputed.”

A look at fact-checkers’ explanations of their ratings will show that truth and falsehood are rarely black and white, at least in the mouths of politicians. More often than not, the devil is in the details — or in the context.

In at least some cases, accusations of dishonest fact-checking have been based on highly tendentious interpretation.

For instance, fact-checkers from several organizations took a lot of flak for branding then-Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina a liar after she talked about watching a pro-life group’s video exposé of Planned Parenthood, supposedly showing:

“a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

In fact, one of the videos showed a former Planned Parenthood technician, now a pro-life activist, claiming that she had witnessed such a scene; her account was illustrated by footage of an aborted fetus with its leg twitching.

Conservative critics argued that since the fetus in the clip was “the same gestational age” as in the former technician’s account, Fiorina’s assertion was fundamentally accurate. But an uncorroborated allegation illustrated by unrelated footage is not even close to a video record of an actual incident — which is what Fiorina claimed.

Those who side with Fiorina over the fact-checkers should try turning the political tables.

Suppose a Democratic candidate had described watching video footage of a white police officer hurling racial slurs while repeatedly firing his gun into an unarmed, helpless black man. Suppose the actual video showed an ex-cop turned Black Lives Matter activist asserting that he had witnessed such an incident, with his story accompanied by footage of a dead body from a different police shooting.

Would any conservatives rise to defend the Democrat’s truthfulness?

In other instances, the fact-checkers fully deserved the backlash.

Last year, PolitiFact gave Donald Trump a “pants on fire” rating for his claim that “crime is rising,” based on government crime data from 1993 to 2014 (which show a steady drop in both violent crime and property crimes).

In response, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, pointed to preliminary data from 2015 which do, in fact, show an upward trend in crime statistics.

But PolitiFact stood by its rating, arguing that Trump’s claim was false since it was made in the context of “sweeping rhetoric about a nation in decline” and did not include such qualifiers as “recently” or “in the past year.”

That’s not fact-checking, it’s nit-picking.

You don’t have to like or support Trump to conclude that on this matter, PolitiFact was being more political than factual.

What lessons does this offer for fake news-checking?

Unlike claims by politicians, many “fake news” stories that have made the rounds in the past year have involved outright fabrications, not just skewed reporting.

Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS, or Trump rally-goers shouting anti-black slogans is not a matter of context or interpretation; these stories were simply made up.

If Facebook’s third-party fact-checkers limit themselves to flagging stories that are straightforward hoaxes, that will go a long way toward making them credible. Tendentious reporting is not “fake news;” it happens all the time, across the political spectrum, and the only answer to it is more critical thinking on the part of readers and viewers, not more social-media controls.

Adding more conservatives to fact-checking operations would also help.

A fact-checking panel made up of journalists and experts from news organizations and think tanks across the political spectrum would be an excellent addition to the media landscape. It would promote cooperation across ideological lines, something that is becoming regrettably rare.

Most importantly, it would allay fears that the pushback against “fake news” is a vehicle for censoring real news and opinion.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor for Reason magazine and a columnist for Newsday. Follow her on Twitter at @CathyYoung63.


Présidence Trump: Attention: une ignorance peut en cacher une autre ! (Don’t know much about history: Our geographically and historically challenged leaders are emblematic of disturbing trends in American education)

8 février, 2017
superhackDon’t know much about history … Sam Cooke
Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics. Michelle Obama
Féru d’histoire, je sais aussi la dette que la civilisation doit à l’islam. Barack Hussein Obama
Le Saint Coran nous enseigne que quiconque tue un innocent tue l’humanité tout entière, et que quiconque sauve quelqu’un, sauve l’humanité tout entière. Barack Hussein Obama
Nous cherchons à ouvrir un nouveau chemin en direction du monde musulman, fondé sur l’intérêt mutuel et le respect mutuel. (…) Nous sommes une nation de chrétiens, de musulmans, de juifs, d’hindous et de non croyants. Barack Hussein Obama (discours d’investiture, le 20 janvier 2009)
Une nation de musulmans, de chrétiens et de juifs … Barack Hussein Obama (Entretien à la télévision saoudienne Al-Arabiya, 27 janvier, 2009)
Nous exprimerons notre appréciation profonde de la foi musulmane qui a tant fait au long des siècles pour améliorer le monde, y compris mon propre pays. Barack Hussein Obama (Ankara, avril 2009)
Les Etats-Unis et le monde occidental doivent apprendre à mieux connaître l’islam. D’ailleurs, si l’on compte le nombre d’Américains musulmans, on voit que les Etats-Unis sont l’un des plus grands pays musulmans de la planète. Barack Hussein Obama (entretien pour Canal +, le 2 juin 2009)
Salamm aleïkoum (…) Comme le dit le Saint Coran, « Crains Dieu et dis toujours la vérité ». (…) Je suis chrétien, mais mon père était issu d’une famille kényane qui compte des générations de musulmans. Enfant, j’ai passé plusieurs années en Indonésie où j’ai entendu l’appel à la prière (azan) à l’aube et au crépuscule. Jeune homme, j’ai travaillé dans des quartiers de Chicago où j’ai côtoyé beaucoup de gens qui trouvaient la dignité et la paix dans leur foi musulmane. Barack Hussein Obama (Prêche du Caire)
If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida . . .  Barack Hussein Obama
It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty …. seven states? I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it. Barack Hussein Obama
The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing. (…) We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say. Ben Rhodes (conseiller-adjoint à la sécurité extérieure d’Obama)
It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror. Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent. In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world. Donald Trump
Despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered. Spokesperson Hope Hicks
 I mean, everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust including obviously all of the Jewish people affected, and the miserable genocide that occurred is something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad and something that can never be forgotten. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
There were indeed millions of innocent people whom the Nazis killed in many horrific ways, some in the course of the war and some because the Germans perceived them—however deluded their perception—to pose a threat to their rule. They suffered terribly. But that was not the Holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt
After the Holocaust took away so much from the Jews, we must not take the Holocaust itself away from the Jews. Those victims were murdered not merely because they were different. They were murdered not merely because they were an ‘other.’ They were murdered because they were Jews. Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States
Je le respecte, mais «ça ne veut pas dire que je vais m’entendre avec lui.  C’est un leader dans son pays, et je pense qu’il vaut mieux s’entendre avec la Russie que l’inverse. (…) Beaucoup de tueurs, beaucoup de tueurs. Pensez-vous que notre pays soit si innocent? Donald Trump
Je ne pense pas qu’il y ait aucune équivalence entre la manière dont les Russes se comportent et la manière dont les États-Unis se comportent. C’est un ancien du KGB, un voyou, élu d’une manière que beaucoup de gens ne trouvent pas crédible.  Mitch McConnell (chef de file des républicains au Sénat)
Quand est-ce qu’un activiste démocrate a été empoisonné par le parti Républicain, ou vice-versa? Nous ne sommes pas comme Poutine. Marc Rubio (sénateur républicain de Floride)
Dans son « parler vrai » à l’adresse du monde arabe, après avoir commencé par prétendre mensongèrement que, comme l’Amérique, l’islam cultivait « la justice et le progrès, la tolérance et la dignité de tout être humain », Obama a été sciemment et fondamentalement malhonnête. Par cette malhonnêteté, il a entrepris de placer le monde musulman sur un pied d’égalité morale avec le monde libre. (…) Malheureusement, une analyse attentive de ses déclarations montre qu’Obama adopte bel et bien le point de vue des Arabes, selon lequel Israël serait un élément étranger – et donc injustifiable – dans le monde arabe. En réalité, loin de dénoncer leur refus d’accepter Israël, Obama le légitime. L’argument fondamental que les Arabes utilisent contre Israël est que la seule raison de sa création aurait été d’apaiser la mauvaise conscience des Européens après la Shoah. Selon leurs dires, les Juifs n’auraient aucun droit sur la Terre d’Israël du point de vue légal, historique et moral. Or, cet argument est complètement faux ». (…) « La communauté internationale a reconnu les droits légaux, historiques et moraux du peuple juif sur la Terre d’Israël bien avant que quiconque ait jamais entendu parler d’Adolf Hitler. En 1922, la Société des Nations avait mandaté la « reconstitution » – et non la création – du foyer national juif sur la Terre d’Israël dans ses frontières historiques sur les deux rives du Jourdain. Cependant, dans ce qu’il présentait lui-même comme un exemple de parler-vrai, Obama a ignoré cette vérité fondamentale au profit du mensonge arabe. Il a donné du crédit à son mensonge en déclarant, hors de propos, que « l’aspiration à un territoire juif est ancrée dans un passé tragique ». Il a ensuite lié de façon explicite la création de l’État d’Israël à la Shoah, en formulant une leçon d’histoire intéressée sur le génocide des Juifs d’Europe. Pire encore que son aveuglement délibéré vis-à-vis des justifications historiques, légales et morales de la renaissance d’Israël, il y a la manière dont Obama a évoqué Israël même. De façon odieuse et mensongère, Obama a allègrement comparé la manière dont Israël traite les Palestiniens à celle dont les esclavagistes blancs, en Amérique, traitaient leurs esclaves noirs. De même, il a assimilé les terroristes palestiniens à la catégorie, moralement pure, des esclaves. De façon plus ignoble encore, en utilisant le terme de « résistance », euphémisme arabe pour désigner le terrorisme palestinien, Obama a conféré à celui-ci la grandeur morale des révoltes des esclaves et du mouvement des droits civiques. Caroline Glick (Haaretz)
Les squelettes qui encombrent tous les placards d’Obama n’ont jamais été dérangés ni examinés par la presse dite Mainstream, c’est-à-dire la presse « honorable ». Alors qu’un comportement systématique et permanent de coopération avec l’extrême-gauche raciste, violente et fraudeuse, avec les plus extrêmes représentants du Black Power, apôtres d’un fascisme noir, a été démontré par des enquêtes répétées, la grande presse, les networks de télévision sont restés d’un silence de plomb. Sa carrière politique a-t-elle été lancée par le terroriste non repenti Bill Ayers, du Weather Underground, équivalent américain d’Action directe ? Obama ment sans vergogne. A propos d’Ayers : « c’est un type qui habite dans ma rue », alors que l’autre l’a fait entrer au conseil d’une fondation où il siège, et qui finance toutes sortes d’organisations louches mais situées à l’extrême-gauche, dont ACORN, aujourd’hui inculpée de fraude électorale dans dix Etats de l’Union. La presse ne pipe mot. Alors que sa carrière politique a été couvée et promue par la sordide organisation démocrate de Chicago, machine à tricher et à voler, qui fait pâlir la Corse, Marseille et Naples réunies, qu’il y a été financé par l’escroc syrien Antoine Rezko, actuellement pensionnaire des prisons fédérales, on n’en trouve pas un mot dans les media. (…) De même, les networks de télévision procèdent par montage pour présenter un Obama clair, clairvoyant, décidé, alors qu’il bafouille et hésite quand le téléprompteur lui manque, ou qu’il n’est pas en situation de réciter les talking points (les paragraphes pondus par son équipe). Ce qui donne des discours et des réponses pleins de « mots codes » et vides de contenu ; comme il a remarquablement assimilé l’art tout washingtonien de réciter les dossiers, un peu à la façon énarque, il peut prétendre savoir de quoi il parle, alors qu’en matière de politique étrangère, il a l’ignorance crasse du novice. On me dira : vous exagérez ! Il est brillant diplômé de Harvard ! A quoi je ferai remarquer qu’un universitaire décrit comme de grande classe devrait avoir écrit quelques articles de grande revue de droit qui auront fait date. Ici, rien, le désert. Qu’on se souvienne des présidentielles de 2000 – Bush avait été un étudiant pas très assidu, quoique diplômé de la prestigieuse université de Yale ; mais il avait été bambocheur et buveur – la grande presse faisait florès du moindre verre de whisky jamais avalé. Aujourd’hui, elle passe au microscope le moindre pas de la famille Palin, et s’acharne à trouver tous les poux du monde dans la tête du gouverneur de l’Alaska. Les media se sont transformées en une machine à faire élire Obama, qui est donc à la fois le candidat du Parti Démocrate et du Parti de la presse. Laurent Murawiec
Obama demande pardon pour les faits et gestes de l’Amérique, son passé, son présent et le reste, il s’excuse de tout. Les relations dégradées avec la Russie, le manque de respect pour l’Islam, les mauvais rapports avec l’Iran, les bisbilles avec l’Europe, le manque d’adulation pour Fidel Castro, tout lui est bon pour battre la coulpe de l’Amérique. Plus encore, il célèbre la contribution (totalement inexistante) de l’Islam à l’essor de l’Amérique, et il se fend d’une révérence au sanglant et sectaire roi d’Arabie, l’Abdullah de la haine. Il annule la ceinture anti-missiles sise en Alaska et propose un désarmement nucléaire inutile. (…) Plus encore, cette déplorable Amérique a semé le désordre et le mal partout dans le monde. Au lieu de collaborer multilatéralement avec tous, d’œuvrer au bien commun avec Poutine, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Bachir al-Assad, et Cie, l’insupportable Bush en a fait des ennemis. (…) Il n’y a pas d’ennemis, il n’y a que des malentendus. Il ne peut y avoir d’affrontements, seulement des clarifications. Laurent Murawiec
Si vous êtes Israéliens, Obama vous laisse le choix du costume : si l’uniforme SS vous déplait, vous avez celui d’esclavagiste faisant claquer son fouet dans une plantation de la banlieue d’Atlanta en 1850, ou celui de policier au service de la discrimination du côté de Soweto. Joli choix, non? Guy Millière
Obama (…) dit que Thomas Jefferson était un lecteur du Coran, mais omet de rappeler, ce que tout lecteur de la correspondance de Jefferson sait, que si celui qui fut le troisième Président des Etats-Unis a lu le Coran, c’était pour comprendre la mentalité de gens qui exerçaient des actes de prédation violente contre des navires marchands américains. Obama cite par ailleurs une phrase de John Adams disant que ‘les Etats-Unis sont en paix’ avec le monde musulman, mais il omet de signaler que la phrase de John Adams figure dans un accord de paix qui suit une action de guerre menée par les Etats-Unis aux fins que les actes de prédation susdits cessent. (…) Et je passe sur les propos concernant l’invention de l’algèbre, du compas, de la boussole, de l’imprimerie de la médecine moderne, par des musulmans. Obama, ou son téléprompteur, n’ont jamais dû ouvrir un livre d’histoire des sciences et des techniques. (..) Je garde le meilleur pour la fin: ‘tout au long de l’histoire, l’islam a démontré, par les paroles et par les actes, les possibilités de la tolérance religieuse et de l’égalité raciale’. (…) Dire une telle phrase en gardant son sérieux implique un talent certain dans l’aptitude à dire n’importe quoi en gardant son sérieux. Enfin, et c’est le plus grave, c’est même si grave que là, on n’est plus dans le douteux, mais dans le répugnant, Obama pousse le relativisme moral et les comparaisons bancales jusqu’à un degré où il frôle le révisionnisme qu’il dénonce par ailleurs. Oser comparer la destruction des Juifs d’Europe par le régime nazi et ses complices au sort subi par le ‘peuple palestinien’ depuis soixante années montre, qu’à force d’écouter des gens comme Jeremiah Wright, il reste des salissures dans les neurones ». Guy Millière
Le réel, c’est un pays en proie à la plus grave menace d’éclatement social et culturel depuis les années 30. Le réel, c’est une explosion sans précédent des inégalités. Le réel, c’est l’abîme qui sépare les privilégiés et les élites mondialisées. Le réel, ce sont des usines fermées, des entreprises délocalisées, des emplois raréfiés, des salariés déprimés, et des électeurs frustrés. Le réel, c’est une immigration massive (11 millions de clandestins sans doits et sous-payés !) encouragée par le patronat pour accentuer le dumping social et la guerre des pauvres contre les pauvres. Le réel, c’est le bide de l’ère Obama à l’exception de l’Obamacare, qui a joué de son image pour faire oublier un bilan se ramenant à un grand vide. Le réel, c’est le rejet de la famille Clinton, considérée à tort ou à raison comme le symbole de l’entre-soi, de l’arrivisme et du copinage. Le réel, enfin, c’est un candidat qui a surfé sur toute ces frustrations pour l’emporter alors qu’il est lui-même le représentant type de l’Amérique du fric. Clinton, un discours convenu et rejeté. Le réel, c’est un Donald Trump que l’on a réduit à ses propres outrances – ce qui n’est guère compliqué – en oubliant que sur nombre de sujets (la folie du libre-échange, les délocalisations, la misère ouvrière, le rejet de l’élite), il a su développer une démagogie d’autant plus efficace qu’en face, Hillary Clinton s’est contentée de reprendre un discours convenu, attendu et rejeté. Cette dernière est même allée jusqu’à traiter les électeurs de Trump de personnes « pitoyables », étalant ainsi un mépris de classe qui n’a sans doute pas été pour rien dans sa déroute. Et voilà comment on en est arrivé à un résultat que les experts en tout et en rien n’ont pas vu venir, car eux-mêmes vivent dans une bulle. Tout comme ils ont été incapables de prévoir le Brexit, ou quelques années plus tôt la victoire du non au traité constitutionnel européen en 2005, il était inconcevable à leurs yeux qu’un homme aussi détestable que Donald Trump puisse l’emporter. Toutes proportions gardées, c’est la même cécité qui les conduit à ne rien comprendre au phénomène Le Pen en France, lequel n’est pas sans analogie avec l’effet Trump. Face à la colère qui conduit nombre de citoyens déboussolés à se tourner vers le FN, ils se contentent encore trop souvent de condamnations morales, sans prendre en compte un mouvement de fond qui se joue des barrières de la diabolisation. Mieux vaudrait s’en apercevoir avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. Marianne
Donald Trump, éreinté par les prêcheurs d’amour, en devient estimable. La gauche morale, qui refuse de se dire vaincue, dévoile l’intolérance qu’elle dissimulait du temps de sa domination. Cette semaine, les manifestations anti-Trump se succèdent à Washington, où le président prête serment ce vendredi. La presse ne cache rien de la répulsion que lui inspire celui qui a gagné en lui tournant le dos. Les artistes de variétés se glorifient de ne vouloir chanter pour lui. Des stylistes de mode font savoir qu’ils n’habilleront pas la First Lady, Melania. Des peintres demandent à Ivanka, la fille, de décrocher leurs œuvres de son appartement. Au pays de la démocratie, le choix du peuple et des grands électeurs est refusé par une caste convaincue de sa supériorité. (…) Le sectarisme des prétendus bienveillants montre leur pharisaïsme. Les masques n’ont pas fini de tomber. C’est un monde ancien qu’enterre Trump à la Maison-Blanche : celui des bons sentiments étalés et des larmes furtives, alibis des lâchetés. La vulgarité du cow-boy mégalomane et son expression brutale ne suffisent pas à le disqualifier. D’autant que ses procureurs se ridiculisent. Le mondialiste George Soros, qui avait parié sur la frayeur des marchés, aurait perdu près d’un milliard de dollars. En quelques tweets, Trump a obtenu que Ford annule un projet d’usine au Mexique au profit d’un investissement dans le Michigan. Fiat-Chrystler va également rapatrier une production de véhicules. General Motors promet d’investir un milliard de dollars. Carrier (climatiseurs) va sauver 1 000 postes. Amazon annonce 100 000 emplois et Walmart 10 000. L’effet Trump s’est déjà mis en branle. L’éléphant va casser de la porcelaine. Mais la révolution des œillères, ôtées grâce à lui, est à ce prix. Il va être difficile, pour les orphelins de l’obamania et les pandores du bien-pensisme, de faire barrage à l’insurrection populaire qui s’exprime, faute de mieux, derrière ce personnage instinctif. Ivan Rioufol
Iran now stands at the apex of an arc of influence stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, from the borders of NATO to the borders of Israel and along the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons. They have been joined by thousands of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most prestigious military wing, who have acquired meaningful battlefield experience in the process. For the first time in its history, the Institute for the Study of War noted in a report last week, Iran has developed the capacity to project conventional military force for hundreds of miles beyond its borders. “This capability, which very few states in the world have, will fundamentally alter the strategic calculus and balance of power within the Middle East,” the institute said. America’s Sunni Arab allies, who blame the Obama administration’s hesitancy for Iran’s expanded powers, are relishing the prospect of a more confrontational U.S. approach. Any misgivings they may have had about Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric have been dwarfed by their enthusiasm for an American president they believe will push back against Iran. The Washington Post
Now that Obama is out of office, the Washington Post is beginning to look at the consequences of his policies. One of the biggest: Iran is now a regional superpower, but still as hostile to the U.S. and its allies as ever…. The American interest
Donald Trump was not my favorite in the primaries; but once he was likely to win the nomination (April 2016), I simply went to his website and collated his positions with Hillary Clinton’s on sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, defense, foreign policy, taxes, regulation, energy development, the EPA, the 2nd Amendment, the wall, school choice, and a host of other issues. The comparison supported my suspicions that he was more conservative and would not lose the Supreme Court for a generation to progressive massaging of the law, which was inevitable under Hillary Clinton. I think his appointments, Supreme Court pick, and executive orders have supported that belief that he is far more conservative than Hillary Clinton’s agendas. Oh, I came to another conclusion: I initially thought Trump might be the only nominee who would lose to Hillary Clinton; soon, however, I began to believe that he might be the only one who could beat her, given he was the first Republican to campaign in the Lee Atwater-style of 1988 and actually fought back against the WikiLeaks nexus of the media and Democratic Party. As for his sometimes reckless tweets and outbursts, I calibrated three variables: 1) Were they any different from past presidents’? In fact, they were—but not to a degree that I thought his behavior endangered the republic. For all his antics at rallies, he did not yet say “punish our enemies” or urge his supporters to take a gun to a knife fight or to get in “their faces.” His silliness was similar to Joe Biden’s (“put you all in chains,” or his belief that FDR went on TV to the nation in 1929). Yes, I wish Trump was more sober and judicious, but then again we have had very unsober presidents and vice presidents in the past (LBJ showed the nation his surgery scars and reportedly exposed himself during a meeting). FDR carried on an affair while president. No need to mention JFK’s nocturnal romps. So far Trump is not using the Oval Office bathroom for trysts with subordinate interns. Much of Trump’s oafishness is media created and reflects a bit of class disdain. We all need, however, to watch every president and call out crudity when it occurs. (I am still not happy with the strained explanations of his jerky movements as not an affront to a disabled person.) 2) Did the media play a role in the demonization of Trump? I think it did. In the last few weeks we were told falsely that his lawyer went to Prague to cut a deal with the Russians, that he removed the bust of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office, and that he engaged in sexual debaucheries in Moscow—all absolutely not true. Who would trust the media after all that? So much of the hysteria is driven by a furious media that was not so furious when Obama signed executive orders circumventing the law or the Clintons ran a veritable shake-down operation (where is it now?) at the Clinton Foundation. Not wanting to take refugees from Australia that had sent back to sea arriving migrants and had them deposited them in camps in nearby islands is not exactly an extreme position (by liberal standards, Australia is the illiberal actor, not Trump). 3) Do Trump’s episodic outbursts threaten his agendas? I don’t know, but the media will ensure that they will, if he is not more circumspect. So far he is by design creating chaos and has befuddled his opponents, but I think in the long run he must limit his exposure to gratuitous attacks by curbing his tweets—and I have written just that in the past. Trump’s agenda is fine; his pushback against an unhinged Left and biased media is healthy, but he must economize his outbursts given that the strategy of his opponents is to nick him daily in hopes of an aggregate bleed. We have four more years and he needs to conserve his strength and stamina and not get sidelined with spats with Merle Streep or Arnold at the Apprentice. Remember, Obama was the revolution that sought to remake the country; the reaction to it is pushing the country back to the center—which appears now revolutionary. Trump’s stances on energy development, immigration, and foreign policy are not that much different from Bill Clinton’s or George H.W. Bush’s. They seem revolutionary because again he is correcting a revolution. Who had ever dreamed in 1995 of a sanctuary city, emulating the nullification policies of the Old Confederacy? Victor Davis Hanson
President Obama has a habit of asserting strategic nonsense with such certainty that it is at times embarrassing and frightening. Nowhere is that more evident than in his rhetoric about the Middle East. (…) in July 2015, Obama claimed that the now growing ISIS threat could not be addressed through force of arms, assuring the world that “Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas.” Such a generic assertion seems historically preposterous. The defeat of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism was not accomplished by Anglo-American rhetoric on freedom. What stopped the growth of Soviet-style global communism during the Cold War were both armed interventions such as the Korean War and real threats to use force such as during the Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missile Crisis— along with Ronald Reagan’s resoluteness backed by a military buildup that restored credible Western military deterrence. In contrast, Obama apparently believes that strategic threats are not checked with tough diplomacy backed by military alliances, balances of power, and military deterrence, much less by speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Rather, crises are resolved by ironing out mostly Western-inspired misunderstandings and going back on heat-of-the moment, ad hoc issued deadlines, red lines, and step-over lines, whether to the Iranian theocracy, Vladimir Putin, or Bashar Assad. Sometimes the administration’s faith in Western social progressivism is offered to persuade an Iran or Cuba that they have missed the arc of Westernized history—and must get back on the right side of the past by loosening the reins of their respective police states. Obama believes that engagement with Iran in non-proliferation talks—which have so far given up on prior Western insistences on third-party, out of the country enrichment, on-site inspections, and kick-back sanctions—will inevitably ensure that Iran becomes “a successful regional power.” That higher profile of the theocracy apparently is a good thing for the Middle East and our allies like Israel and the Gulf states.  (…) In his February 2, 2015 outline of anti-ISIS strategy—itself an update of an earlier September 2014 strategic précis—Obama again insisted that “one of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people, including people of all faiths.” The idea, a naïve one, is that because we welcome mosques on our diverse and tolerant soil, ISIS will take note and welcome Christian churches. One of Obama’s former State Department advisors, Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, recently amplified that reductionist confidence in the curative power of Western progressivism. She urged Americans to tweet ISIS, which, like Iran, habitually executes homosexuals. Brooks hoped that Americans would pass on stories about and photos of the Supreme Court’s recent embrace of gay marriage: “Do you want to fight the Islamic State and the forces of Islamic extremist terrorism? I’ll tell you the best way to send a message to those masked gunmen in Iraq and Syria and to everyone else who gains power by sowing violence and fear. Just keep posting that second set of images [photos of American gays and their supporters celebrating the Supreme Court decision]. Post them on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and in comments all over the Internet. Send them to your friends and your family. Send them to your pen pal in France and your old roommate in Tunisia. Send them to strangers.” Such zesty confidence in the redemptive power of Western moral superiority recalls First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to persusade the murderous Boko Haram to return kidnapped Nigerian preteen girls. Ms. Obama appealed to Boko Haram on the basis of shared empathy and universal parental instincts. (“In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters. We see their hopes, their dreams and we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now.”) Ms. Obama then fortified her message with a photo of her holding up a sign with the hash-tag #BringBackOurGirls. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has added Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to his earlier acquisitions in Georgia. He is most likely eyeing the Baltic States next. China is creating new strategic realities in the Pacific, in which Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines will eventually either be forced to acquiesce or to seek their own nuclear deterrent. The Middle East has imploded. Much of North Africa is becoming a Mogadishu-like wasteland. The assorted theocrats, terrorists, dictators, and tribalists express little fear of or respect for the U.S. They believe that the Obama administration does not know much nor cares about foreign affairs. They may be right in their cynicism. A president who does not consider chlorine gas a chemical weapon could conceivably believe that the Americans once liberated Auschwitz, that the Austrians speak an Austrian language, and that the Falklands are known in Latin America as the Maldives. Both friends and enemies assume that what Obama or his administration says today will be either rendered irrelevant or denied tomorrow. Iraq at one point was trumpeted by Vice President Joe Biden as the administration’s probable “greatest achievement.” Obama declared that Iraq was a “stable and self-reliant” country in no need of American peacekeepers after 2011. Yanking all Americans out of Iraq in 2011 was solely a short-term political decision designed as a 2012 reelection talking point. The American departure had nothing to do with a disinterested assessment of the long-term security of the still shaky Iraqi consensual government. When Senator Obama damned the invasion of Iraq in 2003; when he claimed in 2004 that he had no policy differences with the Bush administration on Iraq; when he declared in 2007 that the surge would fail; when he said in 2008 as a presidential candidate that he wanted all U.S. troops brought home; when he opined as President in 2011 that the country was stable and self-reliant; when he assured the world in 2014 that it was not threatened by ISIS; and when in 2015 he sent troops back into an imploding Iraq—all of these decisions hinged on perceived public opinion, not empirical assessments of the state of Iraq itself. The near destruction of Iraq and the rise of ISIS were the logical dividends of a decade of politicized ambiguity. After six years, even non-Americans have caught on that the more Obama flip-flops on Iraq, deprecates an enemy, or ignores Syrian redlines, the less likely American arms will ever be used and assurances honored. The world is going to become an even scarier place in the next two years. The problem is not just that our enemies do not believe our President, but rather that they no longer even listen to him. Victor Davis Hanson
President Obama (…) believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot. When in 2009 millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Barack Obama. Obama often parrots Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. But King used that metaphor as an incentive to act, not as reassurance that matters will follow an inevitably positive course. Another of Obama’s historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn’t belong in the 21st century. At various times he has lectured that the barbarous aggression of Vladimir Putin or the Islamic State has no place in our century and will “ultimately fail” — as if we are all now sophisticates of an age that has at last transcended retrograde brutality and savagery. In Obama’s hazy sense of the end of history, things always must get better in the manner that updated models of iPhones and iPads are glitzier than the last. In fact, history is morally cyclical. Even technological progress is ethically neutral. It is a way either to bring more good things to more people or to facilitate evil all that much more quickly and effectively. In the viciously modern 20th century — when more lives may have been lost to war than in all prior centuries combined — some 6 million Jews were put to death through high technology in a way well beyond the savagery of Attila the Hun or Tamerlane. Beheading in the Islamic world is as common in the 21st century as it was in the eighth century — and as it will probably be in the 22nd. The carnage of the Somme and Dresden trumped anything that the Greeks, Romans, Franks, Turks, or Venetians could have imagined. (…) What explains Obama’s confusion? A lack of knowledge of basic history explains a lot. (…) Obama once praised the city of Cordoba as part of a proud Islamic tradition of tolerance during the brutal Spanish Inquisition — forgetting that by the beginning of the Inquisition an almost exclusively Christian Cordoba had few Muslims left. (…) A Pollyannaish belief in historical predetermination seems to substitute for action. If Obama believes that evil should be absent in the 21st century, or that the arc of the moral universe must always bend toward justice, or that being on the wrong side of history has consequences, then he may think inanimate forces can take care of things as we need merely watch. In truth, history is messier. Unfortunately, only force will stop seventh-century monsters like the Islamic State from killing thousands more innocents. Obama may think that reminding Putin that he is now in the 21st century will so embarrass the dictator that he will back off from Ukraine. But the brutish Putin may think that not being labeled a 21st-century civilized sophisticate is a compliment. In 1935, French foreign minister Pierre Laval warned Joseph Stalin that the Pope would admonish him to go easy on Catholics — as if such moral lectures worked in the supposedly civilized 20th century. Stalin quickly disabused Laval of that naiveté. “The Pope?” Stalin asked, “How many divisions has he got?” There is little evidence that human nature has changed over the centuries, despite massive government efforts to make us think and act nicer. What drives Putin, Boko Haram, or ISIS are the same age-old passions, fears, and sense of honor that over the centuries also moved Genghis Khan, the Sudanese Mahdists, and the Barbary pirates. Obama’s naive belief in predetermined history — especially when his facts are often wrong — is a poor substitute for concrete moral action. Victor Davis Hanson
Let’s hope that the era of ‘lead from behind’ and violated red lines is over. For eight years, the Obama administration misjudged Vladimir Putin’s Russia, as it misjudged most of the Middle East, China, and the rest of the world as well. Obama got wise to Russia only when Putin imperiled not just U.S. strategic interests and government records but also supposedly went so far as to tamper with sacrosanct Democratic-party secrets, thereby endangering the legacy of Barack Obama. Putin was probably bewildered by Obama’s media-driven and belated concern, given that the Russians, like the Chinese, had in the past hacked U.S. government documents that were far more sensitive than the information it may have mined and leaked in 2016 — and they received nothing but an occasional Obama “cut it out” whine. Neurotic passive-aggression doesn’t merely bother the Russians; it apparently incites and emboldens them. (…) Russia had once lost a million civilians at the siege of Leningrad when Hitler’s Army Group North raced through the Baltic States (picking up volunteers as it went) and met up with the Finns. At Sevastopol, General Erich von Manstein’s Eleventh Army may well have inflicted 100,000 Russian Crimean casualties in a successful but nihilistic effort to take and nearly destroy the fortress. The Kiev Pocket and destruction of the Southwestern Front of the Red Army in the Ukraine in September 1941 (700,000 Russians killed, captured, or missing) may have been the largest encirclement and mass destruction of an army in military history. For Putin, these are not ancient events but rather proof of why former Soviet bloodlands were as much Russian as Puerto Rico was considered American. We find such reasoning tortured, given Ukrainian and Crimean desires to be free; Putin insists that Russian ghosts still flitter over such hallowed ground. Reconstruction of Putin’s mindset is not justification for his domestic thuggery or foreign expansionism at the expense of free peoples. But it does remind us that he is particularly ill-suited to listen to pat lectures from American sermonizers whose unwillingness to rely on force to back up their sanctimony is as extreme as their military assets are overwhelming. Putin would probably be less provoked by a warning from someone deemed strong than he would be by obsequious outreach from someone considered weak. There were areas where Obama might have sought out Putin in ways advantageous to the U.S., such as wooing him away from Iran or playing him off against China or lining him up against North Korea. But ironically, Obama was probably more interested in inflating the Persian and Shiite regional profile than was Putin himself. Putin would probably be less provoked by a warning from someone deemed strong than he would be by obsequious outreach from someone considered weak. If Obama wished to invite Putin into the Middle East, then at least he might have made an effort to align him with Israel, the Gulf States, Egypt, and Jordan, in pursuit of their shared goal of wiping out radical Islamic terrorism. In the process, these powers might have grown increasingly hostile to Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran. But Obama was probably more anti-Israeli than Putin, and he also disliked the moderate Sunni autocracies more than Putin himself did. As far as China, Putin was delighted that Obama treated Chinese aggression in the Spratly Islands as Obama had treated his own in Ukraine: creased-brow angst about bad behavior followed by indifference. The irony of the failed reset was that in comparative terms the U.S. — given its newfound fossil-fuel wealth and energy independence, the rapid implosion of the European Union, and its continuing technological superiority — should have been in an unusually strong position as the leader of the West. Unhinged nuclear proliferation, such as in Pakistan and North Korea and soon in Iran, is always more of a long-term threat to a proximate Russia than to a distant America. And Russia’s unassimilated and much larger Muslim population is always a far more existential threat to Moscow than even radical Islamic terrorism is at home to the U.S. In other words, there were realist avenues for cooperation that hinged on a strong and nationalist U.S. clearly delineating areas where cooperation benefitted both countries (and the world). Other spheres in which there could be no American–Russian consensus could by default have been left to sort themselves out in a may-the-best-man-win fashion, hopefully peaceably. Such détente would have worked only if Obama had forgone all the arc-of-history speechifying and the adolescent putdowns, meant to project strength in the absence of quiet toughness. Let us hope that Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson, and Jim Mattis know this and thus keep mostly silent, remind Putin privately (without trashing a former president) that the aberrant age of Obama is over, carry huge sticks, work with Putin where and when it is in our interest, acknowledge his help, seek to thwart common enemies — and quietly find ways to utilize overwhelming American military and economic strength to discourage him from doing something unwise for both countries. Victor Davis Hanson
In reference to the Falkland Islands, President Obama called them the Maldives — islands southwest of India — apparently in a botched effort to use the Argentine-preferred “Malvinas.” The two island groups may sound somewhat alike, but they are continents apart. Again, without basic geographical knowledge, the president’s commentary on the Falklands is rendered superficial. When in the state of Hawaii, Obama announced that he was in “Asia.” He lamented that the U.S. Army’s Arabic-language translators assigned to Iraq could better be used in Afghanistan, failing to recognize that Arabic isn’t the language of Afghanistan. And he also apparently thought Austrians speak a language other than German. The president’s geographical illiteracy is a symptom of the nation’s growing ignorance of once-essential subjects such as geography and history. The former is not taught any more as a required subject in many of our schools and colleges. The latter has often been redefined as race, class, and gender oppression so as to score melodramatic points in the present rather than to learn from the tragedy of the past. The president in his 2009 Cairo speech credited the European Renaissance and Enlightenment to Islam’s “light of learning” — an exaggeration if not an outright untruth on both counts. Closer to home, the president claimed in 2011 that Texas had historically been Republican — while in reality it was a mostly Jim Crow Democratic state for over a century. Republicans started consistently carrying Texas only after 1980. Recently, Obama claimed that 20th-century Communist strongman Ho Chi Minh “was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” That pop assertion is improbable, given that Ho systematically liquidated his opponents, slaughtered thousands in land-redistribution schemes, and brooked no dissent. Even more ahistorical was Vice President Joe Biden’s suggestion that George W. Bush should have gone on television in 2008 to address the nation as President Roosevelt had done in 1929 — a time when there was neither a President Roosevelt nor televisions available for purchase. In 2011, a White House press kit confused Wyoming with Colorado — apparently because they’re both rectangular-shaped states out West. Our geographically and historically challenged leaders are emblematic of disturbing trends in American education that include a similar erosion in grammar, English composition, and basic math skills. The controversial Lois Lerner, a senior official at the IRS — an agency whose stock in trade is numbers — claimed that she was “not good at math” when she admitted that she did not know that one-fourth of 300 is 75.  In the zero-sum game of the education curriculum, each newly added therapeutic discipline eliminated an old classical one. The result is that if Americans emote more and have more politically correct thoughts on the environment, race, class, and gender, they are less able to advance their beliefs through fact-based knowledge. Despite supposedly tough new standards and vast investments, about 56 percent of students in recent California public-school tests did not perform up to their grade levels in English. Only about half met their grade levels in math. A degree from our most prestigious American university is no guarantee a graduate holding such a credential will know the number of states or the location of Savannah. If we wonder why the Ivy League–trained Obama seems confused about where cities, countries, and continents are, we might remember that all but one Ivy League university eliminated their geography departments years ago. As a rule now, when our leaders allude to a place or an event in the past, just assume their references are dead wrong. Victor Davis Hanson
Attention: une ignorance peut en cacher une autre !
Oubli des juifs dans son discours sur la Journée de l’Holocauste, résurrection involontaire de l’abolitionniste noir Frederick Douglass mort en 1895, défense de Poutine et appel obamien à l’examen de conscience de son propre pays …
A l’heure où en une Amérique plus que jamais divisée …
La bienpensance des mauvais perdants multiplie déclarations, manifestations ou obstructions à la politique et à la personne du nouveau président que s’est choisi le peuple américain …
Et que refusant de reconnaitre ses réels faux pas face à tant de mauvaise foi, l’Administration Trump s’enferre dans les explications les plus farfelues …
Pendant qu’avec les nouvelles provocations du régime voyou iranien, une presse jusqu’ici aux ordres commence à peine à découvrir l’état du désastre laissé par l’ancien locataire de la Maison Blanche …
Comment ne pas y voir aussi avec l’historien américain Victor Davis Hanson …

Le symptôme d’un système éducatif ayant sacrifié au nom de la pensée politiquement correcte sur l’environment, la race, la classe ou le genre …

Les connaissances les plus basiques sur l’histoire ou la géographie ?

Mais ne pas repenser également à l’ignorance dans les mêmes domaines de base …

D’un certain Lecteur de téléprompteur en chef …

 A qui tant l’exotisme de sa couleur que la prétendue coolitude de son âge …

Avait si longtemps valu l’indulgence complice de nos mêmes censeurs des médias aujourd’hui ?

Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
August 15, 2013
Today’s leaders are totally ignorant of what used to be the building blocks of learning. In Sam Cooke’s classic 1959 hit “Wonderful World,” the lyrics downplayed formal learning with lines like, “Don’t know much about history . . . Don’t know much about geography.”
Over a half-century after Cooke wrote that lighthearted song, such ignorance is now all too real. Even our best and brightest — or rather our elites especially — are not too familiar with history or geography.
Both disciplines are the building blocks of learning. Without awareness of natural and human geography, we are reduced to a self-contained void without accurate awareness of the space around us. An ignorance of history creates the same sort of self-imposed exile, leaving us ignorant of both what came before us and what is likely to follow.
In the case of geography, Harvard Law School graduate Barack Obama recently lectured, “If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida . . . ” The problem is that all the examples he cited are cities on the East Coast, not the Gulf of Mexico. If Obama does not know where these ports are, how can he deepen them?
Obama’s geographical confusion has become habitual. He once claimed that he had been to all “57 states.” He also assumed that Kentucky was closer to Arkansas than it was to his adjacent home state of Illinois.
In reference to the Falkland Islands, President Obama called them the Maldives — islands southwest of India — apparently in a botched effort to use the Argentine-preferred “Malvinas.” The two island groups may sound somewhat alike, but they are continents apart. Again, without basic geographical knowledge, the president’s commentary on the Falklands is rendered superficial.
When in the state of Hawaii, Obama announced that he was in “Asia.” He lamented that the U.S. Army’s Arabic-language translators assigned to Iraq could better be used in Afghanistan, failing to recognize that Arabic isn’t the language of Afghanistan. And he also apparently thought Austrians speak a language other than German.
The president’s geographical illiteracy is a symptom of the nation’s growing ignorance of once-essential subjects such as geography and history. The former is not taught any more as a required subject in many of our schools and colleges. The latter has often been redefined as race, class, and gender oppression so as to score melodramatic points in the present rather than to learn from the tragedy of the past.
The president in his 2009 Cairo speech credited the European Renaissance and Enlightenment to Islam’s “light of learning” — an exaggeration if not an outright untruth on both counts.
Closer to home, the president claimed in 2011 that Texas had historically been Republican — while in reality it was a mostly Jim Crow Democratic state for over a century. Republicans started consistently carrying Texas only after 1980.
Recently, Obama claimed that 20th-century Communist strongman Ho Chi Minh “was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” That pop assertion is improbable, given that Ho systematically liquidated his opponents, slaughtered thousands in land-redistribution schemes, and brooked no dissent.
Even more ahistorical was Vice President Joe Biden’s suggestion that George W. Bush should have gone on television in 2008 to address the nation as President Roosevelt had done in 1929 — a time when there was neither a President Roosevelt nor televisions available for purchase. In 2011, a White House press kit confused Wyoming with Colorado — apparently because they’re both rectangular-shaped states out West.
Our geographically and historically challenged leaders are emblematic of disturbing trends in American education that include a similar erosion in grammar, English composition, and basic math skills.
The controversial Lois Lerner, a senior official at the IRS — an agency whose stock in trade is numbers — claimed that she was “not good at math” when she admitted that she did not know that one-fourth of 300 is 75.
In the zero-sum game of the education curriculum, each newly added therapeutic discipline eliminated an old classical one. The result is that if Americans emote more and have more politically correct thoughts on the environment, race, class, and gender, they are less able to advance their beliefs through fact-based knowledge.
Despite supposedly tough new standards and vast investments, about 56 percent of students in recent California public-school tests did not perform up to their grade levels in English. Only about half met their grade levels in math.

A degree from our most prestigious American university is no guarantee a graduate holding such a credential will know the number of states or the location of Savannah. If we wonder why the Ivy League–trained Obama seems confused about where cities, countries, and continents are, we might remember that all but one Ivy League university eliminated their geography departments years ago. As a rule now, when our leaders allude to a place or an event in the past, just assume their references are dead wrong.

 Voir aussi:
For the president, belief in historical predetermination substitutes for action.
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review On line
August 28, 2014
President Obama doesn’t know much about history.
In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
He also believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot.
When in 2009 millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Barack Obama.
Obama often parrots Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. But King used that metaphor as an incentive to act, not as reassurance that matters will follow an inevitably positive course.
Another of Obama’s historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn’t belong in the 21st century. At various times he has lectured that the barbarous aggression of Vladimir Putin or the Islamic State has no place in our century and will “ultimately fail” — as if we are all now sophisticates of an age that has at last transcended retrograde brutality and savagery.
In Obama’s hazy sense of the end of history, things always must get better in the manner that updated models of iPhones and iPads are glitzier than the last. In fact, history is morally cyclical. Even technological progress is ethically neutral. It is a way either to bring more good things to more people or to facilitate evil all that much more quickly and effectively.
In the viciously modern 20th century — when more lives may have been lost to war than in all prior centuries combined — some 6 million Jews were put to death through high technology in a way well beyond the savagery of Attila the Hun or Tamerlane. Beheading in the Islamic world is as common in the 21st century as it was in the eighth century — and as it will probably be in the 22nd. The carnage of the Somme and Dresden trumped anything that the Greeks, Romans, Franks, Turks, or Venetians could have imagined.
What explains Obama’s confusion?
A lack of knowledge of basic history explains a lot. Obama or his speechwriters have often seemed confused about the liberation of Auschwitz, “Polish death camps,” the political history of Texas, or the linguistic relationship between Austria and Germany. Obama reassured us during the Bowe Bergdahl affair that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt all similarly got American prisoners back when their wars ended — except that none of them were in office when the Revolutionary War, Civil War, or World War II officially ended.
Contrary to Obama’s assertion, President Rutherford B. Hayes never dismissed the potential of the telephone. Obama once praised the city of Cordoba as part of a proud Islamic tradition of tolerance during the brutal Spanish Inquisition — forgetting that by the beginning of the Inquisition an almost exclusively Christian Cordoba had few Muslims left.
A Pollyannaish belief in historical predetermination seems to substitute for action. If Obama believes that evil should be absent in the 21st century, or that the arc of the moral universe must always bend toward justice, or that being on the wrong side of history has consequences, then he may think inanimate forces can take care of things as we need merely watch. In truth, history is messier. Unfortunately, only force will stop seventh-century monsters like the Islamic State from killing thousands more innocents. Obama may think that reminding Putin that he is now in the 21st century will so embarrass the dictator that he will back off from Ukraine. But the brutish Putin may think that not being labeled a 21st-century civilized sophisticate is a compliment.
In 1935, French foreign minister Pierre Laval warned Joseph Stalin that the Pope would admonish him to go easy on Catholics — as if such moral lectures worked in the supposedly civilized 20th century. Stalin quickly disabused Laval of that naiveté. “The Pope?” Stalin asked, “How many divisions has he got?”
There is little evidence that human nature has changed over the centuries, despite massive government efforts to make us think and act nicer. What drives Putin, Boko Haram, or ISIS are the same age-old passions, fears, and sense of honor that over the centuries also moved Genghis Khan, the Sudanese Mahdists, and the Barbary pirates. Obama’s naive belief in predetermined history — especially when his facts are often wrong — is a poor substitute for concrete moral action.
Voir encore:

Top 10 Lists

Top 10 Obama Gaffes

The Left had a grand old time with President George W. Bush’s mangling of the English language, and let Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann make a slip of the tongue and the mainstream media will turn it into a major news story.   Not so with President Obama’s verbal missteps.   Here, to bring balance to the ridicule, are the Top 10 Obama Gaffes:

1.   How many states?   Vice President Dan Quayle was virtually laughed out of Washington for misspelling potato back in 1992, yet Barack Obama made a more elementary flub when, during the 2008 campaign, he said: “I’ve now been in 57 states-I think one left to go.”

2.   Hero soldier mix-up:   While commending troops at Fort Drum, N.Y., for their completed deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama said, “A comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”   Wrong hero.   Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was killed in action, another soldier, Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta, was the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor that fought in Afghanistan.

3.   What year is it?   During a trip to London’s Westminster Abbey, President Obama signed the guest book and dated it 24 May 2008.   Oops.   It was 2011.   (Maybe he was wistfully dreaming about his 2008 election campaign at the time.)

4.   Look at the map:   Not only does Obama not know how many states there are, he also doesn’t know where they are.   During the 2008 primary campaign, he explained why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas.   So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”   Obama’s home state of Illinois, and not Arkansas, shares a border with Kentucky.

5.   What language is that?   In April 2009, on one of his many foreign trips, President Obama mused, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian” for “wheeling and dealing.”   Oops, Mr. President.   There is no Austrian language.

6.   Twister casualties:   After a devastating tornado hit Kansas, Obama discussed the tragedy without help from a teleprompter, saying, ”In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas.   Ten thousand people died-an entire town destroyed.”   He was only off by 9,988 as the twister killed 12 people.

7.   How old is Malia?   The President last month thought he was so clever, unfavorably comparing Republican procrastination on the debt limit to his daughters finishing their homework early.   In his remarks, Obama made a reference to daughter Malia, saying she was 13 years old, when at the time she was 12.   Imagine the press reaction if Michele Bachmann made a misstatement about any of her five children or 23 foster kids.

8.   Special Olympics insensitivity:   The President called and apologized to the head of the Special Olympics, after making this insensitive comment following a game of bowling:   “No, no.   I have been practicing.   … I bowled a 129.   It’s like-it was like Special Olympics, or something.”   Maybe he should have also apologized to bowlers for his feeble effort.

9.   Faith confusion:   No wonder so many Americans are unsure of the President’s faith, as he seems to be confused himself.   During the 2008 campaign, during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Obama said, “What I was suggesting-you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” before Stephanopoulos jumped in to help, saying ”your Christian faith.”

10.   Health care inefficiencies:   During the health care debate, President Obama explained all the benefits of ObamaCare, saying, “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”   Mr. President, we already have enough inefficiency in health care and, yes, your “reforms” will only make it worse.

Voir de plus:

The Thomas Hobbes Presidency
Conservatives were outraged by Obama’s apologies. What about Trump’s slander?
Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 6, 2017

First, the obvious: Had it been Barack Obama, rather than Donald Trump, who suggested a moral equivalency between the United States and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Republican politicians would not now be rushing through their objections to the comparison in TV interviews while hoping to pivot to tax reform.

Had it been the president of three weeks ago who had answered Bill O’Reilly’s comment that Mr. Putin “is a killer” by saying, “We’ve got a lot of killers,” and “What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?” conservative pundits wouldn’t rest with calling the remark “inexplicable” or “troubling.” They would call it moral treason and spend the next four years playing the same clip on repeat, right through the next election.

In 2009, Mr. Obama gave a series of speeches containing passing expressions of regret for vaguely specified blemishes from the American past. Examples: “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in history.” And “we’ve made some mistakes.” This was the so-called Apology Tour, in which the word “apologize” was never uttered. Even so, conservatives still fume about it.

This time, Mr. Trump didn’t apologize for America. He indicted it. He did so in language unprecedented for any sitting or former president. He did it in a manner guaranteed, and perhaps calculated, to vindicate every hard-left slander of “Amerika.” If you are the sort who believes the CIA assassinated JFK, masterminded the crack-cocaine epidemic, and deliberately lied us into the war in Iraq—conspiracy theories on a moral par with the way the Putin regime behaves in actual fact—then this president is for you.

Only he’s worse.

For the most part, the left’s various indictments of the U.S., whether well- or ill-grounded, have had a moral purpose: to shame Americans into better behavior. We are reminded of the evils of slavery and Jim Crow in order not to be racist. We dilate on the failure in Vietnam to guard against the arrogance of power. We recall the abuses of McCarthyism in order to underscore the importance of civil liberties.

Mr. Trump’s purpose, by contrast, isn’t to prevent a recurrence of bad behavior. It’s to permit it. In this reading, Mr. Putin’s behavior isn’t so different from ours. It’s largely the same, except more honest and effective. The U.S. could surely defeat ISIS—if only it weren’t hampered by the kind of scruples that keep us from carpet bombing Mosul in the way the Russians obliterated Aleppo. The U.S. could have come out ahead in Iraq—if only we’d behaved like unapologetic conquerors, not do-gooder liberators, and taken their oil.

This also explains why Mr. Trump doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, calling the idea “insulting [to] the world” and seeing it as an undue burden on our rights and opportunities as a nation. Magnanimity, fair dealing, example setting, win-win solutions, a city set upon a hill: All this, in the president’s mind, is a sucker’s game, obscuring the dog-eat-dog realities of life. Among other distinctions, Mr. Trump may be our first Hobbesian president.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the political potency of this outlook, with its left-right mix of relativism and jingoism. If we’re no better than anyone else, why not act like everyone else? If phrases such as “the free world” or the “liberal international order” are ideological ploys by which the Davos elite swindle the proletarians of Detroit, why sacrifice blood and treasure on their behalf? Nationalism is usually a form of moral earnestness. Mr. Trump’s genius has been to transform it into an expression of cynicism.

That cynicism won’t be easy to defeat. Right now, a courageous Russian opposition activist named Vladimir Kara-Murza is fighting for his life in a Moscow hospital, having been poisoned for a second time by you-can-easily-guess-who. Assuming Mr. Trump is even aware of the case, would he be wrong in betting that most Americans are as indifferent to his fate as he is?

The larger question for conservatives is how Mr. Trump’s dim view of the world will serve them over time. Honorable Republicans such as Nebraska’s Sen. Ben Sasse have been unequivocal in their outrage, which will surely cost them politically. Others have hit the mute button, on the theory that it’s foolish to be baited by the president’s every crass utterance. The risk is that silence quickly becomes a form of acquiescence. Besides, since when did conservatives reared to their convictions by the rhetoric of Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan hold words so cheap?

Speaking of Reagan, Feb. 6 would have been his 106th birthday. Perhaps because he had been an actor, the 40th president knew that Americans preferred stories in which good guys triumphed over bad ones, not the ones in which they were pretty much all alike. Conservatives should beware the president’s invitation to a political film noir in which the outcome is invariably bleak.

Voir de même:

WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too
Jake Tapper, Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent

CNN
February 3, 2017

Washington (CNN)The White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day didn’t mention Jews or anti-Semitism because « despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered, » administration spokeswoman Hope Hicks told CNN on Saturday.

Hicks provided a link to a Huffington Post UK story noting that while 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, 5 million others were also slaughtered during Adolf Hitler’s genocide, including « priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters. »

Asked if the White House was suggesting President Donald Trump didn’t mention Jews as victims of the Holocaust because he didn’t want to offend the other people the Nazis targeted and killed, Hicks replied, « it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day. »

The presidential reference to the « innocent people » victimized by the Nazis without a mention of Jews or anti-Semitism by the White House on International Holocaust Remembrance Day was a stark contrast to statements by former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted that the « @WhiteHouse statement on #HolocaustMemorialDay, misses that it was six million Jews who perished, not just ‘innocent people' » and « Puzzling and troubling @WhiteHouse #HolocaustMemorialDay stmt has no mention of Jews. GOP and Dem. presidents have done so in the past. »
Asked about the White House explanation that the President didn’t want to exclude any of the other groups Nazis killed by specifically mentioning Jews, Greenblatt told CNN that the United Nations established International Holocaust Remembrance Day not only because of Holocaust denial but also because so many countries — Iran, Russia and Hungary, for example — specifically refuse to acknowledge Hitler’s attempt to exterminate Jews, « opting instead to talk about generic suffering rather than recognizing this catastrophic incident for what is was: the intended genocide of the Jewish people. »
Downplaying or disregarding the degree to which Jews were targeted for elimination during the Holocaust is a common theme of nationalist movements like those seen in Russia and Eastern Europe, Greenblatt said.
Initially, after being asked about the ADL criticism and the omission of any mention of Jews or anti-Semitism, Hicks provided a statement from Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress that seemed to criticize Greenblatt and the ADL.
« It does no honor to the millions of Jews murdered in the Holocaust to play politics with their memory, » the Lauder statement read in part. « Any fair reading of the White House statement today on the International Holocaust Memorial Day will see it appropriately commemorates the suffering and the heroism that mark that dark chapter in modern history. »
Editor’s note February 2, 2017: This article has been updated to correct an erroneous statement by ADL director Jonathan Greenblatt about Poland’s recognition of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The ADL has retracted that comment and apologized. « I made a mistake by including Poland as one of the countries which does not always recognize the Jewish people as the intended target of the Nazi genocide, » Greenblatt said in a letter to the Polish ambassador. « I regret this mistake, and want to assure you that it was not intended as an affront to your government or the people of Poland
Voir pareillement:

The White House Holocaust Horror

Taking the Jews out of the Holocaust

So much for giving people the benefit of the doubt who offer no sign they deserve it. The Trump White House issued a statement on Friday commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day, and the statement didn’t make specific mention of the Jewish people—who were the target of the Holocaust, or Shoah, which is a term devised after World War II to describe the effort by Nazi Germany to eradicate Jews from the face of the earth. After reading it, I thought to myself, “The Trump White House is an amateur operation, understaffed and without much executive-branch experience, and whoever wrote the statement and issued it blew it out of ignorance and sloppiness.”

I won’t be making that mistake again.

Jake Tapper of CNN reported Saturday night that Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks defended and even celebrated the White House statement. The decision not to mention the Jews was deliberate, Hicks said, a way of demonstrating the inclusive approach of the Trump administration: “Despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered…it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day.”

No, Hope Hicks, and no to whomever you are serving as a mouthpiece. The Nazis killed an astonishing number of people in monstrous ways and targeted certain groups—Gypsies, the mentally challenged, and open homosexuals, among others. But the Final Solution was aimed solely at the Jews. The Holocaust was about the Jews. There is no “proud” way to offer a remembrance of the Holocaust that does not reflect that simple, awful, world-historical fact. To universalize it to “all those who suffered” is to scrub the Holocaust of its meaning.

Given Hicks’s abominable statement, one cannot simply write this off. For there is a body of opinion in this country, and in certain precincts of the Trump coalition, who have long made it clear they are tired of what they consider a self-centered Jewish claim to being the great victims of the Nazis. Case in point: In 1988, as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, I drafted the president’s remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. As was the practice, the speech was sent around to 14 White House offices, including an office called Public Liaison staffed by conservatives whose job it was to do outreach to ethnic and religious groups. The official at Public Liaison who supported anti-Communist groups in Eastern Europe was tasked with the job of reviewing it. She sent the speech back marked up almost sentence by sentence. At the top, she wrote something like, “This must be redone. What about the suffering of the Poles and the Slovaks? The president should not be taking sides here.”

I was astonished, and horrified, and took the document to my superior, who told me to ignore it. “She has a bee in her bonnet about this,” he said of the Public Liaison official.

On another occasion, in an article commissioned by a conservative magazine, I wrote a sentence in which I called the Jews “the most beleaguered people in history.” An editor there objected, and insisted we add the word “uniquely” between “most” and “beleaguered” because there was an element, he said, of “special pleading.”

I bring these anecdotes up to say that the Hope Hicks statement does not arrive without precedent. It is, rather, the culmination of something—the culmination of decades of ill feeling that seems to center on the idea that the Jews have somehow made unfair “use” of the Holocaust and it should not “belong” to them. Someone in that nascent White House thought it was time to reflect that view through the omission of the specifically Jewish quality of the Holocaust.

Now the question is: Who was it?

In those remarks at the cornerstone laying, President Reagan said this: “I think all of us here are aware of those, even among our own countrymen, who have dedicated themselves to the disgusting task of minimizing or even denying the truth of the Holocaust. This act of intellectual genocide must not go unchallenged, and those who advance these views must be held up to the scorn and wrath of all good and thinking people in this nation and across the world.” This was in reference to the new and horrifying field of Holocaust denial. It is heartbreaking to think these are words that can now be applied to the White House in which a Republican successor to Reagan is now resident, only 28 years after he departed it for the last time. Heartbreaking and enraging.

Voir aussi:
The Trump Administration’s Flirtation With Holocaust Denial
The White House statement on Holocaust Remembrance day did not mention Jews or antisemitism.
Deborah Lipstadt
The Atlantic
Jan 30, 2017
Holocaust denial is alive and well in the highest offices of the United States. It is being spread by those in President Trump’s innermost circle. It may have all started as a mistake by a new administration that is loath to admit it’s wrong. Conversely, it may be a conscious attempt by people with anti-Semitic sympathies to rewrite history. Either way it is deeply disturbing.For me these developments are intensely personal—not because I have immediate family members who died in the Holocaust. I don’t. But I have spent a good number of years fighting something which the White House now seems to be fostering.Last Friday, I was in Amsterdam attending a screening of the movie Denial. It’s a film about the libel suit David Irving, once arguably the world’s most influential Holocaust denier, brought against me for having called him a denier. The trial, held in 2000, lasted 10 weeks. Because of the nature of British libel laws which placed the burden of proof on me, I had no choice but to fight. Had I not fought he would have won by default and his denial version of the Holocaust—no gas chambers, no mass killings, no Hitler involvement, and that this is all a myth concocted by Jews—would have been enshrined in British law.
After an intense day of press interviews and screenings, I had gone for a short walk. Intent on enjoying my surroundings, I ignored the pinging of my phone. Ironically, I had just reached the Anne Frank House, the place where Anne wrote her diary, when the pinging became so incessant that I checked to see what was happening.I quickly learned that the White House had released a statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day that did not mention Jews or anti-Semitism. Instead it bemoaned the “innocent victims.” The internet was buzzing and many people were fuming. Though no fan of Trump, I chalked it up as a rookie mistake by a new administration busy issuing a slew of executive orders. Someone had screwed up. I refused to get agitated, and counseled my growing number of correspondents to hold their fire. A clarification would certainly soon follow. I was wrong.In a clumsy defense Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications, insisted that, the White House, by not referring to Jews, was acting in an “inclusive” manner. It deserved praise not condemnation. Hicks pointed those who inquired to an article which bemoaned the fact that, too often the “other” victims of the Holocaust were forgotten. Underlying this claim is the contention that the Jews are “stealing” the Holocaust for themselves. It is a calumny founded in anti-Semitism.

There were indeed millions of innocent people whom the Nazis killed in many horrific ways, some in the course of the war and some because the Germans perceived them—however deluded their perception—to pose a threat to their rule. They suffered terribly. But that was not the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was something entirely different. It was an organized program with the goal of wiping out a specific people. Jews did not have to do anything to be perceived as worthy of being murdered. Old people who had to be wheeled to the deportation trains and babies who had to be carried were all to be killed. The point was not, as in occupied countries, to get rid of people because they might mount a resistance to Nazism, but to get rid of Jews because they were Jews. Roma (Gypsies) were also targeted. Many were murdered. But the Nazi anti-Roma policy was inconsistent. Some could live in peace and even serve in the German army.
German homosexuals were horribly abused by the Third Reich. Some were given the chance of “reforming” themselves and then going to serve on the eastern front, where many of them became cannon fodder. Would I have wanted to be a homosexual in the Reich, or in the rest of Nazi occupied Europe? Absolutely not. But they were not systematically wiped out.This is a matter of historical accuracy and not of comparative pain. If my family members had been killed by the Germans for resisting or for some other perceived wrong I would not be—nor should I be—comforted by the fact that they were not killed as part of the Holocaust.Had the Germans won, they probably would have eliminated millions of other peoples, including the Roma, homosexuals, dissidents of any kind, and other “useless eaters.” But it was only the Jews whose destruction could not wait until after the war. Only in the case of the Jews could war priorities be overridden. Germany was fighting two wars in tandem, a conventional war and a war against the Jews. It lost the first and, for all intents and purposes, nearly won the second.
The de-Judaization of the Holocaust, as exemplified by the White House statement, is what I term softcore Holocaust denial. Hardcore denial is the kind of thing I encountered in the courtroom. In an outright and forceful fashion, Irving denied the facts of the Holocaust. In his decision, Judge Charles Grey called Irving a liar and a manipulator of history. He did so, the judge ruled, deliberately and not as the result of mistakes.
Softcore denial uses different tactics but has the same end-goal. (I use hardcore and softcore deliberately because I see denial as a form of historiographic pornography.) It does not deny the facts, but it minimizes them, arguing that Jews use the Holocaust to draw attention away from criticism of Israel. Softcore denial also makes all sorts of false comparisons to the Holocaust. In certain Eastern European countries today, those who fought the Nazis may be lauded, but if they did so with a communist resistance group they may be prosecuted. Softcore denial also includes Holocaust minimization, as when someone suggests it was not so bad. “Why are we hearing about that again?”What we saw from the White House was classic softcore denial. The Holocaust was de-Judaized. It is possible that it all began with a mistake. Someone simply did not realize what they were doing. It is also possible that someone did this deliberately. The White House’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, boasted that while at Breitbart he created a platform for alt-right. Richard Spencer, the self-proclaimed leader of the alt-right, has invited overt Holocaust deniers to alt-right conferences, and his followers have engaged in outright denial. During the campaign, he was reportedly responsible for speeches and ads that many observers concluded trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes.After Hicks’s defense of the statement, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus doubled down, insisting that they made no mistake. On Meet the Press Chuck Todd gave Priebus repeated chances to retract or rephrase the statement. Priebus refused and dug in deeper, declaring “everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust, including obviously, all of the Jewish people… [was] extraordinarily sad.”In the penultimate sentence of the president’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House promised to ensure that “the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good.” But the statement was issued on the same day as the order banning refugees. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely what happened at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Voir également:

Trump implied Frederick Douglass was alive. The abolitionist’s family offered a ‘history lesson.’

Cleve R. Wootson Jr.

Washington Post

Feb. 7, 2017

The world may never know whether President Donald Trump just got a little sloppy with his verb tenses on Wednesday morning or simply had no idea that the famous black abolitionist Frederick Douglass was, in fact, dead.

« Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice, » the president said.

Critics seized on Trump’s comments at a Black History Month event, mercilessly attacking him for statements that spoke of Douglass in the present tense.

The Atlantic asked, simply: « Does Donald Trump actually know who Frederick Douglass was? » and said that Trump’s remarks were « transparently empty. »
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank joked that Trump « raised the dead. »

And someone started a Frederick Douglass Twitter account that trolled the president before it was deleted (although some of the tweets have been saved).

« In surprise move @PressSec announces @realDonaldTrump has named Frederick Douglass to National Security Council. »

Even White House press secretary Sean Spicer struggled to clarify Douglass-gate when asked at a briefing later on Wednesday. « I think there’s contributions – I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made, » Spicer said of Trump’s reference to Douglass. « And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he’s going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more. »

Trump criticizes media as he marks African American History Month
But the descendants of the revered abolitionist – who, just to be clear, died in 1895 after becoming a powerful voice against slavery and then Jim Crow – responded on Wednesday.

« My first instinct was to go on the attack, » said Kenneth B. Morris Jr., Douglass’ great-great-great grandson. « I think it was obvious to anyone that heard [Trump’s] comments or read his comments that he was not up to speed on who Frederick Douglass was. We just thought that was an opportunity to do a history lesson and to make some points about what we’re currently working on. »

The family released a statement on the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

« Like the President, we use the present tense when referencing Douglass’s accomplishments because his spirit and legacy are still very much alive, not just during Black History Month, but every month, » the family wrote.

« . . . We believe, if he had more time to elaborate, the President would have mentioned the following: Frederick Douglas has done an amazing job . . . »

Then the family mic-dropped several things Douglass has done a great job at:

« Enduring the inhumanity of slavery after being born heir to anguish and exploitation but still managing to become a force for solace and liberty when America needed it most. »

« Teaching himself to read and write and becoming one of the country’s most eloquent spokespersons. »

« Composing the Narrative of his life and helping to expose slavery for the crime against humankind that it is. »

« Risking life and limb by escaping the abhorrent institution »

« Arguing against unfair U.S. immigration restrictions. »

If Douglass were still alive, he’d celebrate his 200th birthday next year.

The family’s statement said they were involved in several initiatives that highlight their ancestor’s legacy.

« We look forward to helping re-animate Douglass’ passion for equality and justice over the coming year leading up to his Bicentennial in 2018, » the statement said. « We encourage the President to join in that effort. »

Voir encore:

A Lesson in Black History
Charles M. Blow
The New York Times
Feb. 6, 2017

Last week at a supposed Black History Month “listening session” at the White House, Donald Trump made this baffling statement: “I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

It sounded a bit like he thought the inimitable Douglass, who died in 1895, was some lesser-known black leader who was still alive.

When Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked what Trump meant by his Douglass comments, Spicer responded:

“I think he wants to highlight the contributions that he has made. And I think through a lot of the actions and statements that he’s going to make, I think the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more.”

Assuming that the “he” in that sentence refers to Douglass, these numbskulls are actually referring to him as a living person and have absolutely no clue who Douglass is and what he means to America.

Social media had a field day with this, relentlessly mocking the team, but for me the emotion was overwhelming sadness: How could the American “president” or a White House press secretary, or any American citizen for that matter, not know who Douglass is?

Let’s be absolutely clear here: Frederick Douglass is a singular, towering figure of American history. The entire legacy of black intellectual thought and civil rights activism flows in some way through Douglass, from W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to President Barack Obama himself.

Douglass was one of the most brilliant thinkers, writers and orators America has ever produced. Furthermore, he harnessed and mastered the media of his day: Writing an acclaimed autobiography, establishing his own newspaper and becoming the most photographed American of the 19th century.

Put another way: If modern social media existed during Douglass’s time, he would have been one of its kings.

Douglass also was a friend of Susan B. Anthony and an advocate for women’s civil rights as well as the civil rights of black people, understanding even then the intersectionality of oppressions. In fact, the motto of his newspaper, The North Star, was “Right is of no Sex — Truth is of no Color — God is the Father of us all, and we are all Brethren.”

But perhaps one of the best reasons Trump and Spicer need to bone up on Douglass is to understand his relationship with Abraham Lincoln and to get a better sense of what true leadership looks like.

Douglass was a blistering critic of Lincoln from the beginning. In Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, he quoted from one of his previous speeches in which he had said “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists,” and he went on to defend the Fugitive Slave Act, promising the slave states full enforcement of it as long as it was on the books.

This incensed Douglass, who said of the remarks: “Not content with the broadest recognition of the right of property in the souls and bodies of men in the slave states, Mr. Lincoln next proceeds, with nerves of steel, to tell the slaveholders what an excellent slave hound he is.”

Although Douglass’s cutting critique of Lincoln began to soften after Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass continued to be unhappy throughout the Civil War about the unequal treatment of black soldiers in the Union Army. But even in the midst of this criticism, Lincoln entertained Douglass at the White House.

Although Douglass wasn’t fully satisfied with Lincoln’s positions, Douglass remarked of the meeting: “Mr. Lincoln listened with earnest attention and with very apparent sympathy, and replied to each point in his own peculiar, forcible way.”

This stands in stark contrast to Trump’s avoidance of black intellectuals and even any real critics. Trump’s “listening session” seemed to be populated only by his black appointees and supporters.

Lincoln and Douglass would go on to develop a genuine friendship and Douglass would become something of Lincoln’s conscience on the slave issue. In fact, Lincoln called Douglass “one of the most meritorious men, if not the most meritorious man, in the United States.”

That is what leadership and growth look like. Lincoln grew from the association with and counsel from his onetime critic, to become one of the greatest presidents America has ever known.

Indeed Black History Month began not as a month but a week: Negro History week, the second week of February. It was established in 1926 by noted black historian Carter G. Woodson, and choosing February was no coincidence: It honored the birthdays of Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and Douglass, who helped direct his conscience.

Trump would do well to study this history; he has much to learn from it. As the historian Woodson’s personal motto went: “It’s never too late to learn.”

Voir également:

Donald Trump’s Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
Marking Black History Month, the president made some strange observations about Douglass and Martin Luther King, but mostly talked about himself.
David A. Graham
The Atlantic
Feb 1, 2017

Does Donald Trump actually know who Frederick Douglass was? The president mentioned the great abolitionist, former slave, and suffrage campaigner during a Black History Month event Wednesday morning, but there’s little to indicate that Trump knows anything about his subject, based on the rambling, vacuous commentary he offered:

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.” Within moments, he was off-topic, talking about some of his favorite subjects: CNN, himself, and his feud with CNN.

Trump’s comments about King were less transparently empty but maybe even stranger. “Last month we celebrated the life Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history,” Trump said, employing a favorite meaningless adjective. But this wasn’t really about King. It was about Trump: “You read all about Martin Luther King when somebody said I took a statue out of my office. And it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things—and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King.”

Even beyond the strange aside about Douglass and the digression from King, Trump’s comments point to the superficiality of his engagement with African American culture. He named perhaps the four most famous figures in black history with no meaningful elaboration. (Trump was reading from a sheet, but at least he was able to name Tubman, unlike his vanquished rival Gary Johnson.)
In a way, Trump isn’t totally wrong about Douglass “getting recognized more and more,” though one is left to scratch one’s head at where precisely he noticed that. Douglass’s heyday of influence was in the mid to late 19th century—when he was also among The Atlantic’s biggest-name writers—but he may be better known than ever among the broadest swath of the American public thanks to his ascension into the Pantheon of black history figures taught in schools since the United States established Black History Month in 1976.

It is a real and praiseworthy accomplishment for Douglass’s name to keep spreading. But the frequent, and often valid, critique of Black History Month is that it encourages a tokenist approach to African American culture, leading everyone from national leaders to elementary-school teachers to recite a catechism of well-known figures, producing both shallow engagement and privileging a passé Great Man (and Woman) theory of history. Hardly any politician is immune to this; faced with the necessity of holding an event to mark the month, they too recite the list. But even by that standard, Trump’s comments are laughably vacuous.

George W. Bush, for example, recalled in 2002 how February was “the month in which Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were born, two men, very different, who together ended slavery.” Bill Clinton exhorted audiences to visit Douglass’s home in Washington’s Anacostia neighborhood, at a time when that was well-off the beaten tourist path. George H.W. Bush admired Jacob Lawrence’s depiction of Douglass. Ronald Reagan repeatedly quoted Douglass in his own remarks, and was fond of boasting that Douglass was a fellow Republican.

The gulf between Trump and his predecessors is particularly poignant, of course, in the wake of the presidency of Barack Obama, a man who by virtue of his own skin color never had to resort to the detached tributes of white presidents. When the museum Trump cited opened, Obama spoke, saying as only he could have:

Yes, African Americans have felt the cold weight of shackles and the stinging lash of the field whip. But we’ve also dared to run north and sing songs from Harriet Tubman’s hymnal. We’ve buttoned up our Union Blues to join the fight for our freedom. We’ve railed against injustice for decade upon decade, a lifetime of struggle and progress and enlightenment that we see etched in Frederick Douglass’s mighty, leonine gaze.
Trump, by contrast, has long spoken of the black community in fundamentally instrumental terms, from his business career to his political one. African Americans were a monolithic demographic to be won or lost, depending on the occasion. The young real-estate developer first made headlines when the Trump Organization was accused of working to keep blacks out of its real-estate developments; the company eventually settled with the Justice Department without admitting guilt. The question in that case was not the personal prejudices (absent or present) of Trump and his father Fred. Instead, the company appeared to have decided that blacks were bad for business and would drive out white tenants, so the Trumps allegedly opted to keep them out.
During the campaign, Trump viewed black voters with similarly cool detachment. He spoke about blacks and other minorities in conspicuously distancing terms, as “they” and “them.” His leading black surrogates included Omarosa, most famous for appearing on The Apprentice with Trump, and Don King, a clownish and past-his-prime boxing promoter notable for killing two men; Hillary Clinton’s campaign, meanwhile, called on LeBron James, Beyonce, and Obama. When Trump spotted a black man at a rally in California, he called out, “Oh, look at my African American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest?”

When Trump announced a black-voter outreach operation, he mostly delivered his message to overwhelmingly white audiences in overwhelmingly white locales, and employed a series of racist and outdated stereotypes about inner-city crime, poverty, and lack of education, in what he appeared to believe represented benign patronization. Meanwhile, his own aides told reporters their political goal was to suppress black votes by encouraging African Americans to sit the election out.

In the end, Trump won 8 percent of the black vote, according to exit polling, besting Mitt Romney’s showing against Barack Obama but falling well short of the recent GOP high-water mark of 17 percent in 1976 (to say nothing of his prediction that he’d win 95 percent of African Americans in his 2020 campaign).

Trump continues to indicate he holds a view of black Americans that is instrumental, as he showed on Wednesday at his Black History Month event. “If you remember, I wasn’t going to do well with the African American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting, I won’t get into details, but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who have run in the past years,” he said, somewhat misleadingly. “And now we’re going to take that to new levels.” February might be Black History Month, but every month is Trump History Month.

Voir enfin:

Putin, Obama — and Trump

Victor Davis Hanson

National Review

January 17, 2017

Let’s hope that the era of ‘lead from behind’ and violated red lines is over. For eight years, the Obama administration misjudged Vladimir Putin’s Russia, as it misjudged most of the Middle East, China, and the rest of the world as well. Obama got wise to Russia only when Putin imperiled not just U.S. strategic interests and government records but also supposedly went so far as to tamper with sacrosanct Democratic-party secrets, thereby endangering the legacy of Barack Obama.

Putin was probably bewildered by Obama’s media-driven and belated concern, given that the Russians, like the Chinese, had in the past hacked U.S. government documents that were far more sensitive than the information it may have mined and leaked in 2016 — and they received nothing but an occasional Obama “cut it out” whine. Neurotic passive-aggression doesn’t merely bother the Russians; it apparently incites and emboldens them.

Obama’s strange approach to Putin since 2009 apparently has run something like the following. Putin surely was understandably angry with the U.S. under the cowboy imperialist George W. Bush, according to the logic of the “reset.” After all, Obama by 2009 was criticizing Bush more than he was Putin for the supposed ills of the world. But Barack Obama was not quite an American nationalist who sought to advance U.S. interests.

Instead, he posed as a new sort of soft-power moralistic politician — not seen since Jimmy Carter — far more interested in rectifying the supposed damage rather than the continuing good that his country has done. If Putin by 2008 was angry at Bush for his belated pushback over Georgia, at least he was not as miffed at Bush as Obama himself was.

Reset-button policy then started with the implicit agreement that Russia and the Obama administration both had legitimate grievances against a prior U.S. president — a bizarre experience for even an old hand like Putin. (Putin probably thought that the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq were a disaster not on ethical or even strategic grounds but because the U.S. had purportedly let the country devolve into something like what Chechnya was before Putin’s iron grip.)

In theory, Obama would captivate Putin with his nontraditional background and soaring rhetoric, the same way he had charmed urban progressive elites at home and Western European socialists abroad. One or two more Cairo speeches would assure Putin that a new America was more interested in confessing its past sins to the Islamic world than confronting its terrorism. And Obama would continue to show his bona fides by cancelling out Bush initiatives such as missile defense in Eastern Europe, muting criticism of Russian territorial expansionism, and tabling the updating and expansion of the American nuclear arsenal. All the while, Obama would serve occasional verbal cocktails for Putin’s delight — such as the hot-mic promise to be even “more flexible” after his 2012 reelection, the invitation of Russia into the Middle East to get the Obama administration off the hook from enforcing red lines over Syrian WMD use, and the theatrical scorn for Mitt Romney’s supposedly ossified Cold War–era worries about Russian aggression.

As Putin was charmed, appeased, and supposedly brought on board, Obama increasingly felt free to enlighten him (as he does almost everyone) about how his new America envisioned a Westernized politically correct world. Russians naturally would not object to U.S. influence if it was reformist and cultural rather than nationalist, economic, and political — and if it sought to advance universal progressive ideals rather than strictly American agendas. Then, in its own self-interest, a grateful Russia would begin to enact at home something akin to Obama’s helpful initiatives: open up its society, with reforms modeled after those of the liberal Western states in Europe. Putin quickly sized up this naïf. His cynicism and cunning told him that Obama was superficially magnanimous mostly out of a desire to avoid confrontations. And as a Russian, he was revolted by the otherworldly and unsolicited advice from a pampered former American academic. Putin continued to crack down at home and soon dressed up his oppression with a propagandistic anti-American worldview: America’s liberal culture reflected not freedom but license; its global capitalism promoted cultural decadence and should not serve as anyone’s blueprint. Putin’s cynicism and cunning told him that Obama was superficially magnanimous mostly out of a desire to avoid confrontations.

As the West would pursue atheism, indulgence, and globalism, Putin would return Russia to Orthodoxy, toughness, and fervent nationalism — a czarist appeal that would resonate with other autocracies abroad and mask his own oppressions, crony profiteering, and economic mismanagement at home. Note that despite crashing oil prices and Russian economic crises, Putin believed (much as Mussolini did) that at least for a time, a strong leader in a weak country can exercise more global clout than a weak leader in a strong country — and that Russians could for a while longer put up with poverty and lack of freedom if they were at least feared or respected abroad. He also guessed that just as the world was finally nauseated by Woodrow Wilson’s six months of moralistic preening at Versailles, so too it would tire of the smug homilies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

Putin grew even more surprised at Obama’s periodic red lines, deadlines, and step-over lines, whose easy violations might unite global aggressors in the shared belief that America was hopelessly adrift, easy to manipulate, obnoxious in its platitudinous sermonizing, and certainly not the sort of strong-horse power that any aggressors should fear.

Perhaps initially Putin assumed that Obama’s lead-from-behind redistributionist foreign policy (the bookend to his “you didn’t build that” domestic recalibration) was some sort of clever plot to suggest that a weak United States could be taken advantage of — and then Obama would strike hard when Putin fell for the bait and overreached. But once Putin realized that Obama was serious in his fantasies, he lost all respect for his benefactor, especially as an increasingly petulant and politically enfeebled Obama compensated by teasing Putin as a macho class cut-up — just as he had often caricatured domestic critics who failed to appreciate his godhead.

Putin offered America’s enemies and fence-sitting opportunists a worldview that was antithetical to Obama’s. Lead-from-behind foreign policy was just provocative enough to discombobulate a few things overseas but never strong or confident enough to stay on to fix them. When China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, or other provocateurs challenged the U.S., Putin was at best either indifferent and at worst supportive of our enemies, on the general theory that anything the U.S. sought to achieve, Russia would be wise to oppose.

Putin soon seemed to argue that the former Soviet Republics had approximately the same relation to Russia as the Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have to the United States. Russia was simply defining and protecting its legitimate sphere of influence, as the post-colonial U.S. had done (albeit without the historic costs in blood and treasure).

Russia had once lost a million civilians at the siege of Leningrad when Hitler’s Army Group North raced through the Baltic States (picking up volunteers as it went) and met up with the Finns. At Sevastopol, General Erich von Manstein’s Eleventh Army may well have inflicted 100,000 Russian Crimean casualties in a successful but nihilistic effort to take and nearly destroy the fortress. The Kiev Pocket and destruction of the Southwestern Front of the Red Army in the Ukraine in September 1941 (700,000 Russians killed, captured, or missing) may have been the largest encirclement and mass destruction of an army in military history.

For Putin, these are not ancient events but rather proof of why former Soviet bloodlands were as much Russian as Puerto Rico was considered American. We find such reasoning tortured, given Ukrainian and Crimean desires to be free; Putin insists that Russian ghosts still flitter over such hallowed ground.

Reconstruction of Putin’s mindset is not justification for his domestic thuggery or foreign expansionism at the expense of free peoples. But it does remind us that he is particularly ill-suited to listen to pat lectures from American sermonizers whose unwillingness to rely on force to back up their sanctimony is as extreme as their military assets are overwhelming. Putin would probably be less provoked by a warning from someone deemed strong than he would be by obsequious outreach from someone considered weak.

There were areas where Obama might have sought out Putin in ways advantageous to the U.S., such as wooing him away from Iran or playing him off against China or lining him up against North Korea. But ironically, Obama was probably more interested in inflating the Persian and Shiite regional profile than was Putin himself. Putin would probably be less provoked by a warning from someone deemed strong than he would be by obsequious outreach from someone considered weak.

If Obama wished to invite Putin into the Middle East, then at least he might have made an effort to align him with Israel, the Gulf States, Egypt, and Jordan, in pursuit of their shared goal of wiping out radical Islamic terrorism. In the process, these powers might have grown increasingly hostile to Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran. But Obama was probably more anti-Israeli than Putin, and he also disliked the moderate Sunni autocracies more than Putin himself did. As far as China, Putin was delighted that Obama treated Chinese aggression in the Spratly Islands as Obama had treated his own in Ukraine: creased-brow angst about bad behavior followed by indifference.

The irony of the failed reset was that in comparative terms the U.S. — given its newfound fossil-fuel wealth and energy independence, the rapid implosion of the European Union, and its continuing technological superiority — should have been in an unusually strong position as the leader of the West. Unhinged nuclear proliferation, such as in Pakistan and North Korea and soon in Iran, is always more of a long-term threat to a proximate Russia than to a distant America. And Russia’s unassimilated and much larger Muslim population is always a far more existential threat to Moscow than even radical Islamic terrorism is at home to the U.S.

In other words, there were realist avenues for cooperation that hinged on a strong and nationalist U.S. clearly delineating areas where cooperation benefitted both countries (and the world). Other spheres in which there could be no American–Russian consensus could by default have been left to sort themselves out in a may-the-best-man-win fashion, hopefully peaceably.

Such détente would have worked only if Obama had forgone all the arc-of-history speechifying and the adolescent putdowns, meant to project strength in the absence of quiet toughness.

Let us hope that Donald Trump, Rex Tillerson, and Jim Mattis know this and thus keep mostly silent, remind Putin privately (without trashing a former president) that the aberrant age of Obama is over, carry huge sticks, work with Putin where and when it is in our interest, acknowledge his help, seek to thwart common enemies — and quietly find ways to utilize overwhelming American military and economic strength to discourage him from doing something unwise for both countries.

Voir par ailleurs:

Trump défend à nouveau Poutine, au désespoir des Républicains
Le Figaro AFP, AP, Reuters Agences
06/02/2017

VIDÉO – «Pensez-vous que notre pays soit si innocent?», a répondu le président américain au sujet des crimes supposés du président russe, dans une interview à la chaîne Fox News, suscitant la colère de son propre camp.

Le président américain Donald Trump a défendu une nouvelle fois Vladimir Poutine devant l’opinion publique américaine, montrant qu’il ne renonçait pas à trouver des accords avec le président russe sur les affaires de la planète. Une nouvelle flambée des combats entre forces ukrainiennes et séparatistes pro-russes dans l’est de l’Ukraine a contraint la semaine dernière l’administration américaine à critiquer Moscou et à promettre le maintien des sanctions internationales qui visent la Russie.

Mais dimanche, dans une interview diffusée sur Fox News avant le démarrage du très populaire Super Bowl, le président américain a défendu une nouvelle fois sa volonté de chercher à réchauffer les relations avec son homologue russe.

«Je le respecte», mais «ça ne veut pas dire que je vais m’entendre avec lui», a-t-il dit.» C’est un leader dans son pays, et je pense qu’il vaut mieux s’entendre avec la Russie que l’inverse», a-t-il ajouté.

Et au journaliste qui lui objectait que Vladimir Poutine était un «tueur», Donald Trump a invité de manière surprenante l’Amérique à un examen de conscience. «Beaucoup de tueurs, beaucoup de tueurs. Pensez-vous que notre pays soit si innocent?», a-t-il demandé, sans expliciter sa pensée. Cette dernière réflexion a immédiatement suscité une salve de critiques, y compris dans son propre camp où Vladimir Poutine fait souvent figure de repoussoir. «Je ne pense pas qu’il y ait aucune équivalence entre la manière dont les Russes se comportent et la manière dont les États-Unis se comportent», a déclaré Mitch McConnell, le chef de file des républicains au Sénat. «C’est un ancien du KGB, un voyou, élu d’une manière que beaucoup de gens ne trouvent pas crédible», a-t-il renchéri.

Quant au néoconservateur Marc Rubio, sénateur républicain de Floride, et rival de Donald Trump lors de la primaire du Grand Old Party, il a tweeté: «Quand est-ce qu’un activiste démocrate a été empoisonné par le parti Républicain, ou vice-versa? Nous ne sommes pas comme Poutine».

L’électorat républicain préoccupé par Daech plutôt que par Poutine

Dans son interview à Fox News, le président américain a aussi expliqué dans quel domaine il aimerait particulièrement se mettre d’accord avec Moscou: «Si la Russie nous aide dans le combat contre (le groupe) État islamique (…) et contre le terrorisme islamique à travers le monde, c’est une bonne chose».

Donald Trump a demandé au Pentagone de lui fournir, d’ici la fin février, un plan pour accélérer la campagne contre l’EI, qui n’a que trop traîné en longueur selon lui. Or, les militaires américains ne cachent pas que l’attitude de Moscou sera déterminante pour préparer l’ultime bataille contre le groupe terroriste, la conquête de sa capitale autoproclamée Raqqa. La coalition ne peut pas par exemple lancer l’offensive sur la ville sans avoir une idée de ce que sera le statut de la ville libérée – un débat dans lequel la Russie joue un rôle clef.

En cherchant un rapprochement avec le maître du Kremlin, Donald Trump est en décalage, voire en opposition avec nombre de caciques républicains, comme John McCain, l’ancien candidat républicain à la présidentielle de 2008, qui ne perd pas une occasion de dénoncer la menace russe.

Toutefois, une enquête publiée vendredi par le New York Times montre bien qu’il n’est peut-être pas tant que ça en décalage avec l’électorat républicain, pour qui la menace islamique radicale éclipse la menace russe. Interrogé sur l’endroit du monde qui représente pour lui la principale menace pour les États-Unis, l’électorat démocrate place à l’inverse la Corée du Nord en tête, suivie immédiatement par la Russie. Mais l’électorat républicain mentionne après la Corée du Nord une longue liste de pays musulmans, avant de citer la Russie, selon cette enquête.

Voir aussi:

MSM watch

Washington Post Wakes Up to the Fact That Iran Is Stronger Than Ever

Now that Obama is out of office, the Washington Post is beginning to look at the consequences of his policies. One of the biggest: Iran is now a regional superpower, but still as hostile to the U.S. and its allies as ever.

Oops:

Iran now stands at the apex of an arc of influence stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, from the borders of NATO to the borders of Israel and along the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons. They have been joined by thousands of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most prestigious military wing, who have acquired meaningful battlefield experience in the process.

For the first time in its history, the Institute for the Study of War noted in a report last week, Iran has developed the capacity to project conventional military force for hundreds of miles beyond its borders. “This capability, which very few states in the world have, will fundamentally alter the strategic calculus and balance of power within the Middle East,” the institute said.

America’s Sunni Arab allies, who blame the Obama administration’s hesitancy for Iran’s expanded powers, are relishing the prospect of a more confrontational U.S. approach. Any misgivings they may have had about Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric have been dwarfed by their enthusiasm for an American president they believe will push back against Iran.

If only someone had warned that appeasing Iran was a dangerous policy that could backfire horribly…

When Walter Russell Mead testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015, he argued that the Iran Deal shouldn’t be analyzed merely as an arms control agreement or even on its own terms. It needed (and still needs) to be assessed in the context of a broader strategic framework for the Middle East. At that point, it was already clear the Obama Administration’s entire Middle East policy pivoted on the deal. Other American interests (in Syria and Yemen, for instance) were secondary to getting an arms control agreement in place with Iran. The mistake wasn’t so much the narrow deal itself as the fact that the deal was promoted not as part of a strategy, but rather in lieu of one.

The consequences of not paying attention to the big picture are now obvious to all. We’re glad the Washington Post is finally getting it. We just wish they’d done so sooner.

Voir enfin:

 


Présidence Trump: Attention, une révolution peut en cacher une autre (Revolutionary normalcy: Trump seems a revolutionary only because he is loudly undoing a revolution)

4 février, 2017
byanymeansopen-borderstrump-targettrum-meltdown-time-coverspiegel-trump3spiegel-trump
death-prez
churchill_bust_trump
trumpmlkbust
mlk_bust_whitehouseGeorge Orwell disait,  je crois dans 1984, que dans les temps de tromperie généralisée, dire la vérité est un acte révolutionnaire. David Hoffmann
Le langage politique est destiné à rendre vraisemblables les mensonges, respectables les meurtres,
et à donner l’apparence de la solidité à ce qui n’est que vent;
George Orwell
Ce n’est pas en refusant de mentir que nous abolirons le mensonge : c’est en usant de tous les moyens pour supprimer les classes. (…) Tous les moyens sont bons lorsqu’ils sont efficaces. Jean-Paul Sartre (Les mains sales, II, 5, 1948)
Ce que nous voulons, c’est la liberté par tous les moyens, la justice par tous les moyens et  l’égalité par tous les moyens. Malcom X (1964)
The Martin Luther King jr. Bust has been moved out of the Oval Office according The People Magazine DC Bureau Chief who was in there this pm. April Ryan
Correction: An earlier version of the story said that a bust of Martin Luther King had been moved. It is still in the Oval Office. Time
Now, when I was elected as President of the United States, my predecessor had kept a Churchill bust in the Oval Office. There are only so many tables where you can put busts — otherwise it starts looking a little cluttered. (Laughter.) And I thought it was appropriate, and I suspect most people here in the United Kingdom might agree, that as the first African American President, it might be appropriate to have a bust of Dr. Martin Luther King in my office to remind me of all the hard work of a lot of people who would somehow allow me to have the privilege of holding this office. Barack Hussein Obama
Il est temps de tuer le président. Monisha Rajesh
Trump c’est le candidat qui redonne aux Américains l’espoir, l’espoir qu’il soit assassiné avant son investiture. Pablo Mira (France Inter)
Ils ont été horriblement traités. Savez-vous que si vous étiez chrétien en Syrie, il était impossible, ou du moins très difficile d’entrer aux États-Unis ? Si vous étiez un musulman, vous pouviez entrer, mais si vous étiez chrétien, c’était presque impossible et la raison était si injuste, tout le monde était persécuté… Ils ont coupé les têtes de tout le monde, mais plus encore des chrétiens. Et je pensais que c’était très, très injuste. Nous allons donc les aider. Donald Trump
L’amour du prochain est une valeur chrétienne et cela implique de venir en aide aux autres. Je crois que c’est ce qui unit les pays occidentaux. Sigmar Gabriel (ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères)
Obama, franchement il fait partie des gens qui détestent l’Amérique. Il a servi son idéologie mais pas l’Amérique. Je remets en cause son patriotisme et sa dévotion à l’église qu’il fréquentait. Je pense qu’il était en désaccord avec lui-même sur beaucoup de choses. Je pense qu’il était plus musulman dans son cœur que chrétien. Il n’a pas voulu prononcer le terme d’islamisme radical, ça lui écorchait les lèvres. Je pense que dans son cœur, il est musulman, mais on en a terminé avec lui, Dieu merci. Evelyne Joslain
Mais pourquoi n’appelle-t-on pas ce mur, qui sépare les Gazaouites de leurs frères égyptiens « mur de la honte » ou « de l’apartheid »? Liliane Messika
Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies! Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror (….) The directive to cut off non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror is still current law on the books [8 U.S. Code § 1735]. Presidents Bush and Obama later used their discretion to waive the ban, but Trump is actually following the letter of the law — the very law sponsored and passed by Democrats — more closely than Obama did. Trump used his 212(f) authority to add immigrant visas, but that doesn’t take away the fact that every Democrat in the 2002 Senate supported the banning of non-immigrant visas.At present, only three of the countries —  Sudan, Syria, and Iran —  are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens. Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days! Conservative review
From my perspective in Iraq, I wonder why all of these protesters were not protesting in the streets when ISIS came to kill Christians and Yazidis and other minority groups. They were not protesting when the tens of thousands of displaced Christians my archdiocese has cared for since 2014 received no financial assistance from the U.S. government or the U.N. There were no protests when Syrian Christians were only let in at a rate that was 20 times less than the percentage of their population in Syria. I do not understand why some Americans are now upset that the many minority communities that faced a horrible genocide will finally get a degree of priority in some manner. I would also say this, all those who cry out that this is a “Muslim Ban” – especially now that it has been clarified that it is not – should understand clearly that when they do this, they are hurting we Christians specifically and putting us at greater risk. (…) Here in Iraq we Christians cannot afford to throw out words carelessly as the media in the West can do. I would ask those in the media who use every issue to stir up division to think about this. For the media these things become an issue of ratings, but for us the danger is real. Archévêque irakien
Notre pays a encore bénéficié, ces dernières heures, des atouts de la diversité et de l’apport des disciples d’Allah. Ce matin, à 10 heures, un musulman, armé d’une machette, a attaqué, près du Louvre, une patrouille de soldats, aux cris d’Allah akbar. Abdallah E-H, selon les premières informations, aurait 29 ans, serait égyptien, et travaillerait à Dubaï. Remarquons que si on appliquait le décret Trump en France, en l’élargissant, sans doute ce sympathique touriste n’aurait-il jamais mis les pieds en France, ni n’aurait blessé un militaire avec sa machette. Riposte laïque
La portée dissuasive de l’opération Sentinelle n’était pas à la hauteur des attentes, puisque des militaires se trouvaient non loin du Bataclan et des terrasses et n’ont rien pu faire (…) Elles souhaitaient engager le feu mais on leur a donné l’ordre de ne pas faire usage de leurs armes. L’action des militaires est extrêmement réduite et leur chaîne de commandement est très complexe. (…) Rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que la présence d’une patrouille Sentinelle a permis d’éviter un attentat. Il y a bien eu au départ un rôle psychologique : voir des militaires en kaki partout, dans les rues, dans les transports, rassure la population car la menace est bien réelle. 93% des Français font confiance à l’armée pour lutter contre le terrorisme, tandis que l’antimilitarisme n’est que résiduel en France : il tourne autour de 10%. Mais on peut aussi ajouter qu’en décembre 2015, si 70% des Français approuvaient l’opération Sentinelle, ils n’étaient que 50% à la juger efficace, selon un sondage Ifop pour le ministère de la Défense. Il y a également une part importante de communication politique. Les militaires bénéficient d’une bonne image dans l’opinion publique, le gouvernement joue donc cette carte. L’opération Sentinelle fonctionne en réalité selon le principe du trompe-l’œil : elle diffuse une image de puissance dans les rues mais on ne peut que constater son impuissance effective. (…) Les militaires de Sentinelle ne sont en tout cas pas mis en avant dans le cadre de ce qui devrait être le coeur de leur action : la lutte contre le terrorisme. Un militaire, c’est fait pour faire la guerre. Les militaires de Sentinelle endossent davantage le rôle d’auxiliaires de police de proximité. par leurs présence dans les transports et dans les rues. Une étude réalisée par Elie Tenenbaum, chercheur à l’Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri), souligne que les patrouilles Sentinelle d’Ile-de-France ont été victimes de 1.300 « actions contre la force » entre janvier et septembre 2015, dont 70% d’actes malveillants. Parmi les auteurs de ces violences, certains étaient peut-être des fanatiques, mais ça, rien ne permet de l’affirmer…Et il est évidemment compliqué de faire le tri parmi les personnes qui ont commis ces actes. (…) Comme l’a récemment rappelé le général Sainte-Claire Deville, commandant des forces terrestres, avant 2015, les militaires passaient 5% de leur temps en opération intérieure (principalement dans le cadre du plan Vigipirate) et 15% en opération extérieure. Le reste du temps, ils s’entrainaient et se reposaient. Depuis le début de Sentinelle, ils sont mobilisés 50% de leur temps en opération intérieure et 15% en opération intérieure. Leurs temps de repos et de formation sont donc considérablement entamés. Des troupes fatiguées et peu entraînées sont sans aucun doute bien moins efficaces. (…) C’est d’abord une question pratique et économique. Les militaires sont rapidement mobilisables, efficaces, fiables. Si l’on raisonne à court terme il est également moins onéreux de les utiliser massivement que de recruter et mobiliser à niveau équivalent les forces de l’ordre. (…) De plus en plus de spécialistes, comme Michel Goya [spécialiste des armées, NDLR], plaident pour sa suppression ou, tout du moins, pour un réaménagement drastique, qui permettrait de mobiliser un nombre beaucoup plus faible de militaires, dans des dispositifs plus souples et moins statiques. Mais l’opération Sentinelle ne peut de toute façon pas être pensée isolément : la question de la lutte contre le terrorisme est surtout celle des services de renseignement et de police. Bénédicte Chéron (historienne)
The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful. Obama

Fox is not a news organization.

Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff, October 2009)

Fox operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.

Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director)

When we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion.

Valerie Jarrett (Obama senior advisor)

As John Podhoretz wrote, these are days of promise and opportunity for America’s political media professionals. So far, they’re squandering their shot. By indulging in ill-considered hysteria and posturing before like-minded colleagues, they sacrifice the credibility they’ll need to expose President Donald Trump’s mendacities. To repair some of the strained bonds between audience and journalist, media professionals must display some restraint when reacting to the latest alleged assault on freedom and decency. That is most easily achieved by recognizing that many of the unprecedented developments of the Trump era aren’t unprecedented at all. (…) The Obama administration was calling Fox “fake news” before “fake news” was a phenomenon. (…) The Obama administration’s “blog” content (now maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration), which includes former Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s “Regional Roundup: What America’s Newspapers are Saying About the Iran Deal.” The blog consisted entirely of favorable headlines from around the country reciting verbatim (and false) administration claims about the nuclear accord. “The Iran Deal” even had its own Twitter account which disseminated not only favorable press mentions but also crafted insipid pop culture memes to get the millennial generation jazzed about nuclear non-proliferation. Imagine the anxiety among journalists when the Trump White House mirrors this tactic. John Podhoretz’s admonition is particularly relevant because so many of these Obama-era precedents did not get the left’s “creeping fascism” sense tingling at the time. To rend garments over these actions now only because the Trump White House is undertaking them is not just unwise; it’s insulting.

Noah Rothman

The Trump administration’s flurry of reversing the earlier flurry of Obama executive orders and the Left’s hysterical response is proving a sort of strategic Game of Thrones. (…) The model is Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the summer of 2006, when the furious rhetoric almost made and in one case did make presidential governance impossible. Given the current role of a biased media (it acted quite differently during the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, the flagrant lying about its impact, and the imploding AFC website), they hope to so increase the temperature that everyone melts down, with the goal of the in-power people liquefying first. They assume their blanket obstructionism will not suffer the public-relations boomerang that damaged the Republicans during shutdowns of the Clinton administration and slowdowns to stop Obama, given the media megaphone broadcasting their cause. In contrast, the Trump people may believe that the Left is becoming so unhinged that their inflated rhetoric has lost all credibility and eventually becomes counter-productive. In Napoleonic terms by attacking everything, the Left is attacking nothing. Second, by raising the stakes, they bring out of the woodwork the true malevolence of the Left such as the adolescent boycott of the inauguration by many in the Congress, the unprofessionalism of the media typified by the Martin Luther King bust fiasco or Michael Cohen’s nonexistent Prague meetings, the unhinged behavior of the acting attorney general, the repulsive rhetoric of a Madonna or Ashley Judd, and the creepy talk of journalists abroad of assassination. In that sense, the executive orders are pheromones that draw out and expose unattractive predators. (…) Where does this stand-off lead and how does it end? Who knows, but the Trump people, in strategic terms, need in advance to configure the third- and fourth-order effects of their executive orders to ensure: that they are seen as reactive to preexisting extremism (…), that (…) that their policies are understood as focused and sober (e.g., the travel ban affects a minuscule number of would-be entrants in an otherwise generous policy of accepting up to 50,000 newcomers; the wall is normal practice in much of the world (Israel, the Gulf States, increasingly in Europe), and we are trying not to react in kind to Mexico, given that Mexico’s own immigration practices, both in terms of punishment and questions of race and ethnicity, are in some sense racist and draconian). The loser, as in all strategic collisions, is he who more slowly misreads constantly shifting public opinion and is more guided by ideological zeal rather than empiricism and so doubles down on rather than modifies a failing strategy. The best indices of who seems to be getting the upper-hand are of course polls on particular issues and on Trump’s favorability — and the unity or lack of among congressional Republicans.

Victor Davis Hanson
Securing national borders seems pretty orthodox. In an age of anti-Western terrorism, placing temporary holds on would-be immigrants from war-torn zones until they can be vetted is hardly radical. Expecting “sanctuary cities” to follow federal laws rather than embrace the nullification strategies of the secessionist Old Confederacy is a return to the laws of the Constitution. Using the term “radical Islamic terror” in place of “workplace violence” or “man-caused disasters” is sensible, not subversive. Insisting that NATO members meet their long-ignored defense-spending obligations is not provocative but overdue. Assuming that both the European Union and the United Nations are imploding is empirical, not unhinged. Questioning the secret side agreements of the Iran deal or failed Russian reset is facing reality. Making the Environmental Protection Agency follow laws rather than make laws is the way it always was supposed to be. Unapologetically siding with Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East, used to be standard U.S. policy until Obama was elected. (…) Expecting the media to report the news rather than massage it to fit progressive agendas makes sense. In the past, proclaiming Obama a “sort of god” or the smartest man ever to enter the presidency was not normal journalistic practice. (…) Half the country is having a hard time adjusting to Trumpism, confusing Trump’s often unorthodox and grating style with his otherwise practical and mostly centrist agenda. In sum, Trump seems a revolutionary, but that is only because he is loudly undoing a revolution. Victor Davis Hanson

Attention: une révolution peut en cacher une autre !

Restauration des frontières nationales,  moratoire et meilleur contrôle de l’immigration issue de zones sensibles face à une menace terroriste croissante, refus de la continuation de l’épuration  religieuse du Monde dit « arabe », rappel de la loi nationale et remise en cause des « villes sanctuaires »,  explicitation de la menace terroriste islamique, rappel des membres de l’OTAN à leurs obligations de défense, dénonciation de l’incurie de l’ONU et du fiasco de l’UE, remise en question d’accords secrets accordant l’accès à l’arme nucléaire à un pays appelant ouvertement à l’annihilation d’un de ses voisins, retour à la politique d’alliance avec  le seul pays libre et démocratique du Moyen-Orient, dénonciation des manipulations d’une presse systématiquement partisane …

A l’heure où un nouvel attentat terroriste en plein coeur de la capitale française …

Confirme à la fois l’intuition trumpienne et l’efficacité israélienne

Mais aussi la mauvaise foi de nos médias se plaignant en fait que le décret Trump ne va pas assez loin …

Alors qu’après les faux dossiers des services secrets, la taille comparée des foules d’investiture présidentielle ou la bataille des bustes du Bureau ovale …

Ces derniers en sont quasiment, comme pour précédemment avec le président Bush, à l’appel à l’assassinat politique

Comment ne pas voir avec l’historien américain Victor Davis Hanson …

Et derrière la flamboyance et les mauvaises manières du tribun Trump …

La véritable radicalité de l’Administration Obama …

Et partant la normalité proprement révolutionnaire de son successeur ?

When Normalcy Is Revolution

Trump’s often unorthodox style shouldn’t be confused with his otherwise practical and mostly centrist agenda.

Victor Davis Hanson

National Review

February 2, 2017

By 2008, America was politically split nearly 50/50 as it had been in 2000 and 2004. The Democrats took a gamble and nominated Barack Obama, who became the first young, Northern, liberal president since John F. Kennedy narrowly won in 1960.

Democrats had believed that the unique racial heritage, youth, and rhetorical skills of Obama would help him avoid the fate of previous failed Northern liberal candidates Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. Given 21st-century demography, Democrats rejected the conventional wisdom that only a conservative Democrat with a Southern accent could win the popular vote (e.g., Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore).

Moreover, Obama mostly ran on pretty normal Democratic policies rather than a hard-left agenda. His platform included opposition to gay marriage, promises to balance the budget, and a bipartisan foreign policy.

Instead, what followed was a veritable “hope and change” revolution not seen since the 1930s. Obama pursued a staunchly progressive agenda — one that went well beyond the relatively centrist policies upon which he had campaigned. The media cheered and signed on.

Soon, the border effectively was left open. Pen-and-phone executive orders offered immigrant amnesties. The Senate was bypassed on a treaty with Iran and an intervention in Libya.

Political correctness under the Obama administration led to euphemisms that no longer reflected reality.

Poorly conceived reset policy with Russia and a pivot to Asia both failed. The Middle East was aflame.

The Iran deal was sold through an echo chamber of deliberate misrepresentations.

The national debt nearly doubled during Obama’s two terms. Overregulation, higher taxes, near-zero interest rates, and the scapegoating of big businesses slowed economic recovery. Economic growth never reached 3 percent in any year of the Obama presidency — the first time that had happened since Herbert Hoover’s presidency.

A revolutionary federal absorption of health care failed to fulfill Obama’s promises and soon proved unviable.

Culturally, the iconic symbols of the Obama revolution were the “you didn’t build that” approach to businesses and an assumption that race/class/gender would forever drive American politics, favorably so for the Democrats.

Then, Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat and the election of outsider Donald Trump sealed the fate of the Obama Revolution.

For all the hysteria over the bluntness of the mercurial Trump, his agenda marks a return to what used to be seen as fairly normal, as the U.S. goes from hard left back to the populist center.

Trump promises not just to reverse almost immediately all of Obama’s policies, but to do so in a pragmatic fashion that does not seem to be guided by any orthodox or consistently conservative ideology.

Trade deals and jobs are Trump’s obsessions — mostly for the benefit of blue-collar America.

He calls for full-bore gas and oil development, a common culture in lieu of identity politics, secure borders, deregulation, tax reform, a Jacksonian foreign policy, nationalist trade deals in places of globalization, and traditionalist values.

In normal times, Trumpism — again, the agenda as opposed to Trump the person — might be old hat. But after the last eight years, his correction has enraged millions.

Yet securing national borders seems pretty orthodox. In an age of anti-Western terrorism, placing temporary holds on would-be immigrants from war-torn zones until they can be vetted is hardly radical. Expecting “sanctuary cities” to follow federal laws rather than embrace the nullification strategies of the secessionist Old Confederacy is a return to the laws of the Constitution.

Using the term “radical Islamic terror” in place of “workplace violence” or “man-caused disasters” is sensible, not subversive.

Insisting that NATO members meet their long-ignored defense-spending obligations is not provocative but overdue. Assuming that both the European Union and the United Nations are imploding is empirical, not unhinged.

Questioning the secret side agreements of the Iran deal or failed Russian reset is facing reality. Making the Environmental Protection Agency follow laws rather than make laws is the way it always was supposed to be.

Unapologetically siding with Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East, used to be standard U.S. policy until Obama was elected.

Issuing executive orders has not been seen as revolutionary for the past few years — until now.

Expecting the media to report the news rather than massage it to fit progressive agendas makes sense. In the past, proclaiming Obama a “sort of god” or the smartest man ever to enter the presidency was not normal journalistic practice.

Freezing federal hiring, clamping down on lobbyists, and auditing big bureaucracies — after the Obama-era IRS, VA, GSA, EPA, State Department, and Secret Service scandals — are overdue. Half the country is having a hard time adjusting to Trumpism, confusing Trump’s often unorthodox and grating style with his otherwise practical and mostly centrist agenda.
In sum, Trump seems a revolutionary, but that is only because he is loudly undoing a revolution.

Voir aussi:

Our Game of Thrones
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
January 31, 2017
The Trump administration’s flurry of reversing the earlier flurry of Obama executive orders and the Left’s hysterical response is proving a sort of strategic Game of Thrones.
Trump’s opponents believe that they are bleeding him from a thousand nicks. Without the requisite political clout, their ultimate goal is to drive crazy uncomfortable Republican establishmentarians and force them into a fetal position where they beg for it all to just go away, turning on their own first rather than their adversaries. Or they wish to create such universal chaos that bend-with-the-wind federal judges go with the flow and start issuing endless injunctions in a way they rarely did with Obama’s executive orders.
The model is Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the summer of 2006, when the furious rhetoric almost made and in one case did make presidential governance impossible. Given the current role of a biased media (it acted quite differently during the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, the flagrant lying about its impact, and the imploding AFC website), they hope to so increase the temperature that everyone melts down, with the goal of the in-power people liquefying first. They assume their blanket obstructionism will not suffer the public-relations boomerang that damaged the Republicans during shutdowns of the Clinton administration and slowdowns to stop Obama, given the media megaphone broadcasting their cause.
*** In contrast, the Trump people may believe that the Left is becoming so unhinged that their inflated rhetoric has lost all credibility and eventually becomes counter-productive. In Napoleonic terms by attacking everything, the Left is attacking nothing. Second, by raising the stakes, they bring out of the woodwork the true malevolence of the Left such as the adolescent boycott of the inauguration by many in the Congress, the unprofessionalism of the media typified by the Martin Luther King bust fiasco or Michael Cohen’s nonexistent Prague meetings, the unhinged behavior of the acting attorney general, the repulsive rhetoric of a Madonna or Ashley Judd, and the creepy talk of journalists abroad of assassination. In that sense, the executive orders are pheromones that draw out and expose unattractive predators.
*** Where does this stand-off lead and how does it end? Who knows, but the Trump people, in strategic terms, need in advance to configure the third- and fourth-order effects of their executive orders to ensure: that they are seen as reactive to preexisting extremism (e.g., sanctuary-city policies are subversive and reactionary Confederate/states’-rights acts that lead to George Wallace–like nihilism), that they are seen as refining prior presidential precedents (e.g., Obama gave them the example of temporary suspending visas to Middle Easterners and identifying particular countries that posed increased risks), that they are anticipating criticism (e.g., they might have exempted green-card holders and helpers of the U.S. military abroad from their temporary halt in immigration from areas of the Middle East), that they are putting the onus on their opponents (e.g., placing temporary and small — and therefore likely to be paid rather than circumvented — duties on remittances instead of a trade tariff-like fee would remind the American taxpayer that he should not, even indirectly, have to pay for building the wall, and reassure Mexico the U.S. is not leveling fees on those Mexican citizens who did not come into the United States illegally, given at present U.S. social services often subsidize the freeing-up of cash for remittances, a great majority of which come from those residing in the U.S. illegally),
And, finally, that their policies are understood as focused and sober (e.g., the travel ban affects a minuscule number of would-be entrants in an otherwise generous policy of accepting up to 50,000 newcomers; the wall is normal practice in much of the world (Israel, the Gulf States, increasingly in Europe), and we are trying not to react in kind to Mexico, given that Mexico’s own immigration practices, both in terms of punishment and questions of race and ethnicity, are in some sense racist and draconian). The loser, as in all strategic collisions, is he who more slowly misreads constantly shifting public opinion and is more guided by ideological zeal rather than empiricism and so doubles down on rather than modifies a failing strategy.

The best indices of who seems to be getting the upper-hand are of course polls on particular issues and on Trump’s favorability — and the unity or lack of among congressional Republicans.

Voir encore:

The Democrat Patient
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review

January 31, 2017

Ignoring the symptoms, misdiagnosing the malady, skipping the treatment

If progressives were to become empiricists, they would look at the symptoms of the last election and come up with disinterested diagnoses, therapies, and prognoses.

Although their hard-left candidate won the popular vote, even that benchmark was somewhat deceiving — given the outlier role of California and the overwhelming odds in their favor. The Republicans ran a candidate who caused a veritable civil war in their ranks and who was condemned by many of the flagship conservative media outlets. Trump essentially ran against a united Democratic party, the Republican establishment, the mainstream media (both liberal and conservative) — and won.

He was outspent. He was out-organized. He was outpolled and demonized daily as much by Republicans as Democrats. Yet he not only destroyed three political dynasties (the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas) but also has seemingly rendered the Obama election matrix nontransferable to anyone other than Obama himself.

Not that Hillary did not try to copy Obama’s formula. She brought on Obama politicos to staff her campaign. She supported all the Obama initiatives, from Obamacare and record debt to a collapsed foreign policy. She spoke in a faux-inner city accent the same way Obama had to get out the African-American vote. She outdid Obama’s clinger speech by her own twist of “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” She returned to her own hard-left phase of the 1990s. Yet she was trounced in the electoral college and saw the fabled “blue wall” crumble.

DIAGNOSIS
Any reasonable post-election autopsy for a party would identify certain inconvenient truths.

1) The African-American vote is vital to the Democratic party, but it is dubious to suppose that blacks will register, turn out, and vote in a bloc (as they did in 2008 and 2012) for a Democratic candidate other than Barack Obama. The very efforts to ensure that 95 percent of blacks will vote for other Democratic nominees might only polarize other groups in an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic America. Trump, of course, knows all this and will make the necessary adjustments.

2) Asians and Hispanics are less a monolithic voting bloc. Supposedly discredited melting-pot assimilation, integration, and intermarriage are still the norm and can temper tribal solidarities and peel away from Democrats a third of their assumed constituents — in an electoral landscape where there is already only a thin margin of error, given that Democrats have written off the white working classes. In the case of Latinos, red states such as Texas and Arizona are unlikely to be flipped soon by Latino bloc voting, especially if Trump closes down the border and ends illegal immigration as a demographic electoral tool of the Democratic party. And Latino electoral-college strength is dissipated in states that are likely to be blue anyway (California, Nevada, New Mexico).

3) The race/class/gender agenda so favored by coastal elites and promulgated by media, Hollywood, and popular culture is an anathema to Middle America, especially its strange disconnect between affluence and the mandate for purportedly progressive equality. Moralistic lectures from wealthy people are not a way to win over the working classes. Rants by Hollywood celebrities and racialist sermons by would-be DNC chairs will not win over 51 percent of the voters in swing states. The twin agents of progressive dogma, the media and the university, are themselves under financial duress, must recalibrate, and have lost support from half the country.

4) Fairly or not, the entire environmental movement, as represented by Al Gore’s campaign against global warming, has become elitist and often hypocritical, and is evident in the lifestyles of wealthy utopians who have the capital and influence to navigate around the irritating results of their nostrums. Building Keystone is a better issue than the Paris Climate Change protocols. There is little support for Bay Area environmentalism among blue-collar building trades and unions — largely because radical climate change is now a religion and skeptics are hounded as heretics.

5) For the foreseeable future, the blue wall of the Midwest seems more vulnerable than the red wall in the South. The small towns and cities in swing states are as electorally powerful as the large, blue cities.

6) What the media and Democrats see as Trump’s outrageous extremism now looks, to more than half the country, like a tardy return to normalcy: employing the words “radical Islamic terror,” or asking cities to follow federal law rather than go full Confederate, or deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes, or building a wall to stop easy illegal entry across the U.S. border, or putting a temporary hold on unvetted refugees from war-torn states in the Middle East. In the eyes of many Middle Americans, all these measures, even if sometimes hastily and sloppily embraced, are not acts of revolution; they are common-sense corrections of what were themselves extremist acts, or they are simply continuances of presidential executive-order power as enshrined by Obama and sanctified by the media.

TREATMENT
As a result, one might have thought that Democrats would look in 2017 to bread-and-butter economic issues and try to find candidates who are 21st-century updates of Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman, or perhaps populist minority nominees or a younger version of Joe Biden. Or is it even worse? The Democratic party of 2017 is nothing like the party of 2008, when Hillary Clinton in the primaries ran as a guns-rights Annie Oakley, with a boilermaker in one hand and a bowling ball in the other, and Barack Obama kept assuring the nation that gay marriage was contrary to his religious principles.

Instead of seeing Barack Obama (both his successful two elections and his failed two terms) as the wave of the future, Democrats would be wise to reassess his electoral legacy as a unique phenomenon. In truth, Obama’s legacy is twofold: He took the party hard left, and he downsized it to a minority party of the two coasts and big cities. And then he faded off into the sunset to a multimillionaire retirement of golf and homilies.

The progressive movement, the Democratic party and its cultural appendages in entertainment and the media seem to be doubling down on a failed electoral strategy. Instead, they all hope that either Donald Trump will crack and spontaneously implode after some new sort of Access Hollywood disclosure, or that their own unrelenting invective will eventually grind him down, as it did with Richard Nixon.

Consider a potpourri of left-wing reactions to Trump. Would-be Democratic National Committee chairwoman Sally Boynton Brown pontificated: “I’m a white woman. I don’t get it. . . . My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.” Ashley Judd gave an incoherent rant at the Inauguration Day protest marches. In reading a bizarre poem, she variously compared Trump to Hitler, alleged that he had incestuous desires for his own daughter. and then indulged in rank vulgarity.

Another Hillary Clinton bedrock supporter, Madonna, told the assembled thousands, “I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

Secret Service agent and loud Hillary Clinton supporter Kerry O’Grady wrote on her Facebook page that she would “take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be a disaster to this the country.” Making her presidential preference clear, she ended her post with “I am with Her.”

BuzzFeed’s rumor mongering about Trump did not meet National Enquirer standards. Time magazine’s Zeke Miller decided, on no evidence whatsoever, that Trump had suddenly removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. Miller reported the scoop as breaking news — after all, it would confirm Trump’s alleged racism — before retracting the story.

None of these reactions will convince those in the swing states that they erred in voting for Donald Trump.

PROGNOSIS

In sum, the architects of Democratic-party reform are themselves the problem, not the solution. On key issues, they represent a minority opinion, one confined to the entertainment industry, academia, race/class/gender elite activists, and the wealthy scions of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In addition, minority activists themselves do not get out in the heartland and mistakenly believe that the demeanor, mindset, and, yes, guilt of white urban liberal elites in their midst characterize the white working and middle classes in general. And they mistakenly assume they themselves cannot be out-of-touch elites, given their ethnic and racial heritage, when in fact many most certainly are. Do Eric Holder and Colin Kaepernick know more about poverty and hardship than a West Virginian miner or an out-of-work fabricator in southern Ohio? Does an affluent Van Jones visit depressed rural Michigan to lecture out-of-work plant workers and welders about their endemic white privilege?

The current Democratic reset plan certainly does not resemble the 1976 strategy of nominating a governor from the South in order to avoid another 1972 McGovern catastrophe; nor does it share the 1992 wisdom of nominating Bill Clinton to fend off a second Dukakis disaster.

For now, the Democratic-party strategists are doubling down on boutique environmentalism and race/gender victimhood, while hoping that Donald Trump implodes in scandal, war, or depression. They are clueless that their present rabid frenzy is doing as much political damage to their cause as is the object of their outrage.

Voir encore:

Mourad B. était très gentil : il a juste tué son docteur de 48 coups de couteau

Paul Le Poulpe

Riposte laïque

3 février 2017

Notre pays a encore bénéficié, ces dernières heurs, des atouts de la diversité et de l’apport des disciples d’Allah.

Ce matin, à 10 heures, un musulman, armé d’une machette, a attaqué, près du Louvre, une patrouille de soldats, aux cris d’Allah akbar. Abdallah E-H, selon les premières informations, aurait 29 ans, serait égyptien, et travaillerait à Dubaï. Remarquons que si on appliquait le décret Trump en France, en l’élargissant, sans doute ce sympathique touriste n’aurait-il jamais mis les pieds en France, ni n’aurait blessé un militaire avec sa machette. Francis Gruzelle, de manière très réactive, nous avait résumé l’événement.

http://ripostelaique.com/louvre-face-a-une-attaque-djihadiste-nos-militaires-ripostent-enfin-a-lisraelienne.html

Quelques heures avant, à Nogent-le-Rotrou, le docteur Rousseaux n’a pas eu la chance des militaires. Ce médecin de 64 ans, apprécié par l’ensemble de ses patients, a été sauvagement assassiné dans son cabinet par un homme de 42 ans, Mourad B. On ne sait pas pourquoi on n’a pas le droit d’avoir son nom de famille. Les conditions du meurtre sont abominables. 48 coups de couteau, rien de moins, sur l’ensemble du corps et au visage. Donc probablement à la gorge…

Qui est donc ce Mourad B ? Comme toujours quand l’assassin est musulman, personne ne comprend. Il était le plus gentil du quartier. Il causait avec tout le monde. Il faisait du vélo. Il interpellait tout le temps tout le monde, et il était jovial. Ah ! Petit détail, il avait viré d’un emploi de voisinage pour vol. Mais on ne va pas salir une image aussi séduisante du musulman modéré, de l’homme de paix, de la chance pour la France. Bref, comme d’habitude, personne ne comprend.

Donc, il va avoir eu une crise de « déséquilibré », et on s’attend à entendre le procureur Tarrare du coin nous faire le coup d’une crise inexplicable, même si l’individu, arrêté aux Mureaux, a agressé le personnel soignant à Limay.

En attendant, ce fait divers, que les autorités vont tout faire pour occulter, et nous raconter qu’il n’a rien à voir avec l’islam, pose un ensemble de questions politiques que nous n’allons pas occulter.

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/medecin-de-l-eure-et-loir-tue-de-48-coups-de-couteau-un-patient-en-garde-a-vue-03-02-2017-6650613.php#xtor=AD-1481423553

Nous avons en France dix millions de musulmans. Si un Mourad B, ou bien un Abdallah E-H, qui ne sont pas recensés par les autorités françaises comme particulièrement dangereux, peuvent massacrer un paisible médecin pour l’un, et attaquer à la machette des militaires pour l’autre, faut-il d’abord continuer à faire entrer des musulmans en France, ou bien leur fermer la frontière ? Donald Trump a partiellement répondu à la question, en interdisant, pour trois mois, l’entrée de son pays à sept nationalités.

Toute la caste politico-médiatique pleurniche, mais la cote du nouveau président des Etats-Unis n’a jamais été aussi haute.

Supposons que Marine Le Pen ou Nicolas Dupont-Aignan annoncent qu’ils arrêteront les visas des pays musulmans, Algérie, Tunisie et Maroc d’abord, quelles seraient les réactions en France ? Je leur pronostique un bond spectaculaire dans les sondages.

Au-delà de cela, peut-on garder en France des gens qui se réclament musulmans, dont adeptes de l’islam ? Notre ami Maxime Lepante, pour avoir affirmé le contraire, est victime de deux plaintes du Parquet de Paris.

http://ripostelaique.com/eviter-genocide-faut-expulser-musulmans.html

http://ripostelaique.com/attentat-a-hache-train-allemand-musulmans.html

Et celui-ci, faisant d’une pierre deux coups, entend faire assumer la responsabilité de ces propos à Pierre Cassen, puisque, de manière obsessionnelle, des juges ont décidé que notre fondateur était toujours le vrai directeur de publication de Riposte Laïque. Ils vont même jusqu’à contredire des décisions de justice pour prouver cela, c’est dire pour eux l’importance de faire tomber notre fondateur.

Qu’est qu’un musulman ? C’est quelqu’un qui se réclame de l’islam. Qu’est-ce que l’islam ? C’est un dogme qui demande à ses disciples de tuer tous les mécréants, et de conquérir l’ensemble du monde. D’où parfois, et même souvent, dans leur comportement, quelques marques de « déséquilibres » comme l’explique si bien la psychiatre Wafa Sultan. Car enfin, ces agressions sauvages au couteau ne reviennent-elles pas trop souvent, de manière répétitive, pour qu’enfin des politiques commencent à se poser les bonnes questions… et surtout à amener les bonnes solutions pour protéger les Français.

Précisons que le fait d’être né musulman n’implique pas, fort heureusement, l’obligation de demeurer dans l’islam, et que nombre d’esprits libres (pas assez) parviennent à s’en émanciper, totalement ou partiellement. Mais dans ce cas, ils ne sont plus musulmans.

Conclusion : avoir écrit, comme Maxime, qu’il faut expulser tous les musulmans, est-ce une incitation à la haine, ou le plus élémentaire principe de précaution ?

En tout cas, si on avait suivi à la lettre les écrits de Maxime, le docteur Rousseaux serait encore vivant, et n’aurait pas connu de terribles derniers moments, à 64 ans, poignardé à 48 reprises dans les souffrances que l’on devine (combien de temps avant de mourir ?), avec la douleur de ses proches qu’on imagine.

Mais avec les gouvernants que nous avons, la seule question est : dans combien de temps Mourad B. sera-t-il remis en liberté, comme l’ont été le chauffard de Dijon et tant d’autres psychopathes musulmans « déséquilibrés » ?

Voir de plus:

Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

The directive to cut off non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror is still current law on the books [8 U.S. Code § 1735]. Presidents Bush and Obama later used their discretion to waive the ban, but Trump is actually following the letter of the law — the very law sponsored and passed by Democrats — more closely than Obama did. Trump used his 212(f) authority to add immigrant visas, but that doesn’t take away the fact that every Democrat in the 2002 Senate supported the banning of non-immigrant visas.

Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days!

At present, only three of the countries —  Sudan, Syria, and Iran —  are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens.

Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days!

Sixteen sitting Democrats, including their Minority Leader, voted for the 2002 bill [several of them were in the House at the time]:

In addition, such prominent Democrats as former Vice President Biden, former Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Kerry, and former Majority Leader Reid vote voted for the bill.

In the House, 57 sitting Democrats voted for the 2002 bill, including leadership members, such as Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (F, 10%), Steny Hoyer, D-M.D. (F, 8%), and James Clyburn, D-S.C. (F, 8%).

If anything, the need to ratchet down immigration and visas from the Middle East is even more important now than after 9/11.

Dianne Feinstein has now introduced a bill to overturn Trump’s executive order, but her bill would also overturn, in part, the law on the books she herself sponsored and supported in 2002. In addition, a number of Republicans who are whining about the order, such as John McCain, R-Ariz. (F, 32%), voted for the 2002 bill.

The 2002 bill also established a program to monitor foreign students in the U.S. As part of that program, the Bush administration created the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which required visa recipients from countries that represented a security risk (at least 25 countries fell into that category) to register with an ICE office and report regularly about their plans. Unfortunately, Obama’s DHS abolished the program in May 2011. Now, there are twice as many foreign students in the United States, including well over 150,000 from the very countries originally monitored by the Bush administration’s program.

If anything, the need to ratchet down immigration and visas from the Middle East is even more important now than after 9/11. Back then we were concerned with Al Qaeda-style, command-and-control attacks whereby professional operators infiltrate our country in order to commit a large-scale terror attack. Theoretically, strong intelligence can preempt these attacks. What we are dealing with today is a ubiquitous threat of homegrown terror from years’ worth of irresponsible immigration policies, in conjunction with cyber jihad.  Any number of people from these countries who subscribe to Sharia can do us harm with smaller attacks that cannot be picked up by the intelligence community.

Yet, many Republicans are now to the left of even where Democrats were just 15 years ago. As for Democrats, any shred of intellectual honesty and concern for American security has been compromised to serve their ultimate goal of creating a permanent voting bloc at any and all costs.

Voir enfin:

Terrorisme : « L’opération Sentinelle est un trompe-l’œil »

Pointée du doigt par la commission d’enquête parlementaire, l’opération de déploiement militaire a montré ses limites lors des attentats. L’historienne Bénédicte Chéron dénonce son inefficacité.
L’Obs

06 juillet 2016

Créée au lendemain des attentats de janvier 2015, l’opération Sentinelle vise à déployer massivement des militaires sur le sol français pour prévenir les actes de terrorisme. La commission d’enquête parlementaire sur les attentats de 2015 en France, dite commission Fenech, a pointé dans son rapport, rendu public mardi 5 juillet, l’inefficacité de ce dispositif dans le cadre des attentats du 13 novembre.

« Les policiers de la BAC, arrivés les premiers, voulaient au moins que les militaires de l’opération Sentinelle, arrivés sur place, leur prêtent leurs fusils d’assaut Famas, puisque les militaires n’avaient pas le droit de tirer. Et ils ont essuyé un refus ! » fulmine le député Les républicains Georges Fenech, président de la commission d’enquête.

L’opération Sentinelle est-elle une coquille vide ou a-t-elle un rôle à jouer dans la lutte contre le terrorisme en France ? Pour l’historienne Bénédicte Chéron, chercheuse à l’Irice (Identités, Relations internationales et civilisations de l’Europe) – Paris-Sorbonne, ces troupes peuvent « jouer un rôle préventif » mais doivent « être repensées » en vue d’intégrer « davantage de souplesse ».

En quoi consiste l’opération Sentinelle ?

– L’opération Sentinelle a mis en place d’importants moyens humains depuis janvier 2015 pour lutter contre le terrorisme. L’armée participait certes déjà au plan Vigipirate depuis 25 ans mais il ne s’agissait pas d’une opération à part entière. Avec Sentinelle, 10.000 soldats sont déployés dans toute la France. Leur mission, sous l’autorité du ministère de l’Intérieur, est d’assurer une présence continue sur le territoire, en particulier aux abords des lieux sensibles : lieux de culte, sites touristiques, zones d’événements sportifs…

Pourquoi ce dispositif est-il jugé inefficace par la commission Fenech ?

– Les attentats du 13 novembre n’ont pu être évités malgré l’existence de cette opération. La portée dissuasive de l’opération Sentinelle n’était pas à la hauteur des attentes, puisque des militaires se trouvaient non loin du Bataclan et des terrasses et n’ont rien pu faire [à lire à ce sujet : l’enquête de « l’Obs »].

Pourquoi ces patrouilles n’ont-elles pas pu intervenir ?

– Elles souhaitaient engager le feu mais on leur a donné l’ordre de ne pas faire usage de leurs armes. L’action des militaires est extrêmement réduite et leur chaîne de commandement est très complexe.

Faut-il en conclure que l’opération Sentinelle est inutile ?

– Rien ne prouve aujourd’hui que la présence d’une patrouille Sentinelle a permis d’éviter un attentat. Il y a bien eu au départ un rôle psychologique : voir des militaires en kaki partout, dans les rues, dans les transports, rassure la population car la menace est bien réelle.

93% des Français font confiance à l’armée pour lutter contre le terrorisme, tandis que l’antimilitarisme n’est que résiduel en France : il tourne autour de 10%. Mais on peut aussi ajouter qu’en décembre 2015, si 70% des Français approuvaient l’opération Sentinelle, ils n’étaient que 50% à la juger efficace, selon un sondage Ifop pour le ministère de la Défense.

Il y a également une part importante de communication politique. Les militaires bénéficient d’une bonne image dans l’opinion publique, le gouvernement joue donc cette carte.

L’opération Sentinelle fonctionne en réalité selon le principe du trompe-l’œil : elle diffuse une image de puissance dans les rues mais on ne peut que constater son impuissance effective.

N’y a-t-il pas néanmoins des situations au cours desquelles ces patrouilles se sont illustrées ?

– Les militaires de Sentinelle ne sont en tout cas pas mis en avant dans le cadre de ce qui devrait être le coeur de leur action : la lutte contre le terrorisme. Un militaire, c’est fait pour faire la guerre. Les militaires de Sentinelle endossent davantage le rôle d’auxiliaires de police de proximité. par leurs présence dans les transports et dans les rues.

Une étude réalisée par Elie Tenenbaum, chercheur à l’Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri), souligne que les patrouilles Sentinelle d’Ile-de-France ont été victimes de 1.300 « actions contre la force » entre janvier et septembre 2015, dont 70% d’actes malveillants. Parmi les auteurs de ces violences, certains étaient peut-être des fanatiques, mais ça, rien ne permet de l’affirmer…Et il est évidemment compliqué de faire le tri parmi les personnes qui ont commis ces actes.

Cette mobilisation de tous les instants est usante pour les soldats…

– Comme l’a récemment rappelé le général Sainte-Claire Deville, commandant des forces terrestres, avant 2015, les militaires passaient 5% de leur temps en opération intérieure (principalement dans le cadre du plan Vigipirate) et 15% en opération extérieure. Le reste du temps, ils s’entrainaient et se reposaient. Depuis le début de Sentinelle, ils sont mobilisés 50% de leur temps en opération intérieure et 15% en opération intérieure. Leurs temps de repos et de formation sont donc considérablement entamés. Des troupes fatiguées et peu entraînées sont sans aucun doute bien moins efficaces.

Comment expliquer que les militaires soient autant sollicités ?

– C’est d’abord une question pratique et économique. Les militaires sont rapidement mobilisables, efficaces, fiables. Si l’on raisonne à court terme il est également moins onéreux de les utiliser massivement que de recruter et mobiliser à niveau équivalent les forces de l’ordre.

Faut-il supprimer ce dispositif ou peut-on l’améliorer ?

– De plus en plus de spécialistes, comme Michel Goya [spécialiste des armées, NDLR], plaident pour sa suppression ou, tout du moins, pour un réaménagement drastique, qui permettrait de mobiliser un nombre beaucoup plus faible de militaires, dans des dispositifs plus souples et moins statiques. Mais l’opération Sentinelle ne peut de toute façon pas être pensée isolément : la question de la lutte contre le terrorisme est surtout celle des services de renseignement et de police.

Propos recueillis par Maïté Hellio, le 5  juillet 2016

Voir par ailleurs:

Obama Era Precedents Haunt Media
Noah Rothman
Commentary
Jan. 25, 2017

As John Podhoretz wrote, these are days of promise and opportunity for America’s political media professionals. So far, they’re squandering their shot. By indulging in ill-considered hysteria and posturing before like-minded colleagues, they sacrifice the credibility they’ll need to expose President Donald Trump’s mendacities. To repair some of the strained bonds between audience and journalist, media professionals must display some restraint when reacting to the latest alleged assault on freedom and decency. That is most easily achieved by recognizing that many of the unprecedented developments of the Trump era aren’t unprecedented at all.

On Tuesday evening, the President of the United States applauded the Fox News Channel “for being number one in inauguration ratings.” In issuing this congratulatory note, he also attacked CNN for being “fake news.” A predictable series of horrified and disappointed reactions from media professionals followed. Notable among them was that of CNN media reporter Dylan Byers: “The President of the United States wants you to watch one news organization and not another…” While Trump’s behavior hardly befits an American president, he is also crudely mirroring the Obama administration, which spent its first year in office seeking to discredit Fox News as a respectable media outlet.

The Obama administration was calling Fox “fake news” before “fake news” was a phenomenon. In October of 2009, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that Fox was “not a news organization.” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn echoed Emanuel, saying that Fox “operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.” “When we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion,” said senior advisor to the president, Valerie Jarrett, when asked to defend the White House’s campaign against Fox.

Obama was still prosecuting the case against Fox nearly a year after the White House and the cable news network supposedly buried the hatchet. Just days before the 2010 midterm elections, Obama told Rolling Stone that Fox was cast in the mold of Hearst-era yellow journalism, and it pushes a point of view. “It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country,” Obama said.

When the administration allegedly tried to exclude Fox in a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg in 2009, it inspired other networks to rally to Fox’s side. They did so not only out of professional courtesy but fear the future such a precedent might yield.

Fox News was not discredited by the president’s efforts. Arguably, the campaign had the opposite of its intended effect. There is a cautionary tale here for those cheering on Trump’s attacks on the press, but also one for media professionals who seem to have forgotten the last decade.

This isn’t the only recent development that has sent reporters into paroxysms of trepidation over this sacrifice of presidential dignity. Indicative of this administration’s obsessive fixation with its media coverage, the White House press office released on Wednesday a press release summing up the positive coverage it has received.

“Don’t recall ever seeing a WH do this,” remarked Huffington Post White House reporter Christina Wilkie. “Some might call it Propaganda,” NBC News’ Katy Tur averred. “I didn’t totally expect the 1984-esque dystopian future to be so soon, but life comes at ya fast,” snarked the Center for American Progress’s economist Katie Bahn. But this, too, is not an unparalleled abuse of the public trust; at least, not for those who remember how the Obama administration sold the public on the Iran nuclear accords in 2015.

The Obama administration’s “blog” content (now maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration), which includes former Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s “Regional Roundup: What America’s Newspapers are Saying About the Iran Deal.” The blog consisted entirely of favorable headlines from around the country reciting verbatim (and false) administration claims about the nuclear accord. “The Iran Deal” even had its own Twitter account which disseminated not only favorable press mentions but also crafted insipid pop culture memes to get the millennial generation jazzed about nuclear non-proliferation. Imagine the anxiety among journalists when the Trump White House mirrors this tactic.

John Podhoretz’s admonition is particularly relevant because so many of these Obama-era precedents did not get the left’s “creeping fascism” sense tingling at the time. To rend garments over these actions now only because the Trump White House is undertaking them is not just unwise; it’s insulting.


Réfugiés: Attention, une préférence peut en cacher une autre (Refugee madness: Our tradition has never been an unlimited open-door policy)

29 janvier, 2017
byanymeans

open-borders

christians_muslims_convert_die_syria_1
syrian_refugee_graph
no-jews mecca-muslims-only-road-signNous déclarons notre droit sur cette terre, à être des êtres humains, à être respectés en tant qu’êtres humains, à accéder aux droits des êtres humains dans cette société, sur cette terre, en ce jour, et nous comptons le mettre en œuvre par tous les moyens nécessaires. Malcom X (1964)
Ce n’est pas en refusant de mentir que nous abolirons le mensonge : c’est en usant de tous les moyens pour supprimer les classes. (…) Tous les moyens sont bons lorsqu’ils sont efficaces. Jean-Paul Sartre (les mains sales, II, 5, 1963)
L’avenir ne doit pas appartenir à ceux qui calomnient le prophète de l’Islam. Barack Obama (siège de l’ONU, New York, 26.09.12)
Ils ont été horriblement traités. Savez-vous que si vous étiez chrétien en Syrie, il était impossible, ou du moins très difficile d’entrer aux États-Unis ? Si vous étiez un musulman, vous pouviez entrer, mais si vous étiez chrétien, c’était presque impossible et la raison était si injuste, tout le monde était persécuté… Ils ont coupé les têtes de tout le monde, mais plus encore des chrétiens. Et je pensais que c’était très, très injuste. Nous allons donc les aider. Donald Trump
L’amour du prochain est une valeur chrétienne et cela implique de venir en aide aux autres. Je crois que c’est ce qui unit les pays occidentaux. Sigmar Gabriel (ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères)
Obama, franchement il fait partie des gens qui détestent l’Amérique. Il a servi son idéologie mais pas l’Amérique. Je remets en cause son patriotisme et sa dévotion à l’église qu’il fréquentait. Je pense qu’il était en désaccord avec lui-même sur beaucoup de choses. Je pense qu’il était plus musulman dans son cœur que chrétien. Il n’a pas voulu prononcer le terme d’islamisme radical, ça lui écorchait les lèvres. Je pense que dans son cœur, il est musulman, mais on en a terminé avec lui, Dieu merci. Evelyne Joslain
Christians are believed to have constituted about 30% of the Syrian population as recently as the 1920s. Today, they make up about 10% of Syria’s 22 million people. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been displaced by fighting or left the country. Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorios III Laham said last year that more than 1,000 Christians had been killed, entire villages cleared, and dozens of churches and Christian centres damaged or destroyed. Many fear that if President Assad is overthrown, Christians will be targeted and communities destroyed as many were in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003. They have also been concerned by the coming to power of Islamist parties in post-revolutionary Egypt and Tunisia. Patriarch Gregorios said the threat to Christianity in Syria had wider implications for the religion’s future in the Middle East because the country had for decades provided a refuge for Christians from neighbouring Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. BBC
The Orlando nightclub shooter, the worst mass-casualty gunman in US history, was the son of immigrants from Afghanistan. The San Bernardino shooters were first and second generation immigrants from Pakistan. Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, was the son of Palestinian immigrants. The Tsarnaev brothers who detonated bombs at the 2013 Boston marathon held Kyrgyz nationality. The would-be 2010 Times Square car bomber was a naturalized immigrant from Pakistan. The ringleader of the Paris attacks of November 2015, about which Donald Trump spoke so much on the campaign trail, was a Belgian national of Moroccan origins. President Trump’s version of a Muslim ban would have protected the United States from none of the above. (…) As ridiculous as was the former Obama position that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, the new Trump position that all Muslims are potential terrorists is vastly worse. What Trump has done is to divide and alienate potential allies—and push his opponents to embrace the silliest extremes of the #WelcomeRefugees point of view. By issuing his order on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Trump empowered his opponents to annex the victims of Nazi crimes to their own purposes. The Western world desperately needs a more hardheaded approach to the issue of refugees. It is bound by laws and treaties written after World War II that have been rendered utterly irrelevant by a planet on the move. Tens of millions of people seek to exit the troubled regions of Central America, the Middle East, West Africa, and South Asia for better opportunities in Europe and North America. The relatively small portion of that number who have reached the rich North since 2013 have already up-ended the politics of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. German chancellor Angela Merkel’s August 2015 order to fling open Germany’s doors is the proximate cause of the de-democratization of Poland since September 2015, of the rise of Marine LePen in France, of the surge in support for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and—I would argue—of Britain’s vote to depart the European Union. The surge of border crossers from Central America into the United States in 2014, and Barack Obama’s executive amnesties, likewise strengthened Donald Trump. (…) without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order. (…) When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do. This weekend’s shameful chapter in the history of the United States is a reproach not only to Trump, although it is that too, but to the political culture that enabled him. Angela Merkel and Donald Trump may be temperamental opposites. They are also functional allies. David Frum
Trump isn’t making this up; Obama-administration policy effectively discriminated against persecuted religious-minority Christians from Syria (even while explicitly admitting that ISIS was pursuing a policy of genocide against Syrian Christians), and the response from most of Trump’s liberal critics has been silence (…) Liberals are normally the first people to argue that American policy should give preferential treatment to groups that are oppressed and discriminated against, but because Christians are the dominant religious group here — and the bêtes noires of domestic liberals — there is little liberal interest in accommodating U.S. refugee policy to the reality on the ground in Syria. So long as Obama could outsource religious discrimination against Christian refugees to Jordan and the U.N., his supporters preferred the status quo to admitting that Trump might have a point. On the whole, 2016 was the first time in a decade when the United States let in more Muslim than Christian refugees, 38,901 overall, 75 percent of them from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq, all countries on Trump’s list — and all countries in which the United States has been actively engaged in drone strikes or ground combat over the past year. Obama had been planning to dramatically expand that number, to 110,000, in 2017 — only after he was safely out of office. This brings us to a broader point: The United States in general, and the Obama administration in particular, never had an open-borders policy for all refugees from everywhere, so overwrought rhetoric about Trump ripping down Lady Liberty’s promise means comparing him to an ideal state that never existed. In fact, the Obama administration completely stopped processing refugees from Iraq for six months in 2011 over concerns about terrorist infiltration, a step nearly identical to Trump’s current order, but one that was met with silence and indifference by most of Trump’s current critics. Only two weeks ago, Obama revoked a decades-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy of allowing entry to refugees from Cuba who made it to our shores. His move, intended to signal an easing of tensions with the brutal Communist dictatorship in Havana, has stranded scores of refugees in Mexico and Central America, and Mexico last Friday deported the first 91 of them to Cuba. This, too, has no claim on the conscience of Trump’s liberal critics. After all, Cuban Americans tend to vote Republican. Even more ridiculous and blinkered is the suggestion that there may be something unconstitutional about refusing entry to refugees or discriminating among them on religious or other bases (a reaction that was shared at first by some Republicans, including Mike Pence, when Trump’s plan was announced in December 2015). There are plenty of moral and political arguments on these points, but foreigners have no right under our Constitution to demand entry to the United States or to challenge any reason we might have to refuse them entry, even blatant religious discrimination. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress’s powers in this area are plenary, and the president’s powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him. If liberals are baffled as to why even the invocation of the historically problematic “America First” slogan by Trump is popular with almost two-thirds of the American public, they should look no further than people arguing that foreigners should be treated by the law as if they were American citizens with all the rights and protections we give Americans. Liberals are likewise on both unwise and unpopular ground in sneering at the idea that there might be an increased risk of radical Islamist terrorism resulting from large numbers of Muslims entering the country as refugees or asylees. There have been many such cases in Europe, ranging from terrorists (as in the Brussels attack) posing as refugees to the infiltration of radicals and the radicalization of new entrants. The 9/11 plotters, several of whom overstayed their visas in the U.S. after immigrating from the Middle East to Germany, are part of that picture as well. Here in the U.S., we have had a number of terror attacks carried out by foreign-born Muslims or their children. The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing were children of asylees; the Times Square bomber was a Pakistani immigrant; the underwear bomber was from Nigeria; the San Bernardino shooter was the son of Pakistani immigrants; the Chattanooga shooter was from Kuwait; the Fort Hood shooter was the son of Palestinian immigrants. All of this takes place against the backdrop of a global movement of radical Islamist terrorism that kills tens of thousands of people a year in terrorist attacks and injures or kidnaps tens of thousands more. There are plenty of reasons not to indict the entire innocent Muslim population, including those who come as refugees or asylees seeking to escape tyranny and radicalism, for the actions of a comparatively small percentage of radicals. But efforts to salami-slice the problem into something that looks like a minor or improbable outlier, or to compare this to past waves of immigrants, are an insult to the intelligence of the public. The tradeoffs from a more open-borders posture are real, and the reasons for wanting our screening process to be a demanding one are serious. Like it or not, there’s a war going on out there, and many of its foot soldiers are ideological radicals who wear no uniform and live among the people they end up attacking. If your only response to these issues is to cry “This is just xenophobia and bigotry,” you’re either not actually paying attention to the facts or engaging in the same sort of intellectual beggary that leads liberals to refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Andrew Cuomo declared this week, “If there is a move to deport immigrants, I say then start with me” — because his grandparents were immigrants. This is unserious and childish: President Obama deported over 2.5 million people in eight years in office, and I didn’t see Governor Cuomo getting on a boat back to Italy. (…) A more trenchant critique of Trump’s order is that he’s undercutting his own argument by how narrow the order is. Far from a “Muslim ban,” the order applies to only seven of the world’s 50 majority-Muslim countries. Three of those seven (Iran, Syria, and Sudan) are designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terror, but the history of terrorism by Islamist radicals over the past two decades — even state-sponsored terrorism – is dominated by people who are not from countries engaged in officially recognized state-sponsored terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi, and a significant number of other attacks have been planned or carried out by Egyptians, Pakistanis, and people from the various Gulf states. But a number of these countries have more significant business and political ties to the United States (and in some cases to the Trump Organization as well), so it’s more inconvenient to add them to the list. Simply put, there’s no reason to believe that the countries on the list are more likely to send us terrorists than the countries off the list. That said, the seven states selected do include most of the influx of refugees and do present particular logistical problems in vetting the backgrounds of refugees. If Trump’s goal is simply to beef up screening after a brief pause, he’s on firmer ground. (…) But our tradition has never been an unlimited open-door policy, and President Trump’s latest moves are not nearly such a dramatic departure from the Obama administration as Trump’s liberal critics (or even many of his fans) would have you believe. Dan McLaughlin
Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N. “The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.” “They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said. Fox news
Les États-Unis ont accepté 10 801 réfugiés syriens, dont 56 chrétiens. Pas 56 pour cent; 56 au total, sur 10 801. C’est-à-dire la moitié de 1 pour cent. Newsweek

Attention: une préférence peut en cacher une autre !

Alors qu’après l’accident industriel Obama qui a mis avec l’abandon de l’Irak le Moyen-Orient à feu et à sang …

Et sa version Merkel qui a déversé sur l’Europe, avec son lot d’attentats, une véritable invasion musulmane …

Sans compter après l’expulsion des juifs et leur interdiction d’accès dans nombre de pays musulmans, la menace de la disparition de son berceau historique de la totalité de la population chrétienne …

Nos belles âmes n’ont pas, entre deux appels plus ou moins subtils à l’assassinat du nouveau président américain, de mots assez durs …

Pour condamner – même s’il oublie étrangement les fourriers saoudiens et qataris ou pakistanais dudit terrorisme – le moratoire de trois mois de ce dernier …

Sur l’entrée des citoyens de sept pays particulièrement à risque (Syrie, Irak, Iran, Libye, Somalie, Soudan et Yemen) …

Et de quatre mois sur l’accueil de réfugiés de pays en guerre ainsi que la priorité aux réfugiés chrétiens de Syrie …

Devinez combien de chrétiens figuraient dans les quelque 10 000 réfugiés syriens que les Etats-Unis ont accueillis l’an dernier ?

Tollé international après le décret anti-réfugiés de Donald Trump
Les Echos
28/01 / 17

Au lendemain de la signature d’un décret interdisant l’entrée aux Etats-Unis pour les ressortissants de sept pays à majorité musulmane, la communauté internationale a fait part de son indignation.

Les réactions ne se sont pas faites attendre. Au lendemain de la signature d’un décret suspendant l’entrée aux Etats-Unis des réfugiés et des ressortissants de sept pays majoritairement musulmans, la communauté internationale n’a pas dissimulé son indignation.

A commencer par François Hollande qui a exhorté l’Europe à « engager avec fermeté » le dialogue avec le président américain. Le chef de l’Etat français a d’ailleurs fait cette déclaration quelques heures avant son premier entretien téléphonique avec son homologue américain.

Ce samedi soir, à l’occasion d’un appel prévu entre les deux présidents, Hollande en a profité pour rappeler à Trump que « le repli sur soi est une réponse sans issue », a rapporté l’Elysée. Il a par ailleurs invité le président américain au « respect » du principe de « l’accueil des réfugiés ».

L’Allemagne et la France sur la même ligne

Plus tôt dans la journée, les chefs de la diplomatie française et allemande ont aussi exprimé leur inquiétude. « Nous avons des engagements internationaux que nous avons signés. L’accueil des réfugiés qui fuient la guerre, qui fuient l’oppression, ça fait partie de nos devoirs », a martelé Jean-Marc Ayrault.

« L’amour du prochain est une valeur chrétienne et cela implique de venir en aide aux autres. Je crois que c’est ce qui unit les pays occidentaux », a renchérit Sigmar Gabriel, nommé ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères vendredi.

Côté Royaume-Uni, Theresa May a quant à elle refusé de condamner la décision de Donald Trump. « Les Etats-Unis sont responsables de la politique américaine sur les refugiés. Le Royaume-Uni est responsable de la politique britannique sur les réfugiés », a-t-elle répondu. « Nous ne sommes pas d’accord avec ce type d’approche », a néanmoins précisé un porte-parole, indiquant que le gouvernement britannique interviendrait si la mesure venait à avoir un impact sur les citoyens de son pays.

Réactions des principaux concernés

Concerné par le décret, l’Iran a vivement réagi ce samedi. La République islamique « prendra les mesures consulaires, juridiques et politiques appropriées », a expliqué le ministère des Affaires étrangères dans un communiqué, parlant d' »un affront fait ouvertement au monde musulman et à la nation iranienne ».

L’exécutif iranien a aussi déclaré que « tout en respectant le peuple américain et pour défendre les droits de ses citoyens », il a décidé « d’appliquer la réciprocité après la décision insultante des Etats-Unis concernant les ressortissants iraniens et tant que cette mesure n’aura pas été levée. »

Pour l’instant, les autres pays visés par ce décret, à savoir l’Irak, la Libye, la Somalie, le Soudan, la Syrie et le Yémen, n’ont pas réagi publiquement. En revanche, le Premier ministre turc a affirmé que la crise des réfugiés ne serait pas résolue « en érigeant des murs ». La Turquie est le premier pays à subir de plein fouet les conséquences de la guerre civile en Syrie et l’afflux de réfugiés.

Le Canada continuera d’accueillir des réfugiés « indépendamment de leur foi »

Sans commenter directement la décision américaine, le Premier ministre canadien Justin Trudeau a affirmé la volonté de son pays d’accueillir les réfugiés « indépendamment de leur foi ».

Répondant d’autre part à des inquiétudes sur l’impact du décret sur le Canada, le bureau du Premier ministre a affirmé tard dans la soirée avoir reçu des assurances de Washington que les Canadiens possédant la double nationalité des pays visés ne seraient pas affectés par l’interdiction.

Soutien israélien

Le président américain a en revanche été applaudi par le président tchèque Milos Zeman qui s’est félicité de que le président américain « protège son pays » et se soucie « de la sécurité de ses citoyens. Exactement ce que les élites européennes ne font pas », a tweeté son porte-parole.

De même pour le Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahu, qui a écrit sur son compte twitter : « Président Trump a raison. J’ai fait construire un mur aux frontières sud d’Israël. Ca a empêché l’immigration illégale. Un vrai succès. Une grande idée. »

Indignation aux Etats-Unis

Sur le sol américain, le décret intitulé « Protéger la nation contre l’entrée de terroristes étrangers aux Etats-Unis » a déjà fait déjà l’objet d’une plainte déposée par plusieurs associations de défense des droits civiques américaines, dont la puissante ACLU, qui veulent le bloquer.

L’opposition démocrate aux Etats-Unis a de son côté dénoncé un décret « cruel » qui sape « nos valeurs fondamentales et nos traditions, menace notre sécurité nationale et démontre une méconnaissance totale de notre strict processus de vérification, le plus minutieux du monde » selon les mots du sénateur démocrate Ben Cardin, membre de la commission des Affaires étrangères du Sénat.

Ces mesures figuraient en bonne place dans le programme du candidat républicain, qui avait un temps envisagé d’interdire à tous les musulmans de se rendre aux Etats-Unis.

Voir aussi:

Trump annonce la suspension du programme d’accueil des réfugiés le 27 janvier 2017 dans les locaux du Pentagone à Washington. © Carlos Barria/Reuters

Donald Trump tient ses promesses de campagne. Cette fois, c’est sur la protection du territoire contre la menace terroriste qu’il a signé deux décrets. L’un interdit l’accès aux citoyens de sept pays arabes, l’autre met en pause l’accueil de réfugiés de pays en guerre.

Les ressortissants de sept pays sont désormais persona non grata aux Etats-Unis. Ainsi en a décidé le nouveau président Donald Trump en fermant temporairement l’accès de son pays aux citoyens de Syrie, de l’Irak, de la Libye, de la Somalie, du Soudan et du Yemen. Objectif affirmé par Donald Trump, «maintenir les terroristes islamistes radicaux hors des Etats-Unis d’Amérique».

Il a annoncé que de nouvelles mesures de contrôle seraient mises sur pied, sans préciser lesquelles. «Nous voulons être sûrs que nous ne laissons pas entrer dans notre pays les mêmes menaces que celles que nos soldats combattent à l’étranger.»
Dans le même temps le président annonce que priorité sera donnée aux réfugiés chrétiens de Syrie.

Washington va également arrêter pendant quatre mois le programme d’accueil des réfugiés de pays en guerre. Pour l’année 2016, l’administration américaine avait admis près de 85.000 réfugiés, dont 10.000 Syriens. Elle s’était donné pour objectif d’accueillir 110.000 réfugiés en 2017, un chiffre ramené à 50.000 par l’administration Trump. Ce programme date de 1980 et n’a été interrompu qu’une fois, après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001.

Réactions indignées
Les murs qui se dressent, les barrières qui se ferment, partout dans le monde, les réactions aux premières mesures de Donald Trump se multiplient.
La plus symbolique est surement celle de la jeune Pakistanaise Malala Yousafzaï, cible des fondamentalistes talibans et prix Nobel de la paix en 2014. Elle a déclaré avoir «le coeur brisé de voir l’Amérique tourner le dos à son fier passé d’accueil de réfugiés et de migrants».

Onze autres prix Nobel et des universitaires renommés ont également lancé une pétition réclamant la reprise de l’accueil des visiteurs des sept pays visés. «Une épreuve injustifiée pour des gens qui sont nos étudiants, nos collègues, nos amis et des membres de notre communauté.»

Deux ONG, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) et le Haut commissariat de l’Onu pour les réfugiés (HCR), ont appelé Donald Trump à maintenir l’accueil aux Etats-Unis. «Les besoins des réfugiés et des migrants à travers le monde n’ont jamais été aussi grands et le programme américain de réinstallation est l’un des plus importants du monde», écrivent les deux ONG dans un communiqué commun.

Même le fondateur de Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, s’en est indigné sur sa page, rappelant que les Etats-Unis sont un pays de migrants, à commencer par sa famille.

Conséquences
Selon A. Ayoub, directeur juridique du Comité arabo-américain contre les discriminations, les conséquences sont immédiates. Ces mesures frappent notamment des Arabo-Américains dont des proches étaient en route pour une visite aux Etats-Unis. Le regroupement de familles séparées par la guerre va aussi devenir impossible.

Voir également:

Middle East

‘Gross injustice’: Of 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US, 56 are Christian

September 02, 2016

The Obama administration hit its goal this week of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees — yet only a fraction of a percent are Christians, stoking criticism that officials are not doing enough to address their plight in the Middle East.

Of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from the war-torn country, 56 are Christians, or .5 percent.

A total of 10,722 were Muslims, and 17 were Yazidis.

The numbers are disproportionate to the Christian population in Syria, estimated last year by the U.S. government to make up roughly 10 percent of the population. Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million Christians have fled the country, while many have been targeted and slaughtered by the Islamic State.

In March, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. had determined that ISIS has committed genocide against minority religious groups, including Christians and Yazidis.

“In my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in territory under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims,” Kerry said at the State Department, using an alternative Arabic name for the group.

He also accused ISIS of “crimes against humanity” and « ethnic cleansing. »

Yet, despite the strong words, relatively few from those minority groups have been brought into the United States. A State Department spokesperson told FoxNews.com that religion was only one of many factors used in determining a refugee’s eligibility to enter the United States.

Critics blasted the administration for not making religion a more important factor, as the U.S. government has prioritized religious minorities in the past in other cases.

“It’s disappointingly disproportional,” Matthew Clark, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), told FoxNews.com. “[The Obama administration has] not prioritized Christians and it appears they have actually deprioritized them, put them back of the line and made them an afterthought.”

“This is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” said Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the make-up of the refugees is the make-up of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.

“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”

“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous, there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.

However, Kristin Wright, director of advocacy for Open Doors USA – a group that advocates for Christians living in dangerous areas across the world – told FoxNews.com that another reason is many Christians are choosing to stick it out in Syria, or going instead to urban areas for now.

“Many have fled to urban areas instead of the camps, so they may be living in Beirut instead of living in a broader camp, meaning many are not registering as refugees,” Wright said. “They may still come to the U.S. but may come through another immigration pathway.”

However, others called on the Obama administration, in light of its genocide declaration, to do more to assist Christians, including setting up safe zones in Syria or actively seeking out Christians via the use of contractors to bring them to safety.

In March, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced legislation that would give special priority to refugees who were members of persecuted religious minorities in Syria.

“We must not only recognize what’s happening as genocide, but also take action to relieve it, » Cotton said.

“The administration did the right thing by recognizing genocide, but by not taking action, it deflates it and makes it so Christians and others are not receiving any help,” Clark said. “So it’s all words and no actions, it’s just lip service on the issue of the genocide.”

This week, the ACLJ filed a lawsuit against the State Department for not responding to Freedom of Information Act requests about what the administration is doing to combat the genocide.

For Shea, the question is not just about helping refugees, but the very survival of Christianity in the 2,000-year community that has existed since the apostolic era of Christianity.

« This Christian community is dying, » she said. « I fear that there will be no Christians left when the dust settles. »

Adam Shaw is a Politics Reporter and occasional Opinion writer for FoxNews.com. He can be reached here or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.

 Voir encore:
Refugee Madness: Trump Is Wrong, But His Liberal Critics Are Crazy
Dan McLaughlin
January 28, 2017
The anger at his new policy is seriously misplaced.

President Trump has ordered a temporary, 120-day halt to admitting refugees from seven countries, all of them war-torn states with majority-Muslim populations: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia. He has further indicated that, once additional screening provisions are put in place, he wants further refugee admissions from those countries to give priority to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees. Trump’s order is, in characteristic Trump fashion, both ham-handed and underinclusive, and particularly unfair to allies who risked life and limb to help the American war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is also not the dangerous and radical departure from U.S. policy that his liberal critics make it out to be. His policy may be terrible public relations for the United States, but it is fairly narrow and well within the recent tradition of immigration actions taken by the Obama administration.

First, let’s put in context what Trump is actually doing. The executive order, on its face, does not discriminate between Muslim and Christian (or Jewish) immigrants, and it is far from being a complete ban on Muslim immigrants or even Muslim refugees. Trump’s own stated reason for giving preference to Christian refugees is also worth quoting:

Trump was asked whether he would prioritize persecuted Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees, and he replied, “Yes.” “They’ve been horribly treated,” he said. “Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian it was almost impossible. And the reason that was so unfair — everybody was persecuted, in all fairness — but they were chopping off the heads of everybody, but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. “So we are going to help them.”

Trump isn’t making this up; Obama-administration policy effectively discriminated against persecuted religious-minority Christians from Syria (even while explicitly admitting that ISIS was pursuing a policy of genocide against Syrian Christians), and the response from most of Trump’s liberal critics has been silence:

The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent. The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. . . . Experts say [one] reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N. “The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” [Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom] said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.” “They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.

Liberals are normally the first people to argue that American policy should give preferential treatment to groups that are oppressed and discriminated against, but because Christians are the dominant religious group here — and the bêtes noires of domestic liberals — there is little liberal interest in accommodating U.S. refugee policy to the reality on the ground in Syria. So long as Obama could outsource religious discrimination against Christian refugees to Jordan and the U.N., his supporters preferred the status quo to admitting that Trump might have a point.

On the whole, 2016 was the first time in a decade when the United States let in more Muslim than Christian refugees, 38,901 overall, 75 percent of them from Syria, Somalia, and Iraq, all countries on Trump’s list — and all countries in which the United States has been actively engaged in drone strikes or ground combat over the past year. Obama had been planning to dramatically expand that number, to 110,000, in 2017 — only after he was safely out of office.

This brings us to a broader point: The United States in general, and the Obama administration in particular, never had an open-borders policy for all refugees from everywhere, so overwrought rhetoric about Trump ripping down Lady Liberty’s promise means comparing him to an ideal state that never existed. In fact, the Obama administration completely stopped processing refugees from Iraq for six months in 2011 over concerns about terrorist infiltration, a step nearly identical to Trump’s current order, but one that was met with silence and indifference by most of Trump’s current critics.

Only two weeks ago, Obama revoked a decades-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy of allowing entry to refugees from Cuba who made it to our shores. His move, intended to signal an easing of tensions with the brutal Communist dictatorship in Havana, has stranded scores of refugees in Mexico and Central America, and Mexico last Friday deported the first 91 of them to Cuba. This, too, has no claim on the conscience of Trump’s liberal critics. After all, Cuban Americans tend to vote Republican.

Even more ridiculous and blinkered is the suggestion that there may be something unconstitutional about refusing entry to refugees or discriminating among them on religious or other bases (a reaction that was shared at first by some Republicans, including Mike Pence, when Trump’s plan was announced in December 2015). There are plenty of moral and political arguments on these points, but foreigners have no right under our Constitution to demand entry to the United States or to challenge any reason we might have to refuse them entry, even blatant religious discrimination. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress’s powers in this area are plenary, and the president’s powers are as broad as the Congress chooses to give him. If liberals are baffled as to why even the invocation of the historically problematic “America First” slogan by Trump is popular with almost two-thirds of the American public, they should look no further than people arguing that foreigners should be treated by the law as if they were American citizens with all the rights and protections we give Americans.

Liberals are likewise on both unwise and unpopular ground in sneering at the idea that there might be an increased risk of radical Islamist terrorism resulting from large numbers of Muslims entering the country as refugees or asylees. There have been many such cases in Europe, ranging from terrorists (as in the Brussels attack) posing as refugees to the infiltration of radicals and the radicalization of new entrants. The 9/11 plotters, several of whom overstayed their visas in the U.S. after immigrating from the Middle East to Germany, are part of that picture as well. Here in the U.S., we have had a number of terror attacks carried out by foreign-born Muslims or their children. The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing were children of asylees; the Times Square bomber was a Pakistani immigrant; the underwear bomber was from Nigeria; the San Bernardino shooter was the son of Pakistani immigrants; the Chattanooga shooter was from Kuwait; the Fort Hood shooter was the son of Palestinian immigrants. All of this takes place against the backdrop of a global movement of radical Islamist terrorism that kills tens of thousands of people a year in terrorist attacks and injures or kidnaps tens of thousands more.

There are plenty of reasons not to indict the entire innocent Muslim population, including those who come as refugees or asylees seeking to escape tyranny and radicalism, for the actions of a comparatively small percentage of radicals. But efforts to salami-slice the problem into something that looks like a minor or improbable outlier, or to compare this to past waves of immigrants, are an insult to the intelligence of the public. The tradeoffs from a more open-borders posture are real, and the reasons for wanting our screening process to be a demanding one are serious.

Like it or not, there’s a war going on out there, and many of its foot soldiers are ideological radicals who wear no uniform and live among the people they end up attacking. If your only response to these issues is to cry “This is just xenophobia and bigotry,” you’re either not actually paying attention to the facts or engaging in the same sort of intellectual beggary that leads liberals to refuse to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Andrew Cuomo declared this week, “If there is a move to deport immigrants, I say then start with me” — because his grandparents were immigrants. This is unserious and childish: President Obama deported over 2.5 million people in eight years in office, and I didn’t see Governor Cuomo getting on a boat back to Italy.

Conservatives have long recognized these points — which is another way of saying that a blank check for refugee admissions is no more a core principle of the Right than it is of the Left.

A more trenchant critique of Trump’s order is that he’s undercutting his own argument by how narrow the order is. Far from a “Muslim ban,” the order applies to only seven of the world’s 50 majority-Muslim countries. Three of those seven (Iran, Syria, and Sudan) are designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terror, but the history of terrorism by Islamist radicals over the past two decades — even state-sponsored terrorism – is dominated by people who are not from countries engaged in officially recognized state-sponsored terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi, and a significant number of other attacks have been planned or carried out by Egyptians, Pakistanis, and people from the various Gulf states. But a number of these countries have more significant business and political ties to the United States (and in some cases to the Trump Organization as well), so it’s more inconvenient to add them to the list. Simply put, there’s no reason to believe that the countries on the list are more likely to send us terrorists than the countries off the list.

That said, the seven states selected do include most of the influx of refugees and do present particular logistical problems in vetting the backgrounds of refugees. If Trump’s goal is simply to beef up screening after a brief pause, he’s on firmer ground.

The moral and strategic arguments against Trump’s policy are, however, significant. America’s open-hearted willingness to harbor refugees from around the world has always been a source of our strength, and sometimes an effective tool deployed directly against hostile foreign tyrannies. Today, for example, the chief adversary of Venezuela’s oppressive economic policies is a website run by a man who works at a Home Depot in Alabama, having been granted political asylum here in 2005. And the refugee problem is partly one of our own creation. My own preference for Syrian refugees, many of them military-age males whom Assad is trying to get out of his country, has been to arm them, train them, and send them back, after the tradition of the Polish and French in World War II and the Czechs in World War I. But that requires support that neither Trump nor Obama has been inclined to provide, and you can’t seriously ask individual Syrians to fight a suicidal two-front war against ISIS and the Russian- and Iranian-backed Assad without outside support. So where else can they go?

Also, some people seeking refugee status or asylum may have stronger claims on our gratitude. Consider some of the first people denied entry under the new policy:

The lawyers said that one of the Iraqis detained at Kennedy Airport, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, had worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq for ten years. The other, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was coming to the United States to join his wife, who had worked for an American contractor, and young son, the lawyers said.

These specific cases may or may not turn out to be as sympathetic as they appear; these are statements made by lawyers filing a class action, who by their own admission haven’t even spoken to their clients. But in a turn of humorous irony that undercut some of the liberal narrative, it turns out that Darweesh told the press that he likes Trump. Trump’s moves are not as dramatic a departure from the Obama administration as his critics would have you believe.

Certainly, we should give stronger consideration to refugee or asylum claims from people who are endangered as a result of their cooperation with the U.S. military. But such consideration can still be extended on a case-by-case basis, as the executive order explicitly permits: “Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”

Trump also seems to have triggered some unnecessary chaos at the airports and borders around the globe by signing the order without a lot of adequate advance notice to the public or to the people charged with administering the order. That’s characteristic of his early administration’s public-relations amateur hour, and an unnecessary, unforced error. Then again, the core policy is one he broadcast to great fanfare well over a year ago, so this comes as no great shock.

The American tradition of accepting refugees and asylees from around the world, especially from the clutches of our enemies, is a proud one, and it is a sad thing to see that compromised. And while Middle Eastern Christians should be given greater priority in escaping a region where they are particularly persecuted, the next step in this process should not be one that seeks to permanently enshrine a preference for Christians over Muslims generally. But our tradition has never been an unlimited open-door policy, and President Trump’s latest moves are not nearly such a dramatic departure from the Obama administration as Trump’s liberal critics (or even many of his fans) would have you believe. — Dan McLaughlin is an attorney in New York City and an NRO contributing columnist.

Voir enfin:

The Roots of a Counterproductive Immigration Policy
The liberal scorn for nationhood and refusal to adapt immigration policy to changing circumstances enables the rise of extremism in the West.
David Frum
The Atlantic monthly
Jan 28, 2017

The Orlando nightclub shooter, the worst mass-casualty gunman in US history, was the son of immigrants from Afghanistan. The San Bernardino shooters were first and second generation immigrants from Pakistan. Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, was the son of Palestinian immigrants. The Tsarnaev brothers who detonated bombs at the 2013 Boston marathon held Kyrgyz nationality. The would-be 2010 Times Square car bomber was a naturalized immigrant from Pakistan. The ringleader of the Paris attacks of November 2015, about which Donald Trump spoke so much on the campaign trail, was a Belgian national of Moroccan origins. President Trump’s version of a Muslim ban would have protected the United States from none of the above.

If the goal is to exclude radical Muslims from the United States, the executive order Trump announced on Friday seems a highly ineffective way to achieve it. The Trump White House has incurred all the odium of an anti-Muslim religious test, without any attendant real-world benefit. The measure amounts to symbolic politics at its most stupid and counterproductive. Its most likely practical effect will be to aggravate the political difficulty of dealing directly and speaking without euphemisms about Islamic terrorism. As ridiculous as was the former Obama position that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, the new Trump position that all Muslims are potential terrorists is vastly worse.
What Trump has done is to divide and alienate potential allies—and push his opponents to embrace the silliest extremes of the #WelcomeRefugees point of view. By issuing his order on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Trump empowered his opponents to annex the victims of Nazi crimes to their own purposes.

The Western world desperately needs a more hardheaded approach to the issue of refugees. It is bound by laws and treaties written after World War II that have been rendered utterly irrelevant by a planet on the move. Tens of millions of people seek to exit the troubled regions of Central America, the Middle East, West Africa, and South Asia for better opportunities in Europe and North America. The relatively small portion of that number who have reached the rich North since 2013 have already up-ended the politics of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. German chancellor Angela Merkel’s August 2015 order to fling open Germany’s doors is the proximate cause of the de-democratization of Poland since September 2015, of the rise of Marine LePen in France, of the surge in support for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and—I would argue—of Britain’s vote to depart the European Union. The surge of border crossers from Central America into the United States in 2014, and Barack Obama’s executive amnesties, likewise strengthened Donald Trump.

It’s understandable why people in the poor world would seek to relocate. It’s predictable that people in the destination nations would resist. Interpreting these indelible conflicts through the absurdly inapt analogy of German and Austrian Jews literally fleeing for their lives will lead to systematically erroneous conclusions.

We need a new paradigm for a new time. The social trust and social cohesion that characterize an advanced society like the United States are slowly built and vulnerable to erosion. They are eroding. Trump is more the symptom of that erosion than the cause.

Trump’s executive order has unleashed chaos, harmed lawful U.S. residents, and alienated potential friends in the Islamic world. Yet without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order.

Liberalism and nationhood grew up together in the 19th century, mutually dependent. In the 21st century, they have grown apart—or more exactly, liberalism has recoiled from nationhood. The result has not been to abolish nationality, but to discredit liberalism.

When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do. This weekend’s shameful chapter in the history of the United States is a reproach not only to Trump, although it is that too, but to the political culture that enabled him. Angela Merkel and Donald Trump may be temperamental opposites. They are also functional allies.

 


%d blogueurs aiment cette page :