eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

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

Posté le samedi 4 février 2017 par jc durbant


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,  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 ?

Laisser un commentaire

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

  • 14
    jc durbant:

    Qu’est-il arrivé à Bret Stephens ?

    Lui qui était si bon sous Hussein semble, sauf exception, s’être complètement perdu dans les sables de sa haine de Trump …

    Quand par exemple lorsqu’il feint de confondre, pour mieux cogner sur sa nouvelle phobie, régulation et fin de l’immigration aux EU ?

    A decade ago, America’s fertility rate, at 2.12 children for every woman, was just above the replacement rate. That meant there could be modest population growth without immigration. But the fertility rate has since fallen: It’s now below replacement and at an all-time low. Without immigration, our demographic destiny would become Japanese. But our culture wouldn’t, leaving us with the worst of both worlds: economic stagnation without social stability. Multiethnic America would tear itself to pieces fighting over redistribution rights to the shrinking national pie. This doesn’t have to be our fate. Though it may be news to Mr. King, immigrants aren’t a threat to American civilization. They are our civilization—bearers of a forward-looking notion of identity based on what people wish to become, not who they once were. Among those immigrants are 30% of all American Nobel Prize winners and the founders of 90 of our Fortune 500 companies—a figure that more than doubles when you include companies founded by the children of immigrants. If immigration means change, it forces dynamism. America is literally unimaginable without it. Every virtue has its defect and vice versa. The Japanese are in the process of discovering that the social values that once helped launch their development—loyalty, self-sacrifice, harmony—now inhibit it. Americans may need reminding that the culture of openness about which conservatives so often complain is our abiding strength. Openness to different ideas, foreign goods and new people. And their babies—who, whatever else Mr. King might think, are also made in God’s image.

    Bret Stephens

    Mais pour l’exception, quelle meilleure défense du choix de Trump pour le poste d’ambassadeur en Israël ?

    Climate change aside, the cause of Palestinian statehood is the central obsession of contemporary global politics. It’s also its least examined assumption. Would a Palestinian state serve the cause of Mideast peace? This used to be conventional wisdom, on the theory that a Palestinian state would lead to peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, easing the military burdens on the former and encouraging the latter to address their internal discontents. Today the proposition is ridiculous. No deal between Jerusalem and Ramallah is going to lift the sights of those now fighting in Syria, Iraq or Yemen. Nor will a deal reconcile Tehran and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza to the existence of a Jewish state. As for the rest of the neighborhood, Israel has diplomatic relations with Turkey, Jordan and Egypt, and has reached pragmatic accommodations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. What about the interests of Palestinians? Aren’t they entitled to a state? Maybe. But are they more entitled to one than the Assamese, Basques, Baloch, Corsicans, Druze, Flemish, Kashmiris, Kurds, Moros, Native Hawaiians, Northern Cypriots, Rohingya, Tibetans, Uyghurs or West Papuans—all of whom have distinct national identities, legitimate historical grievances and plausible claims to statehood? If so, what gives Palestinians the preferential claim? Have they waited longer than the Kurds? No: Kurdish national claims stretch for centuries, not decades. Have they experienced greater violations to their culture than Tibetans? No: Beijing has conducted a systematic policy of repression for 67 years, whereas Palestinians are nothing if not vocal in mosques, universities and the media. Have they been persecuted more harshly than the Rohingya? Not even close. Set the comparisons aside. Would a Palestinian state be good for Palestinian people? That’s a more subjective judgment. But a telling figure came in a June 2015 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, which found that a majority of Arab residents in East Jerusalem would rather live as citizens with equal rights in Israel than in a Palestinian state. No doubt part of this owes to a desire to be connected to Israel’s thriving economy. But it’s also a function of politics. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just entered the 13th year of his four-year term. Fatah rules the West Bank through corruption; Hamas rules Gaza through fear. Humanitarian aid is routinely diverted for terrorist purposes: One terror tunnel stretching from Gaza to Israel consumed an estimated 800 tons of concrete and cost $10 million to build. Every three years or so, Hamas starts firing missiles at Israel, and hundreds of Palestinian civilians get killed in the crossfire. How does any of this augur well for what a future Palestinian state might bring? But isn’t a Palestinian state a necessity for Israel? Can it maintain its Jewish and democratic character without separating itself from the millions of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River? (…) In theory, Palestine could be the next Costa Rica: small but beautiful. But Israelis don’t live in theory. They live in a world where mistakes are mortal. In 2000 and 2007 Israeli prime ministers made good-faith offers of Palestinian statehood. They were met on both occasions with rejection, then violence. In 2005 Israel vacated the Gaza Strip. It became an enclave of terror. (…) The ideal of a Jewish and faultlessly democratic state is a noble one. Not at the risk of the existence of the state itself. The Paris conference takes place on the eve of a new administration that’s indifferent to prevailing orthodoxies regarding the Palestinians. David Friedman, Donald Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel, is unequivocal in his support for the Jewish state, determined to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, unscandalized by settlements and unmoved by suggestions that Israel’s safety requires the empowerment of her enemies. These heresies alone recommend him for the job. Meanwhile, anyone genuinely concerned with the future of the Palestinians might urge them to elect better leaders, improve their institutions, and stop giving out sweets to celebrate the murder of their neighbors.

    Bret Stephens

  • 13
    jc durbant:

    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.


    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

  • 12


  • 11
    jc durbant:

    VDH confirme et signe:

    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?


  • 10
    jc durbant:

    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

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    Does the news cycle play into Trump’s notion of pulling the country back from the extreme to the center, or repudiate his efforts? So far, daily events, such as violence at the Louvre, the hysteria over the Gorsuch nomination, the latest Iranian missile launch, the Berkeley rioting, the second-look examination of Australia’s quite restrictionist immigration policy in comparison with the U.S., the latest celebrity outburst, etc. seem to amplify Trump’s message of a need for long overdue corrections.


  • 8

    Hallo, Siiiiiiiilllllllll!
    Mon #7 est en panne… 🙁

  • 7

    Le problème de la défense française contre le terrorisme n’est pas un problème numérique, merko: c’est un problème d’engagement et de leadership politique.
    L’idéologie de 68, malgre ou a cause de slogans – hasta la Victoria, Siempre – empêche une attitude pragmatique ds l’analyse de situation et donc de planification, et surtout contraint une volonte de lutter!

  • 6
    jc durbant:

    « beaucoup plus facile de surveiller un petit territoire avec 3000.000 de touristes qu’un de 560000 km 2 avec 85000.000 de touristes » …

    Oui, sans compter ces centaines de milliers de « touristes » qui ont juré de vous rejeter à la mer !

    Plus sérieusement, voir aussi ce qu’en disent les spécialistes:

    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)

    L’activation du contrat opérationnel de protection à la suite des attentats qui ont frappé la France durant l’année 2015 ouvre une nouvelle phase dans la longue histoire de l’engagement des forces terrestres au profit de la sécurité intérieure. Avec l’opération Sentinelle, l’armée de Terre mobilise 10 000 hommes sur le territoire national, soit 10 % de ses effectifs. Initialement prévu pour quelques mois, ce déploiement s’est prolongé dans la durée, engendrant une pression sur la ressource humaine et le cycle de préparation opérationnelle. L’opération pose également la question du partage des tâches avec les forces de sécurité intérieure et de la crainte des armées de se voir cantonnées à un rôle supplétif qui conduirait à la perte de leur savoir-faire et de leur fonction d’ultime recours. Pour pérenniser les missions intérieures des forces terrestres, les autorités devront repenser en profondeur les équilibres du continuum sécurité-défense.

    Elie Tenenbaum

  • 5

    @Curiale il faut comparer ce qui est comparable, Israël c’est en gros 25000 km 2, dont la moitie en désert , soit la taille de la lorraine, avec 200.000 hommes de forces de sécurité et le double en réservistes, grosso modo à peu prés la même chose en France sans bien sur les réservistes, il est donc beaucoup plus facile de surveiller un petit territoire avec 3000.000 de touristes qu’un de 560000 km 2 avec 85000.000 de touristes .

  • 4
    jc durbant:

    Merci Curiale: je n’aurais pas su mieux dire …

    Et d’ailleurs, si l’évidence ne crevait pas autant les yeux, on aurait pu faire la même démonstration pour les 86 morts et 458 blessés de Nice:

    Il est remarquable que dans son ensemble la presse française n’ait jamais fait le parallèle entre les attentats djihadistes dont le pays souffre depuis les crimes perpétrés par Mohamed Merah en 2012 et ceux qu’endurent les Israéliens depuis bien des années. L’idée qu’il s’agit d’un combat commun contre la barbarie ne semble pas avoir effleuré la cervelle de nos journalistes patentés, fidèles lecteurs des communiqués de l’Agence France Presse. Le préjugé en faveur des Palestiniens est tel que, même lorsque ces derniers se livrent à des attentats délibérément dirigés contre des civils tels que les bombes, les « kamikazes », dans les autobus ou les cafés, et plus encore lorsque leurs méthodes, comme récemment, sont conformes aux instructions de Daech, à savoir l’attaque indiscriminée au couteau, à la voiture-bélier, etc, les commentaires des médias français se gardent bien de faire le lien avec les attentats en France. Il y aurait pourtant bien des leçons à prendre des Israéliens sur le contre-terrorisme que l’on ne consulte qu’en catimini, par exemple pour la sécurité d’Aéroport de Paris, celui de Ben Gourion étant devenu l’aéroport le plus sûr du monde. Sans remonter au déluge, Israël a fait l’objet de 45 attaques utilisant des véhicules divers depuis septembre 20151. Aucune de ces attaques n’a fait autant de morts et de blessés que celle de Nice. Les attentats au couteau, à l’arme automatique, aux divers « engins-béliers » ont été contrés pour la plupart de manière beaucoup plus efficace qu’en France. Malgré la diversité des procédés employés et leurs effets de surprise, la neutralisation ou la mise en fuite des terroristes a été rapide. En effet, ces derniers se sont heurtés à un peuple préparé à la riposte, reposant sur la présence d’hommes (et de femmes) armés dans la foule : policiers, militaires en service ou en permission, réservistes bénéficiant d’une autorisation de port d’arme. À cela on doit ajouter les contrôles systématiques de tout individu présentant un comportement suspect et la surveillance des réseaux sociaux. Ces réactions et ces précautions ont limité le nombre des victimes d’attentats en ville. Mais elles demeurent insuffisantes à la sécurité des personnes isolées, mitraillées sur une route, ou surprise chez elles, comme ce fut le cas dernièrement à Kiriat Arba (Hébron) d’une fillette de 13 ans, assassinée dans son lit. Mais à ma connaissance, on ne proclame pas en Israël, à la suite de ces meurtres, que le risque zéro n’existe pas, ce qui est vrai, mais ne doit pas servir à diluer les failles des dispositifs défensifs dans un fatalisme compassionnel.

    Marc Nacht

    PS: pour les ratés concernant les armes de nos féroces soldats, voir aussi ce nouveau petit épisode

  • 3


    Je ne me souviens pas d’une attaque terroriste récente ayant eu lieu en Israél récemment qui ait faite en une seule fois 90 morts et 200 blessés chez les civils, comme au Bataclan, mais peut-être pourrez-vous éclairer ma lanterne.

    Ce qui est aussi très probable, c’est que l’épisode du policier parisien qui s’est vu refuser le fusil d’assaut par un soldat présent sur les lieux alors qu’il voulait intervenir ne serait pas arrivé en Israël.

    En ce qui concerne Trump, le fait même qu’il considère qu’une Europe sans frontières défendues, et devant payer des tributs pour empêcher que d’autres ‘migrants’ ne s’invitent sans autorisation, n’a absolument aucun avenir comme entité géopolitique crédible, me laisse à penser bien au contraire que son intuition est excellente.

  • 2

    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 …

    Arrêtez mon cher jc de faire de la désinformation, les israéliens ne sont pas plus efficaces que les forces Françaises et Trump n’a pas plus d’intuition que ma cafetière !

    Cinq mois de violences renouvelées La croix Février 2016

    Depuis le 1er octobre, environ 230 attaques palestiniennes contre des Israéliens ont eu lieu dans les Territoires palestiniens et en Israël, principalement à l’arme blanche.

    Ces attaques ont mené à la mort d’au moins 27 Israéliens, et en ont blessé au moins 300 autres.

    Dans deux tiers des cas, les assaillants ont succombé au cours de ces attaques sous les balles des forces israéliennes, qui ont tué au moins 178 Palestiniens.

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    George Orwell disait, je crois dans 1984, que dans les temps de tromperie généralisée, dire la vérité est un acte révolutionnaire.

    David Hoffmann

    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.


    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

    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

    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

    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)

    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

  • '