Kommentar



Barack Obama præsterede at sige, at der var umuligt at sige noget specifikt om motivet bag politidrabene i Dallas, selv om politichefen i byen havde tydeligt havde forklaret, at Micah X. Johnsen sagde, at han ville dræbe så mange hvide politifolk som mulig.

President Obama said at a Saturday press conference in Poland that it is “very hard to untangle the motives” of the shooter in Dallas who killed five police officers Thursday evening.

“First of all, I think it’s very hard to untangle the motivers of this shooter,” said Obama. “I’ll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents…I think the danger is that we somehow suggest the act of a troubled individuals speaks to some larger political statement across the country.”

Præsidenten i USA praktiserer to forskellige standarder: Han anklager politiet i det land, som han er præsident for, for å være racistisk. Men når en sort mand går amok og dræber politifolk, siger Obama, at det er vanskeligt at blive klog på motivet til trods for, at Micah X. Johnson udtrykkeligt sagde, at han ville dræbe hvide.

Disse to budskaber er så tydelige, at de må blive opfattet som det, de er: En støtte til militante sorte og en tilsvarende distancering overfor politifolk.

Man skulle ikke tro, det var mulig.

Nu begynder politiet give igen. De føler sig svigtet.

“The man responsible for the murders [in Dallas] was Micah Johnson, but having said that, I do think the president by his inaction has contributed to a climate where these things can happen,” William Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, which represents about 240,000 law enforcement officers, said Sunday. “This president and his administration absolutely do not have our back and make our jobs more dangerous.”

Obamas tendentiøse holdning blev eksponeret af begivenhederne. Da han ankom til Polen torsdag midnat, kunne han ikke lade være med at sige, at sorte udsættes for systematisk racisme fra politiets side. Dette var mens drabene på politifolk foregik i Dallas.

ANNONSE

“When incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us. This is not just a black issue. It’s not just a Hispanic issue. This is an American issue that we should all care about. All fair-minded people should be concerned,” Mr. Obama said Thursday.

Mr. Obama added that “to acknowledge persistent racial disparities in law enforcement is not to be anti-cop or to condemn the work of the vast majority of law enforcement officers who do an outstanding job.”
Det politiet oplever er, at han gang på gang intervenerer på en måde, som gør, at politiet stilles i dårligt lys. Drabene i Baton Rouge og St. Paul var af en karakter, som gjorde at de burde undersøges, men i stedet for at afvente begår Obama to alvorlige fejl: Han foregriber etterforskningen af dem og sætter dem i sammenhæng med den kampagne, som sorte aktivister fører mod politiet. Dermed solidariserer han sig med disse aktivister og undskylder de militante. Man skulle næppe tro, at det var mulig.
Obama siger præcis det samme som, Black Lives Matter og andre aktivister. At data viser, at sorte er mere udsat for denne type hændelser, dvs. at blive dræbt af politiet.

“The data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the Warsaw Marriott after arriving in Poland for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit. “We have seen tragedies like this too many times.”

“There’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because the color of their skin they’re not being treated the same,” he added. “And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us.”

Medierne har en tendens til at glemme hvor tendentiøs Obama kan være. De grelleste citater er ikke gentage. Obamas iver efter at udtale sig, selv om han opholder sig i Europa, siger noget om, hvor stor vægt han lægger på at fortælle, at politiet er racistisk og sorte ofre. Situationen var, at filmoptagelserne af politnedskydningerne spredte sig på de sociale netværk, idet han forlod USA. I stedet for at gå i sengs, da han ankom Polen, valgte Obama at udtale sig til pressen:

It was a rare scene for the president. He arrived in a foreign country after midnight, scheduled only to rest at his hotel, and instead delivered an unplanned public statement on two shooting deaths of black men in two days that have once again sparked protests about racial inequities.

Mr. Obama spoke publicly on the shootings for the first time as video of the incidents spread across social media and cable television. He sought to balance the concerns on both sides, saying police officers play a critical role in communities while African-Americans have legitimate reasons to distrust law enforcement.

Obama ville kapitalisere på vreden og reaktionen efter disse to dødsfald. I stedet for besinde til ro, fyrede han op under vreden. Hans omtale af politiet – at de har en barsk job – nævnes kun pligtskyldig  i sammenhængen.

Han var så optaget af at vise, at han var de sortes forsvarer, at han lavede et Facebook-opslag, før Air Force One var landet.

On Thursday, he posted on Facebook about the shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota, before deciding during his flight to Poland that he wanted to speak about the issues at greater length from the presidential podium.

“I actually genuinely truly believe that the vast majority of the American people see this as a problem that we should all care about,” Mr. Obama said. “To be concerned about these issues is not political correctness.”

Det er ikke første gang, at Obama tager parti i en uopklaret sag, som vækker stærke følelser. Han synes ikke at forstå hvor partisk, han optræder. Denne gang var han yderst uheldig. Mens Obama fordømte politiet for at være racister, var Micah X. Johnsen i gang med at dræbe politifolk i Dallas.
Man kan vanskelig undgå den konklusion, at USAs præsident har været medvirkende til at polarisere USA, både mellem sorte og hvide, men også mellem befolkningsgrupperne, f.eks i forhold til muslimer. Obama skaber ikke forståelse, han skaber motsetninger. Som når hans forsvar for muslimer går ud på at benægte, at IS og terror har noget med islam at gøre. Det er en pervers form for forsvar.
Desværre har store dele af det liberale USA fulgt Obama, sådan at modsætningerne nu kan sammenlignes med raceoptøjerne i 60-erne.
Pure Brand?
Obama har i de otte årene, som er gået været hævet over kritik. Selv når Maureen Dowd fremstiller Clinton-parret som rene mafiosi, så siger hun, at de også har ødelagt et af de reneste brands i Washington: Obama. Andrew Klavan giver flere eksempler på liberale som siger det samme:
“The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free,” wrote David Brooks on the Row in February. “To his opponents, this president’s greatest sins are his success and his self,” wrote Charles Blow. And Obama is “one of the most successful presidents in American history,” says Paul Krugman, who may have heard all about it on the same tinfoil hat through which he receives his economic policies.
Klavan må gnide sig i øjnene og spørge, hvor disse mennesker befinder sig rent mentalt: Hvad med skandalen i Skattedirektoratet, som gik efter Tea Party-tilknyttede foreninger, hvad med dronekrigen, Snowden-afsløringerne af NSA-overvågning, hvad med alle sagerne mod journalister, hvad med Benghazi, emailskandalen og til sidst de store strategiske blundere: Den havarerede Mellemøst-strategi, hvor Obama siger “red line” i Syrien og et år senere benægter, at han har sagt det.
Obama siger en ting og benægter, at han har sagt det. Han sagde, at briterne kom til at stille sig bagest i køen, hvis de stemte for Leave. Da de gjorde det, benægtede han at have truet britene. Han kom bare med et råd.
Dette er et narcissistisk træk, siger Klavan. Narcissisten ser ikke nogen fejl ved egne handlinger. Obama har klaret at trekke den liberale eliten ind i sin egen fantasi om sig selv.

But there is also this: Obama possesses the narcissist’s gift of drawing people into his own imagination of himself, that imagination in which he is never to blame. “I said I’d end the war in Iraq and I ended it,” he crowed in 2012. Then in 2014, when his decision to withdraw our troops was shaping up to be a disaster: “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” In 2012, trying to show that he was on top of the deteriorating situation in Syria, Obama said, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” In 2013, when it became clear Syria was out of control and that chemical weapons had been used and Obama wasn’t going to do anything about it: “I didn’t set a red line.” Obama has repeatedly rushed to judgement on police incidents involving blacks and he and his minions have abused his political opponents in the most uncivil terms imaginable, including comparing them to the Islamic terrorists he doesn’t even admit exist. But when, on his watch, the country becomes so divided that it now simmers with violence, American against American, suddenly America is not “as divided as some have suggested.”

Narcissists do this. Their egos are so fragile they can accept no responsibility for their bad actions. But the fact that the Times and the networks and the rest of the elite media have decided to make Obama’s personality disorder their own has only contributed to the frustration and anger felt by principled parties on both sides. Any moderately fair observer must look at the situation we’re in — the violence in our homeland, the anger of our people, an election that has boiled down to a choice between a blowhard and a crook — and think: Something has gone terribly wrong with our country over the last eight years and surely our leader must have had at least a part to play in that.

(o.M.)

ANNONSE


  • Per Pedersen

    Obama lagde allerede den kurs fra starten. Den den første “sag” begyndte, kan ikke huske personen, forventede jeg at Obama, som hele USA’s præsident, ville sige, at han havde tiltro til det amerikanske retssystem, og at retfærdigheden nok skulle ske fyldest.

    I stedet sagde han “det kunne have været mig”!!

    Så han har fra starten sået splid i stedet for at samle nationen bag sig.

    Man kan kun gisne om motivet, men det virker som om, at han ønsker konfrontationen og raceurolighederne.

    OG han slipper af sted med det, da især vesten og venstrefløjen stadig anser ham for Guds gave til menneskeheden. “Han er en stor taler”, hører man.

    Blindhed optræder i mange afskygninger, dumhed ligeså.