Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Republicans in France Debate Trump's Involvement in the January 6 "Riots"

In the wake of, and following the hysteria regarding, Cassidy Hutchinson's allegedly explosive revelations before the January 6th committee, Philippe Karsenty and Erik Svane — both conservatives heavily outgunned, as usual, by the drama queens — were invited to appear on two BFMTV debates. 

First, Philippe Karsenty appeared in the studio on BFMTV's Story news series, for a debate about the alleged unpardonable charge that Donald Trump voulait se rendre au Capitole (video).

Près d'un an et demi après les assauts du Capitole à Washington, les auditions parlementaires continuent et permettent d'en savoir davantage sur le rôle joué par l'ancien président américain. Donald Trump a essayé de prendre le volant d'une limousine présidentielle le 6 janvier 2021 pour rejoindre ses partisans qui marchaient vers le Congrès, a rapporté une ancienne collaboratrice de la Maison Blanche lors de son audition parlementaire. On en parle avec: Antoine Heulard, notre correspondant à Washington (États-Unis). François Durpaire, consultant États-Unis pour BFMTV. Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du Parti républicain en France. Philippe Corbé, chef du service politique de BFMTV. Et Amandine Atalaya, éditorialiste politique à BFMTV.

Later, that evening, Erik Svane appeared for the debate entitled Capitole : le rôle explosif de Trump (video), but only via Skype, where guests with a non-PC viewpoint can more easily be silenced.

Voilà une question lourde : Donald Trump a-t-il fomenté un coup d’État ? La question obsède la Commission d'enquête parlementaire mise en place au Congrès américain le 6 janvier 2021. Au fil de ces auditions, on découvre à quel point cet assaut du Capitole n'est pas spontané, mais orchestré. De plus, le tout dernier témoignage en date est accablant pour Donald Trump.. On en débat avec : Ulysse Gosset, éditorialiste politique internationale BFMTV. Erik Svane, membre des “Republicans in France”. Antoine Heulard, correspondant BFMTV à Washington (États-Unis). Amy Greene, enseignante à Sciences Po Paris et spécialiste de la vie politique américaine et collaboratrice de “Les États-Unis dans le monde” aux éditions du CNRS. Et Anne Krratz, historienne, spécialiste des États-Unis à l'Institut Open Diplomacy. 

Tuesday, June 28, 2022

BFMTV Debates: Republicans in France Discuss the Supreme Court's Decision on Roe Vs Wade (Videos)

In the wake of, and following the hysteria regarding, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, Paul Reen and Philippe Karsenty — both conservatives heavily outgunned, as usual — appeared on two BFMTV debates.

The head of Republicans in France appeared on the debate entitled IVG/USA : La grande régression ? (video) which led to Pauline Boutin penning an article about the point of view of Paul Reen, who in turn reacted by quipping that

The title is a bit misleading as I eventually said that it is possible that SCOTUS could use the same logic and send other decisions back to the states, like gay marriage, for the people to decide, they did get it correct in the article though. 

As for Philippe Karsenty, he appeared on BFMTV's Ce que risquent désormais les femmes qui avortent dans certains Etats américains (video) where Paul noted that, besides "the biased moderator interrupting him every 5 seconds,"

I am shocked that BFM is spreading the lie that women in LA risk 10 years of prison time if they now have an abortion. This only applies to the physicians not the women.
Philippe Karsenty listens to François Durpaire
Before heading for the BFMTV studios, Paul Reen summarized the following talking points:

1. SCOTUS decision is merely a legal decision , not political and not moral. They are not criminalizing abortion like Biden said in his speech. They are simply returning the decision to each state to decide as it should have been done in 1973 since abortion is not included in the US Constitution. This is important to state since most French and Europeans do not understand how the 3 branches of govt work in the US. They think SCOTUS creates laws, idiot Democrats think the same thing since liberal left wing judges constantly « legislate from the bench ». But only the Federal législature (Congress) and State legislatures are supposed to create laws. 

2. Now each state must decide, they will vote codify laws for abortion. They will start to do this immediately, probably in parallel with Congress but the states will act quicker and Congress is so polarized they probably won’t get anything agreed to. Again, unlike the hysteria just incited by Biden, IMO the majority of states will vote in favor of abortion. Blue states will continue with no restrictions, most red states will allow abortion with restrictions and a small minority will ban them completely. The open question is still whether those states will allow abortion in the rare cases of rape and incest. Bottom line for me is that any increase in restrictions is a good thing!

3.Biden has completely politicized this of course and added to the outrage and hysteria for political purposes. He blames it all on Trump and said the Nov election is all about abortion rights. He is so desperate because his presidency is a complete and utter failure.

4. Now the US has to prepare for more Left wing , unhinged violence. Since the leak of this decision, Biden had many chances to tell people to stop harassing SCOTUS justices at their homes but never said a thing. Kavanugh and his family’s life was even in danger by a crazy leftist , luckily prevented by police. It is actually against federal law to protest at the homes of justices. Good that Biden said something in his speech to protest peacefully but it’s too little too late, the left is in rage and will attack pro-life associations, private people , churches , whatever.

5. Obviously this will galvanize Democrats to get to the polls in Nov but between no and Nov, we’ll see many states agreeing to keep it legal so I still believe that Republicans will win big.

6. Nancy Pelosi has said that SCOTUS is completely hypocritical as they just ruled that it is not constitutional that New York State impose  severe restrictions on concealed carry gun laws, but states CAN restrict abortion rights.  The big difference is that the right to bear arms is IN THE CONSTITUTION !

It should be emphasized that by returning the decisions to the states , it’s returning the decision back to THE PEOPLE. States are very different in the US and the people vote per state. This is a completely foreign concept for the rest of the world.
To this I added more things to ponder:
Les Français et les européens présentent souvent les décisions de la cour suprême américaine comme étant équivalentes À une décision similaire sur l’avortement en France

C’est oublier que les États-Unis ne sont pas un pays similaire à la France ou au Danemark. Les États-Unis sont plus une fédération comme l’Union européenne (en fait, un peu entre les deux, entre un pays et une union).

C’est ici qu’on voit l’hystérie de la gauche, tant aux États-Unis qu’en Europe

1) il est habituel de présenter les Américains comme des Néandertaliens qui sont beaucoup plus régressifs que les Européens.

Or, en ce qui concerne l’avortement — en admettant que l’on présente la procédure comme une chose positive — les Yankees ont été beaucoup plus « en avance » que les Européens

Les États-Unis ont souvent autorisé l’avortement jusqu’à 24 semaines, alors que les Européens autorisent l’avortement « seulement » jusqu’à 13-14 semaines.

En outre, on voit the partisanship de la gauche américaine quand on sait à quel point ils ont insisté pour autoriser l’avortement « sur demande » et même parfois, après la naissance (!).

2) dans cette perspective, on voit À quel point la décision de la cour suprême est, somme toute, banale

Ce que les juges ont fait, c’est de remettre l’union américaine … à égalité avec… l’Union européenne (!)

En effet, les 50 états des USA sont  désormais exactement au même niveau que les 27 membres de l'UE.

Il n’y a pas de Décision européenne pour toute l’Europe, tout se fait au niveau des états membres. Des pays comme l’Irlande, le Portugal, et la Pologne ont tous interdit l’avortement (sont-ils toujours interdits ? Je ne le sais…) ainsi que d’autres « droits » comme le divorce…
To this Paul replied that
I also wanted to than Erik for his comments which were perfect. We never have the time to say everything we want and I wanted to speak on Dobbs. 
Related to the points that Erik wrote, keep in mind how the case made its way to SCOTUS which gave them the opportunity to rule on Roe. It was the case In Mississippi, « Dobbs vs Jackson Womens Health Organization ». You should all get familiar with it plus Alito’s response. 
Dobbs actually started  back in 2018 where the Republican State Legislature actually VOTED to restrict abortions in their state to 15 weeks (I think from 24-26 weeks). ONE week more than France and THREE weeks more than the 12 week limit in France in effect until this year. 
The Democrats immediately filed lawsuit screaming that this was unjust to women and a violation of Roe v Wade (actually Casey which addressed « undue » state limitations but didn’t specify number of weeks). THE Mississippi Republicans didn’t give up and kept appealing the decision even though every local and circuit liberal judge sided with the crazy democrats. Until it reached SCOTUS. They decided to take it and voila. 
So I think that much of the blame can be put on the Democrats themselves for their arrogance and inability to compromise and extreme movement to the left by pushing abortion rights up until 9 months (7 state before the Roe reversal and probably many more to come). Not to confuse the fact that the SCOTUS decision was NOT political, strictly legal, but that the sentiments in the US society today among red states and pro-lifers is that they are completely fed up with extreme pro choicers and have hardened their responses as a result.

Let's end this post with a hat tip to Tucker Carlson, who points out the double standards of the left, i.e., that "insurrection" is actually fine when practiced by Democrats, leftists, and like-minded drama queens

IVG/USA : La grande régression ? - 25/6

Dans le siège de la décision de la cour suprême américaine, qui a révoqué le droit fédéral à l’avortement, faut-il s’inquiéter pour d’autres droits aux États-Unis ? Est-ce la grande régression ? On en parle avec : Antoine Heulard, correspondant BFMTV Washington. Gérard Araud, ancien ambassadeur de France aux Etats-Unis. Paul Reen, président de “Republicans in France”. Le maître Julia Grégoire, conseillère juridique, porte parole Democrats abroad France. Et François Durpair [sic], consultant Etats-Unis pour BFMTV.