Let me just point out that the only source we have for this story is one angry Norwegian.
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
Something like "attempts to reach CBP for comment were unsuccessful." goes a long way. It's a tell that they don't. The story is too good not to print.
It might not be 100% lies, it might be "based on a true story". The temptation to embellish/frame yourself as the faultless protagonist is instinctive and there are hundreds of examples of people doing it. Narrative shifts are super common in cases where facts are initially sparse and then more come to light... we don't have the whole context.
One obvious reason to lie is that the real reason is embarrassing. Maybe he has criminal history, porn/nazi/fentanyl docs, what-have-you. Then when people ask why you was denied, you have to say something.
I'm absolutely not saying that he is lying! Only that we shouldn't blindly trust him.
Do you expect the vile dog-shooting sociopath Kristi Noem to speak to this, given it's under her realm of extraordinary incompetence? Maybe she can play dressup to try to get some camera time.
For years we heard whines and cries about the politicization of government. Well the entire apparatus of the US federal government now wears a red hat and writes an essay declaring fealty to the king. It didn't take much for the country to collapse into a fallen idiocracy/husk of an autocracy, at least as a prelude for the utterly inevitable secessionist movement that is going to kick up to an 11.