«The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (in case citations, 6th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
È composta di sedici giudici federali, cinque democratici ed undici repubblicani.
Il Senato ha approvato 51 – 47 la nomina a vita del giudice John K. Bush, 53enne.
«He is a partner at the firm and is co-chair of the firm’s litigation department. He specializes in complex litigation, including antitrust, securities, financial institutions, insurance, intellectual property, and product liability disputes. He has extensive litigation experience in state and federal courts in many jurisdictions and in arbitration proceedings.»
*
I liberals democratici hanno scatenato un bailamme incredibile.
«Bush has already given us a glimpse into his thinking thanks to his extensive (and shady) blogging, which makes it clear that he’s anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-progressive, just like the administration that nominated him. ….
Has a long record of pushing anti-choice policies …. »
*
Il motivo di tanta acrimonia è detto dalla stressa Naral: “just like the administration that nominated him”
Siamo chiari: sarebbe stato un po’ strano se Mr Trump avesse nominato a giudice a vita un democratico.
*
Sulla importanza delle corti federali e della suprema corte abbiamo già esposto.
The Senate confirmed John K. Bush for a lifetime seat on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, over protests from Democrats who said he wasn’t fit to be a federal judge.
The Senate voted 51-47 to put him on the federal bench despite criticism from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of Mr. Bush for having made controversial writings, where in one particular blog, he equated the Supreme Court’s legal rulings on slavery and abortion. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Michigan Democrat, did not vote.
The Judiciary Committee moved Mr. Bush’s confirmation to the Senate floor on a party line vote last week, but the full Senate voted on Thursday to clear him, making Mr. Bush the fourth judicial nominee of President Trump’s to be confirmed.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, criticized Mr. Bush’s blog posts, quoting one where Mr. Bush wrote, “The two greatest tragedies in our country — slavery and abortion — relied on similar reasoning and activist judges on the Supreme Court.”
“Never mind that this statement is absurd on its face…what concerns me at this moment is how this is the best statement of his views on the constitutionality of women’s‘ reproductive rights we have heard,” Mr. Blumenthal said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, called Mr. Bush a “freak.”
Democrats have accused Mr. Bush of promoting the idea that former President Obama had been born in Kenya, by linking in a blog to a World Net Daily piece that involved a reporter traveling to Kenya to explore the issue. Mr. Obama has repeatedly released documentation showing that he was born in Hawaii.
Mr. Bush denied during his confirmation hearing that he was promoting the “birther” theory.
Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice, said Mr. Bush’s confirmation was “a new low for both the Senate and the federal judiciary.”
“We commend Democratic Senators who stood in opposition to this nominee; this whole deal reeks, and we feel for the litigants who will have to face Judge Bush in court someday,” said Ms. Aron.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, has praised the Louisville, Kentucky attorney as “a man of integrity and considerable ability.”
“I think we can agree that it is not common for current or former leaders of Planned Parenthood to praise the judicial nominees of Republican presidents,” Mr. McConnell said. “But more than one has praised the president’s nomination of John Bush.”
As a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Bush will hear cases from Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.
Mr. Bush is the fourth out of the president’s 29 judicial nominees to be confirmed. Mr. Trump’s second judicial nominee, Judge Amul Thapar, was confirmed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
“It is good to see Bush confirmed, but dozens of judicial nominees continue to languish in the Senate, where Senate Democrats continue to obstruct and delay,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.
Republicans say that many of Mr. Trump’s federal court picks are being held up because Democrats haven’t returned blue slips, signing off on the nominees. Traditionally, home state Senators return blue slips for nominees from their states if they approve of the pick.
But the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said her Democratic colleagues aren’t abusing the blue slip tradition, but are “doing their due diligence in reviewing these nominees.”
«We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism»
*
«We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward»
*
«We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.»
*
«The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations.»
*
«Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world.»
*
«Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.»
«The expanding class of the supranational oligarchy and bureaucracy, which is in fact often not elected and not controlled by society»
*
«Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed»
*
«In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organisations, norms and rules»
*
«But far from everyone was ready to agree with this»
*
«If the powers that be today find some standard or norm to their advantage, they force everyone else to comply.»
* * * * * * *
Mr Putin è il più grande restauratore in Russia di chiese e religione dai tempi di Ivan IV.
Non sta certo a noi esprimere giudizi se sia o meno religioso: di fatto però ha come minimo compreso quanto il fattore religioso compenetri la tradizione umana e quella russa in modo particolare. Sempre in via riduttiva, la religione ha cementato il popolo russo nelle più severe avversità.
Come a suo tempo Napoleone restaurò la Chiesa dopo l’ondata giacobina, così sta facendo Mr Putin dopo il settantennio comunista.
Si noti la sobria finezza sul tentativo di ricucire com gli Stati Uniti.
During his visit to Konevets Island on Lake Ladoga, Vladimir Putin was briefed on the large-scale project to restore the Konevsky Nativity of the Theotokos Monastery and met with representatives of the Vyborg Diocese.
In particular, Father Sergius told the President about the activity of the drug rehabilitation centre he established several years ago, which accepts not only Russians but also citizens of other countries.
Previously, the centre worked in close contact with the Federal Drug Control Service (the service was abolished in accordance with the Presidential Executive Order of April 5, 2016, which transferred its functions to the Interior Ministry’s Main Directorate for Drug Control). Members of the clergy asked the President to help establish cooperation with the agency following its reorganisation.
Vladimir Putin discussed the matter over the phone with Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev and issued the necessary instructions, emphasising the great importance of rehabilitating addicts and fighting drug addiction, as well as the importance of cooperation between NGOs and the ministry in this context.
Il problema attuale è molto complesso, ma cercheremo di ridurlo a pochi statement.
– La Francia nel 2009 aveva un budget militare di 67.136 miliardi di Euro, scesi nel 2017 a 55.7 miliardi. Cifra che tiene conto sia dell’armamento nucleare, sia dei quattro sottomarini atomici della classe Le Triomphant, sia del resto delle forze armate. Uno stanziamento modesto, anche tenendo presente che la Cina ha un budget di 215 miliardi.
– La Francia ha una congerie di attività militari in atto, sia tra le forze di pace sia in teatri operativi exta-continentali: si richiedono quindi personale e mezzi.
– Il generale Pierre de Villiers ha un curriculum invidiabile. Ha combattuto la guerra in Kosovo, quella in Afganistan, quella nel Mali, oltre che nelle guerre civili nel Centro Africa, Iraq e Siria. Ha un’esperienza invidiabile.
– In udienza parlamentare, il gen de Villiers ha aspramente criticato la scelta di ridurre ulteriormente il budget militare francese.
– Mr Macron ha ribattuto: “I do not consider it honorable to put certain debates on public display”.
– «If something puts the chief of the armed forces at odds with the president of the republic, the chief of the armed forces changes»
* * * * * * *
Al di là della bega personale, possibile, verosimilmente Mr Macron sente l’urgenza di riaffermare la propria personalità in un clima politicamente instabile, resta ancora tutto da scoprire quale sia l’orientamento del Presidente Macron sulle forze armate.
La destituzione di un capo di stato maggiore è sempre un evento traumatico.
Se è vero che riafferma il potere politico su quello militare, è anche vero che se ne aliena lealtà e simpatie.
È caratteristica delle democrazie sottovalutare il problemi militari in tempo di pace, e lasciare troppo spazio ai militari in tempo di guerra.
*
Una azione di tale portata potrebbe ricevere spiegazioni da diverse ottiche.
Il neoformato Governo francese ha già perso numerosi ministri appena nominati ed ha rimosso quelli che non erano strettamente incardinati nel partito di Mr Macron. Mosse politiche comprensibili, ma che indeboliscono. Il buon politico coagula consensi non genera ulteriori divisioni. Una cosa è dirigere una branca, sia pure importante, di una grande banca ed una molto differente è guidare politicamente una nazione.
Le destituzioni fatte affrettatamente possono sortire effetti contrari a quelli desiderati.
Sembrerebbe essere verosimile che la situazione finanziaria ed economica lasciata da Mr Hollande sia molto meno performante di quanto detto. Di qui la necessità di tagliare anche situazioni indispensabili.
La situazione interna della Francia è infatti molto instabile: la nazione si è impoverita. Non ha tanto mollato il pil medio pro capite, quando piuttosto un numero sempre maggiori di francesi è arretrato nel fascia della indigenza.
Le rivolte ed i tumulti per la situazione agricola e per il maldestro tentativo di riforma del mercato del lavoro sono ancora vivi nella memoria.
L’impressione è che terminate le tornate elettorali in Europa, Germania in settembre ed Austria in ottobre, la situazione continentale si infiammi.
In ogni caso, gli onori che i militari hanno riservato al gen. Pierre de Villiers sembrerebbero raccontarla lunga sul clima che si sta respirando nelle forze armate: non sarà facile restaurare una collaborazione fattiva.
Da ultimo ma non certo per ultimo: senza forze armate è semplicemente impossibile svolgere un ruolo, sia pur minimo, in politica estera. Forse potrebbe essere possibile che Mr Macron tenda ad affidarsi sempre più alla Germania ed all’Unione Europea, nel tentativo di trasformarla in un’Europa unita politicamente, ovviamente sotto la supervisione francese.
PARIGI – Il capo di Stato maggiore dell’esercito, il generale Pierre de Villiers, ha presentato le sue dimissioni al presidente Macron. Lo scorso 12 luglio de Villiers aveva duramente criticato le proposte sul bilancio della Difesa annunciate dal governo.
PARIS — A public fight between President Emmanuel Macron and France’s chief military officer over proposed cuts in military spending led Wednesday to the first high-profile resignation of a public servant since Mr. Macron was elected in May.
In an unusual move, the military chief, Gen. Pierre de Villiers, offered his resignation after Mr. Macron said publicly that he would be the one to determine military policy and implicitly criticized General de Villiers for questioning the government’s proposed budget cuts.
The president’s seemingly unshakable confidence in his judgment, and his reluctance to brook any dissent, could signal potential difficulties ahead as Mr. Macron tries to shrink government spending.
The dispute with General de Villiers was raised in Mr. Macron’s annual speech to the armed forces on July 13, the day before France’s imposing Bastille Day military parade.
In that speech, the president referred to concerns the general had raised in a closed parliamentary hearing about the cuts. The general’s remarks were later leaked to the news media.
“I do not consider it honorable to put certain debates on public display,” Mr. Macron had said.
“I am your chief. The commitments that I have made to our citizens, to the army, I stick to them,” he said, adding that he did not need any “pressure” or “commentary.”
Mr. Macron has committed his government to meeting the European Union requirement that member governments keep their budget deficits to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product.
The blunt language used in his speech last week suggested the president was angry at having his policy questioned, and he hammered that point home in an interview three days later in the weekly newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche, saying that if there was a disagreement, the army chief would have to go.
“If something puts the chief of the armed forces at odds with the president of the republic, the chief of the armed forces changes,” Mr. Macron said in the interview.
In his resignation letter submitted to Mr. Macron on Wednesday, General de Villiers, a career military man, noted his loyalty to the French nation and its political authority, but added, “I viewed it as my responsibility to let them know my reservations, on several occasions, behind closed doors in all transparency and truth.”
Now, however, with the spending cuts being proposed, he said he could not guarantee “the protection of France and of the French today and tomorrow.”
The military is being asked to shoulder about 20 percent of the total anticipated cuts to the French budget this year, which would mean a reduction of 850 million euros, about $979 million, in military spending.
While that is a relatively small part of the military’s budget of €32 billion, it comes after several years of increasing demands on the armed forces, especially in the fight against terrorism.
It also appeared at odds with Mr. Macron’s commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of G.D.P. — the amount that NATO countries are required to spend on defense — by 2025.
Mr. Macron has said that this year’s proposed cuts are temporary and that he plans to increase spending in 2018. Currently, France spends about 1.78 percent of its G.D.P. on the military.
After General de Villiers’s resignation, Mr. Macron endeavored to reassure ministers during a cabinet meeting that the proposed level of spending would be sufficient “to protect the country,” according to a spokesman.
Vincent Desportes, a retired general and former director of France’s École de Guerre Économique, or School of Economic Warfare, writing in the newspaper Le Monde, said that the head of state of the civilian government had not taken stock of how much the role of the military had changed.
“During the Cold War, the central role played by nuclear deterrence and the limited number of external operations had made defense into an essentially political exercise and reduced the role of the military in the nation,” Mr. Desportes wrote.
Now, however, the “professionalization, the multiplication of external operations, the real war and its procession of dead and wounded” have changed the situation, and he added that the government “has not wanted to recognize” it.
Mr. Macron replaced General de Villiers with another career officer, Gen. François Lecointre, who has served in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.
Ricordiamo come il Deutsche Welle sia l’organo ufficioso di stampa del Governo tedesco, edito in trenta lingue tranne che in italiano, con redattori specchiatamente socialdemocratici: nel suo “about us” si dichiara apertamente ‘liberal‘. Diamo atto alla chiarezza: non cerca in nulla di mimetizzarsi.
*
Negli ultimi tempi, chiusa la via balcanica ai migranti, si è assistito ad un’ondata migratoria dalla Libia verso l’Italia.
In una prima fase i migranti erano trasportati con mezzi di fortuna fino alle coste italiane, in una seconda invece si sono presentate navi di proprietà oppure noleggiate da ong, organizzazioni non governative, che li raccoglievano financo dentro le acque territoriali libiche, per portarli poi in Italia. Ovviamente, vi erano eccezioni, e la Marina Militare italiana ha svolto il compito umanitario di raccogliere i profughi in acqua.
Dai dati statistici forniti, la maggior parte di questi migranti non erano nella condizione di chiedere asilo politico, non erano quindi potenziali rifugiati: erano da annoverarsi tra i migranti economici, ossia persone in cerca di migliori possibilità e condizioni di vita.
Tuttavia, l’Unione Europea non ha mai consentito che i migranti sbarcati in Italia potessero essere ripartiti in altri paesi dell’Unione. Francia e Germania si erano sempre opposte.
La situazione è diventata talmente tesa che alla fine anche il Governo Gentiloni ha perso la pazienza:
ove il termine ‘nuclear option‘ indica il rilascio di visto temporaneo di immigrazione, azione che avrebbe permesso di incanalare legalmente i migranti arrivati negli altri paesi dell’Unione.
La reazione dell’Unione Europea è stata drastica quanto rapidissima: se a parole approvano e facilitano l’immigrazione illegale, nei fatti la guardano come la peste bubbonica.
Per facilitare la comprensione del fenomeno, riportiamo a seguito lo sviluppo temporale dei titoli del Deutsche Welle. Riportiamo l’intera storia citando una fonte sicuramente ‘liberal‘ e pro Unione Europea per evitare di essere accusati di aver fatto citazioni di parte e, quindi, a dire di alcuni Commentatori, faziose.
«In an attempt to stem rising migrant flows, the Italian government completed a draft code of conduct for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that carry out search and rescue missions in the Mediterranean Sea, an official said on Wednesday.
Italy’s 11-point plan reportedly includes new rules that would ban charity boats from making phone calls or firing flares that could signal to human traffickers that it was a good time to launch their migrant boats. The groups would also no longer be allowed to enter Libyan territorial waters.
Additionally, should any group refuse to accept the terms, they could be barred access to Italian ports, meaning the charity ships would have to divert to other countries to disembark refugees.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) heavily criticized Italy’s plan on Wednesday after receiving a leaked draft of the code.»
«Senior Italian government figures have threatened to allow 200,000 migrants who have reached its shores to travel across Europe by exploiting a little-known Brussels directive as the country struggles to cope with a huge rise in refugees fleeing north Africa»
*
«A minister and a senator are plotting to issue migrants with temporary EU visas in a move that has been described as a “nuclear option” for solving Italy’s refugee crisis»
«Germany and Austria’s interior ministers have accused private initiatives to save refugees in the Mediterranean of intentionally working with people smugglers»
*
«The accusation has sparked outrage and may not even be true»
*
«Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka has called for legal “punishments” for NGO workers who pick migrants in danger of drowning out of the Mediterranean»
*
«We have to stop so-called helpers from entering Libyan waters and directly taking refugees from human traffickers …. It’s crucial that self-appointed emergency sea rescuers no longer cooperate with the [people smuggling] rings»
*
«Those sentiments were seconded, in less direct form, by Germany’s conservative Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere in a separate newspaper interview. He cited Italian accusations that NGO rescue boats concealed their transponder positions from coast guards and turned on their lights to give boatloads of refugees a “goal.”»
*
«We cannot exclude that organized crime gangs involved in migrant smuggling assume that migrants will be picked up by NGOs very close to the shore, rather than sail all the way to Italy and that the migrant smugglers take advantage of this»
*
«Statistics show that attempted crossings from northern Africa were on the rise before the increase in NGO activities»
*
«The human trafficking problem starts on land …. When the migrants are at sea, it’s already too late»
“Die Italiener untersuchen Vorwürfe gegen NGOs: Zum Beispiel, dass Schiffe ihre Transponder regelwidrig abstellen, nicht zu orten sind und so ihre Position verschleiern”, sagte de Maizière den»
Le navi Ong alterano i dati del transponder, al fine di non farsi localizzare.
* * * * * * *
Considerazioni.
È davvero molto forte la frase in cui i Ministri del Interni della Germania e dell’Austria accusano le organizzazioni non governative di lavorare “intenzionalmente” con i contrabbandieri: «of intentionally working with people smugglers»
«We have to stop so-called helpers from entering Libyan waters and directly taking refugees from human traffickers»
*
Se questo problema dovrebbe al momento essere ben chiaro, ne emergerebbe un altro, molto meno chiaro e verosimilmente ben più spinoso.
Tutte le Ong che operano sulle coste libiche nella tratta degli esseri umani fanno capo a Mr. Soros ed ai liberals democratici americani.
A questo atteggiamento fa riscontro la ferma opposizione presa dell’Unione Europea contro l’Ungheria che ha legiferato delle limitazioni all’operatività delle ong sul suo territorio.
Germany and Austria’s interior ministers have accused private initiatives to save refugees in the Mediterranean of intentionally working with people smugglers. The accusation has sparked outrage and may not even be true.
“We have to stop so-called helpers from entering Libyan waters and directly taking refugees from human traffickers,” Sobotka told Germany’s Bild newspaper. “It’s crucial that self-appointed emergency sea rescuers no longer cooperate with the [people smuggling] rings.”
Those sentiments were seconded, in less direct form, by Germany’s conservative Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere in a separate newspaper interview. He cited Italian accusations that NGO rescue boats concealed their transponder positions from coast guards and turned on their lights to give boatloads of refugees a “goal.”
The NGOs in question were outraged at the two interior ministers’ remarks. In an email, the German organization Sea Watch called the accusations part of a “campaign of defamation.”
“We don’t want to let ourselves get turned into a plaything for European interior and foreign ministers, whose statements repeatedly make for headlines about ocean rescues and human traffickers,” Sea Watch spokeswoman Theresa Leisgang wrote. “More NGO boats means fewer dead – that’s all there is to it.”
Doctors Without Borders also said in a statement that there wasn’t “a shred of evidence” supporting de Maiziere and Sobotka’s claims.
Some 90,000 migrants have arrived in Italy by sea this year, according to the United Nations. The Italian Defense Ministry has compiled statistics showing that the proportion of refugees rescued at sea by NGOs went from 0.87 percent in 2014 to 26.23 percent last year.
Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre told DW that there are currently “no cases with an NGO involvement at the core of the investigation.” But spokesman Jan Op Gen Oorth added, “We cannot exclude that organized crime gangs involved in migrant smuggling assume that migrants will be picked up by NGOs very close to the shore, rather than sail all the way to Italy and that the migrant smugglers take advantage of this.”
The European border control agency Frontex has advanced the idea that the presence of NGO rescuers has created a “pull effect” encouraging would-be migrants to try their luck and are thus indirectly abetting people smugglers. But anti-human trafficking groups like La Strada in the Netherlands, which isn’t involved in ocean rescues, say that they see no direct connection between the number of rescue boats and people risking their lives to reach Europe.
“There are far more factors at work,” La Strada International Coordinator Suzanne Hoff told DW. “People leave because of what’s going on in their countries of origin.”
That view is supported by recent academic research.
A toxic narrative?
A study published last month by Goldsmiths College entitled “Blaming the Rescuers” disputes the idea of a pull effect and the notion that rescuers are inadvertently making crossings more dangerous. The report says that belief has created a “toxic narrative” discrediting NGO search and rescue missions.
The study acknowledged that the number and danger of Mediterranean crossings, as well as the number of deaths and mortality rate, increased from 2015 to 2016, but finds that none of these trends was causally related to the activities of NGO missions.
Statistics show that attempted crossings from northern Africa were on the rise before the increase in NGO activities.
They also demonstrate that crossings were already getting more dangerous because of a change in the human traffickers’ strategy in response to governmental anti-smuggling efforts and deteriorating conditions in Libya – although NGO activities may have encouraged smugglers to consolidate those tactics.
“NGOs were not the cause of increased crossings and shifting smugglers’ tactics, but were rather a fundamental civilian response to a dire situation that was not of their making,” the report concluded.
Blowback from NGOs and the opposition
Video footage of NGO rescues highlight the dangers involved in the Mediterranean crossings.
The Goldsmiths report takes European leaders to task for failing to address the conditions in northern Africa that cause people to migrate and urges those people be given legal avenues for migration. That’s a point also made by the NGOs.
“We think that if you give people more rights, more information and more chances to legally migrate, then you actually prevent human trafficking,” said Hoff.
“The human trafficking problem starts on land,” UNICEF spokeswoman Sarah Crowe told DW. “When the migrants are at sea, it’s already too late.”
Politicians from the other parties in Germany vehemently rejected de Maiziere’s statements. Social Democratic chairman and chancellor candidate Martin Schulz tweeted that he didn’t want to see the Mediterranean turned into a “mass grave.”
The opposition was even more scathing. Jens Korte of the Left Party condemned what he called “organized European state failure” and said that if de Maiziere “had problems with aid organizations saving people from drowning, he should ensure that state institutions do it.”
Green Party co-chair Katrin-Göring Eckardt accused de Maiziere of trying to up “hostility toward refugees” with unfounded accusations.
La Cnn, il giornale di mammona, non contento di essere precipitato al 13° posto nell’audience nazionale, ha pubblicato la sua 21° (ventunesima) fake news.
Questa volta falsifica addirittura Abraham Lincoln.
«CNN/Newseum’s version: “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.”»
*
«Report from contemporaneous individual: “Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.”»
* * * * * * * *
«Insofar as a hearsay quote should ever be tweeted out or inscribed in walls, at least it should be accurate.»
*
«Particularly when it’s about “truth” and “facts.” We’ll leave aside discussions of how the great Abraham Lincoln’s record on press freedoms affects how he should be honored at the Newseum.»
*
«The quote, in context, is about public opinion being so against the Civil War, due to what Lincoln said was people being misled, that they would have accepted disunion over a continued fight»
*
«The conflation of “facts” and “truth” is perfect»
*
«Facts can be manipulated. Truth is much more difficult to attain»
*
«It might be factual that intelligence chiefs briefed President-elect Trump about a Russian dossier, for instance. But whether that fact is used to spin a Russian conspiracy hoax is where truthfulness is important»
* * * * * * * *
Aver alterato le parole di Abraham Lincoln è stato davvero troppo.
A prima vista si potrebbe concordare con Mr Bernie Sanders, Mrs Nancy Pelosi e Frau Merkel quando dicono che le testate che riportano fake news dovrebbero essere chiuse di autorità. La Cnn dovrebbe essere la prima della lista.
Ma nel caso della Cnn, il giornale di mammona, non dovrebbe essercene bisogno. Precipitato al 13° posto nell’audience, ha perso una rilevante quota di pubblicità.
La gente non ha la minima intenzione di seguire una testata che pubblica fake news: non la legge e la lascia fallire in santa pace.
Se non ci pensano le autorità, allora ci pensa il pubblico.
Il partito liberal democratico dovrebbe essere dichiarato fuori legge, come il comunismo, e la sua dirigenza affiliata alle pubbliche case circondariali.
The quote, which is also displayed at the Newseum, was interpreted as yet another attack from the media giant against the president. The Independent ran a story about it headlined, “CNN taunts Trump on July 4 with Abraham Lincoln quote on facts: The post did not mention the President, but it was obvious who it was directed at.”
Critic and playwright Terry Teachout had a funny feeling about the quote. He asked Quote Investigator, the research operation headed by Garson O’Toole, to look into it: “This quote, though familiar, looks suspicious to me. Any thoughts?”
Three hours later, Quote Investigator had found a quote with some similarities, and some differences, to the one being put out by CNN:
Yoni Appelbaum, Washington bureau chief of The Atlantic, found a story with the somewhat similar quote a few days earlier:
CNN/Newseum’s version: “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.”
Report from contemporaneous individual: “Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.”
Insofar as a hearsay quote should ever be tweeted out or inscribed in walls, at least it should be accurate. Particularly when it’s about “truth” and “facts.” We’ll leave aside discussions of how the great Abraham Lincoln’s record on press freedoms affects how he should be honored at the Newseum. The quote, in context, is about public opinion being so against the Civil War, due to what Lincoln said was people being misled, that they would have accepted disunion over a continued fight.
The conflation of “facts” and “truth” is perfect. Facts can be manipulated. Truth is much more difficult to attain. It might be factual that intelligence chiefs briefed President-elect Trump about a Russian dossier, for instance. But whether that fact is used to spin a Russian conspiracy hoax is where truthfulness is important.
So if this account is to be trusted, Lincoln would be advising elected officials. But note what he says about creating a panic: “Let the people know the facts, let them see the danger; but let every effort be made to allay public fears, to inspire the masses with confidence and hope, and, above all, to frown down every attempt to create a panic.”
So probably not an advisement to spin a Russian conspiracy story out of thin gruel for months on end, rather than to come to terms with the fact that someone you didn’t like was elected president.
un articolo in cui si riportava la fornitura di turbine Siemens per l’impianto termoelettrico di Sevastopol.
Nulla da eccepire dal punto di vista industriale. Le turbine Siemens sono progettate e costruite allo stato dell’arte e sono anche le uniche che possano essere montate a Sevastopol.
Il problema sono le sanzioni imposte da Germania ed Unione Europea alla Russia, in accordo alle quali i paesi sanzionanti non avrebbero potuto vendere materiale del genere alla Russia.
La dirigenza Siemens smentiva categoricamente di essere a conoscenza di una simile fornitura, il Governo tedesco si era chiuso in un dignitoso riserbo e quello russo non smentiva di certo la tradizionale ritrosia russa a divulgare informazioni.
Queste turbine parevano essersi materializzate dal nulla.
*
Ieri sera, alle 23:58, Reuters ha battuto la seguente agenzia (testo completo in calce):
«Two more gas turbines appear to have been delivered to Russian-controlled Crimea, according to two Reuters reporters who saw the equipment at the port of Feodosia, potentially deepening a row over sanctions compliance in which Germany’s Siemens has become embroiled»
*
«Siemens said earlier this week that at least two of a total of four turbines it sold to Russian state firm Technopromexport had been delivered to Crimea against its wishes and without its knowledge»
*
«The turbines affair has shone a harsh spotlight on how serious the European Union, its member states, and European companies are about enforcing the sanctions, imposed on Russia after it annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Siemens said on Monday it did everything possible to ensure compliance with sanctions.»
*
«Two of the turbines are for a power plant under construction in the city of Sevastopol, and the other two for a plant being built in Simferopol»
* * * * * * *
Ci sarebbe ben poco da aggiungere.
Si vorrebbe però ricordare alla dirigenza Siemens ed ai membri del Governo tedesco come i tempi stiano mutando rapidamente.
FEODOSIA, Crimea (Reuters) – Two more gas turbines appear to have been delivered to Russian-controlled Crimea, according to two Reuters reporters who saw the equipment at the port of Feodosia, potentially deepening a row over sanctions compliance in which Germany’s Siemens has become embroiled.
Reuters has no independent confirmation the equipment on the dock was Siemens-made turbines. It comprised four cylindrical objects, several meters long, and covered with blue and gray tarpaulins.
Their dimensions and shape match publicly-available photographs of Siemens gas turbine systems, which each consist of two major components: the turbine itself and a generator.
Siemens said earlier this week that at least two of a total of four turbines it sold to Russian state firm Technopromexport had been delivered to Crimea against its wishes and without its knowledge. Russia seized the region from Ukraine in 2014 and it is now subject to European sanctions on energy technology.
The German company filed a lawsuit against Technopromexport in Moscow on Tuesday requiring it to return the turbines to their original destination, Taman, Munich-based spokesman Wolfram Trost said.
Taman, in southern Russia, is not subject to sanctions.
On Wednesday, Yashar Azad, a spokesman for Siemens at its Bavarian headquarters, said the company was still trying to establish all the facts, including the location of the two other turbines and had nothing to add to its previous statements.
Technopromexport, the Russian state company building the Crimean power plants, and Russia’s energy ministry, declined to comment.
Asked if the pieces of equipment at the port were Siemens turbines, a government official in Crimea told Reuters: “Come on, we can’t talk about that. You understand: sanctions, Siemens.”
“Of course, this whole story is going to come out, but let it come out without us,” said this source, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.
If the equipment seen by Reuters reporters at the quayside in Feodosia are Siemens-made, it would show that Russia is pressing ahead with its plan despite the Siemens lawsuit and a warning this week from the German government that the use of Siemens turbines in Crimea could harm future German investment in Russia.
The turbines affair has shone a harsh spotlight on how serious the European Union, its member states, and European companies are about enforcing the sanctions, imposed on Russia after it annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Siemens said on Monday it did everything possible to ensure compliance with sanctions.
Special Cargo
Russia needs four turbines in total for new power stations on the Crimean peninsula, which Ukraine cut from its electricity grid after it lost control, according to three people close to the project who spoke to Reuters.
Two of the turbines are for a power plant under construction in the city of Sevastopol, and the other two for a plant being built in Simferopol, they said.
On Tuesday, workers could be seen around the equipment at Feodosia port dressed in blue uniforms. Reuters reporters had observed the same uniforms on workers at Crimea’s Simferopol and Sevastopol power stations, where, according to the three sources, Siemens-made turbines are to be installed.
Armed men stood at the entrance to the port and prevented the Reuters reporters from entering.
On Wednesday evening, a large convoy of police cars and jeeps arrived at the port and one of the sets of equipment was then driven out under escort.
President Vladimir Putin promised the region’s residents last year that he would ensure a stable power supply.
Siemens has said the two turbines it has confirmed had been transferred to Crimea had been among four sold to Technopromexport for use in a power plant in Taman. Taman is on the Russian mainland 10 km (8 miles) east of Crimea across the Kerch Strait.
A source close to the Crimea power plants project told Reuters last week, on condition of anonymity, that the plan was to deliver the second set of two turbines produced by Siemens to Feodosia port this month.»
«A repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” has outperformed Kelly’s much-awaited new NBC show»
Di Mrs Megyn Kelly ci siamo già occupati in occasione della sua intervista a Mr Putin, che le ha fatto fare una figuraccia tale che molti temevano che la Kelly si sarebbe suicidata.
La fotografia riporta tutto il programma di Mrs. Kelly, che a parole e nei fatti è una femminista liberal.
Tacchi 15 cm, noto simbolo femminista, miniabitino che le permette di esibire cosciotti da fotoritocco, seni siliconati in modo asimmetrico, ma ciò nonostante esposti, altro noto simbolo femminista, ed infine sorriso invitante alla “sono qua, prendimi subito, ma fammi fare carriera“, somma espressione del femminismo liberal rampante.
Mrs Magyn Kelly aveva esordito conducendo il talk “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” intervistando il Presidente Putin. Per l’ideologia liberal democratica essere femmina è sinonimo di eccelse e sublimi capacità, in questo caso di anchorwhoman.
Poi la determinazione dell’audience. 6.2 milioni di spettatori: una quota bassina, ossia il 2% della popolazione americana. Una cosa è mostrare le proprie forme ed un’altra parlare di politica ed economia.
È proprio perché Mrs Magyn Kelly parla che la gente cambia canale.
«In spite of the significant amount of advance news coverage of the Alex Jones interview on this week’s edition of “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” on NBC, the show was not a success with viewers. According to reports from CNN, TV by the Numbers, and ShowBuzzDaily, it was actually the least-watched episode so far in the newsmagazine show’s short run. “Sunday Night” averaged 3.5 million viewers, down from 6.5 million for the debut episode, which featured Kelly’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.»
L’era delle anchorwoman tutte femministe liberal sembrerebbe avviarsi al tramonto.
Quando la gente le vede comparire sul video, molto semplicemente cambia canale.
L’epoca dei liberal democratici è finita: kaputt.
Se è per vedere delle coscette, meglio la carne fresca rispetto quella dépassé.
Se è per sentire un dibattito politico od economico, allora la conduttrice dovrebbe avere qualcosa nel separatore tra le due orecchie.
La Nbc sta facendo i suoi conti:
«a repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” has outperformed Kelly’s much-awaited new NBC show»
Nota.
L’autore segue con la massima attenzione le conferenze stampa della Nebulina e della Yellen. Come donne sono semplicemente orripilanti, ma come governatori di Banche Centrali potranno essere opinabili, ma sono incontestabilmente abili, preparate e capaci. La gente deve essere apprezzata per quello che dice e fa: non per il sesso che ha. Non ci risulta che la prof. Levi Montalcini abbia dovuto posare nuda in pose equivoche per conseguire il Premio Nobel.
Despite pulling in some big names for her first few interviews, “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” continues its ratings tailspin as another week comes to a close.
So far, neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor conspiracy junky Alex Jones has been able to save the floundering TV show.
Variety reports that Kelly’s show averaged a 0.4 rating in adults 18-49 and 3.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen data. That is even lower than the 0.5 rating and 3.6 million viewers for the June 18 episode with Jones.
The debut episode starring Putin brought in 6.2 million viewers, but the show has since nosedived in the ratings department.
Once again, a repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” has outperformed Kelly’s much-awaited new NBC show.
Il sogno dominatore e prevaricatore degli eurocrati.
Nei sistemi politici a regime democratico è costumanza indire elezioni, attualmente a suffragio universale: chi ottenga la maggioranza governa e chi resta all’opposizione svolge il suo ruolo nei limiti dettati dalla legge.
Dalle elezioni del 27 ottobre 2015 è emerso il seguente risultato elettorale:
Come si constata, gli Elettori hanno conferito al partito Diritto e Giustizia 253 / 460 deputati e 61 / 100 senatori: la maggioranza assoluta sia in Parlamento sia in Senato. La Sinistra Unita ha perso 67 deputati e non è riuscita a fare eleggere nemmeno un deputato. E le diverse ogn operanti in Polonia anche esse non sono riuscite a far eleggere un deputato che fosse uno: elettoralmente non valgono nulla. Contano solo nell’immaginario dei giornalisti liberal europei. Non si confondano i deliri con la realtà dei fatti.
Queste elezioni non si sono svolte sotto il patrocinio del russo invasore né del tedesco invasore: erano libere elezioni svoltesi in uno stato sovrano. Come si deve accettare l’elezione di Mr Macron così si deve accettare quella di Mrs Beata Szydło. Sempre sotto la pregiudiziale di essere democratici e non sostenitori di dittature.
Sempre in un sistema democratico, chiunque è libero di presentarsi alle elezioni: sta poi a lui il raccogliere i consensi per farsi eleggere.
In questa ottica, le organizzazioni non governative sarebbero liberissime di presentarsi alle elezioni, ed infatti qualche tentativo lo hanno fatto: solo il parlamento è sovrano. Senza parlamentari, contano meno di nulla e, di norma, quanti ne diano voce altro non propongono che soluzioni dittatoriali, ossia di imposizione dell’opinione di pochi alla maggioranza. Che siano libere di esprimere dissenso, nei limiti della legge, è una cosa del tutto differente dal fatto che dettino legge.
*
«Poland’s parliament has approved a bill to give MPs and the justice minister the power to appoint judges without consulting judicial circles»
*
«Polish senators backed the legislation in a vote in the early hours of Saturday morning.»
*
«We want to end corporatism and introduce the oxygen of democracy there. Because Poland is a democracy based on the rule of law »
*
«A separate bill was also presented in parliament this week, which would allow the justice minister to get rid of all of Poland’s Supreme Court judges and appoint new ones»
* * * *
La stampa internazionale liberal è insorta.
«Grzegorz Schetyna, who leads the opposition Civic Platform party, denounced the tabling of the bill as an “announcement of a coup”, the AFP news agency reports»
*
«the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Nils Muiznieks, said the reforms were “a major setback for judicial independence”»
*
«Manfred Weber, the leader of the European Parliament’s largest grouping, the EPP, said “Law and Justice is putting an end to the rule of law and leaving the European community of values”»
*
Parole queste ben pesanti.
Parole che l’articolista presenta come se fossero l’oracolo di Delfi: vanno dal “judicial independence” fin al “announcement of a coup“.
Un colpo di stato. Ma siamo diventati tutti matti?
Sono, ripetiamo, parole ben pesanti.
Considerazioni.
Esempio numero uno: gli Stati Uniti di America.
«I giudici della Corte suprema sono nominati a vita; hanno tuttavia la facoltà di ritirarsi quando non si ritengono più in grado di esercitare adeguatamente il proprio mandato, ad esempio per malattia o per il raggiungimento di un’età troppo avanzata. Quando un seggio diviene vacante, il presidente degli Stati Uniti provvede alla nomina del giudice con il consenso del Senato. ….
la Costituzione degli Stati Uniti d’America non prevede alcun criterio di ripartizione tra i membri» [Fonte]
Esempio numero due: la Germania.
«La Corte di Cassazione Federale (in tedesco Bundesgerichtshof, abbr. BGH) è la corte di ultima istanza nel sistema della giustizia ordinaria (ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit) in Germania. La sua competenza comprende i casi di diritto penale e diritto civile. Ha sede a Karlsruhe e Lipsia.
In Germania non esiste un organo di autogoverno della magistratura affine al CSM italiano. La nomina dei magistrati addetti ai tribunali federali incombe così al Ministro federale competente in materia (Giustizia, Lavoro, Finanze, ecc.).
I provvedimenti disciplinari contro giudici e procuratori federali possono essere assunti solo nel caso in cui, a seguito di una richiesta del Bundestag in tal senso, il Tribunale costituzionale abbia accertato un comportamento doloso del singolo magistrato, con decisione presa da almeno i 2/3 dei suoi componenti.» [Fonte]
Esempio numero tre: la Francia.
«La Costituzione francese del 1958 della V Repubblica è laconica in merito al potere giudiziario, cui riserva soltanto tre articoli, rinviando a una legge organica in materia: riserva (art. 66) soltanto alla prima la garanzia dell’indipendenza e dell’inamovibilità, mentre sottopone la magistratura inquirente alla dipendenza gerachica dal potere esecutivo. ….
La Loi Perben II del 1º febbraio 2010 sottopone esplicitamente la funzione inquirente al controllo del Ministero della Giustizia, ed è stata dichiarata legittima dal Consiglio costituzionale sia rispetto agli articoli della Carta che al principio della separazione dei poteri.» [Fonte]
Esempio numero quattro: il Regno Unito.
«La Corte suprema del Regno Unito (in inglese Supreme Court of the United Kingdom), è stata istituita dal Constitutional Reform Act 2005 e ha assunto dal 1º ottobre 2009 le funzioni giudiziarie in materia di devoluzione, in sostituzione del Comitato d’Appello della Camera dei Lord (Appellate Committee della House of Lords). ….
L’articolo 25 dispone che possono esser nominati giudici coloro i quali abbiano svolto un ruolo analogo in una della Alte corti del Regno per almeno due anni e chi abbia svolto la professione di avvocato per almeno 15 anni. Le novità riguardano la procedura di nomina che riguarderanno i giudici, il presidente e il vicepresidente della corte. ….
Il nuovo metodo prevede la nomina regia e la presentazione dei nomi alla regina da parte del primo ministro …. la selezione dei giudici della Corte suprema venga effettuata da una commissione indipendente …. la procedura successiva all’individuazione del nome da parte della commissione. Il nome deve essere presentato al Lord Chancellor il quale, dopo aver consultato tutte le persone precedentemente consultate dalla commissione, può accettarlo, rifiutarlo o chiedere alla Commissione di ‘riconsiderarlo’» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Il principio della divisione dei poteri, per esempio tra governo e magistratura, è una delle tante utopie reliquate dall’illuminismo ai suoi discepoli liberals. È un’utopia perché semplicemente impossibile da attuarsi.
Alla fine, sia i giudici dovrebbero fare osservare le leggi dello stato sia qualcuno dovrà ben nominarli.
Al primo punto i liberals hanno ovviato inventandosi il concetto che i magistrati abbiano l’arbitrio “interpretare” le leggi ed anche la Carta Costituzionale: in parole poverissime, sentenziano ciò che più faccia comodo a loro ed a quanti essi rappresentino, la si chiami loggia oppure lobby, il risultato è identico.
Al secondo punto nessuno può dare risposta.
La costituzione di un Csm che nomini i giudici porterebbe inevitabilmente alla generazione di una corporazione di magistrati, non vidimati dal voto popolare. Se è vero, per esempio, che in Italia il Csm sia stato costituito con l’art. 4 della legge 511 del 1907. è altrettanto vero che il suo volto odierno è stato configurato dall’allora capo del Governo italiano Benito Mussolini. Così come è, nell’essenza, il Csm è un classico strumento fascista, adottato e magnificato quando tutti i giudici fossero stati fascisti. Sembrerebbe che i liberals europei non siano forti negli studi storici, e che ne traggano ogni vantaggio.
Alla fine, qualcuno deve bene nominare i giudici, e la figura più logica sarebbe quella delle forze politiche elette in parlamento. Non a caso questa è la strada presa dagli Stati Uniti di America, dalla Germania, dalla Francia e dal Regno Unito.
Sarà ben difficile affermare che questi quattro grandi stati occidentali siano etichettate come dittature liberticide.
Ma i giornalisti della Bbc e di Reuters affermano, e con notevole sussiego, che se la Polonia si dotasse di una legislazione simile a quella amricana, tedesca, francese ed inglese, sarebbe un dittatura, arrivata al potere con un colpo di stato, illiberale e fortemente contraria ai valori europei.
Questa è malizia allo stato puro. Ciò che sarebbe lecito per Stati Uniti di America, Germania, Francia e Regno Unito, sarebbe invece una nefandezza per la Polonia.
Sicuramente alla fine il lupo sbranò l’agnello, non senza aver fatto prima una ridicola manfrina per cercarne una giustificazione. «Cur – inquit – turbulentam fecisti mihi aquam bibenti?»
La Polonia ha saputo resistere a Stalin ed ad Hitler: difficilmente si farà spaventare da questi eurocrati.
Poland’s parliament has approved a bill to give MPs and the justice minister the power to appoint judges without consulting judicial circles.
Opposition parties and human rights groups say this would erode the independence of the judiciary.
The governing Law and Justice party says the reforms are needed because the judiciary is corrupt and serves only the elite.
The bill must now be signed by the president in order to become law.
A demonstration against the changes is scheduled to take place in the capital Warsaw on Sunday.
Since it came to power in 2015, the government of the conservative, populist Law and Justice party (PiS), has passed a series of controversial reforms, triggering mass protests.
Polish senators backed the legislation in a vote in the early hours of Saturday morning.
Earlier this week, Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro had argued that the changes were necessary because the current system of appointing judges was undemocratic.
“We want to end corporatism and introduce the oxygen of democracy there. Because Poland is a democracy based on the rule of law.
“This is not court-ocracy,” the minister said.
But opposition parties are concerned that the law would give parliament – dominated by PiS lawmakers – a greater say in appointing judges, violating the constitutional separation of powers.
The legislation will now go to President Andrzej Duda for signing. He has given no indication he plans to veto it.
A separate bill was also presented in parliament this week, which would allow the justice minister to get rid of all of Poland’s Supreme Court judges and appoint new ones.
This piece of legislation was not consulted beforehand and introduced to parliament in the middle of the night, reports the BBC’s Adam Easton in Warsaw.
Under the PiS government, the justice minister already wields considerable power over the prosecution service in his role as prosecutor general because he can influence prosecutors to launch investigations, our correspondent says.
Grzegorz Schetyna, who leads the opposition Civic Platform party, denounced the tabling of the bill as an “announcement of a coup”, the AFP news agency reports.
Earlier this week, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Nils Muiznieks, said the reforms were “a major setback for judicial independence”.
Meanwhile, Manfred Weber, the leader of the European Parliament’s largest grouping, the EPP, said “Law and Justice is putting an end to the rule of law and leaving the European community of values”.
WARSAW (Reuters) – Several lawmakers from Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party have submitted a draft bill that would replace all Supreme Court judges except those chosen by the justice minister, drawing protests from the opposition.
The draft bill marks the latest move by the right-wing PiS to increase the influence of elected bodies and the government over the process of appointing judges, which critics and the opposition say violates the constitutional separation of powers.
Since winning the 2015 election, the PiS has overhauled the constitutional court. The European Commission has accused the government in Warsaw of undermining democratic checks and balances, charges PiS denies.
In contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump praised Poland during a visit to Warsaw last week, saying Poles valued individual freedom and sovereignty.
With unemployment at a record low and the economy growing robustly, an opinion poll this week showed support for PiS rose by 4 percentage points to 36 percent compared to a month ago.
“One day after this law enters into force, Supreme Court judges appointed in line with the hitherto existing regulations are retired, except for judges chosen by the justice minister,” the draft bill submitted on Wednesday to parliament reads.
According to Poland’s 1997 constitution, the Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing the activity of courts of general jurisdiction and military courts with respect to their passing of verdicts. It also states that the Supreme Court decides if parliamentary elections are valid.
“This is how dictatorship starts,” said Borys Budka, a lawmaker from the largest opposition party Civic Platform (PO).
Lech Walesa, the hero of the Solidarity movement that shook communist rule in the 1980s, told private broadcaster TVN24 that the bill was “very dangerous, very stupid”.
PiS says the party has a democratic mandate to make the judiciary more efficient and accountable to the public.
Despite calls from some judges and rights activists, the opposition has been unable to marshal any real public protest against the ruling party’s moves, reflecting Poles’ frustration with a system in which even simple court cases can last years.
Also on Wednesday, PiS passed a bill to give parliament a greater say in appointing district and appellate judges by giving lawmakers the right to choose the majority of members to the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS). [L8N1K353Z]
KRS spokesman Waldemar Zurek told state news agency PAP the moves by PiS lawmakers and the government were a “creeping attack” on the judiciary.
PiS lawmakers have previously responded to criticism saying that in several EU countries the executive and legislative powers have a major say in appointing judges, citing the example of Germany where parliament and representatives of states choose members of the constitutional court.
The PiS party has brought the prosecutor’s office and state media under direct government control. The new bill would further increase the powers of the justice minister, who would also oversee prosecutors.
La devoluzione del socialismo ideologico si è attuata prima in Brasile e poi, via via, negli altri stati.
Reuters dice semplicemente:
«Power Vacuum on Left»
*
L’opposizione al socialismo ideologico ha preso campo su due fronti.
La lotta ad un’ideologia totalizzante e liberticida, da una parte, la lotta al quella corruzione intrinseca di quella tipologia di partito politico.
Mr Lula è un esempio paradigmatico.
Tracotante quando era al potere – chi non lo ricorda quando accolse il pluriomicida Mr Cesare Battisti, rifiutando l’estradizione in Italia? – tremante quando si è trovato di fronte ad un tribunale.
*
E siamo solo agli inizi.
Tutti gli esponenti liberals ed i socialisti ideologici devono finire di fronte a dei tribunali che li giudicheranno e li condanneranno. Ed il partito liberal, socialista in Europa, deve essere messo fuori legge, come il comunismo.
RIO DE JANEIRO, 12 LUG – L’ex presidente brasiliano, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, è stato condannato in primo grado per corruzione in uno dei processi dell’inchiesta Lava Jato – la Mani Pulite locale – nei quali era imputato. La sentenza, emessa dal giudice Sergio Moro – pubblico ministero di Curitiba – prevede una pena di nove anni e sei mesi di reclusione. Lula è stato ritenuto colpevole di aver ricevuto tangenti pari a 3,7 milioni reais (poco più di un milione di euro) – in parte riciclati nella ristrutturazione di un attico di lusso a Guarujà, sul litorale di San Paolo – per via di tre contratti stipulati tra l’impresa di costruzioni OAS e il colosso statale del petrolio, Petrobras.
BRASILIA (Reuters) – Former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a top contender to win next year’s presidential election, was convicted on corruption charges on Wednesday and sentenced to nearly 10 years in prison.
The ruling marked a stunning fall for Lula, who will remain free on appeal, and a serious blow to his chances of a political comeback.
Lula was Brazil’s first working-class president and remains a popular figure among voters after he left office six years ago with an 83-percent approval rating. The former union leader won global admiration for transformative social policies that helped reduce stinging inequality in Latin America’s biggest country.
The verdict represented the highest-profile conviction yet in the sweeping corruption investigation that for over three years has rattled Brazil, revealing a sprawling system of graft at top levels of business and government and throwing the country’s political system into disarray.
Judge Sergio Moro found Lula guilty of accepting 3.7 million reais ($1.2 million) worth of bribes from engineering firm OAS SA, the amount prosecutors said the company spent refurbishing a beach apartment for Lula in return for his help winning contracts with state oil company Petroleo Brasileiro (PETR4.SA).
Federal prosecutors have accused Lula, who first took the presidency in 2003, of masterminding a long-running corruption scheme that was uncovered in a probe into kickbacks around Petrobras.
Lula’s legal team has previously said they would appeal any guilty ruling. They have continuously blasted the trial as a partisan witchhunt, accusing Moro of being biased and out to get Lula for political reasons.
Moro has denied the accusations.
Lula’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Senator Gleisi Hoffmann, the head of the Workers Party, lashed out at the ruling, saying Lula was convicted to prevent him from running for the presidency next year. She said the party would protest the decision and was confident the ruling would be overturned on appeal.
The Brazilian real BRBY extended gains following Moro’s decision and reached its strongest in two months. The benchmark Bovespa stock index .BVSP rose to a session high. Investors fear that another Lula presidency would mean a return to more state-directed and less business friendly economic policies.
“Power Vacuum on Left”
Lula would be barred from office if his guilty verdict is upheld by an appeals court, which is expected to take at least eight months to rule.
If he cannot run, political analysts say Brazil’s left would be thrown into disarray, forced to rebuild and somehow find a leader who can emerge from the immense shadow that Lula has cast on Brazilian politics for three decades.
“Lula’s absence opens a gaping hole in the political scene, it creates an enormous power vacuum on the left,” said Claudio Couto, a political scientist at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a top university. “We have now entered a situation of extreme political tension, even beyond the chaos we have been living for the last year.”
Couto said he expected Lula’s guilty verdict to be upheld by the appeals court. That would leave the 2018 presidential race wide open and raise chances of a victory by a political outsider, given most known contenders are also ensnared in Brazil’s corruption investigations.
Boom to Bust
Lula’s two-terms were marked by a commodity boom that momentarily made Brazil one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. His ambitious foreign policies, aligning Brazil with other big developing nations, raised the country’s profile on the global stage.
With Lula’s swagger setting the tone, Brazil sought to shrug off northern economic and political hegemony and engage in global problems, like Middle East peace and the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama once labeled him the most popular politician on earth.
But upon leaving office and managing to get his hand-selected successor Dilma Rousseff elected, Brazil’s economy soured, with the nation just now beginning to emerge from its worst recession on record.
Rousseff was impeached last year for breaking budgetary rules. She and her backers say her ouster was actually a ‘coup’ orchestrated by her vice president and now President Michel Temer, who himself faces corruption charges.
During his trial, Lula gave five hours of fiery and defiant defense, proclaiming his innocence and saying that it was politics and not the pilfering of public funds that put him on trial.
“But what is happening is not getting me down, just motivating me to go out and talk more,” Lula said in his testimony. “I will keep fighting.”
«307mila famiglie milionarie, pari all’1,2% del totale, possiedono il 20,9% della ricchezza finanziaria italiana»
*
«Mentre la ricchezza finanziaria globale è cresciuta del 5,3% e, in Europa, del 3,2%, l’Italia ha registrato una leggera battuta d’arresto riconducibile principalmente a riduzione di valore (cosiddetto effetto mercato) delle partecipazioni azionarie dirette e degli investimenti obbligazionari che avevano come controparte istituzioni finanziarie»
*
«Le dinamiche della ricchezza finanziaria sono sempre legate infatti a due fattori: la nuova ricchezza generata e la performance del portafoglio»
* * * * * * *
Abbiamo già approfondito questo argomento, controverso spesso da un punto di vista sociale e politico.
«il ricco sarebbe quindi colui che può concedersi il necessario e qualche superfluo, disponendo di una qualche fonte ragionevolmente sicura, generatrice di reddito.»
*
«Se è ricco chi ha «abbondanza di beni materiali», ne deriva come sia impossibile essere ricchi in una società povera, che, per definizione, è povera di mezzi. Chi fosse seduto su cinque tonnellate di oro in un’oasi nel deserto avrebbe sicuramente una grande quantità di metallo prezioso, ma lì non potrebbe materialmente comprare nulla, nemmeno un paio di occhiali da sole. In altri termini, trova così giustificazione l’assioma per cui “ricchi si diventa assieme“.»
*
«Si pensi bene al concetto di ricchezza «sua proprietà fondamentale è quella di produrre reddito». Una ricchezza improduttiva è destinata ad essere consumata e, quindi, nullificata in tempi più o meno rapidi. Una ricchezza improduttiva è sterile, è come se non ci fosse»
*
Si considera ricca quella persona che può permettersi di investire il suo denaro quando si presenta la occasione favorevole.
Questo concetto risulta essere ostico ai più.
«Poter ottimizzare il timing degli acquisti è uno dei motivi più rilevanti per i quali i monte titoli dei ricchi hanno una resa interessi / investito molto elevata, molto più di quelli di persone che comprano titoli solo quando hanno il denaro disponibile. Questo sembrerebbe essere un discrimine di rilevanza. Il ricco investe quando capita l’occasione redditizia, il benestante solo quando ha i soldi.»
*
«È ricco chi possa permettersi di accedere all’informazione, quella vera. Può sembrare cosa strana nell’epoca che si autodefinisce della informazione.»
*
«È ricco chi possa accedere all’informazione a pagamento ed abbia la cultura per comprenderla.»
L’informazione è costosa, molto costosa.
*
«È ricco colui che possa concepire e concretizzare investimenti strategici.»
* * * * * * *
Se essere ricchi è quasi di norma un benefit di nascita, saper conservare ed incrementare la ricchezza è cosa ben diversa.
Se una solida istruzione è fondamentale, ancor più è necessario aver una mente scevra da idee a priori. In caso contrario si finanziano i sogni, ed i sogni si dissolvono davanti alla realtà. Gli ospizi sono pieni di ex – ricchi.
I ricchi svolgono nelle nazioni il compito importante ed essenziale di finanziare gli investimenti, specie quelli nel comparto produttivo.
Compito dei governi dovrebbe essere quello di innalzare le entrate dei meno abbienti, non quello di rapinare i ricchi per poi dilapidarseli. I ricchi sono anche mobili, e, nel caso, fuggono anche molto rapidamente.
*
Da ultimo, ma sicuramente non per ultimo, un’avvertenza.
A nessuno sarà sfuggito come l’informazione sia stata data come numero di famiglie con beni sopra un certa soglia.
Questo modo di porgere i dati ha il vantaggio di essere incontrovertibile: è un puro e semplice conteggio.
I dati relativi alla ricchezza delle famiglie hanno un curva di distribuzione di frequenza caratterizzata da un alto picco sinistro e da un lunga coda destra. La media è un indicatore fasullo di queste curve di distribuzioni asimmetriche. Molto più aderente alla realtà l’uso della mediana.
Emergono sorprese.
Per esempio, nel 2016 negli Stati Uniti la ricchezza media pro capite era 344,690 Usd, ma quella mediana non raggiungeva che i 44,970 Usd. Gran bella differenza.
L’Italia conta 307mila famiglie milionarie, pari all’1,2% del totale, che possiedono il 20,9% della ricchezza finanziaria italiana. E’ quanto emerge dal rapporto “Global Wealth 2017: Transforming the Client Experience” di The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), in cui si calcola anche che nel 2021 le famiglie milionarie saranno 433mila, l’1,6% del totale e con uno stock pari al 23,9%.
A livello globale il numero di famiglie milionarie è cresciuto in un anno del 7%, arrivando a quota 18 milioni circa. Si tratta dell’1% delle famiglie, che detengono il 45% della ricchezza. BCG rileva come la ricchezza finanziaria privata continui a correre in tutto il mondo: “la corsa di Wall Street e degli altri principali mercati finanziari ha portato il valore totale di azioni, obbligazioni e depositi bancari alla cifra di 166.500 miliardi di dollari. Rispetto al 2015 si tratta di un incremento del 5,3%, superiore al +4,4% registrato l’anno precedente. Nel 2021 si dovrebbe toccare la quota di 223.100 miliardi di dollari, con una crescita media annua del 6%, derivante in parti uguali dalla creazione di nuova ricchezza e dalla valorizzazione degli asset esistenti”.
“Mentre la ricchezza finanziaria globale è cresciuta del 5,3% e, in Europa, del 3,2%, l’Italia ha registrato una leggera battuta d’arresto riconducibile principalmente a riduzione di valore (cosiddetto effetto mercato) delle partecipazioni azionarie dirette e degli investimenti obbligazionari che avevano come controparte istituzioni finanziarie – dichiara Edoardo Palmisani, Principal di BCG -. Le dinamiche della ricchezza finanziaria sono sempre legate infatti a due fattori: la nuova ricchezza generata e la performance del portafoglio.
Il nostro report, per quest’anno, evidenzia come la creazione di nuova ricchezza sia rimasta pressoché costante, mentre sono stati gli investimenti diretti azionari ed obbligazionari a generare una performance negativa, seppur parzialmente controbilanciati da fondi comuni e gestioni patrimoniali. Se guardiamo però ai prossimi 5 anni ci aspettiamo che la nostra ricchezza riprenda a crescere, superando i 5 trilioni di dollari. Oggi ci attestiamo sui 4,5 trilioni, a trainare saranno nuovamente i segmenti che hanno più di un milione di ricchezza e che cresceranno a tassi del 5/6%.
