Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Guerra Civile, Medio Oriente, Senza categoria

Droni yemeniti distruggono due impianti petroliferi sauditi. Produzione dimezzata.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-14.

2019-09-14__Arabia Saudita 001

Saudi oil plant fire: Blaze rages in Abqaiq after drone attack

«Drone attacks have set alight two major oil facilities run by state-owned Aramco in Saudi Arabia, state media say.

One was at Abqaiq, which has the world’s largest oil processing plant.»

*

«At 04:00 (01:00 GMT), the industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of… drones,” the official Saudi Press Agency reported»

«Abqaiq is about 60km (37 miles) south-west of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, while Khurais, some 200km further south-west, has the country’s second largest oilfield»

«Saturday’s attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in “co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom”»

«Saudi Arabia’s oil production has been severely disrupted by drone attacks on two major oil facilities run by state-owned company Aramco»

«TV footage showed a huge blaze at Abqaiq, site of Aramco’s largest oil processing plant, while a second drone attack started fires in the Khurais oilfield»

«The Saudis lead a military coalition backing Yemen’s government, while Iran backs the Houthi rebels»

«The Houthi spokesman, Yahya Sarea, told al-Masirah TV, which is owned by the Houthi movement and is based in Beirut, that further attacks could be expected in the future»

* * * * * * *

Quanto successo meriterebbe molti commenti.

– Lo Yemen è da decenni in regime di guerra civile, fattasi decisamente virulenta nell’ultimo lustro.

– I sauditi appoggiano le forze regolari, mentre gli iraniani quelle ribelli. Oltre le diatribe politiche e militari, si dovrebbero anche considerare quelle religiose: i sauditi sono wahhabiti e gli iraniani sciiti. Si odiano mortalmente da millequattrocento anni.

– Tutte le grandi potenze sono coinvolte nella guerra nello Yemen: talune in modo discreto, altre in modo plateale. In fondo, sono loro a pilotare i giochi e, a quanto sembrerebbe, proprio a nessuno farebbe piacere avere una pace in quel settore geopolitico.

– L’Arabia Saudita ha un fenomenale budget militare ed un esercito che, almeno sulla carta, dovrebbe essere di tutto rispetto. Ma che poi i Saud possano fidarsi dell’esercito sarebbe cosa davvero molto discutibile, ma la Tribù Saud non ha figliato a sufficienza per avere persone fidate nei ranghi militari, e le guerre le fanno gli uomini. Pochi uomini, nessuna guerra degna di quel nome.

– I ribelli yemeniti versano in condizioni misere, essendo gli alimentari e gli armamenti le loro spese principali.

– Si resta sorpresi, ma non troppo, che abbiano potuto disporre di una decina di droni di attacco, sempre poi che a pilotarli da postazioni remate siano stati i ribelli e non truppe straniere particolarmente addestrate. Ma su questo argomento non è stato possibile rintracciare informazioni credibili e corroborabili.

– I droni sono penetrati in grande profondità nel territorio saudita e questi, che sono intrinsecamente lenti, sono sfuggiti al rilevamento radar saudita, anche a quello particolarmente potente e moderno dell’aeroporto di Riyadh.

* * * * * * *

Come si constata, vi sono molti fatti che al momento sembrerebbero essere inspiegabili.

Una ultima considerazione.

Le guerre o si fanno oppure non si fanno, ma, nel caso, occorrerebbe dispiegare immediatamente la massima potenza.

L’unica vera opzione che avrebbe l’Arabia Saudita sarebbe l’invasione dello Yemen e lo sterminio fisico di tutti i ribelli, sia quelli veri sia anche quelli presunti.

Ma forse il colpo ora subito non è ancora quello sufficiente per far prendere decisioni drastiche.


Bbc. 2019-09-14. Saudi Arabia oil production reduced by drone strikes

Saudi Arabia’s oil production has been severely disrupted by drone attacks on two major oil facilities run by state-owned company Aramco, reports say.

Sources quoted by Reuters and WSJ said the strikes had reduced production by five million barrels a day – nearly half the kingdom’s output.

The fires are now under control at both facilities, Saudi state media say.

A spokesman for the Houthi rebel group in Yemen said it had deployed 10 drones in the attacks.

The Saudis lead a military coalition backing Yemen’s government, while Iran backs the Houthi rebels.

The Houthi spokesman, Yahya Sarea, told al-Masirah TV, which is owned by the Houthi movement and is based in Beirut, that further attacks could be expected in the future.

He said Saturday’s attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in “co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom”.

TV footage showed a huge blaze at Abqaiq, site of Aramco’s largest oil processing plant, while a second drone attack started fires in the Khurais oilfield.

United Nations envoy Martin Griffiths described the attacks as “extremely worrying” in a statement in which he called on all parties in the Yemen conflict to exercise restraint.

Saudi officials have yet to comment on who they think is behind the attacks.

“At 04:00 (01:00 GMT), the industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of… drones,” the official Saudi Press Agency reported.

“The two fires have been controlled.”

There have been no details on the damage but AFP news agency quoted interior ministry spokesman Mansour al-Turki as saying there were no casualties.

Abqaiq is about 60km (37 miles) south-west of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, while Khurais, some 200km further south-west, has the country’s second largest oilfield.

Saudi security forces foiled an attempt by al-Qaeda to attack the Abqaiq facility with suicide bombers in 2006.

Who are the Houthis?

The Iran-aligned Houthi rebel movement has been fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition.

Yemen has been at war since 2015, when President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the capital Sanaa by the Houthis. Saudi Arabia backs President Hadi, and has led a coalition of regional countries against the rebels.

The coalition launches air strikes almost every day, while the Houthis often fire missiles into Saudi Arabia.

Mr Sarea, the Houthi group’s military spokesman, told al-Masirah that operations against Saudi targets would “only grow wider and will be more painful than before, so long as their aggression and blockade continues”.

Houthi fighters were blamed for drone attacks on the Shaybah natural gas liquefaction facility last month, and on other oil facilities in May.

There have been other sources of tension in the region, often stemming from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the US both blamed Iran for attacks in the Gulf on two oil tankers in June and July, allegations Tehran denied.

In May four tankers, two of them Saudi-flagged, were damaged by explosions within the UAE’s territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman.

Tension in the vital shipping lanes worsened when Iran shot down a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in June, leading a month later to the Pentagon announcing the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia.

——-

An attack method open to all

This latest attack underlines the strategic threat posed by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia’s oil installations.

The growing sophistication of the Houthis’ drone operations is bound to renew the debate as to where this capability comes from. Have the Houthis simply weaponised commercial civilian drones or have they had significant assistance from Iran?

The Trump administration is likely to point the finger squarely at Tehran, but experts vary in the extent to which they think Iran is facilitating the drone campaign.

The Saudi air force has been pummelling targets in Yemen for years. Now the Houthis have a capable, if much more limited, ability to strike back. It shows that the era of armed drone operations being restricted to a handful of major nations is now over.

Drone technology, albeit of varying degrees of sophistication, is available to all – from the US to China, Israel and Iran – and from the Houthis to Hezbollah.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Guerra Civile, Unione Europea

Francia. Salvini vs Macron. Identitari versus liberal socialisti. Guerra Civile.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-19.

Ghigliottina 1008

Le jeux son faits: rien ne va plus.


«France is the EU’s leading defender of Brussels – but Italy sees things very differently»

*

«French President Emmanuel Macron has lately shown himself unable to take the Italian government in his stride. Perhaps it is because he is worried about France’s own protests»

*

«The so-called Yellow Vest marchers have been rallying against Macron’s embattled government for three months now»

*

«Chalençon is given to blurting out various non-conforming sentiments on Twitter about the inevitability of civil war and the upside of military rule»

*

«Macron is Europe’s leading defender of Brussels and its ways»

*

«Politicians of his stripe generally attribute to the EU such miraculous powers of conflict resolution»

*

«But Italy sees things differently»

*

«Macron himself denounced the ‘leprosy’ of Italian and other nationalisms — although he has not so often invoked the ‘costs and consequences’ with which he threatens post-Brexit Britain»

*

«Like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in the summer of 2015, he, Salvini, has only been doing what EU treaties envisioned — defending the community’s external border. Macron, meanwhile, was hermetically sealing the Franco-Italian internal border to ensure that Italy bore all the costs and consequences of an illegal migration that it had done nothing to summon.»

*

«Macron is optimistic enough to believe that populism is just a kind of rhetoric»

*

«Macron’s party is the most Europhile in Europe»

*

«Di Maio’s is among the most Eurosceptic»

*

«The logic of the Maastricht Treaty is that eventually Europe will be a country that replaces the old nation states»

*

«Really there is no clash between Italy and France. There is a clash between the winners and losers of the process of ‘building Europe’

*

Una diffusa quanto errata assunzione è che le rivoluzioni le facciano i popoli.

Per definizione, la rivoluzione è concepita ed attuata da una minoranza, e solo dopo che essa ha conquistato il potere con la forza la gente si accorge di quello che è successo. Se così non fosse, la rivoluzione sarebbe inutile, detenendo già la maggioranza.

La nobiltà inglese è sopravissuta per secoli perché si rinnovava – si pensi solo a sir Francis Drake -, mentre quella francese, che si era cristallizzata, fu spazzata via dalla ghigliottina. Le rigidità si spezzano.

Stesso itinerario quello odierno dei liberal socialisti, eurofili doc, tetragoni ad ogni possibile accordo, ad ogni possibile dialogo.

«a transitional government to hear and hear people …. I appeal to Mr. Macron, or, if he refuses, to the military. Today it is up to the military to come into play in order to facilitate the deployment of this government.»

Si pesino molto bene i significati espliciti e quelli impliciti a codeste parole.


Christophe Chalençon affirme que des “paramilitaires sont prêts à faire tomber le pouvoir” YpuTube

*


NewWebeezer. 2019-12-15. “We’re going to civil war,” announces Christophe Chalençon

“Civil war is inevitable”. These words are signed by Christophe Chalençon and presented as one of the leaders of the “yellow free west”. In a post on Facebook on December 23, accompanied by the headline “The Chaos Announced,” this spokesman for the Vaucluse protesters demands Emmanuel Macron’s resignation. A recurrent theme in “yellow west”.

But Christophe Chalençon goes further: he appeals to the army. He wants a “transitional government to hear and hear people”. And to be precise, “I appeal to Mr. Macron, or, if he refuses, to the military. Today it is up to the military to come into play in order to facilitate the deployment of this government.”

The intervention of the military was already mentioned by Christophe Chalençon. On December 3 he had called for a “real commander” in Matignon. According to him, as he had told our fellow Europeans 1, , Édouard Philippe had to be replaced by General de Villiers, the former chief of staff of the armies released by Emmanuel Macron.

*


Il Giornale. 2019-12-15. Il leader dei gilet gialli: “I paramilitari ora sono pronti per far cadere il governo”

La tensione in Francia continua a salire e un fuori onda mostrato da Piazza Pulita di uno dei leader dei gilet gialli spiega bene qual è la situazione nel Paese transalpino.

*

“Abbiamo paramiliatri pronti ad intervenire”. La tensione in Francia continua a salire e un fuori onda mostrato da Piazza Pulita di uno dei leader dei gilet gialli spiega bene qual è la situazione nel Paese transalpino.

“Abbiamo dei paramilitari pronti a intervenire perché anche loro vogliono far cadere il governo. Oggi è tutto calmo, ma siamo sull’orlo della guerra civile. Quindi si trovino delle soluzioni politiche molto rapidamente, perché dietro ci sono delle persone pronte a intervenire da ovunque. Delle persone che si sono ritirate dall’esercito e che sono contro il potere”, ha affermato Christophe Chalençon, uno dei leader dei gilet gialli incontrato da Di Maio e Di Battista in Francia, in un fuori-onda realizzato a margine dell’intervista trasmessa da Piazzapulita.

Parole forti che fanno capire quanto il movimento dei gilet gialli sia determinato nella sua battaglia contro il governo guidato da Emmanuel Macron. Nelle ultime settimane per le strade di Parigi si sono susseguite manifestazioni e scontri tra la polizia e gli stessi gilet gialli. La scorsa settimana una delegazione ha “sconfinato” a Sanremo per portare la voce della protesta anche in Italia. Il braccio di ferro con Macron dunque non è finito e lo scontro è destinato a durare ancora a lungo.

*

Spectator. 2019.02-16. Europe’s culture clash: Macron vs Salvini is a battle over a continent’s soul

France is the EU’s leading defender of Brussels – but Italy sees things very differently.

*

Two weeks ago Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s vice-premier and Labour Minister and the top politician of the Five Star Movement (M5S), appointed a new commissioner for the UN cultural organisation Unesco. He chose the dog–whistling, bum-slapping sex–comedy actor Lino Banfi, star of How to Seduce Your Teacher, Policewoman on the Porno Squad and other films. The M5S was launched online by the 1980s comedian Beppe Grillo. It is run on the basis of a private computer operating system called Rousseau. Most Italians look at the M5S as either a breath of fresh air, a necessary gesture of defiance, or a ridiculous episode that will pass.

But you need a sense of humour for that. French President Emmanuel Macron has lately shown himself unable to take the Italian government in his stride. Perhaps it is because he is worried about France’s own protests. The so-called Yellow Vest marchers have been rallying against Macron’s embattled government for three months now. Di Maio travelled to the Loiret to meet the like-minded Christophe Chalençon, a sort of Yellow Vest renegade who has set up his own citizens’ software programme and a new political party, and seems interested in collaborating with M5S in May’s European elections. Chalençon is given to blurting out various non-conforming sentiments on Twitter about the inevitability of civil war and the upside of military rule. Macron responded to Di Maio’s visit by recalling France’s ambassador to Italy for consultations.

Macron is Europe’s leading defender of Brussels and its ways. Politicians of his stripe generally attribute to the EU such miraculous powers of conflict resolution that you would imagine European countries would no longer even need embassies in their neighbours’ capitals at all. But Italy sees things differently. Italy’s government is a coalition of the anti-corruption M5S and the anti-immigration League. Ever since interior minister Matteo Salvini of the League began implementing his policy of turning away boatloads of migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa, Macron has become Italy’s most strident oratorical adversary. One Macron aide said the Italian migration policy made him want to vomit. Macron himself denounced the ‘leprosy’ of Italian and other nationalisms — although he has not so often invoked the ‘costs and consequences’ with which he threatens post-Brexit Britain.

As Salvini sees it, Macron is a hypocrite. Like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán in the summer of 2015, he, Salvini, has only been doing what EU treaties envisioned — defending the community’s external border. Macron, meanwhile, was hermetically sealing the Franco-Italian internal border to ensure that Italy bore all the costs and consequences of an illegal migration that it had done nothing to summon.

Who had summoned it? Salvini makes no bones about it: ‘Ask Paris,’ he said last summer. The present migration route opened up in 2011, when one trio of western leaders (France’s then president Nicolas Sarkozy, along with David Cameron and Barack Obama) overruled another trio (Silvio Berlusconi, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin) to destroy the Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi.

This antagonism, it must be said, has been good for both Salvini and Macron. But Di Maio got lost in the shuffle. His reputation has suffered at the hands of the other two. Salvini’s agenda is to keep migrants out. It requires will and thick skin, and Salvini has plenty of both. Di Maio’s agenda is to fix an economy that has been delivering lousy economic results to everyone but the rich. That requires money.

Things were supposed to get better once Di Maio muscled a modest guaranteed-income measure into Italy’s budget. But the EU’s finance commissioner Pierre Moscovici would not sign off on an Italian budget deficit higher than 2.04 per cent. (Moscovici  is a Frenchman, although it is EU etiquette never to allude to the national origin of the various commissioners.) So Italy had to scale back some of Di Maio’s most popular programmes. By contrast, in December, when Moscovici’s former fellow socialist Macron offered a set of measures that would push France’s deficit over 3 per cent, Moscovici waved it through. He had a reason: Italy’s debt is higher. But Italians still resented it.

Although the M5S got the most votes in last year’s elections, it has been losing ground to the League almost daily. At regional elections in the Abruzzi last weekend, M5S saw its vote cut in half, falling under 20 per cent, as the League became the top party.

France’s Yellow Vest protesters do have grievances in common with Di Maio, and they are having just as hard a time taking political advantage. They are a variety of ordinary people from rural France who are seeing not just their standard of living but also their culture destroyed around them.

Macron has tried to defuse their complaints in several ways. This includes passing budget-busting new government benefits, which have reversed overnight his plan to ‘modernise’ the French economy, much as François Mitterrand in 1983 had to reverse his plan to socialise it. He has set out on a tour he calls le grand débat, but which is better thought of as a round of squabbles, some of which have gone on for six hours. And he has encouraged a confusion between the yellow-vest protesters and vandals who often follow in their wake, using the excesses of the latter to crack down on the former.

Macron is optimistic enough to believe that populism is just a kind of rhetoric. If these uncredentialled citizens can learn to wield the irrational populist magic, why can’t he? This attitude may be what turned Di Maio’s visit — a run-of-the mill episode of political friction — into an institution-damaging scandal.

Macron’s party is the most Europhile in Europe. Di Maio’s is among the most Eurosceptic. But both lack allies at the continental level. Each is trying desperately to fix this problem as May’s European elections approach. That Di Maio would come to France to meet like-minded political agitators on the eve of the European elections is the most natural thing in the world. Until Angela Merkel was repudiated at the ballot box in 2017, Macron ran his government as a joint venture with the Germans. It was only a few weeks ago that he was sketching out plans for bilateral defence with Berlin, and he has not been shy about telling London how it should manage Brexit. That’s what the EU is.

Really there is no clash between Italy and France. There is a clash between the winners and losers of the process of ‘building Europe’. In France, in Italy, and everywhere else in Europe, there is a class war going on. This week in Spain, El País editoria-lised that the ambassadorial contretemps pits the ‘liberal and democratic values of the EU founders’ (Macron) against ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘-insurrection’ (Di Maio). If you’re prole-friendly, you’re with Di Maio. If you’re among the nobs of the information economy, you’re with Macron. That may be why Salvini calls Macron signorino — the young master.

The logic of the Maastricht Treaty is that eventually Europe will be a country that replaces the old nation states. If you think this way, as Macron day after day shows he does, then the institutions of the old nations are vestigial, soon-to-expire, worthless. Why protect or respect, for instance, diplomatic protocol? Why not use it to leverage yourself into a more advantageous position in the future order in which all politics will be continental? That is what Obama likely thought he was doing when he warned that Britain would have to get to the ‘back of the queue’ if it passed Brexit — he thought he was burning a relationship with a country that would not exist a generation from now, in order to win the trust of a country that would.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump, Lib Dem, Suprema Corte e Census. Un duello all’ultimo sangue.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-17.

Bosch

«Il diavolo si nasconde nei dettagli»


Premessa. Certiorari è l’infinito presente passivo del verbo latino certioro, certiorare, che significa informare. Nel linguaggio giuridico americano indica il documento con cui una corte superiore notifica ad una inferiore tutta la giurisprudenza relativa ad una determinata questione. Il certiorari è propedeutico e forma la base di ogni sentenza.

L’importanza dell’argomento di interesse è stata ben evidenziata dalla Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti.

2019-02-18__Suprema_Corte__001

United States Department of Commerce, Et Al., versus State Of New York, Et Al., Respondents

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari before Judgment to The United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit.

«Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would—according to the government’s own “conservative” analysis—cause “approximately 6.5 additional million people” not to respond, Pet. App. 145a, 152a, more people than the population of Missouri, the 18th-most populous state. The district court found that, as a result, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, New York, and Illinois face a “certainly impending” or “substantial risk of losing a seat” in the House of Representatives, Pet. App. 175a, and that numerous states would “lose funds from several federal programs.” Pet. App. 205a. Secretary Ross’s purported justification was to collect data that the Department of Justice admitted “is not necessary” for any purpose. Pet. App. 94a. ….

The Constitution requires a Decennial Census to count the total number of “persons”—regardless of citizenship status—in each state, “in such a manner as [Congress] shall by law direct.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl.3. The census is a “mainstay of our democracy,” governing the apportionment of the House of Representatives and the allocation of votes in the Electoral College. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 818 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring). Census data are also the “linchpin of the federal statistical system,” Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (quotation marks omitted), determining the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds annually, Pet. App. 178a. ….

the Census Bureau’s ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di ricapitolare le oltre ottantamila pagine di istanze e sentenze in quattro righe: saranno riduttive, ma almeno si potrà comprendere la posta in gioco.

– La costituzione americana impone che ogni dieci anni il Census esegua un censimento della popolazione, ossia conti il numero di ‘persone’ presenti in ogni stato degli Stati Uniti.

– I numeri raccolti dal Census sono utilizzati per calcolare il numero dei rappresentati al Congresso che spettano ad ogni stato e sono inoltre utilizzati nella ripartizione del budget federale: un giro di migliaia di miliardi.

– Negli Stati Uniti non esiste un documento di identità corredato di fotografia recente che abbia valore a livello federale.

– Per votare, le persone devono ad ogni tornata elettorale iscriversi alle liste elettorali: basta soltanto il presentarsi.

– Alle elezioni politiche dovrebbero poter votare solo quanti siano cittadini dello stato.

*

Le possibilità di abuso sono evidenti.

Il primo ad approfittarne fu Al Capone, che fece eleggere un suo sindaco ed una sua giunta nella cittadina di Cicero, vicino a Chicago, facendola diventare il tempio del gioco di azzardo clandestino, della prostituzione, della fabbricazione e spaccio di alcolici durante il proibizionismo, ed infine impiantandoci una sua banca in grado di fare ogni più spigliata operazione, dal lavaggio del denaro sporco in su. Essendosi ostinato a lavorare in proprio senza condividere cotanto benessere con i politici, Al Capone fu arrestato e condannato a dieci anni per evasione fiscale.

*

I liberal democratici hanno ripreso in grande stile, a livello federale, la simpatica e disinvolta iniziativa di Al Capone, erigendosi a paladini di un’immigrazione clandestina illegale che ha ingigantito la popolazione di stati quali la California, Arizona, Florida, New York, Illinois. Il numero dei seggi al Congresso ripartiti a questi stati è salito in modo vertiginoso rispetto a quanto sarebbe loro spettato. I migranti poi si sono iscritti in massa alle liste elettorali, spesso con nomi fantasia, ed hanno votato compatti per i loro benefattori, che li gratificano anche economicamente.

*

Dovrebbe essere evidente l’estremo interesse politico ed economico che verte sui migranti: i liberal democratici che li patrocinano in ogni modo e maniera ed i repubblicani che li vedono come il fumo negli occhi, per gli stessi identici motivi. Dei migranti come persone umane non interessa nulla a nessuno.

Se la Suprema Corte sentenziasse che il Census possa includere la domanda sulla nazionalità, si censirebbe chi sia o meno cittadino americano, e quindi ammissibile al voto. Le liste elettorali subirebbero diete dimagranti stupefacenti.

Difficile stimare le ripercussioni, in carenza di dati certi.

Una riduzione dei votanti di 6.5 milioni è cifra minimale prudenziale: molto verosimilmente si tratterebbe di almeno tre volte tanto. I liberal democratici ne uscirebbero con le ossa rotte.

Questo è il vero oggetto del contendere.

Nota.

L’articolo che segue, parte integrante di questo testo, è smaccatamente liberal.


The New York Times. 2019-02-15. Supreme Court to Hear Case on Census Citizenship Question

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration may add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire that will be sent to every household in the nation.

The court’s move added a highly charged and consequential blockbuster to what had been a fairly sleepy term. The justices have mostly avoided controversy while they adjusted to the new conservative majority created by the arrival in the fall of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The federal government has long gathered information about citizenship, but since 1950, it has not included a question on it in the forms sent once a decade to each household. Last month, a federal trial judge blocked the Commerce Department from adding the question, saying that the process that led to the decision was deeply flawed.

The Supreme Court stepped in before any appeals court had ruled on the matter, and it put the case on an unusually fast track. The Supreme Court’s speed was almost certainly a result of a looming deadline — the census forms are set to be printed in June.

Without immediate action from the court, the solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco, told the justices, “the government will be disabled for a decade from obtaining citizenship data through an enumeration of the entire population.”

The Supreme Court scheduled arguments for late April, and it is expected to rule before the end of June.

The case — United States Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 — is the latest test of the scope of executive power in the Trump era. Last year, the justices upheld President Trump’s authority to restrict travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. More recently, the court rejected the administration’s request to reinstate a ban on asylum claims by immigrants who cross the southern border illegally.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said he expected his declaration of a national emergency to build a border wall to be challenged in court. He predicted that the administration would lose in the lower courts but prevail in the Supreme Court.

The census case has its roots in the text of the Constitution, which requires an “actual enumeration” every 10 years, with the House of Representatives to be apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each state.”

“By its terms, therefore, the Constitution mandates that every 10 years the federal government endeavor to count every single person residing in the United States, whether citizen or noncitizen, whether living here with legal status or without,” Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote last month in his decision, setting out the consensus view.

Critics say that adding the question on citizenship would undermine the accuracy of the census because both legal and unauthorized immigrants might refuse to fill out the forms. By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might decide not to participate.

That could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are drawn in 2021 and affect the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. Judge Furman found that were the question added, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas would risk losing seats in the House and that several states could lose federal money.

Dale Ho, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the addition of the citizenship question, said that it “would cause incalculable damage to our democracy.”

“The evidence presented at trial exposed this was the Trump administration’s plan from the get-go,” Mr. Ho said.

Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, has said that he ordered the question to be added in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, which said that data about citizenship would help it enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In a detailed decision after an eight-day trial, Judge Furman concluded that Mr. Ross had dissembled, saying that “the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual.”

“While the court is unable to determine — based on the existing record, at least — what Secretary Ross’s real reasons for adding the citizenship question were, it does find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that promoting enforcement of the” Voting Rights Act, or V.R.A., “was not his real reason for the decision,” Judge Furman wrote. “Instead, the court finds that the V.R.A. was a post hoc rationale for a decision that the secretary had already made for other reasons.”

Judge Furman had called for Mr. Ross to be questioned under oath, but the Supreme Court blocked that order in October. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have gone further, shutting down all pretrial fact-gathering in the census case. Justice Gorsuch added that there was no indication of bad faith in Mr. Ross’s conduct.

“There’s nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing with staff or cutting through red tape,” Justice Gorsuch wrote at the time. “Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and process. But until now, at least, this much has never been thought enough to justify a claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into a cabinet secretary’s motives.”

In November, the Supreme Court rejected a request from the Trump administration to halt the trial, over the dissents of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In his ruling last month, Judge Furman relied on evidence in the so-called administrative record, meaning the materials the government said Mr. Ross had considered before making his decision.

Evidence presented at the trial showed that Mr. Ross had wanted to add the question long before the request from the Justice Department. The letter from the Justice Department, Judge Furman wrote, was an attempt “to launder their request through another agency — that is, to obtain cover for a decision that they had already made.”

Documents disclosed in the case showed that Mr. Ross had discussed the citizenship issue early in his tenure with Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and an architect of the Trump administration’s tough policies against immigrants, and that Mr. Ross had met at Mr. Bannon’s direction with Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and a vehement opponent of unlawful immigration.

“In a startling number of ways,” Judge Furman wrote, “Secretary Ross’s explanations for his decision were unsupported by, or even counter to, the evidence before the agency.”

Judge Furman ruled that the administration had violated federal statutes. But he rejected a constitutional challenge based on equal protection principles, saying that there was not enough evidence in the record to conclude that Mr. Ross had intended to discriminate against minorities and unauthorized immigrants.

The lawsuit challenging the addition of the question was filed by New York, other states, localities and advocacy groups. They said that asking the question was a calculated effort by the administration to discriminate against immigrants.

“Adding a question about citizenship to the census would incite widespread fear in immigrant communities and greatly impair the accuracy of population counts,” Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, said on Friday after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In urging the Supreme Court to review Judge Furman’s decision, Mr. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, wrote that Mr. Ross had wide discretion over the census that could not be second-guessed by courts. He added that questions about citizenship have often been asked of at least a sample of the population in many earlier censuses and are commonplace in ones conducted by other developed democracies.


Judicial Watch. 2019-02-15. Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation File Brief with Supreme Court Urging it to Allow Inclusion of Citizenship Question in the 2020 Census

The mountain of new data generated by the decennial census question will assist private litigants and the Department of Justice in their efforts to enforce the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] … and will overcome limitations identified by a federal court concerning the current data on citizenship’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) on February 11, 2019 in filing an amici curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging it to overturn the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York blocking the Secretary of Commerce from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.  The brief argues that including a citizenship question would help Judicial Watch and the government make sure only eligible citizens are on the voting rolls:

Adding a citizenship question to the decennial census would generate a massive amount of new data concerning the numbers of citizens and noncitizens in U.S. states and counties. To quibble about potential limitations in the data that would be collected is to miss the point. It cannot be the case that we are somehow better off with less

information. The mountain of new data generated by the decennial census question will assist private litigants and the Department of Justice in their efforts to enforce the National Voter Registration Act. Indeed, this data will overcome limitations identified by a federal court concerning the current data on citizenship

The Judicial Watch/AEF brief cites a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Bellitto v. Snipes (No. 16-cv-61474), which criticized the current source for citizenship information, a limited survey called the American Community Survey.  Judicial Watch argued that getting more data about the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) is critical to enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Voting Rights Act.

The brief also joins the Commerce Department in arguing that the lower court overstepped its bounds in blocking the Secretary of Commerce’s decision about what to include:

[A] determination about what to include on a census questionnaire is committed to agency discretion and is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) [and] a court determining whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious under the APA may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.

This Judicial Watch/AEF filing comes in the case U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. v. State of New York, et al. (18-966), which is on emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.  The New York district court decision under appeal was a consolidation of two cases (State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. (18-cv-2921) and New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. (18-cv-5025)) challenging the decision of the Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire.  The district court held that Ross’s decision failed to “comply with the policy decisions that Congress — to which the Constitution gives authority over the census — has made and enshrined in statute, including but not limited to the preference for obtaining data through administrative records rather than through direct inquiries.”

The Judicial Watch/AEF brief responds:

[T]he Department of Justice stated that citizenship data was “critical” to its efforts to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the decennial census was “the most appropriate vehicle” for asking a question about citizenship.  The Secretary of Commerce agreed.  In so acting, the Secretary rejected the argument that including a citizenship question would reduce the response rate for noncitizens.  The Secretary found that the available data did not support this suggestion and added that the value of “more complete and accurate” citizenship data outweighed the disadvantages that might arise from a lower response rate.

Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the provisions of the NVRA.  In early January, Judicial Watch announced that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. This was only the third statewide settlement achieved by private plaintiffs under the NVRA – and Judicial Watch was the plaintiff in each of those cases. The other statewide settlements were with Ohio (in 2014) and with Kentucky (2018), which agreed to a court-ordered consent decree.

“Leftists hate the idea of the American people knowing more about the number of foreign nationals present in the United States, which is why they oppose a census question about citizenship,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The Supreme Court should reject the lower court judicial power grab that would unlawfully restrict the Trump administration from getting more information about the residents of the United States.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-25.

Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

Negli Stati Uniti ha un potere maggiore un giudice di una Corte di Appello Federale oppure della Corte Suprema dello stesso Presidente degli Stati Uniti. Il giudice ha infatti la possibilità di emettere una sentenza che blocchi od infici una disposizione presidenziale in via autoritativa ed inappellabile.

Chi controllasse la Magistratura americana avrebbe in mano il vero potere. Nessuno quindi si stupisca se la vera lotta tra liberal democratici e repubblicani si snoda sulla Magistratura.

Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.

I giudici della Suprema Corte e quelli delle Corti di Appello federali sono nominati dal Presidente, ma tale nomina deve essere approvata dal Senato. Le nomine sono a vita, quindi la decisione del Presidente si estende per decine di anni dopo che abbia concluso i suoi mandati.

Ciò premesso, entriamo nel vivo del problema.

*

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché gli Stati Uniti di America sono una realtà complessa.

*

«Gli Stati Uniti sono una Repubblica federale di tipo presidenziale. Nell’esperienza statunitense, Federazione e Stati mantengono diverse sfere di competenze, i cui confini, tuttavia, non sono mai stati fissati in maniera rigida ed assoluta. La miglior sintesi della divisione dei poteri fra Stati e Federazione è probabilmente contenuta nel decimo emendamento alla Costituzione, in base al quale i poteri che non sono espressamente attribuiti al Governo federale e che non sono dalla stessa Costituzione sottratti alla competenza dei singoli Stati, sono riservati a questi ultimi.

In particolare, tra i poteri sottratti alla competenza degli Stati e attribuiti espressamente al Congresso, così come previsto all’articolo 1, sezione 8 della Costituzione, vale la pena menzionare, tra gli altri, quello di imporre e percepire le tasse, di regolare il commercio internazionale e tra i vari Stati della federazione, di legiferare in materia fallimentare, di gestire il sistema postale, di costituire tribunali di grado inferiore rispetto alla Corte Suprema e di legiferare in materia di proprietà intellettuale.

I singoli Stati, tuttavia, con il consenso espresso del Governo e nei limiti posti da quest’ultimo, godono di una autonoma potestà legislativa. In linea di principio, può dirsi, per concludere, che nel sistema federale statunitense gran parte del diritto privato è di competenza statale. La Costituzione degli Stati Uniti adottata nel 1789 ed emendata solo raramente da allora, è la legge suprema del Paese» [Fonte]

*

«Il potere giudiziario federale è un ramo completamente separato ed autonomo. Il potere giudiziario ha il compito di interpretare e stabilire la costituzionalità delle leggi federali e di risolvere le controversie riguardanti tali norme.

La Costituzione garantisce l’indipendenza del potere giudiziario stabilendo che:

– i giudici federali, nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione, possono restare in carica a vita e possono essere destituiti solo in seguito a “impeachment” e solo qualora il Congresso abbia accertato atti di tradimento, corruzione, o altri gravi reati a loro carico;

– la retribuzione dei giudici federali nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione non può essere ridotta durante la loro permanenza in carica: dunque, né il Presidente, né il Congresso hanno alcuna facoltà di ridurre lo stipendio dei giudici federali. Queste due salvaguardie consentono ad un organo giudiziario indipendente di deliberare senza vincoli imposti da influenze politiche o passioni popolari.

L’art. III della Costituzione stabilisce, altresì, che il potere giudiziario degli Stati Uniti è affidato ad una Corte Suprema ed a tanti tribunali di ordine inferiore quanti il Congresso stabilirà all’occorrenza.» [Fonte]

*

«The federal courts are composed of three levels of courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It is generally an appellate court that operates under discretionary review, which means that the Court can choose which cases to hear, by granting writs of certiorari. There is therefore generally no basic right of appeal that extends automatically all the way to the Supreme Court. In a few situations (like lawsuits between state governments or some cases between the federal government and a state) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction.

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate federal appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals of right from the lower courts. In some cases, Congress has diverted appellate jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

The United States district courts (one in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well three territorial courts) are general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has diverted original jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Court of International Trade, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, or to Article I or Article IV tribunals. The district courts usually have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals (unless, for example, appeals are to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)» [Fonte]

*

«I distretti giudiziari sono organizzati in circuiti regionali, in ciascuno dei quali è presente una Corte d’Appello. Ognuna di esse giudica i ricorsi provenienti dai tribunali distrettuali appartenenti al proprio circuito e da alcuni enti amministrativi federali. Inoltre, la Corte d’Appello federale ha competenza su tutto il territorio nazionale in merito ad alcuni casi specifici, tra i quali quelli relativi alle leggi sui brevetti e quelli sui quali si sono pronunciati i Tribunali per il Commercio Internazionale e il Tribunale per i Ricorsi Federali.

Il diritto all’appello si applica a tutti i procedimenti sui quali si è pronunciato un tribunale distrettuale con una decisione definitiva. Le Corti d’Appello sono di regola composte da tre giudici.»  [Fonte]

*

«Federal judges, like Supreme Court Justices, are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die. » [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo solo gli aspetti discussi in questo articolo:

– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Senato. Di qui la importanza strategica di codesto consesso.

– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.

– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).

– Se usualmente i giudici esprimono sentenze ragionevoli, al momento opportuno emerge chiaramente chi sia il “giudice di Trump” oppure il “giudice di Obama”. Questo non dovrebbe accadere, ma nei fatti invece accade.

^ ^ ^

L’America è suddivisa in tredici Circuiti federali. Il nome deriva dal fatto che in altri tempi le Corti di Appello si movevano nell’ambito del loro territorio, toccando tutte le città di rilievo, per evitare ai ricorrenti lunghi e costosi viaggi.

* * * * * * *

2018-11-25__Nono_Circuito__001

Il Nono Circuito esercita la sua giurisdizione su 61,403,307 cittadini americani, ossia il 19.72% della popolazione. È dotato di ventinove giudici.

Di questi, nove sono stati nominati da Mr Clinton, cinque da Mr Bush, sette da Mr Obama, e due da Mr Trump.

Al momento attuale vi sono sedici giudici democratici e sette repubblicani.

Sei seggi sono al momento vacanti.

Avendo alle elezioni di midterm conservato il controllo del Senato, Mr Trump sarà in grado di procedere a breve termine alle sei nomine ancora rimanenti, portando cos’ il rapporto democratici / repubblicani 16 /13.

I democratici restano al controllo della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito, ma con una maggioranza risicata. Si tenga inoltre presente come tale Corte si articoli in sottosezioni: al termine delle nomine i repubblicani potrebbero controllarne almeno quattro.

* * * * * * *

Con Mr Clinton prima, e Mr Obama dopo, i liberal democratici hanno nominato al Nono Circuito persone che prima erano membri fedeli del partito, poi erano giudici: costoro amministravano la giustizia nel nome dei liberal democratici.

Non è un caso che quasi tutte le sentenze volte ad impugnare e bloccare ancorché temporaneamente gli Ordini Esecutivi del Presidente Trump siano stati emesse in gran parte da Corti di Appello del Nono Circuito. Solo perdita di tempo, perché poi la Suprema Corte le annulla, ma sono ottimo alimento del fuoco mediatico.

Se infine si considerano tutte le altre nomine a giudice in Corti Federali  che il Presidente Trump si appresta a fare, emergerebbe molto chiaro il suo piano di bonificare la Magistratura federale dai partigiani liberal democratici, rendendo loro la figura propria di organi che amministrano la giustizia e non la faziosità politica.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Guerra Civile, Senza categoria

Siria. Versione del Ministero Difesa Russo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-16.

S-125_Newa

Sul bombardamento effettuato da forze occidentali sulla Siria non si hanno notizie ufficiali e sicure, controllate e controllabili.

I media hanno riportato un elevato numero di cifre discordanti e conflittuali. Riportiamo quindi il comunicato del Ministero della Difesa Russo, l’unico ufficiale al momento noto.

«The US alongside its allies conducted a missile strike by its air and naval carriers targeting military and civil facilities of the Syrian Arab Republic on April 14 in the period from 3.42 am till 5.10 am (MSK).»

*

«Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.»

*

«It is reported that the B-1B, F-15 and F-16 aircraft of the USAF as well as the Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF over the Mediterranean Sea, and the USS Laboon and USS Monterey located in the Red Sea were used during the operation»

*

«As preliminary reported, there are no civilian casualties and losses among the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Information will be further specified and made public.»

*

«As evident by the available data, 103 cruise missiles have been launched, including Tomahawk naval-based missiles as well as GBU-38 guided air bombs fired from the B-1B; the F-15 and F-16 aircraft launched air-to-surface missiles. …. The Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF launched eight Scalp EG missiles.»

*

«In total, 71 cruise missiles have been intercepted. The S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat, and Osa Syrian AD systems were involved in repelling the attack.»

*

«There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.»

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di ragionare sui pochi dati disponibili e tenendo presente che potrebbero anche non essere sicuri: sono soltanto quelli ritrovabili da fonte ufficiale.

– L’attacco sarebbe stato condotto da un centinaio di missili da crociera.

– Sarebbero stati bombardati una decina circa di siti militari, ma non si lamentano vittime. Fatto questo abbastanza strano per un attacco con armi offensive di tal tipo e di tale potenza.

– La contraerea siriana avrebbe abbattuto ben più della metà dei missili di crociera che sarebbero stati lanciati. Si resta stupefatti di fronte ad una simile notizia, sempre che poi risulti essere vera. La Siria è infatti dotata di sistemi d’arma S-125 ed S-200: sistemi vetusti ed ampiamente obsoleti. Non solo gli S-125 sono stati progettati negli anni cinquanta, ossia settanta anni or sono, ma hanno un raggio di azione di 25 km, ed una tangenza di 25,000 metri. Il sistema S-200 è stato realizzato negli anni sessanta. Ha una raggio di azione di 300 km, ed una tangenza di 20,000 metri. Fu un S-200 ad abbattere il 10 febbraio 2018 un cacciabombardiere F-16 della aviazione israeliana.

Si tenga presente come la Russia abbia sviluppato dopo questi sistemi l’S-300, l’S400 ed in fine l’S-500.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Considerazioni.

La prima considerazione verte il fatto che il lancio di un gran numero di missili da crociera non abbia esitato in almeno una perdita da parte siriana. Una che si una. Questa azione rassomiglierebbe più ad una usuale esercitazione di tiro che ad un’operazione militare. Né si venga a dire che la precisione dei cruise occidentali sia tale da evitare con cura le persone umane. Tutto lascerebbe pensare che tale azione sia stata preventivamente concordata: vi lanciamo addosso un po’ di missili, ma voi sgombrate prima gli obbiettivi. Le basi russe saranno puntigliosamente evitate.

La seconda considerazione verte sui cruise che sono stati lanciati. Gli occidentali dispongono sicuramente di missili da crociera in grado di non essere intercettati da sistemi d’arma vecchi di settanta anni. Per averne persi 71 dei 103 lanciati devono essere stati anche loro davvero vecchietti. Oppure le loro rotte furono preventivamente rese note.

La terza considerazione verte la globalità dell’azione. Da che mondo è mondo, nessuna operazione militare è reclamizzata e minacciata come quella degli occidentali in Siria. Il fattore sorpresa è sempre stato essenziale nel condurre operazioni militari.

Conclusione.

I dati disponibili sembrerebbero deporre per un’azione ampiamente concordata tra le parti, un teatrino per i media che hanno poi riportato l’accaduto in toni drammatici, distogliendo l’attenzione del largo pubblico dai pressanti problemi interni dei paesi coinvolti.

Nota.

Nessuno intende mettere in dubbio la buona fede di chicchessia. Ma si constata come al momento almeno non siano state prodotte prove incontestabili dell’uso di armi chimiche. Che poi la fotografia di un bambino sotto un getto di acqua possa costituire prova è fatto che lascia davvero sorridenti: chiunque abbia fatto anche un corso sommario di guerra abc sa benissimo che il quadro clinico di un contaminato è del tutto differente.


Министерство обороны Российской Федерации. 2018-04-14. Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy holds briefing for mass media.

The US alongside its allies conducted a missile strike by its air and naval carriers targeting military and civil facilities of the Syrian Arab Republic on April 14 in the period from 3.42 am till 5.10 am (MSK).

The Russian air defence systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus air base timely located and controlled all naval and air launches made by the USA and the UK.

Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.

It is reported that the B-1B, F-15 and F-16 aircraft of the USAF as well as the Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF over the Mediterranean Sea, and the USS Laboon and USS Monterey located in the Red Sea were used during the operation.

The B-1B strategic bombers approached the facilities over the Syrian territory near al-Tanf illegally seized by the USA.

A number Syrian military airfields, industrial and research facilities suffered the missile-bomb strike.

As preliminary reported, there are no civilian casualties and losses among the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Information will be further specified and made public.

As evident by the available data, 103 cruise missiles have been launched, including Tomahawk naval-based missiles as well as GBU-38 guided air bombs fired from the B-1B; the F-15 and F-16 aircraft launched air-to-surface missiles.

The Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF launched eight Scalp EG missiles.

The Syrian air defence systems, which are primarily the USSR-made AD systems, have successfully countered the air and naval strikes.

In total, 71 cruise missiles have been intercepted. The S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat, and Osa Syrian AD systems were involved in repelling the attack.

It proves high efficiency of the Syrian armament and professional skills of the Syrian servicemen trained by the Russian specialists.

Over the last eighteen months, Russia has completely recovered the Syrian air defence systems, and continues its development.

It is to be stressed that several years ago given the strong request by our western partners, Russia opted out of supplying the S-300 AD systems to Syria. Taking into account the recent incident, Russia believes it possible to reconsider this issue not only regarding Syria but other countries as well.

The strike targeted Syrian air bases as well. Russia has registered the following data.

Four missiles targeted the Damascus International Airport; 12 missiles – the Al-Dumayr airdrome, all the missiles have been shot down.

18 missiles targeted the Blai airdrome, all the missiles shot down.

12 missiles targeted the Shayrat air base, all the missiles shot down. Air bases were not affected by the strike.

Five out of nine missiles were shot down targeting the unoccupied Mazzeh airdrome.

Thirteen out of sixteen missiles were shot down targeting the Homs airdrome. There are no heavy destructions.

In total 30 missiles targeted facilities near Barzah and Jaramana. Seven of them have been shot down. These facilities allegedly relating to the so-called “Damascus military chemical programme” were partially destructed. However, the objects have not been used for a long time, so there were no people and equipment there.

The Russian air defence systems have been alerted. Fighter jets are on combat air patrol now.

There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.

Russia considers the strike to be a response to the success of the Syrian Armed Forces in fighting international terrorism and liberating its territory, rather than a response to the alleged chemical attack.

Besides, the attack took place on a day when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) special mission was to start working on investigating incident in the city of Douma where chemical attack allegedly occurred.

It is to be stressed that there are no facilities on producing chemical weapons in Syria, and this has been documented by the OPCW.

The American aggression proves that the USA is not interested in objectivity of the ongoing investigation, seeks to wreck peaceful settlement in Syria and destabilize environment in the Middle East, and all these have nothing to do with declared objectives of countering international terrorism.

Currently the situation in Damascus and other settlements is assessed to be stable.The environment is being monitored.

Pubblicato in: Guerra Civile, Sistemi Politici

Giornali. Quanto conta la carta stampata liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-21.

Leccaculo-1-732450

Il controllo dell’informazione è sempre stato uno strumento di potere. Non a caso tutti i regimi politici si premurano sia di avere loro testate sia di disporre di giornalisti sicuramente schierati.

Come tutti i poteri, se usati in modo improprio, perdono il loro valore. Se troppo bugiardi, diventano inattendibili.

Un giornale vale in ragione di quanto valgono i propri giornalisti. Non solo: una cosa è la tiratura, ossia il numero di copie stampate e distribuite, ed una totalmente differente è il numero di copie acquistate e lette.

A ciò si aggiunga il vero valore discriminante del successo di una testata: la sua credibilità. Valore spesso impalpabile, che non è quantizzabile in numero di copie, bensì della sua influenza sugli ambienti che contano.

La Pravda comunista aveva raggiunto tirature strabilianti, decine di milioni di copie, si diceva, ed infatti ogni famiglia russa ne acquistava una. Tuttavia nessuno prestava fede a ciò che riportava, anzi, ne deduceva che fosse vero il perfetto contrario.

La Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) ha una tiratura modesta,

«The 2007 circulation of the daily was 382,499 copies. The 2016 (IVW II/2016) circulation of the daily was 256,188 copies.» [Fonte]

Eppure essa esercita una grande influenza perché riporta i fatti quali essi sono, riservando alla fine eventuali commenti, sempre molto pacati e logicamente sequenziali. I suoi articoli di fondo sono letti da chiunque desideri essere informato allo stato dell’arte. In buona sostanza, la Faz è ragionevolmente obiettiva.

Alcuni giornali sono letti non tanto per le notizie che riportano, quanto piuttosto perché esprimono il parere di una ben determinata parte politica. Parere da non confondersi con la realtà dei fatti. In questa ottica, per esempio, il The New York Times oppure Cnn sono corifei dell’ideologia liberal, mentre il Deutsche Welle oppure il Der Spiegel sono organi della socialdemocrazia tedesca. Sono la moderna edizione di cosa avrebbe detto la Pravda se esistesse ancora. Sono identici nel modo epressivo al Völkischer Beobachter: basta cambiare il termine “ebrei” con quello di “non liberal“.

* * * * * * *

Ciò premesso, sarebbe di interesse comandarsi quanto valga la carta stampata.

Per essere ancor più chiari ed espliciti:

– vale la pena di investire in pubblicità che compaia su queste testate?

– aiuta a far vincere le elezioni il controllo politico dei giornali?

Sono domande di non poco conto, specie alla luce dei risultati elettorali di questo ultimo anno.

Pur avendo un controllo assoluto dei media, i liberal democratico hanno perso le elezioni presidenziali, e le hanno perse anche malo modo. Pur avendo un controllo assoluto dei media, i socialisti ideologici europei hanno subito una clamorosa serie di débâcle: in Francia sono crollati dal 62% all’8%, in Germania sono crollati al 20.5%, in Austria hanno tenuto percentualmente ma verosimilmente non entreranno nella coalizione governativa.

* * *

2017-10-18__Giornali__001

Riportiamo da Wikipedia la lista dei Top 50 paid newspapers.

Il primo giornale occidentale in graduatoria è il Bild con 2.658 milioni di copie, seguito dal The Wall Street Journal con 2.379, dal The Sun con 2.172, e dal The New York Times con 1.865 milioni di copie.

*

2017-10-18__Giornali__002

Riportiamo da Wikipedia la lista dei Top 25 newspapers by circulation negli Usa.

Tenendo conto che gli Stati Uniti hanno 325,127,000 abitanti, il The Wall Street Journal tira una copia ogni 136.7 abitanti, il The New York Times 174.3, ed Usa Today tira una copia ogni 194.2 abitanti,

Ma la gran massa dei giornali americani tira meno di 400,000 copia, ossia meno di una copia ogni 813 persone.

*

I dati di Wikipedia si riferiscono alla tiratura e sono alquanto datati.

Riportiamo da Statista – The Statistics Portal i dati che seguono. Si noti che i dati sono riportati spesso per trimestre.

*

«In spring 2017, the number of Wall Street Journal (daily edition) readers amounted to 8.47 million. In the same period, an average of 4.09 million people read each issue of the WSJ, a decrease from over five million in 2010»

*

«11 percent of respondents aged under 30 stated that The Wall Street Journal was very trustworthy»

*

«In 2017, the newspaper sold 2.52 million copies daily.»

* * *

«In spring 2017, the average number of Washington Post (daily edition) readers amounted to 1.05 million per issue.»

*

«Average daily circulation dropped 38 percent in the past 10 years»

*

«daily digital circulation of The Washington Post averaged at 42,313»

*

«25 percent of respondents stated that they mostly trust or somewhat trust the Washington Post as a source of reliable and accurate information on current events»

* * * *

«In 2016 the average paid and verified weekday circulation of the New York Times stood at 571.5 thousand copies, a decrease from over 1.92 million copies in 2013.»

*

«As it turned out, the answer is yes. Six and a half years after the introduction of its metered paywall, The Times has more than 2 million digital subscribers»

* * * * * * *

Questi dati dovrebbero dare da pensare.

In ultima analisi si dovrebbe essere grati ai liberal ed ai socialisti.

Con una campagna mediatica scotennata e priva di fondamenti, urlata alla esasperazione, che riporta più menzogne che fatti realmente accaduti, hanno agito come causa efficiente dell’abbandono degli Elettori, che di loro non ne possono proprio di più. E questo sia in America sia in Europa. Quindi, rileviamo i fatti e ben guardiamoci dal cercare di convertire liberal e socialisti: incitiamoli invece a proseguire così come stanno facendo. Solo loro sono in grado di distruggere alla radice le loro ideologie.

Era ben più credibile la Pravda dei tempi di Stalin che i loro giornali.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti

Trump si rivolgerebbe alla Corte Suprema sul caso Daca.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-20.

 2017-1119__Nono_Circuito__001

«In a ruling issued Thursday, Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit said that the Trump administration did not release enough documents in response to lawsuits challenging the decision to end the program to paint a clear picture of its reasoning.»

*

«The Justice Department argued that U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to release more documents would violate executive privileges. That argument, however, was rebuffed by the 9th Circuit panel.»

*

The United States Courts of the Ninth Circuit ha dedicato un intera pagina internet al problema:

In re United States (DACA Mandamus Petition)

«Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information.»

*

Oltre a trovare lo sviluppo storico della causa, è riportato ovviamente anche il

Order and Dissent

«On September 5, 2017, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Elaine Duke, announced the end of DHS’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (“DACA”), effective March 5, 2018. Begun in 2012, DACA provided deferred action for certain individuals without lawful immigration status who had entered the United States as children. Several sets of plaintiffs sued to enjoin the rescission of DACA under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and under various constitutional theories not relevant here.»

*

«We are not unmindful of the separation-of-powers concerns raised by the government.»

Ma la Corte del Nono Circuito se ne è fatta un baffo a torciglione. I giudici liberal sono una contraddizione vivente. Nel loro modo di concepire la “separation-of-powers” i giudici debbono fare politica, se questa è liberal, mentre l’esecutivo deve ben guardarsi anche solo dall’eprimere commenti. Sono i due pesi e le due misure che li rendono invisi.


Il problema è che la Corte Federale del 9° Circuito è composta per la maggior parte da giudici liberal democratici, che usano il loro ruolo come mazza ferrata per ingerirsi nella gestione politica, dimentichi dei risultati elettorali.

Si noti soltanto la fulminea rapidità: ricevuta l’istanza il 5 settembre, la Corte è riuscita ad andare in sentenza il 16 novembre: due mesi contro i tre anni medi. Mica male.

Nota. Gli Stati Uniti non avranno pace fino a tanto che i liberal democratici non saranno stati scacciati da qualsiasi posto di potere. Usano le corti di giustizia così come le usavano tutte le dittature del secolo passato.



The Hill. 2017-11-18. Trump to take fight over DACA documents to Supreme Court

The Trump administration plans to ask the Supreme Court to take up a case regarding the release of documents pertaining to President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Politico reported Friday.

The decision to seek relief from the nation’s highest court comes after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to stop a federal judge’s order to release emails, memos and other documents considered part of Trump’s decision to end the program.

Trump announced in September that he would end the Obama-era program, which offered a temporary reprieve from deportation to hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. 

That decision prompted public furor, as well as calls for lawmakers to take swift action to enshrine DACA’s protections into law.

In a ruling issued Thursday, Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit said that the Trump administration did not release enough documents in response to lawsuits challenging the decision to end the program to paint a clear picture of its reasoning.

The Justice Department argued that U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to release more documents would violate executive privileges. That argument, however, was rebuffed by the 9th Circuit panel.

The administration was given until Nov. 22 to release an augmented administrative record of its DACA decision.

In a filing obtained by Politico on Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the lower court’s decision.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Guerra Civile, Unione Europea

Spagna. Liberal e socialisti scoprono che esiste l’identità.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-06.

Goya Francisco. Los fusilamientos del tres de mayo. Museo del Prado, Madrid. 1814

«A long and painful downturn fanned separatist sentiment in Catalonia, which, contrary to predictions, didn’t die down with the recovery.»

*

«At some point the economic considerations start to be irrelevant and identity becomes paramount»

*

Tratti caratteristici dell’ideologia liberal e di quella socialista, non a caso provengono dalla stessa identica matrice culturale e politica, sono la concezione della persona umana in termini meramente economici e la necessità di giustificare la propria esistenza come contrapposizione ad un passato da rigettarsi in toto.  

Questi due assiomi, perché come tali sono assunti, sono stati ben sintetizzati da Herr Schulz un due frasi lapidarie:

Herr Schulz. Due frasi da mettere in cornice.

e, diciamolo francamente, Herr Schulz è un ottimo rappresentante del socialismo ideologico.

Questa concezione, meglio, questa Weltanschauung, ha improntato la cultura e la politica mondiale occidentale fino a tanto che liberal negli Stati Uniti e socialisti in Europa erano al governo. L’Unione Europea è una loro replica che ne assume tutti i contenuti.

Ma i tempi sono mutati. I liberal democratici hanno perso le elezioni negli Stati Uniti, i socialisti sono stati annientati in Francia ed in Germania hanno preso una batosta stramazzante. Restano ancora in piedi cascami dell’antico potere: potenti, ancora molto potenti, ma con il destino segnato dall’evolversi dei tempi.

In questa situazione si svolgono i fatti della Catalogna.

Liberal e socialisti si stupiscono di due fatti:

– il separatismo non è scemato nonostante i segni di ripresa economica;

– le considerazioni economiche sono irrilevanti mentre l’identità nazionale assume veste gigantesca.

I fatti stanno smentendo i postulati alla base dell’ideologia libera e socialista.

«It appeared that Enric Millo, the Spanish government’s representative in Catalonia, might have been right when he predicted in 2012 that once removed from the flame of financial crisis, “separatism would sink like a soufflé.”»

Nemmeno per ridere!

Predizione errata perché basata su assiomi di partenza errati.

Eppure, la guerra civile di devoluzione della Yugoslavia avrebbe ben dovuto essere una severa lezione. I popoli sono abbarbicati alle proprie tradizioni.

*

Ora il Governo Rajoy ha fatto intervenire la polizia, in un domani farà intervenire l’esercito.

«Acting on his orders, Spanish police used batons and rubber bullets against those who took part in an Oct. 1 referendum on independence that Spain’s constitutional court had declared illegal. Hundreds were injured in the melees»

Nulla di nuovo sotto il sole. Manganelli e proiettili di gomma, quindi proiettili veri e geurra civile.

Anche l’Unione Sovietica represse nel sangue la rivolta ungherese prima e quindi quella cecoslovacca.

È solo questione di tempo e, non ci si faccia illusioni, ma proprio nessuna.

Molte altre regioni di Europa sono in subbuglio, ed i paesi dell’est mal sopportano l’usbergo di Bruxelles.

Senza più il Regno Unito, con una Francia azzoppata e con la Germania senza Governo l’utopia di uno stato europeo a stampo liberal è svanita.

Ci si prepari. Come per la Yugoslavia anche in Europa le guerre civili potrebbero ritornare, e ritornare anche con inusitata violenza. Le identità nazionali alla fine prevalgono su tutto.

I problemi politici, specie quelli identitari, che non siano risolti in via politica sfociano inevitabilmente in conflitti armati.

Ma poniamoci allora dei quesiti.

Il Governo Rajoy sarebbe forte a sufficienza da contrastare le ambizioni della Catalogna?

La Commissione Europea è forte a sufficienza da intervenire con autorità impositiva in Spagna?


Bloomberg. 2017-10-05. Catalonia’s Split With Spain Is About Identity, Not Just Money

Barcelona and Madrid survived the tough times together, but even as Spain’s economy improves, their union is disintegrating.

*

As recently as July, secessionists in Catalonia seemed to be in retreat. Spain was the fastest-growing of continental Europe’s big four economies, creating jobs at a rapid clip. A poll that month by the Catalan government showed that support for independence had fallen to 35 percent, its lowest level since 2012. It appeared that Enric Millo, the Spanish government’s representative in Catalonia, might have been right when he predicted in 2012 that once removed from the flame of financial crisis, “separatism would sink like a soufflé.”

What’s sinking instead is the reputation of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. Acting on his orders, Spanish police used batons and rubber bullets against those who took part in an Oct. 1 referendum on independence that Spain’s constitutional court had declared illegal. Hundreds were injured in the melees.

The Catalan government claimed that despite Madrid’s attempts at suppression, 2.3 million people voted—about 42 percent of the total electorate—and about 90 percent of them chose to separate from Spain. The Spanish government cast doubt on the result, pointing out that the referendum, in addition to being illegal, lacked certified voter lists and wasn’t overseen by an official election board. And many of those who opposed secession heeded Madrid’s reminder that the vote was illegal. Spain’s King Felipe VI said in a televised address that separatist leaders showed “unacceptable” disloyalty.

The groundswell of separatist sentiment in Catalonia has shown Spain and the world that money isn’t everything. A strengthening economy may have quelled Catalan nationalism a bit, but the desire many have for independence had deeper sources and never went away. Then Rajoy, playing to his conservative base, badly miscalculated. He thought a show of force would keep voters at home. But his attempt to stop the vote just pushed more Catalans into the separatist camp. “In the longer term, the divisions in Spain become more entrenched,” says Antonio Barroso, a political risk analyst at Teneo Intelligence in London.

Economics probably did matter in Catalonia, just not in the way that Spanish optimists were thinking. The reality is that the region hasn’t fully recovered from the global financial crisis, which pushed the economy into a double-dip recession and sent unemployment in the so-called autonomous community as high as 24 percent. (It’s still more than 13 percent.) “The financial crisis brought to the fore the fact that so much of our money is transferred” to the central government, says Jordi Galí of Barcelona’s Center for Research in International Economics, known by its initials in the Catalan language, CREI. “In a context of high growth and prosperity, this may be more easily forgotten. But during the crisis the Catalan government had to undertake huge cuts in services: health, education.”

The transfers issue might not have been enough to stir secessionism all by itself. After all, there’s little call in Connecticut to break away from the U.S. even though the state gives more than it gets. The difference is that the northeastern corner of Spain has its own language, traditions, and aspirations to national greatness. Its history is a seesaw of autonomy and what some see as subjugation. Catalans still commemorate the fall of Barcelona to King Philip V of Spain on Sept. 11, 1714. In 1939 the city fell to the Nationalist forces of Francisco Franco, who suppressed Catalan culture during his 36-year rule.

In recent years, independence-minded Catalans have focused their anger on a 2010 ruling by Spain’s constitutional court that erased parts of a legislative deal that accorded the region broad autonomy. In 2012 the Catalan economist Xavier Sala-I-Martin likened Spain to a possessive husband who reacts wildly when his wife asks for a divorce. “We Catalans have tried to explain during 30 years that we were uncomfortable and the replies have been no’s, scorn, indifference, and contempt. And now they’re surprised!” the Columbia University professor wrote on his blog.

The marriage is far worse now. “People are extremely disappointed, and I would say shocked, by the activities of the Spanish police,” says Giacomo Ponzetto, an Italian who teaches at CREI in Barcelona. “It was absurd, unacceptable behavior, and I would add extremely stupid.” Stupid as in self-defeating, he says. “The Catalan government was looking for this. It’s very obvious. They wanted to provoke a response.”

Like it or not, Catalonia has been very much part of Spain—not least because it’s a fifth of the national economy. It exports more to the neighboring region of Aragon than to France, and more to Madrid than to Germany or Italy, says Pankaj Ghemawat, who teaches at the New York City branch of IESE Business School, which also has campuses in Madrid and Barcelona.

Many economists think Catalonia would be worse off economically on its own. The outcome hinges on whether it would assume a share of Spain’s national debt, whether it would be permitted to join the European Union and adopt the euro, and how much it would cost to replicate services—such as defense—it gets from Madrid. Further complicating matters, Spain could throw up legal obstacles to secession. One reason many Catalans have shied from independence in the past is that they weren’t ready to take a leap into the unknown.

But the violence that marred the Oct. 1 vote has focused Catalans’ minds on issues other than euros. “At some point the economic considerations start to be irrelevant and identity becomes paramount,” says Ghemawat. On Oct. 1, he says, “we took a giant step in that direction.”