Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Senza categoria, Stati Uniti, Trump

Suprema Corte. La pulpite purulenta dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-29.

Supreme Court

È cosa di somma importanza studiare a fondo gli avversari e, nel caso, cercare di imparare da loro.

I liberal socialisti hanno portato al massimo grado di raffinatezza l’arte di governare anche nel caso che avessero perso le elezioni.

Gli strumenti usati sono svariati, ma alcuni primeggiano per la loro importanza.

In primo luogo, hanno sempre avuto la massima cura di far nominare persone loro vicine negli alti gradi della Magistratura. Poi, ottenuto questo risultato, hanno iniziato a proclamare la sacralità della divisione dei poteri, che la Magistratura è intoccabile ed insindacabile, che la politica dovrebbe astenersi dal’interferire. Nel contempo, i loro Magistrati svolgono una chiara e netta azione politica.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a ‘faker,’ he says she should resign  [Cnn]

«”He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

It is highly unusual for a justice to make such politically charged remarks, and some critics said she crossed the line. House Speaker Paul Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday night the comments were “out of place.”»

Un po’ difficile dire che Sua Justizia Mrs Ginsburg non abbia tracimato nella politica e che stesse facendo politica, immemore della debita non ingerenza.

* * *

In secondo luogo i Magistrati liberal democratici sfruttano la loro posizione per alterare pesantemente la legislazione governativa.

Hawaii judge Derrick Watson blocks Trump travel order [Aljazeera]

Un giudice di una Corte Distrettuale Federale ha emesso uno ordinanza che blocca un Execuvite Order del Presidente in carica.

Da un punto di vista giuridico quella disposizione fu una delle più strampalate sentenze mai viste, ed infatti a breve termine si espresse la Corte Suprema:

Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal

«The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday the last remaining appeal in a pair of cases challenging President Trump’s executive order, issued in March, that sought to limit travel to the United States.»

La lettura del dispositivo di sentenza della Suprema Corte bacchetta il Giudice Watson in modo severo, pur usando i toni ovattati che le si confanno.

Il cuore del problema risiede nel fatto che un oscuro giudice distrettuale abbia la potestà, e la usi, di bloccare una legge dello stato.

 Si faccia molta attenzione. Le Corti inferiori hanno la possibilità, e spesso anche il dovere, di sottoporre alla Suprema Corte quesiti di costituzionalità su di un qualsivoglia argomento di interesse. ma non dovrebbe loro competere il diritto di emettere sentenze esecutive di sospensione.

Questo è il classico abuso, misuso, della Magistratura politicizzata per bloccare le iniziative politiche di governi in carica non a connotazione liberal democratica.

* * *

Come si constata, i liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti, ma anche i socialisti nell’Europa, hanno insegnato come governare senza l’incomodo di essere eletti. Discorso analogo potrebbe essere fatto sulla Agenzie e sulle ngo.

È sufficiente avere giudici della propria fede ideologica e conferire loro quei poteri che dovrebbero spettare solo a personaggi politici eletti dal popolo sovrano. È la pura e semplice dittatura della magistratura.

* * * * * * *

Tutto filava liscio e nessuno se ne lamentava, nessuno dei liberal democratici ovviamente, fino a tanto che le Corti di giustizia erano succursali delle sedi di partito e la Corte Suprema anche essa un voivodato liberal.

L’elezione di Mr Trump a Presidente degli Stati Uniti ha rotto le uova nel paniera democratico.

Nominando le Loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh la Suprema Corte è tornata ad essere luogo di amministrazione della giustizia: sono due giudici liberi ed indipendenti nel giudizio, ma non sono liberal.

Non solo.

Durante il quadriennio di Presidenza. Mr Trump avrà la possibilità concreta di nominare 239 Giudici in posti vacanti, ad iniziare da quelli da ricoprirsi nel Nono Circuito.

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

I liberal democratici sono diventati pazzi dalla furiosa rabbia. Avesse vinto Mrs Hillary Clinton avrebbe nominato tutti giudici liberal, stabilizzando così la dittatura per decenni.

I liberal democratici si sono sentiti sbeffeggiati dall’avversa sorte, proprio mentre erano ad un epsilon dalla vittoria finale. Di qui la loro livorosa reazione.

Poi, quasi a mettere la ciliegina sulla torta. a midterm Mr Trump ha conservato il Senato, migliorando persino il numero dei seggi: una grande vittoria che i liberal democratici cercano in ogni modo di scotomizzare con schifiltosa nonchalance. Ma si sono ustionati gravemente.

* * * * * * *

Adesso il The New York Times se esce con questo interessante articolo, ove accusa il Presidente Trump di aver spostato l’asse politico della Suprema Corte fuori dal raggio di azione dei liberal democratici.

Lasciamo al Lettore il piacere di questa prosa, ricordando solo come il The New York Times si il corifeo dei liberal democratici.

Nota.

L’articolista si stupisce che Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh si sia associato ad una sentenza non favorevole alla Amministrazione.

Mr Trump ha nominato Giudici competenti ed imparziali, che applicano le leggi. lasciamo volentieri loro personaggi come Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg, faziosamente di parte.


The New York Times. 2018-11-08. Who Owns the Supreme Court?

The Trump administration is treating it like a wholly owned subsidiary.

*

The Trump administration’s treatment of the Supreme Court as a wholly owned subsidiary is one of the most compelling dramas now unfolding in Washington. Whether this drama plays out as comedy or tragedy is up to the court.

“Comedy” may be an odd word in this context, but I have to confess that I’ve been more than a little amused by the administration’s frantic and largely failed effort to enlist the justices in keeping the public from learning how the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census actually came about.

The embarrassing outline of the story is known, summarized in eyebrow-raising detail by Michael Wines in The Times this week. Wilbur L. Ross, the secretary of commerce, testified to Congress under oath in March that he added the disputed question “solely” because the Justice Department asked for it. In fact, documents that came to light in a lawsuit brought by the State of New York and other governmental and private plaintiffs show that pressure didn’t come from the Justice Department. Rather, it was Secretary Ross who pressed the Justice Department to make the request, after consulting with Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, and Kris Kobach, one of the country’s most stridently anti-immigrant political figures (who lost his race for the governorship of Kansas in Tuesday’s election).

Census experts have warned that a question about citizenship status will deter immigrants from responding altogether, leading to a potentially significant undercount in parts of the country with large immigrant populations, which could affect federal funding to states and representation in Congress.

Last month, with a trial date approaching for the New York lawsuit, the administration went to the Supreme Court with a request to block the plaintiffs from taking pretrial testimony from Secretary Ross and John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Federal District Judge Jesse Furman, presiding over the case, had refused to block the depositions on the ground that the plaintiffs had already made a sufficiently “strong showing of bad faith” on the part of the two officials to justify further investigation of the decision-making process. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Judge Furman’s order.

In the administration’s request to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco argued that because “an agency decision maker’s mental processes are generally irrelevant to evaluating the legality of agency action,” there was no reason to “probe the secretary’s mental processes.” In an unsigned order, the justices agreed, apparently unanimously, to block the deposition of Secretary Ross, while voting 7 to 2 to allow the deposition of Mr. Gore to go forward. The dissenters were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who said the court should have stopped the questioning of both men. Their separate opinion contained a strong hint to Judge Furman: “One would expect that the court’s order today would prompt the district court to postpone the scheduled trial and await further guidance.”

That was a hint that Judge Furman chose not to take a few days later, when the administration asked him to stay the entire trial. Rejecting that request, the judge elaborated on his earlier reference to “bad faith.” In a pointed 15-page opinion, he wrote that he had “found reason to believe that Secretary Ross had provided false explanations of his reasons for, and the genesis of, the citizenship question.” Three days later, the administration was back at the Supreme Court, quoting from the two justices’ earlier dissenting opinion and seeking an immediate stay of the trial. In an unsigned one-sentence order, issued last Friday, the justices refused. The vote this time was 6 to 3. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. The trial began in Judge Furman’s courtroom in Manhattan on Monday.

It takes the votes of five justices to grant any kind of stay. Conspicuously missing from the votes on the administration’s side were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and his newest colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The majority’s silence gives no hint of their reasoning. Maybe the chief justice and Justice Kavanaugh simply found Solicitor General Francisco’s hyperbolic rhetoric unpersuasive. Or maybe it was something deeper, a sense that a 5-to-4 vote to shield the Trump administration from ordinary legal process would have been a needless step on the road to disaster for a court already seen as polarized by political allegiances. By just such incremental developments will the line between comedy and tragedy be etched by the newly constituted Roberts court.

But for those of us hanging on the court’s every move, there was hardly time to catch our breath before the Trump administration was back at it again, trying to bend the court to its will. On Monday night, it filed three highly unusual petitions at the court, this time seeking immediate review of decisions by three Federal District Courts that have prevented the administration from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. All three decisions, from courts in New York, San Francisco and Washington, are already in federal appeals courts, with one appeal having been argued and another scheduled to be heard in January. So what’s the rush?

The administration’s filing of three petitions “for a writ of certiorari before judgment” is an aggressive move, and the language is aggressive as well, devoid of even a hint of empathy for the fate of the “Dreamers,” young people brought to this country as children who have been enabled by DACA to build stable adult lives in the United States. “These cases concern the executive branch’s authority to revoke a discretionary policy of nonenforcement that is sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal immigration law by nearly 700,000 aliens,” the petition in the New York case, Nielsen v. Vidal, asserts. The administration’s basic argument is that the decision to undo the program, established by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2012, is unreviewable by any federal court.

What makes the filing even more striking is that the administration tried the same move last January in one of the San Francisco cases, United States Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. Solicitor General Francisco argued then that the “institutional injury suffered by the United States” from the district court’s injunction against shutting down DACA merited an immediate Supreme Court appeal. The justices denied the petition.

What’s different now? It can’t be that the White House was looking for an Election Day tough-on-immigrants headline; the petitions were filed late in the day on Monday without fanfare and made news only in the legal press. Did Attorney General Jeff Sessions want to show what a gung-ho team player he was on the eve of what turned out to be his forced resignation on Wednesday? Such speculation is above my pay grade. But one reason that comes to mind is that the court today is different from the court that existed last January. Unlike the five votes needed to issue a stay, four votes are sufficient to grant a petition and add a case to the calendar for decision. Maybe the administration’s lawyers assume that Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t with them back then but that Justice Kavanaugh, his successor, will be with them now.

Or maybe they make no such assumptions, but simply want to try and see — to test the line between comedy and tragedy.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Europarlamento boccia il budget di Juncker, Macron e Merkel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-21.

EP-051364A_Tajani_Brexit
Opening the debate on BREXIT

I gerarchi dell’Unione Europea sono nei triboli, ma suscitano più ilarità che compassione. A leggere i discorsi che fanno sembrerebbero essere avulsi dal tempo e dallo spazio: confabulano.

Cerchiamo di ragionare.

Da oltre due anni tranne un caso i liberal socialisti hanno inanellato sconfitta su sconfitta, debacle su debacle. Il risultato è che al momento la composizione del Consiglio Europeo, ossia il consesso dei capi di stato e di governo della Unione, ha una composizione politica quasi opposta a quello dell’attuale Europarlamento, che fu eletto cinque anni or sono.

Ma i regolamenti dell’Unione Europea prevedono che le decisioni del Consiglio siano ratificate dal parlamento, e viceversa. Questa regola non dava fastidio alcuno quando i liberal socialisti erano ubiquitari al potere, ma adesso è un serio ostacolo al funzionamento.

Buon senso suggerirebbe che in simili situazioni si cerchi di mutuare, di trovare un accordo, ma questi liberal socialisti sono tetragoni nel voler imporre il proprio pensiero e la propria prassi, anche quando siano chiaramente in minoranza. Nel midollo sono rivoluzionari, ossia gente in minoranza che vuole prendersi il potere con la forza bruta.

A questo punto lo scontro diventa obbligatorio.

Se è vero che Mr Macron e Frau Merkel avevano raggiunto un accordo tra di loro sul budget dell’Eurozona, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare come Mr Macron sia oramai debolissimo in Francia e Frau Merkel prossima alla rottamazione in Germania. I tempi in cui l’Asse franco germanico decideva per tutta l’Unione Europea sono passati.

«The negotiations between the Council of the EU – representing national governments – and the European Parliament for the 2019 budget ended Monday without agreement»

*

«They failed to reach a compromise by the legal deadline»

*

«The European Commission will now have to present a new draft budget»

* * * * * * *

Tanto, il tempo passa implacabile.

Il sette dicembre si terrà il congresso della cdu ed a maggio si terranno le elezioni europee.

L’epoca dei liberal socialisti si sta avviando al suo declino.


EU Observer. 2018-11-20. EU budget talks for 2019 collapse

The negotiations between the Council of the EU – representing national governments – and the European Parliament for the 2019 budget ended Monday without agreement. They failed to reach a compromise by the legal deadline. The European Commission will now have to present a new draft budget. MEP Daniele Viotti called it “just a technical pause”. Council negotiator Hartwig Loger said he was “confident” of a deal before year’s end.


EU Observer. 2018-11-19. Germany and France agree eurozone budget framework

German finance minister Olaf Scholz and his French counterpart Bruno Le Maire have agreed a joint plan for a eurozone-only budget to be presented in Monday’s Eurogroup meeting in Brussels, with view to adoption at the 14 December euro summit, German media reported. Eurozone finance ministers, rather than the European Commission, would be in charge of designing investment programmes to be paid via new taxes.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Ong - Ngo, Unione Europea

Germania. Soros diventa un ‘ospite’ scomodo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-18.

Matsys Jan. (Belgio 1509-1575). Esattore delle Tasse. 1539

«The situation here couldn’t be more different»

*

«Hounded by the Hungarian government, the billionaire’s charitable foundation has relocated its headquarters from Budapest to Berlin, only to find its opponents are regrouping»

*

«When Goran Buldioski and his 85 colleagues moved into their new office at Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz a few weeks ago, they were relieved. “In Hungary we could no longer work freely,” says Buldioski, one of two European directors at the Open Society Foundations run by billionaire George Soros»

*

«The situation here couldn’t be more different»

*

«And of course, there is also Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister who has declared Soros a criminal and his foundation illegal»

*

«The billionaire, Orbán says, sought to abolish the nation’s borders and flood the country with Muslim immigrants. The Hungarian media joined in, alleging conspiracies and blaming Soros’ liberal foundation»

*

«Yet Soros and his story are not without contradictions. The man who brought the British pound to its knees in 1992 possibly also regards politics and society as capital goods»

*

«But now Soros’ opponents are also gathering in Germany»

*

«The billionaire’s “charitable” donations are attempts to influence public opinion»

*

«George Soros goes too far with his ideology of open borders, …. Every country needs borders»

*

«This is probably the accusation most frequently leveled against Soros: that his foundation is pushing for the abolition of nation-states»

* * * * * * * *

Ai primi di dicembre la Cdu nominerà un presidente in sostituzione dei Frau Merkel. Potrebbe anche essere verosimile che la Bundeskanzlerin rassegni dimissioni anticipate. Poi a maggio si terranno le elezioni per l’europarlamento.

Se le proiezioni elettorali dovessero realizzarsi, le formazioni politiche ad ideologia liberal socialista dovrebbero uscirne ben ridimensionate.

Altrettanto verosimilmente il clima socio – politico in Europa ed in Germania potrebbe mutare radicalmente, togliendo alle fondazioni di Mr Soros l’ubi consistant.

* * * * * * * *

“Eurodeputati Pd finanziati da Soros”: bufera sul presidente della Rai Foa

Un “numero enorme” di eurodeputati,

compresa “l’intera delegazione” del Partito Democratico,

“ha ricevuto finanziamenti dal miliardario George Soros”.


Handelsblatt. 2018-11-18. Enemies pursue Soros in Germany

Hounded by the Hungarian government, the billionaire’s charitable foundation has relocated its headquarters from Budapest to Berlin, only to find its opponents are regrouping.

*

When Goran Buldioski and his 85 colleagues moved into their new office at Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz a few weeks ago, they were relieved. “In Hungary we could no longer work freely,” says Buldioski, one of two European directors at the Open Society Foundations run by billionaire George Soros. “The situation here couldn’t be more different.”

The reason for the move? Founder Soros himself.

The 88-year-old investor and philanthropist is a well-worn bogeyman for both left- and right-wing extremists, for anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists and political strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. When a Trump fanatic sent parcel bombs to some of the US president’s opponents, one was addressed to Soros.

And of course, there is also Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister who has declared Soros a criminal and his foundation illegal. The billionaire, Orbán says, sought to abolish the nation’s borders and flood the country with Muslim immigrants. The Hungarian media joined in, alleging conspiracies and blaming Soros’ liberal foundation, which promotes democracy, human rights and freedom of speech.

For Orbán, Soros had become simply too influential. With $32 billion (€28 billion), his foundation is worth almost one-quarter of Hungary’s GDP. Moreover, Soros’ goals enrage Orbán. While the other super-rich like Bill Gates fight malaria, cancer or hunger with their foundations, Soros wants to transform society – including Hungary’s.

For the love of democracy, and of money

Yet Soros and his story are not without contradictions. The man who brought the British pound to its knees in 1992 possibly also regards politics and society as capital goods. When he sees the EU “in an existential crisis,” or when he urges the creation of Eurobonds to solve the debt crisis, it’s not quite clear whether he’s speaking as a philanthropist or as a stock-market speculator who’s placed a bet.

From their headquarters in the German capital, Buldioski’s team manages the foundation’s $1 billion annual budget (see graphic below). Among its many causes, aid for projects in Hungary is now coordinated from Berlin, and the payments so far – €3.5 million –are due to be increased.

Buldioski doesn’t mind talking about Soros’ money – he’s used to it and he’s grateful for the funding – but he also wants to point out that he doesn’t work for Soros the man, he doesn’t know any of Soros’ fund managers and that the foundation is much more than its founder.

But now Soros’ opponents are also gathering in Germany. The billionaire’s “charitable” donations are attempts to influence public opinion, says Petr Bystron, foreign policy spokesman for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD party. He points to a new German media association, Neue Deutsche Medienmacher, as an example.

The NDM, which advocates more diversity in the media and trains journalists who may be at risk of xenophobic attacks, received €88,000 from the Soros foundation last year and has German government backing. The NDM has described the AfD as “a right-wing radical party” with “ethnic ideology.” Bystron accuses the group of slander, and the federal government of sponsoring that slander with taxpayer money.

Konstantina Vassiliou-Enz, managing director of NDM, dismisses Bystron’s views as fantasy; the Soros foundation isn’t working against the AfD but “for the constitution.” While Soros’ funding is “valuable” to the NDM, Vassiliou-Enz insists “the foundation does not interfere in our work.” Still, she has also noted that animosity towards Soros and his foundation has been on the rise in Germany.

The internet teems with right-wing, anti-Semitic tirades against Soros. “Umvolkung in Europe: Does Merkel work for the Jew Soros?” asks one extremist blog. (Umvolking was originally a Nazi term for the assimilation of Germans so they would forget their language and origin.)

Bystron of the AfD distances himself from such anti-Semitic attacks, insisting he would also criticize Soros if he were a German Christian, a Chinese Buddhist or an American Mormon. “George Soros goes too far with his ideology of open borders,” he says. “Every country needs borders.”

Where do you draw the line?

This is probably the accusation most frequently leveled against Soros: that his foundation is pushing for the abolition of nation-states. Buldioski maintains the organization strives for an “open society” with “borders, law and order,” but in which “nobody holds the monopoly on truth.”

Buldioski now wants to discuss this issue with the AfD, saying a discourse with the party is necessary. “But it is also necessary to identify those who infiltrate democracy and seek to transform it into an authoritarian state,” he adds. “That’s exactly what we experienced in Hungary.”

So some of the foundation’s problems have traveled, like stowaways, from Budapest to Berlin. But Buldioski and his colleagues are unfazed. A city map in the office at Potsdamer Platz has a green marker on the new office’s locations, declaring “we are here”. And that’s more than just a handy directive. It may as well be a statement of intent.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

EU. Brasile. Tempi duri per gli allevatori francesi ed olandesi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-15.

Brasile 001

«According to the European Commission, the EU accounts for 18.3 percent of Brazil’s total trade, making the bloc Brazil’s second-biggest trading partner. The EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil.»

*

«In 2017, 42 percent of all beef and live animals imported into the EU came from Brazil. In the first six months of 2018, the EU imported €284m worth of beef and veal from Brazil, ahead of Argentina (€212m) and Uruguay (€153m). Trade with Brazil is currently the subject of negotiations as part of a possible free trade deal between the EU and a regional trading bloc consisting of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.»

*

«However, it is unclear when this EU-Mercosur trade deal will be wrapped up.»

* * * * * * *

«The election of the far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil last month is not only of concern for the Brazilian population. It could have profound consequences for Europeans as well.»

*          

«Before being elected, Bolsonaro said he would take Brazil out of the climate agreement agreed in Paris in 2015, and that he would allow a sharp increase of logging in the Amazon tropical rainforest.»

*

«What’s more, he suggested that the trees, which currently soak up CO2, could be replaced by industry and beef farming. »

*

«Bolsonaro win would, without a doubt, make Brazil lose its leadership on the global climate agenda and become a huge obstacle for the global efforts to combat global warming»

* * * * * * *

«How should Europe react to the potential threat to the world’s climate?»

*

«Organising the climate conference may become a matter of prestige that defuses some of the more radical plans»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di fare un minimo di chiarezza, nei limiti del possibile.

La teoria del ‘clima‘ non è quella del riscaldamento globale: sono due teorie differenti.

La storia insegna come nei secoli si siano succeduti periodi caldi seguiti da periodi freddi.

Il lungo periodo caldo medievale durò fino a circa il milletrecento, data a partire dalla quale si assistette ad un graduale ripristinarsi ed avanzamento dei ghiacciai alpini. Tale periodo di freddo, denominato ‘piccola età glaciale‘ culminò con l’inverno del 1709. In quei tempi, di inverno il Tamigi gelava al punto tale da poter sostenere addirittura delle fiere, ed il porto di New York era gelato per tre mesi invernali l’anno. I quadri di Brüghel il Vecchio sono quanto mai suggestivi di tale periodo.

Dal 1850 il mondo sta evidenziando un periodo di innalzamento delle temperature, innalzamento che verosimilmente dovrebbe perdurare qualche secolo.

*

La teoria del ‘clima‘, invece, consiste nell’attribuire alla presenza umana ed alle sue attività l’esser causa efficiente del riscaldamento. In modo particolare, l’utilizzo del carbone a scopo energetico e di riscaldamento è considerato essere movente primo del fenomeno.

*

L’aspetto sconcertante consiste nel fatto che la teoria del ‘clima‘ è da molti considerata essere non tanto una teoria scientifica, quanto piuttosto un vero e proprio dogma di fede, verità intrinseca all’ideologia liberal. È diventata una visione indiscutibile, e quanti la mettessero in dubbio sarebbero considerati come eretici degni del rogo, previa frantumazione degli arti sulla ruota. Sembrerebbe quasi di essere ripiombati nella diatriba dogmatica tardo medievale sul flogisto.

* * * * * * *

Ciò chiarito, i sostenitori della fede integralista nel clima ne traggono le conseguenze politiche.

La prima e principale attività fu quella che si attuò durante il periodo in cui i liberal socialisti erano al governo in quasi tutti gli stati occidentali. Dalla fondazione di enti per lo studio del ‘clima‘, alla demonizzazione dell’uso del carbon fossile per sostituirlo con sorgenti energetiche alternative. Per parlare come si mangia, e qui la parola è del tutto appropriata, gli stati incanalarono immani risorse sul settore. Il ‘clima‘ divenne un business da favola, per tutti coloro che erano ammessi a sedersi a tavola: a questo punto che il ‘clima‘ esistesse o meno diventava fattore irrilevante.

* * * * * * *

Di questi tempi i dirigenti dell’Unione Europa stanno razionalizzando che l’epoca liberal socialista in Brasile è terminata. Ma mica solo in Brasile: in tutto il mondo occidentale. Resiste ancora l’Unione Europea, ma a maggio si dovranno rivedere molte questioni, e tra queste il ‘clima‘ è in prima fila.

Mr Bolsonaro intende ridurre l’estensione della foresta amazzonica, aumentare coltivazioni ed allevamenti, generando così posti di lavoro ed aumentando le possibilità brasiliane nel commercio.

Quanto il problema sia di ordine ecologico lo si capisce al volo: non serve avere l’intelletto di Pico della Mirandola.

Il 42% delle carni conservate o vive importate dall’Unione Europea arrivano dal Brasile: sono importate perché più convenienti di quelle europee, specialmente francesi ed olandesi.

Ma se il Brasile ne aumentasse la produzione, potrebbe anche arrivare a saturare il mercato europeo, estromettendo gli allevatori francesi ed olandesi.

È del tutto evidente come una simile azione sarebbe una severa e grave violazione della teoria del ‘clima‘. Quindi, ecco il levarsi del pianto greco sulla povera foresta amazzonica, che sarebbe disboscata per sete di guadagno della destra retriva e codina.


EU Observer. 2018-11-14. Why Brazil’s election matters to Brussels

The election of the far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil last month is not only of concern for the Brazilian population.

It could have profound consequences for Europeans as well.

Before being elected, Bolsonaro said he would take Brazil out of the climate agreement agreed in Paris in 2015, and that he would allow a sharp increase of logging in the Amazon tropical rainforest.

What’s more, he suggested that the trees, which currently soak up CO2, could be replaced by industry and beef farming.

As if it would not be bad enough to see the Amazon forest’s ability in neutralising man-made greenhouse gases challenged, it could thus be replaced by additional sources of these gases.

Bolsonaro has also suggested merging the agriculture and environment ministries.

Specialist news website Climate Home called Bolsonaro’s election “the environmental story of 2018”.

Ahead of the elections, some already signalled what his election could mean for the world.

“A potential Bolsonaro win would, without a doubt, make Brazil lose its leadership on the global climate agenda and become a huge obstacle for the global efforts to combat global warming,” Carlos Rittl told the New York Times.

Rittl leads a Brazilian organisation called Climate Observatory, which had looked at presidential candidates environmental views.

US climate activist Bill McKibben sent a sobering tweet after Bolsonaro’s victory.

“The new Brazilian president’s pledge to wreck the Amazon is a tragic reminder that environmentalists need to win a fight forever, while the other side only needs to win it once,” he said.

So what now?

How should Europe react to the potential threat to the world’s climate?

Former European Commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, said that Bolsonaro could still change his mind.

“We must see how he puts his government together,” Hedegaard told EUobserver in an interview in Brussels.

“I think it’s early days,” she said.

“I think that all good forces should right now try to reach out and deliver the good arguments for Brazil. In that sense I think the jury is still out,” said the Danish former commissioner.

“I have also noticed that Bolsonaro … is not as firm stating ‘we should withdraw’ as he was only some few weeks back. Let’s see if the good arguments can win here,” she noted.

As environment minister, Hedegaard prepared and hosted the United Nations climate change conference in 2009. From 2010 to 2014, she was the EU’s climate action commissioner.

Bolsonaro will officially take office on 1 January, which means it will still be the outgoing government that will represent Brazil next month at this year’s UN climate summit.

As Climate Home noted, Brazil was an important partner for the EU at the 2015 Paris conference, where the first-ever global climate treaty was signed.

This year’s climate summit will be held in Poland, in Katowice.

Environmentalists are keen to point out the discrepancy between Poland hosting the summit, while simultaneously still relying on coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels, for its energy.

But just wait until next year.

In 2019, the UN climate summit, known as the Conference of Parties (COP), will be hosted by Brazil.

Hedegaard suggested that this may actually be a good thing for climate action.

“I mean, you cannot imagine that we have the COP in a place where they have decided to leave the [Paris] agreement,” she said.

“It would be extremely unfortunate if Brazil chose to leave, but I really believe it would also be unfortunate for Brazil itself,” she said.

Organising the climate conference may become a matter of prestige that defuses some of the more radical plans, Hedegaard suggested.

“Until … proven [otherwise], I think that common sense and the economic interest and the international reputation of Brazil will prevail here,” said Hedegaard.

Beyond diplomacy, the EU does have some sticks available.

Campaigner for the environmental group Fern Nicole Polsterer wrote in an opinion piece “the EU’s chief – and perhaps only – leverage, is trade”.

According to the European Commission, the EU accounts for 18.3 percent of Brazil’s total trade, making the bloc Brazil’s second-biggest trading partner. The EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil.

In 2017, 42 percent of all beef and live animals imported into the EU came from Brazil. In the first six months of 2018, the EU imported €284m worth of beef and veal from Brazil, ahead of Argentina (€212m) and Uruguay (€153m)

EU-Mercosur

Trade with Brazil is currently the subject of negotiations as part of a possible free trade deal between the EU and a regional trading bloc consisting of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

However, it is unclear when this EU-Mercosur trade deal will be wrapped up.

In September, the two sides met for the 35th round of talks in Montevideo.

A two-page report from the commission said “overall, the round only resulted in limited progress”.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Macron. Bloomberg gli intona il De Profundis.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-11.

2018-11-13__Macron__001

Negli ultimi tempi Bloomberg sta ospitando articoli veementemente liberal assieme ad altri di esasperata Realpolitik.

Per quando concerne Mr Macron, sostanzialmente Bloomberg lo da per spacciato: sicuramente ancora presidente in carica, come a suo tempo lo fu Mr Hollande, ma lo vede incapsulato nei suoi problemi personali ed interni, orfano della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel, incapace di gestire e coagulare un minimo di consenso in un quadro europeo dominato delle incombenti elezioni di maggio per il rinnovo dell’Europarlamento. Talmente debole da non saper nemmeno approfittare della debolezza della cancelliera.

Ma forse la critica più pungente è quella di essere totalmente scollato dalla realtà dei fatti.

«Hike in gas taxes is fueling opposition to French leader»

*

«President Emmanuel Macron is touring France’s World War I battlefields this week to highlight the dangers posed by the resurgence of nationalism in Europe»

*

«But voters aren’t interested in that»

*

«They are more concerned about the president addressing the industrial decline»

*

«When Macron warns of the global threat of climate change, angry voters want to know why his struggle to meet his budget commitments means a hike in their gasoline taxes and a squeeze on retirees’ incomes»

*

«With Macron’s popularity is plumbing new lows almost every week, a Nov. 17 demonstration against rising gasoline prices is threatening to turning into a national protest against the president»

*

«I know some people are angry, I know some people will always seek division, but I am responsible for one thing: I will keep going – on and on and on»

*

«But the fight against what Macron calls the “dark forces” of nativism is not going well»

*

«Recent polls have shown his party, The Republic on the March, running neck and neck with Le Pen’s National Front in next May’s European elections»

2018-11-13__Macron__002

* * * * * * *

Per decenni l’Unione Europea è stata controllata dal duopolio francogermanico. Caduta Frau Merkel e con la Germania in crisi, stanno emergendo tutte le contraddizioni interne francesi, che Mr Macron è incapace sia si comprendere sia di gestire.

Se è vero che il suo mandato presidenziale è ancora ben lontano dalla scadenza, le elezioni per l’europarlamento dovrebbero esitare in un partito En Marche! che sembrerebbe non riuscire a superare il 20% dei consensi.

Mr Macron si sta avviando sulla strada del declino, seguendo mestamente Frau Merkel.

I sogni utopici illuministi, liberal e socialisti stanno morendo di morte naturale.


Bloomberg. 2018-11-11. Macron Fears Europe’s War Demons as Change Enrages Voters

– French president hears everyday concerns on tour of war sites

– Hike in gas taxes is fueling opposition to French leader

*

President Emmanuel Macron is touring France’s World War I battlefields this week to highlight the dangers posed by the resurgence of nationalism in Europe.

But voters aren’t interested in that.

They are more concerned about the president addressing the industrial decline that has ravaged France’s northeast since the 1970s than seeing him join their commemorations of the trench warfare that cost millions of lives a century ago.

When Macron warns of the global threat of climate change, angry voters want to know why his struggle to meet his budget commitments means a hike in their gasoline taxes and a squeeze on retirees’ incomes. Meanwhile, warnings about the lessons of Europe’s bloody history are drowned out by nationalist promises of an easier future once France can defend its borders again.

“The current politics doesn’t work for me,” said a gray-haired woman who approached the president during a stop in Charleville-Mezieres on Wednesday. “I’m 57 years old and I have never been to protest in the streets. Never. But because of you I have to.”

With Macron’s popularity is plumbing new lows almost every week, a Nov. 17 demonstration against rising gasoline prices is threatening to turning into a national protest against the president. But he refuses to veer from his course.

“I know some people are angry, I know some people will always seek division, but I am responsible for one thing: I will keep going – on and on and on,” Macron said Thursday at at Renault SA auto factory near the town of Maubeuge.

You’re not welcome here,” shouted out a worker as he spoke. “We got here without you.”

“I’ll stand by those who fight,” Macron responded, looking to calm the man. “You who fight every day, who want to live in dignity from your work and do more to ensure a better future for your kids.”

Ever since beating nationalist leader Marine Le Pen to take power in May last year the French leader has tried to gather around him people he thinks will be able to stand up against the lure of extremism in the “troubled times” that he sees ahead.

This week Macron is using the centenary of the end of World War I to make his case.

Battlefields and Beethoven

He started Sunday in Strasbourg cathedral sitting alongside German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier for a concert of German and French composers Beethoven and Debussy. On Monday he paid tribute at a soldiers memorial in the battlefield of Mohrange then went to visit a factory and dined with local politicians. On Tuesday he gave a short speech at the village hall in Eparges, where he praise the young people who died in the war before visiting nearby battle fields.

In the president’s vision, the threat of Europe’s newly assertive nationalists adds urgency to his push to reform France’s economy: he knows that he needs to prove to voters that his liberal, pro-market, pro-European recipe can work before they get another chance to consider the attraction of Le Pen’s populism in 2022.

So his eight-day tour mixes armistice commemorations, hard talk with struggling locals, vaulting European ambitions and visits to high-tech factories. Thursday also included a lunch with high-school teachers and a tribute to fallen soldiers at the Notre-Dame-de-Lorette national cemetery.

The tour ends this Sunday when world leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel converge on Paris for a ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe and a “Peace Forum.”

Nationalist Challenge

But the fight against what Macron calls the the “dark forces” of nativism is not going well.

Recent polls have shown his party, The Republic on the March, running neck and neck with Le Pen’s National Front in next May’s European elections.

As he met with frustrated borders this week across the region where he himself grew up, Macron’s answer was the same over and over again: there will be no deviation from the tough policies that he believes are needed to get the economy going and consolidate the European project.

Among the bomb craters that still scar the fields around Eparges he talked of World War I veterans who saw their towns consumed by a second devastating war less than a generation later.

“If we aren’t careful the same demons that are still running through our societies, ready to carry out their work of chaos and death” will be back, he said.

But it was more prosaic concerns animating the crowd of some 200 people in Charleville-Mezieres. In the pouring rain, the president spent 30 minutes talking to people about their problems. To one woman, he explained how to get state rebates on a new car purchase.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Corti Federali ed il caso del Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-11.

Tribunale 010

Uno dei punti cardini dell’ideologia illuminista recepita in quella liberal è la così detta divisione dei poteri.

Formalmente potrebbe anche essere un buon enunciato, ma è cosa utopica: potere politico e potere giudiziario sono commisti, se non altro perché qualcuno alla fine deve pur nominare i giudici.

Non solo.

Spesso si proclama anche una mezza verità, forse più pericolosa di una menzogna.

Si reclama che la politica non interferisca con l’operato dei giudici, cosa di per sé financo ragionevole, ma solo ed unicamente se la magistratura si astenesse dal fare politica. Dovrebbero essere due aspetti di una stessa medaglia.

*

Il caso del Keystone XL oil pipeline è da manuale.

«A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups»

*

«US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday»

*

«The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities, …. until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA»

*

«In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project»

* * * * * * *

Se il problema è evidente dal punto di vista politico – i liberal democratici stanno facendo il loro possibile per ostacolare l’Amministrazione Trump – dal punto di vista giuridico si pone invece quello dell’autorità con cui una Corte, sia pur essa federale, possa bloccare un provvedimento governativo.

Il nodo giuridico consiste nel fatto che un organo nominato, ossia composto da funzionari, esprima pareri su fatti non giuridici, bensì di scelta politica.

In secondo luogo, ma non per questo di minore importanza, il blocco, sia pur temporaneo, dovrebbe essere di competenza del Senato.

*

Sono temi poi nemmeno tanto sottili, che coinvolgono severamente il sistema democratico. L’America attuale è dilaniata da due forze contendenti ed opposte, inconciliabili tra di esse, che dispongono di forze quasi equivalenti. Sarà il controllo della Magistrarua a far pendere i piatti della bilancia.

Avverso alla decisione del giudice federale l’Amministrazione presenterà ricorso alla Suprema Corte, come già fatto in altre occasioni, e ci si stupirebbe se questa, a maggioranza repubblicana, smentisse l’operato del Presidente.

* * * * * * *

Il clima sociale e politico americano sta corrompendosi giorno dopo giorno.

I liberal democratici sembrerebbero non riuscire a darsi pace di aver perso le elezioni presidenziali prima, e due posti nella Suprema Corte, dopo.

«Occorre saper perdere», aveva chiosato Mr Putin.

Ci si rende anche conto come il non essere riusciti a conquistare il Senato alle elezioni di midterm sia stato per i liberal democratici uno smacco oltremodo severo: Mr Trump potrà infatti procedere alle nomine dei posti vacanti di 239 giudici federali, nomine che il Senato è tenuto a convalidare.

A fine ciclo, la magistratura americana sarà in gran parte transitata in campo repubblicano, inattivando alla radice questo ultimo centro di potere democratico.

Resterà però il veleno sparso: sono queste ferite che stentano a rimarginarsi.


Cnn. 2018-11-09. Federal judge halts Keystone XL pipeline construction

A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups.

US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday.

“The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities,” the court document reads, “until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA.”

In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project.

The permit approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid steadfast opposition from environmental groups.

They argued that the pipeline would support the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, a process that pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. They also opposed the pipeline because it would run across one of the world’s largest underground deposits of fresh water.

Native American groups argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Midterm. Il The New York Times fa previsioni trionfali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-06.

2018-11-06__NYT__001

Anche se ne pubblichiamo la fotocopia elettronica, saremmo grati ai Lettori di visionare di persona tutti gli allegati.

*

Il The New York Times pubblica ad urne aperte i seguenti articoli.

House and Senate Latest, Big Poll for Democrats, Georgia Runoff

«Where things stand

Lifted by overwhelming support among women, Democrats enjoy a 13-point advantage on the question of which party should control Congress, according to a new CNN poll.

The national survey indicates that 55 percent of voters prefer Democratic control of the House while 42 percent said they wanted Republicans to stay in power.

While men are effectively divided on the question, women are backing Democrats in large numbers: 62 percent of women said Democrats should take over Congress while just 35 percent prefer Republicans to retain their majorities.

The divide is clearly driven by views toward President Trump. Only 39 percent of voters approve of the president’s job performance, but among women it is even lower: just 31 percent of women believe Mr. Trump is doing a good job as president, while 63 percent do not approve of his performance.»

*

Se si facessero due conti della serva, si potrebbe constatare che se il 62% delle femmine votasse i democratici, questi vincerebbero le elezioni alla grande. Si noti infatti che solo il 32% delle femmine vorrebbe i repubblicani al Congresso.

E che dire dell’aborrito Mr Trump?

Il 63% delle femmine lo disapprova.

* * * * * * *

Facing Threats and Bias, L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Running in Record Numbers

«Ashley Lunkenheimer’s campaign for the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania’s Fifth Congressional District in May was trailed by whispers from some in her own party: It was fine that she was a lesbian, they said, but were voters ready for that?

Gina Ortiz Jones, a Democratic candidate in the 23rd Congressional District in Texas, faced a similar question, but for her it happened out in the open. An opponent in the primary asked her onstage during a candidate forum to make it clear to voters that she was a lesbian so it would not be “revealed later” in a Republican attack.

Catholic voters in the heavily Hispanic district “may still vote for you, but let’s get it out there,” said the opponent, Angie Villescaz.

“She made it seem like I was hiding who I was from voters, as if maybe I was supposed to mention that in every single sentence,” said Ms. Jones, an Air Force veteran who served under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a law, now repealed, that banned openly gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from military service. “Her implication obviously was if voters knew, then they wouldn’t be voting for me.” ….

But the episode is indicative of the challenges faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates in the midterm elections, when a record number — at least 244, all Democrats — are running for elected office at all levels of government, including 21 for Congress and four for governor. ….

But the episode is indicative of the challenges faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates in the midterm elections, when a record number — at least 244, all Democrats — are running for elected office at all levels of government, including 21 for Congress and four for governor. ….

Josh Boschee, a candidate for secretary of state in North Dakota, was derided as a sinner by a radio host who defended Will Gardner, a Republican who dropped out of the race after it came to light that he had a criminal record related to an accusation that he peeped into a window at a women’s dormitory ….

Attacks on the L.G.B.T. community have piled up since Donald Trump became president. The administration has issued “religious liberty” guidelines to federal agencies and contractors; argued in a 2017 federal lawsuit that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect gay people; and appointed judges, including the Supreme Court Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, whose records deeply trouble L.G.B.T. groups. ….

In the latest attack, The New York Times reported last month that the administration is weighing a change to the legal definition of gender that could render transgender people legally nonexistent.»

* * * * * * *

Riassumiamo.

La marea Blu e la Marea Rosa stanno per travolgere Congresso, Senato e Governatorati. Scacceranno Mr Trump a pedate nei glutei.

Per i media è certo che la Marea Blu travolgerà Trump a midterm.

Trump. Marea Blu e Marea Rosa valutate da parte liberal.

Midterm. I lib dem candidano 15 femmine al Senato, 187 al Congresso, 12 a Governatrici.

*

Quindi, non solo Marea Blu e Marea Rosa: qui si tratta della Marea lgbt.

Adesso che è stato reso noto che la Marea Rosa è per la quasi totalità una marea lgbt e transgender ci troviamo obbligati a prestar fede al The New York Times: i liberal democratici vinceranno alla grande.

Che nessuno aiuti Mr Trump mentre fa scatoloni e fagotto.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Cnn. L’urlo di dolore liberal, ‘Trumpism is thriving’

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-04.

Vincent-Van-Gogh-Vecchi-Scarponi1

Cnn inizia a prendere atto come negli ultimi due anni tutti i partiti ad ideologia liberal o socialista abbiano regolarmente perso le elezioni, e normalmente anche malo modo.

Prendere atto del reale sarebbe il primo passo indispensabile per poi poterlo analizzare: un passo per volta.

Si faccia attenzione nella lettura dell’allegato: è scritto in ‘politicamente corretto‘, ove tra l’altro molti termini sono usati in senso opposto a quello fornito dal dizionario.

L’Autore non si rende conto però di un fatto.

Più dipinge a tinte fosche i vincitori delle recenti elezioni, peggio dipinge i sostenitori delle ideologie liberal e socialista. Gli Elettori infatti, pur di non votare questi ultimi, hanno dato il loro voto a quelli che Mr Macron ha simpaticamente definito ‘lebbrosi‘. Meglio i lebbrosi degli altri: il che è tutto dire.

*

Ma ciò che più concorre ad arroventare l’inferno in cui vivono i liberal è la constatazione che ‘Trumpism is thriving‘.

Già.

Il Trumpismo, come l’Autore lo chiama, è vivo e vegeto, fiorente, ed il sette novembre potrebbe anche suggellare la fine dei liberal democratici. L’articolo trasuda odio distillato allo stadio puro, luciferino.

«Eager to avoid the catastrophic economic meltdown of neighboring Venezuela …. Brazilian voters have thrown their lot overwhelmingly behind a far right-wing candidate»

*

«It is only the latest victory of far-right nationalism that in the past 24 hours has seen the first step toward the end of the moderate conservative leadership of Angela Merkel in Germany and growing fears of the spread of anti-democratic dogmatism.»

Si apprezzi la finezza. Il governo semidittatoriale di Frau Merkel sarebbe “moderate conservative“, mentre gli altri sarebbero “anti-democratic dogmatism“. Basta prendere atto di simile terminologia.

*

«Sweeping to victory with more than 55% of the vote, Brazil’s new leader has pledged to appoint military leaders to top posts, stack the Supreme Court with right-wing judges and threaten political foes»

In democrazia chi abbia conseguito la maggioranza governa; concetto alieno all’ideologia liberal. Quando il Presidente degli Stati Uniti nominò segretario di stato il generale Powell fu mossa democratica, se Bolsonaro facesse lo stesso sarebbe una evidente mossa dittatoriale fascista. Quando i liberal nominano giudici liberal sarebbe cosa santa e giusta: lo facessero gli altri sarebbe segno evidente del marchio nazionalsocialista. Son davvero complicati questi liberal democratici.

*

«Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru have also turned to more conservative leaders»

*

«Globally, Bolsonaro is emblematic of right-wing candidates who have captured the popular imagination of nations eager for change at any cost, often looking to Donald Trump for inspiration and encouragement»

*

«Already, far-right candidates have swept to power or to leading opposition status across Europe. In Italy, two populist parties — the Five Star Movement and far-right League — have formed a ruling coalition. Hungary’s far-right, anti-immigration Prime Minister Viktor Orban won a third term as leader in April. In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice party is en route to dismantling the nation’s judicial system»

*

«That Merkel has finally throw in the towel and renounced any hope for her continued moderate leadership of Germany is a tribute to what appears to be the growing right-wing tilt of the German electorate.»

* * * * * * * *

«Bolsonaro’s roots are deep in Brazil’s militant right. For Bolsonaro, this has meant a determined anti-LGBTQ stance, urging parents to beat their gay children.»

*

«During his campaign, he accused the right-wing military dictatorship that ruled Brazil with an iron fist from 1964 to 1985 of not killing enough dissidents, not using enough lethal force and not coming down hard enough on the nation’s free-wheeling media.»

Ad ogni azione corrisponde una reazione eguale e contraria. Di fronte ad un socialismo violento e selvaggio lo stato non avrebbe potuto rispondere in maniera diversa da come ha fatto: conveniamo invece come abbia avuto la mano oltremodo leggera.

*

«With Brazil serving as home to a unique treasure — the world’s largest rain forests — a climate-change denier at the helm in Brazil could prove even more catastrophic than Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the world climate pact agreed in Paris.»

* * * * * * * *

Riassumendo la sostanza.

I liberal cercano di appurare cosa sia successo ed il perché utilizzando gli schemi mentali che li hanno portati alla sconfitta. È come se un greco antico cercasse di spiegare ai coevi cosa sia e come funzioni un apparecchio televisivo.

Ci si guardi bene dal distoglierli!


Cnn. 2018-10-30. As Merkelism fades and Brazil moves right, Trumpism is thriving

Eager to avoid the catastrophic economic meltdown of neighboring Venezuela — led by socialist President Nicolas Maduro — Brazilian voters have thrown their lot overwhelmingly behind a far right-wing candidate. In one stroke, the nation has swung from its once-beloved left-wing president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who languishes in prison on corruption charges, to Jair Bolsonaro.

It is only the latest victory of far-right nationalism that in the past 24 hours has seen the first step toward the end of the moderate conservative leadership of Angela Merkel in Germany and growing fears of the spread of anti-democratic dogmatism.

In the long run, Merkel’s decision to relinquish her role as leader of the centrist Christian Democratic Union following the latest in a string of defeats, this time in the Hesse state elections Sunday, and her announcement that she will not stand for re-election in 2021, may have the most sweeping impact on democratic values.

But the most immediate impact will unquestionably be in Brazil.

Sweeping to victory with more than 55% of the vote, Brazil’s new leader has pledged to appoint military leaders to top posts, stack the Supreme Court with right-wing judges and threaten political foes.

Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru have also turned to more conservative leaders, but none remotely as extreme as Bolsonaro.

Globally, Bolsonaro is emblematic of right-wing candidates who have captured the popular imagination of nations eager for change at any cost, often looking to Donald Trump for inspiration and encouragement.

Already, far-right candidates have swept to power or to leading opposition status across Europe. In Italy, two populist parties — the Five Star Movement and far-right League — have formed a ruling coalition. Hungary’s far-right, anti-immigration Prime Minister Viktor Orban won a third term as leader in April. In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice party is en route to dismantling the nation’s judicial system.

Who is Brazil’s new president-elect? 01:57

In Germany, the long centrist rule of Angela Merkel is being challenged at every turn by right-wing candidates, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party which last year won its first seats in the Bundestag and on Sunday swept into the state parliament of Hesse for the first time.

That Merkel has finally throw in the towel and renounced any hope for her continued moderate leadership of Germany is a tribute to what appears to be the growing right-wing tilt of the German electorate.

In India, far-right Hindu nationalist groups, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, have rioted to protect Hindu rights and forcibly closed down meat shops outside New Delhi ahead of Navratri, the nine-day festival of fasting when no meat is eaten by the religious.

Many of these right-wing parties and their leaders, but especially Bolsonaro, have paid tribute to Donald Trump as their shining beacon of conservatism. Opponents of Brazil’s new leader, and indeed some of his supporters, describe him variously as misogynistic, violent and dictatorial.

Unquestionably, Bolsonaro’s roots are deep in Brazil’s militant right. For Bolsonaro, this has meant a determined anti-LGBTQ stance, urging parents to beat their gay children.

During his campaign, he accused the right-wing military dictatorship that ruled Brazil with an iron fist from 1964 to 1985 of not killing enough dissidents, not using enough lethal force and not coming down hard enough on the nation’s free-wheeling media.

All this, he has suggested, will be quickly remedied.

On Sunday evening, Trump became one of the first world leaders to phone Bolsonaro with congratulations on his victory. As White House press secretary Sarah Sanders put it, the two expressed their pleasure in working “side-by-side” as “regional leaders of the Americas.”

Even the string of pipe-bombs launched at liberal political figures and the media in the United States by a pro-Trump fanatic and Saturday’s massacre by a militant anti-Semite at a Pittsburgh synagogue seem not to have deterred voters from embracing Bolsonaro.

Monday morning, Brazil stocks traded in Tokyo surged 11% in early trading.

It was only the first tribute to the belief that Bolsonaro will allow little to stand in his way of returning Brazil to security and prosperity, at any cost.

With Brazil serving as home to a unique treasure — the world’s largest rain forests — a climate-change denier at the helm in Brazil could prove even more catastrophic than Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the world climate pact agreed in Paris.

The Amazonian jungle, called “the lungs of the world,” contains one-third of all animal species on earth.

Now, it may be in desperate danger. As Jonathan Watts, environment editor of London’s Guardian newspaper put it: “Bolsonaro has the backing of agribusiness and mining leaders, who are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of an Amazon denuded of its greatest protections. The markets — which are heavily driven by extractive industries — also love him.”

At the same time, Bolsonaro, during his long and somewhat undistinguished tenure as a back-bench member of Brazil’s parliament, has given some dangerous indications of what else may be in store. In 1999, he told an interviewer he would hardly hesitate to dissolve a Congress he described as “useless.”

In 2016, he paid tribute to a Brazilian colonel who ran a torture center under the nation’s last dictatorship.

It’s hard to believe that Donald Trump himself could even consider embracing any such potentially sweeping and utterly dictatorial powers.

That the Brazilian people have done so appears to be an exercise in utter madness. But with each turn of the dial toward the right, further license is being given to extremes in nations that may ultimately, perhaps too late, come to regret their votes.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Germania. Hessen. Frau Merkel kaputt. Un fantasma guiderà la Germania

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-29.

2018-10-29__Hessen__010

Quando si guida una formazione politica di invasati allucinati la sconfitta elettorale apparirebbe essere la naturale conseguenza.

Questo era il titolo fatto alla chiusura dei seggi elettorali in Hessen dal Deutsche Welle, giornale portavoce del governo liberal socialista.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives eke out win in Hesse election

«Despite a large drop in support, the CDU has won the Hesse state regional poll, giving the chancellor some welcome breathing room….

The CDU’s tally of 27 percent may have been down some 11 points compared with the last Hesse vote in 2013, but it was slightly better than pre-election polls had predicted and gives incumbent state premier and Merkel ally Volker Bouffier a mandate to form the next government»

Scrivere nero su bianco che

“Cdu has won the Hesse state regional poll”

è demenziale: solo una mente ottusa dall’ideologia può aver scritto una simile bruttura.

2018-10-29__Hessen__011

* * *

Se accontentarsi è importante nella vita, ebbene, Frau Merkel starà squittendo di gioia. Tra Baviera ed Hessen la Union ha perso dodici punti percentuali, quasi quanto la perdita della spd.

Merkel Can Look Back and Claim a Win on German Jobless

Questo è il titolo trionfalistico di Bloomberg.

* * *

Ma la realtà dei fatti è ben diversa da come la dipingono i media liberal.

Il The New York Times è lapidario, in un articolo di ottava pagina:

Angela Merkel to Quit as Party Leader in Germany

«Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said on Monday that she would give up the leadership of her conservative party, the clearest sign yet that the woman who was once Europe’s most powerful leader is preparing her long-expected departure from office ….

Ms. Merkel’s coalition government, which took six months to cobble together, has long lost its majority in opinion polls.»

E tutto questo senza considerare che esistono, e votano, anche i tedeschi dell’est.

* * * * * * * *

A mezzogiorno Frau Merkel ha tenuto una conferenza stampa.

«”I risultati nelle elezioni sono oltremodo amari e deludenti sia in Assia che nel Bund”. “È deplorevole, perché il governo nero verde ha portato un bilancio convincente”, ha spiegato Merkel parlando a Berlino dopo la doppia sconfitta elettorale in Assia e in Baviera.

“Come cancelliera ho la responsabilità di tutto, per quello che riesce e per quello che non riesce. E’ giunto il momento di aprire un nuovo capitolo: non mi ricandiderò come presidente della Cdu, questo quarto mandato è l’ultimo come cancelliera, non mi ricandiderò al Bundestag nel 2021 e non voglio altri incarichi politici”. “Non sono nata cancelliera”, ha aggiunto Merkel.

“È chiaro che così non si può andare avanti. L’immagine del governo è inaccettabile”, ha aggiunto. “E questo ha ragioni più profonde che ragioni di comunicazione”, ha affermato rimandando a un problema di “cultura del lavoro”. Infine Merkel ha escluso una sua ricandidatura anche se il governo attuale cadesse, per il ritiro della Spd.

“Per me si tratta di aprire una strada verso il futuro”, ha spiegato Angela Merkel, affermando di aver riflettuto molto, su come si potesse favorire una successione nella Cdu. Merkel ha anche sottolineato di voler “lasciare i propri incarichi con dignità, così come li ho svolti”.

Per i grandi partiti popolari, come la Cdu la Csu e la Spd, è arrivato il tempo di chiarire “cosa serve alla tenuta del paese e cosa no”, ha spiegato ancora Merkel.»

*

Come suo stile, Frau Merkel è ambiguamente orgogliosa.

Non si candiderà a dicembre alla presidenza del partito e non concorrerà nel 2021 ad una rielezione.

In altri termini: tutto rimane così come è. Nella sua visione la Germania dovrebbe arrancare tre anni con una Bundeskanzlerin polverizzata, incapace di prendere decisioni, forse obbligata dai fatti ad avallare iniziative che aborrisce.

Gran brutta bestia la superbia e l’orgoglio suo degno compare. Che la Germania soffra tutto, purché non si parli di dimissioni. Una cosa sarebbe infatti il non presentarsi ed un’altra l’essere bocciata se lo avesse fatto.

Questa sarebbe la Germania che dovrebbe affrontare tutte le sfide interne e mondiali, massimamente le elezioni europee prossime venture.

Notiamo come le ultime parole dette da Hitler prima di suicidarsi siano state:

“i tedeschi non mi hanno meritato”.

* * * * * * * *

«La cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel sarebbe disponibile a rinunciare alla guida del suo partito, dopo le pesanti perdite elettorali in Assia, al prossimo congresso della Cdu di dicembre»

*

«Merkel vuole restare cancelliera, quindi, pur essendosi detta pronta a rinunciare alla candidatura alla presidenza della Cdu a dicembre. Merkel resterebbe alla guida dell’esecutivo»

*

«Fino ad oggi Merkel aveva sempre affermato che cancelleria e presidenza del partito dovessero essere nella stessa mano»

*

«Fino ad oggi Merkel aveva sempre affermato che cancelleria e presidenza del partito dovessero essere nella stessa mano»

*

«German Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered to give up the leadership of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), reports from within her party have said. The conservatives suffered massive losses in two regional elections.»

*

«The center-left Social Democrats (SPD), who are in a governing coalition with Merkel’s conservative alliance, also saw their support drop sharply in Hesse and Bavaria’s state elections. Unlike the CDU, however, the SPD says it isn’t currently considering a party leadership shakeup»

*

«The poor performace of the parties in Merkel’s governing coalition in the Hesse election could have a negative impact on Europe, warned EU Economy Commissioner Pierre Moscovici.»

*

«”The fragility of a country like Germany is always a threat for Europe,” Moscovici told French broadcaster Public Senat. “So we are paying attention.”»

* * * * * * * *

«The fragility of a country like Germany is always a threat for Europe. …. a negative impact on Europe»

Benissimo. Adesso Frau Merkel e Mr Mosovici più che all’Italia hanno da pensare al loro futuro politico ed umano.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-10-29. +++ Angela Merkel will not run for CDU party chair again – live updates +++

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered to give up the leadership of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU), reports from within her party have said. The conservatives suffered massive losses in two regional elections.

– Sources in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have said that Chancellor Angela Merkel is prepared to step down as party leader.

– Merkel reportedly said she still plans on remaining in her post as chancellor — although she once said that party leadership and chancellorship must go hand-in-hand.

– Merkel, who has been CDU chairwoman since 2000, told a party leadership meeting of her offer on Monday morning, after the party reeled from heavy losses in two recent regional elections, most recently on Sunday in Hesse.

– The chancellor is expected to give a press conference at 12:00 UTC.

*

10:50 The center-left Social Democrats (SPD), who are in a governing coalition with Merkel’s conservative alliance, also saw their support drop sharply in Hesse and Bavaria’s state elections. Unlike the CDU, however, the SPD says it isn’t currently considering a party leadership shakeup. 

“There’s no discussion of a personnel restructuring in the SPD,” party chairwoman Andrea Nahles told reporters in Berlin on Monday morning. The SPD leader also appeared to dismiss the possibility of pulling the center-left party out of Merkel’s coalition, saying that the SPD was focusing on moving forward. Nahles has been under pressure to leave the governing coalition, particularly from the party’s youth wing, the JUSOS.

The poor performace of the parties in Merkel’s governing coalition in the Hesse election could have a negative impact on Europe, warned EU Economy Commissioner Pierre Moscovici. 

“The fragility of a country like Germany is always a threat for Europe,” Moscovici told French broadcaster Public Senat. “So we are paying attention.”

10:15 The race is now on to replace Merkel, not only as the leader of the CDU, but also possibly as chancellor. DW’s broken down a list of list of potential successors:

10:10 Christian Lindner, the head of the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP), called on Merkel to step down not only from her role as the head of the CDU, but also as chancellor. “Ms. Merkel is giving up the wrong position,” he said in Berlin. He said her decision to give up one and not the other will make her government more unstable.

10:00 The former head of the CDU/CSU’s parliamentary party in the Bundestag, Friedrich Merz, will reportedly be running to replace Merkel as CDU chair during the party’s conference in December, according to the German daily Bild. He was also previously a member of the European Parliament and currently serves as the supervisory board chairman of BlackRock Germany.

9:55 The surprise news follows poor results for Merkel’s CDU in Sunday’s state parliamentary election in Hesse, which saw Merkel’s party drop over 10 percentage points to score 27 percent of the vote. The CDU’s sister-party in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union (CSU), also bled support two weeks ago in Bavaria’s state election. Both the CDU and CSU emerged the winners, but analysts and voters viewed the state elections as a referendum on Merkel’s coalition government in Berlin.

9:47 CDU sources announced that Merkel does not intend to not run again as party leader, leaving the position open for a new chair to be elected at the upcoming party conference in December. She insisted, however, that she would remain chancellor. The move represents a political capitulation for the chancellor, who has previously emphasized that the party leadership and the chancellorship must be tied together.


Ansa. 2018-10-29. Germania: dall’Assia schiaffo alla Cdu, Merkel pronta a passo indietro

La cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel sarebbe disponibile a rinunciare alla guida del suo partito, dopo le pesanti perdite elettorali in Assia, al prossimo congresso della Cdu di dicembre: lo riferiscono fonti vicine al partito, come riporta Dpa. 
Merkel vuole restare cancelliera, quindi, pur essendosi detta pronta a rinunciare alla candidatura alla presidenza della Cdu a dicembre. Merkel resterebbe alla guida dell’esecutivo.

Fino ad oggi Merkel aveva sempre affermato che cancelleria e presidenza del partito dovessero essere nella stessa mano. È questo l’effetto del risultato delle elezioni in Assia, dove ieri la Cdu ha perso oltre 10 punti.
L’ex capogruppo dell’Unione, Friedrich Merz, sarebbe pronto a candidarsi alla presidenza della Cdu al prossimo congresso. Lo scrive la Dpa, citando fonti di partito.

Le urne dell’Assia consegnano l’ennesimo schiaffo ad Angela Merkel, come ampiamente previsto dai sondaggi: la Cdu perde oltre dieci punti, tocca il risultato peggiore dal 1966 e vede trionfare gli alleati Verdi. Eppure i primi dati non configurano un terremoto politico e i cristiano-democratici si sforzano subito di contenere i temuti contraccolpi sul governo a Berlino. Che si misureranno comunque a partire da domani. L’uscente Volker Bouffier, fedelissimo della cancelliera, continuerà a governare la regione di Francoforte e nel suo bilancio chiarisce subito che nessuna coalizione potrà essere fatta contro la Cdu. Proprio come in Baviera, potrebbe anche non servirgli un terzo alleato, nonostante le avances dei liberali. Veri sconfitti della serata sono i socialdemocratici, che tuttavia trattano il risultato con cautela. Chiedono che l’Unione smetta di litigare (un modo implicito per puntare il dito contro Horst Seehofer, il ministro bavarese che ha mandato in crisi il governo due volte in pochi mesi) e annunciano verifiche sulla possibilità di continuare a lavorare insieme. Ma non è una vera messa in discussione della Grosse Koalition. Anche perché, se l’alleanza saltasse davvero, lo scenario più plausibile sarebbe il voto, che in questa fase potrebbe rivelarsi fatale per il partito di Andrea Nahles e Olaf Scholz. Di fronte a una caduta di quasi 11 punti – stando alle prime proiezioni, la Cdu avrebbe il 27,2% (nel 2013 presero il 38,3) – Bouffier ha saputo immediatamente guardare il bicchiere mezzo pieno: “È una serata dai sentimenti contrastanti. È doloroso pensare ai voti perduti, ma abbiamo anche visto che lottare vale la pena. Avevamo due obiettivi: restare la prima forza politica del Land e ottenere che nessuna coalizione fosse possibile contro di noi. Li abbiamo raggiunti entrambi”. Una reazione in linea con la segretaria generale Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, la quale si è congratulata per aver “evitato la coalizione rosso-rosso-verde”.

Esultano nelle stesse ore gli ecologisti, dati al 19,6% (11,1%): “L’Assia non è mai stata così verde prima d’ora”, ha affermato Annalena Baerbock, che condivide la presidenza con Robert Habeck. Siamo felici di questo storico miglior risultato dei verdi in Assia”, ha aggiunto, rendendo onore al ministro dell’Economia uscente, Tarek Al Waziri, che ha guidato il partito al trionfo di stasera. Di “sconfitta amara” ha parlato invece il candidato di punta dei socialdemocratici, Thorsten Schaefer-Gumbel, che ha visto il partito scivolare al 19,6% (dal 30,7 del 2013), in un testa a testa con i verdi, che si confermano tendenzialmente in grado di diventare seconda forza politica tedesca. Fra i vincitori indiscussi della serata c’è poi l’ultradestra di Afd, che entra nel parlamentino del Land (ed è presente così in tutti e 16) con un risultato a due cifre, il 12,8% (l’altra volta fallì l’obiettivo e restò al 4,1). Festeggiano anche i liberali che con il 7,8% (avevano il 5) potrebbero esser decisivi, e si mettono a disposizione per la coalizione Giamaika. Ma nel corso della serata si potrà capire se la coalizione nero-verde uscente possa farcela anche da sola, sia pur per una manciata di voti. Chiuse le urne in Assia, i problemi tornano adesso a Berlino, dove i partiti della Grosse Koalition dovranno elaborare la punizione dell’elettorato, ed evitare le “scosse” che secondo Wolfgang Schaeuble avrebbero potuto provocare il “grande cambiamento”. Lo scenario che non conviene quasi a nessuno.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica America Latina., Ideologia liberal, Senza categoria

Brasile. Bolsonaro. Le prime reazioni internazionali occidentali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-29.

Breughel il Vecchio. 1562. La caduta degli angeli ribelli.

Se i liberal socialisti non avessero scaricato su Mr Bolsonaro tutti gli insulti per loro più urenti, dal ‘fascista‘ all”omofobo‘, lo avremmo ritenuto essere solo un mediocre.

Il fatto poi che i liberal socialisti abbiano cercato di assassinarlo, e c’erano quasi riusciti, è stato un altro segno notevole del suo valore.

«Il risultato del voto in Brasile segna anche una nuova sconfitta per i partiti e i leader protagonisti della cosiddetta “marea rosa” progressista che investì l’America Latina all’inizio del secolo XXI, dopo le vittorie elettorali del centrodestra in Argentina, Cile, Perù e Colombia»

*

«The key question will be Bolsonaro’s ability to unify a deeply divided nation and to forge a majority in congress to pass austerity measures. A bitter campaign shook the underpinnings of a democracy that has existed only since 1985. Anger and political violence have surged and Bolsonaro himself was stabbed by a fanatic in September and campaigned from his hospital bed.

While Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party surged in the Oct. 7 congressional vote to become the second-largest force in the lower house, it still has only 52 out of 513 seats. And managing a ruling coalition isn’t easy in a congress with 30 political parties.

While Bolsonaro’s party is likely to form a majority coalition, it still won’t be easy to push through his agenda, said Senator Fernando Bezerra Coelho, the current majority whip in the upper house.

“There’s a hard core against reforms in the chamber, including some deputies from Bolsonaro’s camp,” said Bezerra. “He’ll have to negotiate.”»

*

«Jair Bolsonaro swept to power in Brazil’s presidential election Sunday, marking a hard pivot to the right that promises to open up the resource-rich economy to private investment, strengthen ties to the U.S. and unleash an aggressive crackdown on epidemic crime.»

*

 Lo ha semidistrutto eticamente, moralmente, socialmente ed economicamente.

Nessuno si illuda che Mr Bolsonaro possa far tornare ordine e prosperità in poco tempo: serviranno degli anni.

Ci rincuorano però le frasi finali dell’articolo della Bbc.

«And the US president’s spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, said on Sunday: “President Trump called President-elect Bolsonaro of Brazil this evening to congratulate him and the Brazilian people on today’s elections. Both expressed a strong commitment to work side by side to improve the lives of the people of the United States and Brazil.”

Meanwhile, Amnesty International said that taking into account his campaign pledges, Mr Bolsonaro’s victory could pose a “huge risk” to Brazil’s indigenous peoples, LGBT communities, black youth, women, activists and civil society organisations.»

Serve una buona dose di spiritello sassone far seguire al Presidente Trump Amnesty International.

Ma quando poi leggiamo di cosa Amnesty International sia preoccupata:

«Brazil’s indigenous peoples, LGBT communities, black youth, women, activists and civil society organisations»

ci viene da sorridere: con tutti i problemi seri questi sembrerebbero essere dei non-problemi.

Le ideologie liberal e socialista sono morte, ma non sono ancora morti i loro supporter.



Ansa. 2018-10-29. Brasile: Bolsonaro è il nuovo presidente con il 55,7% dei voti

Con il 99,61% dei voti scrutinati, Jair Bolsonaro risulta vincitore del ballottaggio delle elezioni presidenziali in Brasile con il 55,20% dei voti, contro il 44,80% ottenuti da Fernando Haddad, candidato del Partito dei Lavoratori (Pt), un vantaggio equivalente a circa 11 milioni dei voti.

“Cambieremo il destino del Brasile. Vi offriremo un governo degno che lavorerà per tutti i brasiliani”. Lo ha detto Jair Bolsonaro, nel suo primo discorso da neopresidente del Brasile. 

*

Il primo messaggio dopo la vittoria Bolsonaro lo ha affidato a Facebook, come ha spesso fatto anche durante la campagna elettorale. Un breve video, trasmesso sui social dal suo appartamento di Barra de Tijuca, quartiere residenziale dell’ovest di Rio de Janeiro. “Sono molto grato a tutti voi, per la vostra considerazione, le vostre preghiere e la vostra fiducia”, ha detto l’ex militare, aggiungendo che “adesso, tutti insieme, cambieremo il destino del Brasile: sapevamo dove stavamo andando, e ora sappiamo cosa dobbiamo fare”. Il Brasile, ha sottolineato, “non poteva continuare a flirtare con il socialismo, il comunismo, il populismo e l’estremismo della sinistra” e ora “la verità comincerà a regnare in ogni casa del paese, cominciando dal suo punto più alto, che è la presidenza della Repubblica”, perché “il Brasile ha tutto quello che serve per essere una grande nazione”.

La quarta democrazia più grande del mondo sarà governata da un ex ufficiale dei paracadutisti denunciato da molti come una “minaccia fascista”: Jair Bolsonaro è stato eletto presidente del Brasile, battendo il suo rivale Fernando Haddad di almeno 10 punti, il 55% dei voti. Una vittoria immediatamente salutata in Italia dal leader della Lega Matteo Salvini: “Anche in Brasile – ha twittato – i cittadini hanno mandato a casa la sinistra! Buon lavoro al presidente Bolsonaro, l’amicizia tra i nostri popoli e i nostri governi sarà ancora più forte”. Ed ha aggiunto: “Dopo anni di chiacchiere, chiederò che ci rimandino in Italia il terrorista rosso Battisti”. Intanto in Brasile, da Rio de Janeiro a San Paolo, sono scesi in piazza migliaia di simpatizzanti. Malgrado la rimonta registrata negli ultimi giorni da Haddad – l’erede politico scelto da Lula da Silva come candidato del Partito dei Lavoratori (Pt) – i risultati del ballottaggio hanno confermato le previsioni dei sondaggi, che davano Bolsonaro come favorito anche prima del primo turno delle presidenziali, lo scorso 7 ottobre. La vittoria di Bolsonaro rappresenta una frattura storica per il Brasile, dopo una fase di quattro governi consecutivi del Pt, chiusasi nell’agosto del 2016 con l’impeachment di Dilma Rousseff, e il breve intermezzo dell’amministrazione di Michel Temer, che arriva alla fine del suo mandato battendo tutti i record storici di impopolarità. Il risultato del voto in Brasile segna anche una nuova sconfitta per i partiti e i leader protagonisti della cosiddetta “marea rosa” progressista che investì l’America Latina all’inizio del secolo XXI, dopo le vittorie elettorali del centrodestra in Argentina, Cile, Perù e Colombia e le derive autoritarie in Venezuela e Nicaragua. Bolsonaro, un deputato che è passato per otto partiti diversi in quasi due decenni di attività parlamentare e fino a poco fa era considerato un personaggio eccentrico, noto per le sue dichiarazioni polemiche a favore della dittatura militare e la tortura e contro le donne e le minoranze razziali, etniche e sessuali, è diventato in pochi mesi il leader che ha cavalcato il crescente malessere di grandi fasce della società brasiliana. La crisi economica iniziata nel secondo governo di Dilma Rousseff, la più grave della storia brasiliana, gli scandali di corruzione politica che hanno colpito i principali partiti politici – e portato in carcere Lula – e l’escalation della violenza criminale nel paese hanno alimentato un sentimento di esasperazione diffusa, che ha portato i brasiliani a scegliere un candidato che si è presentato come un outsider “contro” l’establishment politico. Il ballottaggio è diventato anche una sorta di gioco della torre elettorale: il Brasile si è diviso fra chi voleva evitare il “pericolo fascista” rappresentato da una vittoria di Bolsonaro e chi era disposto a votare qualunque candidato che impedisse un ritorno al potere del Pt, in un clima di forte polarizzazione delle posizioni. Haddad è partito in svantaggio, giacché il Pt ha scelto di spingere fino all’ultimo termine possibile la candidatura di Lula – bocciata dalle autorità elettorali a causa della sua condanna a 12 anni per corruzione – e non è riuscito né a spostare sulla sua candidatura i voti assicurati dal suo mentore politico né ad ottenere l’appoggio di leader politici di altri partiti per lanciare il suo progetto di “unità democratica” contro Bolsonaro.



Bbc. 2018-10-29. Jair Bolsonaro: Far-right candidate wins Brazil poll

Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro has won a sweeping victory in Brazil’s presidential election.

Mr Bolsonaro won 55.2% of the votes cast against 44.8% for Fernando Haddad from the left-wing Workers’ Party (PT), election officials said.

Mr Bolsonaro campaigned on a promise to eradicate corruption and to drive down Brazil’s high crime levels.

The election campaign has been deeply divisive. Each camp argued that victory for the other could destroy Brazil.

What does it mean?

Mr Bolsonaro’s victory constitutes a markedly rightward swing in the largest democracy in Latin America, which was governed by the PT for 13 years between 2003 and 2016.

For the past two years, the country has been led by a conservative, Michel Temer, following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. But Mr Temer has proven deeply unpopular with Brazilians.

With the outgoing president’s approval rating at a record low of 2%, voters clamoured for change but they were deeply divided on which way that change should go.

Mr Bolsonaro’s 10-percentage-point victory means the vision he laid out to voters of a Brazil where law and order and family values would be made the priority won out.

Who is Bolsonaro and what is he likely to do once in office?

The 63-year-old is a retired army officer and member of the Social Liberal Party (PSL), an anti-establishment group that combines social conservatism and pro-market policies.

Mr Bolsonaro is a deeply polarizing figure whose remarks on a range of issues – including abortion, race, migration and homosexuality – earned him the nickname of “Trump of the Tropics”.

He has the past defended the killing of opponents to the country’s former military regime and said he is “in favour of dictatorship”.

But after the results came in, he told supporters he would be a “defender of democracy” and uphold the constitution.

One of his flagship policies is to restore security by relax gun laws and suggested that “every honest citizens” should be able to own a gun.

He has promised to reduce state intervention in the economy and indicated that Brazil could pull out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.

Mr Bolsonaro’s promise to “cleanse” Brazil of corruption has proved particularly popular in a country that has seen dozens of politicians from the mainstream parties jailed.

He takes over on 1 January 2019.

How did the vote break down?

Mr Haddad won in the north-east of Brazil, the heartland of the Workers’ Party and the stronghold of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whom Mr Haddad replaced on the Workers’ Party ticket after Lula was barred from running.

Even before the results came out, Mr Bolsonaro’s supporters were dancing for joy – so confident were they of victory.

His promises to get tough on rising crime and his claims of being a clean politician – in a country where many of his rivals have been mired in corruption scandals – have won him millions of admirers.

But his win is going to be a blow for millions.

His links to the military and admiration for the former dictatorship concern many Brazilians, as do his sexist, racist and homophobic remarks.

These are uncertain times, with many worried that – with Mr Bolsonaro in power – the gains made in Brazil since the country returned to democracy 30 years ago could be erased.

Does Mr Bolsonaro have backing in Congress?

Yes and no.

On the one hand, his PSL party achieved a remarkable breakthrough in this month’s legislative election, increasing its representation from one to 52 seats in the lower house.

However Mr Haddad’s PT remains the largest party, with 56 seats.

But most ominously for Mr Bolsonaro, there will be a record 30 parties represented in the next Congress.

This suggest that finding backing for legislation could be difficult for the new president.

What about reaction from outside Brazil?

A number of Latin American leaders congratulated Mr Bolsonaro:

Argentine President Mauricio Macri described the poll results as Mr Bolsonaro’s “triumph”

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera congratulated Brazilians for a “clean and democratic election”

Colombia’s Ivan Duque welcomed the result and called for the two countries’ “brotherly relations” to be strengthened further

Mexican outgoing President President Enrique Peña Nieto hailed Brazil’s “democratic strength”

Peru’s Martin Vizcarra wished Mr Bolsonaro “full success”

Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro extended his “congratulations to the people of Brazil”

And the US president’s spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, said on Sunday: “President Trump called President-elect Bolsonaro of Brazil this evening to congratulate him and the Brazilian people on today’s elections. Both expressed a strong commitment to work side by side to improve the lives of the people of the United States and Brazil.”

Meanwhile, Amnesty International said that taking into account his campaign pledges, Mr Bolsonaro’s victory could pose a “huge risk” to Brazil’s indigenous peoples, LGBT communities, black youth, women, activists and civil society organisations.


Bloomberg. 2018-10-29. Brazil Swings Right With Jair Bolsonaro’s Commanding Victory

– The president-elect has promised to rule with an iron fist

– His win will please markets, but raises fear about democracy

*

Jair Bolsonaro swept to power in Brazil’s presidential election Sunday, marking a hard pivot to the right that promises to open up the resource-rich economy to private investment, strengthen ties to the U.S. and unleash an aggressive crackdown on epidemic crime.

The former army captain trounced Fernando Haddad, a leftist former Sao Paulo mayor whose Workers’ Party became synonymous with graft, winning 55 percent of the vote to Haddad’s 45 percent with almost all votes counted. His supporters thronged public places throughout the fifth-largest nation, celebrating with flags, music and fireworks. Brazilian assets surged.

“I make you my witnesses that this government will be a defender of the constitution, of democracy and of freedom,” Bolsonaro told a crowd of supporters in Rio de Janeiro. “This is a promise, not from a party, not the words of a man, it’s an oath to God.”

A little-known lawmaker for almost three decades, Bolsonaro, 63, drew public attention with tough talk. He promised to suppress the nation’s lawlessness by meeting violence with violence, insulted minorities and women, waxed nostalgic for Brazil’s dictatorship and expressed doubts about the electoral process itself. His unforgiving politics places him among nationalists such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and Donald Trump in America, who called him shortly after his victory was declared.

To many, however, Bolsonaro is the best hope to revive an ailing economy and streamline an inefficient state.

“The biggest risk is an erosion of democracy, though I’m not apocalyptic,” said Michael Shifter, head of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. “The opportunity is that he could stop the economic hemorrhaging.”

Bolsonaro’s supporters on Sunday weren’t concerned with the finer points of political economy. A crowd surrounding his beachside home in Rio honked horns, sang the national anthem and waved the green-and-yellow flag. The music stopped abruptly when he spoke. One woman said to her husband, “look, the Myth is talking!” and they hustled toward a screen to watch.

“Liberty is a fundamental principle,” Bolsonaro said. “Liberty to walk freely in the streets throughout this country. Political and religious freedom. Liberty to inform and have opinions.”

“As a defender of liberty, I will guide a government that defends and protects the rights of the citizens.”

Free Fall

Since the height of Brazil’s commodity-driven boom nearly a decade ago, those citizens have seen millions of jobs evaporate, queues at hospitals grow and violence explode to the point that more than 60,000 people a year are murdered. For years, impatient voters have watched news reports of politicians and executives being caught with vast sums of taxpayer money in suitcases or Swiss bank accounts while roads and schools crumbled.

Haddad, a former education minister in addition to running the nation’s largest city, joined the race only after courts barred former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva thanks to his imprisonment on corruption charges. In the end, Haddad was unable to overcome that tainted legacy. He told a crowd in Sao Paulo that he had a responsibility to the 46 million people who supported his bid to oppose the next government to defend “national interests.”

“We must defend this nation from those who are disrespectfully seeking to usurp our legacy — civil rights, workers rights and social rights,” he said.

Bolsonaro aims to thwart corruption and downsize a costly state by selling scores of state-owned companies. He would cut corporate and individual taxes to kick-start the economy and push structural reforms such as capping pension spending and simplifying taxes. All that helped drive a rally in Brazilian assets over the past few weeks. The real has gained more than 10 percent this month, the second-best performing currency among those tracked by Bloomberg.

Brazil’s Potential

Bolsonaro’s economic advisers, led by University of Chicago-trained Paulo Guedes, plan to slash import barriers and embark on new free-trade talks. Guedes said Sunday night that the first order of business would be to fix the ailing pension system. Then, the government will turn to selling off assets.

“We are going to accelerate privatizations,” Guedes said.

If Bolsonaro’s plan succeeds, he could catalyze businesses in Brazil’s $2.1 trillion economy, the second-largest in the Americas behind the U.S.

“A lot of global money is going to look to Brazil,” said Hari Hariharan, chief executive officer at NWI Management LP in New York, which has been investing in Brazil since 1990. “If the fiscal situation is addressed, Brazil is going to be fantastic.”

Alberto Ramos, an economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said that Bolsonaro’s solid win gives him a strong mandate and “the market is likely to react positively.”

It’s a far cry from 2005, when the region’s leftist leaders — Lula, Nestor Kirchner of Argentina and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela — rejected U.S. President George W. Bush and his free-trade proposal for the region at the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata.

Single Issue

Today, Lula not only sits in prison but his Workers’ Party lost the presidency race for the first time since 1998. Many voters and investors alike supported Bolsonaro less for his economic proposals than for his fierce stance against the party.

In fact, with crime, corruption and ethics having dominated the debate, Bolsonaro can’t assume widespread support for austerity and economically liberal reforms, said Alexandre Schwartsman, a former central bank director.

“He doesn’t have a mandate for a liberal revolution,” Schwartsman said.

Indeed, there have already been signs that Bolsonaro is dialing back some of the more ambitious plans proposed by Guedes. This month, he ruled out privatizing the core operations of oil giant Petrobras as well as the generation units of state power utility Eletrobras.

Fractious Congress

The key question will be Bolsonaro’s ability to unify a deeply divided nation and to forge a majority in congress to pass austerity measures. A bitter campaign shook the underpinnings of a democracy that has existed only since 1985. Anger and political violence have surged and Bolsonaro himself was stabbed by a fanatic in September and campaigned from his hospital bed.

While Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party surged in the Oct. 7 congressional vote to become the second-largest force in the lower house, it still has only 52 out of 513 seats. And managing a ruling coalition isn’t easy in a congress with 30 political parties.

While Bolsonaro’s party is likely to form a majority coalition, it still won’t be easy to push through his agenda, said Senator Fernando Bezerra Coelho, the current majority whip in the upper house.

“There’s a hard core against reforms in the chamber, including some deputies from Bolsonaro’s camp,” said Bezerra. “He’ll have to negotiate.”